Balinese keris advice

[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.

[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:-

[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".

[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

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.