Putting together a museum exhibit linking Java keris to Philippine kris

[David]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

BTW kris is not a specialty of mine or anything, but from what I've seen available in English/on the internet/including this forum, all of the earliest archaeological evidence (which is scant) is from the mainland Asia.
Of course, it is neccessary to determine "what is kris"
Is it forward leaned blade?
forward curved blade?
the finger grips?
the guard shaped as part of the blade?
the guard shaped as part of the blade but a seperate piece of metal (seperate or true ganga)?
However, AFAIK the matter is unresolved and all responsible experts admit as much.

You might want to get off the internet Tom and try a few good, more in depth, books on the subject. I can name you a few if you are truly interested. While they are not perfect either, the internet has a way of recycling quite a bit of false information on the subject and only provide a very small snippet of information, good or bad.
Again, most scholars place the origins of the keris as we know it in Jawa. Most do not consider it unresolved, but i do agree that all would be wise to keep and open mind to any new evidence that might surface in the future. Did this form develop from some previous blade that we would not necessarily recognize as a keris. Well sure, the Javanese people did not invent the concept of the dagger. But there is no evidence to my knowledge of anything resembling the specific form of a keris existing in any part of Asia prior to the emergence of the keris in Java. When the archaeologists dig one up in India or Tibet or whereever i'd be more than happy to consider it.
Also it is the idea of the gonjo that is necessary for a blade to be a keris. Yes Tom, gonjo iras blades are considered "real" keris. Further, the term "gonjo iras" does not mean "without gonjo" as you suggested early in this thead. It means the the gonjo and blade are "one". So you can see from this that the idea of the gonjo continues even if it is not a separate piece from the blade.

[tom hyle]

I'm told repeatedly that iras gongo translates "without" a gonjgo (anyone have an actual literal translation of the words for us?), but yes, as I think I said, it does indeed actually mean without a SEPERATE gongo; ie with an integral gonga, or as you say "blade and gonjo are one". Same thing.
The archaeological evidence from India is AFAIK in the form of very old sculptures depicting double-edged forward-curved daggers. This is why I said we must ask first "what is kriss?" but also if kris (as such, defined in tight terms with the elephant the seperate but blade-section guard etc whatever) is from Java (for which I've seen no evidence, but just a lot of repeated declaring), then that does not invalidate the discussion and relation of daggers such as the Hindoo ones that may be ancestral to kris without yet being kris per se. It would be silly to discuss the falchion while denying the relevance of the sax. Now when it comes to Thailand and mainland Malaysia there may be more direct archaeological evidence (ie actual blades).
As in many debates in many feilds I find there are those who declare that things are a certain way, but who seem to ignore evidence or twist definitions to do so. If you boil it down to "the Java kris is from Java" then yeah, the Java kris is from Java, but if you really want to explore where the form originates rather than defining kris per se by Java kris features and then proceeding in a circle, the matter is a bit less clear.
I came back to check out this particularly fascinating thread because I was reading the top 10 wierd swords thread and someone had commented on the kris as noncombative, BTW; I was going to refer that person to this tread, but since I'm now replying to it, that should bring it to the top anyway. My comments on the deadliness of kriss herein are, I think, pretty elucidatory