Balinese texts and historiography.

( History & Theory ) There is for one thing a "historiographical" inequality between Europe and the rest of the world. Europe in ented historians and then !ade good use of the!. Her own history is well"lit# and can be called as e idence or used as a clai!. The history of non"Europe is still being written. $nd until the balance of %nowledge and interpretation has been restored# the historian will be reluctant to cut the &ordian %not of world history""that is the origin of the superiority of Europe. '() The history of the so"called Third *orld has already pro ided opportunities to ad+ust the historiographic balance Braudel is tal%ing about here. ,ro! the study of $frican history ha e co!e insights into the nature of oral history in general.'-) ,ro! the study of .acific history ha e co!e insights into the nature of the structure of history as it is seen fro! non"European points of iew.'/) These two exa!ples do not co er all the possible for!s of non"European historiography# but they raise funda!ental issues of how other societies thin% of ti!e and deter!ination# and how those different notions belong to different ways of writing history. 0ndonesian societies pro ide i!portant cases where indigenous history is not# as in $frica and the .acific# pri!arily oral. 0ndonesia1s special historiographic role is as an exa!ple of a ci ili2ation with an abundance of written sources which !ay be called historical. *ithin that ci ili2ation Bali pro ides a special case of a society where the rich literary tradition is still acti ely used in ritual# artistic# and literary contexts. The proble! is one of understanding the status of texts within the Balinese tradition# and then deciding how the local uses can be reconciled with their uses as historical sources or docu!ents in the writing of history by non" Balinese. Historians of 3outheast $sia ha e co!e to ter!s with so!e of the processes of producing indigenous texts# but often ha e not as%ed questions about the local logic by which such texts produce a ision of history. Because Bali has been so intensi ely studied by anthropologists and philologists# the historical logic of the island1s texts can be unra eled by co!bining the insights of different disciplines. 4y !a+or concern here is how notions of ti!e and what we !ight call "fate" produce a logic by which Balinese write texts to illu!inate the patterns of historical e ents. Bali is the heir to a textual tradition going bac% to ancient 0ndia# ia Bali1s neighbor# 5a a. 0n the thousand years of that tradition !any textual for!s ha e arisen and !assi e social transfor!ations occurred. The textual traditions include the writing of prescripti e and descripti e ritual texts6 3ans%rit hy!ns and !antra6 texts of !agic# di ination and healing6 epics with their origins in 0ndian esthetics and the 4ahabharata and 7a!ayana6 courtly ro!ances focussed on 5a anese ci ili2ation6 genealogies6 and "genre" poe!s of e eryday life co!ing fro! 5a anese and Balinese !etrical traditions. Balinese texts are particularly interesting because they are not si!ply the products of a re!ote court tradition. They ha e co!e both fro! courts and fro! the co!!unity outside the courts# and participation in the Balinese textual tradition is socially di erse and ongoing. ,ro! the sixteenth until the

se enteenth centuries Bali was one strong %ingdo! based in the old capital of &elgel and extending in its influence to the neighboring islands of 5a a# 8o!bo%# and 3u!bawa. *hen the single %ingdo! was shattered into a series of co!peting s!aller %ingdo!s after a rebellion in (9:(# literary and artistic production increased !ar%edly as an aspect of sy!bolic dispute between these %ingdo!s# and e en between the lesser lordly do!ains enco!passed by the %ingdo!s. $t the sa!e ti!e a brah!ana caste# !odeled on the Brah!ans of 0ndian tradition# pro ided a !a+or i!petus in the literary field# so!eti!es producing for the courts# so!eti!es producing according to their own needs. ;o!!oners in ol ed with the courts were another group who produced and perfor!ed texts# but this group included a large and influential part of society. 8iteracy# to +udge fro! the scanty e idence a ailable# was high e en outside the courtly sphere# and textual production by co!!oners occurred outside the dictates of the courts. Balinese texts# %nown as !uch through hearing or through dra!atic and artistic reali2ations as through reading# were and still are texts of Balinese society in the broadest possible sense. The <rientalist tradition of studying Balinese texts has included basic distinctions between "belles lettres#" "historical#" and "practical" texts# distinctions which are unfortunately a total !isrepresentation of how such texts ha e existed socially# as will beco!e clear fro! the discussion below of the way "historical" sources ha e been approached within 0ndonesian historiography.'=) 0ndonesian historiography has a long tradition of re+ecting "Eurocentric" writing and loo%ing to "autono!ous" history# but in recent years this tradition has reached so!ething of an i!passe by reason of an undue concentration on how only the !ost see!ingly "historical" of sources should be used for writing "history." 0 wish to begin expanding on the proble! by extending the range of sources which should be considered in historiographic ter!s# and then exa!ining how one group of these sources# na!ely the co!!e!orati e notes which dot the literary landscape of Bali# opens up a whole series of new questions for historians. $t the heart of the argu!ent is not si!ply a question of the alidity of one type of source against another# but an exa!ination of what logic patterns Balinese understandings of history. 0n opening up this Balinese logic of history 0 see% to illu!inate the issue of how an "outsider" such as !yself could co!e to ter!s with the "inside" of another history. 0n doing this 0 also assu!e that Balinese are not "without history#" that there is a Balinese sense of "history#" albeit one different fro! !ost *estern notions of history in that it stresses continuity with patterns fro! the past# not the past as a "foreign country." 0. 0>?<>E30$> H03T<70<&7$.H@ 4ost historians of 0ndonesia regard the!sel es as restoring the "balance of %nowledge and interpretation" by using 0ndonesian texts in order to write history. This is# of course# a "good thing#" but the criteria used to select these texts and the uses !ade of the! tend to under!ine the intentions of these historians. The tas% has been a %ind of ad hoc transposition of ele!ents fro! (for exa!ple) Balinese texts written for co!pletely different purposes into

%inds of chronological narrati e. 3uch transpositions then tend to beco!e bogged down in questions of the "reliability" of indigenous sources. 0s this what Balinese histories could necessarily loo% li%eA 4y intention here is to flesh out what Balinese ideas of causality and historical econo!y !ay be as a way around this issue of "reliability#" and as a way of co!ing to ter!s with Balinese historiography. The classic proble! of 0ndonesian historiography is the proble! of perception. Those who see% to write styles of "history" following *estern !odels ha e not been able to ignore indigenous ways of seeing since an 8eur launched his attac% on ?utch histories written through European eyes.':) The proble! has always been one of how to write such histories# and the answer has usually been to see% those for!s of traditional writing which see!ed to rese!ble *estern for!s of history and incorporate the! into narrati es about specific regions# specific historical figures# or about the archipelago (by which 0 !ean 0ndonesia and 4alaysia). There is a long tradition of this# going bac% to eighteenth" century editions and translations of 5a anese chronicles# continued by 7affles in his History of 5a a# which draws upon such indigenous chronicles.'9) <ne of the texts rewor%ed by 7affles in this fashion# the Babad Tanah 5awi# has for decades ser ed as the pri!e 5a anese exa!ple of history writing# and was recently republished in ?utch translation. 7affles1s approach# with refine!ents# was repeated for !any %inds of texts in the 4alay world# so that# for exa!ple# the 3e+arah 4elayu or "4alay $nnals" has re!ained one of the chief sources of 4alaysian history writing to this day.'B) The approach used by 7affles and his predecessors was critically reorgani2ed by the !odern pioneer of indigenous historiography in 0ndonesia""Husein ?+a+adiningrat# second son of an i!portant *est 5a anese aristocratic fa!ily. He was the first 0ndonesian to gain a .h.?.# in (C(/# at a ti!e before 0ndonesia existed# and the first 0ndonesian to be appointed to any %ind of senior go ern!ent post when the 5apanese !ade hi! 4inister of 7eligion during *orld *ar Two. $ll the other writers of indigenously"based histories in 0ndonesia ha e done what he didD select a text which was closest in for! to a "chronicle#" and exa!ine it for historical data. 0n ?+a+adiningrat1 s case the new critical !ethod he introduced in ol ed the analysis of the text under consideration# the 3a+arah Banten# in ter!s of its rewor%ing and incorporation of earlier sources.'E) ,or historians the result of this critical study of such texts has been to help sift out what factual data !ay be incorporated in the text# so that these data can be co!pared to infor!ation fro! ?utch archi es and accepted or re+ected in ter!s of its relationship to the ?utch data. 0n the (C/Fs and (C=Fs the great exponent of the use of indigenous historical sources in tande! with ?utch archi es was H. 5. de &raaf. $lthough the !a+ority of de &raaf1s wor% was concerned with 5a a# he did produce two i!portant studies of the history of Bali and 8o!bo% in the sixteenth and se enteenth centuries.'C) ,ollowing the exa!ple of 5a a# he chose as his indigenous sources for these studies the texts which see! !ost closely to rese!ble "chronicles#" the texts

