the crain mariage

Chapter 13. The Politics of Marriage
and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa,
South Sula Wesi, During the 16th and
17th Centuries
F. David Bulbeck
The Wider Background
The traditional political systems of the Malay and Bugis worlds, northern Sumatra
and Java, produced a high frequency of female rulers by world standards (Reid
1988:169-172). Nonetheless the élite titles in these systems still tended to be
inherited patrilineally even though very different descent principles, usually
bilateral but even matrilineal, operated within society as a whole (e.g. Gullick
1958; Palmier 1969; de Josselin de Jong 1980:10; Millar 1989:25). Fox observes
that élite patrilinealism within a bilateral system is only one variant, albeit the
most common, of a widespread tendency for Austronesian élites to claim a
separate origin from commoners and follow a distinct and socially exclusive
descent system. These devices allow the élite to maintain precedence over
restricted resources, and characterize societies which have undergone
consolidation after an earlier phase of lateral expansion (Fox 1995). Moreover,
as this paper will show in the case of the Makassar state of Gowa, the élite were
further advantaged by a selective adoption of the kinship system prevalent in
society as a whole. So even though the highest Makassar posts were held almost
exclusively by patrilineal descendants, bilateral kinship principles (notably the
real or symbolic transfer of authority through related women) underpinned the
central position of the highest status individuals within society, and guaranteed
the resilience of the system as a political entity.
As recorded ethnographically the Makassar and the Bugis, South Sulawesi’s
two main ethnic groups, share a very similar social organization. Both are
organized into overlapping sets of bilateral kindreds rather than sharply
demarcated descent groups. Individuals can choose their particular affiliation,
resulting in the crystallization of discrete networks of (usually) related
individuals. Postmarital residence can be either virilocal or (more usually)
uxorilocal, the spouses retain membership within their natal group, and the
children enjoy homologous relationships with the families of both parents. While
the flexibility allows the ready incorporation of newcomers, the communities
maintain their stability through physical and occupational propinquity and
some measure of endogamy. An individual’s behaviour is also strongly
283
constrained by his or her status which is largely ascriptive, especially for women
who, in the rôle of (principal) wife, mark the status attained by the more socially
mobile men (Chabot 1950; Millar 1989; Acciaioli 1989).
The ascription of status is best described with reference to traditional,
pre-twentieth century Bugis-Makassar society, since some of the social divisions
have been formally abolished even if the effects still persist in more conservative
areas (Röttger-Rössler 1989:28 ff.). Society was traditionally stratified into
aristocrats, commoners and slaves. The aristocracy and its various ranks consisted
of those who could trace their origins to the supposed founders of the
Bugis-Makassar kingdoms, the white-blooded Tomanurung. In theory aristocrats
were ranked by the degree to which their white blood, as traced through both
parents, remained undiluted by the red blood of commoners; access to titles
depended on nobility of birth, and only pure descendants reserved the right to
rule a kingdom (Friedericy 1933; Mukhlis 1975; Acciaioli 1989). Despite the
essentially bilateral manner of ascribing status, a patrilateral bias clearly existed,
at least among the Makassar (Röttger-Rössler 1989:42-43; Mukhlis 1975:37-38).
Now, bilateral descent principles can readily generate a nobility through
marriages between royalty and commoners, but clearly the origins of the
white-blooded royalty must stand outside the bilateral network — hence
Tomanurung, the descended one(s). In some cases this external derivation indeed
occurred, as for example recorded with the Konjo Makassar living at Kasepekang
in the Gowa highlands. In the late nineteenth century a lowland Gowa aristocrat
called Daeng Bunding married into the Kasepekang nobility and was installed
as Karaeng. The Kasepekang Karaeng and other prominent nobles now trace a
real or fictional genealogical closeness to Daeng Bunding through his three official
wives (Röttger-Rössler 1989:38-40). The observation by Rössler (1987:66), that
the Kasepekang Karaeng descent group traces itself to a heavenly princess
comparable to the Tomanurung who supposedly began the Gowa royal line,
presumably hinges on this Daeng Bunding.
Moreover, the existence of pure white-blooded royals presupposes either a
quantity of original Tomanurung amounting to a breeding population or massive
inbreeding within the royalty. But neither was true of the Makassar rulers who
instead clearly referred to their patriline as the critical pedigree defining purity
of descent. The relevant ethnographic analogy comes from the Kasepekang Konjo
whose élite regulate their membership through bilateral descent groups (pattola)
consisting of the descendants of the ancestral holder of a hereditary title.
Theoretically eligible candidates for the title, in practice men, are individuals
either belonging to the pattola or married to a woman within the pattola.
However, at any point in time, the core of the pattola lodges with the title holder
and his sons (Rössler 1987:64-66). The prerogative of the noblest Kasepekang
Konjo, to apply the strictest criteria for admission into the pure nobility
284
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
(Röttger-Rössler 1989:43), combined with the patrilateral bias in the ascription
of status, would appear to legitimize the usual patrilineal succession of noble
titles.
Nonetheless the principle of bilateral descent is an equally intrinsic part of
the Kasepekang system. It provides the flexibility which has allowed occasional
lateral movements of titles in response to political machinations and individual
aptitudes. We have already mentioned the case of Daeng Bunding who, as a
prominent outsider, cemented his central position by marrying widely into the
Kasepekang nobility (Röttger-Rössler 1989). The bilateral ideology also encourages
potential title holders to strengthen their eligibility by marrying women close
to the core, generating the endogamy towards the core which maintains the
distinctiveness of the lineage. Marriages between equals belonging to different
pattola are also sanctioned, reinforcing the social distance between nobles and
commoners, and the attachments of the lesser pattola to the central pattola
associated with the highest title of Karaeng. Last but not least the bilateral
ideology retards the fissioning of descent groups so that the nobility in general,
and each pattola according to its prestige, hold a central position within the
social network (Rössler 1987:66-67).
Gullick (1958) documented a similar organization on a larger scale for the
Malay peninsula states, leading him to coin the description “status lineages” in
contradistinction to the classical patrilineal “segmentary lineages” of the Nuer.
As Fox (1971) demonstrates for the Rotinese, a patrilineal society combining
deep genealogical knowledge among the nobility and “genealogical amnesia”
among the commoners can also generate status lineages which place individuals
within an overarching social hierarchy. Fox (1995) generalizes further by noting
that Austronesian societies ruled by a high élite typically present “apical
demotion systems”. These systems continually reassess the comparative status
of lines and their members depending on which line, and ultimately which
member, holds the most prestigious title. This individual represents the apical
point against which other lines (and their members) automatically lose status
unless they can curtail their genealogical distance (Fox 1995). In the Kasepekang
system, patrilineal descent acts as the usual criterion for succession to the apex,
while bilateral descent both holds the other lines to the apex and allows
movement towards (or even usurpation of) the apical point.
The present paper summarizes my analysis (Bulbeck 1992) of the Makassar
texts, covering the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which describe the rise
and fall of the Gowa empire. The analysis shows that Gowa’s sociopolitical
organization was elaborated on the basic principles described for the Kasepekang
Konjo. The elaborations concern Gowa’s annexation of previously autonomous
territories, the development of an overarching hierarchy incorporating sets of
titles of distinct origins, and the creation of a high royalty both distinct from
285
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
but binding the lesser social echelons. All in all, expanding political power was
associated with the ability to attract well-born brides, absorb previously
independent titles and assure patrilineal succession of the lineage’s own titles,
while decreasing political power was associated with the reverse. Furthermore
the system showed a remarkable ability to legitimize political change.
Background to Gowa
The people generically called the Makassar occupy the far south of South
Sulawesi (Sulawesi’s southwest peninsula). They speak three related languages
— Konjo and Selayar in the east, and Makassar proper in the west (Grimes and
Grimes 1987). The lowlands support generally denser populations than those
found in the Bugis heartland to the immediate north, even though the latter
region contains South Sulawesi’s most extensive wet rice lands. Indeed, South
Sulawesi’s southwest corner between Gowa and Sanrabone (see Map 1) holds
rural population densities comparable to those in Java and Bali. The coastal strip,
rich in maritime and littoral resources, backs against extensive alluvial plains
which are ideal for sawah. Irrigation schemes first developed by the Dutch permit
double cropping and hence higher populations in favoured areas. Nonetheless
the traditional annual sawah cultivation, based on the very pronounced monsoon,
also supported hundreds of thousands of people by the seventeenth century,
with densities apparently reaching towards 1000 people per square kilometre
(Bulbeck 1992).
Two major trade routes from Java lay along the south coast by at least the
fourteenth century. One route extended via Selayar to the spice islands, and the
other extended to Luwuk with its nickeliferous iron and other valuable primary
produce (Caldwell 1988). Selayer, Luwuk, plus Bantaeng and Makassar along
the south coast, are the only identifiable South Sulawesi toponyms mentioned
in the Majapahit literature. Selayer, Luwuk and the south coast are also the parts
of South Sulawesi evincing the strongest Javanese influence (Reid 1983; Bulbeck
1992). The origins of the Bugis kingdom of Luwuk specifically invoke Majapahit
(Caldwell 1988), while the founder of the Makassar kingdom of Sanrabone was
reportedly an immigrant from north Majapahit (Bulbeck 1992).
