Balinese keris advice

[JeffS]

This is a new purchase but it will be several weeks before I get my hands on it. However, I'm impatient and hope to get advice/comments so I can consider options to dress it. I've (poorly) Photoshop'd the image below from the sellers photos which had watermarks. To my eye, this is a classic Bali keris with decent execution, likely late 19C or early 20C based on other examples on this forum. It looks quite serviceable as a weapon with a 45cm blade. I'm liking the warangka, a bit worn with character. I'm uncertain on the age/quality of the bebondolan(?) style hilt. I would like to think it is something a Balinese warrior might carry. Am I way off base? If not, I would love to hear suggestions for dressing it (selut, mendak, hilt) to match this period and function.

[David]

Looks like a nice example of a late 19th century Bali keris. The hilt form here is called Cekah Solas. You can find more information on these hilts here:
http://vikingsword.com/vb/showthread...7827#post87827
I would not say you are necessarily off-base on your assumption. I have heard that such hilts were favoured for fighting and this is the kind of basic, unadorned dress you might expect for a soldier's keris i think.

[A. G. Maisey]

If what I think I can see in the photos is correct, this is a very, very good keris.

The blade style is classic, the garap appears to be detailed and neat, the forge work looks to be better than competent.

The dress is classic.

Old keris of this style of keris in Bali itself have been highly sought after for some years, especially so since the monetary crisis of the late 20th century.

I would not be so inclined to think in terms of Balinese warriors, out of context this can be a pretty misleading thought, similarly, in the Balinese context the keris should not thought of just in weapon terms.

It seems that you might be considering changing the dress, Jeff?

This could be one of the greatest errors in your collecting life if you do.

The only thing I might suggest is the addition of an old wewer (hilt ring), but undamaged old ones are very difficult to obtain.

This keris is perfect & beautiful exactly as it is.

[JeffS]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

If what I think I can see in the photos is correct, this is a very, very good keris.

The blade style is classic, the garap appears to be detailed and neat, the forge work looks to be better than competent.

The dress is classic.

Old keris of this style of keris in Bali itself have been highly sought after for some years, especially so since the monetary crisis of the late 20th century.

I would not be so inclined to think in terms of Balinese warriors, out of context this can be a pretty misleading thought, similarly, in the Balinese context the keris should not thought of just in weapon terms.

It seems that you might be considering changing the dress, Jeff?

This could be one of the greatest errors in your collecting life if you do.

The only thing I might suggest is the addition of an old wewer (hilt ring), but undamaged old ones are very difficult to obtain.

This keris is perfect & beautiful exactly as it is.

Wow, I have gotten very lucky. Thank you for the advice. Best leave this at that. I would, however, be very interested to hear more regarding Balinese warriors and their use of keris as weapons within the proper context and nuance you mention. I am thinking of older photos with rough looking armed men with a large keris carried on the back. I know I've seen threads with lively keris/weapon discussions. I will go back and read on this and start a new thread if the specific Balinese context is not already well traveled ground here.

[David]

Originally Posted by JeffS

Wow, I have gotten very lucky. Thank you for the advice. Best leave this at that. I would, however, be very interested to hear more regarding Balinese warriors and their use of keris as weapons within the proper context and nuance you mention. I am thinking of older photos with rough looking armed men with a large keris carried on the back. I know I've seen threads with lively keris/weapon discussions. I will go back and read on this and start a new thread if the specific Balinese context is not already well traveled ground here.