%nown as babad. 0n this de &raaf followed the lead of the %ey figure in the study of Balinese babad as historical sources# the eccentric philologist# ;. ;. Berg# who edited the Glung%ung chronicle of (E(C %nown as Gidung .a!ancangah# as well as a nu!ber of other Balinese texts.'(F) Berg wrote about these texts in his study of what he called "The 4iddle 5a anese Historical Tradition." The ter! "4iddle 5a anese" is a linguistic one# referring to the language of the texts# but it is i!!ensely confusing since it i!plies that these texts were culturally and historically 5a anese# not Balinese. Berg co!pounded the confusion in his later study of "5a anese Historical *riting#" the basis for !any later historical usages of 5a anese and Balinese texts. 0 a! not the first to suggest that historians !ay not be loo%ing at the right source when they exa!ine these Balinese texts called babad for historical data. .eter *orsley# in his edition and translation of the Babad Buleleng# was careful to identify this text not as a "history" of the royal house of Buleleng (north Bali) between the se enteenth and nineteenth centuries# but as a "dynastic genealogy. "'(() The !a+or proble! with !ost of the a ailable dynastic genealogies is that they were written in the late nineteenth century. The earliest dated dynastic genealogy is one in erse for! which describes the foundation of the %ingdo! of Glung%ung# the "high" %ingdo! of the eight or nine %ingdo!s of Bali. This text# the Gidung .a!ancangah# was written in (E(C# yet Berg regarded it as a !a+or source of infor!ation on Balinese history going bac% o er four centuries before that date# and correspondingly atte!pted to gi e the text an eighteenth"century date to i!pro e its erisi!ilitude.'(-) The !a+ority of dynastic genealogies are useful sources of infor!ation about the genealogical concerns of nineteenth"and twentieth"century Bali# but not necessarily about sixteenth" or se enteenth"century Bali. The chronological narrati e approach fro! a tradition of colonial history creates !any proble!s# and e en to caricature it as 0 ha e abo e suggests what so!e of those proble!s are. >ot least of the! is a proble! of co!patibility. ;o!bining narrati e infor!ation fro! such texts into a *estern chronological narrati e# as de &raaf does# is fraught with dangers and i!probabilities. *or%able chronologies are not the !ain intention of !ost of the Balinese sources at least. 0n the end# and this is still the case up to the present day# those who e!bar% on the stor!y waters of this historiography using indigenous texts end up arguing about whether they are always "reliable." The usual answer is "no#" and in saying this scholars atte!pt to sift so!e %ind of wahrheit out of the dichtung or !ythologi2ing of indigenous writing. &i+s Goster atte!pted to escape fro! the proble! by analy2ing one indigenous "historical text#" the 3yair .erang 4ang%asar or 3ong of the 4a%assar *ar# in ter!s of its structures of opposition. He was rebuffed (and !isread) by the late ;yril 3%inner# who# de oting a whole appendix of a recent boo% to Goster1s article# argued that Goster was only illu!inating "literary con entions" and their poetic organi2ation. They did not ha e a final bearing on what 3%inner considers to be the final intention of such texts# to narrate "what actually occurred."

,or 3%inner for! and content were entirely separate# and he considered that while the author was "prepared to follow in the footsteps of his literary predecessors#" he still displayed "an un!ista%able regard for the historicity of the e ents he recounts." 3%inner sees the !odes of interpretation as a difference between his own "historical" iew of the text and Goster1s "structuralist" analysis# saying that neither can adequately describe the "aesthetic" di!ension of the text. '(/) 5. 5. 7as# heir to the ?utch scholarly tradition as .rofessor of 5a anese at 8eiden Hni ersity# has also sought to trace the proble! of "reliability" of 5a anese sources in the context of sal aging the ?utch tradition. '(=) $lthough tied to the notion of "reliability" (without !a%ing clear what it !ay !ean) 7as !a%es a !a+or contribution to the archeology of one of the !a+or texts of 5a anese studies# the Babad Tanah 5awi# showing how the arious sections of the text function through loo%ing at internal e idence. 3ections hitherto called "!ythological" are shown by 7as to be exorcistic in intention# and therefore (although he does not spell this out) part of the "facts" (%ususe""literally "what is set or fixed") which the author of the text says in the introduction are the basis of textual "authority."'(:) Here again the dichoto!y of "fact" and "fiction" is inappropriate. 0n this 5a anese case# as is the case with Balinese readers or listeners# all traditional texts are "true#" for there would be little point in writing lies. That is# in Bali there is no concept equi alent to *estern notions of "fiction#" only degrees of eracity related to the sacredness of for!# language# and narrati e. 3uch eracity is not necessarily the sa!e as "historicity#" since its sense of causality and order is distinctly Balinese. $. .erception and Episte!ology The easy way out the wahrheitIdichtung dichoto!y in 0ndonesian historiography is to regard all indigenous texts as "true#" and to write histories in which sna%e gods co!e out of the ground and procreate with princesses. That is all right if you belie e in sna%e gods# but what happens when the indigenous sources disagree with the European sources# in this case the ?utch archi al docu!entsA ?o we si!ply re erse the usual criteria and gi e the local source greater credibility than the European sourcesA $fter all# ?utch archi es were largely co!piled fro! a state of co!plete ignorance# often by people whose !astery of the languages in ol ed (either 4alay or Balinese) was questionable. The "history fro! indigenous sources" ersus "history fro! European sources" dichoto!y is not a ery happy solution to the proble!s of writing Balinese history# since in either case the writer has to ignore an i!portant nu!ber of sources for the sa%e of factual purity. 0t is quite a different !atter to loo% at the proble! of perception not si!ply in ter!s of in o%ing indigenous sources# but through exa!ining the way those sources ser e as a %ind of structuring ele!ent in the processes of history. 4ost recently the difference between "historical" and "literary" approaches has been !aintained in a different for! by 4erle 7ic%lefs# a distinguished successor of de &raaf# but one who has also been responsible for critical studies on the nature of babad as 5a anese historical sources.'(9) 7ic%lefs has bro%en away fro! the notion of

"historical" ersus " literary" sources# in arguing that texts should be studied in ter!s of "the ersion or ersions of the text fro! that place and ti!e along with other e idence rele ant to the!."'(B) 7ic%lefs1s !a+or argu!ent# howe er# is that this is how historians study texts# while "literary" scholars (all those who study texts# including structuralists# poststructuralists# se!ioticians# and so on# but excluding philologists) approach texts in ter!s of styles of reading and discourse which ha e uni ersalist clai!s (and do so in fairly obscurantist style). 0 can only endorse 7ic%lefs1s argu!ents against uni ersalis! in fa or of particularis!# but would do so by saying that this is precisely what so!e at least of the people 7ic%lefs is arguing against are also trying to do. His !isinterpretation !ay be a co!!ent on the efficacy or otherwise of arious poststructuralists and deconstructionists# since part of the intellectual and political agenda of these !o e!ents is supposed to be a challenge to the hege!onic clai!s of the *est which are !as%ed by "uni ersalis!." There is in fact a co!!onality of purpose between historians who want to study texts in ter!s of the way they were understood at the ti!e of writing# and students of literature who wish to analy2e the sa!e texts. The co!!onality of purpose is such that it brea%s down the disciplinary distinctions which 7ic%lefs# in the last resort# atte!pts to sal age in presenting another ersion of 3%inner1s "historical" ersus "structuralist" readings of texts. 7ic%lefs has not yet gone the next step and presented any readings of 5a anese texts which are not babad or do not fit into the earlier classification of "historical" literature.'(E) He also see!s to !aintain the iew that historians can co!fortably analy2e sources by cutting across the intentions of the texts. $ recent and contro ersial essay in $ustralian history points to these issues in another way. .aul ;arter1s The 7oad to Botany Bay'(C) concludes a rereading of the %ey historical sources on the "founding" of !odern $ustralia by arguing for "a history of intentions" rather than a %ind of history writing which bypasses the intentions of its arious sources in fa or of an expropriation of data. ;arter1s argu!ents against other types of history writing are flawed and unsubtle""he resorts to the caricature of calling all other writing of $ustralian history "i!perial history#" thus ob iating the need to discuss in any depth the arieties of history writing. This# howe er# is a proble! of a oiding intricate historiographic argu!ents in fa or of getting on with the analysis# and in no way in alidates his close readings of the arious sources. ,or the issue at hand# the proble! of writing Balinese history# ;arter1 s !ost ger!ane points co!e at the end of the boo%# in a discussion of how to write $ustralian aboriginal history. Here ;arter says there is a twofold process at wor%. ,irst the aboriginal perceptions can be used to "tell us about the li!itations of white history."'-F) Beyond this# howe er# is the need to !eet the ter!s of what an $ustralian aboriginal history !ight be. This cannot be deduced# ;arter says# by acts of "si!ple i!itation" of $boriginal narrati es about the country# but by "so!ething !oreD $ restoration of !eaning# a process which cannot a oid being