The Bugis agrarian kingdoms show the reverse constellation of traits —
absence from the Majapahit literature, little direct Javanese influence, and
Tomanurung with explicitly local, Bugis origins. However, far from having been
a cultural backwater, by c. 1400 AD this area had apparently developed the first
South Sulawesi scripts. The resulting texts show that the Bugis heartland
supported the largest fourteenth-century kingdoms in South Sulawesi, and
probably the oldest kingdoms as well (original study by Caldwell [1988] as
interpreted by Bulbeck [1992]).
286
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
Map 1. “Lineage groups” (capitalized) and other key places.
Granted the general dichotomy between maritime kingdoms with their
external orientation and occasional claims to foreign origins, and the locally
oriented agrarian kingdoms, Gowa combines the two. Gowa’s origins are ascribed
to the marriage between a mortal called Karaeng Bayo or the “Bajau King”, and
a heavenly nymph who descended on a hill within Gowa’s rice fields (Reid 1983).
Although dressed up as legend the origin story appears to reflect a real historical
memory, to judge from the concordance between the archaeological and
genealogical data. At c. 1300 AD a Bajau chief, based at the river mouth port
which later became Sanrabone, apparently married a Katangka (pre-Gowa)
princess of Makassar ethnicity to give rise to Gowa’s royal line (Bulbeck 1992).
By around 1500, when a detailed picture emerges of South Sulawesi’s
southwest corner (see Map 1), the near-coastal agrarian kingdoms dominated
287
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
the small trading communities based at the river mouths. For instance, after a
succession dispute within Gowa the defeated faction moved to the mouth of the
Tallok River, overpowered the local inhabitants and established the kingdom
of Tallok. In the same vein Gowa, Tallok and Siang successively conquered
Garassik, then a small port-polity named after Gresik (north Java) but containing
a significant Bajau component. After finally wrestling back Garassik by the
1540s, Gowa developed its demographic and geographical advantages to dominate
South Sulawesi’s long distance trade. In a series of sweeping military campaigns,
Gowa raided other polities throughout the peninsula, and directly conquered
the kingdoms from Maros in the north to Bajeng and Katingang in the south
(Bulbeck 1992).
In 1593 Tallok instigated a palace revolution whereby the area conquered
by Gowa now supported a confederation of powerful status lineages. While the
Gowa royalty formally headed the larger political umbrella, which I call “greater
Gowa”, leadership often resided with Tallok. For instance it was the Tallok raja
who adopted Islam in 1605 and established political hegemony throughout the
South Sulawesi peninsula under the banner of Islam. The individual in question,
Sultan Abdullah, also developed the entrepôt of Makassar to the point where
greater Gowa rivalled the Dutch East India Company (VOC) for control over the
Moluccan spice trade (Andaya 1981). Makassar grew so large during the
mid-seventeenth century that its population can be estimated at 100,000
inhabitants, and its status as a major rice exporter during the early seventeenth
century changed to one of major rice importer (Reid 1987).
288
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
Figure 1. Skeletal genealogical outline of royal Makassar history.
289
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
SANRABONE:
s1 = Karaeng Pancabelong; s2 = Tunijallok ri Pakrasana; s3 = Karaeng
Massewaya; s4 = Tonibasara; s5 = Tumenanga ri Parallekkena; s6 =
Tumenanga ri Campagana; s7?(left) = Karaeng Bambanga; s7?(right) =
Karaenga I Pucu; s8?(left) = Tumenanga ri Buttana; s8?(right) = Karaeng
Banyuanyarak; s9 = Puanna Jenalak; i = Petak Daeng Nisali.
BONE-SOPPENG:
B16/S17 = Alimuddin; B18/S20 = Sulaiman; B20 = Abdullah Mansyur;
B19/S19/G20 = Ismail.
GARRASIK:
g1 = Somba Garassik.
GOWA:
G6 = Tunatangkaklopi; G7 = Batara Gowa; G8 = Tunijallok ri Passukik;
g2 = Karaeng Barataua Karaeng Garassik; G9 = Tumapakrisik Kallona;
G10 = Tunipalangga; c = Karaenga Somba Opu; G11 = Tunibatta; G12
= Tunijallok; d = Karaeng Mapekdaka; f = Tuniawanga ri Kalassakanna;
G13/T6/m5 = Tunipasuluk; G14 = Alauddin; G15 = Malikussaid;
G16/TBB4 = Hasanuddin; G17 = Amir Hamzah; G18 = Muhammad Ali;
s10/G19 = Abdul Jalil; k = Karaeng Parang-Parang; 1 = Karaeng
Pattukangang.
TALLOK:
T1 = Karaengloe di Sero; T2 = Tunilabu di Suriwa; T3 = Tunipasuru; a
= Karaengloe Bainea; T4/TBB1 = Tumenanga ri Makkoayang; T5 =
Karaeng Bainea; e = Karaeng Batu-Batu; T7/TBB2 = Abdullah; T8 =
Mudhaffar; T9/TBB3 = Mahmud; TBB5 = Karaeng Karunrung; j = Raja
Perempuan; T10 = Harrunarasyid; T11 = Abdul Kadir; T12/G21 =
Sirajuddin.
MAROS:
m1 = Karaengloe ri Pakerek; m2 = Karaeng Loeya; m3 = Tuamenanga ri
Bulukduaya; b = Tumamaliang ri Tallok; m4 = Tunikakassang.
Legend to Figure 1
290
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
In 1667 the Bone noble Arung Palakka (later Sultan Sahaduddin) and his Bone
and Soppeng Bugis rebels joined forces with the VOC and defeated greater Gowa
during the battle known as the Makassar War. The new overlords then divided
up greater Gowa’s empire while retaining Makassar as South Sulawesi’s effective
capital. In this new arrangement the VOC superintended Makassar’s trade, while
Sahaduddin settled in Makassar to rule South Sulawesi’s internal affairs (Andaya
1981; Bulbeck 1990).
Methodology
My primary database consists of five texts, available as translations into
Indonesian, which stemmed from the development of a Makassar literary tradition
during the early sixteenth century. These texts are called lontarak after the
palm-leaf strips on which the first texts were composed and copied, a name
which persists despite the adoption of paper by at least the seventeenth century
(Cense 1966). They include the “chronicles” of Gowa (Wolhoff and Abdurrahim
n.d.) and Tallok (Rahim and Ridwan 1975) which describe the succession of
Gowa and Tallok rulers. A royal diary (Kamaruddin et al. 1985-86) has sporadic
entries up to 1630 and numerous entries thereafter. Finally, two short texts
(Bulbeck 1992) chart the Maros and Sanrabone dynasties.
While these texts do not always provide self-explanatory information,
ambiguities could generally be resolved as a result of earlier research on the
Makassar texts (e.g. Mukhlis 1975), scholarly studies of the coeval Bugis (e.g.
Caldwell 1988) and European records (e.g. Andaya 1981), and my archaeological
survey of Gowa (Bulbeck 1986-87, 1992). A very detailed picture emerges of the
“Who’s Who” of the Makassar world during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, allowing the analysis of social organization through statistically
demonstrable associations. This paper presents only the most important results
and accordingly I restrict the methodological discussion to the main points.
To start with, many individuals accumulated titles during life or even received
a posthumous name, making it necessary to collapse the recorded names into
the minimum number of clearly discrete individuals. E.g. if a person was named
“Daeng x Karaeng y”, and the “Daeng x” who carried out certain acts could not
be clearly distinguished from the “Karaeng y” who carried out other acts, then
I assigned both sets of acts to the one life history of “Daeng x Karaeng y”. This
procedure was facilitated by constructing genealogical diagrams which attempted
to situate individuals and their marriages in real time (e.g. Figure 1). For statistical
purposes the only relevant individuals are adults, here defined as those
individuals who cannot be shown to have died before reaching marriageable
age. Definite sub-adults were excluded, firstly because they would not normally
have attained their expectable titulation, and secondly because Gowa’s
“bureaucratic” posts were held only by adults. I then extracted those individuals
who could be paired with some adult next-of-kin of known sex and title —
291
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
whether as spouses, full siblings or parent-offspring. To these 545 individuals
I added a further 14 individuals, of unknown genealogical links, who held a
“bureaucratic” post (Bulbeck 1992). Various subsets of these 559 individuals
can then be employed according to the topic under review.
The skeletal royal genealogy shown here (Figure 1) is incomprehensible unless
the reader takes the time to understand my conventions. The symbols for
individuals are stretched between upper and lower points which represent dates
of birth and death. Marriages are shown by horizontal lines whose vertical
position marks when the marriage occurred. (Note that Figure 1 does not
distinguish between recorded dates and my estimates.) Sometimes the spouses
could not be juxtaposed and so the “lines of marriage” cross symbols standing
for other individuals, as indicated by the horizontal lines which intrude into a
symbol from either side. Individuals resulting from a depicted marriage are
joined by a vertical line to the line of marriage. When only one parent is depicted,
descent is shown by slanting lines, including slanted bifurcations for full siblings.
