Why Is It

Rick · 13th March 2008, 04:33 PM

That most of the Bali / Lombok keris that I see have plain ganjas (ganja wulung) ?

Yes, some of the newer examples have pamor in their ganjas but it seems from my observations that most of the earlier ones do not .

David · 13th March 2008, 07:28 PM

Thanks for posting this Rick. After our discussion i was going to ask the group the same question myself. I have examined all my Bali keris and only one has pamor on the gonjo. I am fairly certain that one is a contemporary piece, late 20th century. Nearly all my others (there are about 12 in my collection) are 19th century or earlier. They all have no pamor on the gonjo.
Good question.

A. G. Maisey · 13th March 2008, 11:18 PM

The easy answer is, I reckon, "style".

Somewhere along the line they decided that the correct gonjo for a keris was plain black, no pamor.

However, if we then ask why this style developed, we can perhaps come up with a couple of ideas.

There is the concept that it is a desirable thing to hide the pamor of a blade for reasons of personal protection against misuse. A black gonjo does this nicely.

Then there is the manufacturing problem.

The traditional forge that is used by smiths in Jawa and Bali is just a shallow depression in the ground, with the blast being provided by two rather narrow bambu tubes connected to ububan---upright cylinders with plungers that look like big feather dusters. The plungers are moved up and down, and the blast of air goes through the bambu into the fire. The fire is usually quite shallow by western standards, which means that it is difficult to avoid welding in an oxidising atmosphere, something that is not at all desireable.In fact, it is not easy to coax a welding heat from a fire like this---I've tried, and under the same conditions that old time smiths in Jawa and Bali worked under, I cannot weld.

Old time smiths often used rocks as both heavy hammer and anvil, all the family would be involved in the work, and the strikers were often women.
Taking account of the technical limitations with equipment, it is sometimes a wonder to me that the old time smiths in this part of the world could produce anything at all.

But they did.

However, to produce a forging of pamor material, sufficient to allow a gonjo to be cut from the end of it, before, or even after, the core was inserted, would have been committing to more work than was really necessary, and the necessary work was already stretching the limits of the technology.

To make a separate forging from pamor material for the gonjo would involve more work than to use plain iron.

Think about it:- what is the practical purpose of pamor in a blade?

It is to extend the quantity of inferior material and to provide protection for the steel core or edge ( dependent on method of construction).

The gonjo does not need to be hard, and never is, even where it may be made of hardenable material.

Why waste resources and add to cost, when this is totally unnecessary?

In modern terms, these old time smiths had their accountants do a cost-benefit analysis, and they were advised that the additional price that they could charge the customer for a pamor gonjo did not support the additional cost of its production.

ferrylaki · 14th March 2008, 04:06 AM

Thanks for your explanation Alan,
This explain many things,
I always thought that gonjo should be as hard as the blade it self.
I usually thought if gonjo is not hard, then it will be damage easily be the waranga ( on greneng part ) and the air ( corotion).
Its obvious that pamor gonjo cutted from lower part of the kodokan would make the keris making process much longer.

So, I recon that making a few gonjos for stock is might be a good idea.???
is it acceptable?
I am now asking some body to make some new kerises for me. Some body who is totally new in keris making. And making a gonjo would give another 2 days in process. these cost more money of couse.
If only I already has some plain black ( kelengan) gonjos, then the keris making process will cut a few days in advance.make it faster and cheaper , am I right???

FERRY,
JAKARTA, INDONESIA

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The easy answer is, I reckon, "style".

Somewhere along the line they decided that the correct gonjo for a keris was plain black, no pamor.

However, if we then ask why this style developed, we can perhaps come up with a couple of ideas.

There is the concept that it is a desirable thing to hide the pamor of a blade for reasons of personal protection against misuse. A black gonjo does this nicely.

Then there is the manufacturing problem.

The traditional forge that is used by smiths in Jawa and Bali is just a shallow depression in the ground, with the blast being provided by two rather narrow bambu tubes connected to ububan---upright cylinders with plungers that look like big feather dusters. The plungers are moved up and down, and the blast of air goes through the bambu into the fire. The fire is usually quite shallow by western standards, which means that it is difficult to avoid welding in an oxidising atmosphere, something that is not at all desireable.In fact, it is not easy to coax a welding heat from a fire like this---I've tried, and under the same conditions that old time smiths in Jawa and Bali worked under, I cannot weld.

Old time smiths often used rocks as both heavy hammer and anvil, all the family would be involved in the work, and the strikers were often women.
Taking account of the technical limitations with equipment, it is sometimes a wonder to me that the old time smiths in this part of the world could produce anything at all.

But they did.

However, to produce a forging of pamor material, sufficient to allow a gonjo to be cut from the end of it, before, or even after, the core was inserted, would have been committing to more work than was really necessary, and the necessary work was already stretching the limits of the technology.

To make a separate forging from pamor material for the gonjo would involve more work than to use plain iron.

Think about it:- what is the practical purpose of pamor in a blade?

It is to extend the quantity of inferior material and to provide protection for the steel core or edge ( dependent on method of construction).

The gonjo does not need to be hard, and never is, even where it may be made of hardenable material.

Why waste resources and add to cost, when this is totally unnecessary?

In modern terms, these old time smiths had their accountants do a cost-benefit analysis, and they were advised that the additional price that they could charge the customer for a pamor gonjo did not support the additional cost of its production.

A. G. Maisey · 14th March 2008, 05:54 AM

No, the gonjo is never heat treated, in fact, I've never seen a blade where the heat treatment had gone past the tip of the sogokan, or where the sogokan would be if there was one. Very often only the tip of a blade---maybe the first couple of inches---is heat treated.In some Surakarta blades from about the mid-1800's on, no heat treatment at all has been done.

If a wrongko is properly made, it will never damage any part of a keris.

No Ferry, you cannot make a stock of gonjos and hope that if you later have need you can just fit them. You could probably get a few oversize forgings made and have them ready if you need to replace a gonjo, but the gonjo must be made for the blade it is going on to.Everything needs to be precisely aligned and fitted tight.In my opinion it is best to make a gonjo as you need it, if you need to replace one, and if you are making a new blade, then of course you will make the gonjo as required. If you've got to make it anyway, does it make any difference if you make it now, or in 12 months time when you need it?

The saving in making a plain black gonjo for a new keris, especially a large blade, comes in not having to weld pamor, and under the old time conditions, making the job easier by not trying to make the pamor forging big enough to cut a gonjo from it.

kai · 14th March 2008, 11:47 AM

Hello Alan,

Are these old gonjo really all without pamor? I remember a few with linear lamination which seemed to be genuinely old (this pamor would not be visible as long as the keris is sheathed). Since the pamor layers are usually wider spread apart in Keris Bali it may be that the visual benefits of a blade with pamor gonjo were not that great anyway.

