Pfeffer’s Description
Unlike Izikowitz, Pfeffer describes not a specific ritual as he observed it, but rather an indigenous model that he generalizes from the different empirical variations he documented, mainly during the 1980s/'3 In his 1991 and 2001 (a) articles, Pfeffer distinguishes as ritual actors in the context of gotr not only the panjabai and moitr, but also the tsorubai within the agnatic categories (Pfeffer 2001a, 111 f). Within the affinal categories (bondu), he distinguishes between affinal helpers and the sponsors’ affinal challengers/44 The conventional behav- [1] [2] [3]
iors associated with the different relationships, according to Pfeffer, are striking. While the panjabai and tsorubai are generally rude and demanding to the sponsors within the gotr framework, the moitr relationships are highly polite and loving. The affinal helpers are restrained and supportive, unlike other external af- fines who try to appropriate the sponsors’ status (Pfeffer 1991, 72ff).
These stereotypical standards of behavior go along with specific forms of exchange. Moitr bring stone slabs and take what they are voluntarily given, while panjabai and tsorubai bring stone slabs and take away the sponsors’ buffaloes. They try to extract as much as possible for themselves. Affinal helpers bring cattle, among other things, as at marriage, when the animals are part of the formal bridewealth. They accept their affinal status and therefore take on a lower-status or more junior position vis-a-vis the sponsors’ external agnates. As eaters of the buffaloes, the latter play the dominant role in gotr, reversing the situation at marriage, when affinal relationships are emphasized. The affines who act as challengers do not bring any cattle, but rather buffaloes, and assert a quasi-agnatic status for themselves. Pfeffer (2001a, 114ff) therefore describes them as higher- status or senior affines, who appear at gotr as agnates (sponsors); put differently, although they are the nephews of the deceased, they behave like their sons.
- [1] To the best of my knowledge, the “earth people” of the two villages (Gorihanjar andKichop) have a panjabai relationship to one another. It is certainly possible that upria groups inGorihanjar maintain moitr relationships with the Parenga from Kichop, but Izikowitz (1969,143)speaks of the “second chief” in Gorihanjar, who would be expected to belong to the “earthpeople.”
- [2] For this reason, I will use the so-called “ethnographic present” in summarizing his observations.
- [3] According to Pfeffer (2001a, 109), all the village’s local lines act jointly as the sponsor.