interpretati e and i!aginati e."'-() His !ethodological basis for doing this is Husserlian pheno!enology# which can be used for "reco ering the intentional co!!on place of history#" but e o%ing "past experiencing" so that it is "li ed through in a quasi"new and quasi"acti e way."'--) ,or those loo%ing for a clearcut !ethodology for studying the history of other people1s intentions ;arter is distressingly ague. 0n the exa!ples which follow# howe er# 0 see% to "e o%e" so!ething of Balinese historical intentions as "perceptions" which are gi en for! in Balinese texts. 0n doing so 0 want to point to a text"based way of writing Balinese history which does not clearly distinguish a!ong the !ethodologies of history# literary studies# or anthropology. 0n doing this it is worthwhile actually to ha e a definition of perception# since the ter! has been used ery loosely by historians of 3outheast $sia. 0n pheno!enological ter!s perception can be defined as cogniti e processes which are reali2ed in discourse. ?iscourse consists of acts of address and interpretation which !a%e deter!inate the thing addressed. '-/) This !eans that what the indi idual percei es of things is ne er a ailable to anyone else in the sa!e way. The only way for raw sense data to be reali2ed between indi iduals is to tal% about or so!ehow represent so!ething. 3ince the thing is not really !ade concrete as a thing to anyone until it is represented# acts of representation not only ha e to be a %ind of collecti e co!!unication# they ha e to isolate and identify (that is# "!a%e deter!inate") what exists for people. 0ntention is part of perception here because it is an interpretati e process# as indicated by the way Husserl uses "intention" in the sense of "awareness#" not in the narrower sense of "purpose."'-=) 0ntention is the process of perception by which so!ething is addressed and discussed# to quote Heidegger1s ter!s. $s such intention is the acti e process of perception. $s ?eleu2e describes it# ,oucault too% this one step further by re+ecting tendencies to psychologis! and naturalis! in pheno!enology# and displacing "intention" by "%nowledge#" stepping bac% fro! proble!s of indi idual experience and consciousness# recogni2ing that "we do not see what we spea% about# nor do we spea% about what we see#" and in this recognition effecting "the con ersion of pheno!enology into episte!ology."'-:) often interpreted as a radical antihu!anis!# this ele!ent of ,oucault1s approach is at the sa!e ti!e an ethnographic issue confronted by anthropologyD how do we !o e between what indi iduals say and what they see as !e!bers of societies that are different fro! and other than that of the obser er. 3ince Balinese texts are discursi e# they are part of %nowledge and hence constitute reality for !e!bers of that society. 7eality includes the reality of the past# "history" as a sense of the past in the present. 0n order to understand this history# it is necessary to understand both the basic concepts of the past# and the way the past is textuali2ed. 0n the space of this paper it is not possible to refer to all the le els of history in Balinese representation. $fter discussing anthropological insights into ti!e in Bali# 0 will exa!ine pri!arily one for! of reference to reality# short "co!!e!orations#" which describes

e ents in a su!!ary fashion# co!plete with dates# and see!ingly without ele!ents of !ythologi2ing. Beyond describing these "co!!e!orations#" 0 want to discuss how they# as a !ode of referential history writing# create connections between what we !ight otherwise call "!yth" and "reality." B. Truth and Ti!e 0n ter!s of the study of Balinese texts# eracity and causality are related to the processes of history# but the notions of ti!e which !ediate this are quite co!plicated. ;lifford &eert2 in his fa!ous article on ".erson# Ti!e# and ;onduct in Bali#"'-9) argues that ti!e in Bali is not linear# that is not quantitati ely di ided# but qualitati e" "organi2ed in ter!s of degrees of !ale olence and bene olence. He calls this "a classificatory# full"and"e!pty# 1dete!porali2ed1 conception of ti!e in contexts where the fact that natural conditions ary periodically has to be at least !ini!ally ac%nowledged."'-B) ;ontro ersy about &eert21s argu!ent began with a challenge by the English 4arxist anthropologist# 4aurice Bloch# to this "relati ist" notion of ti!e in fa or of a "uni ersal" sense of the linearity of ti!e. Bloch argues fro! his reading of &eert2 that there is a "practical# " linear sense of ti!e in Bali# and that the "cyclical" sense of ti!e is appropriate to ritual contexts. The "practical" or linear sense of ti!e is a necessary condition for applying the ter!s of *estern disciplines of history and anthropology (preferably in co!bination) to Bali. '-E) $ scholar with a better ethnographic %nowledge of Bali than Bloch# 8eopold E. $. Howe# argues that Balinese do indeed ha e a "language" to tal% about the nature of social change.'-C) They are not static and without history# nor# he says# do they need an "outside" language or !eta" language to tal% about their past. Ti!e# argues Howe# needs to be understood in a co!plex fashion# and not si!ply as "duration. " Hsing Balinese !etaphors# he argues that there is a Balinese sense of the !o e!ent of ti!e which in ol es the creation of inter als# both on a s!all le el (of "hours#" "days#" and so on) and# i!plicitly# on a broader historical le el. These inter als are not the focus of Balinese attention# but their transitional points# the "nodes" of ti!e# are. These# called sandi Gala# are "transitional 2ones of duration" at which changes occur.'/F) 4uch of the percei ed contro ersy hinges on whether it can be said that Balinese ti!e is "circular#" not "linear#" but this argu!ent !ay be a bit of a dead end# since# as 4ar% Hobart points out# it is based on a hypostati2ed !etaphor""ti!e and space are# after all# funda!entally different.'/() Howe hi!self recogni2es this when he appropriates another Balinese !etaphor to argue that the process of "circularity" could +ust as easily be called one of "spinning."'/-) This !etaphor deser es elaboration# since royal rituals ha e been described in Balinese texts as acts of "spinning" the world# carried out by %ings to change the state of things. $s 0 ha e indicated# such acts ta%e place at the "nodes" of ti!e which calendars describe and atte!pt to predict for Balinese.'//) .art of Howe1s article is an i!plied criticis! of one of the !aster anthropologists of Bali fro! an earlier generation# &regory Bateson# whose fa!ily bac%ground in the natural sciences and co!!it!ent to the scientific study of hu!anity too% hi!

fro! anthropology to such di erse fields as psychology and cybernetics. Bateson is !ainly re!e!bered in the study of Bali for an article on the "steady state" nature of the Balinese ethos which for!ed the basis for &eert21s own study of ".erson# Ti!e and ;onduct." Howe er in (C/B Bateson published a case study of how a "bac%woods" Balinese !ountain co!!unity in Bangli# central Bali# saw its history in relation to its illage te!ples.'/=) Bateson1s starting point is a healthy s%epticis! about the e!pirical clai!s of !uch *estern history writingD "nor need we as% whether the stories of the past which we put in boo%s and tell to our children are true""a question which would in ol e us in a sort of weighing of inadequate e idence !ore appropriate in a law court than in scientific study."'/:) The article is a fascinating obser ation of the processes of restoring a te!ple# a restoration in which see!ingly new connections a!ong a set of nearby illages are gi en co!!unity expression through a series of trance seances. ,ro! the way the illagers he obser ed reconstructed the relationships a!ong illages# Bateson concluded that the "!yth" which ca!e into being was "a bare s%eleton of relationships in the present." The !yth could be "new" because there was a lac% of historical infor!ation on the te!ples and illages which were en!eshed in a !ythical networ%. Bateson saw the illagers as "re!ar%ably uninterested in the past as a source of ro!antic alidation of the present."'/9) ,ro! this Bateson concluded that "the past pro ides not the cause of the present but the pattern on which the present should be !odeled. " *hat he calls "narrati e reasons for the pattern" were not i!portant to the !a+or Balinese participants in the process. The o erall conclusions are worth quoting at length# if not for their argu!ents then for their eleganceD "The !odern Balinese is forced to recogni2e that he li es in a changing world# but that is not his ideal# and he does not thin% in ter!s of it. He does not thin% of the past as of a ti!e that was different and out of which the present has sprung by change. The past pro ides hi! with patterns of beha iour# and if only he %nows the pattern he will not blunder and he need not be tongue"tied."'/B) The e!phasis here on "pattern" is ital# and# 0 would argue# should not +ust be seen as a !atter of "patterns" of beha ior# but !ore broadly as "patterns" of social and cultural organi2ation. The !a+or ob+ections to Bateson1s argu!ents are twofoldD first the sense of history he describes is not so absolutely different fro! the !any senses of the past which exist in the *est. *e can say that Balinese do ha e a sense of the past that is different to a degree# but is not absolutely different fro! the !any iews of the past held by all those who could be called "*estern." 0ndeed so !ultiple are those iews that atte!pts to discuss the!# such as 8owenthal1s study# '/E) often lose their grasp on a co!!on sense of the past. 0f any generali2ation can be !ade# it is that !ost of us in the *est want to see the past as !ore different and different in !any !ore ways than !ost Balinese would see it. The second ob+ection to Bateson1s argu!ents is the related point that he see%s to generali2e about all Balinese fro! one particular study. He ignores the

