Heortling Kinship, Clan Membership

From: John Hughes <nysalor_at_primus.com.au>
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 11:57:15 +1000


Gedday folks,

Catching up.

EARTH TEMPLES Thanks to everyone who responded to my request for information on Heortling earth temples - I found the responses very helpful, and will post a summary document sometime in the next few weeks.

YBOT 3 My copy of Ye Book of Tentacles 3 arrived several weeks ago: congratulations to Fabian, Christian and Daniel for An *excellent* collection of short stories and background material. And particular kudos must go to Ian Thomson and friends for the lengthy and detailed Pavis and Big Rubble Companion. The amount of work Ian and his collaborators have put into this project is just incredible. Check it out!

KINSHIP I think we've gained a lot of clarity in the discussion to date. My approach to kinship issues has always been informed as much by ethnography as by historical recreations and legal documents. In looking at Heortling kinship patterns, reference to other farming and herding clan-based patrilineal systems can illuminate both the diversity and flexibility of kinship (in real life, there is a lot of variation from the 'rules') and also the constants and universals.

The Nuer and Bunyuro and the Chimbu are as different from the Heortlings as the Icelanders and Celts and Anglo-Saxons are, but in examining their social organisation we get a better glimpse of how real people in real communities use kinship to organise their lives.

Kinship is far more than just a way of organising marriages. Its mechanics are not like arcane rituals of initiation into some religious cult. Kinship is absolutely central to a tribal lifestyle. It is the basic lens through which the universe is viewed, a part of the sacred order. It provides a way of ordering society, a way of government without central authority, a way of maintaining balanced relationships to the land across generations. And kinship is intimately linked to the ecology and geography of its setting. It is a flexible and adaptable instrument that changes over time.

Kinship is not arbitrary, nor are customs interchangeable: kinship, descent, marriage, inheritance and law form a complex and organic whole that is shaped by environment and demography as much as history or myth. This dimension of kinship is not one that has received any attention in the discussion to date. Swapping around marriage rules has implications that echo right through society. Report on the Orlanthi suffers from combining a number of different customs without due regard to how the various parts combine into a whole. Despite this, I think it does provide enough to understand the core workings of Heortling social organisation.

With the usual nods towards variation and variety, and with an acknowledgement that people find a way of living their lives that reflects their needs and desires whatever the law and custom says, there has to be enough commonality for various clans to be able to intermarry and cooperate together.

For me, the base model is exogamous patrilineal, patrilocal clans practicing communal ownership that focus on the close cooperation of brothers, in situations where the rights and standing of women remain high, and where there is capacity for *negotiated* variation in marriage and residence. My assumptions flow from this basic model.

  CLAN MEMBERSHIP David Dunham has suggested that clan membership can change on marriage. I believe this is incorrect, for a number of reasons.

(NOTE: I will focus for purposes of simplicity on a woman who marries and goes to live with her husband's clan. Yes, I am aware of other ways.)

  1. ROTO suggests otherwise in its marriage rules, and in its focus on marriage as an agreement between clans as much as a bond between individuals. David's argument is an argument from silence.
    • There is a long section on the clan membership of offspring, whether children belong to either the husband's clan or the wife's clan. Not former clan, or previous clan, but clan.
    • Divorce is fairly common: evidence of the high status of women. Changing clan membership (as opposed to where you live) back and forth after divorce makes no sense.
    • ROTO suggests that clan membership is a birthright that cannot be easily changed. People adopted into a clan are not given adult status. "Not-adult status is for children, or people adopted into the clan."
  2. Ethnographic evidence suggests clan identity is constant.

This is trickier, (cross-cultural comparisons always are), but I can find no evidence of Heortling-like clan groups where wives change clan status on marriage. In fact, the only examples I can think of where clan identity changes at all are societies where women are *very* low-status.

3. Changing clan membership creates as many problems as it solves.

  Your beloved sister was cut down by feuding warriors as her husband's stead burned? Relax, she's not of your clan any more.

  If a woman's brothers and parents are of another clan, and this worries you, how can changing her *label* affect those basic loyalties?

4. Clan Membership is more than a label.

It's much more than a label like a surname that can be relatively easily changed. Its a relationship to ancestors that has been constant all your life - ancestors who are present, and who can influence your life, and who you sacrifice to. These ancestors guard clan secrets and may provide magic. (if you change clans, do you suddenly get new ancestors??)