I completely agree with Alan that it would be misleading to consider the Bali keris only in terms of weaponry alone. While it is my understanding that the keris was indeed employed as a weapon in Bali, its place within that culture is so much larger than that and i don't think the keris was ever considered a prime weapon of war even if it was fought with at times.
I also agree with Alan that you should not be thinking about changing anything about this classic keris dress. The sheath, though worn, looks to be in pretty good condition, made from select and desirable timoho pelet wood, as is the Cekah Solas hilt. While perhaps not exactly rare, old examples of these hilts are at least less common and it suits this keris quite well. As Alan mentioned, the only thing i would consider changing about this ensemble would be to add a wewer/uwer (hilt ring) to it. While old, undamaged uwer may indeed be more difficult to find, if you look around some you can probably find a fairly decent new one that might fit the bill.I used to see these quite often on eBay.
When you think about images of "rough looking armed men" carrying keris you may well be thinking about this image. You will note that the gentleman on the right carries a keris at his back and the hilt on his keris is indeed a the Cekah Solas form. This image presents these gentlemen as warriors, but it is obviously a set-up photo so it's impossible to say for sure how much of this image was orchestrated by the photographer for effect. But as i mentioned before, it is my understanding that these Cekah Solas hilts were favoured by warriors due to their grip. When i went searching for where i had seen this before it does seem to be information that was suggested by Lalu Djelenga. Still, i believe it is important to approach keris form a position that focusses on far more than martial applications.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, these are indeed pretty scary looking men, but we can all look pretty scary when when we want to. As you say David, a posed photograph. If we were to have met these men in other than this photo pose, I believe we would have found them to be as friendly and as personable as we now find their present day descendants to be.

In my experience and personal relationships with Balinese people, which stretches over more than 50 years, and speaking in general terms, I can find no traces of a warrior society in Bali.

Yeah, sure, we have a K'satriya caste, the "knights" within the societal system, but even in past times, when these "knights" had a duty to protect their ruler and their fellow members of society, it seems to me that the Balinese idea of combat was more in the nature of theatre, rather than the ideas surrounding combat that we find in many societies in other parts of the world, for example in European societies.

Those of us who have read, or studied, this work:-

Visible and Invisible Realms-Margaret J.Wiener
ISBN 0-226-88582-8/1,The University of Chicago Press

have consistently recommended it as a starting point to understand the keris in Bali.

The keris in all societies where it is found as a cultural artefact does not stand independent of the society, it is essential to understand the society before one can understand the keris.

[JeffS]

This photo also comes to mind. I see the Wiener book is still readily available, will order when back from traveling.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Yeah, sure, we have a K'satriya caste, the "knights" within the societal system, but even in past times, when these "knights" had a duty to protect their ruler and their fellow members of society, it seems to me that the Balinese idea of combat was more in the nature of theatre, rather than the ideas surrounding combat that we find in many societies in other parts of the world, for example in European societies.

I am a bit confused by this comment Alan. Surely the Balinese engaged in combat at times in their history. I would image this involved real warfare, not just theatre. I was not suggesting a warrior society per se, but i don't see anything too off base in referring to someone who engages in battle as a warrior. Though again, i don't believe the keris would have been considered regular weapon of war in these cases.
Jeff, i also cannot recommend Visible and Invisible Realms by Margaret J.Wiener more heartily. It is an excellent book to understand Bali and the place the keris held within that society.

[A. G. Maisey]

I think I can understand what you're saying here David, and if I do, I can also understand why my comment might seem to be confusing.

Yes, it is certain that in Old Bali there was sometimes conflict between the various kingdoms, a colony was established on Lombok, other colonies were attempted in other locations. However, in Standard English, and also in the way I think --- and this could be the problem --- simple conflict does not a warrior make.

The way I understand the word "warrior" is that a man who is a warrior is one who makes warfare his occupation, thus a warrior society is a society that depends for its existence upon its ability to wage war. If I think "warrior" in an historic context I think of people such as Ghengis Khan, or other historic people whose profession was war, not just occasional conflict, especially conflict that ultimately might be settled by negotiation rather than spilt blood.

Balinese society was a society of farmers who occasionally became involved in conflict, within Balinese society the K'satriya caste can be thought of as the ruling class of people, Brahmana could not rule, traders and craftsmen could not rule, the tillers of the soil could not rule, only the K'satriya could rule, so the job of this entire class of people was to ensure order & and stability within the realm, and to support the ruler, whose presence was in fact, The Realm. Not at all dissimilar to the old English hierarchy of nobility.

Yes, the K'satriya was also the line of first defence, or first offence, in times of conflict, but their profession was not war, thus they were not warriors, they were the ruling class.

In Standard English, the word "warrior" is now principally used in a poetic or rhetorical way, and it can also be used in a manner that bestows praise, for instance, in a eulogistic sense.

