Jamdhar katari - a theory

[Stan S.]

This theory of mine if true, may be common knowledge, and if so, please forgive me as I am not aware of it. It is also entirely possible that I am dead wrong but I think this is an interesting thought, so here it goes:

Yesterday, I was playing with my new jamdhar katari dagger and its name got me thinking... At a glance, it does not resemble a katar (nothing really does, besides pata) but "katar" is present in its name... Why? I remember reading somewhere that katar means a tooth or a fang in some native dialect. If so, why dont we have more edged weapons from India with "katar" in their name? Then I looked closely at the distinct shape of the grip and it dawned on me: It looks remarkably like a single grip bar on a katar! Jamdhar's oversized pommel and crossguard resemble the steel straps of the katar hilt and function much in the same way by locking the wrist in place. So I pulled out one of my katars and compared the two. Surprisingly, at both being 3 inches wide, even the size of the grip is virtually the same!

So, would it be safe to draw a conclusion that jamdhar katari and a katar share a similar grip? Aside from a differently oriented blade, they appear designed to be held in a similar way. Does this make these two weapons related somehow? And does it indicate any similarities in their use?

[Stan S.]

Some more

[Stan S.]

Also, while we are at it, I would be very gratefull if someone could help me desypher the writing on the blade. It may be pictures of some kind. They are present on both sides and are also faintly repeated on the front of the scabbard.

[spiral]

I only hope that one day I can be as insightful as you.... ;)

I think youve without doubt taken the history of these weapons one step further than anyone else.....

Spiral

[Emanuel]

Hi Stan,

I'll throw a wrinkle at you :) . I don't recall the source - it might have been in Pant, or in the old catalog about Akbar's weapons, I'm sure it's in one of the older threads here - but it seems that the naming connection is actually the other way around. What we known as "katar" is actually called "jamadhar" and the "katar" bit was erroneously attributed to the wrong knife type. Both knives were in the same drawing palte.

A quick search reveals that "katar" is a derivative of "kutarni" which means knife in Hindi. I think someone mentioned this in the old threads.

So "jamdhar katari" would be a knife of jamdhar type, not a jamdhar of katar type. Either way, "katari" refers to the blade, not the specific handle type.

Note than "jamadar" was a military rank. While it was a minor rank in modern times, I recall reading it was closer to the rank of captain in pre-colonial times.

Just some more thoughts...

Regards,
Emanuel

[Emanuel]

While searching for synonyms for "knife" I also found "chhuri" origin of the word "choora". "ch-huri" and "kutarni" both have feminine ending, while "choora" would have been masculine. This brings back to mind the debate over chooras and karuds. Since both words literally mean "knife" it wouldn't matter what we call them to their original owners/makers.

Emanuel

[Stan S.]

So is the similarity between hilts purely coincidental?

[chregu]

hello together
I find your thinking well!
in my records, "Hermann Historica," it says in Jamdhar Katari: the weapon of tribal Kafirs (Arabic for infidel).
Indo-folk on the southern slopes of the Hindu Kush, to the east of Kashmir .............
is that correct?
If so, you would have to find out what language does this folk, and then compare what knife in this language means. Perhaps it simply means knife?
here are my piece
greeting Chregu

[Jim McDougall]

Very astutely observed Stan, and admire your well thought out approach to learning and understanding more on these weapons. Personally I had not thought of or noticed the parallel bar comparison in the jamadhar katara vs. the katar, one vertically situated, the other transverse.

This is an excellent theory, and by no means is the history of these weapons common knowledge, actually among the more esoteric of the ethnographic fields. It is of course hard to say how much influential bearing these two dagger types have upon each other, and the terminology conundrum is much as always the case with these classifications, extremely complicated.

Emanuel has well noted that these jamadhar katara were discussed on a number of occasions through the years, and it while they appear named as such in Stone, it was indeed Pant who set forth clarification on them. He notes that it was Egerton (1884) who transposed the katar term to the jamadhar, and the error was perpetuated by writers who followed. The compound name was probably an attempt to resolve the matter. It is important to note that this particular type of dagger with broad, parallel pommel guard and crossguard is as Chregu has specified, known to have been used by the Kafirs of the region formerly Kafiristan (from Kipling, "Man Who Would Be King").

These Kafir tribes were animists who were largely dispersed when their homeland was invaded by Afghan Abdur Rahman Khan, and he changed the lands name to Nuristan. Those who dispersed went into regions in the Hindu Kush and Chitral and are known primarily as Kalash, their ancestral tribal group.

There are few references to this tribal group, but there are some which depict thier animist symbols and devices. Im unclear on the language they speak, certainly dialects present in Chitral regions and likely Urdu, Hindi and possibly Lohar.

Again, Stan very well placed thoughts, and the kind of thinking that the serious study of ethnographic arms desperately needs more of !!!
Thank you so much for sharing your observations.

All the very best,
JIm

[DaveA]

Very interesting thread! For comparison, here is the Jamdhar Katari in my collection.

[Rick]

I'm not seeing the connection between the two . :shrug:

[Stan S.]

Maybe there is no connection after all... But consider this:

1. Older jamdhar katari were often cast in one piece just like a northern version of a katar

2. "Newer" versions, lets say from the 19th century onward, seem to be composite pieces where a tang-less blade is secured to the hilt with rivets - much like a katar with a sword tip blade

3. Thin metal grip of jamdhar katari features structures similar to the ones found on the grips of many katars. Their main function in all cases is without a doubt to prevent the hand from slipping from a thin grip, but it's peculiar that it is found on both jamdhars and katars

4. A long slender pommel and crossguard on jamdhar katari is designed to lock the wrist. The same feature is almost always present in katars in the form of the side bars

5. Based on teh above, if you can visualize taking a katar and reversing the blade where it is positioned as it would be on a typical dagger, you get jamdhar katari. This also seems to work in reverse. The shape of the blade is somewhat different (except on the old versions of jamdhar katari that feature a straight triangular blade) but otherwise they are similar

Once again, this is just a thought. There may be no connection what so ever, or maybe parituclar styles of these two knives are dictated by simple aesthetics of the people that used them. And being that these people intermingled in the same region, it could be that both forms developed independantly but following some common principle unknown to us.

[Emanuel]

Here is the old thread I spoke of, Jens' Jamdhar/katar why do we call it a katar? (http://vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4583). I recall that the A’in-i-Akbari is actually available online somewhere and I had downloaded a copy, I will look for it.

In regards to the characteristic handle bar, I seem to recall certain old south Indian rapiers and swords with identical handles (see Elgood's Hindu Arms and Ritual: Arms and Armour from India 1400-1865, don't have it with me so can't say which pages).

Emanuel

[Marcus]

I think this piece is the very one illustrated in Anthony Tirri's, Islamic Weapons, Maghrib to Mogul. I bought it from Oriental Arms.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I once researched the origin of the katar, and took it back to 10th century of Orissa. Search for How Old is the Katar?
I dont think it has anythimg to do with the knife in question I am sorry to say.

[Marcus]

Indeed this is a textbook example!

Figure 216A, page 296

[mariusgmioc]

In my opinion there is absolutely no similarity at all.
Completely different hilts, completely different gripping styles and completely different blade orientation.
Well, they are about as similar as Pata sword is to a Khanda...
But that's just my opinion of course. :shrug:

PS: My opinion and Jens'.

[ariel]

I have to agree with Jens.

Nothing in common, except for the use of words with a Sanskrit root " kut, kat" relating to cutting, slashing, slicing etc. Omani Kattara, a long-bladed weapon, having nothing in common technically with either of the daggers discussed here, is sharing the same root with them. A Roma word kat means scissors: and Gypsies stem from India.