It's a relationship to a piece of land, a tula, and its spirits and herds and animal tribes. This relationship is far deeper than mere land *ownership*, it has strong spiritual, magical and ceremonial dimensions.

Orlanthi *do* change clans: though evidence is that it happens formally only when your original clan or tula has been destroyed or made inaccessible due to war or kinstrife. Orlanthi adoption gives adoptees the status of non-adults.

Orlanthi *do* leave their tulas to live with others, and their interests may become one with the new group. But this is not a situation best addressed through notions of changing clan identity.

David:

>Women would effectively be clanless, relying on their inlaws,
>unable to bond with other women of the clan.

They wouldn't be clanless: they have their birth clan. If you step outside of C20 western assumptions, marriage is as much an alliance of clans as a bond between individuals. If the marriage is negotiated, and there's a courtship (Orlanthi have long courtships, with tasks set by the woman to test the man), and bridewealth ceremonies , then there must be ongoing relationships between the two clans involved: they must be in friendly communication. They are probably allies.

IRW Bridewealth gifting usually continue long after marriage, in fact often after both partners are dead. In fact, there's a vast body of kinship theory that suggests marriage is *primarily* about clans bonding through the exchange of women.
Bridewealth and dowry reflect agreements between clans. Giving up your clan identity makes a mockery of the whole system.

Many of the women of the clan have come from somewhere else: its a given, its the way of things. Custom from before the Dawn prepares a clan to accept wives from elsewhere. The womens circle is important in this, as would be the earth temple. Yes, they rely on affines, and yes, it can be difficult. That's why marriages are *negotiated* by *clan officials* beforehand, why courtship involves real tests and why divorce is common.

Marriage is difficult, and especially difficult for the woman in the time before her first child is born. Once that child (who is a member of her husband's clan) is born, her interests are perceived as aligning much more closely with that of her hearthmates, and things get much easier.

>Women of a different clan would have far less common interest with
>their husbands. Why goad them to vengeance if the dead brother is
>from a clan different from hers?

Because her herds run on clan land, and she is safe if the clan is strong. Because her status is closely intertwined with that of her husbands. Because her children belong to her husband's clan, and she has made her hearth and home among them.

On the reverse side, women are more generally known as *peaceweavers*. Their ability to mediate derives in no small part *because* they retain their original clan identity.

>If women are considered to be from other clans, they would be
>precluded from political participation. Why would the Varmandi want a
>Taraling woman on their clan ring?

See above. Co-residence aligns your interests very strongly, as does having your children members of the clan.

Because she is kin. (Kinship group is not the same as descent group!) Because she has served the clan well for many years, and has demonstrated her loyalty. Because her children are Taralang. Because its the way of things, and has worked very well since before the Dawn. Because there is always another way. Because her links with her clan have made you allies, and strengthened both clans.

(Mind you, I believe that at least 50% of the women on the ring would be of the clan - virilocal marriages, unmarried sisters, widows and divorcees.)

As I've previously noted, if trust is a problem then clans become endogamous. ROTO is fairly clear that most Heortling clans are exogamous.

>But I do think that a woman never loses membership in her original
>clan, which leaves her free to participate in its rites (if
>geographically convenient), and means she has no problems if she
>divorces. Think of it as her retaining her Taraling passport, even
>though she's a Varmandi citizen.

You're being inconsistent here. You were arguing for changing clan membership, now its dual membership. Of course a woman has an interest in both clans. But changing clan identity solves nothing, it creates as many problems as it solves. This is why kin groups include affines ('in-laws'), and why you have to distinguish kin groups from descent groups like a clan, which seems to be a fundamental cause of confusion. Heortlings know that people from outside the clan can be trusted: that is why kin includes affines as well as kin by blood.

Dual clan identity further muddies the waters - its like collecting trophies, it denies what clan membership is all about.

I should note, however, that there is a technical term for someone who retains their original clan membership, even while living elsewhere among another people, and interacting with them in such a way that she is trusted and accepted as one of their own. That term is WIFE. (Or HUSBAND). That is fact, is in large part exactly what marriage is about in the first place.

Cheers

John


nysalor_at_primus.com.au                   John Hughes
johnp.hughes_at_dva.gov.au

Powered by hypermail