Your implied question is a valid one, Marcus.
Do others agree with my position on the keris or not?
Well, some will agree wholeheartedly, others will agree in part, a few will not agree at all.
In so far as the concept of "agreement" goes, we need to firstly be very specific in framing the question, and the question does need to be placed within the parameters of a window of time, and to be addressed from a clearly defined position.
For example, if we attempt to understand the Javanese keris in present day terms, and with the beliefs and perceptions of a Javanese person who is a devout practitioner of Kejawen, much of what I present as the character of the keris will be dismissed out of hand, even though I may be able to demonstrate that my claims can be supported by documentation or by logic, this substantiation of my claims will be ignored .
Why should this be so?
Quite simply because the keris is now at the centre of a system of belief, and anybody who is a true believer in any system of belief will not be swayed by any argument that tends to undermine his beliefs. I do not criticise this approach to understanding the keris:- it is a perfectly valid way in which to place the keris into a cultural context, but this understanding is not able to be supported in objective terms.
In 1817 T.S. Raffles published his landmark work "The History of Java". In this he states that in the early 19th century the keris occupied a position in Jawa that was similar to the position of the small sword in Europe fifty years earlier. In other words, an item of dress, but an item of dress that could in extremity be used as a weapon. The position of the keris in traditional Javanese society is very little different today, than it was in the time of Raffles.
However, a segment of present day Javanese society does place a relatively recent esoteric interpretation on the keris. This is not incorrect for these people. There is no doubt at all that the basic nature of the keris is an esoteric one, this recent interpretation is simply evidence of the development of a society, which in itself is evidence of the vital nature of the society:- when a society fails to develop it dies.
If we move backwards in time we find that the nature and position of the keris changes. The keris of today no longer has the same nature as did the keris of the 16th century, 14th century, or 10th century.
So Marcus, to return to the question of agreement with my previous statements. Each person must decide for himself the position from which he wishes to attempt an understanding of the keris. For some it will be a strange looking weapon, for others it will be a work of art, for a few it might become a channel to use in mental exploration of exotic places, for a devout believer it can be a prayer in steel.
Each person needs to identify where he wants to start from. Even within Javanese society there is no unified agreement as to the nature of the keris.
My remarks are directed at the keris in Jawa, but they may also be taken to include the keris in Madura, which is in essence a part of Jawa, and to some extent, the keris in Bali. There is a historical base for this limited approach.
This link will take you to a page of references that you may care to explore in order to form your own opinions in respect of the keris. I strongly recommend Wiener (ISBN 0-226-88582-8/1) as a place to begin.
http://www.kerisattosanaji.com/kerisinformation.html
A more comprehensive reading list can found here:-
http://www.kerisattosanaji.com/INTER...LIOGRAPHY.html