[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.