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