However, it is interesting to note that many Moro kris have laminated gangya despite not being treated with warangan and thus fairly inconspicuous. Seems like the forging/material for such large blades was less of an issue rather than local customs/style.

I'd lean towards the "hiding the pamor" working hypothesis but this seems difficult to test nowadays...

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 14th March 2008, 02:49 PM

Kai, the Philippines are not Jawa and Bali.

I do not know how Philippine smiths worked, but I do know very well the technology used in old Jawa and Bali, size of the work piece was definitely a factor.

When you get right down to close investigation of the origins of most cultural practices, the practice has its roots in solid practicality, only after it has been adopted because of practical reasons do religious and other reasons come into play and call the practice their own. Have a look at the food restrictions of various religions:- firmly based in practicality. Look at our beloved Ten Commandments:- complete practicality. It can go on and on.Something might be a cultural more or religious practice now, but 2000 years ago it was begun for a practical reason.

The world is a practical place, and mankind does not do things that do not return a profit.Not if he wants to survive. I use the word "profit" in the broadest possible sense.

David · 14th March 2008, 10:46 PM

I don't know. I am much more likely to lean towards the hiding the pamor theory than one of cost control. Cost and difficulty didn't seem to stop pamor on the gonjo on Javanese keris, why should it be the issue in Bali? And certainly i can see how hiding the pamor might be considered a "profit" to the owner of the keris, as you say Alan, in the broadest sense of the word.

kai · 14th March 2008, 11:30 PM

Hello Alan,

Quote:

I do not know how Philippine smiths worked, but I do know very well the technology used in old Jawa and Bali, size of the work piece was definitely a factor.

Acknowledged. I didn't mean to suggest that a larger billet wouldn't be more difficult to forge.

However, don't have regular Keris from the Majapahit era often/usually gonjo with pamor? (Several of the early keris preserved in European collections do have a gonjo with pamor - all are out of stain and most are polished so it's hard to generalize). What are the oldest known keris originating from Bali like?

Assuming that early keris from Bali shared their characteristics with Keris Jawa, it seems that the gonjo lost their pamor during later development in Bali rather than this being based on practical constraints of the early keris smiths. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

One could argue that this development may have been correlated with the Keris Bali attaining a larger size (i.e. making it more and more difficult to forge a gonjo from the same billet than with their smaller cousins from Jawa). That's why I mentioned Moro kris since they still used laminated gangya (same material as used to sandwich the blade's steel core in between) despite even larger blades. This doesn't proove anything since these are separate cultural/technological developments but I yet have to see a strong case for the "forging constraints" hypothesis.

Regards,
Kai

kai · 14th March 2008, 11:34 PM

BTW, here's an example of a Moro kris with true pamor:
(Courtesy of Bill's collection .)

Rick · 15th March 2008, 01:12 AM

Hello Kai , Though we venture off topic (for this forum) I would propose that this example may not be a true Pamor; I would be more convinced in seeing other types of 'pamor' exhibited in Moro pieces .
All of the examples of Moro pieces (that I have seen) with any manipulation of the forging material only show this 'Turkish Ribbon' type .

Now, if I were to see a Udan Mas it might be a different story .

A. G. Maisey · 15th March 2008, 07:29 AM

Can we really accept that one day somebody woke up and said:- I reckon Pak Suwatsisnaam is trying to santet me; I'd better make sure he doesn't know what the pamor of my keris is, he might use it against me!

Then he whipped off to his friendly neighbourhood keris mechanic, and got a quick gonjo change so Pak Suwatsisnaam couldn't guess the pamor on his keris.

Probably better than 90% of Bali keris are wos wutah anyway, and those that are not are some other pretty innocuous sort of pamor. Be a real clever dukun who could use pamor wos wutah to santet somebody.

What I propose is this:-

a keris made with a plain black gonjo is cheaper to make than a keris made with a pamor gonjo.

the maker says to the customer that it will cost X quintals of beras more if he has a pamor gonjo rather than an iron gonjo.

customer says stick your pamor gonjo in a place where the sun don't shine; plain black gonjo is good enough for me.

over time plain black gonjo becomes the norm; simply a stylistic variation.

I am also thinking in terms of original cause, not developed belief.

In fact, I don't know if this "hide the pamor" game even existed in Bali. There seems to be some indication that it did exist in Jawa, but even there, I'm not too sure that it grew out of any belief that it afforded some protection against santet. Rather, I think it possibly grew as a justification by offended persons wanting to save face, when Sultan Agung decreed that only he in the kingdom of Mataram could wear a keris with a pamor gonjo.

We are talking Bali, and there is no doubt at all that in Bali up until quite recently the keris of the common man was a weapon.A plain iron gonjo serves its purpose as well as a pamor gonjo on a weapon, and its cheaper.

As to the difficulties involved in making large forgings.
In older Javanese keris I have seen a number of keris where it is obvious that the maker ran out of material to make a pesi. I've seen pesis forge welded into a drilled hole, I've see pesis forge welded over a stub, I've seen pesis welded on to the end of a blade and the external weld resulting in kul buntet of some similar pamor. These are Javanese keris, smaller keris than the typical 18-19th century Bali keris.

Remember this:- when you make a keris you cannot just make the blade and let it turn out whatever dimensions you like. No siree!! You have very strict formulas to stick to, to ensure that the measurements of the blade are not unfortunate for the specific client, or for the more general public in the case of a keris not being the subject of special order.Working within these strict parameters it is very easy to find that you do not have quite sufficient material to give the required dimensions, so you fudge a little and stick the pesi on with 18th century araldite, as an after-thought.When you measure a blade, the pesi doesn't count. In spite of how much some people might like to find the soul of the keris in its pesi, the fact of the matter is that the several systems of measurement ignore the pesi in calculations.

Now, if you do not have sufficient material to make a pesi, how can you have sufficient to make a gonjo?

Iron was expensive, pamor material was expensive, charcoal was expensive, and the work involved was expensive. A smith would work to minimums, not maximums, because those maximums would result in higher cost.

Nobody in their right mind spends more money than necessary, especially in an agrarian based society.

Still, this whole thing is something that cannot be proven. I cannot prove my argument, but I do think it is logical. If we can hear a logical argument in support of "hide the pamor", I'm more than happy to listen, but I think that before we begin we need to show that this "hide the pamor" belief did in fact exist in Bali.

