[A. G. Maisey]

I don't think that this question can be answered shortly and in a simple way David, that's the reason I did not attempt to answer it previously, however since I'm being pressed, here is the short version.

Firstly we must define the period, and the situation.

Lets say it is 2017, OK, now what is the situation?

Who is the person?

What is his status in the situation?

Bear in mind that there are varying hierarchical positions that depend upon the value system being used.

What are his personal feelings and personal objectives in this situation?

Now, having answered all those questions can we say that he is, or is not permitted to wear a togogan danganan in the form of a dewa/dewi, a mythological figure, or a royal figure?

Maybe, but even if "maybe" this can only be expressed as a possibility, not an iron clad rule. Too many variables.

What might be more important is the quality and material of the hilt.

Can he wear a gold, gemset hilt?

Maybe, if he is rich enough and if his hierarchical position doesn't make this ridiculous --- and again, depending on the hierarchical system of evaluation being used.

Even now, today, as I just wrote:- 2017, the variables are so many that it is just about impossible to make any iron clad declaration.

But let's go back to an earlier time, say 1850. Did the same thing hold good? Off the top of my head I don't know. If I wished I could research it, but to what end?

However, I could very comfortably say this:- prior to the Dutch takeover, only a person who was in a suitably high hierarchical position could wear a gold, gemset hilt. In fact, only such a person could afford to wear such a hilt.

However, is, or was a person other than a "noble" not permitted to wear a simple wooden togogan hilt? I do not believe so.

We cannot make absolute statements about these things, we need to set the framework for the response:- time, place, situation, person, and all of the attached qualifiers.

In the Balinese context, just exactly what is meant by "kings and nobility" ? This itself is maybe not a real easy question to answer. The gentry in traditional Balinese society are the Brahmana, Satriya and Wesia, the other people are Sudras. But a Brahmana cannot be a ruler, a ruler must be a Satriya,

So if a Brahmana wishes to rule he needs to change his caste and become Satriya. Prior to the Dutch takeover, caste mobility was possible. The Dutch tried to stop this and fix everybody in their own place forever. This generated a lot of anger and discontent.

Then there is the dadia.All members of the triwangsa, the three gentry castes, can trace membership of the dadia to which they belong to a common Mojopahit ancestor. The hierarchy with the dadia is relative so that the eldest son of the eldest son of the eldest son, stretching back to the common Mojopahit ancestor is the highest person in the dadia hierarchy. All the other members have their relative place determined in the same way.

Apart from the dadias and the castes you also have the clans (warga). A clan can cut across another status boundary. The biggest clan is the Pasek clan and within the Sudra caste the Pasek clan has higher status than others, but then there is the special case of the Pande clan and the Bandesa clan.

I have been told that even most Balinese are not all that clear on how to determine correct status position within any group of people, and you cannot ask this question. They ask by asking "where do you sit". The person who sits in the highest position in any meeting, say a banjar meeting has the highest status in that meeting, but it may take expert enquiry and determination to establish that status.

In have still not answered the question, have I? But maybe now you understand the reason why I will not or cannot answer short of a long, well researched slab of text.

Its just not that simple.