Secondly, my analysis relating marriage strategies to political change will
use the concept “lineage group” (see Map 1). These “lineage groups” constitute
a heuristic device for dividing up the world of socially significant individuals
as seen from the vantage of the Makassar royalty. The term is deliberately
ambiguous to accommodate status lineages within a descent group, descent
groups, and aggregates of descent groups.
Makassar Titles and Their Wider Equivalents
To understand greater Gowa’s socio-political organization we should first describe
the Makassar titulation system (Bulbeck 1992; cf. Mukhlis 1975 and
Röttger-Rössler 1989:45-46).
A. Areng kale — the personal name or birth name.
B. Areng padaengang — the “Daeng” title, virtually the highest title which a
commoner could receive but bestowed on aristocrats at an early age. Rarer
variants denoting a comparable status include the “Kare”, “Lokmok” and
“Gelarang” titles.
C. Areng pakkaraengang — the “Karaeng” title. This distinctly aristocratic title
could be translated as “chief”. Bugis equivalents included the “Arung” and
“Datu” titles.
D. Lesser raja titles. I use the term “raja” to distinguish the main chiefs who
exercised authority over a body of lesser chiefs. Even the lesser rajas (or
petty royalty) were recognized, at least theoretically, as independent
white-blooded rulers by the major kingdoms. Some lesser rajas were
distinguished by their titles, e.g. the Bugis Ratu who ruled Bulo-Bulo, and
the sixteenth century Makassar entitled Karaengloe (“great chief”), Somba
and Tumakgauka. Other lesser rajas belonged to historical dynasties, e.g.
292
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
Sanrabone, Maros (Bulbeck 1992), Siang (Pelras 1977), Agongnionjok
(Kallupa 1984), the “Limae Ajattappareng” confederation (Caldwell 1988),
and Laikang (cf. Kamaruddin et al. 1985-86:169; Andaya 1981:128, 137).
E. Greater raja titles. Three royal families — Luwuk, Gowa and Tallok —
became formal sultanates after voluntarily embracing Islam at the beginning
of the seventeenth century. Gowa’s lesser allies, Sanrabone and Bulo-Bulo,
did not become sultanates, indicating a distinction between the major and
the lesser pro-Gowa royalty. As for the three major Bugis agrarian kingdoms
— Bone, Soppeng and Wajok — they initially eschewed the title of sultan
for their ruler, presumably as a reaction to their forced conversion to Islam.
But the Bone and Soppeng rulers were undoubtedly on a par with the
sultans as shown by their triumph in the Makassar War.
Prior to Islamization, great Makassar rulers were distinguished by a nickname
(“Tu-” or “person”, followed by a passive verbal form) commemorating some
highlight of their reign. All of the late fifteenth to late sixteenth Gowa rulers
received such a nickname (apart from the deified Batara Gowa), as did some
Tallok, Maros and Sanrabone rulers (Figure 1). Analogously the Makassar royal
diary nicknames Bone’s Sultan Sahaduddin as “Tunisombaya” (Kamaruddin et
al. 1985-86). The only other person remembered by a nickname was Tuniawanga
ri Kalassakanna, the main wife of Sultan Abdullah, the latter arguably the highest
status Makassar man who ever lived.
The greater rajas, then, are the sultans, the rulers of Bone and Soppeng, and
the nicknamed individuals. The sultans also include, further afield, the
seventeenth century rulers of Bima and Sumbawa (Noorduyn 1987).
F. Tumenanga — the posthumous name. From at least the sixteenth century
various prominent Makassar individuals received a posthumous name which
usually indicated where they had died. These posthumous names reflect
historical prominence rather than socially sanctioned status (Bulbeck 1992)
and are not relevant here.
The Makassar titles were incremental, with duplications of titles as well as
higher titles reflecting enhanced status. E.g. Sultan Abdullah’s full name was
“Palakkaya I Malingkaeng I Daeng Mannyori Karaeng Matoaya Karaeng Kanjilo
Karaeng Segeri Sultan Abdullah Awalul Islam Tumenanga ri Agama Tumenanga
ri Bonto Biraeng” (Rahim and Ridwan 1975:14-15; Wolhoff and Abdurrahim
n.d.:70). To take a Bugis example, Sahaduddin’s full name was “La Tenritatta
Datu Mario ri Wawo Daeng Serang Arung Palakka Petta Malampéké Gemmekna
Tounruk [Tunisombaya] Sultan Sahaduddin Matinroe ri Bontoalak” (Andaya
1981:43-44).
The Makassar titles were often associated with place names within or near
my archaeological survey based in Gowa. Only one individual occupied any
293
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
toponymic title at any time, apart from occasional instances of husbands and
wives holding the same title. The frequency of toponymic association helps to
elucidate the titles, as can be shown by taking every title associated with every
Makassar individual within my database (see “Methodology”, p.288) — e.g.
Abdullah (Daeng Mannyori Karaeng Matoaya Karaeng Kanjilo Karaeng Segeri
Sultan Tallok) counts as five titles. The “Gelarang” title is idiosyncratic, so we
first consider the other titles shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Percentages of Makassar titles linked with toponyms
Males Females Both Sexes
Gelarang (6,0,6) 100.0 - 100.0
Kare (11,17,28) 0.0 5.9 3.6
Daeng (95,106,201) 14.7 22.6 19.9
Lokmok (0,23,23) - 26.1 26.1
Karaeng (138,91,229) 86.2 80.2 83.8
Lesser Raja (26,5,31) 100.0 60.0 93.5
Greater Raja (23,1,24) 100.0 0.0 95.8
N.B. The first figure inside the brackets shows the number of male titles, the second figure shows the
number of female titles, and the third figure shows the total cases. The Gelarang title departs from the
usual pattern (see text).
Several associated trends emerge. The higher the title, the greater the
proportion of male titulars, and the more frequent the association with a toponym.
Analogously, whereas women held lesser titles in association with a toponym
more frequently than men did, this relationship was reversed with the Karaengs.
Not only that, but all of the male rajas ruled a kingdom while half the female
rajas were honorary recipients.
Essentially, a lesser toponymic title merely linked the individual with some
community. Take for instance the “Lokmok” title, which was typically associated
with women of common origin who had acquired status as the secondary wife
of a raja and other high status man. All but one of the six associated toponyms
(cf. Table 1) refers to some wife of a Tallok raja and falls within the area which
he ruled (Bulbeck 1992). (Male Lokmok are not relevant here, because their
next-of-kin were never recorded and none held a “bureaucratic” post.)
Toponymic karaengships, on the other hand, identified the chiefs of
land-holding communities in the most densely populated areas. Thus Mukhlis
(1975:42-44, 64) states that the community was required to provide its Karaeng
with a suitable residence, manpower and the necessities of life. While the number
of female Karaengs rivalled the number of male Karaengs, the former were
associated with smaller karaengships such as places within palace centres, and
never with the largest and most populous karaengships such as Garassik and
Galesong (Bulbeck 1992).
The Gelarang present a complementary pattern. Originally these were the
nine district headmen who represented the Gowa populace in its dealings with
294
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
the raja, and constituted Gowa’s highest council of customary law (Mukhlis
1975). However, by the mid-sixteenth century a distinction had emerged between
the “inner Gelarang” (Mangasa and Tombolok) and the “outer Gelarang”. The
former were important officials who represented districts which also supported
Karaengs, while the latter represented the wider area which provided Gowa’s
surplus produce and deepest reservoir of manpower (Bulbeck 1992).
During the mid-sixteenth century Gowa also developed an exclusively male
“bureaucracy” of non-territorial posts, as detailed by Mukhlis (1975) and Bulbeck
(1992). The most important was the regency or Tumabicara Butta (TBB in Figure
1). Several regents were also rajas, and the long-serving regents all became greater
Gowa’s real authority. The other posts were originally held by prominent
commoners, but over time tended to be occupied by Karaengs. The Tumailalang
or Ministers for Internal Affairs were members of the central court who mediated
between Gowa’s council of customary law and the central court. The
Tumakkajannangngang or guildmaster headed the guilds which were responsible
for specialist crafts (e.g. construction and weaponry) and certain designated
duties. The harbourmaster was responsible for maintaining the security of the
Makassar entrepôt and collecting port duties.
Gowa (and later greater Gowa) thus had a male-dominated socio-political
structure linked across four substructures. The Gelarang represented a system
of agrarian administration which was in place before Gowa’s expansion. The
“bureaucrats” belonged to a state-sponsored administration postdating Gowa’s
initial expansion. The lesser territorial chiefs (toponymic Karaengs) managed
greater Gowa’s ongoing manpower requirements, usually but not necessarily
under the immediate jurisdiction of a raja. Individuals belonging to one or more
substructures were ranked within a single status hierarchy by means of the
Makassar titulatory system.