ob ious point that those in positions of power and authority# such as %ings and high priests# are !ore interested in "narrati e reasons" and the past as a for! of +ustification than are so!e other !e!bers of Balinese society. Balinese do not belie e that nothing e er changes# or that e erything is always going around in circles. They !ostly thin% in ter!s of the quality of the !o!ent# and of past e ents patterning present e ents# !eaning that so!ething which happened in the past is not o er fore er and ne er reco erable. The past causes effects in the present because the distance between the two can be !ini!i2ed at different ti!es. This is lin%ed to the way ti!e can be bene olent or !ale olent# since the past is one of the ele!ents which influences the quality of ti!e. $ll narrati e or textual e ents are "true" e ents# things that ha e happened in the past. They can be connected to the present through a sense of causality which !ight be called "coincidence#" which is not# as the word i!plies in English# accident# but !a%ing things " coincide." 0n Balinese "coincidence" is sedeng luunga# going through a process of being !ade good# or !ungpung# a %ind of connection.'/C) Things "happen" fortuitously# that is they are "fated" in a %ind of indirect way which catches all pheno!ena up in co!plex processes of interrelationship which cannot be unra elled si!ply as the %ind of direct causality""$ follows fro! B""which would i!pute to rituals or good and bad actions i!!ediate and direct effects. ,or exa!ple in one Balinese di inatory syste! %nown as polelindon# "earthqua%e calendars#" if an earthqua%e happens in a particular !onth it is ascribed to the !editation of a particular deity# and through consulting the calendar the effects of the earthqua%e can be %nown# as# for exa!ple# failure of peanut crops# or quarreling between neighbors. The rele ant deity is not seen as consciously intending the failure of the peanut crops6 this is a %nown by"product of the propensity of the gods to !editation# which will not always result in earthqua%es anyway# co!bined with the quality of the gods and the quality of the !onth. 7ituals can be held which influence so!e of these ariables# but it is not possible to influence si!ply and directly the peanut har est through holding a particular ritual# nor is it possible for priests and %ings to inter ene to start or stop earthqua%es. 7ather the results are always indirect. ;oincidences "follow" or "accord with" (taut) e ents# because they are what is appropriate""patut. $ppropriateness is one of the qualities which go ern the web of relations6 it is the basic principle of causality. "7eality" is what is !ost fitting# !ost appropriate""that is what is "true." ;onnections which !a%e things happen are !anifestations of existing qualities# !o e!ents between the nis%ala# the un!anifest or "supernatural" and the sa%ala# the isible and e ident. Truth here is what is !anifest# wya%ti# and coincidence is the process of that !anifestation.'=F) Ti!e is here also a destructi e deity# Gala# to be held at bay by propitiatory rituals or powerful acts# and thus turned into one of its less !ale olent for!s# the &od 3iwa. The quality of di ine !anifestation is a quality of ti!e. These theoretical iews of Balinese ti!e are reali2ed in a ariety of textual for!s# one of which# ta%ing the

for! of short co!!e!orati e notes# !a%es the "coincidental" connections between texts and e ents quite explicit. These notes display the inner wor%ings of Balinese processes of writing and copying texts (the two are often indistinguishable as acti ities)# and in doing so show that !ost Balinese texts are written as part of a process of writing history. 00. .$>&E80>&"E80>&D ;<44E4<7$T0<>3 .angeling"eling are usually short texts which can be defined fro! their na!e# "co!!e!orations." 3trictly spea%ing they !ay not really constitute a genre of texts# since there are arieties of pangeling" eling. The purpose of these "co!!e!orations" is to aid in the re!e!bering of either crucial e ents which occurred at the sa!e ti!e as other significant acti ities were going on# or to "recall" or create awareness of i!portant ancestors in peoples1 !e!ories (eling)# or to lay down rules for ritual acti ity in relation to te!ples which it is i!portant for people to "re!e!ber." Thus there are !any arieties of pangeling" eling# including what we !ight call te!ple "regulations#" and title deeds to land# oxen# and so on. $n exa!ple of the type of note with which 0 a! concerned here# those attached to !ore "literary" texts# can be found attached to a !anuscript of the text *angbang *ideya (hereafter exa!ple ().'=() This note tells when the text was written according to Balinese calendric syste!s# equi alent to $.?. (B9:# and then says that this was "when 3angsit# and Buleleng# e en up to 3ang%et and .ate!on# were defeated by Garangase!. Ten years after Garangase! defeated 3angsit# >yo!an $byan returned to ra2e it. The houses of &usti Gtut .adang# &usti *ayahan $las# &usti >yo!an Bangli# &usti *ayahan Blahyu# and 0 3ea"4ountain were all ra2ed# not to !ention the houses of co!!oners6 those of fifty"two fa!ilies were destroyed. " Garangase! was one of the first royal houses to e!erge in the se enteenth century when the single %ingdo! of &elgel fell# and throughout the eighteenth century it pursued a policy of expansion which saw it ta%e in first the neighboring island of 8o!bo%# then the do!ains of the powerful lords of 3ibetan and 3ide!en# and finally the ad+oining north Balinese %ingdo! of Buleleng. The "co!!e!oration" gi es historical data which can be chec%ed against ?utch archi al sources# and which in fact correct the ague infor!ation fro! published ?utch sources that Garangase! in aded Buleleng around (EFF.'=-) The archi al erification co!es in the for! of a letter (written on gold leaf) sent by three 3outh Balinese rulers to the ?utch &o ernor of 3e!arang in (B9E# co!plaining about the Garangase! attac% and see%ing an alliance with the ?utch against Garangase!.'=/) 0f !ore effort was !ade to collect and exa!ine these co!!e!orati e notes# we would be able to correct and fill in the inadequacies of !uch of the ?utch archi al sources# but to date little attention has been paid to the nature of the notes the!sel es# or e en to the Balinese letters which ha e entered the ?utch archi es. 4any earlier historians of Bali# following in a grand orientalist tradition# were far !ore concerned with the nature of tenth""or fourteenth" century Bali than with the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries. The !ain feature of pangeling" eling upon which 0 wish to co!!ent here is not their reliability# but their