I think we are not talking about anything structural, engineering etc: I think it is just philology.

[Jim McDougall]

Jens is right.....no similarity (obviously), mostly the only connection is via the usual 'name game' that so predisposes so many collectors.

[Miguel]

I am like Rick cannot see the connection.
Miguel

[Jim McDougall]

We seem to have a consensus ....interesting...like retrying an old case, this one over four years old......this time. Original research on these was about 13 years ago.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Stan,
It was a try, and not a bad one.
What you have shown is important, you try to think in different ways, and that is very important, for someone who is interested in researching.
I dont know how many books you have, but like Nidhin (one of the members of this forum) said, "if you buy two pounds of weapons, you should buy four pounds of books" - and he is right, of course.

Making questions like the one you have, shows that you are on the right way - you have found the light - so to say.

Happy researches in the future.

Jens

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

I refer readers to an excellent description of this weapon at Atkinsons swords on http://atkinson-swords.com/collection-by-region/indian-subcontinent/afghanistan/jamadhar-katari-afghanistan.html and by the author above at # 10.

I extract from his fine summary the following; Quote"There is much debate about the origin of the name and in fact which name is “correct” (jamadhar, jandad, jamdhar, jumdud). The spelling jamdhar seems to indicate Hindi origin yet “Jamdar” may also be a Persian word with the suggested etymology of janb-dar, that is, 'flank render.' An alternative theory is that "jamdhar" is an evolution of the words "Yama" (Lord of death to Hindus) and "Daushtra" (tooth, in Sanskrit). This became "Yama+Dadh", Jamdhad, and now "Jamdhar". In support of this derivation, the word "katar" was originally termed "jamdhar" and loosely translated as "tooth of death." The term "katar" is now applied generally to transverse grip "push" daggers".Unquote.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Here you can read an abstract from the article How Old is the Katar?
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/1741612413Z.00000000020?journalCode=yaaa20

In India, Art and Culture 1300-1900 Stuart Cary Welsh on page 271 writes thet the katar probably originated in southers India. Unfortunately he does not explain how he came to that conclusion.
But as you can see ffor the abstract mentioned above I agree with him. The katar in question is no 205 on the drawing. A photo of the statue holding the katar is shown inthis book. Donaldson, Thomas E.: Hindu Temple Art of Orissa, vol. III. E.J.Brill, Leiden 1987.

[Miguel]

Here you can read an abstract from the article How Old is the Katar?
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/1741612413Z.00000000020?journalCode=yaaa20

In India, Art and Culture 1300-1900 Stuart Cary Welsh on page 271 writes thet the katar probably originated in southers India. Unfortunately he does not explain how he came to that conclusion.
But as you can see ffor the abstract mentioned above I agree with him. The katar in question is no 205 on the drawing. A photo of the statue holding the katar is shown inthis book. Donaldson, Thomas E.: Hindu Temple Art of Orissa, vol. III. E.J.Brill, Leiden 1987.

Hello Jens, I seem to remember a fairly recent thread where Katars with one bar were shown, possibly the same image together with old carvings, were discussed and I still do not understand how you can effectively hold a Katar with no side arms and only one round grip bar to stab someone, surely it could not be gripped firmly enough for this. I suppose it could be used as a club by striking with the flat of the blade but this is obviously not its purpose so how was a strong enough grip realised? I would love to know.
Regards
Miguel

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Miguel,
Yes you are right, and I cant really tell you, to me it also seems to be impossible, I have tried to guess as well, and the only thing I have, so far, been able to come up with is, that maybe it was not a weapon from the start, but developed into a weapon over time.
Should I guess, I would say that a lot of the weapons were not meant as being weapons, but over time developed into weapons. I think some of the very early weapons were in a developing state, in the first century or so of their 'lives'. I may be very wrong, but that is the best I can say at the moment, but I am researching it, as it interests me a lot.
So end of story - I cant answer your very interesting question.

[ariel]

It is also conceivable that the drawing was not accurate: the bar might have been not straight and smooth, but more complex or deeply checkered. Old engravings often distorted reality.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ariel, you could have been right, but if you look at the statue I think the drawing is correct.
Hindu Temple Art of Orissa vol. III. by Thomas E. Donaldson. E.J.Brill Leiden, 1987. Illustration no 3206.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Suddenly I was not certain if the drawing and the picture comes from the same place, so I double checked it.
Mitra in his book writes that the drawing is from the Gauri temple in Bhuwanesvara Orissa.
Donaldson, on the other hand, writes that the picture is from the sout side of the jagamohana - which as far as I know is a temple structure, and not a name of a temple.
So either the drawing has been made from the statue shown, or from another statue, which would mean that there must be at least two statues showing the same katar.
The Kedar Gauri temple was started by king Yayati Kesari III of the Kesari dynasty, and completed by his son Lalatendu Kesari in the 10th century.
Donaldson, however, dates the statue to last half of the 11th century, and as he does not mention from which temple the statue is, it may be possible that it is two different statues.

[ariel]

I see.

But again, the bar is hidden in the fist, and the only thing needed to prevent rotation of the hand during stabbing is to make it not perfectly round but somewhat flattened.

I am not arguing about the veracity of the examples ( both statue and engraving); just trying to think how to assure that the grip might be made secure.

[Jens Nordlunde]

I agree with you that neither the grip nor the protection was very good, but they did make some changes later.
Mitra seems to have been convinced that it was an early katar, and as an Indian historian and author, who had seen a lot of temple statues and decorations, and one who had quite a reputation for accuracy, I must say that I believe in what he has written.
You can also, later, find katars with side guards, but with only one cross bar.

[Miguel]

I agree with you that neither the grip nor the protection was very good, but they did make some changes later.
Mitra seems to have been convinced that it was an early katar, and as an Indian historian and author, who had seen a lot of temple statues and decorations, and one who had quite a reputation for accuracy, I must say that I believe in what he has written.
You can also, later, find katars with side guards, but with only one cross bar.

Hi Jens, I think Ariel has a good point with the section shape of the grip and that perhaps the sketch is not entirely correct in showing to be round. I don't think that the arm extensions were missed off but I cant help but wonder whether the weapon shown in the sketch and frieze, although having a resemblance to the Katar as we know it, actually existed. Have any of these actually been found? :shrug:
Regards
Miguel

[mariusgmioc]

Hi Jens, I think Ariel has a good point with the section shape of the grip and that perhaps the sketch is not entirely correct in showing to be round. I don't think that the arm extensions were missed off but I cant help but wonder whether the weapon shown in the sketch and frieze, although having a resemblance to the Katar as we know it, actually existed. Have any of these actually been found? :shrug:
Regards
Miguel

I totally agree!

The fact that a reputed author illustrated a Katar like that, doesn't mean that it actually existed! Most likely it didn't, since not a single example like this seems to have been found.

Maybe the author saw a Katar sometime, somewhere, then draw the sketch a couple of years later, based on a faded memory.

However, the illustration is a single perspective of the katar and from this single perspective it is impossible to discern whether the hand-piece is round or flat in cross-section.

But we must remember that even the most reputed authors are humans and subject to mistake, so we must analyze critically and logically every single piece of information.

Dubito, ergo cogito! ;)

[ariel]

I have very little doubt that similar examples existed early on: the statue is a perfect iconographic evidence.


I do not think that sidebars are very crucial determinants of a firm and secure grip; they are more like rudimentary bazu-bands, providing protection to the forearms. My only suggestion is about the handbar: perfectly round, it would twist in the hand, but some change in geometry ( flattening, checkering, more complex profile etc) would largely fix the problem. Regretfully, the statue does not show us the true (?) profile, and the lithograph was likely copied from the statue and " simplified" the handbar.