David · 15th March 2008, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

...a keris made with a plain black gonjo is cheaper to make than a keris made with a pamor gonjo.

the maker says to the customer that it will cost X quintals of beras more if he has a pamor gonjo rather than an iron gonjo.

customer says stick your pamor gonjo in a place where the sun don't shine; plain black gonjo is good enough for me.

over time plain black gonjo becomes the norm; simply a stylistic variation.

I would think that stylistic variation would depend somewhat on the style of higher quality court keris. Would this extra cost really be a factor there? Why was it not a factor with Javanese keris?
Perhaps the "hide the pamor" game was not a factor at all in Bali, but why would those with money and power be cutting corners on keris making? This does not make sense to me.

brekele · 15th March 2008, 09:12 AM

hhmm...nice tema, better listen on this subject

gentleman, i only can support the discuss with pic.
because know nothing on this point

thanks Rick to bring out this subject

here a pic of kerises bali with pamor on the gonjo.

brekele

David · 15th March 2008, 05:57 PM

Thanks for posting the photo Brekele. When would you say these keris were made. The dress looks fairly recent to me, but i can't get a good grasp of the blades without better and closer images.

brekele · 15th March 2008, 09:50 PM

Hi Dave, those both keris are old but one of warangka with silver decoration and gems is new made (top) and old made warangka (down).

bre

kai · 16th March 2008, 01:22 AM

Hello Rick,

Quote:

I would propose that this example may not be a true Pamor; I would be more convinced in seeing other types of 'pamor' exhibited in Moro pieces .
All of the examples of Moro pieces (that I have seen) with any manipulation of the forging material only show this 'Turkish Ribbon' type .

Now, if I were to see a Udan Mas it might be a different story .

So, what's your definition of pamor? As long as Pamor Sanak qualifies as pamor I'm deadsure we have pamor with Moro kris, too. At least the twistcore kris are welded of different (iron/steel/alloy)s to make a specific visual pattern. I don't see the point why a certain pattern (or some diversity) needs to be present to meet any qualifying criteria.

Regards,
Kai

kai · 16th March 2008, 02:12 AM

Hello Alan,

Quote:

Probably better than 90% of Bali keris are wos wutah anyway, and those that are not are some other pretty innocuous sort of pamor. Be a real clever dukun who could use pamor wos wutah to santet somebody.

Thanks for the observation! One could argue that pamor did seem to have had less importance on Bali than on Java and, thus, it might be less likely to get focused on. (And also possibly less "needed" with the gonjo.)

Quote:

In fact, I don't know if this "hide the pamor" game even existed in Bali. There seems to be some indication that it did exist in Jawa, but even there, I'm not too sure that it grew out of any belief that it afforded some protection against santet. Rather, I think it possibly grew as a justification by offended persons wanting to save face, when Sultan Agung decreed that only he in the kingdom of Mataram could wear a keris with a pamor gonjo.

Quote:

We are talking Bali, and there is no doubt at all that in Bali up until quite recently the keris of the common man was a weapon.A plain iron gonjo serves its purpose as well as a pamor gonjo on a weapon, and its cheaper.
<snip>
Nobody in their right mind spends more money than necessary, especially in an agrarian based society.

Well, I'm not sure this is necessarily so. Weapons have - due to their very nature and importance - always been associated with a lot of magic, beliefs, rituals, talismans, what-have-you. These definitely served a purpose for the owner but they were not based on keeping the costs/efforts as low as possible. I'd agree that any associated cultural constraints would usually not go so far to compromise the function as a weapon. However, there are obviously a lot of added/changed things which don't have functional consequences and would thus be neutral and open to cultural developments.

Quote:

If we can hear a logical argument in support of "hide the pamor", I'm more than happy to listen, but I think that before we begin we need to show that this "hide the pamor" belief did in fact exist in Bali.

Ack.!

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 16th March 2008, 03:03 AM

David, the concept of "stylistic variation" can cover a multitude of things. Yes, of course you are right in proposing that style of a keris, and of many other things, can be derived from the practices of the leaders of a society.In fact, sometimes a style can be dictated by the leaders of a society. However, in the case of the plain black gonjo found on many Balinese keris, I would suggest that we have something that nobody at the time, and in the place where this developed, considered to be sufficiently important to be subject to the dictates or preferences of a court.

As Brekele has shown, and as Rick in his original post indicated, the plain black Bali gonjo is not a universal phenomenon. It is common, yes, but it is not universal. Amongst my own keris I have a number of old keris with pamor gonjo, I also have a number of old keris with plain black gonjo. I have two keris of extremely high quality with gonjos lacking pamor, but adorned with kniatah work.

So exactly what are we considering?

I would suggest that the matter under consideration is this:-

the majority of Balinese keris held in western collections have gonjos that lack pamor;
why is this so?

and that is pretty much what Rick asked in post # 1.

If we consider Javanese keris with plain black gonjos, there are several theories as to their existence.

There is the practice of taking a gonjo from an old keris to incorporate in the body of a new keris.

There is the simple loss of a gonjo for one reason or another, or its damage through trauma or erosion.

There is the possibility that the maker, or the original client, considered that aesthetically the keris was more pleasing with a plain gonjo rather than a pamor gonjo.

There is the belief that Sultan Agung decreed that in the Kingdom of Mataram only he could possess a keris with a pamor gonjo.

There is the "economic theory" that I have proposed.

There is the "hide the blade" theory, and really, it is "hide the blade", rather than just hide the pamor. If one understands keris, it is possible to look at only the gonjo in the wrongko and often one can know if the blade is straight, or waved, from the material in the gonjo and its shape, one can know the tangguh, and probably the pamor, if one knows the tangguh and whether the blade is straight or waved, and its pamor, then one can possibly guess the dhapur and the tuah , or talismanic power of the blade. By knowledge of the talismanic power of a blade, it can be possible to deduce the secrets of its owner.Simply by looking at the gonjo of the keris, its owner's secrets have been laid bare.
Once in possession of this information, it would be possible to mount a magically based attack on the owner. Even if no attack were to be feared, at the very least, the secrets of the owner were laid bare.

But we are talking about Jawa here. In Bali there is nowhere near the same variety in pamor and dhapur as there is in Jawa, and the concept of tangguh does not exist.Balinese society and culture has not been influenced by the Sufic beliefs which have helped to form Javanese mysticism.
When we consider Bali, we cannot consider it in the same , or even similar light, to Jawa, since perhaps the 15th century.Even prior to the 15th century, Bali was quite different to Jawa. I think it was Gajah Mada who ranted about the "vile Balinese, with their foul habits and long hair".

