Ian and Donald tunnel through marriage issues:
> Donald:
>
> >I think that may be the answer, a person living with
> their spouses
> >clan will _defend_ the clan and tula even against
> their relatives
> >but will not get involved in _attacks_ on their own
> clan.
>
This makes good sense, but top down and legal perspectives become less
relevant in situations like this. Obviously we have to know the particular
context: the history of the two clans interactions, the exact reason for the
current feud*, the status of the woman in her husband's clan, the nature of
her social network, her cult allegiances, status of her children and birth
family, her own temperament etc.
(* Lunar conversion is a particularly nasty one, as it can turn traditionally very-close clans into enemies overnight. We collectively need to give more thought to how the invasion has ripped apart the cultural, legal and social fabric of Heortling society. Traditional legal perspectives just don't cover the new reality. Ian summed it up nicely: practical and legal kinship are different.)
Ian:
>Transhumance is probably practiced to keep cattle off
>arable land during the growing season.
Definitional alarm here. Several contributors (including myself) have been using transhumance to denote the movement of cattle over *relatively long distances* to take advantage of seasonal and ecological variation. Ian seems to be using it in the sense of local rotation within the tula.
>Depends a bit on the model for inheritance (another
>debate we have had here). AFAIK the Icelandic model
>divided the intheritance between the sons.
For me, the key issues of Heortling inheritance are:
There has been a definite male-bias in the inheritance discussion so far. A woman's wealth would largely go to her children, with fitting acknowledge of her brothers and brother's children. IRW marriage exchanges between two clans (which can largely subsume 'inheritance' - we have to think communal) can continue long after the death of both partners).
I'm uncertain that daddy would sit down and write out an itemised last will and testament al la C20 westerners - its just as likely that the household would divide the goods after death according to a broad understanding of his wishes. I'm open to counter arguments on this - I know that Anglo-Saxon wills were common among the rich and landed, but A-S society was more centralised, literate and far less clannish and communal than the Heortlings. (for the vast majority of Heortlings, we're talking herds and personal possessions and obligation networks, not land or buildings). I also understand that wills among the non-landed A-S were far less common. (Looks askew to Andrew, raises quizzical eyebrow).
Cheers
John
Powered by hypermail