Just Google "pushdagger": none of the modern ones have sidebars, but their handbars are all flattened or "distorted" to assure good grip.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Kubur, In India the dead ones were burned - with or without their weapons, I dont know. In other countries the dead ones were burried with their weapons, and so we have weapons, and know how old they are.
In India, when weapons were worn, or went out of fashion, they were melted down and new weapons were made of the iron/steel. This is why really old weapons are more than rare, and I doubt that weapons from the 10th century would be impossible to find.
In Khorasan they have found parts of a sword from the 9 th century, but it was burried together with the former owner - so it was found in a grave.

Ariel, I agree with you about the grip/hilt of this katar, but I cant explain why it was made so. One can always start guessing, but it haardly brings us closer to the truth.

[ariel]

Jens,
The same was true about Caucasian weapons, with no known examples of kindjals and shashkas older than 18 century, and in Turkey, with no known examples before (roughly) the reign of Mehmet II.

The higher the intensity of warfare in a society, the lower the chance for the older examples to survive.

Also, on a second thought, I might have been wrong insisting on a more functional grip: the earliest examples of katar might have been ( and likely were) uncomfortable and engineeringly silly. But they had the "grain of truth" in them, and that preserved the idea for a while, providing time for successive generations to introduce improvements. Karl Benz's first production automobile would not have been a Car of the Year in 2016:-)

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ariel, it is quite funny. When I yesterday thought about the subject, it was exactly Karl Benz's first car I was thinking of, and how the cars look to day.

[ariel]

Some minds think alike .
Not necessarily great, but not shabby either:-)

[Miguel]

I still have my doubts as to whether a Katar of the form shown actually existed until more conclusive evidence comes to light, at the moment the resons given for not finding at least part of one don't stack up to me.
Miguel

[ariel]

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

:-)))))

[Jens Nordlunde]

Ariel, I love you quote :-).

Miguel, it is fine with me - all members of this forum can believe in what they want.
Should I make a suggestion, it would be, that you try to investigate the katar thread further than I have done - it may take you a year or so, and then 'maybe' be can agree on something.

[Jim McDougall]

Ariel, always loved that quote from Shakespeare!!!

Jens,
You have only tenaciously studied the katar almost obsessively for 15 years that I know of!!!! :) and you had already been at it for years. Your collecting and researching on them has in my opinion surpassed the Victoria & Albert and others, and has had the attention of the Met in N.Y. and others.
I have seen you research some examples virtually to the very precise location in India where it was made! and the article on the Bundi katars is superb.
Then I remember years ago as you were studying friezes, temple iconography, miniatures, rare Indian articles and obscure books (this was even before Robert Elgood wrote Hindu Arms and Ritual in 2004). We pursued the bizarre gauntlet dagger/sword in Stone which was referred to as a boarding weapon termed a 'manople' and his source in Calvert (1903) which was not apparently related in this case.

When it comes to katars (and tulwars) there is nobody I know, or have known who has the knowledge on these weapons you do.

I am saying this simply because Jens' will not and will probably bend my ear for doing so. I would just like to profoundly note just who he is in the study of Indian arms. Though I have studied arms most of my life, most of what I have learned on Indian weapons has been from him and subjects we studied together.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Jim :-),
Thank you very much for your kind words, but you are overdoing it a lot :-).
It is true that I have researched for quite a number of years, and it is also true that I dont like to accept a sword on the wall, as I would like to know which history it is hiding - if any can be found. This, of course, includes reading a number of books other than weapon and history books, but it gives you a very good additionally knowledge.

[Jim McDougall]

Jim :-),
Thank you very much for your kind words, but you are overdoing it a lot :-).
It is true that I have researched for quite a number of years, and it is also true that I dont like to accept a sword on the wall, as I would like to know which history it is hiding - if any can be found. This, of course, includes reading a number of books other than weapon and history books, but it gives you a very good additionally knowledge.


I knew you would say that Jens:) but a you know, that is not unusual for me. I believe strongly in what I say, as it is never done lightly, and from considerable support. Your modesty is exemplary, but profoundly overshadowed by that knowledge.

It really is great to see the volume of interest and discussion on Indian arms and armour here of late, and you have always pioneered that course on these pages. I can only say thank you!!! and lets keep going!

[Miguel]

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

:-)))))

Nicely put.

[Miguel]

Ariel, I love you quote :-).

Miguel, it is fine with me - all members of this forum can believe in what they want.
Should I make a suggestion, it would be, that you try to investigate the katar thread further than I have done - it may take you a year or so, and then 'maybe' be can agree on something.

Hi Jens,
My opinion seems to have caused offence and I sincerely apologise if it has offended you as this was never my intention far from it I was just stating what I think. I will not take you up on your suggestion as I do not have it in me to carry out such research even if I had the time and resources, I have driven myself batty trying to establish the origin of the Coorgs without any success. My opinion was not intended in any way to belittle your research and I trust you will believe that.
Regards
Miguel

[Miguel]

Ariel, always loved that quote from Shakespeare!!!

Jens,
You have only tenaciously studied the katar almost obsessively for 15 years that I know of!!!! :) and you had already been at it for years. Your collecting and researching on them has in my opinion surpassed the Victoria & Albert and others, and has had the attention of the Met in N.Y. and others.
I have seen you research some examples virtually to the very precise location in India where it was made! and the article on the Bundi katars is superb.
Then I remember years ago as you were studying friezes, temple iconography, miniatures, rare Indian articles and obscure books (this was even before Robert Elgood wrote Hindu Arms and Ritual in 2004). We pursued the bizarre gauntlet dagger/sword in Stone which was referred to as a boarding weapon termed a 'manople' and his source in Calvert (1903) which was not apparently related in this case.

When it comes to katars (and tulwars) there is nobody I know, or have known who has the knowledge on these weapons you do.

I am saying this simply because Jens' will not and will probably bend my ear for doing so. I would just like to profoundly note just who he is in the study of Indian arms. Though I have studied arms most of my life, most of what I have learned on Indian weapons has been from him and subjects we studied together.

Hi Jim,

I cannot help but be surprised and saddened by your reply which I take was occasioned by my opinion re the Katar shown in the sketch and carving, I was just stating my honest opinion as simple as that. I have the utmost respect for the knowledge and research undertaken and still being undertaken by Jens and other forum members in their particular fields
and would never knowingly state anything to offend them but that surely does not prevent me from expressing an honest opinion.?
Regards
Miguel

[Jens Nordlunde]

Miguel, please rest asured that I have taken no offence at all, and I think that every member should give their version of how he/she sees it, or there would be no debate.
Now, for the Coorg question. There will, within some time, be an article published about part of the question. No, I dont yet know where or when.
I will however suggest that you concentrate on South Indian temples, and decorations of hero stones. Consentrade on South India and Deccan.
The curved knives 'moved' north to Nepal and a few other places, but was completely forgotten in the south - why??
I think this is the question, amongst others, you have to ask youtself. When you are at it - when was that??

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jim,

I cannot help but be surprised and saddened by your reply which I take was occasioned by my opinion re the Katar shown in the sketch and carving, I was just stating my honest opinion as simple as that. I have the utmost respect for the knowledge and research undertaken and still being undertaken by Jens and other forum members in their particular fields
and would never knowingly state anything to offend them but that surely does not prevent me from expressing an honest opinion.?
Regards
Miguel

Miguel,
There is absolutely no problem with your stating honest opinions!! in fact most of us here welcome inquisitive approaches to these seemingly never ending quests. Which was mostly what I was trying to say as a most respectful nod to my good friend Jens, in recognition of the many years of research he has put to the katar. My apologies if it sounded as if directed at you.....actually Jens has always been most receptive to any ideas or information which might be factored into his considerable corpus of research.
Your posts are well placed, thought out and above all courteous.
All best regards
Jim

[Jens Nordlunde]

The attached picture shows a sword with a handle like on the very early katar handle. If the man shown would be 170 cm tall, the weapon would be about 65 cm.
It is from South India, but I am sorry to say, that I done know from where it is, nor do I know the age of the frieze - but it lookss quite old to me.