Whenever we consider any stylistic phenomenon , we need to consider it in terms of the characteristics of that specific society. We cannot try to understand in terms of our own society, nor in terms of a different society, but we must make an attempt to come close to an understanding of the characteristics of the society where that phenomenon exists, before we can attempt to understand some stylistic phenomenon within that society.

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. The lord of Klungkung was the spiritual leader of these minor lords, but it seemed that he lacked much influence over them.Within the areas dominated by the lords, local organisations managed the land and the water, these local organisations were formed of all married men in a community. The courts certainly had officials, but these officials held their positions on the basis of caste, and everybody, in one degree or another, was a farmer.There seems not to have been the same societal characteristic of self promotion, but rather there was a more homogeneous society dominated by the necessity to cooperate in the sharing of resources in order to survive as a community.

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.

This tool was ordered, purchased and owned by farmers, practical men who needed to conserve resources to survive from one year to the next.Such men do not disperse their limited resources upon those things that are not deemed to be essential.

The fitting of a gonjo costing more than was necessary, to a tool intended for use against other human beings was not a necessary expense. It was an extravagance.This absence of extravagance in the Balinese keris is further evidenced by the most common forms of Balinese keris hilt, and Balinese wrongko. On all counts, the most common form of Balinese keris is a simple, pragmatic tool for ending human life.

It is not claimed that the plain black gonjo is an unvarying feature of the Balinese keris, but it is claimed that it is a feature that occurs more often than does the feature of a keris with pamor.

In any society there are more people with limited resources than people with excess resources. Those with excess resources in old Balinese society may have indulged themselves a little by having a gonjo with pamor on their kerises. However, I believe it is obvious that those with restricted resources felt no need to use any of those resources on the additional cost of a gonjo bearing pamor.

That, essentially, is my argument.
I am not locked into this opinion, and I am more than ready to change my opinion if it can be shown by either logical argument, or by evidence, that this opinion is wrong.

A. G. Maisey · 16th March 2008, 03:24 AM

Kai, clearly if something that has added to cost in a weapon exists, then it must have been deemed to be necessary, for one reason or another.Its very existence demonstrates its necessity.

Nowhere have I claimed that the primary objective in weapons manufacture is to keep costs as low as possible.

What I have claimed is this:-

an iron gonjo is cheaper to produce than a pamor gonjo; it was not considered essential in old Bali to have a keris with a pamor gonjo, thus cost of a keris was reduced by fitting of an iron gonjo.

To demonstrate that this opinion is wrong it will be necessary to show that:-

1) a pamor gonjo does not cost more to produce than an iron gonjo

2) it was considered essential in old Bali to have a keris with a pamor bearing gonjo

3) the inhabitants of old Bali had such excess of resources that cost of the production of a pamor gonjo was of no consequence.

If it can be shown that all, or even one of these things is so, then clearly I will need to reconsider my opinion.

An adequately supported alternative opinion as to the reason for the predominance of plain iron gonjos found on Balinese keris will also cause me to rethink this matter.

Rick · 16th March 2008, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kai

Hello Rick,

So, what's your definition of pamor? As long as Pamor Sanak qualifies as pamor I'm deadsure we have pamor with Moro kris, too. At least the twistcore kris are welded of different (iron/steel/alloy)s to make a specific visual pattern. I don't see the point why a certain pattern (or some diversity) needs to be present to meet any qualifying criteria.

Regards,
Kai

Hello Kai,
I guess we could call the twist core kris pattern pamor sanak; but personally speaking I would be more convinced of this if I could see other recognisable Indonesian pamors evident in Moro krisses .

If there is only one pattern present in Moro kris that we can attribute an Indonesian pamor name to I will remain unsure on this matter .

Perhaps a separate thread about pamor in Moro krisses can be brought up in the Ethnographic forum .

I will be gone from the Warung until April fourth; so if I fail to respond to further posts from today on until that date I hope you will all understand .

I will be Hawaii bound at sea (can't wait!) .

Aloha for now and mahalo for your response Kai .

My best,
Rick

kai · 16th March 2008, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Perhaps a separate thread about pamor in Moro krisses can be brought up in the Ethnographic forum .

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=6115

Quote:

I will be Hawaii bound at sea (can't wait!) .

Have a nice vacation, Rick!

Regards,
Kai

kai · 16th March 2008, 05:34 AM

Hello Alan,

Quote:

2) it was considered essential in old Bali to have a keris with a pamor bearing gonjo

This is the only point/hypothesis I'm trying to keep an open mind of.

Perhaps "desirable" would be preferable over "essential"...

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 16th March 2008, 06:38 AM

Kai, the fact of the matter is that I do not enjoy being a member of the great unwashed throng.

I would much rather drive a Lamborghini, or even a Ferrari, than a Corolla.

But I simply cannot afford to. In fact, I don't even think I could afford the oil change for a Ferrari.

We all are forced to live within our means.

As far as "desirability" goes, I'm not even sure that it might have been desirable to have a pamor gonjo on one's keris in this time and place. I'm rather inclined to the viewpoint that it was probably a matter of no great concern, either way. Even if one could afford the cost, it was possibly considered a viable option to keep the gonjo black.

Certainly I find my argument on the original reason to be very difficult to turn my back on, but never lose sight of the fact that this argument has been put for the original reason.

I feel that acceptance and style took hold along the way and the black gonjo simply became something that was liked by some people, not liked by others, and often used by people without a lot of resources.

David · 16th March 2008, 09:02 PM

Alan, i am not necessarily in disagreement with your theories here, but there are still a number of factors that i am unable to calculate due to my ignorance on the subject that i was hoping would be cleared up through my questioning, but have yet to be addressed.
Firstly i would need to know more about what was most common among court keris in Bali. I wouldn't think that the extra cost would be a big consideration among Balinese lords. How often are the very high-end Bali Keris likely to go pamorless on the gonjo? Certainly my collection is mostly lower and perhaps middle-class keris. All of my older Bali keris have pamorless gonjos, but do you or anyone know what a ballpark percentage of Balinese court keris were pamorless on the gonjo? Brekele has shown us that at least some Balinese keris had pamor on the gonjo, so if it were a matter of money, at least some Balinese felt it was worth the extra expense to have.
Again most of my old Javanese keris are lower to middle-class, yet with few exceptions they all seem to have pamor on the gonjo. I understand that most of my Javanese keris are influenced by Islamic/Javanese culture and my Balinese by Hindu influence, but if i understand you correctly the theory of economics you put forth here is somewhat cross-cultural. So why then do we find, much more often, pamor on the gonjo of an old poor Javanese farmer's keris, but not on the gonjo of his Balinese counterpart? It doesn't seem likely that the Javanese farmer was in a better economic situation to afford it.
This is why i question economics as the origin for what appears to be a stylistic preference by the Balinese for a pamorless gonjo.

