Balinese keris advice

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, these are indeed pretty scary looking men, but we can all look pretty scary when when we want to. As you say David, a posed photograph. If we were to have met these men in other than this photo pose, I believe we would have found them to be as friendly and as personable as we now find their present day descendants to be.

In my experience and personal relationships with Balinese people, which stretches over more than 50 years, and speaking in general terms, I can find no traces of a warrior society in Bali.

Yeah, sure, we have a K'satriya caste, the "knights" within the societal system, but even in past times, when these "knights" had a duty to protect their ruler and their fellow members of society, it seems to me that the Balinese idea of combat was more in the nature of theatre, rather than the ideas surrounding combat that we find in many societies in other parts of the world, for example in European societies.

Those of us who have read, or studied, this work:-

Visible and Invisible Realms-Margaret J.Wiener
ISBN 0-226-88582-8/1,The University of Chicago Press

have consistently recommended it as a starting point to understand the keris in Bali.

The keris in all societies where it is found as a cultural artefact does not stand independent of the society, it is essential to understand the society before one can understand the keris.

[JeffS]

This photo also comes to mind. I see the Wiener book is still readily available, will order when back from traveling.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Yeah, sure, we have a K'satriya caste, the "knights" within the societal system, but even in past times, when these "knights" had a duty to protect their ruler and their fellow members of society, it seems to me that the Balinese idea of combat was more in the nature of theatre, rather than the ideas surrounding combat that we find in many societies in other parts of the world, for example in European societies.

I am a bit confused by this comment Alan. Surely the Balinese engaged in combat at times in their history. I would image this involved real warfare, not just theatre. I was not suggesting a warrior society per se, but i don't see anything too off base in referring to someone who engages in battle as a warrior. Though again, i don't believe the keris would have been considered regular weapon of war in these cases.
Jeff, i also cannot recommend Visible and Invisible Realms by Margaret J.Wiener more heartily. It is an excellent book to understand Bali and the place the keris held within that society.

[A. G. Maisey]

I think I can understand what you're saying here David, and if I do, I can also understand why my comment might seem to be confusing.

Yes, it is certain that in Old Bali there was sometimes conflict between the various kingdoms, a colony was established on Lombok, other colonies were attempted in other locations. However, in Standard English, and also in the way I think --- and this could be the problem --- simple conflict does not a warrior make.

The way I understand the word "warrior" is that a man who is a warrior is one who makes warfare his occupation, thus a warrior society is a society that depends for its existence upon its ability to wage war. If I think "warrior" in an historic context I think of people such as Ghengis Khan, or other historic people whose profession was war, not just occasional conflict, especially conflict that ultimately might be settled by negotiation rather than spilt blood.

Balinese society was a society of farmers who occasionally became involved in conflict, within Balinese society the K'satriya caste can be thought of as the ruling class of people, Brahmana could not rule, traders and craftsmen could not rule, the tillers of the soil could not rule, only the K'satriya could rule, so the job of this entire class of people was to ensure order & and stability within the realm, and to support the ruler, whose presence was in fact, The Realm. Not at all dissimilar to the old English hierarchy of nobility.

Yes, the K'satriya was also the line of first defence, or first offence, in times of conflict, but their profession was not war, thus they were not warriors, they were the ruling class.

In Standard English, the word "warrior" is now principally used in a poetic or rhetorical way, and it can also be used in a manner that bestows praise, for instance, in a eulogistic sense.

Balinese society was not a warrior society, and I was commenting in terms of the society.

There is another book that is well worth the time (& effort) to read:-

Negara:- The theatre state in 19th. century Bali -- Clifford Geertz,
ISBN 0 691 05316 2 Princeton University Press

I used the word "effort", because I do not find this work as easy to digest as Wiener, it can be an effort to get through, but it does clarify the way in which Balinese realm & society functioned before the puputans, before the tourists, and before the erosion of traditional ways.

[Gustav]

A few comments about "Balinese warrior" also from me.

Balinese society perhaps was not primarily a warriors society, but Balinese undoubtely were very well known in 17th and 18th century Java as fierce warriors. Balinese forces captured and for some time controlled Blambangan in East Java. Balinese mercenaries were much sought after by VOC and different Javanese parties, and were equal in their fighting abilities with the two other classic mercenary groups - Madurese and Makassarese/Buginese. M.C.Ricklefs writes, after mentioning these: "The Balinese were also a nation of soldiers, (...)" (the "but" part of quotation deals with their religion).

Balinese participated in Javanese conflicts until the end of the Third Sucession War in 1757, there most notably within Mangkunegaran party. Their impact on Javanese culture for more then a half of a century was huge - Balinese dance, dress style, moustache - at that time a genuinely Balinese feature in Java - and along with dress, Balinese (or Balinese style, or better, size) Keris.

We have not much detailed information on situation in Bali itself until around 1800, but after that it was a time of frequent conflicts.

The referring to Javanese and Balinese warfare as theatre or dance was quite popular with period European witnesses.

The book of Geertz is a classic (1980), an indispensable reading, but already at its appearance was criticised for rather one-sided view.

Surely the last Puputans changed the Balinese society and culture (something like Gamelan Gong Kebyar was unthinkable before them), but always, looking at the friendly smiling Balinese and their peaceful and artistic society, I must think of 1965 in Bali. In less then a half of year estimated 80 000 people were killed, proportionally more then anywhere else in Indonesia.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for posting that alternate view Gustav, you are of course correct in this reporting, most especially so in your reference the massacres of 1965.

I was in Bali in 1966, at that time I was not related to any of the people who died during those events that contributed to the formation of Indonesia as a nation, but I did later become so.

The observance that a very great number of people passed from this world to the next at that time deserves more than just the reporting of numbers, the background to these occurrences should also be understood. This forum is in my opinion not the place to address that.

Yes, Geertz' commentary in Negara has been subjected to opposing opinions, and we can find opposing opinions to very many things in very many fields of academic endeavour. I am not an academic, but my own study and personal experience inclines me to a similar opinion to that of Geertz.

It is also true that the Balinese did serve as mercenaries for the Dutch, as did the Madurese and the Bugis people. One thing that contributed to the popularity of Balinese men as mercenaries and Balinese women as concubines & wives (especially for the Dutch: Balinese had no aversion to pork, something forbidden to Muslim women) was the fact that many, if not most of these Balinese people entered service for the Dutch as slaves. The Balinese slave trade is something that has been well researched and reported, but now tends to be pushed into the background.

A notable characteristic of Balinese people in general, is that they do tend to be quick to anger, but as soldiers and servants they did also have a reputation for unreliability.

Gustav, if I wished I could use select evidence and create an argument that would support the idea that the Balinese were a nation of warriors who just happened to live by farming. However, if I were to do that, somebody else could just as easily create an opposing argument.

If you, or others, wish to believe that the Balinese were warriors who lived by indulging in warfare, and only grew rice in their spare time, I have no problem with that, we do tend to believe the things that our own experience indicates to us are true.

However, there is one inescapable truth:- in the English language a warrior is a person whose profession is war. When the word warrior is used in other senses than this it is either poetic usage, rhetorical usage, or eulogistic usage.

Occasional, or forced participation in armed conflict does not make a warrior, if it did, virtually every nation in the Western World would be a nation of warriors.

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you for responding to my comment.

In no way I would believe Balinese were warriors who lived by indulging in warfare, and only grew rice in their spare time. No one, except you, were speaking here about Balinese society as a warrior society at all.

Balinese did not serve as mercenaries only to Dutch, but also to different Javanese parties in all Javanese Wars of Succession (until the very end - Mangkubumi preferred Madurese, Raden Mas Said - Balinese), and even did their own thing under Surapati. Of course you are absolutely right about Balinese slaves - Surapati also was one for some time. These mercenaries were undoubtely warriors.

[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.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

However, there is one inescapable truth:- in the English language a warrior is a person whose profession is war. When the word warrior is used in other senses than this it is either poetic usage, rhetorical usage, or eulogistic usage.

Occasional, or forced participation in armed conflict does not make a warrior, if it did, virtually every nation in the Western World would be a nation of warriors.

Alan, i don't really wish to belabor this point too much further, but your comment sent me searching for the English definition of the word "warrior".
Miriam-Webster: "a person engaged or experienced in warfare"
Cambridge: "a person who has experience and skill in fighting, esp. as a soldier"
Collins: "A warrior is a fighter or soldier, especially one in former times who was very brave and experienced in fighting."
Oxford: "(especially in the past) a person who fights in a battle or war"
Nowhere is there a mention that a warrior is someone who fights wars in exchange for money. I do acknowledge that a couple of these definitions mention "soldier", which certainly can be considered a profession, though soldiers can be conscripted as well. Though even when someone becomes a soldier for pay it does not necessarily mean that soldiering is their intended profession. Many soldiers serve their nation in times of war and then return to their regular lives as farmers, carpenters, and tradespeople. When we speak of Native American warriors, surely fighting wars was not the sole occupation of these braves. They fought where and when they were needed and hunted and/or farmed also when needed, all as a service to the tribe. And certainly they weren't paired for their warrior skills when they did go to war. So i am afraid that this connection you are making that demands that "warrior" only be used in the context of a "profession" does not really ring true for me.