[Miguel]

Miguel, please rest asured that I have taken no offence at all, and I think that every member should give their version of how he/she sees it, or there would be no debate.
Now, for the Coorg question. There will, within some time, be an article published about part of the question. No, I dont yet know where or when.
I will however suggest that you concentrate on South Indian temples, and decorations of hero stones. Consentrade on South India and Deccan.
The curved knives 'moved' north to Nepal and a few other places, but was completely forgotten in the south - why??
I think this is the question, amongst others, you have to ask youtself. When you are at it - when was that??

Hi Jens, thank you it makes me feel a lot better and thanks for your tip re the Coorgs. To be honest I have not pursued my investigations for a few months due to being frustrated at seemingly every turn. I thought that I may have established a link with the Caucasians but could not properly substantiate it. I also purchased a number of books on ancient Indian peoples but have not found anything yet. Now you have given me a clue as to where I may look I will try again but in short doses this time to try and hopefully avoid to much frustration.
Regards
Miguel

[Miguel]

Miguel,
There is absolutely no problem with your stating honest opinions!! in fact most of us here welcome inquisitive approaches to these seemingly never ending quests. Which was mostly what I was trying to say as a most respectful nod to my good friend Jens, in recognition of the many years of research he has put to the katar. My apologies if it sounded as if directed at you.....actually Jens has always been most receptive to any ideas or information which might be factored into his considerable corpus of research.
Your posts are well placed, thought out and above all courteous.
All best regards
Jim

Hi Jim, thanks for your reply and apologies for getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, I should have known better :o
Regards
Miguel

[Miguel]

The attached picture shows a sword with a handle like on the very early katar handle. If the man shown would be 170 cm tall, the weapon would be about 65 cm.
It is from South India, but I am sorry to say, that I done know from where it is, nor do I know the age of the frieze - but it lookss quite old to me.

Hi Jens, I missed this one. This changes my opinion somewhat as the figure appears to be a man wielding the Katar looking weapon and not a six armed deity with one dangling from his fingers, thanks for posting.
Regards
Miguel

[Jens Nordlunde]

You are welcome.

Maybe this book would be of interest to you.
Mitra, Rajendralala: The Antiquities of Orissa, vol. I. Government of India 1875, reprint IndianStudies 1961.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Miguel,
It is most heartening as I read on your clearly impassioned approaches toward properly understanding the extremely complex field of the arms and armour of India and Central Asia. Again, I do deeply apologize for not better directing my comments to Jens, which I had not realized would become such a faux pas.
As I explained, I have had the opportunity to work alongside him in many cases in the study of these very weapons over many years.

What I should have emphasized is how delighted myself, and I am sure Jens and others who have most seriously studied these weapons, are to have others join in this quest. Having new eyes and new ideas as well as more perspective in recalling what have become well travelled roads of years ago is outstanding.

The image Jens posted in his last post for example, brought to mind the term 'maustika'. While I recall the frieze, and the term, I could not immediately recall more on the word nor the image, but of course remember where it was from.

Searching the term 'maustika' on Google, it was amazing to see a discussion on this very subject between Jens, myself and B.I. who is a brilliant scholar on these weapons who used to write here. It was from these pages Apr 28, 2006, and we had all been years into the search already.

Apparantly I had found reference to this 'maustika' listed as a 'fist sword/dagger' in Richard Burton ("Book of the Sword" 1885, p214-215). Burton had in turn referenced this from Professor Gustav Oppert ("Weapons of the Ancient Hindus", 1880). Again, in turn, Oppert cited his reference from the 'Nitiprakashika' Book III.

This entry was resultant of a the study Jens had been doing on the origins of the katar, in particular of a small triangular blade with a transverse bar for a grip, as if the entire weapon was cast in one piece. This was from a line drawing and the actual weapon if I recall was from the Moser Collection (Bern, and the image from Holstein, 1931).
Returning to the frieze Jens just posted, I believe (again if memory serves) this represented the Goddess Mahisasuramardini, Durga, slaying the buffalo demon (Orissa temple frieze?, 13th c.).
This clear example of a transversely held dagger seems compellingly to be a katar, and the weapon from Holstein, an even earlier and simpler 'proto katar' (?).
In that particular discussion from 2006, the shield with blade or spike was also mentioned as I noted earlier here.

I wanted to share these notes from those earlier studies and discussions only to present them as perhaps benchmarks or ideas to further pursue various avenues toward the more conclusive resolutions we all clearly hope to achieve.

Best regards
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jim, thanks for your reply and apologies for getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, I should have known better :o
Regards
Miguel

Miguel, we crossed posts !!! Thank you! It is good to get back to this mystery, and with reinforcements :)

[Jens Nordlunde]

Well, it all started when I saw the drawing in Holsteins book, and realised it was from Mitra's book. I bought the book, and then I was on the track.
Jim it had nothing to do with the Moser Collection, so you may have mixed the notes, it had only to do with the Holstein catalogue and the Mitra book.
According to Mitra there seems to be more statues in Orissa with daggers like this one.
Attached is one of the plates showing weapons used in Orissa at the time, 7th to 13th century.
I find no 186 very interesting, but dont want to discuss it now. No 205 is the katar.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Jens, it has been a long time, and I don't have my notes and Indian details with me this trip. Clearly I misremembered about the Moser collection, but do recall this intriguing, simple but compelling item (#205) in the Holstein reference.
I don't recall anything about the Mitra reference, which of course I can blame on memory slippage as an age problem. :)

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Hello Jens, I seem to remember a fairly recent thread where Katars with one bar were shown, possibly the same image together with old carvings, were discussed and I still do not understand how you can effectively hold a Katar with no side arms and only one round grip bar to stab someone, surely it could not be gripped firmly enough for this. I suppose it could be used as a club by striking with the flat of the blade but this is obviously not its purpose so how was a strong enough grip realised? I would love to know.
Regards
Miguel

Salaams Miguel, As an observer in this debate I seem to note that no one can say where this weapon started life...I see references to Southern India and wonder where it entered the equation...but that it appears to have bounced around changing shape and developing like so many Indian weapons but leaving only traces of historical detective clues... The weapon appears in Sri Lanka see below and to my knowledge in what looks like its basic form in Martial Arts records from the same region. It occurred to me that it probably originated in Southern India because that is so close to Sri Lanka to where it may well have migrated early on.

Note that BM 179 below is a British Museum reference from https://books.google.com.om/books?id=FBLvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=european+sword+monograms&source=bl&ots=atMUWxqccG&sig=sXG-TMJMDoPmOMoVZUxC2mWcEpM&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=european%20sword%20monograms&f=false

The Martial Art reference is here on Library at

[ariel]

Miguel,

Perhaps Sainti might have been one of the side descendants of proto-katars ?

[Jens Nordlunde]

You may have wondered why I wrote, "If the man shown would be 170 cm tall, the weapon would be about 65 cm."
In Sultans of the South. MET, 2008. Klaus Rötzer writes an article Fortifications and Gunpowder in the Deccan, 1368-1687, pp. 204-217. In the article the author gives the avarange size to 1.70 cm.
I dont know from where he has this size, but I guess it is from measuring the fortifications.

