That's a good question Alam Shah, and it deserves a far better answer than can be given in the context of a discussion group in an online forum.
My view of this matter, shortened and simplified to a digestable form and length is that there is evidence for the keris as a weapon prior to any evidence existing for the keris as a talisman, or indeed, the keris in its developed esoteric persona.
Logical argument can be constructed to support the keris as weapon prior to the keris as talisman, and this argument can stand independent of any physical evidence.
|