Another genealogically large lineage - about twenty households in all - was also amorphous. One branch of six, C Lineage, had a separate name and a reputation for solidarity and aloofness. A man of this group was shot dead during our stay, (p. 26).In the ensuing quarrel, they received no support from members of the larger lineage. Among the twenty was another set of seven households descended from a common grandfather, but I do not know how much internal solidarity they possessed.
Z Lineage claimed a long and distinguished history, and gave its name to a village quarter. A central core of about eight households made regular and fairly exclusive use of one guest room. Two other senior acknowledged members kept apart because of a quarrel, and other households admitted agnatic connection but showed no interest. Two refugee households had married into the group and behaved as members.
Another genealogically large lineage, sixteen households in all, was divided into two groups, which barely acknowledged the link between them - one informant again denied it in the face of the evidence. Another lineage numbered nine related households, including some influential ones, but I cannot say how effective relationships were. Two smaller lineages consisted entirely of poorer households, one of five and one of six.
Together with the refugee households, these lineages cover about I50 households, just over two-thirds of the village. Besides these, I heard of another nine named lineage groups, most of which contained from one or two to five current households, and one of which was extinct. Of the rest of the households, I assume that they did not know or were not interested in anyone except the close circle of kin, among whom in most cases close agnates would have a special place. Most of them were grouped in sets of brothers or brothers' sons, very often with the same adopted official surname. In some of these cases my impression that people have little or no interest in their lineages may simply be due to my ignorance.