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.
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 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 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.), 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).