Re: Orlanthi Property

From: Ian Cooper <ian_hammond_cooper_at_...>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 15:10:51 -0000

John Hughes wrote:

> My model uses a celtic-style inheritance, where private property is
>shared equally among all eligible heirs....I'm working on the
>assumption that the concepts of elder male inheritance *and* private
>ownership of land are both DH/Lunar norms, and therefore are just
>one more Lunar evil unleashed on the tribes.

IIRC the Celtic model gives in the same proportions as it takes for weregeld half to kin out to 1st cousin up to grandfather {ego, father, father's father, father's brother (uncle), uncle's son} then the remaining half split in two with half going to relations out to 5th cousin (IIRC) anf half distributed beyond that. Could look this up for you. I like the model that you gain at the same level as you are responsible, mixes Orlanthi epmhasis on responsibility and generosity. There is a point in the Cletic model where it stops going through the bloodline if you have no relatives alive to inerit at that level and goes out to the clan. This was a major source of the clan rewarding promising young bacheolers.  

> Perhaps I'm being overly romantic, but I'd see the concept of tula
>as much sacred and ceremonial as legalistic. Ancestral spirits,
>omens and animal powers are involved in the establishment of tulas
>as much as human need and greed. (Not that I'd want to
>underemphasise the latter).

yeah I definitely think it is the sacred tribal space. Does not break my suggestion for de-emphasising the legal fact that the clan could disinherit a bloodline suggesting and makes it more the notion " No one owns land it is only held in trust for the next generation"...

> My view of a bloodline is that a fairly fluid unit of labour,
>typically running a single stead or a section of a large stead. I
>keep going back to the analogy of a business organisation in which
members own shares.

Ok I thin I distinguish between household - members of a stead and bloodline which includes a number of steads in 'kinship' links, but that is semantics and not important.

>While based on kinship, bloodline membership is normative
> within a clan; that is, people are accepted using whatever real or
>fictive kinship links are acceptable.

Everyone in sagas seems to descend from Odin ;-) Agreed the average skald is probably quite skilled at creating bloodlines where required (just look at Argrath). Of course when changing kinship groups remember the web of responsibilites invoved, bloodlines would try to weed out liabilites where necessary. Marriage and fostering are of course two very conventional means of changing bloodline.

> Because of this I would not want to invest too many ownership
>rights at the bloodline level.

Agreed there has to be personal as well as bloodline wealth, but I imagine that it is moveable (so it would include cows but not steads).



> Cheers
> John

Powered by hypermail