What correlates with simultaneous use of both matriclans and patriclans ?

[TomHChappell]

Some cultures employ both matriclans and patriclans, for different purposes. Why? Is there something in their environments or modi vivendi that is common to all of them, but not to any cultures that employ only patriclans, or only matriclans?

[keenir]

Some cultures employ both matriclans and patriclans, for different purposes. Why? Is there something in their environments or modi vivendi that is common to all of them, but not to any cultures that employ only patriclans, or only matriclans?

at first, I thought you said patricians and matricians...when my eyes cooperated, i saw matriclans and patriclans - which confused me, as i wasn't sure if you meant, for example, matrilocal or matriarchal or something else.

that said...I would presume that its historical happenstance that some cultures do either-or, while other cultures do both.


ps: modus vivendi? isn't its continued existence the modus vivendi of any traditional clan?

[TomHChappell]

…when my eyes cooperated, i saw matriclans and patriclans - which confused me, as i wasn't sure if you meant, for example, matrilocal or matriarchal or something else.

No.
Matriarchal means ruled by mothers; it’s typically misused as a synonym for gynocracy.

Matrilocal means that at least some adult children (e.g. nearly all unmarried sons and/or nearly all unmarried daughters) continue living with their mother until they marry; and even after marrying, at least one child stays living with their mother, and that child’s spouse moves in with them. (In those of matriclans where ownership of real estate is passed from mother to daughter, usually daughters (at least the heiress) are matrilocal after marriage, whereas husbands are uxorilocal after marriage.)

I’m talking about matrilineal descent groups: A clan in which, at birth, every person inherits membership from their mother; they are born a member of their mother’s clan.

Patriarchal means ruled by fathers. It’s often (mis)used to mean a society in which only men can hold influential or powerful titles or positions; and even then, only the old men.

Patrilocal means kids stay living with their father until the kid marries; and when the kid marries the husband continues to live with his father, whereas the wife is virilocal; she moves in with her husband. It may be that only the heir continues to permanently reside with his father. If the patriclan is thus used to control ownership of real estate, it will pass from father to son.

that said...I would presume that it’s historical happenstance that some cultures do either-or, while other cultures do both.

I think that’s sometimes (maybe often?) the default outcome when there’s no strong reason it should be something else. But in most cases it’s not just happenstance; or, at least, so say some experts whose names I don’t recall (sorry!).

There’s a real-life society in which patriclans control all the real-estate but matriclans control all the moveable property. That’s just the opposite of what I want one of my concultures to do.

———.

In societies where most food is obtained by farming, real estate is the most important good and most important capital.
If farms must be plowed, but people are the only available draft animals, it’s likely that men have the strength to pull a plow, but women don’t.
Even if strength is not the gender-difference at play, a man can keep working the fields no matter which phase of pregnancy how pregnant his wife is in; while after a few months of pregnancy a mother can’t do the strenuous field-work in addition to the work of gestating her child. And after the child is delivered, while the mother is suckling the baby, the mother probably can’t go work in the fields. And after the baby has grown teeth and can eat solid food, until they can walk and talk, someone will have to take charge of them for most of the day on most days; that “someone” is likely to remain their mother, even when it no longer has to be, just because inertia is usually less effortful than changing what’s always been.
Suppose, additionally, arable land and livable residences and one’s family must be protected from occasional groups of violent humans (or wild animals). There are likely to be good reasons the burden for such a defense must be borne more by the men than by the women.
For such reasons, most societies that reckon kinship by unilineal descent groups are strictly patrilineal and not anything else.
Most societies which reckon kinship by unilineal descent groups, but not exclusively by patriclans, are purely matrilineal; society is exhaustively divided into mutually exclusive matriclans, and every person is assigned, at birth, to the clan their mother is in.

And though they are a minority, there are nevertheless still societies in which kinship is reckoned by use of both patriclans and matriclans.


In societies that use patriclans to define kinship, if one traces EGO’s father’s ancestors purely son-to-father, and likewise traces ALTER’s father’s ancestors purely son-to-father, and winds up at a common patrilineal ancestor of both, then EGO and ALTER are “kin to” each other.
If there’s no other way used to define kinship, then this society’s kin groups are patriclans.

In societies that use matriclans to define kinship, if one traces EGO’s mother’s ancestresses purely daughter-to-mother, and likewise traces ALTER’s mother’s ancestresses purely daughter-to-mother, and winds up at a common matrilineal ancestress of both, then EGO and ALTER are kin to each other.
If there’s no other way used to define kinship, then this society’s kin groups are matriclans.

