[A. G. Maisey]

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.