EDIT: It appears two replies appeared while I was writing. That is why this post will now appear very out of chronology, >_>.
------------------------------------
Like you, my main source is the naming convention sheet. I was checking primarily in case there was something I had missed that you had read, particularly because mining for statements by Fernehawles, one of the localizers, on the lore forums can be difficult to do. To pull out a couple of examples of the tidbits Ferne has left for us...
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threa...post980471
&
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threa...post980189
What I'll do with this is showcase how I arrived to my conclusions based on what is written in your link (which I also used) and in these links. It's a lot of challenging assumptions, so please bear with me.
The assertion on how nunh's "handle" 10-50 females each comes from, I guess, these quotes from the localisation team:
"[Hunting grounds are] big enough to sustain the 20-50 females (and the few odd tia) which will follow the nunh."
"Depending on its size, a tribe may have multiple nunh (a ratio of one nunh per ten to fifty females is average)."
In your reading, you've taken it further (I think) by attaching a kind of monogamy between nunh and females, but that is not stated. What it does state is that, in larger tribes, there is a ratio of 1:10-50 of nunh to female. My argument is that ratio does not even come close to implying the level of bond suggested by a single-nunh relationship except in the case there is one nunh because the word ratio is merely statistical.
Now, I'm not saying that my earlier assertion on females able to move between nunhs is correct either; in fact, I think that I could be wrong there too, or at least wrong about it being normative behaviour. I can definitely see -some- tribes operating that way, much like I can see some tribes operating in the manner you outline. So I won't argue that. What I'll do instead is return to what I view as the root of all miqo'te assumptions: the assumption that the Seekers are patriarchal.
My opinion? They aren't.
My evidence? Well, I want to focus on this line:
"Nunh status does not equate to leadership within a tribe, and in fact, very few nunh ever become leaders."
This one is clearer. -Very few- nunh ever become leaders. Very few. So, if we work on the assumption that Seekers are patriarchal, who then, if not the nunh, can lead? Patriarchy requires that males be on top of the power structure, but if the nunh is rarely the leader, does that mean it falls to a tia? And if so, why would the tribe follow a tia? "Most female Seekers of the Sun are rarely impressed by a male who cannot defeat a nunh." Eliminate the options: if the nunh is rarely in leadership, and the tia needs to prove himself before earning the loyalty of the tribe, who is left to lead?
The women are. And since a woman in this case is most likely to be occupying that seat of leadership (except in the very rare cases a nunh is), it then follows that the culture must be (except again in the very rare cases), matriarchal by nature. That isn't to say that the nunh and the tia can't occupy important posts, but it does say that, on a base level, Seeker culture can not assumed to be patriarchal simply because of breeding patterns. Breeding does not connote power in the same way leadership, as implied by the terms matriarchal and patriarchal, does. (A lesson we are all sadly very aware of in the real world.)
And that is the core of what I'm saying: So much of our conjecture on how Seekers operate comes from this mistaken idea that they must be patriarchal. This may be because we live in a patriarchal society in which children nominally carry the father's surname and drew parallels. This may be because we believe there must be some sort of diametric opposition in cultures between Seeker and Keeper based on their naming patterns and how they keep track of their bloodlines. But is that true? Does there need to be a divide between the two clans? Does a naming convention indicate the reigning power of a sex? Do the clans need to operate as differently as Sun and Moon in their name suggests? Or can they BOTH be matriarchal and just have different conventions on how or how much?
I decided they could be. That's how I arrived at my conclusions about the Seekers and why I believe they are matriarchal.
And just to tie it up, I like and have come to agree with your assertion that there is a lot more freedom in Seeker culture for the males to live alongside the females as equals. That doesn't change the structure of power away from matriarchal, in my opinion, but it is a great step different from just assigning -numbers- in the way the Keepers do to their male children.
------------------------------------
Like you, my main source is the naming convention sheet. I was checking primarily in case there was something I had missed that you had read, particularly because mining for statements by Fernehawles, one of the localizers, on the lore forums can be difficult to do. To pull out a couple of examples of the tidbits Ferne has left for us...
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threa...post980471
&
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threa...post980189
What I'll do with this is showcase how I arrived to my conclusions based on what is written in your link (which I also used) and in these links. It's a lot of challenging assumptions, so please bear with me.
The assertion on how nunh's "handle" 10-50 females each comes from, I guess, these quotes from the localisation team:
"[Hunting grounds are] big enough to sustain the 20-50 females (and the few odd tia) which will follow the nunh."
"Depending on its size, a tribe may have multiple nunh (a ratio of one nunh per ten to fifty females is average)."
In your reading, you've taken it further (I think) by attaching a kind of monogamy between nunh and females, but that is not stated. What it does state is that, in larger tribes, there is a ratio of 1:10-50 of nunh to female. My argument is that ratio does not even come close to implying the level of bond suggested by a single-nunh relationship except in the case there is one nunh because the word ratio is merely statistical.
Now, I'm not saying that my earlier assertion on females able to move between nunhs is correct either; in fact, I think that I could be wrong there too, or at least wrong about it being normative behaviour. I can definitely see -some- tribes operating that way, much like I can see some tribes operating in the manner you outline. So I won't argue that. What I'll do instead is return to what I view as the root of all miqo'te assumptions: the assumption that the Seekers are patriarchal.
My opinion? They aren't.
My evidence? Well, I want to focus on this line:
"Nunh status does not equate to leadership within a tribe, and in fact, very few nunh ever become leaders."
This one is clearer. -Very few- nunh ever become leaders. Very few. So, if we work on the assumption that Seekers are patriarchal, who then, if not the nunh, can lead? Patriarchy requires that males be on top of the power structure, but if the nunh is rarely the leader, does that mean it falls to a tia? And if so, why would the tribe follow a tia? "Most female Seekers of the Sun are rarely impressed by a male who cannot defeat a nunh." Eliminate the options: if the nunh is rarely in leadership, and the tia needs to prove himself before earning the loyalty of the tribe, who is left to lead?
The women are. And since a woman in this case is most likely to be occupying that seat of leadership (except in the very rare cases a nunh is), it then follows that the culture must be (except again in the very rare cases), matriarchal by nature. That isn't to say that the nunh and the tia can't occupy important posts, but it does say that, on a base level, Seeker culture can not assumed to be patriarchal simply because of breeding patterns. Breeding does not connote power in the same way leadership, as implied by the terms matriarchal and patriarchal, does. (A lesson we are all sadly very aware of in the real world.)
And that is the core of what I'm saying: So much of our conjecture on how Seekers operate comes from this mistaken idea that they must be patriarchal. This may be because we live in a patriarchal society in which children nominally carry the father's surname and drew parallels. This may be because we believe there must be some sort of diametric opposition in cultures between Seeker and Keeper based on their naming patterns and how they keep track of their bloodlines. But is that true? Does there need to be a divide between the two clans? Does a naming convention indicate the reigning power of a sex? Do the clans need to operate as differently as Sun and Moon in their name suggests? Or can they BOTH be matriarchal and just have different conventions on how or how much?
I decided they could be. That's how I arrived at my conclusions about the Seekers and why I believe they are matriarchal.
And just to tie it up, I like and have come to agree with your assertion that there is a lot more freedom in Seeker culture for the males to live alongside the females as equals. That doesn't change the structure of power away from matriarchal, in my opinion, but it is a great step different from just assigning -numbers- in the way the Keepers do to their male children.
![[Image: enucwJZ.png]](http://i.imgur.com/enucwJZ.png)
