Why Is It

[kai]

Hello Alan,

Probably better than 90% of Bali keris are wos wutah anyway, and those that are not are some other pretty innocuous sort of pamor. Be a real clever dukun who could use pamor wos wutah to santet somebody.

Thanks for the observation! One could argue that pamor did seem to have had less importance on Bali than on Java and, thus, it might be less likely to get focused on. (And also possibly less "needed" with the gonjo.)

In fact, I don't know if this "hide the pamor" game even existed in Bali. There seems to be some indication that it did exist in Jawa, but even there, I'm not too sure that it grew out of any belief that it afforded some protection against santet. Rather, I think it possibly grew as a justification by offended persons wanting to save face, when Sultan Agung decreed that only he in the kingdom of Mataram could wear a keris with a pamor gonjo.

We are talking Bali, and there is no doubt at all that in Bali up until quite recently the keris of the common man was a weapon.A plain iron gonjo serves its purpose as well as a pamor gonjo on a weapon, and its cheaper.
<snip>
Nobody in their right mind spends more money than necessary, especially in an agrarian based society.

Well, I'm not sure this is necessarily so. Weapons have - due to their very nature and importance - always been associated with a lot of magic, beliefs, rituals, talismans, what-have-you. These definitely served a purpose for the owner but they were not based on keeping the costs/efforts as low as possible. I'd agree that any associated cultural constraints would usually not go so far to compromise the function as a weapon. However, there are obviously a lot of added/changed things which don't have functional consequences and would thus be neutral and open to cultural developments.

If we can hear a logical argument in support of "hide the pamor", I'm more than happy to listen, but I think that before we begin we need to show that this "hide the pamor" belief did in fact exist in Bali.

Ack.!

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

David, the concept of "stylistic variation" can cover a multitude of things. Yes, of course you are right in proposing that style of a keris, and of many other things, can be derived from the practices of the leaders of a society.In fact, sometimes a style can be dictated by the leaders of a society. However, in the case of the plain black gonjo found on many Balinese keris, I would suggest that we have something that nobody at the time, and in the place where this developed, considered to be sufficiently important to be subject to the dictates or preferences of a court.

As Brekele has shown, and as Rick in his original post indicated, the plain black Bali gonjo is not a universal phenomenon. It is common, yes, but it is not universal. Amongst my own keris I have a number of old keris with pamor gonjo, I also have a number of old keris with plain black gonjo. I have two keris of extremely high quality with gonjos lacking pamor, but adorned with kniatah work.

So exactly what are we considering?

I would suggest that the matter under consideration is this:-

the majority of Balinese keris held in western collections have gonjos that lack pamor;
why is this so?

and that is pretty much what Rick asked in post # 1.

If we consider Javanese keris with plain black gonjos, there are several theories as to their existence.

There is the practice of taking a gonjo from an old keris to incorporate in the body of a new keris.

There is the simple loss of a gonjo for one reason or another, or its damage through trauma or erosion.

There is the possibility that the maker, or the original client, considered that aesthetically the keris was more pleasing with a plain gonjo rather than a pamor gonjo.

There is the belief that Sultan Agung decreed that in the Kingdom of Mataram only he could possess a keris with a pamor gonjo.

There is the "economic theory" that I have proposed.

There is the "hide the blade" theory, and really, it is "hide the blade", rather than just hide the pamor. If one understands keris, it is possible to look at only the gonjo in the wrongko and often one can know if the blade is straight, or waved, from the material in the gonjo and its shape, one can know the tangguh, and probably the pamor, if one knows the tangguh and whether the blade is straight or waved, and its pamor, then one can possibly guess the dhapur and the tuah , or talismanic power of the blade. By knowledge of the talismanic power of a blade, it can be possible to deduce the secrets of its owner.Simply by looking at the gonjo of the keris, its owner's secrets have been laid bare.
Once in possession of this information, it would be possible to mount a magically based attack on the owner. Even if no attack were to be feared, at the very least, the secrets of the owner were laid bare.

But we are talking about Jawa here. In Bali there is nowhere near the same variety in pamor and dhapur as there is in Jawa, and the concept of tangguh does not exist.Balinese society and culture has not been influenced by the Sufic beliefs which have helped to form Javanese mysticism.
When we consider Bali, we cannot consider it in the same , or even similar light, to Jawa, since perhaps the 15th century.Even prior to the 15th century, Bali was quite different to Jawa. I think it was Gajah Mada who ranted about the "vile Balinese, with their foul habits and long hair".

Whenever we consider any stylistic phenomenon , we need to consider it in terms of the characteristics of that specific society. We cannot try to understand in terms of our own society, nor in terms of a different society, but we must make an attempt to come close to an understanding of the characteristics of the society where that phenomenon exists, before we can attempt to understand some stylistic phenomenon within that society.

In Bali prior to its subjugation by the Dutch, we had an agrarian society. This society was organised under a number of minor warlords who were constantly at one another's throats. The lord of Klungkung was the spiritual leader of these minor lords, but it seemed that he lacked much influence over them.Within the areas dominated by the lords, local organisations managed the land and the water, these local organisations were formed of all married men in a community. The courts certainly had officials, but these officials held their positions on the basis of caste, and everybody, in one degree or another, was a farmer.There seems not to have been the same societal characteristic of self promotion, but rather there was a more homogeneous society dominated by the necessity to cooperate in the sharing of resources in order to survive as a community.