This status hierarchy could be extended to titled individuals from
non-Makassar polities by recognizing where they would rank within the
Makassar system. Accordingly foreign dignitaries could be received properly
and suitable marriages arranged with non-Makassar élite individuals.
Correlations in Titulation Across Next-Of-Kin
The interrelationship between nobility of birth and access to titles can be
explored by comparing titulation across next-of-kin. Here we consider the 545
Makassar and non-Makassar adults who could be paired with some next-of-kin
of known sex and title (see “Methodology”). After ranking the individuals
according to the highest title accredited to them in the records, we have 264
males and 281 females distributed across the titulatory ranks as shown in Table
2. The systematic bias against women in the titulatory stakes is even clearer here
than in Table 1.
295
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
Table 2. Cross-tabulation of titles against sex
Males Females Both Sexes
Rank 1 (Greater Rajas) 44 1 45
Rank 2 (Lesser Rajas) 35 6 41
Rank 3 (Karengs) 119 87 206
/ Daengs + Gelarang 39 79 118
Rank 4 — Kare 9 13 22
\ Lokmok 0 18 18
Rank 5 (Untitled) 18 77 95
Total 264 281 545
To compare titles across next-of-kin, we could use those shown in Table 2.
But to avoid the unnecessary multiplicity of categories, we pool the titles into
the broader ranks of rajas, Karaengs and non-chiefs (Tables 3-1 to 3-8). Ten main
points result.
1. Sons attained the rank of their father or a lesser rank, but a higher rank in
only 4/155 cases (Table 3-1).
2. Therefore the great majority of rajas belonged to unbroken royal patrilines
(see Figure 1), and the great majority of male Karaengs were sons of rajas
or male Karaengs.
3. Daughters generally attained a rank lower than their father’s (115/138 cases),
and attained a higher rank in only one case (Table 3-2).
4. Therefore the great majority of female Karaengs were daughters of rajas
(Table 3-2).
5. Sons usually attained the rank of their mother or a higher rank, and a lower
rank in only 10/103 cases (Table 3-3).
6. Ranks were equally distributed across mothers and daughters, with a weak
tendency for mothers and daughters to hold the same rank (Table 3-4).
7. Brothers’ ranks show virtually no correlation (Table 3-5).
296
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
Table 3. Comparisons of titulation across next-of-kin
3-1. FATHER IS
Raja Karaeng Non-chief Sum
S
O Raja 54 2 0 56
N Karaeng 30 36 2 68
Non-chief 17 12 2 31
I
S Sum 101 50 4 155
D 3-2. FATHER IS
A Raja Karaeng Non-chief Sum
U
G Raja 5 1 0 6
H Karaeng 54 10 0 64
T Non-chief 27 34 7 68
E
R Sum 86 45 7 138
3-3. MOTHER IS
Raja Karaeng Non-chief Sum
S
O Raja 8 13 13 34
N Karaeng 4 12 30 46
Non-chief 2 4 17 23
I
S Sum 14 29 60 103
D 3-4. MOTHER IS
A Raja Karaeng Non-chief Sum
U
G Raja 0 2 2 4
H Karaeng 7 26 19 52
T Non-chief 0 14 29 43
E
R Sum 7 42 50 99
3-5. BROTHER IS
B Raja Karaeng Non-chief Sum
R
O Raja 18 19 7 44
T Karaeng 19 18 12 49
H Non-chief 7 12 10 29
E
R Sum 44 49 29 122
3-6. BROTHER IS
Raja Karaeng Non-chief Sum
S
I Raja 1 0 0 1
S Karaeng 30 22 12 64
T Non-chief 3 25 10 38
E
R Sum 34 47 22 103
297
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
3-7. SISTER IS
Raja Karaeng Non-chief Sum
S
I Raja 0 1 0 1
S Karaeng 1 30 8 39
T Non-chief 0 8 24 32
E
R Sum 1 39 32 72
3-8. HUSBAND IS
W Raja Karaeng Non-chief Sum
I
F Raja 7 2 0 9
E Karaeng 49 50 2 101
Non-chief 76 76 43 185
I
S Sum 132 128 45 305
N.B. In these tables the summed figures show the number of cases of reconstructible relationships, not the
number of individuals involved in the comparison. The latter figure is less than the former except for
offspring who of course could have no more than one parent of any sex (Tables 3-1 to 3-4).
8. Sisters mostly attained a rank lower than their brothers’, and a higher rank
in only 12/103 cases (Table 3-6).
9. Sisters tended to attain the same rank (Table 3-7); indeed, as can be
demonstrated through formal statistical analysis (Bulbeck 1992), no other
next-of-kin showed such strong titular correlation.
10. Wives were either ranked below or at the same level as their husband, and
in only 4/305 cases did women marry a lower ranked man (Table 3-8). This
holds despite the high divorce rate which, along with the frequency of
marriages noted in the royal diary (Kamaruddin et al. 1985-86) between
individuals who are otherwise absent from the records, and the practice of
élite polygyny, explains why so many marriages are on record. (While
Tables 3-1 and 3-8 suggest 132 wives for 56 male rajas, and 128 wives for
68 male Karaengs, these totals understate the level of élite polygyny. This
is especially true for the rajas, many of whose wives went unnamed or were
even noted as too numerous to list.)
It is formally impossible that Tables 3-1 to 3-8 could describe a closed system.
As fathers, and to a lesser degree as husbands, rajas figure prominently, Karaengs
figure less prominently, and non-chiefs hardly at all. Yet as sons and as brothers
these three categories are similarly represented. This paradox rests on two points.
Rajas usually had many more wives (often of common origin) than the male
Karaengs did, and hence more offspring. Undoubtedly, also, male Karaengs had
more wives and offspring than male non-chiefs did. But the supporting evidence
is unavailable because the genealogical records hardly mention male non-chiefs
except in their capacity as sons of high status men. This brings us to the second
point; regardless of their birth, men who did not attain karaengships exited
298
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
beyond the pale of genealogical significance. And many well born sons failed
to earn high titles, explaining the lack of correlation between brothers’ titles.
The strong correlation between sisters’ titles agrees with the ethnographic
observation that women’s titles were strongly ascribed by birth. This might
appear to support the idea that women (as principal wives) tended to mark the
status which the husband attained, and that individuals inherited their nobility
(and hence their access to titles) fairly equally from both parents. But the highest
status, royal titles were usually restricted to patrilineal descendants, even if the
mother’s birth helped to rank candidates’ chances. Furthermore women were
systematically demoted compared to their male next-of-kin, so an equality of
titles between sisters had only loose implications for their husbands’ or sons’
titles. All in all, statistical analysis shows that the father’s title was between two
to three times more influential than the mother’s, regardless of the sex of the
offspring (Bulbeck 1992).
Horizontal Links Between the Royal Cores
While marriages were closely linked with political solidarity and alliance, political
considerations often changed rapidly and flexible marriage strategies had to be
followed. One component of this flexibility derived from the systematic demotion
of women’s status, so that even princesses could marry a wide range of aristocrats.
The other component stemmed from the Makassar’s eschewal of prescriptive or
preferential marriage, as indicated by the enormous sweep of consanguineal
relationships which, from my database, can be reconstructed between wives
and their related husbands.
Far more relationships trace their closest common ancestor through step
siblings born of a single polygynous man (Table 5) than to a conjugal pair (Table
4). Since divorces occurred frequently, we might expect that some of the
consanguineal spouses shared, as their single closest common ancestor, a woman
who mothered children to different men; but I could not find any examples.
Both points emphasize the structural importance of noble and especially royal
polygyny.
Because almost all male rajas belonged to an unbroken royal patriline, a mala
raja rarely married a related woman unless their closest common ancestry
involved one of the raja’s royal forefathers. 28/55 of the marriages between
recorded relations were of this type. The royal forefather was two generations
back on both sides in 13 cases and no more than three generations back on either
side in 23 cases. That is, the royal lines frequently intermarried (Figure 1) to
maintain their position as the ruling class distinct from the nobility. Men removed
from a royal core could strive to marry a raja’s daughter, but the enhancement
of their own prospects then became dependent on the authority of the daughter’s
299
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
royal core. The Malay ruling class maintained its central position in the same
way (Gullick 1958).
Table 4. Relationship of wife to her related husband (where a conjugal pair
forms the closest common ancestors)
HUSBAND IS Raja Raja Raja Raja Karaeng Karaeng Karaeng Sum
WIFE IS Raja Karaeng Daeng Untitled Karaeng Daeng Untitled
FZD & MBD 2 2
FZD 1 2 1 4
MBD 1 1 2
FBD 1 1 2 1 5
FBSD 1 1
FFBD 1 1
FFBSSD 1 1
MFMBSD 1 1
FFFZSDSD 1 1
Sum 2 8 3 1 2 1 1 18
N.B. The “FZD & MBD” relationship involved three common grandparents.
