An interesting question, although someone whose surname means 'galley slave' might be less interested in family history, anyway...
> From that perspective, a long questionnaire going back to the time
of myth seems a tad unlikely. Even admitting that the Orlanthi have a
much stronger oral tradition than lazy Americans, a timeline of the
last two centuries seems much more reasonable. I'm conflicted! What
do the rest of you think?
I think there is a huge difference. Firstly, as has been noted, there is the importance of the continuing link with the ancestors. If your great-to-the-power-ten-grandfather thinks you are neglecting his role in the clan history that you tell your kid, he'll tell you about it, next appropriate holy day!
Arguably as important is the essentially settled life Sartari have lived since arriving in DP. Rather than wandering across the globe (here speaks a half-Italian, quarter-Irish, quarter-Englishman, conceived in Sardinia, born in southern England, now working in the Midlands), they have settled, remained within their ancestral lands and thus, essentially, have one core oral history instead of many attenuated ones. Even their tula is a reminder of that history - 'see that rock, son? Your ancestor Otar Hedkoranthsson flew all the way to the top of Kerofin and flung it here to let us know he'd made it.'
And yes, then there is also the importance of oral culture and history as a political commodity. It pays to remember your history, because that also reminds you who owes you a favour (and who might still come asking for them)!
All the best
Mark
Mark Galeotti
Powered by hypermail