John Hughes
>KOS makes several unambigous statements on exogamy.
(KOS? unambiguous?!
>Marriage Issues - " Clans are exogamous, and the
wives must come from
>someplace else."
>Bloodline, Family, Household - "Bloodlines are
exogamous, which means
>that members of the same bloodline can never marry or
have sex with each
>other."
OK, my confusion here is that if we believe that a clan can consist of more than one bloodline (i.e. clan <> bloodline) then the second statement seems to allow different bloodlines within the clan to exchange marriage partners (prsumably it does not relate to prohibitions against cosanguinity between clans as the 'bloodline' is the patrilineal descent group). There is an argument that at times this must have occurred (i.e. the Colymar during the early period of the colonisation of Dragon Pass. KoS is 'historical' document, if it gives us too many problems we could favour the bloodline exogamy (which does not exclude clan exogamy). Perhaps clan 'exogamy' is the most virtuous state to aspire to like a marriage of equals, but not always possible.
Alex Ferguson
On 'corporate' applied to agnatic kin-group or stead.
>John H. is though, when he uses 'bloodline' in this
sort of manner,
>or so it appears to me, at least.
Not sure, perhaps John can clarify.
>> In addition there is the corporate agnatic
kin-group
>> also called 'the descending kindred'. The
patrilineal
>> descent group of which your bloodline forms a part.
>OK, now I'm confused. If the two aren't _identical_,
what's the
>particular sense of the distinction?
See below
>A bloodline surely _is_ an agnatic descent-group
(though no one ever bothers to define them
>in threads such as this, which doesn't help matters)
OK, I agree with both parts of this statement
Generally immediate kindred (i.e. a derhfine) are out to 2nd cousin ('the five men'), your agnatic kin-group (the fine, which I am equating with bloodline) out to 4th cousin ('the seventeen men'). Vertically to grandfather in both cases. My agnatic kin-group is not the same as my brothers (his includes me (ego mine him), my 2nd cousins is even less the same as mine (his 4th cousins are not mine) etc. Any agnatic kin-group is as unique as a fingerprint. This is the personal kindred. However we all have common patrilineal line (my cousin and I share a grandfather on the male line) and this is our 'descending kindred'. It may be bigger than my or his personal agnatic kindred - it includes my cousins fourth cousins.
The difference is in mainly between the personal kindred being those who are in line for inheritance, weregild etc. and the 'descending kindred' being the collection of those interrelations. One lineage will tend to dominate be the spine of the 'corporate fine' although which lineage may shift.
>the point we're disagreeing on is simply whether it
_is_ in fact corporate.
>(And implicitly we may be disagreeing on _which_
agnatic descent-
>group is normally considered to be one's bloodline
qua bloodline,
>but IMO that's highly variable anyway.)
Agreed on the fiction of bloodline.
Nerys Patterson
"The genealogical principles of the fine, however, were a constant casualty of the competitive social system so that no fine could consistently align actual descent with actual status, or real genealogical connections with actual social relationships. Genealogies, then, were faked (not all the time, of course), and served the ideology of political relations which were legitimised through assertions of 'true' descent."
The 'descending kindred is referred to as 'corporate' because it is a socio-economic unit- property is inherited within it, passes beyond it through weregild/fines, acts a surety for cattle-loans etc. controls the behaviour of individuals, supports dependants etc.
In small clans there probably is only one, or one dominant 'corporate fine', but the size of many Orlanthi clans seem to be about 500-1000 individuals. IMHO this implies a number of 'descending kindreds' within a clan (they may have a common ancestor, but beyond the edge of the 'corporate fine' that relationship is not significant in law).
On clan membership of wives
>Well, that _was_ what the entire thread was about...
True, I have strayed :-(
I was trying to suggest what the socio-economic position was of a woman once she entered a bloodline by marriage. There are I think two issues 1:) Her position within the bloodline which she marries into (socio-economic) and her relationship to the clan (spiritual/political). My last post mainly concerns the former, I'll mention the latter later.
> The stead may be 'co-operative'
> but it is also 'corporate' because the household
> employs the capital that belongs to the kin-group.
>You repeatedly assured me you weren't speaking of
steads, but of
>bloodlines, but here you explicitly equate the two.
Sorry I think I muddied the waters here.
A household is an economically co-operative unit, a bloodline is a corporate unit, the two may be distinct, and membership of a household is dynamic a bloodline 'static' (well 'static' not counting newborns or Orlanthi 85% exceptions). However the capital used in the stead is the property of one or more bloodlines (agreed the land belongs to the clan), who thus have a 'corporate' interest in its welfare (not necessarily implying common ownership, but wealth that will be inherited my members of the fine).
>I think the issue here is at root simply this: is it
true to say
>that a stead corresponds to a derbhfine, or something
a lot like
>a derbhfine (specifically that of the
'stead-holder'), which is what
>is meant when one says 'bloodline'?
A household may not even be a derhfine, but I suspect in many cases it is (for example Njal in Njal' Saga steads with his sons and their wives). A derhfine is not a family either, although families exist within one, it is a legal unit of responsibility, you most immediate guarantors or protectors or patrons or clients. However for me the closest analogy to a bloodline is not a derhfine but a 'corporate fine'.
>Again I claim: not always possible to do, and IMO
you're
>imputing the corporate character to the wrong one.
We might agree on this portion at least now that I have been a bit clearer.
To return to the clan issue:
Putting aside a woman's economic position in the clan as being a bloodline issue I'm left with two key issues: a woman's involvement in the spiritual life of the clan and her involvement in the power structures of the clan (can she attend wapentake, could she be elected to the ring, can she become a priestess).
If we are exogamous your sisters will be married
outside the clan, your mother will have come from
outside the clan. There will be some
widows/divorcees/spinsters in the clan, but are
there enough clan born women resident on the tula
enough to fulfill the spiritual/political obligations
of the clan for provide the benefits of Ernalda etc.?
I suspect not. Ernalda came from outside the Storm
Tribe so there is a precedent for the Ernalda
worshipper to be from another tribe. Practically I
suspect that worship would have to include these
people.
If most of the Ernalda worshippers are from outside the clan could they rise to positions of power within it? We might restrict the priesthood to the old, the divorced and the widowed, but I suspect that it is unlikely to provide enough candidates (except for 'barren' earthcults). Provided a woman has a vested interest in the clan's well-being (i.e. she is significant to one of its bloodlines as a wife of equal partnership or the mother of one if its sons (not so clear if she only has daughters) then there would be no reason not to trust her with such a position (this changes of course if her status in the bloodline changes).
If she can rise in the religious hierarchy then she would be a candidate for the ring - her loyalty is obviously decided by the people at the wapentake. Now it seems unlikely that unless we considered her part of our clan we would allow her on the ring, so it suggest she would have clan membership.
So clan membership would probably be open to those the bloodline considered full members, (and if they are members can vote at the wapentake).
Of course if endogamous marriage is more prevalent we might have sufficient candidates within the clan to remove this problem We could then suggest that women from outside the clan play no part in it spower structures. However that would weaken those who take an 'ideal' path (though they would of course have influence over their husbands which might be their way instead). That would be my preference, I guess those 4th age historians just got a couple of facts muddled.
Ian
Powered by hypermail