Table 5. Relationship of wife to her related husband (closest ancestry traced
via step siblings)
HUSBAND IS Raja Raja Karaeng Raja Raja Karaeng Karaeng Karaeng Sum
WIFE IS Raja Karaeng Raja Daeng Untitled Karaeng Daeng Untitled
FFDD & MFSD 1 1
FFDD 1 1
MFSD 1 1 2 1 5
FFSD 1 1 1 3
MFDD 1 1
FFFSD 1 1
FFSDD 1 1
FFSSD 1 1
FFDSD 1 1 2
FFDDD 1 1
FMFSD 1 1 2
FFFSSD 1 1
FFFSDD 1 1
FFFDSD 1 1 2
FFFDDD 1 1 2
FMFSSD 1 1
FMFSDD 1 1 2
FFFSSSD 1 1
FMFSSSD 1 1
MFFDSSD 1 1
FFMFSSSD 2 2
FFMFSSDD 1 1 2
FMFFDSSD 1 1
FMFFDSSSD 1 1
Sum 2 5 1 7 1 14 3 4 37
N.B. “FS” stands for father’s son’s, i.e. step-brother’s, and “FD” stands for father’s daughter’s, i.e.
step-sister’s. The “FFDD & MFSD” relationship involved two polygynous grandfathers as the equally
closest common ancestors.
300
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
Makassar Status Lineages
To summarize the foregoing, male patrilines constituted the vertical structure
within Makassar aristocratic genealogical space. Women of various origins
entered into the structure with increasing frequency towards the top. The
superfluous proportion of well-born sons were banished from contention. The
daughters generally entered into élite marriages, creating horizontal links within
the genealogical space. But these horizontal links supported rather than bound
the men at the top of the hierarchy.
Table 6. Status and patrilineality of male-dominated posts
% WHO WERE
SONS OF
TITLE-HOLDING
FATHER
TITLE HOLDER IS:
Lesser Raja Karaeng (%) Nonlord (%)
(%)
Greater Raja
(%)
Gowa Raja (n=15) 100 0 0 0 86.7
Tallok Raja (n=11) 81.8 18.2 0 0 81.8
Maros Raja (n=4) 50.0 50.0 0 0 75.0
88.9 or 55.6
(see below)
Sanrabone Raja (n=9) 27.3 72.7 0 0
Regent (n=7) 42.9 0 57.1 0 42.8
Tumailalang (n=14) 0 0 85.7 14.3 26.7
Guildmaster (n=4) 0 0 50.0 50.0 25.0
Harbourmaster (n=12) 0 0 16.7 83.3 0
N.B. These figures ignore inaugural occupants who obviously could not have inherited the post from
their father. Statistics for the Makassar thrones are taken from Figure 1, and count Batara Gowa (G7) as a
“greater raja”. The last three seventeenth century regents, and Gowa’s other non-territorial administrators,
are not shown in Figure 1 but are documented elsewhere (Bulbeck 1992).
Thus the Makassar élite practised a type of apical demotion which depended
structurally on patrilinealism and polygyny as élite privileges. To see how
privileged this patrilinealism was, consider the very strong association between
the status of a title (as measured by the status of the title holders) and the degree
to which the title was inherited patrilineally (Table 6). Far from being a principle
which included related individuals within a descent group, patrilineal descent
was used by a higher status lineage specifically to exclude related men whose
father belonged to a lesser lineage.
Just because a man was barred from membership within status lineages higher
than his father’s, this did not guarantee him automatic membership within his
father’s status lineage. On the contrary, apical demotion involves the continual
reassessment of “ascribed status” depending on achievement. A man who failed
to earn the required status lost his (potential) natal membership and either started
a new status lineage or married into a lesser status lineage.
To take the example of the sons of a Gowa (or other Makassar) raja, any son
who failed in the succession concurrently lost any direct claim on the title for
his sons, and so began a new patriline. Therefore the only men included in a
301
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
royal status lineage are those belonging to the patriline of rajas, including all
the installed brothers.
Furthermore, any man who failed to attain a karaengship virtually guaranteed
that his descendants would be banished to genealogical insignificance. So the
only men included in a noble status lineage linked to the Gowa royal line are
those who can trace a direct line of male Karaengs back to the son of a Gowa
raja. They could also have traced an ambilineal line of ancestry into other
lineages, but this would have been pointless since the Gowa royalty constituted
the highest status Makassar lineage. We would also expect the Gowa nobility
to exclude from their ranks any nobles directly descended from lines inferior
to Gowa’s, and this expectation is confirmed by the genealogical distribution of
the major noble titles (Figure 2).
Where do women fit into a genealogical system based essentially on men’s
titles? For two reasons I assign women to their father’s status lineage even if the
mother’s was higher. Firstly, the father’s title was the major influence on the
offspring’s title irrespective of gender, and the systematic demotion observed
in the opposite-sex next-of-kin comparisons held true between brothers and
sisters. Secondly, the notion that women should marry at their own level or
upwards implies that the husband enjoyed either equal or greater authority.
It is not even necessary to assume that daughters left their father’s status
lineage upon marriage. Indeed the frequency of divorces, and the occasional
instances of women marrying within their own status lineage (Bulbeck 1992),
suggest that many women never did. However, the offspring were born within
their father’s status lineage, either as potential members in the case of boys, or
as members to be strategically married in the case of girls. This and the other
points discussed above will become clearer during the description of my 17
“lineage groups” (see Map 1) and the associated status lineages.
Makassar Lineage Groups
Gowa Core. All of the sixteenth and seventeenth century Gowa rajas (plus
their daughters).
Gowa Nobility. All of the Karaengs (plus their daughters) patrilineally
descended from a Gowa raja. Whether we consider them a single status lineage
or a group of closely related status lineages is irrelevant. The important point is
that their fortunes closely followed those of the Gowa royalty (see below).
Tallok Core. All of the sixteenth and seventeenth century male Tallok rajas,
plus their daughters (including Tallok’s only queen), but excluding Tunipasuluk
(G13/T6/m5 in Figure 1) who belonged to the Gowa core. Tallok’s origins would
make Tallok a branch within the Gowa nobility (Figure 1) except that the Tallok
core constituted an independent line of rajas.
302
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
Figure 2. Schematic representation of Greater Gowa’s organization.
Tallok Nobility. See “Gowa Nobility” above.
Gelarang. Previously I had discussed the Gelarang in relation to Gowa, but
a similar arrangement also existed in Tallok. The texts occasionally mention
marriages involving the families of the Gowa or Tallok Gelarang. These are
pooled into a “Gelarang” group for convenience since I have no data on their
descent principles.
Garassik. The earliest detailed Makassar historical accounts identify Garassik
as a former port-polity which had been reduced to a patch of prime real estate
by the early sixteenth century (see “Background to Gowa”). Garassik first lost
its independence after an unnamed daughter (“?” in Figure 1) of Somba Garassik
(g1) married Batara Gowa (G7) and gave birth to a Gowa noble who later ruled
Garassik (g2, i.e. Karaeng Barataua Karaeng Garassik). Before losing its
independence Garassik was also involved in some other marriage exchanges
(Table 7). After the late sixteenth century the Garassik karaengship came to be
held by one Tallok noble and various Gowa nobles.
Polombangkeng. Polombangkeng had consisted of an umbrella of seven
“brother kings” headed by Bajeng and including Jamarang, Mandallek,
Katingang, Jipang, Sanrabone and Lengkesek. The west Polombangkeng members
— Katingang, Jipang, Sanrabone and Lengkesek — were punished by Gowa
during the mid-sixteenth century for having earlier assisted Tallok’s unsuccessful
attempt to retake Garassik from Gowa (Bulbeck 1992). At around this juncture
Jamarang, Mandallek and Katingang were also involved in documented marriages
with Gowa and with certain local Makassar karaengships. Circumstantial evidence
suggests that these three Polombangkeng polities then supported patrilineal
303
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
cores, even if they were also attached to Bajeng as their central royal line (Bulbeck
1992).
Sanrabone. Although originally one of the west Polombangkeng polities
humiliated by Gowa in the mid-sixteenth century, in the late sixteenth century
Sanrabone rose to fill the power vacuum created by the demise of Bajeng.
Sanrabone retained its prominence until the death of Tumenanga ri Campagana
(s6 in Figure 1) in 1642. The next two Sanrabone rulers died within five years,
amidst such chaos that two quite different successions appear equally possible
from the records (Bulbeck 1992). In one interpretation, rulership first passed to
Campagana’s full brother Karaeng Bambanga (s7?), and then patrilineally from
Campagana to his son Tumenanga ri Buttana (s8?) and grandson Puanna Jenalak
(s9). In the other interpretation rulership passed to Campagana’s daughter
Karaenga Pucu (s7?) and to her son Karaeng Banyuanyarak (s8?) before passing
back to Puanna Jenalak (s9). Anyway, Puanna Jenalak was expelled in 1658.
After an interregnum lasting a decade, Karaeng Campagaya (later Sultan Abdul
Jalil), the son of Gowa’s Sultan Hasanuddin (G16/TBB4) by the daughter of
Karaeng Banyuanyarak, was installed as Sanrabone’s raja (Figure 1). Hitherto
Sanrabone had supported a royal patrilineal core, even if chaos in the 1640s
conceivably led to some irregular appointments and ultimately to Sanrabone’s
absorption by Gowa.