A. G. Maisey · 16th March 2008, 11:51 PM

David, I do apologise for failing to make my position in this matter clear.My fault entirely; one would think that somebody who gets paid to write clear presentations for others would be capable of writing a clear presentation for himself, but it appears that this is not so. I'll give it another try.

I believe that there were a number of factors at play in this matter.

Initially, that is, for the very first time, and immediately following the very first time, a Balinese keris was fitted with a gonjo that lacked pamor, I believe that the reason was because of cost. When I use the word "cost", I am thinking in broad terms:- insufficient pamor material immediately on hand, blade forging not big enough to provide a gonjo, not enough charcoal to weld a separate gonjo forging--- and so on, and so on; any reason that could add to the cost of the keris.

The gonjo was, and is, seen as an addition to a keris blade, not a part of the keris blade. A keris blade loses none of its integrity, or its power, if it loses its gonjo, thus it is quite acceptable for a gonjo to be replaced. Obviously a gonjo cannot be replaced, and a match achieved with the pamor in the blade, so an iron gonjo is acceptable.The iron gonjo does not lessen the effectiveness of the keris blade, either for its use as a weapon, or for any esoteric purpose.Since it is not an essential factor for a keris to bear a pamor gonjo, there is clearly no prohibition against the fitting of an iron gonjo to a keris blade at any time, including the time when it is made.

So, the initial use of an iron gonjo would have been for a practical purpose:- a pamor gonjo could have been provided,but it would have added to cost, so since there was no prohibition against the use of an iron gonjo, an iron gonjo was fitted rather than a pamor gonjo.

Now, over a period of time the practice of using an iron gonjo in the production of a new keris became accepted practice.

The reason for acceptance could have been the continuing economic one, and that could have been tied to technological limits, or to cost of pamor material caused by supply, or to the cost of charcoal, or to the cost of labour, or to some other cost.

The reason could have been aesthetic in that some people preferred the appearance of a keris with a black gonjo.

Whatever the reasons for the continuing use of the black gonjo in the majority of Balinese keris, it is certain that at this remove we cannot speculate upon that reason with any precision. However, the commencement of the use of an iron gonjo was very probably rooted in practicality, in much the same way that the origin of pamor was rooted in practicality.

Thus, the use of an iron gonjo in Balinese keris began for the reason of practical economy, and continued as an acceptable stylistic variation.

The acceptance was occasioned because there was no social or cultural prohibtion against the use of an iron gonjo, because of cost savings in manufacture, and because of the personal preferences of some people.

That is my argument.

What follows is not a part of that argument, but is simply comment.

My examination of around 50 Balinese keris of varying qualities, and from various periods, shows no particular consistency in a relationship of iron gonjo to pamor blade, except in that amongst more recent Balinese keris, that is Balinese keris that are probably from the period after, say, 1920, there does seem to be more use of the pamor gonjo.

When we begin to use this type of physical comparison, it is to all intents and purposes meaningless. This type of comparison is actually an expression of statistical sampling; for statistical sampling to produce a result that can be used as evidence of the probability of the existence or non-existence of something, the sample needs to be related to the population. In the case of Balinese keris from an unspecified period, the population we are talking about is every Balinese keris ever made. Then the result would need to be weighted to account for variation in segmented periodic populations.It would be a complex exercise in statistics, and in practical terms something that would be quite impossible to carry out.

Any attempt to compare the Javanese keris to the Balinese keris and ask why something is so in one place, and not so in the other has no validity in the absence of detailed evidence of socio economic conditions in both places and at the same period in time.In this matter of iron gonjo : Bali keris, we can only consider Balinese society and Balinese economic conditions, we cannot use conditions in a different place to support a rebuttal of probabilities in respect of the place under consideration.

Yes, there is no doubt that it is the universal fate of all creatures in creation that they can only consume that which they can obtain. This is not cross-cultural, it applies to all of mankind, and all creatures in creation. Because man has the attribute of reason, and is able to think in abstract terms, he will consider not only the immediate, but also the past and the present when he takes a decision that involves his available resources.His decisions will reflect his past experience, and his estimates of his future situation, as well as the immediate conditions.

If we ask why it is that Balinese farmers did not have exactly the same keris as their Javanese counterparts, the answer must be that Balinese farmers are not Javanese farmers. Different socio economic considerations formed their decisions.

13th March 2008, 04:33 PM	#1
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,293	Why Is It That most of the Bali / Lombok keris that I see have plain ganjas (ganja wulung) ? Yes, some of the newer examples have pamor in their ganjas but it seems from my observations that most of the earlier ones do not .

14th March 2008, 11:47 AM	#6
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,254	Hello Alan, Are these old gonjo really all without pamor? I remember a few with linear lamination which seemed to be genuinely old (this pamor would not be visible as long as the keris is sheathed). Since the pamor layers are usually wider spread apart in Keris Bali it may be that the visual benefits of a blade with pamor gonjo were not that great anyway. However, it is interesting to note that many Moro kris have laminated gangya despite not being treated with warangan and thus fairly inconspicuous. Seems like the forging/material for such large blades was less of an issue rather than local customs/style. I'd lean towards the "hiding the pamor" working hypothesis but this seems difficult to test nowadays... Regards, Kai Last edited by kai; 14th March 2008 at 09:58 PM. Reason: clarification

15th March 2008, 09:12 AM	#14
brekele Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 208	hhmm...nice tema, better listen on this subject gentleman, i only can support the discuss with pic. because know nothing on this point thanks Rick to bring out this subject here a pic of kerises bali with pamor on the gonjo. brekele Attached Images

16th March 2008, 03:24 AM	#20
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Kai, clearly if something that has added to cost in a weapon exists, then it must have been deemed to be necessary, for one reason or another.Its very existence demonstrates its necessity. Nowhere have I claimed that the primary objective in weapons manufacture is to keep costs as low as possible. What I have claimed is this:- an iron gonjo is cheaper to produce than a pamor gonjo; it was not considered essential in old Bali to have a keris with a pamor gonjo, thus cost of a keris was reduced by fitting of an iron gonjo. To demonstrate that this opinion is wrong it will be necessary to show that:- 1) a pamor gonjo does not cost more to produce than an iron gonjo 2) it was considered essential in old Bali to have a keris with a pamor bearing gonjo 3) the inhabitants of old Bali had such excess of resources that cost of the production of a pamor gonjo was of no consequence. If it can be shown that all, or even one of these things is so, then clearly I will need to reconsider my opinion. An adequately supported alternative opinion as to the reason for the predominance of plain iron gonjos found on Balinese keris will also cause me to rethink this matter. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 16th March 2008 at 03:59 AM.

