A Very Old Kris

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by David

... However, from what i can see in the diagram you presented in post #15, these hilts clearly were not attached to the weapons that we consider to be kris today. Different types of weapons use different types of tangs for different reasons. Indonesian keris still use a round tang because it is a stabbing weapon, not the slashing weapon that the Moro kris developed into, so the stability that the rectangular tang offers along with the a sang-asang is not necessary. So i am not sure that we can use the evidence presented here to make a case for a evolution in these kalis forms from round to hexangular to square or rectangular tangs that we see in Moro kris since we are looking at completely different weapons.

Thanks again for the critique. 'As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.'

Actually all of those examples I posted have many many things in common:

1. all of them (except for a few Luzon plates from the Boxer Codex), are from the Visayas -- said region is the encircled portion on the map below;

2. within the Visayas, almost all of the examples I used are clustered on an area I marked with five 'x' in the map - thus, they share a common sub-culture;

3. as to their weapon types, all of them (except for the Bohol kalis) are: (a) very short, i.e., all of them are tiny hilts; (b) their blades appear to be all symmetrical and double-edged; and (c) as such they were all designed more for stabbing.

And though all designed for stabbing, the evolution from the round tang to a rectangular tang still happened. As to the impetus or motive for the transition to a rectangular tang, that I'm not sure of.

On a related matter, it might also interest others to know that some of those 10th to 13th century AD gold hilts have clay for its core inside, rather than wood. Perhaps as a ceremonial or dress dagger, sturdiness was not an issue, hence the use of clay sometimes.

And with regard to the early Iron Age (Argao, Cebu) dagger (500 BC to say 100 BC), there's a piece of cloth found wrapped its hexagonal tang. Would anybody have any idea on why a piece of cloth would be wrapped on the tang?

[David]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Thanks again for the critique. 'As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.'

I'm not sure who is sharpening whom here, but you have certainly presented much food for thought.
I am certainly grateful for all this info on Visayan swords and daggers, but i do wonder just how much connection we can truly draw to Ron's kris that started this post or the Moro kris in general as we know it today. While i am not in a position to debate whether or not there is any real connection between your Visayan examples and the Moro kris, simply from observation the similarities are rather superficial. When we look at at Ron's sword we are able to draw very clear and solid connects to the Javanese and/or Balinese keris. These similarities are rather exacting, down to minute detail of the various features of these blades. We see in these early "archaic" Moro kris both a gonjo and a gandik. But even more we see most of the detailed feature that are contained in the diagram of Javanese keris that you posted in earlier in this thread. Clearly we see a developed kembang kacang (whether or not meant to be an elephant). We see a well developed double sogokan and greneng. So while i would not discount that Visayan swords may have had some influence on the development of the Moro kris, it is clear to my eyes at least that these early "archaic" Moro kris developed directly from the form of Javanese and/or Balinese keris. It's about so much more than the shape of the tang for me and i am afraid that all you have stated here has done little to invalidate the theory that the Moro kris is a direct development of the Javanese form. You have to look at the entire design of the keris/kris, not just the shape of the tang. I am afraid that i remain unconvinced that the Bohol kalis is the proto-type of the Moro Kris.

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by Battara

The tang is a square and tapers to a point at the distal end.

Jose, thanks for the info. Would you or anybody have any idea as to which one is harder to make -- a square tang or round tang?

Originally Posted by Spunjer

...please keep it up. i really thought we could get together for some sarsi and sisig this coming january for my bro's wedding...

Ron, well you throw me so many curved balls and so I have to keep up! Hope to bump into you one of these days here in Manila so we can further refine these theories (or reject some, and develop another). Or if I can have a US trip soon (but there's no plan yet), then maybe we can just have the sisig there in Ohio.