Balinese society was not a warrior society, and I was commenting in terms of the society.

There is another book that is well worth the time (& effort) to read:-

Negara:- The theatre state in 19th. century Bali -- Clifford Geertz,
ISBN 0 691 05316 2 Princeton University Press

I used the word "effort", because I do not find this work as easy to digest as Wiener, it can be an effort to get through, but it does clarify the way in which Balinese realm & society functioned before the puputans, before the tourists, and before the erosion of traditional ways.

[Gustav]

A few comments about "Balinese warrior" also from me.

Balinese society perhaps was not primarily a warriors society, but Balinese undoubtely were very well known in 17th and 18th century Java as fierce warriors. Balinese forces captured and for some time controlled Blambangan in East Java. Balinese mercenaries were much sought after by VOC and different Javanese parties, and were equal in their fighting abilities with the two other classic mercenary groups - Madurese and Makassarese/Buginese. M.C.Ricklefs writes, after mentioning these: "The Balinese were also a nation of soldiers, (...)" (the "but" part of quotation deals with their religion).

Balinese participated in Javanese conflicts until the end of the Third Sucession War in 1757, there most notably within Mangkunegaran party. Their impact on Javanese culture for more then a half of a century was huge - Balinese dance, dress style, moustache - at that time a genuinely Balinese feature in Java - and along with dress, Balinese (or Balinese style, or better, size) Keris.

We have not much detailed information on situation in Bali itself until around 1800, but after that it was a time of frequent conflicts.

The referring to Javanese and Balinese warfare as theatre or dance was quite popular with period European witnesses.

The book of Geertz is a classic (1980), an indispensable reading, but already at its appearance was criticised for rather one-sided view.

Surely the last Puputans changed the Balinese society and culture (something like Gamelan Gong Kebyar was unthinkable before them), but always, looking at the friendly smiling Balinese and their peaceful and artistic society, I must think of 1965 in Bali. In less then a half of year estimated 80 000 people were killed, proportionally more then anywhere else in Indonesia.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for posting that alternate view Gustav, you are of course correct in this reporting, most especially so in your reference the massacres of 1965.

I was in Bali in 1966, at that time I was not related to any of the people who died during those events that contributed to the formation of Indonesia as a nation, but I did later become so.

The observance that a very great number of people passed from this world to the next at that time deserves more than just the reporting of numbers, the background to these occurrences should also be understood. This forum is in my opinion not the place to address that.

Yes, Geertz' commentary in Negara has been subjected to opposing opinions, and we can find opposing opinions to very many things in very many fields of academic endeavour. I am not an academic, but my own study and personal experience inclines me to a similar opinion to that of Geertz.

It is also true that the Balinese did serve as mercenaries for the Dutch, as did the Madurese and the Bugis people. One thing that contributed to the popularity of Balinese men as mercenaries and Balinese women as concubines & wives (especially for the Dutch: Balinese had no aversion to pork, something forbidden to Muslim women) was the fact that many, if not most of these Balinese people entered service for the Dutch as slaves. The Balinese slave trade is something that has been well researched and reported, but now tends to be pushed into the background.

A notable characteristic of Balinese people in general, is that they do tend to be quick to anger, but as soldiers and servants they did also have a reputation for unreliability.

Gustav, if I wished I could use select evidence and create an argument that would support the idea that the Balinese were a nation of warriors who just happened to live by farming. However, if I were to do that, somebody else could just as easily create an opposing argument.

If you, or others, wish to believe that the Balinese were warriors who lived by indulging in warfare, and only grew rice in their spare time, I have no problem with that, we do tend to believe the things that our own experience indicates to us are true.

However, there is one inescapable truth:- in the English language a warrior is a person whose profession is war. When the word warrior is used in other senses than this it is either poetic usage, rhetorical usage, or eulogistic usage.

Occasional, or forced participation in armed conflict does not make a warrior, if it did, virtually every nation in the Western World would be a nation of warriors.

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you for responding to my comment.

In no way I would believe Balinese were warriors who lived by indulging in warfare, and only grew rice in their spare time. No one, except you, were speaking here about Balinese society as a warrior society at all.

