Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
I am completely open to examining evidence to the contrary if and when it arrives. Still waiting...  |
David, I did not mean to keep you waiting. And we only have Gustav to blame, for coming up with those distractions!
Just kidding, Gustav.
I can perhaps come up with other evidences, but unless we have a resolution on the definition of a keris-kris, then we will not really be resolving anything.
So I think it's absolutely necessary that we first go back to the topic of defining what a keris or kris is. And allow me to rehash that animal kingdom and blade kingdom analogy. Very quickly, once more (and my animal kingdom sub-classification is not meant to be taxonomically sound):
Birds & insects = Arrows, spears, & other projectiles
Aquatic animals & fishes = Shields of all sorts
Reptiles = Axes, clubs, maces, etc.
Amphibians = long swords
Mammals = shorts swords, daggers, & knives
- Mammal sub-group A (rodents, marsupials, etc.): blades of certain types
- Mammal sub-group B (primates, pachyderms, etc.): blades of another type
Now, the last sub-group B is still a big ball of wax. And since we all want to segregate further the 'primates' from within that sub-group, we have to make a narrower definition of what primates are.
My definition of what primates are: 'somewhat man-like in anatomy, and thus does not definitely look like an elephant, or a giraffe, or a dolphin, etc.' Hence the result of my definition of primates would be all of the guys below.
Now to my mind, you are defining what a primate is somewhat strictly, such that you will end up with just the gorilla, marmoset, and the chimp.
But this is not to say nor imply that since in reality all of the animals below are primates, then you are wrong
As mentioned, this is just an illustration and all illustrations fail at some point.
Ok, moving now directly to the kris-keris world -- my definition of what a Phil. kris is: 'often has wavy blades, whether symmetrical or assymetrical, and/or is assymetrical and has at least one triangular 'blade catch' on the guard, and it does not matter at all whether the guard is separate from the blade or not'. Thus to me all of the blades below would be krises.
Now in my understanding of your definition, only the Javanese, Malay, and Sulawesi krises in the illustration below are real krises.
After the 1930s (if Cato is right), most of the Moro krises did not have separate guards anymore. Now let me ask you please, are those latter Moro krises not real krises anymore?
Also, I can practically guarantee that in the entire Philippines, once they see a wavy-bladed weapon, it will be regarded locally as a kris in the fullest sense of the word.
And once anybody sees that Bohol kalis, they will also regard that as a kris.
In summary, I now think that we all have to accept the fact that Philippines has a more liberal definition on what a kris or keris is (and that would be the whole caboodle below).
I would even venture to say that if we ask an Indonesian or a Malaysian and show them the Luzon and Visayan krises below, they would most likely say that it's those are krises all right, but they are the Philippine varieties.
Thus, in your definition of a kris or keris, wouldn't that be like defining the classical Indo-Malaysian keris more than anything else?
Hey, I have to leave now as I'm meeting in a few minutes 'Nacho' and Nonoy Tan. In fact I'll be late already but I'll have a good excuse!