attach!ent to other texts in a fashion which see!s# to a *estern reader# to ha e little logic. 0 would argue that it is precisely the logic of their attach!ent which is ital to understanding Balinese historical intentions. 0n saying this 0 want to qualify !y co!!ents by pointing out that not all pangeling" eling are attached to !anuscripts# and of those that are# the length tends to ary fro! the si!pler types of colophons which gi e only a date or a na!e of a writer to those detailed accounts which gi e the %inds of historical data quoted here. The longer pangeling"eling are usually written with personal apologies about the inadequacy of the writer to render literature properly# a con ention which extends al!ost confessional insights into the writer1s state of !ind. 3uch insights# as so!e of the following exa!ples show# are bound up with the historical e ents described. The attach!ent of texts to one another is a widespread pheno!enon in 0ndonesian literature. 3o far it has been little re!ar%ed upon# and !any philologists ha e accepted codices consisting of a ariety of texts as a si!ply "prag!atic#" or perhaps e en "accidental" process. The !a+or exception is ;a!pbell 4acGnight in his discussion of the proble! of whether Bugis codices constitute wor%s.'==) 4acGnight does not loo% specifically at the issue of authorial or co!!e!orati e notes in this context# howe er. Exa!ple ( is extre!ely suggesti e""the text *angbang *ideya is one which is concerned with a princely co!ing to power# in which the hero# on the brin% of %ingship# pro es hi!self to be an able warrior and lo er. The text is one of a large genre which approxi!ates the style of *estern courtly ro!ances. *ritings within the genre share a concern with elaborating the lifestyle of courts and ulti!ately showing the interrelationships between the personal experiences of lo e and the political processes of courts. .art of the lifestyle re ealed is the ro!ance of warfare# a %ey aspect of the syste! which allowed courts to exist in a situation of constant conflict by which iolence was a nor! of the state and the state depended on the personal feelings and relations of !e!bers of the ruling class for its existence. The alori2ation of battle in the *angbang *ideya and its concentration on the %ey aristocrats in ol ed in such battles suggests a lin% between the text and the context created for it by its co!!e!oration of the Garangase! conquest of Buleleng. This is only a hint# howe er# and deser es fuller elucidation fro! other exa!ples. *hat follows are three other exa!ples of Balinese texts with co!!e!orati e notes which better illustrate the issues in ol ed# and which suggest the nature of the connections being !ade fairly readily. Exa!ple - is a !anuscript of the Gidung .an+i $!alat 7as!i which narrates the part of this courtly ro!ance in which the epony!ous hero# .an+i# and his allies do battle against the %ingdo!s of 8ase!# 4atara!# .a+ang# and ;a!ara. The text# %nown as the 4alat# is another exa!ple of a courtly ro!ance# and in !any ways is the %ey or exe!plary text of the genre# considering that it was the one !ost often copied# presented in art# or perfor!ed as sung literature and in theater. This !anuscript of the 4alat begins with a co!!e!orati e note describing a war initiated by the

%ingdo! of Glung%ung in a dispute o er part of the %ingdo! of Bangli# circa (E==. Glung%ung was the %ingdo! which clai!ed highest status in precolonial Bali# since its rulers were the direct heirs of the for!er glorious e!pire of &elgel. Throughout the nineteenth century Glung%ung had to curb the encroach!ents of its neighbors# &ianyar and Bangli# two central Balinese %ingdo!s which e!erged in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The war of (E== was one such atte!pt to curb the growth of these neighbors# carried out in alliance with the %ingdo!s of Buleleng and Garangase!# which bordered on Bangli and Glung%ung respecti ely# and 4engwi# which bordered on &ianyar. $ nu!ber of natural disasters are described in connection with this warD The reason the ene!ies of Bangli !o ed towards &ianyar was that this was the wish of the &reat 8ord residing in his palace of Glung%ung. He ga e orders to his &ianyar sub+ects to begin by building a fort which was an intrusion 'into Bangli1s territoryJ and &ianyar set a ti!e to co!e together against Bangli as was fated on the day Thursday -/rd ,ebruary (E==. They both arri ed and established their fortified lines at the sa!e ti!e6 both sides were well pleased. 3o it happened that ?eath appearedD the for!ation of &ianyar was destroyed at ?en .eta% by a !o e!ent to the centre of their forces. They stopped# and fro! the day 4onday ((th 4arch (E== the rifles rang out day and night without ceasing. The writing of this has been finished since 4onday -9th $ugust (E==. The %ing is praised as the blessing '!anggala) of the state. 0t is said that in the west there were three !oons seen in the s%y for a whole night. 4any people saw this# but there was no one who could erify it# for there was no one who would go outside. of all the people# no one %new how long before it went down out of sight. Beside this the earth shoo% ceaselessly for a day and a night and there were tre!ors for al!ost o er a !onth. 4any !ountains were split# and !ore te!ples were destroyed# not to !ention the people who fled when their houses shoo% and roc%ed and the walls collapsed# so that all the citi2ens of the %ingdo! suffered# e en !ore so the %ing# the priests# the lords# officials and %nights. ,or the first ti!e they reflected on their situation# saying despairingly# "we ha e been cursed" for they were without power and afraid of what the High &od# 8ord *iddhi was capable of allowing. 0t is said that the %ingdo! was split# so it ca!e to pass that the %ing of Glung%ung decreed that a fort should be !ade. Bangli went towards 4engwi6 Garangase! went through Bangli as if to put Buleleng to one side by pitting it against &ianyar. They +oined in attac%ing to the west# so that they could for! up on the -/rd ,ebruary (E== 'A).'=:) 0f there is anyone reading this and they see that it is badly written# and there is !ore or less than there should be# please correct it# for there are !ista%es in the rhyth! of the !etres of the 4alat# those called de!ung and %adiri. This is the wor% of a wretched !an. His house was at 3lat *ayabya# actually at the bac% of the western entrance# in the fine !ist. He was the eldest of fi e and the only !ale. His na!e was Gtut 'A). $ll the i!portant things of scripture# wealth and treasure were gathered together.

3uddenly he disco ered !ore than he was hitherto capable of# which was really nothing. This is not to spea% of the opposition of bad and good# li%e the true earth and the water caught up by great e il# without sorrow or +oy# day after day. Thus his song of praise to the &reat &od *idi that He !ight bestow his blessings fro! all the gods.'=9) Here a conte!porary war is !ade analogous to a war between great 5a anese princes# the sub+ect !atter of the text which ta%es up the greater part of the !anuscript. These 5a anese princes were considered the ancestors of Balinese# but !ore i!portantly their courtly lifestyle defined the political culture of the precolonial Balinese courts.'=B) The co!!e!oration creates a lin% between past and present# but in a ery specific way. 0t also notes the relationship between the war in which Bangli was in ol ed and the extraordinary natural e ents of the appearance of three !oons and a great earthqua%e. The dates# as they occur in their original Balinese for!# are fro! the highly co!plex Balinese calendrical syste!s# which in ol e cycles of three"# fi e"# and se en"day wee%s (organi2ed into a year of -(F days# in which e ery wee% has its own na!e) and of twel e"!onth lunar years. Each indi idual day is a point at which a nu!ber of cycles !eet# and because of this is considered to ha e arious properties which !a%e it auspicious or inauspicious. The way this wor%s is referred to in the passage abo e# where the first clash between &ianyar and Bangli is described as happening according to an agreed date (!asa!aya)# but with connotations that this date was "fated." There are hints of this too in the phrase about the " co!ing of ?eath" (pangatag ing !retyu). on Bali generally things do not +ust "happen#" but happen according to a con ergence of di ine and de!onic influences which we would call "fate." 3uch influences are charted on the co!plicated calendrical syste!s of Bali# and things li%e wars and rituals are held according to the ad ice of experts in these calendars so that they are carried out in a "proper" !anner. Exa!ple / illustrates this in a ritual connectionD it is a !anuscript of the Bi!aswarga which narrates the story of how the iolent hero Bi!a liberated the souls of his stepfather and !other fro! hell. The text is fro! a different genre# this ti!e fro! the genre of texts which are about confrontations with de!onic forces# and which are often perfor!ed and presented in rituals which ha e an exorcistic co!ponent. This !anuscript has a co!!e!orati e note recording a great ritual held in Glung%ung in (E=-. This ritual was the baligya or postcre!ation ritual of apotheosis# in which the souls of the %ing of Glung%ung# who died in (EFC# together with the soul of his queen# was ele ated to the status of di inityD *ritten in the year (E:-# the writer too% on the tas% 'asA) eldest of the nation 'A)# in the west# his household# and all those who were supre!e +oined in. The owner of this pal! leaf !anuscript is the lord 0 ?ewa .utu Bandesa# of 3atrya Gawan. 0t is a co!!e!oration of the ritual of baligya in Glung%ung# of the holding of the ritual for the &od who passed away in battle at Blah .ane# fighting against ?e >gurah ?en Bancingah of Bangli. 'The ritual) consisted of the gi ing of gifts to the priests# the next day the