In some societies kinship is reckoned both by patriclans and by matriclans. The societies I’m asking about are those in which both of the above means are used to define kinship; (and, probably, no other means than those two are used to define kinship).

ps: modus vivendi? isn't its continued existence the modus vivendi of any traditional clan?

I think (I could be wrong) you’re talking about raison d’^etre. Reason for existing, not way of living.

If the soil is so stony that farming requires the strength and labor of two men, many marriages might consist of a wife and two husbands. The husbands may usually be brothers to each other. If a husband must from time to time travel away on business for some time —— for some reason I’ve got “four or more consecutive months” in my head —— they may be very glad of the fact that his brother is staying behind to look after their wife.

Or, suppose all the men are warriors. Suppose they know they’ll be required to serve two four-month terms away from their wife’s home every year. When a man comes home he comes to wherever his wife is living. It probably seems reasonably likely to everyone that one couldn’t reasonably expect a woman to act “celibate” for eight months a year. But circumstances may be arranged so that she almost always can choose her lover from among her husband’s close relatives. For instance, suppose men officially reside in the house in which they were born, while women officially reside in their husband’s house. I may be wrong, but, I think that means the other men in that house will probably all be close relatives of her husband.

Or, suppose all livings are earned on the sea by fishing. Men own the important stuff — fishing boats and fishing gear — while women own the houses and the land the houses are built on. The piers and docks and those stretches of beach they’re on, will be the property of various corporations of several men; namely, patriclans. The boat’s owner will be its captain until he has to retire; then his son will become captain until the first man dies; then the son becomes the boat’s owner as well as its captain.
Meanwhile, a woman’s house and its attached land, will be passed on to one of her daughters when she dies.

These are examples of the kind of modus vivendi I meant; the means by which that particular group of people have managed to overcome the environmental challenges, and inhabit that land for many generations. As you can see, sometimes such things can make certain kinds of kinship structures be preferable to the alternatives.
—————.
I hope that helps! Thank you for responding to my question.


[EDIT:] There are societies in which kinship is reckoned by other means; neither patriclans nor matriclans. [/EDIT]

[keenir]

…when my eyes cooperated, i saw matriclans and patriclans - which confused me, as i wasn't sure if you meant, for example, matrilocal or matriarchal or something else.

No.
Matriarchal means ruled by mothers; it’s typically misused as a synonym for gynocracy.

not sure if the Na qualify as either of those; probably more just matrilocal and whatever the surrounding culture has.

Matrilocal

Patriarchal means ruled by fathers. It’s often (mis)used to mean a society in which only men can hold influential or powerful titles or positions; and even then, only the old men.

so, classical Judean society and, I think, modern Jews.

that said...I would presume that it’s historical happenstance that some cultures do either-or, while other cultures do both.

I think that’s sometimes (maybe often?) the default outcome when there’s no strong reason it should be something else. But in most cases it’s not just happenstance; or, at least, so say some experts whose names I don’t recall (sorry!).

There’s a real-life society in which patriclans control all the real-estate but matriclans control all the moveable property. That’s just the opposite of what I want one of my concultures to do.

I want to say that thats one in Kenya, but I can't swear to that.

ps: modus vivendi? isn't its continued existence the modus vivendi of any traditional clan?

I think (I could be wrong) you’re talking about raison d’^etre. Reason for existing, not way of living.

my bad; sorry.

If the soil is so stony that farming requires the strength and labor of two men, many marriages might consist of a wife and two husbands. The husbands may usually be brothers to each other. If a husband must from time to time travel away on business for some time —— for some reason I’ve got “four or more consecutive months” in my head —— they may be very glad of the fact that his brother is staying behind to look after their wife.

in Tibetan society, a woman has 4 husbands, all brothers. granted, at least one of them will be a monk.

I hope that helps!

immensely, thank you.

Thank you for responding to my question.

happy to help.

[TomHChappell]

@keenir:
I remembered about the following from Google’s AI; so I thought I could post it for a better clarification, in case anyone else reading this thread might need one.