Originally Posted by David

I'm not sure who is sharpening whom here, but you have certainly presented much food for thought. I am certainly grateful for all this info on Visayan swords and daggers, but i do wonder just how much connection we can truly draw to Ron's kris that started this post or the Moro kris in general as we know it today. While i am not in a position to debate whether or not there is any real connection between your Visayan examples and the Moro kris, simply from observation the similarities are rather superficial. When we look at at Ron's sword we are able to draw very clear and solid connects to the Javanese and/or Balinese keris. These similarities are rather exacting, down to minute detail of the various features of these blades. We see in these early "archaic" Moro kris both a gonjo and a gandik. But even more we see most of the detailed feature that are contained in the diagram of Javanese keris that you posted in earlier in this thread. Clearly we see a developed kembang kacang (whether or not meant to be an elephant). We see a well developed double sogokan and greneng. So while i would not discount that Visayan swords may have had some influence on the development of the Moro kris, it is clear to my eyes at least that these early "archaic" Moro kris developed directly from the form of Javanese and/or Balinese keris. It's about so much more than the shape of the tang for me and i am afraid that all you have stated here has done little to invalidate the theory that the Moro kris is a direct development of the Javanese form. You have to look at the entire design of the keris/kris, not just the shape of the tang. I am afraid that i remain unconvinced that the Bohol kalis is the proto-type of the Moro Kris.

David, thanks. I agree with you that the subject matter has much more to do than the shape of the tang. And with regard to the 'invalidation' thing I mentioned, I was definitely not referring to the Indonesian keris' influence on the development of the Moro kris.

What was invalidated to my mind via what I presented, is the theory that the 'smoking gun' insofar as the inferred transition from a Javanese keris to a Moro kris must have been a Moro kris with a round tang.

That can't be, because as we've seen our square or rectangular tang came about centuries even before our kris was born.

I also agree with you on the Javanese influence on the development of what eventually became the Moro kris (and earlier, on the Javanese influence on the development of the Luzon, Visayan, and Mindanao-Sulu kalises).

I'm now reading a nice book on numbers and units in Old Tagalog by Dr. Jean-Paul Potet. And in there (see excerpts below), the very close ties between our islands and Java was mentioned several times. We can also see that he also mentioned that there was a period where our forefathers were using Javanese currency, given the far-reaching influence of the Javanese economy. Thus, we can surmise from all these that there must have been a tremendous amount of cross-fertilization going on within our region (which region eventually became Malaysia, Indonesia, and Philippines).

And so I think we should always remember that it was and will always be a two-way street.

When I had the opportunity to interview the weapons expert of Museo del Ejercito in Toledo, Spain in 2010 (and our subject was antique Phil. blades), he suggested to me that one important area of study is the influence of Filipino sword design on Spanish blades. Because precisely he is emphasizing that the influence of one region to another will always be reciprocal.

Thus in my humble opinion the proper perspective is to think in grayscale and not in black and white. Or put another way, the approach is to think in percentages, rather than all or nothing.

To put it more concretely and by way of an example, I think the Moro kris' origin is 70% local (with the Visayan kalis, as my personal proof, which kalis form must have also existed in Luzon and in Mindanao-Sulu, and perhaps even before the advent of Islam in our islands) and 30% Javanese.

I suppose the alternative view is to think that it's lopsided the other way around -- e.g., the Moro kris' origin is 90% Javanese and only 10% local.

I don't have any problem with the two views above, hypothetically. My only issue is for anybody to claim that the influence on the any design is 100% local, or 100% Javanese, or 100% whatever

Next, I'll present some more info why I believe that the influence on the development of the Moro kris' design must have been predominantly homegrown.

[migueldiaz]

The following are excerpts from the book Philippine Ancestral Gold, which deals mainly with local 10th to 13th century AD artifacts.

We can see that in the area of craftsmanship then, only Philippines was at par with Java in the region.

I understand that this is not a direct proof with regard to the subject of this thread. I guess my only point is that the Philippines too must have had influenced Java a lot, in the general area of design of cultural objects, which included weapons.

