> From: Christopher Crockett [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>
> I've been engaged in trying to document such a simple, common-sensical
> scenerio for the region in and around Chartres in the 11-13th cc. for
> quite
> some time, using the (one would think) reasonably ample charter evidence
> which
> survives to try and--first--sort out who the players (abbots, dignataries,
> monks, canons, donors, whatever) were, to which families they belonged,
> who
> belonged to what "kin-groups" (I like that term: being civilized folk, the
> French of course didn't have "tribes")
>
But of course! ;) However, the reason I used it in my posts--and use
it customarily--instead of "sept" or any of the other terms I have seen
posted is that kin-group does not have the anthropological implications of
"tribe." A tribe is usually identified as being ethnically or culturally
distinct. Except in cases of "subject peoples" (who may have been descended
from earlier migrations into Ireland), the principal distinguishing mark of
a kin-group was that all the male members claimed, by blood or adoption,
descent from a single (often eponymous) ancestor.
> and what *those* connections were;
>
> and--second--see if I can discern any particular patterns suggested by
> known
> "jurisdictional claims" and congruent "kin-group promotion."
>
> Helas, without much sucess, so far.
>
> An heckofa lot more difficult to prove such a seemingly obvious state of
> affairs than a young fellow would have thought, just venturing out on
> suchlike
> a modest quest.
>
> Am I just slow, or is the surviving narrative and/or charter evidence so
> much
> more fecund for (I assume you are talking about) pre-conquest Ireland?
>
The task is often made easier for someone working with pre-Norman
Irish materials because there are so many genealogies included in the
annals, hagiography, and other materials, especially for Ulster. Also, a
great deal of work has already been done on the subject, including volumes
dedicated to genealogies culled from various lengthy manuscripts. Of course
one doesn't take the earliest branches literally (the ones dating prior to
when the annals became more or less contemporary--latter half of the seventh
century). But as long as one can gain access to some of the (often difficult
to obtain) collections, the task of checking the kin-group affiliations of
an abbot is rather simple. As a graduate student, even without access to
some of the more obscure collections, I was able to track the kin-group
affiliations of most of the abbots that interested me with a minimum of
effort. Determining whether or not they were eligible for the
kingship--meaning having the same great-grandfather as the current
king--required also checking the trees of the contemporary king. In my
experience, most of the abbots were not actually eligible for the kingship,
but were descended from those who were. (Colum cille was an obvious
exception.) This meant that they were probably not competitors for the
kingship in most cases, but they had a vested interest in the kin-group's
prosperity. However, when dealing with Irish materials, one has to be
careful about making such assumptions. Abbots often favored the fortunes of
their kin, but not always. After all, kin don't always get along with kin
for many reasons. On the other hand, it became a rather extraordinary
occurrence for a non-kin member to assume the leadership in many
monasteries. In fact, a change in who got to be abbot sometimes indicated a
change in the secular power of the area, too. There were some monasteries,
especially early in the Christian period, whose leadership did not depend on
kin-group affiliation. However, as time passed and the stability of the
territories and kin-group alliances deteriorated, more and more of the
abbacies remained in the hands of a single family.
What kind of sources do you have available for Chartres?
Francine Nicholson
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|