Minor Makassar. The records are dotted with references to marriages
involving local Makassar nobility or petty Makassar royalty not descended from
the major lines (Bulbeck 1992). These include Anak Sappuk, Bangkala,
Kasuarrang, Bungaya, Beroanging, Laikang, Batu-Batu, Pattung and seventeenth
century Mandallek (Map 1), as well as three which cannot be unambiguously
located (Paria, Pabolik and Bontomanaik). I have only the sketchiest data on the
succession to these karaengships, none of which forms a cohesive unit of analysis
by itself. They can be pooled for present purposes.
Pattekne. The title of Karaeng Pattekne recurs throughout the records and
so Pattekne stands apart from the other minor noble Makassar lines. From the
late sixteenth century the title was held by men, apparently not descended from
the major lines, who furthermore held one stream of the Tumailalang posts until
the mid-seventeenth century (Bulbeck 1992).
Maros. The short dynasty of autonomous Maros rulers, plus their daughters
(Figure 1). The last of the dynasty, Tunikakassang (m4), reportedly had no
offspring. He died an old man and so probably outlived anyone else within the
core. When the Gowa king Tunijallok defeated Maros during Tunikakassang’s
reign, he struck a treaty whereby Tunijallok’s descendants would rule Maros
while Tunikakassang’s “descendants” (presumably his nephews and their
descendants) would hold the post of Gowa Tumailalang. Tunijallok’s son
304
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
Tunipasuluk (G13/T6/m5) briefly occupied the Maros throne before Tallok’s
palace revolution expelled him in 1593 (Bulbeck 1992).
Lekokbodong. After Tunipasuluk, Maros failed to recover its former status as
an independent kingdom. But a status lineage or group of related lineages based
in Maros apparently gained major factional status within greater Gowa. A clutch
of men held the recurring karaengships of Cenrana and Lekokbodong, as well
as one and later two streams of the Tumailalang posts. Where it can be followed,
the succession of these titles resembles the succession of the Kasepekang titles
(cf. Rössler 1987 and Röttger-Rössler 1989). Kamaruddin et al. (1985-86) retain
the name “Maros” for this noble house, but I prefer “Lekokbodong” to
distinguish it from its predecessor.
Minor Bugis. Various minor Bugis kingdoms were fleetingly involved in
marital exchanges recorded in the Makassar texts (Bulbeck 1992). They are Siang
(c.1500), Suppak and Lamuru (sixteenth century), Segeri (early seventeenth
century) later called Agongnionjok (late seventeenth century), and Siang, Barru,
Sawitto and Sidenreng (late seventeenth century).
Bulo-Bulo. Also a minor Bugis kingdom, Bulo-Bulo had a special status owing
to its location due south of Bone. Greater Gowa and its allies propped up
Bulo-Bulo as a means of containing any southward expansion by Bone (Bulbeck
1992).
Luwuk. During greater Gowa’s period of hegemony in South Sulawesi affairs,
two of the major Bugis kingdoms, Luwuk and Wajok, were allied with Gowa.
Only Luwuk is considered here because Wajok fails to appear in the genealogical
records (Bulbeck 1992).
Soppeng/Bone-Soppeng. Prior to 1667 Gowa took a few wives from Soppeng
(Bulbeck 1992). Bone and Soppeng jointly spearheaded the 1667 assault on
Makassar, after which point Bone set about absorbing the Soppeng rulership
(Bulbeck 1990). So for our purposes Bone and Soppeng can be grouped for the
period after 1667, and made to include the major Bone “Arung” (Maroanging,
Tanete and Teko) and Soppeng “Datu” (Belo).
Eastern Indonesia. Bima and Sumbawa, as well as some nearby kingdoms,
were defeated at various times by greater Gowa between 1616 and 1626. After
some revolts in the early 1630s, Bima and Sumbawa entered into regular marriages
with the various factions of greater Gowa from 1646 onwards. The only recorded
bride exchange involving Ternate occurred in 1672 when I Asseng, a daughter
of Malikussaid (G15), married the Ternate sultan (Bulbeck 1992). All of these
data are here grouped into “Eastern Indonesia”.
Having defined our lineage groups, we can now relate the politics of élite
marriage to (greater) Gowa’s political history. While the categories “wife givers”
and “wife takers” are inappropriate for the Makassar system (Fox pers.comm.),
305
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
nonetheless we are still dealing with groups of related men who perpetuated
their status lineage by attracting wives from other groups of related men.
Marriage strategies can therefore be shown by cross-tabulating the father’s and
husband’s lineage groups. Chronologically the marriages can be grouped
according to the three major phases of Gowa’s history during the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries (Tables 7 to 9).
Gowa’s Initial Expansion (c.1500-1593)
In the early sixteenth century Gowa was merely one of the chiefdoms located
in South Sulawesi’s southwest corner. After the mid-sixteenth century Gowa
expanded southwards to incorporate the northern two-thirds of Polombangkeng.
When Tunipasuluk (G13/T6/m5) briefly occupied the Tallok and Maros thrones
between 1590 and 1593, he commanded the largest area ever directly ruled by
Gowa.
Until 1593 the great majority of the recorded marriages involved Makassar
polities, and one Bugis polity (Siang), located within the southwest corner of
South Sulawesi. The notable rôle played by the (Gowa) Gelarang highlights the
restricted geographical range of the marriages (Table 7). True, four royal and
noble women from Bugis kingdoms north of Siang married Gowa royalty (Table
7), but no offspring resulted (Bulbeck 1992).
Most of the marriages which I recorded between close relatives descended
from a conjugal pair (Table 4) resulted from the series of royal marriages between
Gowa and Tallok during the early to middle sixteenth century (see Figure 1).
These marriages bound the fortunes of the Gowa and Tallok royalty, but at
Tallok’s peril since the number of princesses provided by Tallok was not
reciprocated by Gowa (Table 7). When the Tallok raja Tumenanga ri Makkoayang
(T4/TBB1) died in 1577, his only adult descendants were two daughters both
married to the Gowa raja Tunijallok (G12). (One of the daughters, Karaeng
Batu-Batu [e], may have already died, but this does not affect the argument.)
Unless Tallok were to install an immature incumbent, the throne had to pass to
a wife of Tunijallok. The woman appointed, Karaeng Bainea (T5), produced nine
offspring but little evidence of government independent from her husband
(Bulbeck 1992). Tallok was no longer in the position to exclude these offspring
from the Tallok core on the basis of lacking patrilineal membership, because
Tallok had become a lesser status lineage compared to Gowa. Consequently the
first born son of Tunijallok and Karaeng Bainea, Tunipasuluk, claimed the Tallok
throne while patrilineally inheriting the Gowa throne.
The growing status of the Gowa royalty compared to Tallok is clear from the
number of brides taken by the Gowa royalty, accounting for over half of the
marriages between lineage groups (Table 7). Moreover the Makassar lineage
groups which produced rather than attracted wives came to fall within Gowa’s
306
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
domain. These include Garassik, an early source of brides; and Jamarang and
Katingang (here included within Polombangkeng) which had provided Gowa
with several royal brides. In contrast Sanrabone and Pattekne attracted wives
and survived as status lineages into the seventeenth century (Tables 7 to 9).
The Golden Period of Greater Gowa (1593-1667)
Greater Gowa’s heyday began in 1593 when Karaeng Matoaya (T7/TBB2), or
Abdullah as he was later called, instigated the palace revolution which expelled
Tunipasuluk. Because his father had been Gowa regent as well as king of Tallok
(Figure 1), Abdullah had a direct claim both on Tallok and the regency. His
fellow conspirators also joined the confederated power structure which blossomed
particularly during the mid-seventeenth century reigns of Malikussaid and
Hasanuddin (Reid 1987; Bulbeck 1992).
During the period, marriages involved a wide geographical range of lineage
groups (Table 8), reflecting greater Gowa’s expanded sphere of political influence.
Included are Gowa’s eastern Indonesian allies of Bima and Sumbawa, and Gowa’s
Bugis allies on the east coast, Bulo-Bulo and Luwuk. The Gelarang now hardly
figured at all.
Greater Gowa’s decentralized power structure is clearly reflected in the
marriage patterns. The Gowa, Tallok and Lekokbodong nobilities now took a
prominent part, while the frequency of daughter exchanges between the Gowa
royalty and other lineage groups was reciprocal overall. Indeed the Tallok royalty
provided rather than attracted wives; and by the end of the period the rulers of
Gowa (Hasanuddin) and Tallok (Harrunarasyid) both had mothers whose common
origin is revealed by their “Lokmok” title.