Balinese did not serve as mercenaries only to Dutch, but also to different Javanese parties in all Javanese Wars of Succession (until the very end - Mangkubumi preferred Madurese, Raden Mas Said - Balinese), and even did their own thing under Surapati. Of course you are absolutely right about Balinese slaves - Surapati also was one for some time. These mercenaries were undoubtely warriors.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

However, there is one inescapable truth:- in the English language a warrior is a person whose profession is war. When the word warrior is used in other senses than this it is either poetic usage, rhetorical usage, or eulogistic usage.

Occasional, or forced participation in armed conflict does not make a warrior, if it did, virtually every nation in the Western World would be a nation of warriors.

Alan, i don't really wish to belabor this point too much further, but your comment sent me searching for the English definition of the word "warrior".
Miriam-Webster: "a person engaged or experienced in warfare"
Cambridge: "a person who has experience and skill in fighting, esp. as a soldier"
Collins: "A warrior is a fighter or soldier, especially one in former times who was very brave and experienced in fighting."
Oxford: "(especially in the past) a person who fights in a battle or war"
Nowhere is there a mention that a warrior is someone who fights wars in exchange for money. I do acknowledge that a couple of these definitions mention "soldier", which certainly can be considered a profession, though soldiers can be conscripted as well. Though even when someone becomes a soldier for pay it does not necessarily mean that soldiering is their intended profession. Many soldiers serve their nation in times of war and then return to their regular lives as farmers, carpenters, and tradespeople. When we speak of Native American warriors, surely fighting wars was not the sole occupation of these braves. They fought where and when they were needed and hunted and/or farmed also when needed, all as a service to the tribe. And certainly they weren't paired for their warrior skills when they did go to war. So i am afraid that this connection you are making that demands that "warrior" only be used in the context of a "profession" does not really ring true for me.

[A. G. Maisey]

As I previously remarked Gustav, I have no problem if you or anybody else believes that Balinese people were warriors. Our opinions are based upon our experience, that experience can include study as well as personal and field experience, and my study and field experience dictates that my opinion must differ from yours.

Yes, it is true that I did introduce the idea of a "warrior society", now why do you think I might have done that?

Any single person from any society or cultural background can become a warrior, that is to say, a person who follows the profession of war. We can find warriors from every nation on earth, but that does not make an entire people warriors nor the society in which they live, a warrior society.

The Balinese people are a nation of farmers and have been farmers for a very long time, so we have a society of farmers.

But here we are talking about keris, and the keris is a societal & cultural artefact, that must be understood from the perspective of society & culture, not from the perspective of war.

In Jeff's first post he said :-

"I would like to think it is something a Balinese warrior might carry."

I considered that it was important to try to encourage the people who might read our comments to attempt to understand the keris in cultural terms, rather than in terms of warfare, thus I wrote:-

"I would not be so inclined to think in terms of Balinese warriors, out of context this can be a pretty misleading thought, similarly, in the Balinese context the keris should not thought of just in weapon terms."

The keris is not, and was not a weapon of war, if it cannot be thought of as a weapon of war, then it should not be thought of in terms of people who follow the profession of war.

Of course it is true that Balinese were employed by rulers across the archipelago, the museum attached to the Mangkunegaraan in Solo has some examples of the keris dress used by Balinese palace guards, but to understand why Balinese were employed in various capacities ( not only as guards & soldiers) we need to look at the societal conditions and elements that caused these men, & women, & children, to find themselves in these foreign situations. A major factor was the Balinese slave trade.

Incidentally, going back to your mention of the 1965-1966 communist purges , upon reflection, I find it ludicrous to mention these massacres in relation to any discussion of warriors.

The people who carried out these massacres were not in any sense warriors, the methods of execution did not involve conflict, the people killed as "communists" were in fact principally Indonesian-Chinese to whom money was owed, or who held property coveted by another person, or who had offended somebody at some time in the past.

The actual method of execution was more or less the same as that used in East Jawa by the Madurese, that is, the people to be executed were lined up and their throats were cut from behind by arit (reaping hook).

I have many friends and relatives who lived through this period of Indonesian history, what I know of it is from people who were directly involved both as potential victims and as executioners.