[Jim McDougall]

You may have wondered why I wrote, "If the man shown would be 170 cm tall, the weapon would be about 65 cm."
In Sultans of the South. MET, 2008. Klaus Rötzer writes an article Fortifications and Gunpowder in the Deccan, 1368-1687, pp. 204-217. In the article the author gives the avarange size to 1.70 cm.
I dont know from where he has this size, but I guess it is from measuring the fortifications.


Excellent note Jens, and we have had many discussions about the perspectives in measurements in India of the times.
In the note on this article on fortifications and gunpowder in the Deccan. I have reopened a thread on fortifications and guns (in this case Oman) but hope I can expand it to include the most pertinent influences in India as well.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Jim,
In the article the author shows some very early 'canons', which may be of interest for you on the other thread. So try to locate the article on the net.

[Miguel]

Hi Miguel,
It is most heartening as I read on your clearly impassioned approaches toward properly understanding the extremely complex field of the arms and armour of India and Central Asia. Again, I do deeply apologize for not better directing my comments to Jens, which I had not realized would become such a faux pas.
As I explained, I have had the opportunity to work alongside him in many cases in the study of these very weapons over many years.

What I should have emphasized is how delighted myself, and I am sure Jens and others who have most seriously studied these weapons, are to have others join in this quest. Having new eyes and new ideas as well as more perspective in recalling what have become well travelled roads of years ago is outstanding.

The image Jens posted in his last post for example, brought to mind the term 'maustika'. While I recall the frieze, and the term, I could not immediately recall more on the word nor the image, but of course remember where it was from.

Searching the term 'maustika' on Google, it was amazing to see a discussion on this very subject between Jens, myself and B.I. who is a brilliant scholar on these weapons who used to write here. It was from these pages Apr 28, 2006, and we had all been years into the search already.

Apparantly I had found reference to this 'maustika' listed as a 'fist sword/dagger' in Richard Burton ("Book of the Sword" 1885, p214-215). Burton had in turn referenced this from Professor Gustav Oppert ("Weapons of the Ancient Hindus", 1880). Again, in turn, Oppert cited his reference from the 'Nitiprakashika' Book III.

This entry was resultant of a the study Jens had been doing on the origins of the katar, in particular of a small triangular blade with a transverse bar for a grip, as if the entire weapon was cast in one piece. This was from a line drawing and the actual weapon if I recall was from the Moser Collection (Bern, and the image from Holstein, 1931).
Returning to the frieze Jens just posted, I believe (again if memory serves) this represented the Goddess Mahisasuramardini, Durga, slaying the buffalo demon (Orissa temple frieze?, 13th c.).
This clear example of a transversely held dagger seems compellingly to be a katar, and the weapon from Holstein, an even earlier and simpler 'proto katar' (?).
In that particular discussion from 2006, the shield with blade or spike was also mentioned as I noted earlier here.

I wanted to share these notes from those earlier studies and discussions only to present them as perhaps benchmarks or ideas to further pursue various avenues toward the more conclusive resolutions we all clearly hope to achieve.

Best regards
Jim

Hi Jim, thanks for your most interesting reply, I have a lot to learn.
Regards
Miguel

[Miguel]

Salaams Miguel, As an observer in this debate I seem to note that no one can say where this weapon started life...I see references to Southern India and wonder where it entered the equation...but that it appears to have bounced around changing shape and developing like so many Indian weapons but leaving only traces of historical detective clues... The weapon appears in Sri Lanka see below and to my knowledge in what looks like its basic form in Martial Arts records from the same region. It occurred to me that it probably originated in Southern India because that is so close to Sri Lanka to where it may well have migrated early on.

Note that BM 179 below is a British Museum reference from https://books.google.com.om/books?id=FBLvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=european+sword+monograms&source=bl&ots=atMUWxqccG&sig=sXG-TMJMDoPmOMoVZUxC2mWcEpM&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=european%20sword%20monograms&f=false

The Martial Art reference is here on Library at

Hello Ibrahiim, thanks for your reply. I think that your conclusion that it originated in Southern India is most likely correct and interestingly arrived at.
Regards
Miguel

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jim, thanks for your most interesting reply, I have a lot to learn.
Regards
Miguel


We all do Miguel!!! Ive been at this most of my life (a more considerable span than I care to remember :) ) and am still trying to learn. Its a lot more fun when you are doing it with others, which is why we're here.

[mahratt]

In the context of the discussion I recommend those who are really interested to understand the issue, examine the article: On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types

http://historical-weapons.com/the-use-of-indian-terms-to-identify-indian-weapons-abs/

It is on the website in full version.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

In the context of the discussion I recommend those who are really interested to understand the issue, examine the article: On the Use of Indian Terms for Identification of Weapon Types

http://historical-weapons.com/the-use-of-indian-terms-to-identify-indian-weapons-abs/

It is on the website in full version.

From the article...HERE IS THE ABSTRACT;

Abstract: This article examines the emergence in weapons complex of the Mughals one of the most emblematic Indian weapon – Jamdhar dagger and offers new, different from the preceding, interpretation of its use. The appearance of the original Indian phenomenon in the culture of the conquerors is based on written sources, as well as in the context of understanding the atmospheric interactions of the cultures of conquerors and the vanquished. In analysis the author relies on the translation of the original teхts and illustrative sources. The article explains that one of the main assignments of the dagger “jamdhar” was its use in the hunting of large predators, primarily, in self-defense from a wounded beast. As an elite attribute that emphasizes the owner’s status as a hunter of tigers and lions, the struggle with the beast, theriomachia, was anciently part of the Royal rituals, a kind of test of the applicant for authority and, at the same time, the procedure of confirming the right to exercise this power, the jamdhar dagger took the place of the status thing of the Indian aristocracy. By the time of the third Emperor of the Mughal Empire Akbar some elements of Indian culture were accepted by the conquerors, though, as a rule, a culture of the defeated a priori has a lower status and as a rule remains unexploited by the new elites. And only in case some prestigious forms of the local culture do not face with competitors in the culture introduced by the conquerors, they will have a chance of being accepted by the elite. In case of the jamdhar dagger, this form of the local culture became hunting for tigers and lions, which before the conquest of India was not a Mongol or Turkic tradition. Author also proves that in the decorative elements of decoration of jamdhar daggers in the depiction of predator attacks on prey, these scenes differ in their composition from the well-known “scenes of anguish” in Scythian and Iranian traditions. In Indian tradition there was an allusion that a warrior who had defeated a tiger, became tiger-like himself, and his enemies were similar to victim and prey. The scenes of such kind were analogues to battle scenes, which explain the lack of battle scenes in the ornament of jamdhar daggers. The tight connection to prestigious hunting was one of the reasons jamdhar dagger was established in the role of power insignia and was ensured an honorable place in the Mughal`s weapons complex.

[mahratt]

http://historical-weapons.com/the-use-of-indian-terms-to-identify-indian-weapons-abs/

[ariel]

The author posits that Katars entered the North Indian panoply of weapons primarily as a tiger-hunting weapon.
That surely explains the abundance of North Indian katars and the scarcity of North Indian tigers :-)

[mahratt]

Interestingly, some people like - have a finger in every pie :)

Some read the article, but do not understand the meaning of the article.

It seemed to me that here in the forum all are able to read independently and can form an opinion about other people's articles (without distorted presentation)

[Jim McDougall]

Interestingly, some people like - have a finger in every pie :)

Some read the article, but do not understand the meaning of the article.