[David]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

The following are excerpts from the book Philippine Ancestral Gold, which deals mainly with local 10th to 13th century AD artifacts.

We can see that in the area of craftsmanship then, only Philippines was at par with Java in the region.

I understand that this is not a direct proof with regard to the subject of this thread. I guess my only point is that the Philippines too must have had influenced Java a lot, in the general area of design of cultural objects, which included weapons.

Miguel, there is no doubt of the skill of early craftsmanship of these old gold artifacts. I have been aware of this work for some time. However, it is still apples and oranges.
If you can show me a Moro kris that can be legitimately dated to this same period (13th or 14th century) of time that has all the features of the Javanese keris of that same period, that might be a game changer. Frankly i have never seen one that can be dated earlier than the 16th or 17th century at best (Cato is more conservative and calls these 18th century, but i think they must date a little older than that).
Getting back to tangs, these really early ("archaic") Moro kris that i have seen have not really developed yet into the slashing weapon they were to become. They are smaller (many not much longer than the blade length of many Bali keris) with much thinner width and a pointiness which infers that stabbing was still the main function. I have not had the opportunity to examine the tangs on these very early kris, but they could probably still be fairly effective as stabbing weapons if they still had a round or even square tang. It is only as the weapon gets larger and more intended for slashing that a rectangular tang becomes more necessary. Ron's kris shows that at least some of these early kris retained the round tang of their Indonesian cousins, though i would image that Moro smiths were probably trying different things at the time to develop a more effective weapon to use against the Spaniards.

[A. G. Maisey]

With regard to those two distinctive features of kerises and krises (encircled in the attached pic, which pic I merely hastily snatched from the Internet), what would be the latest views on which century or centuries those first appeared?

Miguel, the most recent opinions relating to the development of the Modern Keris (ie, the keris form that followed the Keris Buda) have not yet been published. With God's blessing perhaps later this year they may see daylight.

[migueldiaz]

Gustav, thanks for the pics.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Which leads us back to Ron's very old kris with a round tang that defied the trend. Well, I'm still scratching my head on that one. Can it be that the smith was Indonesian? Could the prematurely broken 'elephant trunk' be another sign that the smith was not that familiar with the finer points of making a Moro kris? Just thinking out loud ...

Given said pics posted by Gustav, then all the more I'm led to speculate that Ron's kris must have made by an Indonesian also, with the roundish tang and all ...

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by David

Given that early ("archaic") Moro kris seem to incorporate all the exact same minute details of design that we find on the Javanese keris (gandik, gonjo, sogokan, blumbangan, kembang kacang, greneng w/ rondha, lambe-gajah, etc.) and that none of these features are visible on any of the examples of these ancient kalis that you have posted i have a very difficult time accepting the Moro kris as 70% homegrown as you have suggested.

David, thanks again for the comments.

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

In fact if my theory (or anybody else's theory) can be demolished soon, then I think we will all agree that that's progress. That is, the whole point of the discussion is to merely find the 'best fit' in the data vs. the interpretation.

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.

Thus the five items above would be the 'must have'. And the rest would merely be 'nice to have'.

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.

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.

First the easy part -- the lower half of the plate pertains to what we already saw before: the leaf-shaped assymetrical double-blade over time and space was the classic form, both in our islands and abroad (Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, etc.).

And I've made the thickness of the aqua horizontal line thinner as one reached the 19th century. What I'm implying there is that the volume of blades produced with that design declined, as more assymetrical and larger blades grabbed the limelight over the last 300 years or so.

Now on the upper half of the plate --

The group of three hilts/blade should actually be on the lower half of the plate. But I just ran out of space. Anyway, it's good to also place that bunch up on top, because together with the Bohol kalis, we can see the seeds of what will aggregate to become a Moro kris:

(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;

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

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

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

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).

Pls. correct me if I'm wrong. But my impression is that you are focusing on the 30% as proof that the Moro kris was not homegrown. But wouldn't that be a case of the tail wagging the dog?