Warriors??????

In your dreams.

I'd just as soon leave this rather puerile discussion Gustav, from my perspective it is simply a repetition of opposing points of view, you have yours & I do not seek to re-educate you, I have mine and I do not believe that a discussion involving usage of the English language and personal opinions on the nature of the Balinese people has a place in this forum.

[A. G. Maisey]

Agreed David, neither do I, I really do get a bit fedup with silly little debates that really contribute nothing, this sort of thing is far too close to what I have done for a living for more than 50 years and I do not find it relaxing.

However --- dictionaries, and "profession" or "occupation" or "job".

This is an English language forum.

When I get paid for what I have done for a living for most of my life, I need to use the English language.

When I use that language in a strictly Australian context I try to use the Australian form of the language.

When I am required to use the language in some vehicle which will travel beyond the borders of Australia I try, insofar as it is possible, to use what I have been taught is Standard English, and if I need to go to a dictionary, I use the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles for general writing, and specific professional dictionaries when these are required.

If I'm talkin to me mates I use whichever jargon best suits the situation --- bush lingo with me cockie mates, accounting, audit, & legal jargon with my professional associates.

The word "warrior" can be used in many ways, we can find "keyboard warriors", "weekend warriors", we can find football teams that are some sort of warrior or other. When we get into colloquial usage there is no end to the warriors we can find.

But when I write in this forum, I try my best not to diverge into colloquial usage, and since what I write might be read by a person literate in English, but from a large variety of cultural & social backgrounds I do try to write in Standard English.

You have referred to a number of dictionaries, I checked what I wrote about warriors being those who have war as a profession --- meaning of course that they are paid for engaging in warfare --- I think I am writing in Standard English, so I used my normal Oxford dictionary OHP to check.

Here is a photo of the entry:-

[Gustav]

Alan, my mentioning of 1965 in Balinese context is only a response of your picture of contemporary Balinese as "friendly and personable" descendants of the friendly and amiable people posing with scary expressions in a 19th century picture. Exactly these friendly and personable people, a personificated dream of tourism in the 30ties, were capable of such violence, that even the troups from Java that had been sent to ignite the action had difficulties to stop it.

There was a specific Balinese touch to this outburst of violence in Bali, and it had its roots within the pre-Puputan Balinese society.

Regarding Balinese Keris, which we are able to understand after understanding the Balinese society, some time ago you wrote:

"In Bali prior to its subjugation by the Dutch, we had an agrarian society. This society was organised under a number of minor warlords who were constantly at one another's throats."

And further:

"In old Bali there was an earthy crudity to the society. Even into the early years of the 20th century, both before and after occupation by the Dutch, much of south Bali was characterised by gangs of toughs and hoodlums who preyed upon the unwary.Alchoholism, prevalent drug use, bashings, casual murders. Bali was not the ordered society of Jawa, dominated by the Dutch, and with its refined courts, its professional courtiers, and its rampant mysticism. The nature of Balinese society, and the magic within Balinese society was closer to the sympathetic and naturalistic magic of the older cultures of both mainland and maritime SE Asia, rather than to the refined magic which existed in Jawa, that owed much of its nature to both Islamic and European influences.

The keris in this society had the nature of weapon, but it was a weapon that could attain the status of an iconic symbol within a kin group, or at a state level.However, first and foremost it was a weapon, a tool for removing the life force from another human being."

So far about Balinese Keris.

You write: "As I previously remarked Gustav, I have no problem if you or anybody else believes that Balinese people were warriors." This is an error, as neither I, or somebody else in this thread has stated something similar. Nobody has said, Balinese were warriors per se (well, M.C. Ricklefs, one of the most important scholars of Indonesian history, wrote "The Balinese were (...) a nation of soldiers" in a certain context), or called their society a "warriors society". Please relax.

And yes, Lalu Djelenga, the iniciator of our trouble: "Atau Cekah Solas yang jaman dulu untuk prajurit."

[JeffS]

While a little prickly, I really do appreciate the divergent views and perspectives and the time taken to share them.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The word "warrior" can be used in many ways, we can find "keyboard warriors", "weekend warriors", we can find football teams that are some sort of warrior or other. When we get into colloquial usage there is no end to the warriors we can find.

