A CHAIN OF KINGS - Books and Journals

20
A chain of kings
1 Later writers frequently added clarifying explanations to make the intent of
earlier writers more explicit. This is particularly evident in CM, in which the
writer often replaced pronouns (iami) with full names and carefully prefaced
lists of children with phrases such as ‘one other daughter was named’ (sitau
pole anaqna baine nikana). Presumably this was intended to make the often
tortured genealogical relationships and references in the chronicle texts more
readable. In other cases writers added whole sentences to clarify what was
only briefly stated or implied in texts such as BL and KIT. For example, VT
59 inserts this clarification about how Tunipalangga’s fortifications differed
from his predecessor: ‘[This] karaeng bricked [the fortifications at] Gowa and
Somba Opu. Karaeng Tumapaqrisiq Kallonna, he built with earth.’
2 Over time too standardized textual schemas evolved that represented
Makassarese understandings of what a chronicle of a ruler’s reign should
contain and in what terms it should be described. This is most evident in
the development of standardized phrases to describe the transition from one
ruler to another. For example, whereas early texts are inconsistent in how
they narrate transitions, later texts such as CM and VT follow a formulaic
pattern in first declaring the genealogical relationship between the two rulers,
then stating that one died, and finally writing that the next succeeded
as ruler. Thus ‘This child of Tunibatta, Tunijalloq, succeeded as ruler’ in BL
29v became ‘Karaeng Tunibatta had a child Karaeng Tunijalloq. Tunibatta
died. Karaeng Tunijalloq succeeded as ruler’ (Karaeng Tunibatta anganakangi
Karaenga Tunijalloq matei Tunibatta Karaengami Tunijalloq asossorangi magauka)
in CM 162.
It is also likely that the statements of what remained unknown about early
rulers of Gowa and Talloq were inserted by chroniclers who had developed
expectations that certain kinds of information needed to be included in an
account of a ruler’s reign. We can imagine frustrated chroniclers writing early
in the Gowa chronicle, ‘Until Tunatangkaqlopi from Tumassalangga Barayang
their wives are not known, their children are not known, except the children
who spoke as rulers. Not known also are their wars. Not known further is
how long they ruled. This too is not known because nothing is said of it.’
3 There is evidence that as the patturioloang tradition developed and chronicles
were transmitted there was increasing self-consciousness about the
process of writing histories. This is especially the case with the shift from
relying on oral sources for composition to relying on extant texts for copying.
For example, ‘Because nothing is said of it’ (kataenana kana-kanana) in BL 33v
eventually becomes ‘Because there were no lontaraq yet’ (kataenapa lontaraq)
in SBPK 77, VT 52, and CM 148. Similarly, at the end of Tunijalloq’s reign KIT
19, VT 71, SBPK 104, AL 156, and CM 170 omit BL 27v’s oral phrase ‘this is