But as I mentioned, I'd also like to try and destroy my own theory, if only to find out what's a more plausible scenario. Hence, while we all await with bated breath and with great anticipation Alan's book, can you please comment on the following?

(a) what would be the oldest Javanese artifact or image, wherein we can see something like 'C' in the illustration below (in any weapon), and we are not looking for a whole keris, that is, just that particular design element -- once found, we then compare the age of that, vis-a-vis the 10th to 13th century dating of that gold Mindanao hilt bearing 'C';

(b) what would be the oldest Javanese artifact or image, where there's a ganja preferably with greneng, in an asymmetrical dagger -- again, we will then compare it with the 10th to 15th century Bohol kalis bearing those features; and

(c) finally I've always been intrigued on what's supposed to be the oldest Javanese keris/es, as recovered from an archeological dig; can you please post pics of those? given Java's very rich cultural past, I've always wondered why I can't seem to find pics of those, which I'd really like to compare with ancient Phil. kalises.

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

PS - My fearless forecast is that in between the Bohol kalis (10th to 15th C. AD) and the present Moro kris form (17th C.?), there ought to be another missing link in which either the leaf-shaped blade would have straightened already, and/or the gandhik would already be there on the opposite side of the greneng, with the gandhik design element most probably coming from Java, together with the janul, bungkur, lambeh gajah, etc.).

BTW, 'B' in the plate refers to the sun-fire-bird motif, which can be traced to the ancient Austronesian religion that venerates those, as the icons of the Upperworld (and the naga or croc or turtle, etc., as the icons of the Underworld). And so we see a coherent picture, of how the archeological items provide evidence of a continous stream from the past to the present forms.

[A. G. Maisey]

There will be no book coming from me Miguel. I have consistently rejected that idea for more than 45 years.So luckily there is no need to abate your taking of breath.

[Gustav]

[QUOTE=migueldiaz]
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.
[QUOTE=migueldiaz]

It has little to do with the discussion of kris origin, yet here I would like to remark, there are Moro kris without greneng.

[QUOTE=migueldiaz]
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.
[QUOTE=migueldiaz]

Yes, but without any doubts there simply are Moro kris with round tang. You can't ignore them.

[QUOTE=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
[QUOTE=migueldiaz]

These ornamentics/symbols are found at many places in SEAsia, as you do remark by yourself. With the same ease you say this feature is Gandhik with 'elephant trunk & mouth' someone could remark it resembles Greneng. For a key evidence of a theory this likeness is a very week point.

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

As earlier mentioned, even early Javanese keris forms and pre-keris daggers also have a rectangular tang. It is absolutely nothing unusual&typical only for Philippines.

[QUOTE=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).

Pls. correct me if I'm wrong. But my impression is that you are focusing on the 30% as proof that the Moro kris was not homegrown. But wouldn't that be a case of the tail wagging the dog?
[QUOTE=migueldiaz]

Here I would like to remark, all on Moro kris looks like a typical Keris-culture-periphery product: the symbolic details from Javanes/Balinese repertoire are taken and repeated in a increasingly ornamental way ("just icing on the cake"), with time progressing in features more and more typical for this peripheral region and mixing with the specifical ornamentics and symbols of this region. Such development per se is absolutely normal and absolutely typical.

Regarding the object from Bohol, the ancient japanese spearheads would give a more appropriate forefather of kris: you could find there by far more features similar to Moro kris. As I see, there (Bohol-object) is no Gandhik (ricasso) at all, and terms Gonjo (in this case Gonjo Iras) and Greneng would be need to be very stressed to fit the features of this object. It distantly reminds the silhouette of Keris Sepang or perhaps Keris Puthut, yet there simply are no Moro Kris Sepang and Kris Puthut, and no Moro kris at all, which would look like the Bohol object.

[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.

[David]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

David, thanks. I agree with you that the subject matter has much more to do than the shape of the tang. And with regard to the 'invalidation' thing I mentioned, I was definitely not referring to the Indonesian keris' influence on the development of the Moro kris.