True enough. Though i certainly was not using the word in this context in ANY of the examples i gave.
The four different dictionaries i quoted were all online editions. The Oxford example i used was the Oxford Learners Dictionary, so not their regular edition. But i would consider ALL these sources as legitimate sources for "Standard English" usage. Surely you don't believe your Oxford dictionary is the sole source for such information. I have no reason to believe that i am using the word "warrior" in anything but a standard English context. The examples of uses you used above were not ones that i was considering at all.
We are quibbling about semantics here Alan, but some of your response seems to ignore everything else i stated. No one claimed Bali was a "warrior society" or that the entire population of Bali are/were "warrior people". But clearly the Balinese did occasionally engage in war, and when there are wars, there are warriors.
In my comments you will find that i agreed completely with you that the nature of the keris should not being connected to warfare and also related this to Jeff. I will say now that i also agree that what happened in Bali in the 1960s has nothing to do with warriors and understand your reaction to Gustav's comments.
However, in discussing the Cekah Solas hilt of his keris my research brought up writings by Lalu Djelenga stating that these hilts were favored by warriors. What am i to make of this source? And numerous sources do indeed refer to the Satrias, what is the Kshatriya caste in Bali, as members of a "warrior" caste. Yes, i completely understand the these aristocratic knights should not necessarily be seen in the same light as, say, an Apache warrior, but the term warrior caste is associated with them in many references so it is hard to ignore. Again, i think this becomes merely a matter of semantics. My point in bringing up this information was only to try to establish some further information about this hilt form and it's possible place in the world of Balinese keris culture. To keep the discussion focussed on the object at hand. Unfortunately this debate about the word "warrior" has somewhat derailed my intent and we are no longer discussing Jeff's keris at all, but rather word usage and what each of us feel is "Standard English".

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, I know that you are an intelligent & cultured gentleman, and I do sometimes enjoy reading your opinions, however, the sort of discussion you & I are currently engaged in is the sort of discussion that I thought I had put behind me 60 or so years ago.

It is a discussion about trivialities.

In order to get paid for some of the work I engage in, I need to sometimes involve myself in this sort trivial exchange, but I am not being paid for my contributions to this forum, so I am not going to continue this discussion with you.

As I wrote:- no further discussion, so please just regard the following comments as remarks directed at the nearest wall:-

society in the fledgling country of Indonesia between the late 1930's and the fall of the Suharto regime deserves serious field study as well as reading the canned opinions of academics, if we wish to have some understanding of present day Indonesian society.

yes, pre-puputan Bali was not always ordered & settled, but conflicts between rulers were often settled by means other than extended physical conflict that deserves the name of "war".

yes, the keris had the nature of a weapon, it always did have, and it still has, but it was not, is not, a weapon of war, if it was not, is not a weapon of war, then it cannot be the weapon of a warrior.

soldiers and warriors are not necessarily one & the same thing, use of the word "warrior" automatically infers being engaged in war.

[Gustav]

David, my mention of 1965 in Bali has nothing to do with "warriors" from Bali. In fact, in my comment, which goes "Surely the last Puputans changed the Balinese society and culture (something like Gamelan Gong Kebyar was unthinkable before them), but always, looking at the friendly smiling Balinese and their peaceful and artistic society, I must think of 1965 in Bali." I referred here to pre-Puputan Balinese society and already explained that in my previous post. I also must say, that I, unlike you, don't understand Alans reaction to this comment.

[A. G. Maisey]

I feel like I'm playing ping-pong here David, I have one bat in my right hand, one bat in my left, and as soon as I've returned a ball to Gustav, I need to return one to you.

Firstly, I do not use online dictionaries. The professional writing that I need to do often finishes up being used in a legal context, so I use hard copy, published dictionaries, I've got about two meters of bookshelves given over to dictionaries in several different languages, I need these as tools of trade, it can be pretty embarrassing to have a lawyer read out something that one has written, and then have that destroyed by some smart-ass barrister -- not one who makes coffee, but one who keeps people out of jail.

