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.

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.

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).

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 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).