In old Bali there was an earthy crudity to the society. Even into the early years of the 20th century, both before and after occupation by the Dutch, much of south Bali was characterised by gangs of toughs and hoodlums who preyed upon the unwary.Alchoholism, prevalent drug use, bashings, casual murders. Bali was not the ordered society of Jawa, dominated by the Dutch, and with its refined courts, its professional courtiers, and its rampant mysticism. The nature of Balinese society, and the magic within Balinese society was closer to the sympathetic and naturalistic magic of the older cultures of both mainland and maritime SE Asia, rather than to the refined magic which existed in Jawa, that owed much of its nature to both Islamic and European influences.

The keris in this society had the nature of weapon, but it was a weapon that could attain the status of an iconic symbol within a kin group, or at a state level.However, first and foremost it was a weapon, a tool for removing the life force from another human being.

This tool was ordered, purchased and owned by farmers, practical men who needed to conserve resources to survive from one year to the next.Such men do not disperse their limited resources upon those things that are not deemed to be essential.

The fitting of a gonjo costing more than was necessary, to a tool intended for use against other human beings was not a necessary expense. It was an extravagance.This absence of extravagance in the Balinese keris is further evidenced by the most common forms of Balinese keris hilt, and Balinese wrongko. On all counts, the most common form of Balinese keris is a simple, pragmatic tool for ending human life.

It is not claimed that the plain black gonjo is an unvarying feature of the Balinese keris, but it is claimed that it is a feature that occurs more often than does the feature of a keris with pamor.

In any society there are more people with limited resources than people with excess resources. Those with excess resources in old Balinese society may have indulged themselves a little by having a gonjo with pamor on their kerises. However, I believe it is obvious that those with restricted resources felt no need to use any of those resources on the additional cost of a gonjo bearing pamor.

That, essentially, is my argument.
I am not locked into this opinion, and I am more than ready to change my opinion if it can be shown by either logical argument, or by evidence, that this opinion is wrong.

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, clearly if something that has added to cost in a weapon exists, then it must have been deemed to be necessary, for one reason or another.Its very existence demonstrates its necessity.

Nowhere have I claimed that the primary objective in weapons manufacture is to keep costs as low as possible.

What I have claimed is this:-

an iron gonjo is cheaper to produce than a pamor gonjo; it was not considered essential in old Bali to have a keris with a pamor gonjo, thus cost of a keris was reduced by fitting of an iron gonjo.

To demonstrate that this opinion is wrong it will be necessary to show that:-

1) a pamor gonjo does not cost more to produce than an iron gonjo

2) it was considered essential in old Bali to have a keris with a pamor bearing gonjo

3) the inhabitants of old Bali had such excess of resources that cost of the production of a pamor gonjo was of no consequence.

If it can be shown that all, or even one of these things is so, then clearly I will need to reconsider my opinion.

An adequately supported alternative opinion as to the reason for the predominance of plain iron gonjos found on Balinese keris will also cause me to rethink this matter.

[kai]

Hello Alan,

2) it was considered essential in old Bali to have a keris with a pamor bearing gonjo

This is the only point/hypothesis I'm trying to keep an open mind of.

Perhaps "desirable" would be preferable over "essential"...

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, the fact of the matter is that I do not enjoy being a member of the great unwashed throng.

I would much rather drive a Lamborghini, or even a Ferrari, than a Corolla.

But I simply cannot afford to. In fact, I don't even think I could afford the oil change for a Ferrari.

We all are forced to live within our means.

As far as "desirability" goes, I'm not even sure that it might have been desirable to have a pamor gonjo on one's keris in this time and place. I'm rather inclined to the viewpoint that it was probably a matter of no great concern, either way. Even if one could afford the cost, it was possibly considered a viable option to keep the gonjo black.

Certainly I find my argument on the original reason to be very difficult to turn my back on, but never lose sight of the fact that this argument has been put for the original reason.

I feel that acceptance and style took hold along the way and the black gonjo simply became something that was liked by some people, not liked by others, and often used by people without a lot of resources.

[David]

Alan, i am not necessarily in disagreement with your theories here, but there are still a number of factors that i am unable to calculate due to my ignorance on the subject that i was hoping would be cleared up through my questioning, but have yet to be addressed.
Firstly i would need to know more about what was most common among court keris in Bali. I wouldn't think that the extra cost would be a big consideration among Balinese lords. How often are the very high-end Bali Keris likely to go pamorless on the gonjo? Certainly my collection is mostly lower and perhaps middle-class keris. All of my older Bali keris have pamorless gonjos, but do you or anyone know what a ballpark percentage of Balinese court keris were pamorless on the gonjo? Brekele has shown us that at least some Balinese keris had pamor on the gonjo, so if it were a matter of money, at least some Balinese felt it was worth the extra expense to have.
Again most of my old Javanese keris are lower to middle-class, yet with few exceptions they all seem to have pamor on the gonjo. I understand that most of my Javanese keris are influenced by Islamic/Javanese culture and my Balinese by Hindu influence, but if i understand you correctly the theory of economics you put forth here is somewhat cross-cultural. So why then do we find, much more often, pamor on the gonjo of an old poor Javanese farmer's keris, but not on the gonjo of his Balinese counterpart? It doesn't seem likely that the Javanese farmer was in a better economic situation to afford it.
This is why i question economics as the origin for what appears to be a stylistic preference by the Balinese for a pamorless gonjo.

[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.