GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-10 > 1099035497


From: (Bronwen Edwards)
Subject: Re: More on King's Kinsfolk
Date: 29 Oct 2004 00:38:17 -0700
References: <2619efc9.0410271227.62fc9708@posting.google.com> <nathanieltaylor-F27A2D.19552227102004@news1.east.earthlink.net> <000801c4bca0$456ee020$020010ac@peirce> <nathanieltaylor-5AEF02.07090528102004@news1.east.earthlink.net> <001801c4bcec$3d1d9870$020010ac@peirce> <nathanieltaylor-C7EAEB.18013328102004@news1.east.earthlink.net>


Nathaniel Taylor <> wrote in message news:<>...
>> > What I was puzzled about was the genealogical significance of
identifying
> > someone as kindred of A, rather than as relative of A.

I don't know if this will help or not, but in discussions of "kinship
groups" in anthropology, "kin groups" are as much a matter of
residence, allegiance and responsibility as biology. The technical
definition of a clan is a group of people who regard themselves as
related because of their descent from a common ancestor. As the common
ancestor may be mythological or spiritual, this does not necessarily
require blood ties within the memory of the members. Such a group is
most often exogamous, considering clan membership to be the same as
blood relationship in a social or spiritual sense. Relationship
through membership in the same clan can be so overwhelmingly important
that if two groups have similarly named clans but otherwise have no
known connection through intermarriage, individuals of the same-named
clans may consider themselves to be too closely related to marry. Is
it possible that these terms are applied to, for example, those who
are under the protection of a particular lord or sovereign? Or,
perhaps, a reference to peers even if they have no known biological
relationship? Best, Bronwen

This thread: