Anything can be up for revision! Do let us know why such should be the case. If I recall correctly, Ireland and Wales (and Scotland in earlier start dates) being tribal had to do with their "clan politics".
Thank you Ese Khan. I appreciate your offer for revision.
Right now I am doing some research on this and will have to get back to you more fully. Suffice to say, in all my layman study of Welsh history, I have never encountered the argument that Welsh culture was tribal and clannish (in the Irish and Scottish context) in the late Early and High Middle Ages. True, Welsh society's gwely system and bonheddwyr (freeman) class does have strong Celtic roots that predate the Roman conquest. But it is an overstatement to hold that because of the gwely system (which was only part of Welsh culture and found primarily in the uplands and moorelands), that all or the majority of Welsh culture at this time was 'tribal and clannish'. Quite the opposite in fact. Welsh culture was no more tribal and clannish then their pre-conquest Anglo-Saxon neighbors. The second element which the Laws of Wales give much text to is the manorial system in the more fertile regions of Wales, grouped around villein villages called traeogdrfi, and emphasized agriculture. There was a distinct reliance between the fertile lowlands and the pastoral uplands.
It would be wrong to draw too much of a correlation between Welsh and Irish cultures of this period. For instance, Ireland had never been conquered by Rome and therefor its true tribal culture not influenced by Roman notions of civitas. That is a sense of belonging to a citizenship far greater then family and the extended family. This sense of basic citizenship was fundamental to the people of the various Welsh successor kingdoms of the Early Middle Ages. This is evidenced by memorial stone of Cantiorix in Penmanchno in Gwynedd which described Cantiorix as 'Venedotis Cives', a 'Citizen of Gwynedd'. Venedotia was the name of North Wales, which evolved into Gwynedd. There was a distinct desire to link these early kingdoms with the empire and the traditions they represented. Early ruling families linked their origins to Romano-British personages, and their right to rule to offices held by them. They sustained the Latin language and Christian faith as ways to further define their sense of citizenship (within their kingdoms), as opposed to the Irish, English, and Norse. This by definition transcends family based tribalism and clannish which is characterized by the Irish experience.
Additionally, notions that the fundamental kingdoms of Wales were divided is also disproved. According to John Davies, by the 10th century, "the principle of primogeniture was gaining recognition [in Wales] and the Law of the Court gave prominent position to the edling, the king's heir". Davies writes that there was a contraction in the lineage considered to be royal and examples of the eldest son multiplied. According to Hurbert Lewis (The Ancient Laws of Wales, 1889.
Chapter VIII: Royal Succession; Rules to Marriage; Alienation pgs 192–200) though not explicitly codified as such, the edling, or heir apparent, was by convention, custom, and practice the eldest son of the lord and entitled to inherit the position and title as "head of the family" from the father. Effectively primogeniture with local variations. However, all sons were provided for out of the lands of the father and in certain circumstances so too were daughters. Additionally, sons could claim maternal patrimony through their mother in certain circumstances.
Thank you. I will reach back out further later this week.
