Miguel Diaz, I cannot disagree with anything you have presented. I am of the opinion that the blade under discussion here is a Philippine blade.
However, is it a keris (or kris, or creese, or cris, or crist, or dhuwung or any of the other variations) as we would recognise a keris today?
Over the years there has been much discussion about exactly how we identify a keris.
Speaking only for myself, and setting to one side the obvious aberrations, I believe that for a blade to be considered a keris it must have gandhik and gonjo as a bare minimum.
For me, the blade under discussion is not a keris.
It has certain keris-like features, which could indicate some early experimentation with the keris form, but it lacks the essential features that would give it the spiritual characteristics of a keris, and since the keris is a spiritual object, these features are essential in any keris, especially an early one.
As far as I am concerned, this blade you have shown us is indisputably of Philippine origin.
|