The Way of the Buffaloes: Trade and Sacrifice in Northern Laos

Abstract

This article links buffalo sacrifices among Rmeet (Lamet) in Northern Laos to trade. Buffalo sacrifices for house spirits reintegrate ill persons into a socio-cosmic whole consisting of relations to agnatic kin, ancestors, and spirits. Yet, this sociality is dependent on external forces. Buffaloes are bought rather than raised, and the availability of paid labor and markets interacts with the rituals. But while sacrifice reproduces representations that make up a "social whole," the market operates by a sociality that is less easy to delineate. Thus, when objects are transferred from market to ritual, they acquire new meanings. Buffaloes turn from trade goods into representations of socio-cosmic relatedness. Yet, as a comparison of rural and suburban sacrifices demonstrates, trade patterns directly influence ritual practice. Market exchange is referenced as a model in the ritual. Trade and sacrifice can be seen as types of exchange that are resources for each other but remain separated. (Laos, Lamet, sacrifice, trade, exchange) ********** Three types of questions structure this article. The first is ethnographic: How do the Rmeet (Lamet), a Mon-Khmer speaking group in northern Laos, handle buffaloes both as trade items and as sacrificial animals? The second, more analytical type, arises from the perspective that both trade and sacrifice should be understood as types of exchange: What is the specific relation between them in this context? How do relations to inter-ethnic markets interact with rituals that depend on trade items? A third type, of a more theoretical nature, emerges from the second: What kind of entities are defined by these types of exchange? Do the values which have to be shared in order to enable the exchange define a bounded entity like "society" or an indefinite one like "market?" The notion of societies as wholes is closely linked to the idea that exchanges reproduce society (Mauss 1990; Godelier 1999), and this approach has sparked analyses of great intricacy and attention to detail (e.g., Barraud et al. 1994; Platenkamp 1988). The argument is pervasive. Social relations are predicated on exchange, and exchange is based on a degree of agreement regarding the value of the items exchanged. Sharing values and ideas is a major indicator of participation in a society. The existence of ongoing exchanges begs the question of whether the entity to which the exchanging parties belong can be described as a specific "society." On the other hand, the notion of societies as wholes has met with serious criticism, and the foregoing argument indicates one of the reasons why (Graeber 2001; Weiner 1992). Intersocietal exchange in terms of trade is a common phenomenon and begs the question of where "society" is located. Thus, there are opposing forces at work theorizing exchange. One claims that a shared value system, at least partially, is the base of ongoing exchange, leading to a coherence that appears as "wholeness." The other stresses the openness and integrating power of exchange across boundaries. Objects moving from one group to another in order to be integrated into rituals provides a starting point to address these issues. Ethnic labeling does not automatically answer the question of the boundaries of a value system that enables exchange, nor does an easy evocation of "society." Yet, it is clear that different values inform different exchanges, and on this basis categorizations can be made and boundaries determined. I will argue that "society" can be used to label entities defined by shared values, but that this concept does not have a privileged position among other types of boundaries. In order to describe the spheres of exchange that cannot easily be defined by "society," the term "sociality" will be used. Both terms are potentially plural; there are many forms or modes of sociality. Trade and purchase are modalities of exchange, and not the other way around (Levi-Strauss 1967:Ch. …