How did Germanic pre-Christian clans work?

[CyaN]

I'm writing a thing and I'm having trouble wrapping my head around clans, their structure and their importance, probably because I have no real life experience with anything even remotely like it. Maybe someone can shed some light on it or tell me where to look for answers?

We're talking Scandinavia in pre-Christian Viking Age, say around 900. What I understand about clans, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that a clan is a wide group of people, not necessarily related by blood but all of them acknowledging some (probably mythical) figure of the past as their ancestor, not all of whom necessarily live in the same place, and who feel kinship towards each other, which translates to, I assume, a general spirit of cooperation between clan members, and more importantly to avenging each other's killings if it comes to that. A series of questions spring to mind:

1) How big are we talking about when it comes to the size of the clan? Is there a wide variability, were they usually huge, or usually tiny? Are they five thousand people, are they a dozen, or is there no way to tell?
2) Is there any kind of leadership in the clan, say an elder member passing judgement over intra-clan disputes, or is it an egalitarian structure?
3) Assuming that not all of them lived in the same place: did the clan gather together with some periodicity to share news, or were the meetings done individually and informally?

I'm aware that these kind of things are not exactly crystal clear nowadays and that reconstructing societies that barely left a written record is hard, but I would appreciate any educated guesses that would help me understand the topic more thoroughly.

 

[Kovax]

If it's anything like the early Germanic tribes (prior to Roman contact), they would have been organized (if you can call it that) into small semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer groups of mostly blood-related individuals numbering in the 100-400 range. Any larger and peer pressure begins to break down as a means of maintaining order, and then you need a government. The usual outcome of becoming too large was that when there was a significant difference of opinion dividing the tribe, the majority threw out the minority, and a new, smaller group was formed, large enough to be viable on its own. As with Germanic tribes, there was probably a village leader to resolve differences and assign duties as necessary, with such leader sometimes being from a "leading family", but not in all communities. Power of the individual was limited, and probably ranged from an acknowledged hereditary leader with limited authority, to decisions made by a consensus of elders or fighting men.

Contact and regular meetings between other local or regional groups would be essential, not only to resolve disputes and handle foreign invasions, but to avoid inbreeding within the tribal communities. These groups may have differed from their Germanic equivalents in not migrating regularly between a set of fixed locations as the surrounding areas were hunted out, but having more permanent dwellings and longer, more organized treks to seek food. There may have been annual events attended by several tribes, or even the entire extended "clan".

The "clan" would undoubtedly vary considerably in size. I would guess (and it's no more than that) that the typical "clan" would have ranged from several tribes in a small region (less than a thousand total individuals) to the tens of thousands over a wider area.

In most cases where cultures unified into larger groups and eventually into "nations", it was primarily contact with outside groups and the fears of invasion (either by another clan which was becoming too powerful, or outsiders) that prompted further organization and a more hierarchical structure for mutual defense, which also made mutual offense possible.

 

[Barsoom]

I'm writing a thing and I'm having trouble wrapping my head around clans, their structure and their importance, probably because I have no real life experience with anything even remotely like it. Maybe someone can shed some light on it or tell me where to look for answers?

We're talking Scandinavia in pre-Christian Viking Age, say around 900. What I understand about clans, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that a clan is a wide group of people, not necessarily related by blood but all of them acknowledging some (probably mythical) figure of the past as their ancestor, not all of whom necessarily live in the same place, and who feel kinship towards each other, which translates to, I assume, a general spirit of cooperation between clan members, and more importantly to avenging each other's killings if it comes to that. A series of questions spring to mind:

1) How big are we talking about when it comes to the size of the clan? Is there a wide variability, were they usually huge, or usually tiny? Are they five thousand people, are they a dozen, or is there no way to tell?
2) Is there any kind of leadership in the clan, say an elder member passing judgement over intra-clan disputes, or is it an egalitarian structure?
3) Assuming that not all of them lived in the same place: did the clan gather together with some periodicity to share news, or were the meetings done individually and informally?

I'm aware that these kind of things are not exactly crystal clear nowadays and that reconstructing societies that barely left a written record is hard, but I would appreciate any educated guesses that would help me understand the topic more thoroughly.

Have you ever lived in a small rural village? Do you have family in a village? I understand that anthropological studies of extended family relations can be confusing to modern city folk but if you think of the experience you have with small towns it's easy to make a start.

Even in our modern society the first thing people ask you when you tell them you're from their village is what family you belong to. (My parents moved us out when I was 9; even decades later I've been given free beer at several occasions because my grandpa was a swell guy.) At birthday parties parents and grandparents spend hours exchanging gossip, always starting with the family relations of the persons involved. When you bring home a new friend they'll tell you whether his family is "good" or "not so good." Weddings and anniversaries are attended by hundreds of people you barely know but your grandparents can always tell you why they should be invited and it's usually to maintain relations with their extended family. Summer and harvest festivals are occasions for the entire village and several neighboring ones, even today they usually lead to a spike in the number of new relationships.

Now imagine such a village in a situation where no government exists. Your family is your only social security. It is also your most reliable militia in case of violence or the threat thereof. Some families have strong links to one or two other families, either through (multiple) marriages or because prominent family members became friends. The bond of trust between individuals is the only the beginning, though, it extends to the whole family if the friends are respected by their own families and both families like each other's reputation. Alliances between families are formed more often in these ways than through formal negotiations. Negotiating risks and profits between participating families is a part of planning common activities, both economic and military, but the talks usually begin in a spirit of established trust.

Most decisions in such a structure are consensual. Gossip has the function of solidifying reputations and building consensus. Some family members have influence because their tales are listened to more than others', either because they are good at telling stories or because they have experience or they're seen as wise. (Smart is not always a plus because smart people tend to ask awkward questions.) Leadership emerges from this consensus as well; simply put, your leadership status depends on how many family members are willing to follow you. This can be situational, with one person influential in economic affairs but another in organizing for violence. Female family members tend to be more influential in domestic affairs, such as suggesting or discouraging a marriage or resolving relationship problems.

Some families formalize leadership positions, especially in societies where there is no state or the state is weak; historically many clans have a leadership lineage that is part of the extended family but recognized as primary. The informal leaders I outlined above will still be influential, the formal leader's actual control depends on whether they're respected by persons of wisdom and experience. If the family is part of a larger unit, such as a tribe, the tribal leader has to acknowledged by the family leaders. It doesn't have to be an election, it could be an acclamation of an heir of the blood. It's possible to sideline a family for such a decision without breaking the compact between them but you can't do it for too long (unless you're willing to eject or subjugate that family).

@Kovax wrote an excellent post (though I'm pretty sure he reversed clan and tribe), mine is just to try and see if you can think your way into how it works by relating to an experience many of us still have.

 

[Kovax]

Back around 1980, my parents moved into a community of around 2000 members, many of them tracing their ancestry back to colonial days. There were a few "newcomers" in the area as well, whose families had only moved in a mere century ago. Of course being total strangers, we were viewed suspiciously as foreigners by the locals, and it was difficult to establish any kind of friendships, because nobody there knew our past family history. I've heard that a few of the New England states are even closer knit.

In a tribal situation, the governing only command as far as the governed are willing to follow, otherwise they'll be replaced. A good leader knows just how far he (or she, in a few rare cases) can coax the community without creating resentment. As said in Barsoom's post, it's generally rather informal, but word gets around about EVERYTHING.