casting into the waters# and the tribute on the day Thursday Bth 5uly (E=-# and the %illing of the rhinoceros happened on the day 4onday ((th 5uly (E=-. The rhinoceros was an offering fro! 5a a# fro! the land of $ndyan 'A)# an offering of the &o ernor &eneral. Those who celebrated the ritual were the Brah!ans .adanda Gtut >gurah# 0da &ede .idada# 0da &ede >yo!an Tu!pung# and all the lords ca!e down# except the ruler of Tabanan.'=E) Here the !ost i!portant stages of the ritual ha e been identified# as well as the identity of the priests who ran the ritual. The !ost exceptional thing about this ritual was the presence of the rhinoceros# well docu!ented by the reluctant ?utch# and far !ore i!portant to the Balinese than any of the ?utch atte!pts to !a%e treaties# set up trading posts# or assert so!e %ind of political presence. The note adheres to the iew of the %ings of Glung%ung that they were the only "real" %ings of Bali (called "upper%ings and upperpriests" by the ?utch) and all the other rulers were "lords." The absence of the " lord" of the western Balinese %ingdo! of Tabanan is an i!portant issue# and one discussed in another text on the ritual of (E=-# since it shows an act of great disloyalty# and i!plies that the %ing of Tabanan refuses to accept the hege!onic position of Glung%ung. '=C) *ith the copying of the Bi!aswarga text ritual processes are +uxtaposed with "epic" ("!ythical") e ents. The text describes di ine beings in action# ta%ing on a priestly role. The situation described in the text is one where the preser ation and ele ation of the soul is at sta%e# and with it the har!ony of the whole world.':F) These are the sa!e %inds of goals which are held by state rituals# particularly the baligya ritual which is a ritual of apotheosis# in this case the apotheosis of the %ing of Glung%ung who died at Blahpane (in (EFC) at the end of a series of wars in which Bangli stro e to establish itself as an independent state. Exa!ple = is a codex which incorporates ele en different texts and a nu!ber of co!!e!orati e notes. 0t pro ides a !ore extensi e exa!ple of how different genres can be caught up in the processes of !a%ing history in Bali# and also of how texts# as re ealed in the notes attached to the!# were acti ely used in political acti ities of reproducing Balinese culture. $ll of the texts are poe!s in the for! of Gawi# the poetic language of Bali# called old 5a anese by European scholars. The first two poe!s are about how sinful protagonists achie e unli%ely for!s of rede!ption# but unli%e the Bi!aswarga these poe!s are written in the 0ndian"influenced !etrical for! called %e%awin. The %e%awin for!# which is lin%ed to the!atic expressions of acti ities of di ine forces# is used for the !a+ority of the other texts in this codex. 0n the first text of the collection# the 3iwaratri%alpa# a low"born and sinful hunter "accidentally" gains acceptance into 3iwa1s hea en by staying awa%e all night and dropping lea es into a pond where there is a statue of 3iwa. 0n the second a Buddhist de!on rescues another sinful de!on fro! the punish!ents of hell. The next two texts are didactic wor%s# in ol ing Buddhist hy!ns and explanations of cos!ology. The fifth and best %nown text is a fourteenth"century poe! on the greatness of the 5a anese %ingdo! of 4a+apahit. 0t describes the nature of the royal fa!ily#

their palace# te!ples# court rituals# and relationship to the %ingdo! in royal processions and hunting parties. 0t then goes on to describe the extent of the %ingdo! of 4a+apahit# and how !ost of the islands of what is now the 0ndonesian archipelago paid tribute to it. The last six texts are all poe!s of a didactic andIor !ystical nature# setting out the proper ethics associated with caste# and different paths to liberation# including erotic for!s of !ystical acti ity. $ll of these last six texts were supposed to ha e been written by >irartha# the great Brah!an ancestor of the predo!inant 3iwaite high priests of Bali. $ll of these texts are fra!ed by a series of notes about e ents in the %ingdo! of Garangase!# east Bali# circa (B/E" (B=F. Those in other parts of the !anuscript say that the texts were copied# "when oppressed by the ene!y#" by a descendant of the great priest who founded the 3iwaite priesthood in Bali. on the pages preceding the first text there is a lengthier note on e ents in the %ingdo! of Garangase! in (B/E.':() Gnowing of the +ourney in the !oonA <cah by *ayahan Buleleng'A). 0n 'A) ,ebruary (E/E the ene!y attac%ed Getut $nggahan1s fortifications and too% 4ount .ondong in Bangli. They ca!e fro! Garangase!# who ga e the! aid. >engah 5alanti% was at Bebande!# 0 .a!ayasan was his general. Then Getut $nggahan was attac%ed by 8ord >engah &yanyar on the Cth $pril (B/E. >engah 5alanti% re!ained at Bebande!. He was caught unawares# but held the! at the watch!en1s huts. 0 .a!ayasan went ho!e to 3alu!bang and >engah 5alanti% too% a stand +ust to the north of the rice field channels# holding the! at Bebande!. Beginning with 'A) the descendants of the lord of the !ountains. But fro! afar# Gyayi $lit of .adanga+i illage under 3ide!en !o ed against 3ibetan to help by +oining forces with >engah 5alanati%# in order to assist the priest of .inatih# on (:th <ctober (B/E. Here the %ey !o e!ents and leaders in a battle are identified. 0t appears that what is being described is the ta%eo er of the 3ide!en region +ust south of Bali1s !a+or pea%# 4ount $gung by the lords of 3ibetan. This ta%eo er was part of the larger pattern of conquest by which the s!all eastern state of Garangase! spread first to the nearby island of 8o!bo%# and then to ta%e in the areas of 3ibetan and 3ide!en# and after that the northern %ingdo! of Buleleng (as referred to in exa!ple (). The codex was destined to be sent to the reconquered island of 8o!bo%# where the %ing of Garangase! was consolidating its Balinese Hindu"Buddhist hege!ony o er the predo!inantly 4usli! 3asa% population.':-) This pangeling"eling is quite dra!atic in that it contains a real sense of the !o!ent. The strange line# "Beginning with the descendants of the lord of the !ountains#" is in fact a quotation fro! the 3iwaratri%alpa itself# written as if the copyist was !o ing directly fro! his present" day fra!e into the text# and then dropped as if so!ething else had occurred which had to be told before the text could be written# and the other texts of the codex added. $s an editor of so!e of these texts# Teeuw# has already hinted# their incorporation !ay ser e as a %ind of prescripti eIdescripti e o er iew of Balinese ci ili2ation and religion as it goes bac% to the 5a anese %ingdo! of

4a+apahit. Therefore it was i!portant to bring these texts to 8o!bo% when the %ings of Garangase! beca!e rulers of the island. ':/) The codex# in other words# ser ed as part of the "ci ili2ing" of 8o!bo% which acco!panied Garangase! hege!ony on the island. The texts were copied for that purpose# but also represent a response to ti!es of threat and disorder# when the Garangase! %ingdo! was expanding on both sides and consolidating its power to beco!e the largest of the Balinese %ingdo!s. The texts explain these e ents in ter!s of the religious and ethical +ustifications of %ingship and its precedents# and in relation to the rede!pti e functions of that conquest# both for the %ing hi!self and for those who were icti!s of the process. $s !y brief s%etches indicate# the +uxtapositions wor% in !any waysD the co!!e!orati e notes contextuali2e the texts# putting the! within a fra!e conte!porary with their writing. 0n doing this they show the writing of the texts to be a response to the particular e ents described. They also explain the e ents described in textual ter!s6 personal experiences are incorporated into a greater cos!ic sche!e. Hu!an e ents are thus interpreted in ter!s of larger patterns. The scribes were writing the texts into the historical !o!ent# which !eant writing the wars and the ritual into !o!ents of other# !ore i!portant# wars and rituals. This was a two"way process of contextuali2ing and historici2ing. 000. .$TTE7>3 <, THE .$3T 0t was so!ething of a "coincidence" that the notes were attached to the texts. 0n ter!s of the "co!!e!orations" and textual discussions of the past# !uch of Bateson1s argu!ent about the past as "pattern" is rele ant# but with the i!portant !odification that in the Balinese context "pattern" and "causality" are related. The type of "cause" Bateson was ruling out in his case study was the causal explanation which relied on a detailed chronology and discussion of possibilities such as so!e *estern historians !ay produce. The discussions of Balinese ti!e which ha e co!e after Bateson indicate that there are other types of causality in ol ed# and that these types of causality are based in a sense of the past. ;o!!e!orati e notes are +uxtaposed to texts# and texts +uxtaposed to each other to !a%e things coincide. This causes pheno!ena to enter history. .heno!ena cannot be isolated by the!sel es (that is# they are not naturally "e ents")# but !ust be constituted as significant in people1s li es through their relationship to larger patterns of significance. The copyists and writers of texts are not creati ely writing but pro iding e idence of an inner coherence between text and e ent. Texts such as the 4alat and the Bi!aswarga are not only part of the pattern of Balinese culture# but of Balinese history as well. Balinese describe their li es as a series of o erdeter!ined !o!ents. on a personal le el such !o!ents are births# illnesses# !arriages# and deaths. 0n illage and state ter!s they are or were epide!ics# wars# state rituals# and other si!ilar critical happenings. The significance of these e ents can be gauged fro! their correspondence to textual e ents# that is they are percei ed through a prior experience of !ultiple texts""intertextuality. "E ents" or the "nodes" of ti!e are