13th March 2008, 07:28 PM	#2
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,123	Thanks for posting this Rick. After our discussion i was going to ask the group the same question myself. I have examined all my Bali keris and only one has pamor on the gonjo. I am fairly certain that one is a contemporary piece, late 20th century. Nearly all my others (there are about 12 in my collection) are 19th century or earlier. They all have no pamor on the gonjo. Good question.

13th March 2008, 11:18 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	The easy answer is, I reckon, "style". Somewhere along the line they decided that the correct gonjo for a keris was plain black, no pamor. However, if we then ask why this style developed, we can perhaps come up with a couple of ideas. There is the concept that it is a desirable thing to hide the pamor of a blade for reasons of personal protection against misuse. A black gonjo does this nicely. Then there is the manufacturing problem. The traditional forge that is used by smiths in Jawa and Bali is just a shallow depression in the ground, with the blast being provided by two rather narrow bambu tubes connected to ububan---upright cylinders with plungers that look like big feather dusters. The plungers are moved up and down, and the blast of air goes through the bambu into the fire. The fire is usually quite shallow by western standards, which means that it is difficult to avoid welding in an oxidising atmosphere, something that is not at all desireable.In fact, it is not easy to coax a welding heat from a fire like this---I've tried, and under the same conditions that old time smiths in Jawa and Bali worked under, I cannot weld. Old time smiths often used rocks as both heavy hammer and anvil, all the family would be involved in the work, and the strikers were often women. Taking account of the technical limitations with equipment, it is sometimes a wonder to me that the old time smiths in this part of the world could produce anything at all. But they did. However, to produce a forging of pamor material, sufficient to allow a gonjo to be cut from the end of it, before, or even after, the core was inserted, would have been committing to more work than was really necessary, and the necessary work was already stretching the limits of the technology. To make a separate forging from pamor material for the gonjo would involve more work than to use plain iron. Think about it:- what is the practical purpose of pamor in a blade? It is to extend the quantity of inferior material and to provide protection for the steel core or edge ( dependent on method of construction). The gonjo does not need to be hard, and never is, even where it may be made of hardenable material. Why waste resources and add to cost, when this is totally unnecessary? In modern terms, these old time smiths had their accountants do a cost-benefit analysis, and they were advised that the additional price that they could charge the customer for a pamor gonjo did not support the additional cost of its production.

14th March 2008, 05:54 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	No, the gonjo is never heat treated, in fact, I've never seen a blade where the heat treatment had gone past the tip of the sogokan, or where the sogokan would be if there was one. Very often only the tip of a blade---maybe the first couple of inches---is heat treated.In some Surakarta blades from about the mid-1800's on, no heat treatment at all has been done. If a wrongko is properly made, it will never damage any part of a keris. No Ferry, you cannot make a stock of gonjos and hope that if you later have need you can just fit them. You could probably get a few oversize forgings made and have them ready if you need to replace a gonjo, but the gonjo must be made for the blade it is going on to.Everything needs to be precisely aligned and fitted tight.In my opinion it is best to make a gonjo as you need it, if you need to replace one, and if you are making a new blade, then of course you will make the gonjo as required. If you've got to make it anyway, does it make any difference if you make it now, or in 12 months time when you need it? The saving in making a plain black gonjo for a new keris, especially a large blade, comes in not having to weld pamor, and under the old time conditions, making the job easier by not trying to make the pamor forging big enough to cut a gonjo from it.

14th March 2008, 02:49 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Kai, the Philippines are not Jawa and Bali. I do not know how Philippine smiths worked, but I do know very well the technology used in old Jawa and Bali, size of the work piece was definitely a factor. When you get right down to close investigation of the origins of most cultural practices, the practice has its roots in solid practicality, only after it has been adopted because of practical reasons do religious and other reasons come into play and call the practice their own. Have a look at the food restrictions of various religions:- firmly based in practicality. Look at our beloved Ten Commandments:- complete practicality. It can go on and on.Something might be a cultural more or religious practice now, but 2000 years ago it was begun for a practical reason. The world is a practical place, and mankind does not do things that do not return a profit.Not if he wants to survive. I use the word "profit" in the broadest possible sense.

14th March 2008, 10:46 PM	#8
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,123	I don't know. I am much more likely to lean towards the hiding the pamor theory than one of cost control. Cost and difficulty didn't seem to stop pamor on the gonjo on Javanese keris, why should it be the issue in Bali? And certainly i can see how hiding the pamor might be considered a "profit" to the owner of the keris, as you say Alan, in the broadest sense of the word.

14th March 2008, 11:34 PM	#10
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,254	BTW, here's an example of a Moro kris with true pamor: (Courtesy of Bill's collection .)

15th March 2008, 01:12 AM	#11
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,293	Hello Kai , Though we venture off topic (for this forum) I would propose that this example may not be a true Pamor; I would be more convinced in seeing other types of 'pamor' exhibited in Moro pieces . All of the examples of Moro pieces (that I have seen) with any manipulation of the forging material only show this 'Turkish Ribbon' type . Now, if I were to see a Udan Mas it might be a different story .