It is not open to each of us to independently determine what form or style of the English Language qualifies as "Standard English".

In another lifetime I taught English to new comers to Australia, I did this as a community service, it was not paying work, however, it did require a qualification to be permitted to undertake the work. One of my teachers who helped me to gain this qualification was a linguist who taught me and his other students, that the best example of "Standard English" was the form of English spoken by educated people living in a certain part of England, I think that part of England might have a location somewhere about 16 miles south west on London.

Well, he might have been right, or he might have been wrong, but what I have learnt about "Standard English", as that term is understood by linguists at the present time, is that "Standard English" can no longer be restricted to a single ironclad idea, thus "Standard English" can now be defined in a rather loose way that involves the application of varying measures in order to determine what is, or is not Standard English, in other words, Standard English is no longer something that is inflexible, but rather something that can flex providing that it adheres to a standard of intelligibility.

So I assume the idea of "Standard English" now means that as long as an educated person can understand the message of the spoken or written word that message has complied with a standard.

Thus, the standard with which Standard English must comply is a standard of intelligibility, and this standard cannot be not one of individual interpretation.

In respect of the version of the Oxford English Dictionary that I prefer to use for general writing. I use this because I was advised by a couple of lawyers that for courtroom usage this particular edition was perhaps the most practical. The complete Oxford runs to something like twenty odd volumes and is constantly being revised, for general usage it is not really practical to use, but the edition I use is apparently well suited for use in defensible legal argument. Moreover, it is only two volumes, and is always within arms length, so even though I began using it maybe 40 or 50 years ago, I now habitually use it whenever I have to look at a dictionary.

As to your semantics comment, yes, I do agree that I sometimes tend to consider exactly what a word means. I'm sorry, this is the way I was taught to think, it is the way I do think, if I write something I do want to be able to defend what I write. If I'm talking to somebody, I'm not as particular, particularly in a social setting, that is because when using the spoken word for communication we usually do have the opportunity to correct a misunderstanding, when we write we do not have that opportunity, thus when I write something I want that writing to say just what I want it to say.

Thus, if I want to refer to a person who is operating in a military capacity I might use the word "soldier", but if I wish to refer to a person who follows the occupation of war, I might use the word "warrior". These are different words with different meanings, and I have worked too long in an environment where use of the wrong word can get you hung.

True David, I did not address everything you wrote, but did I need to? Why recap on things that need no comment?

I agree with you completely in that all this discussion about warriors has derailed this thread. This sort of discussion, or if you wish debate, is something like the sort of discussion that undergraduates have in order to try to elevate themselves in the intellectual hierarchy.

All I really wanted to do was to cause people to think about why I wanted to disconnect Balinese keris from Balinese warriors, and the answer to that is pretty simple, it was because the keris was not, is not a weapon of war.

All the rest of this garble is just so much piss in the wind. (fifty years ago this would not have been accepted as Standard English, but by the current standard, I think it might be)

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

All I really wanted to do was to cause people to think about why I wanted to disconnect Balinese keris from Balinese warriors, and the answer to that is pretty simple, it was because the keris was not, is not a weapon of war.

Interestingly, Margaret Wiener in her much mentioned book writes:

"In precolonial Bali, all men owned at least one keris. This marked, in part, their status as warriors. Since all of a rulers adult male subjects were expected to fight in his wars, as intruments of royal agency, keris defined manhood in relation to a certain kind of political order."

And:

"The role keris played in constituting power hinged upon the fact that keris were first and foremost weapons, meant to be used against external enemies in war or internal ones in executions."

A book, always worth of rereading indeed.

[A. G. Maisey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UneS2Uwc6xw

I respect MW enormously, since its publication I have recommended her work on Bali to perhaps every person who has asked me for guidance in their quest to understand the keris, however, I do not necessarily agree with every single word she wrote, nor with all of her published opinions.

I do not slavishly rely upon academic works to form my own opinions, and some of those opinions do vary from the opinions of academics.

As David has commented, this thread has become an exercise in semantics, but semantics is the study of meaning and truth, and the only way that any word can be understood as it should be understood is to analyse the meaning of that word and the truth encapsulated in that meaning. Ideally language should be used with precision, if it is not used with precision, that inadequately constructed language can generate misunderstanding and ignorance.

