What are known in the historical literature as ‘kingdoms’, to Balinese as kerajaan and to some writers (Geertz 1983; Schulte-Nordholt 1996) as negara, were indeed a form of trans-desa politico-ritual organisation, albeit imposed from the top down and fluid and unstable at the best of times. They were, however, based on an (at least implicit) ideology of ‘ritual domains’. This ideology is re-packaged in Indic political-religious thought, embedded architecturally in the forms of centric mandala village plans and linguistically in terms such as jagat (‘world/universe’) and bhumi, but what gives such legitimating power to this ideology is the fact that it resonates with older Balinese ideas of what I call niskala landscape. These seem to me to be not unlike the ideas embedded in the banua of highland Bali: ‘sacred landscapes inscribed by a continuing history of human action and re-inscribed through narrative and ritual performances’ (Reuter, this volume). Let us consider briefly the history of Negara Ubud in this light.
In the orthodox history of Bali, Ubud was a minor puri, at best secondary to the eight subdued by the Dutch and subsequently immortalised as modern administrative districts (kabupaten). [29] In fact, at the time of the Dutch takeover, the ruler (punggawa) of Ubud was arguably the most powerful person in this part of Bali (A. Agung 1991: 134; Mahaudiana 1968: 97; Vickers 1989: 75, 140). Together with his allies, he controlled a vast tract of land between the Rivers Ayung and Petanu, from the coast at Ketewel to near Taro in the mountains.
Puri Ubud’s claim to this area was, and still is, made firstly on the basis of descent from the former kingdom of Sukawati, which, from the early 18th century held nominal jurisdiction over the entire land between the Ayung and Pakerisan rivers, from the sea to Mt Batur (G. Agung 1983; Sanggra 1971). This jurisdiction was based not on conquest or physical occupation, but on transactions with the invisible custodians of this territory: it was, in other words, essentially a niskala domain rather than a political one. [30] Because of the subsequent dissolution of Sukawati and absorption of its scattered satellite puri into the emergent kingdom of Gianyar in the late 18th century, the Sukawati descendants had to wait more than a century and resort to warfare to reclaim their inheritance in political or sekala form.
This occurred in a confused series of rebellions within and wars between kingdoms towards the end of the 19th century. In the midst of this turmoil, the Prince of Ubud and his neighbouring relatives combined forces to take control of much of this territory in 1891 (A. Agung 1991; G. Agung 1983; Mahaudiana 1968: 82-85; Sanggra 1971). The details of the subsequent redistribution of land are not entirely clear but Ubud, as the strongest (if not senior) partner in the alliance, gained control of the western half of the Wos Valley from the sea to around Bresela. [31] This formed the basis of an area over which Puri Ubud held power until Gianyar came under Dutch protection in 1900 and, even after this, a residue of political-economic and moral-spiritual authority, which is by no means defunct today.
The ruler of Ubud played an important role in the King of Gianyar’s decision to place the kingdom under Dutch protection, and throughout the colonial period members of Puri Ubud successfully cultivated relationships of mutual benefit with the Dutch (Hilbery 1979; Schulte-Nordholt 1996: 200; Vickers 1989: 140). They also cultivated relationships with other foreigners, which were to provide the contacts, reputation and skills on which the tourist industry was subsequently built (MacRae 1992; Vickers 1989: 140-2). Although the relationship between puri and people remained close, with puri members assuming active roles in government (dinas) and customary (adat) institutions, internal tensions within the puri (Hilbery 1979: 12-15), followed by the political and economic instability of the years from 1940 until 1965 (Bagus 1991; Robinson 1988; Hilbery 1979: 2; Vickers 1989: 146-73), diverted the interest and resources of the puri away from matters of tradition, especially in areas remote from Ubud. By the time tourism began again in the late 1960s, Ubud was poor and divided and the puri’s relationship with the further reaches of its former kingdom was at a low ebb.
During the 1970s and ’80s, as Ubud prospered through tourism, the puri prospered too through extensive sales of land and development of its own tourism interests. Unlike other puri which concentrated on politics and business (C. Geertz 1963: ch.4; Hanna 1976: 122-8), Puri Ubud sought also to re-establish their role as guides and guardians of local tradition as well as taking prominent positions in the local administration (MacRae 1999).
Outside Ubud, where such avenues were not open to them, especially in areas such as Bukit Gunung Lebah, which is part of another administrative district, Puri Ubud reverted to the old standby of royal patronage to reclaim their kingdom. During the 1960s, Ck. Agung Sukawati involved himself in the restoration of temples and pretima (sacred objects) all over Bali (Hilbery 1979). Upon his death, this mantle was taken up by his nephew, Ck. Agung Suyasa, who, since the late 1980s, has embarked on a program of sponsorship of ritual and culture around Ubud, up the Wos Valley and in other places. This program is based on restoration of temples, organising of and contributing to ceremonies, renovation of dance and music troupes and especially barong as well as researching and interpreting local history and tradition. Much of the evidence of niskala landscape and negara recorded above are in fact the fruits of this programme.
So while the history of Negara Ubud is at one level a conventionally politico-military one, it has at various crucial points been built and rebuilt on ideas of sacred landscape—successive political domains have been built on underlying assumptions of a ritual domain.