Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

the arabs in late antiquity 681
Individuals were very often aware of their primordial tribal affiliations,
and took pride in the achievements, glories and victories of their ancestors.
Similarly, personal enemies often vilified the individual by calling into question
his tribe as a whole. In practice, however, the vast tribal coalitions
rarely acted as a unified whole, and the socially meaningful unit was the
small tenting or village group tracing its origins back four or five generations
at most. The perception of common descent was not unimportant to
the cohesion of such groups, but even more vital were considerations of
common interest. In order to maintain itself, the group had to be able to
defend its pasturing grounds, water supplies and other resources from
intruders, and its members from injury or harm from outsiders. Dramatic
changes in kinship affiliations could occur when, for example, the requirements
of contemporary alliances or client relationships dictated a reformulation
of historical genealogical affinities. 21 Such shifts could even occur at
the level of the great tribal confederations, 22 and were facilitated by the fact
that no loss of personal or legal autonomy was involved – a ‘client’ tribe
was not in the state of subservience implied by the western sense of the
term. 23
Through most of Arabia, the welfare of the individual was secured by
customary law and the ability of his kin or patron to protect him. If a
member of a group were molested or killed, this dishonoured the group as
a whole and required either retaliation or compensation. Individuals thus
adhered to at least the minimum standards required to remain a member of
their group, since an outcast could be killed with impunity. 24 This system
provided security and guaranteed the status of tradition and custom. 25
Violence in the form of warfare, feuding and raiding did occur, but the last
of these has given rise to much confusion, and its scope and scale have
often been exaggerated: 26 there was no glory in raiding a weak tribe or ravaging
a defenceless village, and fatalities on either side posed the immediate
risk of a blood feud. Prowess in battle was without doubt a highly
esteemed virtue, and Arabian society was imbued with a martial spirit that
elevated the raid, or ghazw, to the level of an institution. 27 Still, this usually
involved one powerful tribe raiding another for their animals, 28 and the violence
involved was limited by considerations of honour, by the ordinarily
small size of raiding parties, and – where weaker groups were concerned –
by networks of formal arrangements for protection.
21 Ibn Khaldūn, Muqaddima i.238.
22 Goldziher (1967–71) i.92, 96; Caskel (1953) 8, 15;(1966) i.31–2, 43–4; ii.22–3, 72, 448; Lancaster
(1997) 16–23, 32–4, 151–7. Cf. Gellner (1973). 23 Lancaster (1997) ix, 73, 128–9.
24 Musil (1928) 426–70, 489–503; Farès (1932) esp. 44–101; Chelhod (1971) esp. 231–341; Stewart
(1994) esp. 130–44. 25 Cf. Stewart (1994) 139–43.
26 Most notoriously in Lammens (1928) 181–236; cf. also Meeker (1979) 111–50.
27 Musil (1928) 504–661; Jabbur (1995) 348–55; Lancaster (1997) 140–5.
28 Sweet (1965) 1138–41.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008