15th March 2008, 07:29 AM	#12
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Can we really accept that one day somebody woke up and said:- I reckon Pak Suwatsisnaam is trying to santet me; I'd better make sure he doesn't know what the pamor of my keris is, he might use it against me! Then he whipped off to his friendly neighbourhood keris mechanic, and got a quick gonjo change so Pak Suwatsisnaam couldn't guess the pamor on his keris. Probably better than 90% of Bali keris are wos wutah anyway, and those that are not are some other pretty innocuous sort of pamor. Be a real clever dukun who could use pamor wos wutah to santet somebody. What I propose is this:- a keris made with a plain black gonjo is cheaper to make than a keris made with a pamor gonjo. the maker says to the customer that it will cost X quintals of beras more if he has a pamor gonjo rather than an iron gonjo. customer says stick your pamor gonjo in a place where the sun don't shine; plain black gonjo is good enough for me. over time plain black gonjo becomes the norm; simply a stylistic variation. I am also thinking in terms of original cause, not developed belief. In fact, I don't know if this "hide the pamor" game even existed in Bali. There seems to be some indication that it did exist in Jawa, but even there, I'm not too sure that it grew out of any belief that it afforded some protection against santet. Rather, I think it possibly grew as a justification by offended persons wanting to save face, when Sultan Agung decreed that only he in the kingdom of Mataram could wear a keris with a pamor gonjo. We are talking Bali, and there is no doubt at all that in Bali up until quite recently the keris of the common man was a weapon.A plain iron gonjo serves its purpose as well as a pamor gonjo on a weapon, and its cheaper. As to the difficulties involved in making large forgings. In older Javanese keris I have seen a number of keris where it is obvious that the maker ran out of material to make a pesi. I've seen pesis forge welded into a drilled hole, I've see pesis forge welded over a stub, I've seen pesis welded on to the end of a blade and the external weld resulting in kul buntet of some similar pamor. These are Javanese keris, smaller keris than the typical 18-19th century Bali keris. Remember this:- when you make a keris you cannot just make the blade and let it turn out whatever dimensions you like. No siree!! You have very strict formulas to stick to, to ensure that the measurements of the blade are not unfortunate for the specific client, or for the more general public in the case of a keris not being the subject of special order.Working within these strict parameters it is very easy to find that you do not have quite sufficient material to give the required dimensions, so you fudge a little and stick the pesi on with 18th century araldite, as an after-thought.When you measure a blade, the pesi doesn't count. In spite of how much some people might like to find the soul of the keris in its pesi, the fact of the matter is that the several systems of measurement ignore the pesi in calculations. Now, if you do not have sufficient material to make a pesi, how can you have sufficient to make a gonjo? Iron was expensive, pamor material was expensive, charcoal was expensive, and the work involved was expensive. A smith would work to minimums, not maximums, because those maximums would result in higher cost. Nobody in their right mind spends more money than necessary, especially in an agrarian based society. Still, this whole thing is something that cannot be proven. I cannot prove my argument, but I do think it is logical. If we can hear a logical argument in support of "hide the pamor", I'm more than happy to listen, but I think that before we begin we need to show that this "hide the pamor" belief did in fact exist in Bali.

15th March 2008, 05:57 PM	#15
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,123	Thanks for posting the photo Brekele. When would you say these keris were made. The dress looks fairly recent to me, but i can't get a good grasp of the blades without better and closer images.

15th March 2008, 09:50 PM	#16
brekele Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 208	Hi Dave, those both keris are old but one of warangka with silver decoration and gems is new made (top) and old made warangka (down). bre

16th March 2008, 03:03 AM	#19
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	David, the concept of "stylistic variation" can cover a multitude of things. Yes, of course you are right in proposing that style of a keris, and of many other things, can be derived from the practices of the leaders of a society.In fact, sometimes a style can be dictated by the leaders of a society. However, in the case of the plain black gonjo found on many Balinese keris, I would suggest that we have something that nobody at the time, and in the place where this developed, considered to be sufficiently important to be subject to the dictates or preferences of a court. As Brekele has shown, and as Rick in his original post indicated, the plain black Bali gonjo is not a universal phenomenon. It is common, yes, but it is not universal. Amongst my own keris I have a number of old keris with pamor gonjo, I also have a number of old keris with plain black gonjo. I have two keris of extremely high quality with gonjos lacking pamor, but adorned with kniatah work. So exactly what are we considering? I would suggest that the matter under consideration is this:- the majority of Balinese keris held in western collections have gonjos that lack pamor; why is this so? and that is pretty much what Rick asked in post # 1. If we consider Javanese keris with plain black gonjos, there are several theories as to their existence. There is the practice of taking a gonjo from an old keris to incorporate in the body of a new keris. There is the simple loss of a gonjo for one reason or another, or its damage through trauma or erosion. There is the possibility that the maker, or the original client, considered that aesthetically the keris was more pleasing with a plain gonjo rather than a pamor gonjo. There is the belief that Sultan Agung decreed that in the Kingdom of Mataram only he could possess a keris with a pamor gonjo. There is the "economic theory" that I have proposed. There is the "hide the blade" theory, and really, it is "hide the blade", rather than just hide the pamor. If one understands keris, it is possible to look at only the gonjo in the wrongko and often one can know if the blade is straight, or waved, from the material in the gonjo and its shape, one can know the tangguh, and probably the pamor, if one knows the tangguh and whether the blade is straight or waved, and its pamor, then one can possibly guess the dhapur and the tuah , or talismanic power of the blade. By knowledge of the talismanic power of a blade, it can be possible to deduce the secrets of its owner.Simply by looking at the gonjo of the keris, its owner's secrets have been laid bare. Once in possession of this information, it would be possible to mount a magically based attack on the owner. Even if no attack were to be feared, at the very least, the secrets of the owner were laid bare. But we are talking about Jawa here. In Bali there is nowhere near the same variety in pamor and dhapur as there is in Jawa, and the concept of tangguh does not exist.Balinese society and culture has not been influenced by the Sufic beliefs which have helped to form Javanese mysticism. When we consider Bali, we cannot consider it in the same , or even similar light, to Jawa, since perhaps the 15th century.Even prior to the 15th century, Bali was quite different to Jawa. I think it was Gajah Mada who ranted about the "vile Balinese, with their foul habits and long hair". Whenever we consider any stylistic phenomenon , we need to consider it in terms of the characteristics of that specific society. We cannot try to understand in terms of our own society, nor in terms of a different society, but we must make an attempt to come close to an understanding of the characteristics of the society where that phenomenon exists, before we can attempt to understand some stylistic phenomenon within that society. 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. The lord of Klungkung was the spiritual leader of these minor lords, but it seemed that he lacked much influence over them.Within the areas dominated by the lords, local organisations managed the land and the water, these local organisations were formed of all married men in a community. The courts certainly had officials, but these officials held their positions on the basis of caste, and everybody, in one degree or another, was a farmer.There seems not to have been the same societal characteristic of self promotion, but rather there was a more homogeneous society dominated by the necessity to cooperate in the sharing of resources in order to survive as a community. 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. This tool was ordered, purchased and owned by farmers, practical men who needed to conserve resources to survive from one year to the next.Such men do not disperse their limited resources upon those things that are not deemed to be essential. The fitting of a gonjo costing more than was necessary, to a tool intended for use against other human beings was not a necessary expense. It was an extravagance.This absence of extravagance in the Balinese keris is further evidenced by the most common forms of Balinese keris hilt, and Balinese wrongko. On all counts, the most common form of Balinese keris is a simple, pragmatic tool for ending human life. It is not claimed that the plain black gonjo is an unvarying feature of the Balinese keris, but it is claimed that it is a feature that occurs more often than does the feature of a keris with pamor. In any society there are more people with limited resources than people with excess resources. Those with excess resources in old Balinese society may have indulged themselves a little by having a gonjo with pamor on their kerises. However, I believe it is obvious that those with restricted resources felt no need to use any of those resources on the additional cost of a gonjo bearing pamor. That, essentially, is my argument. I am not locked into this opinion, and I am more than ready to change my opinion if it can be shown by either logical argument, or by evidence, that this opinion is wrong.