If what I have just written is true, then we need to consider this:-

1) A conflict or skirmish is not a war, neither is a confrontation or disagreement a war.

2) Engaging in a conflict or skirmish upon the orders of one's lord does not make a farmer either a warrior or a soldier.

3) Even fighting in a war does not make a farmer a warrior.

4) A weapon that might be used in a war does not make that weapon an implement that was intended for war, thus it is not a weapon of war.

5) The nature of a weapon can be many fold, and although that nature might include the letting of blood, in the case of the keris that letting of blood is not the only purpose of the keris.

The above is probably about as simple as I can make it, and yes, it is all about semantics:- the study of meaning and truth.

[Gustav]

Meaningless, can be deleted.

[A. G. Maisey]

Quite possibly so Gustav, but since I have been required for many years to be very conscious of the truth, meaning and logic of words, this is only to be expected.

Unlike many people I do not find the study of words to be onerous nor objectionable, I find it to be essential.

I was told many years ago by somebody, & I honestly forget who told me this, it might have been a high school teacher, that we cannot throw words around haphazardly we should regard words as being similar to bullets, not only in required accuracy but also in terminal effect.

A lot of the way I think and the way I act has come to me from things others have taught me, or maybe not necessarily "taught", but just their passing comments. I do try to follow some of this good advice, but I'm not always successful. I tend to be too verbose at times.

I recently had a little bit of writing published in (of all things) a book dealing with philosophy. I think it needed to be restricted to 5000 words, in any case, it needed to be of a defined length, & written in a defined style.

So I sat down and wrote the thing in a spare afternoon. It did not take long. But when I ran it through a word counter I had something like 20,000 words. The next 15 drafts were principally concerned with reducing that stack of garble that I had produced to an acceptable minimum.

I don't think I deliberately try to turn myself into a Gordian knot --- and I prefer to take this analogy as a compliment --- but I believe this sometimes might happen because I feel that I owe other people the common courtesy of trying my best to explain why I might take a certain position.

As to academia. I am not an academic, but I do have close friends and family who have been, & still are subjected to the harsh dictates of this segment of society. I have carried out paid work for a number of academics. Frankly I do feel sorry for academics and the world in which they live, but at the same time I am very appreciative of the contributions of some of these people to the bank of knowledge that they have made available to all of us.

EDIT

Too late Gustav, I had already read what you wrote & then deleted, and I thought it was, in its way, a beautiful piece of writing, perhaps one of the more perceptive things you have posted to this forum.

[Jean]

By the way my impression is that these 2 guys on the fist pic may be Sasak from Lombok and not Balinese?

[Gustav]

Jean, your impression has many facets to it, but basically is grounded on the fact, that even on the new NMVW website, where collections from Leiden, Amsterdam and Rotterdam are thrown together, the identifications of photographs are on quite low standard.

This is a photograph by Isidore van Kinsbergen. In 1865 he visited Bali, or more precisely, Buleleng. He never went to Lombok. Many if not at least a half of the photographs made in Buleleng on the NMVW carry the word Lombok in their "traditional" descriptions: we have a photograph named "Enkele tempels en offerplaatsen op Lombok" (some temples and offering places on Lombok), the alternative title of it being "Huis van den Koning van Bali" (house of the King of Bali), we have a picture described "Edellieden (Ida`s) uit Lombok in hofkostuum" (Aristocrats (Brahmans) from Lombok in court attire), which depict two adwisers of Raja of Buleleng, whose names are actually known, etc.

Also the photograph in question on the NMVW carries the title "Mannen uit Lombok in wapenuitrusting" and alternative title "Balinesen".

It is clear that the descriptions from NMVW website, which are taken over from the old Tropenmuseum website, are not on standard and actually misleading. The source for correct identifications is the monograph about Kinsbergen, which, as I understand, uses Kinsbergen's diarys. Unfortunately the photography in question doesn't appear in the monograph.

Well, there is a possibility these two man are mercenaries from Lombok indeed, but I would say, they are not Sasak but Balinese.

-----------------------------------------

Alan, thank you.