It seemed to me that here in the forum all are able to read independently and can form an opinion about other people's articles (without distorted presentation)

Most interesting perspective, but while the syntax of your comments are remarkably clear, I am markedly unclear on what you mean. You are saying that Mr. Kurcochkin's abstract is distorted?
Thank you for the generous observation on the acumen of those of us here in the forums in reading and forming personal opinions on articles written. It seems that being judged when expressing those opinions here becomes a bit of a problem.

Ariel, pretty good analogy on the case of katar vs. tiger!

[mahratt]

Most interesting perspective, but while the syntax of your comments are remarkably clear, I am markedly unclear on what you mean. You are saying that Mr. Kurcochkin's abstract is distorted?
Thank you for the generous observation on the acumen of those of us here in the forums in reading and forming personal opinions on articles written. It seems that being judged when expressing those opinions here becomes a bit of a problem.

Ariel, pretty good analogy on the case of katar vs. tiger!

Jim, I want to say that it is possible overdo any words to absurdity.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Miguel, did you ever take your research of the curved south Indian swords any further? If you did, please let us know.
The kora like sword used in earlier times in the south, may not have travelled to Nepal, but may have gone out of fashion, or others on the route likely would have seen its great potential as a fighting sword.
The article about the Coorg swords, will be published in September in The Royal Armoury's journal - I think.

[ariel]

Jim,
Who is the author of the article on Coorg weapons?

[Mercenary]

Ariel, pretty good analogy on the case of katar vs. tiger!

Pretty good will be to learn something new or rather something old. For example that still now somewhere in India the jamdhar dagger it is still called as "tiger dagger" or "tiger knife". Or in sanskrit the word "katari" means exactly "hunting dagger". As well as the word "jamdhar" was never the "teeth of Yama" except in the imagination of the British colonizers. "Jamdhar" meant in ancient India just "double edge weapons". So "jamdhar katari" it is not some kind of any the Hindu Kush dagger.
Too much garbage from books with numerous color images ;)

[ariel]

You are largely correct: far too many books ( and supposedly academic articles as well) lazily repeat statements of earlier authors. Sometimes it is almost funny: Pant, a native Indian arms historian, relied heavily on Rawson, an accidental author of a book on Indian swords. Errors of the past have a tendency to perpetuate and eventually become dogmas or a grudging acquiescence to the commonality of usage. Elgood in his Jaipur book informed us that what is traditionally called "Bhuj" is in reality a "Mujawli". The name "Bhuj" was invented by the British who just used the name of a town where they could buy these axes/knives and stayed in one book after another since. It, just like the Karud, will likely stay in our lexicon simply because far too many of us are used to it.

Elgood is currently working on a humongous glossary of terminology of Eastern weapons. I am waiting for it with great anticipation: he is the ultimate obsessive-compulsive person in the best sense of the word and is well-known for his deep digging into primary sources. I am sure our trips to the bookshelves in search of a dog-eared copy of Stone will dramatically decrease after that. Well, strike it out: not "sure", but "hope".

[Roland_M]

Hello Stan,

I can see one possible explanation.
The Katar was a pretty expensive weapon with a very well reputation. Not everybody could afford a Katar.
So the Jamdhar could be an attempt to catch a little bit of the aura of a Katar for a much lower price. A weapon for lower ranks.

Just a guess!


Roland

[Mercenary]

You are largely correct: far too many books ( and supposedly academic articles as well) lazily repeat statements of earlier authors. Sometimes it is almost funny: Pant, a native Indian arms historian, relied heavily on Rawson, an accidental author of a book on Indian swords. Errors of the past have a tendency to perpetuate and eventually become dogmas or a grudging acquiescence to the commonality of usage. Elgood in his Jaipur book informed us that what is traditionally called "Bhuj" is in reality a "Mujawli". The name "Bhuj" was invented by the British who just used the name of a town where they could buy these axes/knives and stayed in one book after another since. It, just like the Karud, will likely stay in our lexicon simply because far too many of us are used to it.

I completely agree. But as to the word "bhuj" I have a slightly different consideration but in general you are right.

Elgood is currently working on a humongous glossary of terminology of Eastern weapons. I am waiting for it with great anticipation: he is the ultimate obsessive-compulsive person in the best sense of the word and is well-known for his deep digging into primary sources. I am sure our trips to the bookshelves in search of a dog-eared copy of Stone will dramatically decrease after that. Well, strike it out: not "sure", but "hope".
Great news! It is high time to update the terminology that has not changed for a hundred years. Let's hope that he will be able to attract competent specialists for the Indian part.

[Mercenary]

The author posits that Katars entered the North Indian panoply of weapons primarily as a tiger-hunting weapon.
That surely explains the abundance of North Indian katars and the scarcity of North Indian tigers :-)

........

Since the 1840 katars have been created for sale to tourists. R.Elgood. Rajputs Arms&Armour

[Mercenary]

...

[Mercenary]

////

[Jim McDougall]

AT LAST!!!! Irrefutable proof that katars WERE used to hunt tigers!



I am unclear on the highlighted quote from Robert Elgood's outstanding book "Rajput Arms and Armour", is this meant to suggest that no katars were made for 'souvenier' markets during the Raj and easily into modern times?

[Mercenary]

AT LAST!!!! Irrefutable proof that katars WERE used to hunt tigers!



I am unclear on the highlighted quote from Robert Elgood's outstanding book "Rajput Arms and Armour", is this meant to suggest that no katars were made for 'souvenier' markets during the Raj and easily into modern times?

Thank you. The quote explains why we have a lot of katars now (and so few tigers) and why there are so many small sizes among them. All of this becouse later katars were used as articles of clothing for Indian and souveniers for Evropean unlike real battle or hunting katars.
By the way how many do you know katars decorated with the battle scene or on the contrary with the hunting scene? I cheked this - 1:10.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you. The quote explains why we have a lot of katars now (and so few tigers) and why there are so many small sizes among them. All of this becouse later katars were used as articles of clothing for Indian and souveniers for Evropean unlike real battle or hunting katars.
By the way how many do you know katars decorated with the battle scene or on the contrary with the hunting scene? I cheked this - 1:10.



This is all astounding! and I had no idea just how deadly the katar was, in a conconcurrent thread we have a katar wielding guy mounting a berserk (musth driven) elephant and killing it by piercing his temple with a katar!

So the idea that a man with one of these deadly daggers could dispatch a 400 pound vicious killing machine tiger is perhaps feasible in such light. However, in my thinking if the tiger is close enough to stab, his teeth are likely firmly emplaced in some part of the guys body, not to mention the weight overpowering him. It is hard to imagine the presence of mind to thrust in such a situation, especially to a 'kill' rather than wounding spot.

Still, how can we dispute such compelling evidence? as well as the fact that the northern Indian tiger was driven into extinction by tiger hunts by katar wielding royal and court figures. If I understand correctly only these people were permitted the priviledge of hunting....the average guy was only 'hunted' by the tigers, and not having katars of course, were just fair game.


I have indeed seen 'shikargar' (=hunting scenes) on katars in some limited degree, so certainly again this must be proof of their use accordingly. We already know that shamshirs and tulwars were for hunting as such motif is seen on them as well. ....at least in following with that theory.
I dont think I have ever seen a katar with a battle scene though..........does this mean they were not used in battle?


Most interesting perspective.

[Mercenary]

You are right. I was incorrect. If we speak about tulwar and tulwar-shikargar we must comparing simple katars and katars decorated with the hunting scene. But I know a lot of paintings where katars were used during the hunt and only two where they were used in the battle. Of course the number of hunts was much more than the number of battles.