16th March 2008, 06:38 AM	#24
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Kai, the fact of the matter is that I do not enjoy being a member of the great unwashed throng. I would much rather drive a Lamborghini, or even a Ferrari, than a Corolla. But I simply cannot afford to. In fact, I don't even think I could afford the oil change for a Ferrari. We all are forced to live within our means. As far as "desirability" goes, I'm not even sure that it might have been desirable to have a pamor gonjo on one's keris in this time and place. I'm rather inclined to the viewpoint that it was probably a matter of no great concern, either way. Even if one could afford the cost, it was possibly considered a viable option to keep the gonjo black. Certainly I find my argument on the original reason to be very difficult to turn my back on, but never lose sight of the fact that this argument has been put for the original reason. I feel that acceptance and style took hold along the way and the black gonjo simply became something that was liked by some people, not liked by others, and often used by people without a lot of resources.

16th March 2008, 09:02 PM	#25
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,123	Alan, i am not necessarily in disagreement with your theories here, but there are still a number of factors that i am unable to calculate due to my ignorance on the subject that i was hoping would be cleared up through my questioning, but have yet to be addressed. Firstly i would need to know more about what was most common among court keris in Bali. I wouldn't think that the extra cost would be a big consideration among Balinese lords. How often are the very high-end Bali Keris likely to go pamorless on the gonjo? Certainly my collection is mostly lower and perhaps middle-class keris. All of my older Bali keris have pamorless gonjos, but do you or anyone know what a ballpark percentage of Balinese court keris were pamorless on the gonjo? Brekele has shown us that at least some Balinese keris had pamor on the gonjo, so if it were a matter of money, at least some Balinese felt it was worth the extra expense to have. Again most of my old Javanese keris are lower to middle-class, yet with few exceptions they all seem to have pamor on the gonjo. I understand that most of my Javanese keris are influenced by Islamic/Javanese culture and my Balinese by Hindu influence, but if i understand you correctly the theory of economics you put forth here is somewhat cross-cultural. So why then do we find, much more often, pamor on the gonjo of an old poor Javanese farmer's keris, but not on the gonjo of his Balinese counterpart? It doesn't seem likely that the Javanese farmer was in a better economic situation to afford it. This is why i question economics as the origin for what appears to be a stylistic preference by the Balinese for a pamorless gonjo.

16th March 2008, 11:51 PM	#26
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	David, I do apologise for failing to make my position in this matter clear.My fault entirely; one would think that somebody who gets paid to write clear presentations for others would be capable of writing a clear presentation for himself, but it appears that this is not so. I'll give it another try. I believe that there were a number of factors at play in this matter. Initially, that is, for the very first time, and immediately following the very first time, a Balinese keris was fitted with a gonjo that lacked pamor, I believe that the reason was because of cost. When I use the word "cost", I am thinking in broad terms:- insufficient pamor material immediately on hand, blade forging not big enough to provide a gonjo, not enough charcoal to weld a separate gonjo forging--- and so on, and so on; any reason that could add to the cost of the keris. The gonjo was, and is, seen as an addition to a keris blade, not a part of the keris blade. A keris blade loses none of its integrity, or its power, if it loses its gonjo, thus it is quite acceptable for a gonjo to be replaced. Obviously a gonjo cannot be replaced, and a match achieved with the pamor in the blade, so an iron gonjo is acceptable.The iron gonjo does not lessen the effectiveness of the keris blade, either for its use as a weapon, or for any esoteric purpose.Since it is not an essential factor for a keris to bear a pamor gonjo, there is clearly no prohibition against the fitting of an iron gonjo to a keris blade at any time, including the time when it is made. So, the initial use of an iron gonjo would have been for a practical purpose:- a pamor gonjo could have been provided,but it would have added to cost, so since there was no prohibition against the use of an iron gonjo, an iron gonjo was fitted rather than a pamor gonjo. Now, over a period of time the practice of using an iron gonjo in the production of a new keris became accepted practice. The reason for acceptance could have been the continuing economic one, and that could have been tied to technological limits, or to cost of pamor material caused by supply, or to the cost of charcoal, or to the cost of labour, or to some other cost. The reason could have been aesthetic in that some people preferred the appearance of a keris with a black gonjo. Whatever the reasons for the continuing use of the black gonjo in the majority of Balinese keris, it is certain that at this remove we cannot speculate upon that reason with any precision. However, the commencement of the use of an iron gonjo was very probably rooted in practicality, in much the same way that the origin of pamor was rooted in practicality. Thus, the use of an iron gonjo in Balinese keris began for the reason of practical economy, and continued as an acceptable stylistic variation. The acceptance was occasioned because there was no social or cultural prohibtion against the use of an iron gonjo, because of cost savings in manufacture, and because of the personal preferences of some people. That is my argument. What follows is not a part of that argument, but is simply comment. My examination of around 50 Balinese keris of varying qualities, and from various periods, shows no particular consistency in a relationship of iron gonjo to pamor blade, except in that amongst more recent Balinese keris, that is Balinese keris that are probably from the period after, say, 1920, there does seem to be more use of the pamor gonjo. When we begin to use this type of physical comparison, it is to all intents and purposes meaningless. This type of comparison is actually an expression of statistical sampling; for statistical sampling to produce a result that can be used as evidence of the probability of the existence or non-existence of something, the sample needs to be related to the population. In the case of Balinese keris from an unspecified period, the population we are talking about is every Balinese keris ever made. Then the result would need to be weighted to account for variation in segmented periodic populations.It would be a complex exercise in statistics, and in practical terms something that would be quite impossible to carry out. Any attempt to compare the Javanese keris to the Balinese keris and ask why something is so in one place, and not so in the other has no validity in the absence of detailed evidence of socio economic conditions in both places and at the same period in time.In this matter of iron gonjo : Bali keris, we can only consider Balinese society and Balinese economic conditions, we cannot use conditions in a different place to support a rebuttal of probabilities in respect of the place under consideration. Yes, there is no doubt that it is the universal fate of all creatures in creation that they can only consume that which they can obtain. This is not cross-cultural, it applies to all of mankind, and all creatures in creation. Because man has the attribute of reason, and is able to think in abstract terms, he will consider not only the immediate, but also the past and the present when he takes a decision that involves his available resources.His decisions will reflect his past experience, and his estimates of his future situation, as well as the immediate conditions. If we ask why it is that Balinese farmers did not have exactly the same keris as their Javanese counterparts, the answer must be that Balinese farmers are not Javanese farmers. Different socio economic considerations formed their decisions.