A simple division of land between sons seems to have been the normal customary procedure, and is still common in straightforward cases. One result of this is that the layout of fields becomes a kind of genealogical map; although the land is individually owned the holdings tend to lie in agnatic blocks. My questions about the past agnatic connections of village lineages sometimes provoked the villagers themselves into conjectural history based on the relative position of their fields.
Such a simple division is usually achieved by a direct understanding between the brothers. They are left de facto in joint control of the household lands, and if they are not at loggerheads it is relatively simple to present the world with a fait accompli. In the past a deceased brother's sons were sometimes excluded (p. 104). This practice is now regarded as inequitable, and is also illegal.
Though I never discussed in detail such a division, I did come across brothers' quarrels over the spoils. On one visit to another village, I arrived by chance on a day on which an armed man was in homicidal pursuit of his brother. The version I was given attributed the quarrel to his suddenly advancing, years after the original amicable division, a claim that he had in fact been given less than half; undoubtedly he himself would have given a more plausible account of his case. On the whole, however, relations between adult brothers who had already separated varied from mutual tolerance to intimate co-operation. I was told that in fact divisions are conducted by the arbitration of elders. Fields can be measured and divided into strictly equal shares. Movable property is valued in cash. If one