Sanrabone lost its independence during this period. Sanrabone had attracted
wives during the reigns of Parallekkena (s5) and Campagana (s6), but then
provided wives leading up to and during the period of chaotic succession in
Sanrabone discussed above. This change is not apparent from the figures in
Table 8 which are aggregated to reflect the political situation in greater Gowa
rather than Sanrabone. Note that the Gowa prince who absorbed the Sanrabone
throne, s10/G19 (later Sultan Abdul Jalil), was either the matrilateral grandson
or matrilateral great grandson of a Sanrabone raja (depending on how we interpret
Sanrabone’s mid-seventeenth century succession). He could claim the Sanrabone
throne based on his descent from a woman either right within or one step
removed from the royal Sanrabone core.
The Survivors (Post-1667)
Our third period began when Bone and Soppeng, the two important Bugis
kingdoms which suffered most under greater Gowa, joined forces with the VOC.
The allies occupied Makassar in 1667 and destroyed Gowa’s entrepôt palace of
307
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
Somba Opu in 1669. In 1677 the Bone leader Sultan Sahaduddin finally snuffed
out all resistance when he occupied Gowa itself. Until his death in 1696, he
continued to combine diplomacy and thuggery in monopolizing power within
South Sulawesi affairs to an unprecedented degree. Sahaduddin himself was
childless but before his death chose a successor in his nephew Alimuddin, who
along with his offspring maintained Bone’s pre-eminence in local politics until
the mid-eighteenth century (Andaya 1981; Bulbeck 1990).
After the Makassar War, greater Gowa virtually ceased attracting women
from external status lineages and instead provided wives (Table 9). Greater
Gowa’s Bugis ally, Bulo-Bulo, which was immediately absorbed by Bone after
the Makassar War (Andaya 1981), falls in the same pattern. The Bugis kingdoms
which greater Gowa had previously dominated, some of whom had also provided
greater Gowa with wives, now married greater Gowa’s daughters (Table 9). In
accordance with Sahaduddin’s pre-eminence, Bone was dominant, but Soppeng,
Siang, Agongnionjok, Sawitto and Sidenreng also drew wives from greater Gowa.
So did the eastern Indonesian sultanates, now including Ternate.
Marriage patterns within greater Gowa reflect the reorganization of its internal
power structure. The Gowa royalty and nobility provided wives while the Tallok
royalty and especially Lekokbodong attracted wives. The Tallok nobility was
especially active in both spheres (Table 9). The last point identifies the Tallok
nobility as greater Gowa’s “power broker”, a rôle centred on Karaeng Karunrung
(TBB6 in Figure 1) who was then the regent and the single most powerful
Makassar man. Thus after the Tallok sultan Harrunarasyid fled in the wake of
Gowa’s 1677 military debâcle, Karaeng Karunrung managed to maintain the
royal Tallok patriline by installing the boy sultan Abdul Kadir (Andaya 1981;
Patunru 1983).
Gowa’s eclipse and the rise of Tallok and Lekokbodong reflect the
specializations of the various factions within greater Gowa. As detailed elsewhere
(Bulbeck 1992) territorial control was primarily the province of Gowa, whereas
the noble administrative posts were mostly vested in Tallok and Lekokbodong
(Figure 2). The Makassar War and its aftermath grievously diminished the area
under greater Gowa’s jurisdiction, but without simplifying greater Gowa’s
administration (Bulbeck 1992). Consequently Gowa had become largely redundant
to the survival of an organization whose strength now lay in its capacity to
accommodate the new territorial overlords, Bone and the VOC.
308
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
Table 7. Sixteenth Century Marriages Between Lineage Groups
Husband’s Lineage Group
Soppeng TOTAL
Minor
Pattekne Maros Bugis
Minor
Garassik Gelarang Polom-bangkeng Sanrabone Makassar
Tallok
Core
Gowa
Nobles
Gowa
Core
Father’s Lineage Group
Gowa Core 2 2 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 11
Gowa Nobility 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tallok Core 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Garassik 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Gelarang 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Polombangkeng 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 11
Sanrabone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minor Makassar 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Pattekne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maros 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Minor Bugis 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Soppeng 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
TOTAL 23 3 9 0 1 2 1 4 1 1 0 0 45
309
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
Table 8. Marriages Between Lineage Groups c.1593-1667
Husband’s Lineage Group
TOTAL
Eastern
Soppeng Indonesia
Minor
Bulo-Bulo Luwuk Bugis
Minor
Gelarang Pattekne Lekokbodong Sanrabone Makassar
Tallok
Nobles
Tallok
Core
Gowa
Nobles
Gowa
Core
Father’s Lineage Group
Gowa Core 0 2 1 3 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 2 14
Gowa Nobility 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Tallok Core 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 9
Tallok Nobility 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 6
Gelarang 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Pattekne 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Lekokbodong 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5
Sanrabone 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
Minor Makassar 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Bulo-Bulo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Luwuk 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Minor Bugis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Soppeng 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Eastern Indo. 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
TOTAL 14 7 3 9 0 1 4 3 4 4 1 0 0 4 54
310
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
Table 9. Post-1667 Marriages Between Lineage Groups
Husband’s Lineage Group
TOTAL
Eastern
Bone-Soppeng Indonesia
Minor
Bulo-Bulo Luwuk Bugis
Minor
Lekokbodong Makassar
Tallok
Tallok Core Nobles
Gowa
Gowa Core Nobles
Father’s Lineage Group
Gowa Core 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 3 4 2 16
Gowa Nobility 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
Tallok Core 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 4
Tallok Nobility 2 0 1 4 2 1 0 0 2 5 0 17
Lekokbodong 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 5
Minor Makassar 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 5
Bulo-Bulo 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Luwuk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Minor Bugis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Bone-Soppeng 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Eastern Indo. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
TOTAL 3 2 4 8 7 4 0 1 7 14 4 54
311
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
The rot set in Gowa’s succession when Hasanuddin (G16/TBB4) abdicated
after the destruction of Somba Opu. His chosen successor, Amir Hamzah (G17),
died in 1674. Amir Hamzah’s half brother, Muhammad Ali (G18), was expelled
following Sahaduddin’s occupation of Gowa in 1677. Stability was restored only
when Muhammad Ali’s full brother, Abdul Jalil (s10/G19), accepted Gowa’s
reduced status as the necessary price (Bulbeck 1990).
Furthermore, Hasanuddin’s three successors either died as young adults or
were constrained from taking many wives. They produced few children, none
of them a son who survived to maturity (Figure 1). Amir Hamzah was childless.
Muhammad Ali left two daughters, one of whom (Karaeng Parang-Parang, “k”)
married the Tallok Sultan Abdul Kadir (T11) and gave birth to Tallok’s Sultan
Sirajuddin (T12/G21). Abdul Jalil’s only mature child, Karaeng Pattukangang
(1), married Sahaduddin’s chosen successor Alimuddin (B16/S17). As the (adopted)
son of a Soppeng female raja, Alimuddin later absorbed the Soppeng rule. His
three sons by Karaeng Pattukangang serially ruled Bone, and two also came to
rule Soppeng (Bulbeck 1990).
When Abdul Jalil died in 1709, Hasanuddin’s other sons were either dead
or close to death, and Gowa’s surviving princesses were aged (Bulbeck 1992).
The Gowa royalty was vanquished as a patrilineal core and had to include
princesses’ sons. As South Sulawesi’s most powerful lineage, Bone-Soppeng
forced its claims, and Sultan Ismail (B19/S19/G20) ruled Gowa as the first of his
three royal titles. But Bone-Soppeng’s authority waned with the approaching
death of Alimuddin. In 1714 Ismail was forced to abdicate in favour of Karaeng
Parang-Parang’s daughter, Sirajuddin (T12/G21). Thus the Tallok Sultan
Sirajuddin, as a matrilateral grandson within the Gowa royal core from a higher
status lineage, ultimately absorbed the Gowa rulership within the Tallok royalty
(Bulbeck 1992).
Sirajuddin was preferred over Ismail because a Makassar royal constituted a
far more palatable ruler of Gowa than a Bugis royal did (Patunru 1983:76). A
fuller explanation notes the depth of Sirajuddin’s ties with the Gowa royalty,
compared to Ismail’s which extended back only a generation (Figure 1). Further,
very many Makassar nobles were related one way or another to Sirajuddin, and
the late seventeenth century flurry of marriages between Bone-Soppeng and
greater Gowa was inadequate to repair the difference. This point highlights a
key strength of the bilateral component of élite Makassar kinship. Usurpation
of a royal title from above could be briefly successful, but it could only be
sustained if the appropriate breadth and depth of relationships with the subjects
were also established.
312
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
Conclusions
Statistical analysis of the data clarifies the nature and transmission of élite
Makassar titles during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The results
strikingly resemble those obtained by Palmier (1969) for traditional Java and
Gullick (1958) for the western Malaysian states. But the closest parallel comes
from the system documented by Rössler (1987) and Röttger-Rössler (1989) for
the Kasepekang Konjo. Moreover our sparser data sets, such as those pertaining
to Polombangkeng and Lekokboding, invoke the Konjo model, even if the
available details are inadequate for rigorous comparisons.