AI Overview
Learn more
Meaning of Double Descent in Anthropology | Anthroholic
Double unilineal descent, also known as double descent, is a kinship system where individuals are affiliated with both a patrilineal (male-line) and a matrilineal (female-line) descent group simultaneously, but for different purposes. It's a combination of both matrilineal and patrilineal descent, rather than a single unilineal system.
Here's a breakdown:
Unilineal descent: Tracing kinship through either the male or female line only.
Double descent: Recognizes both patrilineal and matrilineal groups, with individuals belonging to both.
Different purposes: One line might be associated with inheritance of land, while the other with inheritance of movable property, or different aspects of social organization.
Example:
Imagine a society where a man belongs to his father's patrilineal lineage for inheritance of land, while his lineage through his mother controls the inheritance of movable property like livestock or tools.
Double unilineal descent | sociology - Britannica
May 2, 2025 — descent systems ... In systems of double unilineal descent, society recognizes both the patrilineage and the matrilinea...

Britannica
Kinship - Wikipedia
Double descent (or double unilineal descent) refers to societies in which both the patrilineal and matrilineal descent group are r...

Wikipedia

DOUBLE DESCENT - AnthroSource
Double descent is essentially a combination of matrilineal and patrilin- eal descent, the two modes of affiliation being followed ...

AnthroSource
Show all
AI responses may include mistakes.

.

And Oh by the way:
Also from Google’s AI we get:

In social anthropology, double unilineal descent (also called double descent or bilineal descent) refers to a system where descent is reckoned through both the patrilineal (father's line) and matrilineal (mother's line). Individuals affiliate with a patrilineal group for some purposes and a matrilineal group for others.

Distinct Group Functions:
Different aspects of social life may be governed by the patrilineal or matrilineal group, such as inheritance, ritual practices, or political roles.
Not Bilateral Descent:
While it involves both the mother's and father's lines, it differs from bilateral descent, where individuals have equal affiliation with both sides of the family.

So, for instance, one is not kin (or might not be kin) to one’s father’s mother, nor one’s mother’s father.

[Glenn]

Or, suppose all livings are earned on the sea by fishing. Men own the important stuff — fishing boats and fishing gear — while women own the houses and the land the houses are built on. The piers and docks and those stretches of beach they’re on, will be the property of various corporations of several men; namely, patriclans. The boat’s owner will be its captain until he has to retire; then his son will become captain until the first man dies; then the son becomes the boat’s owner as well as its captain.
Meanwhile, a woman’s house and its attached land, will be passed on to one of her daughters when she dies.

One of my forever-embryonic concultures is a little like this; they were inspired by some long-ago reading about the Kwakiutl and other peoples of the Pacific Northwest. They are coastal dwellers with a focus on fishing both in the rivers and offshore, as well as onshore hunting and gathering, and limited plant cultivation. Fishing and boating, especially offshore, is associated with men, while onshore gathering (and quite possibly hunting) is associated with women. (The cultural and religious association of sea = male and earth = female was intended to bleed over into the description of their language as well, which was to have three grammatical genders. When members of my primary conculture encountered them and tried to describe their language, they identified the three genders, which a Western-educated linguist from our world might have classed as masculine, feminine, and neuter, but classified them instead as Sea, Earth, and Sky, since the cultural overlap between these concepts was sufficiently strong.)

Rather than have bilineal descent, I pictured their culture as matrilineal and matrilocal, but not necessarily matriarchal: houses and other immovable property were passed down through the female line; hereditary male clan leaders played a role in society, but this role was passed not from father to son, but from maternal uncle to nephew. Now that you mention it, however, a bilineal system similar to the one you mention might be an interesting alternative, with distinct roles for both male and female groups of leaders (as well as other groups, e.g., religious societies, societies of craftsmen or other specialists, etc.)

My primary conculture had a more stereotypical patriclan structure (patrilineal, patrilocal, and patriarchal), but I wanted the female line of descent to still play a part in the culture if possible. (Contact with ancestral spirits is an important part of their religion, and I thought that might include both patrilineal and matrilineal ancestors - at the very least, both would be addressed as part of the marriage ceremony.)

Ursula K. Le Guin's later Earthsea books (especially her anthology Tales from Earthsea) also resemble this particular example, not in the sense of clan structure, but in division of labor. In her revised and expanded description of the majority culture of Earthsea, men are associated with shipbuilding and sailing, while women are associated with mining and housebuilding (although men can help with large construction projects); other activities, notably agriculture, involve participation by both genders.

This is all a rambling digression from your original question; suffice it to say that as I reflected on the discussion above, I found it to be an interesting one.

[TomHChappell]

This is all a rambling digression from your original question;

in my opinion that’s very much to the point, @Glenn!

suffice it to say that as I reflected on the discussion above, I found it to be an interesting one.

Thank you!