A CHAIN OF KINGS - Books and Journals

22
A chain of kings
33v reads ‘Karaeng Loe ri Sero is not yet discussed, just those who ruled in
Gowa’. Significantly, Noorduyn relied on CM for this passage, and in this
version the intertextuality is more explicit than in BL. CM 148 reads ‘Karaeng
Loe ri Sero is not yet discussed here, but in his proper place later’. This construction
suggests a greater awareness about the intertextual relationship
between the Gowa and Talloq chronicles than the BL version, a growing
consciousness that chroniclers worked and that chronicles existed within the
context of other written works. In the second instance, during the account
of Tunijalloq’s reign the Gowa chronicle reads, ‘The lands conquered during
the reign of Tumamenang ri Makkoayang are not discussed here, but later in
the discussion of Tumamenang ri Makkoayang’. This information is indeed
found in the Talloq chronicle, but these two instances of intertextuality must be
weighed against evidence suggesting that the two works are separate (there
are also two instances where the writers of the Gowa chronicle refer readers to
points later in the Gowa chronicle).
Most importantly, each of the chronicles can stand alone as a whole work
that recounts the chain of karaeng that ruled one of the two locations, and
indeed the fact that the two chronicles are not always found in the same
manuscript suggests they should not be considered a single work. This is
undoubtedly the case for the Talloq chronicle, which never refers readers to
the Gowa chronicle. Each chronicle does mention rulers in the other community,
but this is hardly evidence that the two are a single work. It is simply
reflective of the close relationship that Gowa and Talloq’s rulers forged in
the seventeenth century. I have argued that Noorduyn’s reading overstates
the degree of historical unanimity in Gowa and Talloq’s relationship at the
expense of periods of significant tension and rivalry (Cummings 1999). This
debate is an excellent example of the type of interpretive issues and problems
that characterize textual analysis for those who study South Sulawesi. The
best explanation may be that the two historiographically saw themselves as
increasingly intertwined as time passed. We may validly wonder if part of
this perception derives from hindsight after the Makassar war ended in 1669,
or from the largely unrecoverable history of how the two chronicles were
stored, re-copied, and handed down over many generations.
However, even if the two chronicles are properly considered separate
works, there is modest reason to suggest that both the Gowa and Talloq
chronicles may have been written in Talloq, or at least at the behest and
encouragement of the rulers of Talloq. As already mentioned, the Talloq
chronicle does not refer readers to the Gowa chronicle. From this perspective,
despite its greater length and the supremacy of Gowa, the Gowa chronicle
actually appears to be historiographically subordinate to the Talloq chronicle.
The best evidence for the crucial role of Talloq in the production of the chronicles
derives from the use of informants. Both chronicles contain instances