As I stated in my last note, I have much to say about dynasties and the study of them. They are a vast and complex web of individuals, families, and relationships that have never been properly examined. Even the word "dynastology" has only been used fleetingly in a few Chinese and Egyptian history books. But that doesn't negate the function and importance of the term, or the possibility of its derivatives. In fact, dynastology is really the perfect word to describe the study of dynasties since, in Latin and Greek, that is precisely what it would mean:
"Dynastology" is the combining of a Late Latin word, "dynastia", which came from the Ancient Greek word, "δυναστεία" (dunasteia) which means "power" or "dominion", with a basic Ancient Greek suffix "-λογία" (-logia), which simply means "study of". Thus, dynastology is the "study of power or dominion", or more specifically, the people behind that power.
Other words related to dynasty and dynastology include:
• "dynast", which means an individual member of a dynasty, generally one who holds power or authority of some kind;
• "dynastic", an adjective that is used to describe connections within and between a dynasty;
• "dynasticism", which describes a form of government ruled by a dynasty. Some consider dynasticism akin to an absolute monarchy, but that is not necessarily true.
Therefore, what I think transforms dynastology from a conceptual term into a historically relevant concept is this idea of dynasticism throughout the millennia. Until only recent times, dynasties were the core foundation of virtually any government. In ancient times it was the only logical form of government. That is because dynasticism is nearly identical to monarchy. Tradition holds that long ago, before history was ever written, groups of people merged together and formed tribes, choosing from among themselves a leader. Generally speaking, this leader was male, although there are some traditions that suggest women did prehistorically hold the status of leader in some regions. Regardless, the dominance of males arose early and was already present in virtually all recorded history.
Before I move on with the origins of dynastology, I need to point out an aspect of dynasticism that permeates throughout almost all Americans, Europeans, and many other cultures. That aspect is the surname, or the "last" name. Surnames in the modern sense are quite new creations. In most cultures, surnames arise from tribal affiliations (Kennedy as in Clan Ó Ceannéidigh), professions (Smith as in blacksmith), places of origin (Hann as in Hannover, Germany), saints and Biblical characters (St. Clair as in St. Clare of Assisi), or ancestral names (Anderson as in Anders' son). All of these reflect a lineage of some sort and, in modern times, they are generally passed down through a patrilineal, agnatic descent to you from some ancestor. Depending on your name's origin, the descent could be recent or ancient. Regardless, it is a little bit of dynasticism reaching from the past to you.
Why I bring this topic of surnames up is that the entire concept of a surname is a way of tracking the descent of a dynasty. While royal families are not often thought of as having surnames, they actually do. In almost all cases, they are either based off of the geographic region from which they arose or named after a distant ancestor. Most royal dynasties today are named after the former while most early medieval dynasties are based on the latter. Windsor (Castle), Habsburg (Castle), Hohenzollern (Castle), (the Duchy of) Oldenburg are all named after places, while (Hugh) Capet, Romanov (as in Tsar Roman), and Grimaldi are named after individuals.
My surname is Whaley. That in itself is not much more than an interesting word. But during the 1640s there was a guy in England named Edward Whalley who was the third signature on the death warrant of King Charles I. This man was my distant ancestor. His surname, in slightly simplified form, is my surname today. No, I have no Whale in my ancestry and my paternal family is not from Wales, but this Edward Whalley established, in a sort, a dynasty which descends to my relatives and me today. I say all this not because I believe I am an heir to this legacy, but simply to state that surnames mean something. They are a clue, and while my primary focus is on royal and noble dynasties, that doesn't mean dynasticism stops at a tiara.
Since I am running overlong, I will resume the history of dynasticism next time. But remember my most important point, while royalty and nobility lives and breathes a rich dynastic life involving all sorts of dynastological connections, that doesn't mean you aren't a part of that too. Dynasties produce descendants, surnames change, and histories are forged out of legitimacy and illegitimacy. Who knows? Maybe you just have a bit of dynasticism yourself. Your surname is your first clue, your parents and grandparents are your keys, the internet is open to you. Discover your ancestral past. It could surprise you.
No comments:
Post a Comment