[kai]

Hello Jim,

So the idea that a man with one of these deadly daggers could dispatch a 400 pound vicious killing machine tiger is perhaps feasible in such light. However, in my thinking if the tiger is close enough to stab, his teeth are likely firmly emplaced in some part of the guys body, not to mention the weight overpowering him. It is hard to imagine the presence of mind to thrust in such a situation, especially to a 'kill' rather than wounding spot.
Looking at those paintings, I get the impression that a majority of the depicted hunters were not entirely happy: even if they managed to fatally wound the tiger or lion (some already wounded during hunting them down), most are shown getting severely scathed and some probably killed. (I rather doubt these paintings were meant as photographic evidence and there may be an element of exaggeration and even display of so-called heroism expected from the artists... ;)

It certainly needs a lot of courage to face any dangerous and cornered animal with close-distance weapons only. However, let's not forget that arguably the only animal that deserves to be tagged as killer is us humans - killing for fun or display of "bravery" is something that is exceedingly rare for any other species...

BTW, despite ample hunting from Indian and English nobility, the tiger was not extinct in northern India during the 19th century.

Regards,
Kai

[Jim McDougall]

Hello Jim,


Looking at those paintings, I get the impression that a majority of the depicted hunters were not entirely happy: even if they managed to fatally wound the tiger or lion (some already wounded during hunting them down), most are shown getting severely scathed and some probably killed. (I rather doubt these paintings were meant as photographic evidence and there may be an element of exaggeration and even display of so-called heroism expected from the artists... ;)

It certainly needs a lot of courage to face any dangerous and cornered animal with close-distance weapons only. However, let's not forget that arguably the only animal that deserves to be tagged as killer is us humans - killing for fun or display of "bravery" is something that is exceedingly rare for any other species...

BTW, despite ample hunting from Indian and English nobility, the tiger was not extinct in northern India during the 19th century.

Regards,
Kai



Thank you Kai, and I could not agree more with your observations! Of course my note on the use of paintings and other art work as evidence was meant rather tongue in cheek. Art depicting these kinds of themes is invariably based on accounts from persons long after the events and as always, surely embellished as most stories in the telling. I have researched many art works of famous events and the accuracy is ranging from altered to severely compromised, sometimes outlandish.


As you well note, these pictures are clearly well slanted toward the prowess of the 'hunter' and do not portray the probable true character of such an event. I very much like, and agree with your comment ...that only humans kill for sport or to show 'bravery', but in my view such acts of hunting with such an obviously inadequate weapon alone is simply foolhardy. While I can understand that in some cultures these things are viewed differently, I must rely on my own perspective in how I see it personally.


The note on 'extinction' of the North Indian tiger was simply an extension of the quip by Ariel in 2016 about same. Obviously the diminished state of the species was more to natural circumstances, but not during the 19th c.



Mercenary, well noted, the use of the katar, or at least presence of them, was far more common on hunts than in battle. Again, this may have been due to the fact that the Royals and entourage were the ones hunting, and these were favored accoutrements in this group. I can see the katar used as weapon used in a coup de grace type manner, perhaps thus bringing the accounts of 'killing a tiger with a katar'. True, this was the final closure, but after the tiger was down.


Close quarters weapons were not intended as attack weapons for initial impact, but as secondary arms used in close quarters melee or if otherwise compromised as far as I have understood.

[Jens Nordlunde]

In 1883 Surgeon-Major Th. H. Hendleyi (http://#sdendnote1sym) wrote that it is; “adapted for thrusting, and makes a wide and dangerous wound, which is enlarged in the act of withdrawing the weapon, as both edges are very sharp. Some katars are made to open like scissors blades, others have small pistols attached to the side guards, and in a third variety the open sides reveal a small point within. All these arrangements are devised to make the wound more horrible, and as, in hand to hand conflicts with

tigers and other large savage animals, it is essential to produce a considerable effect at once on the beast, this quality of the katar, which is often used in such sports, is very advantageous.”
i (http://#sdendnote1anc) Memorials of the Jaypore Exhibition. P 9. Surgeon-Major Th. H. Hendley, who did service in India for many years, wrote a number of books about Indian weapons and artefacts.


Quote from How Old is the Katar?

To me, the quote above means that the katar was used both for hunting and in battle.

[fernando]

... However, let's not forget that arguably the only animal that deserves to be tagged as killer is us humans - killing for fun or display of "bravery" is something that is exceedingly rare for any other species...
Well, we may not forget it but, it makes no harm to remind it now and then.

[Jim McDougall]

Jim,
Who is the author of the article on Coorg weapons?



Ariel, I was remiss in not answering this and cannot fathom how I did!

It was our own Nidhi Olikara who wrote a brilliant paper on the Coorg adda khathi in the Journal of the Arms & Armour Society,
Vol. XXII, #4, 2017

[Jim McDougall]

In 1883 Surgeon-Major Th. H. Hendleyi (http://#sdendnote1sym) wrote that it is; “adapted for thrusting, and makes a wide and dangerous wound, which is enlarged in the act of withdrawing the weapon, as both edges are very sharp. Some katars are made to open like scissors blades, others have small pistols attached to the side guards, and in a third variety the open sides reveal a small point within. All these arrangements are devised to make the wound more horrible, and as, in hand to hand conflicts with

tigers and other large savage animals, it is essential to produce a considerable effect at once on the beast, this quality of the katar, which is often used in such sports, is very advantageous.”
i (http://#sdendnote1anc) Memorials of the Jaypore Exhibition. P 9. Surgeon-Major Th. H. Hendley, who did service in India for many years, wrote a number of books about Indian weapons and artefacts.


Quote from How Old is the Katar?

To me, the quote above means that the katar was used both for hunting and in battle.


Wonderfully cited quotes from Hendley Jens!!! from a key source of insight on Indian arms, reflected by the fact that not only was in in India during important times, but readily observed many details.


I think that the often innovative features on Indian arms of these times were in many cases derived from some European sources and in some simply armourers trying to impress their patrons. In "Firearms Curiosa" (Winant) there are examples of firearm/sword combinations as seen often in hunting swords. In other cases, it would seem that the gun (single shot of course) was likely discharged, and if its effect failed, a secind weapon was literally in hand.


With the expanding (scissors type) blades, it seems we have determined that the potential for this supposed use in exacerbating wounds was quite improbable in most cases as it was unlikely to be able to expand within such anatomical enclosure. Also, obviously withdrawal would be impossible, thus the user would be left unarmed.


While these are the notable possibilities with these features in these weapons, there is of course no limit to what might occur or how they might be used in actual circumstances or situations. In situations almost anything can become a weapon 'of opportunity' and the results surprising.


I think that the katar would easily have been present in both hunting and battle, but worn by the upper echelon who were afforded these kinds of weapons. As previously noted, in my opinion they would have remained secondary weapons for use in final dispatch of an animal in hunting, and close quarters use in melee in battle.


While primary use of the katar certainly offers heroic image in illustration, it still seems to me an unusual circumstance, and expectedly questioned.

[Mercenary]

While primary use of the katar certainly offers heroic image in illustration, it still seems to me an unusual circumstance, and expectedly questioned.

The Hero of the East goes one on one against a predator. The Hero of the West - presses a button watching the monitor. Different cultures. Still.
;)

[Mercenary]

This is ridiculous, but I cannot find in European languages ​​how to translate the Greek term "θηριομαχία" (θηριομαχίᾱͅ) and the cultural phenomenon that stands behind it in traditional societies of the East.

[fernando]

Θηριομαχία η transliterates to Thereumachi, meaning (sort of) a combat with wild beasts :o.


.

[Mercenary]

fernando, good search ))

But this is not only gladiatorial performances in the arena. In the East, teriomachia was a way of confirmation of the royal power, the status of a hero and leader. Like in story about Akela's hunting in The Jungle Book.