points at which the ele!ents of "fate" co!e together. Texts are !eant to gi e a sense of the arrange!ents or order of "fate" and of how !uch an indi idual !ay act. $ction or agency is here related to being# as exa!ple shows when it refers to the troubled state of %ings and priests""such people ha e e en !ore cause to be troubled than the suffering sub+ects because as higher for!s of being within the hu!an hierarchy they are !eant to be agents within history. 0n this case they were disturbed because they were put into the %ind of passi e role which is usually assigned to their sub+ects within ruling ideology. The co!!e!orations inti!ate that an e ent is not +ust an e ent. 0t is a !o!ent selected fro! a te!poral continuu! by an act of re!e!bering. The !o!ent is selected as an e ent by certain criteria# but these criteria !ay ary according to genre. ,or exa!ple# if the !o!ent is of great significance for a dynasty in genealogical ter!s# then its proper place is in a babad. 0f it fits into patterns of princely warfare or politics# then it !ore properly belongs with texts li%e the 4alat. 0f it fits into a pattern of !o e!ent of the soul in relation to di ine or se!i"di ine forces# then it can be appropriately +uxtaposed to a text such as the Bi!aswarga. By rewriting or perfor!ing these narrati e e ents people can inter ene to !ini!i2e differences between the past and the present so that the quality of the past e ent beco!es the quality of the present e ent. The well"perfor!ed or well"written text ser es to !anifest the truth. Balinese do not narrate "e ents" in chronological order for the purposes of writing history# but they tell stories about other things that we would call "!ythical" or "legendary" in order to refer to "e ents. " The texts which are produced are !ore than "literature" in the narrow sense that we understand boo%s6 they are the way pheno!ena are !ade sense of. $ history of Balinese intentions !ight loo% li%e an exa!ination of what texts were written and copied and when. *e !ight as% by what logic of coherence were e ents deter!ined# and why certain texts and genres were !ore rele ant to one period than another. Through using co!!e!orati e notes we !ight get a few "facts" out of this""that is we !ight be able to add !ore dates to e ents. The approach also allows for the use of ?utch# English# 5a anese# or other "outside" perceptions of Bali# particularly as they re eal "facts" and e ents which were not co!!e!orated in Balinese sources. But these "facts" and sources would be less i!portant than the processes by which Balinese culture pro ided a logic of coherence for these e ents. The e ents are less i!portant than the patterns. By %nowing so!ething of Balinese intentions it is possible to place these alongside the intentions of the ?utch and other *estern agents with who! arious Balinese ha e interacted o er at least three centuries. 3uch a +uxtaposition of intentions colliding# clashing# o erlapping# a oiding# or o erta%ing !ay not !a%e the %ind of Braudelian "world history" in which a single narrati e of "world ti!e" e!erges.':=) &i en enough studies of the intentions of different groups# whether 0ndian princes# ?anish traders# or $frican sla es# it !ay be possible to reconstruct an infinitely !ore co!plicated "world history" than Braudel drea!ed of# one in which "world ti!e" e!erges

through the grinding# !eshing cogs of a !achine !eant by a European elite to generate the co!plicated econo!ic structure Braudel describes. Hni ersity of >ew 3outh *ales '(.) ,ernand Braudel# ;i ili2ation and ;apitalis!# Kol. ((D The *heels of ;o!!erce# transl. 3ian 7eynolds (8ondon# (CE-)# (/=. '-.) 3ee The $frican .ast 3pea%sD Essays on oral Tradition and History# ed. 5. ;. 4iller ($chron# (CEF)6 5. ?. @ . .eel# "4a%ing HistoryD The .ast in the 0+esha .resent#" 4an (C ((CE=)# ((("(/-. '/.) 3ee especially 4arshall 3ahlins# Historical 4etaphors and 4ythical 7ealitiesD 3tructure in the Early History of the 3andwich 0slands Gingdo! ($nn $rbor# (CE()6 and 0slands of History (8ondon# (CE:). '=.) ,or a discussion of the textual traditions in their historical context# <rientalis! and Balinese society# see $. Kic%ers# BaliD $ .aradise ;reated (7ingwood# Kic.# $ustralia# (CEC). ':.) 5. ;. an 8eur# 0ndonesian Trade and 3ociety (The Hague# (C::). 3ee also Historians of 3outheast $sia# ed. ?. &. E. Hall (8ondon# (C9()6 $n 0ntroduction to 0ndonesian Historiography# ed. 3oed+at!o%o et al. (0thaca# (C9:)6 .erceptions of the .ast in 3outheast $sia# ed. $. 7eid and ?. 4arr (3ingapore# (CBC)6 H. $. 5. Glooster# 0ndonesiers 3chri+ en hun &eschiedenis (?ordrecht# (CE:). '9.) 3ir Tho!as 3ta!ford 7affles# The History of 5a a '(E(B) (Guala Lumpur, 1965 , 2 vols. 'B.) ;f. Hen% 4aier# ",rag!ents of 7eadingD The 4alay Hi%ayat 4erong 4ahawangsa#" .h.?. dies.# 8eiden Hni ersity# (CE:. 'E.) Hoesein ?+a+adiningrat# ;ritische Beschouwing an de 3ad+arah Banten# .h.?. dies.# 8eiden Hni ersity# (C(/. 'C.) H. 5. de &raaf# "8o!bo% in de (Be Eeuw#" ?+awa -( ((C=()# /::" /B/6 "&oesti .and+i 3a%ti# Korst an Boeleleng#" Ti+dschrift oor 0ndische Taal"# 8and" en Kol%en%unde E/ ((C=C)# :C"E-. ,or co!!ents on the whole de &raaf tradition# see $. ?ay1s re iew of $nn Gu!ar# 3urapati6 4an and 8egendD $ 3tudy of Three Babad Traditions (8eiden# (CB9)# in Bi+dragen tot de Taal"# 8and" en Kol%en%unde an het G0T8K 'hereafter BG0) (/= ((CBE)# /9B"/BF. '(F.) ;. ;. Berg1s !a+or wor%s in this context are ?e 4iddle+a aansche Historische Traditie (3antpoort# (C-B) (his dissertation)6 Gidung .a!ancangahD de &eschiedenis an het 7i+% an &elgel (3antpoort# (C-C)6 Babad Bla"Batuh (3antpoort# (C/-)6 and "5a aansche &eschiedschri+ ing# " in &eschiedenis an >ederlandsch 0ndie# ed. ,.*. 3tapel ($!sterda!# (C/E)# ((# :"(=E. ,ro! the point of iew of !y analysis of texts in context# Berg1s !ost i!portant and inspiring wor% is his article "?e $r+unawiwaha# Er"8angga1s 8e ensloop en BruiloftsliedA" BG0 CB ((C/E)# (C"C=. '((.) ..5. *orsley# Babad BulelengD $ Balinese ?ynastic &enealogy (The Hague# (CB-). '(-.) 3ee $. Kic%ers# "The *riting of Ga%awin and Gidung on Bali#" BG0 (/E ((CE-)# =C-"=C/6 8ouis";harles ?a!ais# "Etudes Balinaises" "Kll Luelques >ou elles ?ates de 4anuscrits Balinais#" Bulletin de l1Ecole ,rancais de Extre!e"orient 'BE,E<) :( ((C9/)# (/-"(=-# esp. (/9. '(/.) &. 8. Goster# "The Gera+aan at *arD on the &enre MHeroic"Historical 3yair#1" .aper presented at the =th 0ndonesia"?utch Historical ;onference# @ogya%arta# (CE/6 ;. 3%inner# The Battle for 5un% ;eylon (?ordrecht# (CE:)# /FE"/(-. '(=.) 5. 5. 7as# "The Babad Tanah 5awi and its 7eliabilityD Luestions of

