[David]

Miguel, Gustav has already answered some of what you have presented, but i will also give it a go.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

I'm presenting below a rehash of my earlier visuals. And this will enable me to outline more clearly my position. But lemme say at the outset that I'm not emotionally attached to this position

This is good to hear. I also have no emotional attachment here, no horse in this race, so to speak. I am not tied to the present accepted theory of development, but do need to see solid evidence to the contrary before i would change my own opinion.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

But first we have to agree on what defines a Moro kris. For me and simplistically speaking, a kris to be a Moro kris has to have the ffg.: (a) an assymetrical blade; (b) a ganya, i.e., the guard; and (c) that whole 'elephant trunk' assembly with the gaping 'mouth'.
I think it's reasonable to add a 4th one: a greneng, i.e., the blade trap, as I know of no Moro kris that doesn't have this. And let's add a 5th and final one: the tang has to be non-circular, otherwise it won't be an effective slashing weapon.

I can accept all of these except the last. As Gustav has pointed out there are indeed examples of Moro kris with round or rounded tangs. They cannot be ignored and they are not going away.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Using the above criteria, obviously the Bohol kalis is not a kris. Bec. though it satisfies four of the criteria, yet there's no "c". But I think all of us agreed already that the said kalis is not a kris.

Perhaps we need to define our terms better, but on the Bohol kalis i not only do not see an "elephant trunk", but also NO gonjo/ganya, NO greneng and NO proper gandik. Please keep in mind that we are looking at this weapon in a very 2-dimensional format, but the blade appears very flat to me. I do not see a gandik by it's Javanese application on this blade.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Yet still, for me that kalis is a key piece in the puzzle. And that's because the said kalis, planted the seeds of what will become the Moro kris. And so we now turn to the plate below.

I would also like to point out that this is the only example of this exact blade form which seems to have surfaced in the Philippines. That seems odd to me for the "seed" of what was to become the prevalent sword of the Moros. Where are the others and all the transitional forms?

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

(1) the 'elephant trunk & mouth' ['C'] on the northern Mindanao gold hilt is for me a key evidence, that the Moro kris must have been homegrown -- and as a side note, the round thing on the other side of the hilt is reminiscent of some Moro kampilan hilts, as well as other Indonesian hilt forms;

I'd say there is little doubt that this gold hilt shows some of the stylistic flourishes that would be added to the Moro kris from the original Javanese design. But the "elephant trunk & mouth" were features well in place in Javanese keris centuries before they appear on "archaic" Moro kris.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

(2) then the blade assymetry on the Bohol kalis ['A2' crossed out] is yet another baby step;

The assymetric blade is classic to the area and did not originate in the Philippines. Certainly this ancient form influenced the early development of the Javanese keris as we can more clearly see in the keris buda.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

(3) still on the Bohol kalis, the guard/ganya ['E'], and its greneng [also 'E'] would be further proofs; and

I hate to keep repeating myself, but i do not recognize any greneng nor a gonjo/ganya on the Bohol kalis. A simple widening of the blade at the base is not what defines a gonjo. It is a separte piece that has both width and specific shape. Even when gonjo iras, it is defined by an incised line.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

(4) finally, the square or rectangular tang ['D'], starting with the 10th to 13th century pieces would round up the picture.

As both Gustav and myself have pointed out, square and rectangular tangs are not the invention of the Philippines. They were used long before the 10th century examples you post.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

In summary, since all these big ticket items can be found on archeological weapons artifacts in our country, then it is reasonable to conclude that most of the Moro kris' features are homegrown (the '70%', if we are to pick a number from the air).
As for the 30% (the finer features of the kris, which can't be found on ancient Phil. kalises), that to me is just icing on the cake And I can attribute those to Java as the source of the design elements (and this is not to belittle Java in any way of course).

I am afraid that it is these "finer features" that you refer to here that is what actual make a keris/kris a keris/kris. They are not flourishes, they are the meat of the matter. You seemed locked a the rather superficial, 2-dimensional overall assymetric leaf-shaped blade. Also the blades must be examined in 3-dimensions to truly understand the shape and design of these features.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

In summary, if certain key design elements will be found on earlier Javanese objects (as compared to the Phil. specimens), then I will happily move on and formulate a different hypothesis

As i mentioned before, i think we can safely say the the "modern" keris emerged in the Mojopahit period, though elements such as the gonjo and kembang kacang may have developed earlier. Since no known Moro kris with these features seem to have been created until a couple of centuries later and when they do emerge that look almost identical in features to their smaller Javanese/Balinese cousins i have little else to go in as to which preceded and influenced the other. If you can show me a 13th-14th century Moro kris with all these features intact that might be a game changer.