Quote:
|
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.
