Marriage Practice

If we look at marriage alliances in practice, the relevant units of exchange are not obvious at first glance. From the egocentric perspective of a kutum, affinal ties exist with numerous villages and groups, as the following table shows. The first column distinguishes the generations, the second lists the villages to which daughters and sisters were given, and the third lists the villages from which daughters-in-law came. The group of the village of origin, the bonso, and - if not Gutob Gadaba - the jati are given in parentheses. The Chamru Gor kutum is divided into two lines - houses (gor) or parts (bag) - distinguished in the table by underlining. Question marks in parentheses indicate that only the corresponding village is known.

Table 10: Affinal Ties of the Chamru Gor (Sisa) over Four Generations

Of the thirty-two marriages listed here, twelve were concluded with Ollar Gadaba groups, the remainder within the Gutob Gadaba. A total of twenty-two villages are involved, all of which, with one exception,^{[1] [2] [3]} are located within a radius of about fifteen kilometers; the majority are significantly closer. If we look at the villages of origin to which the different affinal groups belong, the initial multiplicity starts to resolve into a clearer pattern. Mundagoria, Ruda’i, and Endaktal Gutal are found in various villages and are considered eligible marriage partners, as a matter of principle, independent of the villages in which their “offshoots” reside; this trait will also be seen in agnatic relationships. In addition, direct exchanges between some villages can be demonstrated. Over two generations, that is, with a delay, ji bouni were exchanged with the Gibir (in Kujam), the Ruda’i (in Gudapada), and the Mundagoria (in Tukum).^m Within the same generation, sisters were given to the Endaktal Gutal (in Tikrapada), the Mundagoria (in Gudapada), and the Ollar (in Saraguda), and daughters-in-law were brought home from the same groups. In one case (buari from Sonkai), we see a repetition of the gift of a bride in the alternate generation.^⁵ In the majority of affinal relationships, reciprocity between villages is not present within the relevant timespan - that is, the timespan remembered by the participants.

If we leave behind the perspective of an individual kutum and consider the marriage alliances between all (matia) groups in two villages, the picture expands. Over three generations, eleven marriages took place between the Gangre in Gudapada and the Ollar Gadaba in Saraguda. If we take the different kutum into account, it becomes clear that reciprocity is not limited to these units; rather, the gift of a bride can be reciprocated within the kuda and within the village as well (see figure 6). In the C generation, the Munduli from Saraguda gave a sister to the Garsa Gor kutum in Gudapada and took a bride from another Sisa kutum (Naik Gor). Likewise, the Pendom Gor in Saraguda received two sisters from the Purnamundia in Gudapada, but gave their own sisters to the Kirsani (Gendor and Kodomguria). Direct reciprocity (within the same generation) between kutum occurs only once, between Chamru Gor and Dona Gor. In all other cases, the relationship between giving and taking is unbalanced. If we look at the kuda segmentary level and ignore the different kutum, the picture is no more balanced (see figure 7).

Over three generations, the Kirsani in Gudapada took three daughters-in-law from the Sisa in Saraguda without reciprocating a bride; they have no affinal ties of any kind with the Munduli. The Sisa in Gudapada have given six sisters and received a total of only two. They maintain somdi relationships with both kuda

Figure 6: Marriage Alliances between Gudapada (Gangre) and Saraguda (Ollar Gadaba): kutum Level

Figure 7: Marriage Alliances between Gudapada (Gangre) and Saraguda (Ollar Gadaba): kuda Level

groups in Saraguda. Immediate reciprocity (within the same generation) occurs twice (Sisa [G] : Sisa [S], Sisa [G] : Munduli [S]). In this example, balance can be found neither on the kutum level nor on that of the kuda. On the village level, in contrast, the relationships are relatively balanced (5:6). This relative balance in the transfers at the village level is astonishing when the demographic circumstances are taken into account. Saraguda is a considerably smaller village than Gudapada and consists of two kuda groups, one of which, the Munduli, is represented by only one house, a fact that could explain the absence of somdi relationships with the Kirsani (and Munduli) of Gudapada.

A village of comparable size is Tikrapada, with which all the Gangre groups maintain affinal ties. Over three generations, twenty-six marriages were identified between the villages.^{[4] [5]} The distribution of the exchange relationships over the different kuda is shown in figure 8.

Again, the affinal exchange relationships in this example are relatively balanced only on the village level (15:11), not when the kuda groups are considered on their own.18⁷ Reciprocal relationships involving multiple kuda groups are clearly evident both within the same generation and across generations. Alternating relationships cannot be discerned as such, since transactions are also repeated in the intervening generation. Reciprocal exchanges between the Kirsani of Gudapada and the Munduli of Tikrapada occur in almost every generation; only in the A generation is the gift of ji bouni not reciprocated by the Munduli, although the Kirsani do receive two ji bouni from the Boronaik. The Kirsani, and the Munduli as well - despite their small number of houses - maintain somdi relationships with multiple kuda groups in Tikrapada, while the Sisa limit their affinal relationships to the Boronaik.

Various aspects become clear in these examples. Regular and reciprocal affinal alliances exist between Gutob and Ollar Gadaba, at least in the eastern Lamtaput area of the Gutob Gadaba. It is therefore not possible to speak of a “prohibition of intermarriage” (Pfeffer 2001a, 104) that is broken only occasionally. Nevertheless, the tribal groups (jati) are ideally endogamous, and marriages with Parenga or Joria do not occur in these examples. It also becomes clear that both the kutum and the kuda group can be and often are relevant units of exchange for affinal relationships, but the relationships as a whole are located at the village level. Gadaba say that the people of this or that village are “our affines” (somdi); the kutum and kuda groups are not relevant points of reference. Membership in a village clan is especially important, less so the actual place of residence. Affinal relationships exist between Gangre and Ruda’i, Mundagoria, Gibir, and Endaktal Gutal, although the affinal groups live in different villages. The affinal relationships within Gudapada also indicate that the village is a rel-

Figure 8: Marriage Alliances between Gudapada (Gangre) and Tikrapada (Endaktal Gutal): kuda Level

evant unit. The Messing, previously introduced as an example, maintain affinal relationships with all the village’s kutum and kuda groups, not just selected segments, and the Ruda’i and Mundagoria do likewise. When the Ruda’i in Gudapada receive a buari from the Kirsani and give a ji bouni to the Sisa, is the first gift then considered reciprocated? The general question thus arises of whether reciprocity - the necessity of repaying the gift of a bride - is understood as a norm at all.

• [1] Joridara is located near Boipariguda, in the lowlands (tolrasi). Gadaba from Tikrapada,among others, settled there after their land was flooded by the Kolab hydroelectric project.
• [2] In all three cases, this was marriage with the “genealogical” FZD.
• [3] The daughters-in-law from Sonkai married into different lines within the Chamru Gor.
• [4] More precisely, twenty-four marriages were named by the (female) informants, one wassupplied by me (on the basis of genealogies), and one is now in preparation.
• [5] The Kirsani give nine ji bouni and receive four, the Sisa give three and receive six, and theMunduli give three sisters and receive one daughter-in-law.