What was invalidated to my mind via what I presented, is the theory that the 'smoking gun' insofar as the inferred transition from a Javanese keris to a Moro kris must have been a Moro kris with a round tang.

That can't be, because as we've seen our square or rectangular tang came about centuries even before our kris was born.

I also agree with you on the Javanese influence on the development of what eventually became the Moro kris (and earlier, on the Javanese influence on the development of the Luzon, Visayan, and Mindanao-Sulu kalises).

I'm now reading a nice book on numbers and units in Old Tagalog by Dr. Jean-Paul Potet. And in there (see excerpts below), the very close ties between our islands and Java was mentioned several times. We can also see that he also mentioned that there was a period where our forefathers were using Javanese currency, given the far-reaching influence of the Javanese economy. Thus, we can surmise from all these that there must have been a tremendous amount of cross-fertilization going on within our region (which region eventually became Malaysia, Indonesia, and Philippines).

And so I think we should always remember that it was and will always be a two-way street.

When I had the opportunity to interview the weapons expert of Museo del Ejercito in Toledo, Spain in 2010 (and our subject was antique Phil. blades), he suggested to me that one important area of study is the influence of Filipino sword design on Spanish blades. Because precisely he is emphasizing that the influence of one region to another will always be reciprocal.

Thus in my humble opinion the proper perspective is to think in grayscale and not in black and white. Or put another way, the approach is to think in percentages, rather than all or nothing.

To put it more concretely and by way of an example, I think the Moro kris' origin is 70% local (with the Visayan kalis, as my personal proof, which kalis form must have also existed in Luzon and in Mindanao-Sulu, and perhaps even before the advent of Islam in our islands) and 30% Javanese.

I suppose the alternative view is to think that it's lopsided the other way around -- e.g., the Moro kris' origin is 90% Javanese and only 10% local.

I don't have any problem with the two views above, hypothetically. My only issue is for anybody to claim that the influence on the any design is 100% local, or 100% Javanese, or 100% whatever

Next, I'll present some more info why I believe that the influence on the development of the Moro kris' design must have been predominantly homegrown.

Again, interesting information on coins, but i can't help but remark that this seems like an apples vs. oranges argument and i don't really see the connection you are attempting to make with the coins. Firstly the Mojophahit Empire was indeed the dominate force in that area at the time and parts of what are now considered the Philippines were vassal states of that empire. So it is no surprise that Mojopahit currency can be found there. However it must also be considered that when currency is made of gold and silver it hardly matters what government has stamped it's mark upon it. It retains value by it's weight regardless.
I do look forward to the evidence you will soon be presenting that will show why you believe the Moro kris is predominately homegrown. Given that early ("archaic") Moro kris seem to incorporate all the exact same minute details of design that we find on the Javanese keris (gandik, gonjo, sogokan, blumbangan, kembang kacang, greneng w/ rondha, lambe-gajah, etc.) and that none of these features are visible on any of the examples of these ancient kalis that you have posted i have a very difficult time accepting the Moro kris as 70% homegrown as you have suggested. What does seem homegrown is the development of this uniquely Javanese design from a stabbing dagger into a slashing sword, which certainly makes the Moro variety of kris/keris a different beast, a one to be seriously reckoned with. In order to effectively do this the change from a round tang to a rectangular one seems a necessity for the effectiveness of the weapon. Such shaped tangs were not a mystery to the Javanese either. They just were just not a necessity for the stabbing function of the keris.
Alan will be able to answer the question you posed to him better than i, but it is my understanding that the features you are questioning about are at least as old as the Mojopahit Empire when all this contact between Jawa and the southern Philippines was taking place. I have attached a map of the Mojopahit Empire for some context. Certainly when you have contact between peoples their is an exchange of ideas. However, one must also keep in mind which was the dominate culture at the time. Vassal states tended to adopt the styles and directions of the keraton in power.