HISTORY OF STEEL IN EASTERN ASIA EXHIBITION NOW ONLINE

A. G. Maisey · 3rd January 2007, 09:54 PM

Taking of heads.

During the 1990's the Indonesian government , in accordance with their policy of "transmigration" transported a number---a large number---of settlers from Madura to Kalimantan, granted land to them , and gave them the essentials to commence development of farms on that land.

Only problem was that the the land that the Indonesian government considered to be theirs to give, was considered by the Dyak people as their tribal land. They felt that their land was being stolen from them. Not only that, but they felt that their culture was being corrupted by outsiders.

It would be fair to say that these Dyak people became just a little upset. Minor disagreements and confrontations eventually developed into a little war. The Indonesian army appeared to be content to stand back and let events take their course.

During this time the Indonesian media published reports of heads being taken by Dyak people. This may or may not be true, but it was reported, and many people believed it.

During the late 1960's and through to about 1980 I knew several people in Solo who worked for timber getting companies in Kalimantan. They were very cautious of Dyak people, and would not ever go into forest country unaccompanied. They told stories of fellow workers being killed and of heads being taken. Might have been just good stories, might not have been, but I did form the impression that they were genuinely frightened of the Dyak people.

ariel · 3rd January 2007, 11:32 PM

It is often said that the history is written by the victors. True, but not quite: history is written by both sides. And each side presents the facts to his own advantage.
Take, for example, the fateful meeting between Sivaji and Afzal Khan.
Lord Egerton of Tatton ( impartial , most likely):
Sivaji put chain armor, and concealed a bichwa in his right sleeve and bagh-nakh in his left hand. Having approached Afzal Khan, he "... in the midst of a customary embrace, struck the waghnakh into the bowels of Afzal Khan ". The latter exclaimed "treachery and murder", but Sivaji instantly followed up the blow with his dagger. The Khan tried to cut Sivaji with his sword, but failed due to the armor. "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour", p. 27.
E. Jaiwant Paul's version:
"As they embraced, Afzal Khan treacherously attempted to thrust a dagger in the Shivaji's chest, who was saved by his hidden armour. Shivaji, in turn, ripped out Afzal Khan's belly with the baghnakh. In the ensuing confusion,Shivaji's troops, lying in ambush massacred the Bijapur forces and enjoyed spectacular victory" " Arms and Armour. Traditional weapons of India", p.100
I could not find the Afzal's side description, but suspect it was closer to the Eggerton's one.
Here we have two very conflicting versions, depicting one side as noble and another as treacherous, depending on who is "writing the history".
Depending on who is the author, the Turkish practice of "devshirme" was described as either a cruel kidnapping of the children from the Balkans and making them "Sultan's slaves" or a noble and generous attempt to provide the kids with education and advance their careers in the Ottoman empire.
The Russian rendition of the Battle of Kalka always includes the mention of the Tatar "Horde" with their numerical superiority against a small band of heroic Slavs. In fact, there were ~ 25,000 Mongols and allies versus ~ 85,000-125,000 Russians.
The Iranians still recount the story of Aryobarzan who, with his small force, stopped the entire army of Alexander and was betrayed by a shepherd who showed the Greeks a secret passage across the mountain. This is a mirror image of the story of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans that occured ~ 150 years earlier and they just reversed the history.
And the list may continue on and on....
History relies on personal and state accounts, but those are heavily contaminated by chauvinism, sycophantic paeans, inferiority complexes and just plain propaganda. The task of historians is a complicated one and it gets harder and harder with the passage of time... It is tremendously important to get to the bottom of things and present the real story. Otherwise, we become victims of historical fables and our worldview becomes poisoned.
As they say, everyone is entitled to his opinion but not to his facts.

3rd January 2007, 11:32 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	It is often said that the history is written by the victors. True, but not quite: history is written by both sides. And each side presents the facts to his own advantage. Take, for example, the fateful meeting between Sivaji and Afzal Khan. Lord Egerton of Tatton ( impartial , most likely): Sivaji put chain armor, and concealed a bichwa in his right sleeve and bagh-nakh in his left hand. Having approached Afzal Khan, he "... in the midst of a customary embrace, struck the waghnakh into the bowels of Afzal Khan ". The latter exclaimed "treachery and murder", but Sivaji instantly followed up the blow with his dagger. The Khan tried to cut Sivaji with his sword, but failed due to the armor. "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour", p. 27. E. Jaiwant Paul's version: "As they embraced, Afzal Khan treacherously attempted to thrust a dagger in the Shivaji's chest, who was saved by his hidden armour. Shivaji, in turn, ripped out Afzal Khan's belly with the baghnakh. In the ensuing confusion,Shivaji's troops, lying in ambush massacred the Bijapur forces and enjoyed spectacular victory" " Arms and Armour. Traditional weapons of India", p.100 I could not find the Afzal's side description, but suspect it was closer to the Eggerton's one. Here we have two very conflicting versions, depicting one side as noble and another as treacherous, depending on who is "writing the history". Depending on who is the author, the Turkish practice of "devshirme" was described as either a cruel kidnapping of the children from the Balkans and making them "Sultan's slaves" or a noble and generous attempt to provide the kids with education and advance their careers in the Ottoman empire. The Russian rendition of the Battle of Kalka always includes the mention of the Tatar "Horde" with their numerical superiority against a small band of heroic Slavs. In fact, there were ~ 25,000 Mongols and allies versus ~ 85,000-125,000 Russians. The Iranians still recount the story of Aryobarzan who, with his small force, stopped the entire army of Alexander and was betrayed by a shepherd who showed the Greeks a secret passage across the mountain. This is a mirror image of the story of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans that occured ~ 150 years earlier and they just reversed the history. And the list may continue on and on.... History relies on personal and state accounts, but those are heavily contaminated by chauvinism, sycophantic paeans, inferiority complexes and just plain propaganda. The task of historians is a complicated one and it gets harder and harder with the passage of time... It is tremendously important to get to the bottom of things and present the real story. Otherwise, we become victims of historical fables and our worldview becomes poisoned. As they say, everyone is entitled to his opinion but not to his facts. Last edited by ariel; 4th January 2007 at 06:08 AM.

3rd January 2007, 09:54 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Taking of heads. During the 1990's the Indonesian government , in accordance with their policy of "transmigration" transported a number---a large number---of settlers from Madura to Kalimantan, granted land to them , and gave them the essentials to commence development of farms on that land. Only problem was that the the land that the Indonesian government considered to be theirs to give, was considered by the Dyak people as their tribal land. They felt that their land was being stolen from them. Not only that, but they felt that their culture was being corrupted by outsiders. It would be fair to say that these Dyak people became just a little upset. Minor disagreements and confrontations eventually developed into a little war. The Indonesian army appeared to be content to stand back and let events take their course. During this time the Indonesian media published reports of heads being taken by Dyak people. This may or may not be true, but it was reported, and many people believed it. During the late 1960's and through to about 1980 I knew several people in Solo who worked for timber getting companies in Kalimantan. They were very cautious of Dyak people, and would not ever go into forest country unaccompanied. They told stories of fellow workers being killed and of heads being taken. Might have been just good stories, might not have been, but I did form the impression that they were genuinely frightened of the Dyak people.