The key institutions were the bilateral descent groups composed of
descendants of the inaugurators of hereditary titles. The most powerful of these
were associated with a royal title closely guarded by a patrilineal core. Royal
polygyny at the centre generated a bank of potential princes who ensured
uninterrupted patrilineal passage of the title. Ipso facto it also generated
unsuccessful candidates who, along with their patrilineal descendants, maintained
a recognized place within the bilateral descent group if they achieved a
karaengship. The more powerful the patrilineal royalty, the larger its following
of attached noble patrilines. In short, securing the patrilineal succession
stimulated political expansion, to such a degree that the power of any monarch
was closely related to his number of wives.
Royal polygyny also generated a bank of princesses who tended to marry
other royal lines and entrench the royalty’s genealogical distinctiveness. Yet
because these daughters’ status was systematically downgraded, they could also
marry nobles either attached to some royal patriline or descended from local
status lineages. This did not create any dangers for the royal patriline as long
as it kept its position of power. The offspring from these marriages were simply
not admitted into the royal core.
If the system excluded by patrilineal descent towards the centre, it also
included by bilateral descent towards the peripheries. Men from a higher status
lineage could attach themselves to a wife from a lower status lineage, and the
offspring could then belong to the wife’s group. (Hence the indigenous view
which derives the nobility from the marriage between commoners and
descendants of the Tomanurung.) This privilege allowed the powerful lineages
to dump their superfluous proportion of well-born men towards the margins.
The men then held exalted positions within their group (witness Daeng Bunding
in Kasepekang) which enjoyed greater prestige because of its attachment towards
the centre. The privilege also allowed a powerful royal patriline to absorb
territorial titles previously belonging to autonomous patrilines. The powerful
royal retained his membership within his natal group while his wife, as the
princess from the weaker line, transmitted the right of office to her husband
through marriage, or to their sons through bilateral descent. (Note that the Konjo
313
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
did not permit men this right of affiliation or membership within two cores
[Rössler 1987:65], but the Gowa royalty did not observe this nicety during their
territorial expansion.)
In a very practical sense the king was the husband of his realm (cf. Jordaan
and de Josselin de Jong 1985). The legitimacy of his control derived from his
marriages, or those of his direct ancestors, to princesses within the cores of the
subjugated domains. So during 1500-1593 the Gowa royalty attracted status
wives from those areas which Gowa came to rule. The territorial ambitions of
the Gowa royalty, and its ability to draw status wives, were then contained until
the mid-seventeenth century when Gowa legitimately absorbed Sanrabone. With
the loss of Gowa’s subjugated lands after 1667, Gowa now became “wife” to the
two powerful royal lineages in Makassar, Bone-Soppeng and Tallok.
Makassar remained as South Sulawesi’s effective capital after the eclipse of
the Gowa patriline. The most prestigious title, the rulership of Gowa, was
absorbed by Tallok as the most powerful Makassar line. Sirajuddin’s ascendancy,
which bequeathed a disputed succession until his direct descendants finally
monopolized the Gowa rulership late in the nineteenth century (see Patunru
1983:76-99), is not conventionally registered as a dynastic change (e.g. Patunru
1983). In the sense that the disputed succession involved closely related Makassar
lineages, and that Tallok’s origins are ultimately one with Gowa’s (Figure 1),
there was indeed no dynastic change. Thus the principle of bilateral membership
not only allowed the legitimate passage of authority between peer patrilines, it
also tended to ensure continuity of social organization by resisting unrelated
factions. Analysis along these lines may help to explain why western Indonesian
(and Southeast Asian) political history suggests a multiplicity of “dynasties”
centred in comparatively few heartlands and often showing strong cross-dynasty
continuity.
Acknowledgments
Campbell Macknight and Peter Bellwood have unstintingly provided incisive
supervision. P.E. de Josselin de Jong, Tony Reid, Jos Platenkamp and Ian
Caldwell have assisted me with their comments, contacts, and copies of relevant
papers. In particular I thank Jim Fox and Clifford Sather who perceived the
potential of my initial analysis and guided it towards a product which (I hope)
qualifies as sound anthropology.
References
Acciaioli, Gregory L.
1989 Searching for good fortune: the making of a Bugis shore community at
Lake Lindu, Central Sulawesi. PhD thesis, The Australian National University.
314
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
Andaya, Leonard Y.
1981 The heritage of Arung Palakka. A history of South Sulawesi (Celebes) in
the seventeenth century. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Bulbeck, F. David
1986-87 Survey of open archaeological sites in South Sulawesi 1986-1987.
Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 7:36-50.
1990 The landscape of the Makassar War. Canberra Anthropology 13(1):78-99.
1992 A tale of two kingdoms. The historical archaeology of Gowa and Tallok,
South Sulawesi, Indonesia. PhD thesis, The Australian National University.
Caldwell, Ian A.
1988 South Sulawesi AD 1300-1600: ten Bugis texts. PhD thesis, The Australian
National University.
Cense, A.A.
1966 Old Buginese and Macassarese diaries. Bijdragen van het Koninklijk Instituut
122:416-428.
Chabot, Henri T.
1950 Verwantschap, stand en sexe in Zuid-Celebes. Groningen: J.B. Wolters.
English translation by R. Neuse (1960) Kinship, status and sex in South
Celebes. New Haven: Human Relations Area Files.
Fox, James J.
1971 A Rotinese dynastic genealogy: structure and event. In T.O. Beidelman
(ed.) The translation of culture. London: Tavistock.
1995 Austronesian societies and their transformations. In Peter Bellwood,
James J. Fox and Darrell Tryon (eds) The Austronesians: historical and
comparative perspectives, pp.214-228. Canberra: Research School of Pacific
and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.
Friedericy, H.J.
1933 De standen bij de Boegineezen en Makassaren. Bijdragen tot de Taal-,
Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch Indiè 90:447-602.
Grimes, Charles E. and Barbara D. Grimes
1987 Languages of South Sulawesi. Pacific Linguistics Series D No. 78. Canberra:
Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, The
Australian National University.
Gullick, J.M.
315
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi
1958 Indigenous political systems of western Malaya. Revised edition 1988.
London: Athlone Press.
Jordaan, R.E. and P.E. de Josselin de Jong
1985 Sickness as a metaphor in Indonesian political myths. Bijdragen tot de
Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 141:253-274.
Josselin de Jong, P.E. de
1980 Ruler and realm: political myths in western Indonesia. Mededelingen der
Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde
n.s. 43(1):3-19.
Kallupa, Bahru
1984 Laporan pengumpulan data peninggalan sejarah dan purbakala di Kabupaten
Barru. Ujung Pandang: Suaka Peninggalan Sejarah dan Purbakala Sulawesi
Selatan.
Kamaruddin, H.D. Mangemba, P. Parawansa and M. Mappaseleng
1985-86 Lontarak Bilang raja Gowa dan Tallok (naskah Makassar). Ujung
Pandang: Proyek Penelitian dan Pengkajian Kebudayaan Sulawesi Selatan
LaGaligo.
Millar, S.B.
1989 Bugis weddings. Rituals of social location in modern Indonesia. University
of California at Berkeley Monograph Series No. 29. Berkeley: Center for
South and Southeast Asian Studies.
Mukhlis
1975 Struktur birokrasi kerajaan Gowa jaman pemerintahan Sultan Hasanuddin
(1653-1669). Yogyakarta: Sarjana thesis, Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Noorduyn, J.
1987 Bima en Sumbawa. Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van de sultanaten Bima
en Sumbawa door A. Ligtvoet en G.P. Rouffaer. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Palmier, Leslie H.
1969 Social status and power in Java (corrected edition). London: Athlone
Press.
Patunru, Abd Razak Daeng
1983 Sejarah Gowa. Ujung Pandang: Yayasan Kebudayaan Sulawesi Selatan
di Makassar.
Pelras, Christian
316
Origins, Ancestry and Alliance
1977 Les premières données occidentales concernant Célèbes-sud. Bijdragen
tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 133:227-260.
Rahim, A. and B. Ridwan
1975 Sejarah kerajaan Tallo’ (suatu transkripsi lontara’). Ujung Pandang:
Kantor Cabang II Lembaga Sejarah dan Antropologi.
Reid, Anthony
1983 The rise of Makassar. Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs 17:117-
160.
1987 Pluralism and progress in seventeenth century Makassar. Paper
presented at the Leiden workshop “Trade, society and belief in South
Sulawesi”. MS.
1988 Southeast Asia in the age of commerce. Vol. 1: The lands below the winds.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rössler, Martin
1987 Die soziale Realität des Rituals. Kontinuität und Wandel bei den Makassar
von Gowa (Süd-Sulawesi/Indonesien). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
Röttger-Rössler, Birgitt
1989 Rang und Ansehen bei den Makassar von Gowa (Süd-Sulawesi/Indonesien).
Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
Wolhoff, G.J. and Abdurrahim
n.d.
c.1959 Sedjarah Goa. Makassar (Ujung Pandang): Jajasan Kebudayaan Sulawesi
Selatan dan Tenggara.
317
The Politics of Marriage and the Marriage of Polities in Gowa, South Sula Wesi