;ontent# 3tructure and ,unction#" in ;ultural ;ontact and Textual 0nterpretation# ed. ;. ?. &ri+ns and 3. <. 7obson (?ordrecht# (CE9)# -=9" -B/. 7as is co!!enting here on a contro ersy between $. ?ay and 4. ;. 7ic%lefs which appeared as the two articles# $. ?ay# "Babad Gandha6 Babad Graton and Kariation in 4odern 5a anese 8iterature#" BG0 (/= ((CBE)# =//" =:F6 and 4. ;. 7ic%lefs# "The E olution of the Babad Tanah 5awi Texts#" BG0 (/: ((CBC)# ==/"=:=. '(:.) $uthor1s introduction quoted in 7as# -:: and -B(. That the word for authority# !u%ta!ate# is $rabic in ety!ology indicates that so!e of 7as1s proble!s of eracity and the role of the text ha e to be considered in the light of 0sla!ic concepts of ti!e and history# so!ething which 7as glosses o er# and which only touches on the borders of (Hindu) Balinese ideas of ti!e and history. The co!ing of 0sla! to 3outh 3ulawesi# for exa!ple# coincides with the co!ing into being of a tradition of writing chronologically specific diaries# +ust as the re i ed interpretation of 0sla! in nineteenth"century 5a a coincides with the de elop!ent of a genre of tra el writing which chronologically and geographically describes the !o e!ent of indi idual 4usli!s through different localities. The presence of 0sla!ic influences indicates a set of differences in senses of ti!e and causality in this contextD Bali is different fro! 5a a6 +ust as 5a a# although influenced by 0sla!6 is different fro! other 0sla!ic cultures6 which in turn ha e different historical traditions fro! those of Europe. '(9.) 4. ;. 7ic%lefs# "0ndonesian History and 8iterature#" in ?ari Babad dan Hi%ayat sa!pai 3e+arah Gritis Gu!pulan %arangan diperse!bah%n %epada .rofD ?r. 3artono Gartodird+o# ed. T. 0brahi! $lfian et al. (@ogya%arta# (CEB)# (CC"-(F. '(B.) 0bid.# p. -(F. '(E.) $ ery pro!ising reading of a so"called "historical" text is presented by >ancy G. ,lorida# "7eading the Hnread in Traditional 5a anese 8iterature#" 0ndonesia == ((CEB)# ("(:. '(C.) .. ;arter# The 7ood 5o Botany BayD $n Essay in 3patial History (8ondon# (CEB). 0 shall not discuss here ;arter1s !a+or argu!ents about "spatial history#" since they are not rele ant to the 0ndonesian context. '-F.) 0bid.# /=C. '-(.) 0de!. '--.) 0de!. '-/.) $. Kic%ers# "*riting 0ndonesian HistoryD .oststructuralis! and .erception#" $sian 3tudies $ssociation of $ustralia 7e iew (F (5uly# (CE9)# (:"-(# citing 4. Heidegger1s Being and Ti!e# (<xford# (CB/)# :9":B and EC. '-=.) 3ee E. ?. Hirsch 5r.# Kalidity in 0nterpretation (>ew Ha en# (C9B)# -(E (+ust one s!all part of the olu!inous literature on the sub+ect""0 a! indebted to 4ar% Hobart for a nu!ber of %ey references on the sub+ect). '-:.) &illes ?eleu2e# ,oucault# transl. and ed. 3ean Hand (4inneapolis# (CEE)# (FE"(FC. '-9.) 7eprinted in ;lifford &eert2# The 0nterpretation of ;ultures (>ew @or%# (CB/)# /9F"=((. '-B.) 0bid.# /CE. '-E.) 4. Bloch# "The .ast and the .resent in the .resent#" 4an (- ((CBB)# -BE"-C-. '-C.) 8eopold Howe# "The 3ocial ?eter!ination of GnowledgeD 4aurice Bloch and Balinese Ti!e#" 4an (9 ((CE()# --F"-/=. '/F.) 0bid.# --9. '/(.) 4ar% Hobart# "$nthropos through the 8oo%ing"&lassD or How to Teach the Balinese to Bar%#" in 7eason and 4orality# ed. 5. < ering (8ondon# (CE:)#

(F="(/=. '/-.) Howe# "3ocial ?eter!ination#" --E. '//.) 3ee $. Kic%ers# "7itual *rittenD The 3ong of the 8igya or the ?eath of the 7hinoceros#" to appear in Balinese 3tate and 3ociety# ed. H. &eert2 (8eiden# forthco!ing). 5ust to confuse the !etaphors# one royal ritual expert explained the te!poral processes which rituals sought to effect in ter!s not of "circles" but of "spirals" of ti!e. '/=.) &. Bateson# "$n old Te!ple and a >ew 4yth#" originally published in ?+awa (B ((C/B)# -C("/FB# reprinted in Traditional Bolinese ;ulture# ed. 5ane Belo (>ew @or%# (CBF)# ((("(/9. .age references here are to the reprinted ersion. '/:.) 0bid.# (((. '/9.) 0bid.# (/:. '/B.) 0de!. '/E.) ?a id 8owenthal# The .ost is a ,oreign ;ountry (;a!bridge# Eng. # (CE:) '/C.) ,or sedeng luunga# see 4. Hobart# "0s 0nterpretation 0nco!patible with GnowledgeA The .roble! of *hether the 5a anese 3hadow .lay Has 4eaning#" -nd Bielefeld ;olloquiu! on 3outheast $sia# *estphaliaD Bielefeld Hni ersity# (CE-. '=F.) 0de!. 3ee also 4. Hobart# "3u!!er1s ?ays and 3alad ?aysD The ;o!ing of $ge of $nthropologyA#" in ;o!porati e $nthropology# ed. 5. Holy (<xford# (CEB)# --":(# and Hobart# "?war es 7eaching for the 3%y6 or *hy 3e!antic Theories ?o >ot *or% in Bali#" to appear in 8anguage and ;ulture in Bali# ed. &usti >gurah Bagus and 5oel 3chert2er. Here it notes that patut can refer to so!ething that is correct in discourse# while wya%ti !eans true in the world. '=(.) 3. <. 7obson# *angbang *ideyaD $ 5a anese .an+i 7o!ance (The Hague# (CB()# :-# 8eiden <riental 43 /B(:. ;f. the two dates of *angbang *ideya texts fro! ?a!ais equi alent to (B9/. '=-.) 7. an Ec%# "3chetsen an het Eiland Bali#" Ti+dschrift oor >ederlandsch 0ndie B ((EBE)# (((# /-:"/:9. '=/.) 5. Gats# "Een Balische Brief uit (B9E aan de &ou eneur an 5a a1 s >oord%ust#" ,eestbundel Gonin%li+% Bata iaasch &enootschap (:F"+aarig Bestaan (*elte reden# (C-C)(# -C("-C9. '==.) ;. ;. 4acGnight# "The ;oncept of a 1*or%1 in Bugis 4anuscripts# " 704$ (E (3u!!er# (CE=)# (F/"((=. (=. '=:.) This date is unclear. 0 a! following here# as elsewhere# the syste! of equi alences wor%ed out by 8.";. ?a!ais in his "Etudes d1 Epigraphie 0ndonesienne K. ?ates de 4anuscrits et ?ocu!ents ?i ers de 5a a# Bali et 8o!bo%#" BE,E< =C ((C::)# ("-:B. ?a!ais# (=B# says this is the sa!e as the first date# although 0 find that hard to understand in the light of what the rest of the passage said# and presu!e that it !ust be one of the other equi alents which he gi es as options for this date. =9. 8eiden oriental 43 =/FC. =B. Kic%ers# "7itual *ritten." '=E.) 5. 8. $. Brandes# Beschri+ ing den . . handschriften . . an der Tua%# Bata ia# ol. (# no. -=C. '=C.) The other text is the Gidung Garya 8igyaI&eguritan .ade! *ara% referred to in Kic%ers# "7itual *ritten." ':F.) The painted depictions of the Bi!aswarga story fro! Glung%ung ha e been the sub+ect of an unpublished study by !yself. The !anuscripts of the Bi!aswarga# written in the !eters %nown as %idung# ha e been exa!ined in unpublished wor% by &eoffrey 7obinson. ':(.) $. Teeaw et al.# 3iwaratri%alpa of 4pu Tana%ung (The Hague# (C9C)# (:9"(:B. ':-.) 3o!e of these texts ha e already been edited# translated and annotated as Teeuw et aI.#

3iwaratri%alpa6 $. Teeuw and 3. <. 7obson# Gun+ara%arna (The Hague# (CE-)6 Th. .. .igeaud# 5a a in the ,ourteenth ;entury# : ols. (The Hague# (C9F"(C9/)6 7.4. >g. .oerbat+ara%a# " >irartha .ra%erta#" BG0 (FB ((C:()# -F("--:. ':/.) Teeuw and 7obson# Gun+ara%arna# =B":F. ':=.) 0 refer here to the !a+or argu!ents put forward in the third olu!e of Braudel1s ;i ili2ation and ;apitalis!# The .erspecti e of the *orld. NNNNNNNN By $?70$> K0;GE73 Kic%ers# $drian# Balinese texts and historiography..# Kol. -C# History & Theory# F:"F("(CCF# pp (:E.