Baganing, you are going to find it really difficult to find anyone who is willing to allow carbon dating on a kris since it involves destroying a small part of the object to do it. Carbon dating sheaths and hilts is pointless as these are commonly changed over years. While we do not have this scientific method to date these weapons we do have many clues that allow us to put the different styles and characteristics that we see into catagories of different eras based in part on blades of provenence. The kris that you link to on Artzi's site are all fairly accurately dated. Kris #1 shows all the characteristics of a mid to late 19th century kris. Kris #2 is a bit older, maybe around 1800 to mid 19th century. Kris #3 is in the "archaic" style and could be late 18th century. Keris #4 again appears to be of the 19th century variety. You might want to get a hold of Robert Cato's book Moro Sword for a better understanding of the clues that help us designate the approximate age on these blades.
"I just told you in archaelogy, the development of tools is from simple to complex. The more intricate it looks, the more recent it is."
As Spunjer has pointed out this is obviously an inaccurate statement based on both his examples and the ones you have shown. To take it a step further, examine some of the post WWII blades which get even more simplistic in their design.
As for Spunjer's kris, i have also handled it and can assure you that it is indeed real ivory. You will also see numerous "archaic" style kris that are at least from the 1700s with ivory pommels so i am sorry to say that your research is just plain wrong here as well. Ivory pommels have been used on some of the oldest known Moro kris. There was much early trade for materials like ivory in the Philippines and ivory can also be found locally from marine sources. Older kakatu pommels on kris tend to be rather diminutive compared to later styles so the very large piece of ivory that you get from elephants might not be necessary for these smaller pommels.
Lastly, you can question why the word "vikingo" did not find it's way into to language, but i am afraid that it "proves" nothing. Perhaps it just wasn't pertinent enough. The Vikings made it to Spain, but i don't believe that they spent a lot of time pillaging there and they never had a conquering empire like the Ottomans. They also predate the Ottomans by a few centuries. The Turks, however, may have lingered in the Spanish memory and imagination for a longer period of time.