[Jim McDougall]

Wow! guys!!
That was cryptic, Mercenary ,on the East and West thing!!!

"..but there is neither east nor west, border nor breed, nor birth;
when two string men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth".
-Kipling (1889)


But Greek ?!!!! you guys are amazing. Well done and fascinating!

[ariel]

Mercenary,

West and East did not differ that much in olden times. Only in the middle ages and later teriomachia in Europe became a spectator sport, like corridas in Spain and rodeos in Texas.


Of the 12 Labors of Hercules 6 consisted of killing animals.
Samson and the Lion?
Etc, etc, etc....


And let's not forget western royal hunts: wild boars, bears. Alexander III ( Russia) was famous for big game hunting at the very end of 19 century. And what about African safaris by Ted Roosevelt? That had nothing to do with " confirmation of royal power". This was pure testosterone.

West just became less aggressive as it matured, while the East still retained its wild streak. Still, there were multiple Western personalities who loved to test their mettle against big and dangerous beasts. Mostly, this adrenaline-seeking behavior sublimated into rock climbing, car racing, Fight Clubs etc. The East was just lagging behind in its " civilized behavior".

[fernando]

... West and East did not differ that much in olden times...
Naturally !

... And let's not forget western royal hunts: wild boars, bears. Alexander III ( Russia) was famous for big game hunting at the very end of 19 century...
We also have our local share. Portuguese King Dom Dinis (1278-1325) broke his ascuma (hunting spear) in a bear whom immediately charged back, having the King killed the beast in a body fight. His bastard son was killed by a wild boar after breaking his ascuma when charging on the animal. Other similar historic events are recorded.

...That had nothing to do with " confirmation of royal power"...
The only way it had is because when peasants went through such episodes were not covered by the period press as royals did !

... West just became less aggressive as it matured, while the East still retained its wild streak...
Indeed !

[Mercenary]

While the wild eastern countries were thinking about the royal power and the royal hunts, highly cultured western countries began to hunt the eastern countries themselves.

[Mercenary]

Returning to the royal hunt in India in the light of Teriomachia. When the first person who as a rule considered himself "a great warrior" and "a fearless hunter", fired at a predator and only wounded him, in most cases the predator attacked in response. And then on its way there were alwais specially trained assistants in most cases with katars. Because these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s. ;)

[fernando]

While the wild eastern countries were thinking about the royal power and the royal hunts, highly cultured western countries began to hunt the eastern countries themselves.
Better not take that road, don't you agree ? ;) .

[fernando]

... When the first person who as a rule considered himself "a great warrior" and "a fearless hunter", fired at a predator and only wounded him, in most cases the predator attacked in response. And then on its way there were always specially trained assistants in most cases with katars. Because these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s. ;)
A rather plausible approach.

[kai]

While the wild eastern countries were thinking about the royal power and the royal hunts, highly cultured western countries began to hunt the eastern countries themselves.
Well, man has always been man's worst enemy. Period. :shrug:

This certainly is not a West vs. East thing: Some of the most extensive political entities build upon imperialist approaches were decidedly "East" by whatever definition: Ottomans, Egypt, Persia, Mongols, China, Japan just to name a very few of the obvious contenders. Like European kingdoms, the kingdoms on the Indian subcontinent where also not exactly peaceful nor abstinent from colonial aspirations. Heck, show me any culture that has a proven track record of not preying upon neighboring ethnic groups and, if given a decent chance, possibly more distant peoples - and you'll have found a very rare and possibly short-lived exception to the rule... ;)

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Better not take that road, don't you agree ? ;) .
Ok, Fernando, you beat me to it... :)

[fernando]

So back to (katar/katari) business :cool: .

[ariel]

While the wild eastern countries were thinking about the royal power and the royal hunts, highly cultured western countries began to hunt the eastern countries themselves.

Civilization and progress do not imply spinelesness.
On the contrary, they are the engines of technological and military progress.

“Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun and they have not”

However, the Maxim gun took a distant second in accomplishing Western victories over Eastern militaries from times immemorial. Strongly advise a book by Victor Davis Hanson “Carnage and Culture”, an account of West-East military confrontations beginning with ancient Greeks.

As a quick example you might also ponder on the battle of Assaye, where Wellington’s 9,500 soldiers with 17 cannons utterly destroyed Maratha force of 60,000 - 70,000 with > 100 guns.

[Mercenary]

Better not take that road, don't you agree ? ;) .
That is just history. Europeans misunderstanding of Eastern culture always led to mistakes. As in the case of wars and in the case of ... katars.

A rather plausible approach.
Thank you. But this is not an approach. This is a conclusion. :shrug:

This certainly is not a West vs. East thing: Some of the most extensive political entities build upon imperialist approaches were decidedly "East" by whatever definition: Ottomans, Egypt, Persia, Mongols, China, Japan just to name a very few of the obvious contenders. Like European kingdoms, the kingdoms on the Indian subcontinent where also not exactly peaceful nor abstinent from colonial aspirations. Heck, show me any culture that has a proven track record of not preying upon neighboring ethnic groups and, if given a decent chance, possibly more distant peoples - and you'll have found a very rare and possibly short-lived exception to the rule...
Could you check the difference between Colonization and Colonialism?

[Mercenary]

Civilization and progress do not imply spinelesness.
On the contrary, they are the engines of technological and military progress.

“Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun and they have not”

However, the Maxim gun took a distant second in accomplishing Western victories over Eastern militaries from times immemorial. Strongly advise a book by Victor Davis Hanson “Carnage and Culture”, an account of West-East military confrontations beginning with ancient Greeks.

As a quick example you might also ponder on the battle of Assaye, where Wellington’s 9,500 soldiers with 17 cannons utterly destroyed Maratha force of 60,000 - 70,000 with > 100 guns.
The West have not been distinguish the technical progress from the culture. Hence the lack of understanding of the phenomenon of traditional weapons in general. :(

[kai]

Could you check the difference between Colonization and Colonialism?
Aye, aye, Sir! :)

According to Merriam-Webster:

Colonization: an act or instance of colonizing
Colonizing: to establish a colony

Colonialism
1 : the quality or state of being colonial
2 : something characteristic of a colony
3a : control by one power over a dependent area or people
3b : a policy advocating or based on such control


Unless you colonize barren land not even utilzed by hunterers and gatherers, chances are very high that you'll subdue the local populace and also exploit it and its resources. (Limited and mutually agreed upon trade colonies may be an exception; however, if there are no checks and balances, chances are that conflict will arise, especially if the resources are considerable and/or the power unequally distributed.)

In reality, it often may only be a matter of perspective: The European settlers in northern America may well have thought they were colonizing the "new" world for good (and god); for the native nations it certainly was pure colonialism and bigotry. When the Vikings settled on Greenland during the limited spell of warm climate, it may be possible that the Inuit had already left; in most other cases, there hasn't been any relevant amount of "empty spots" to fill with gentle colonization during the last millennia... ;)

Regards,
Kai

[fernando]

It is amazing how determined threads tend to become a battlefield where a mix of political ingredients and personal jabs spoil the flavor of the intended recipe. I blame myself for having, for a moment or two, contributed with fuel for such racing session; where some are picking any possible word coming from the other side to transform the conversation into a rooster fight.
Why do we have this mania that our hen is better than that of our neighbor ... or, to stay within topic, why my katar is better than yours ? :shrug:

[ariel]

Returning to the royal hunt in India in the light of Teriomachia.

..... these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s. ;)

What is left, of course, is providing evidence that "their origin and old main purpose" was specifically tiger hunting:-)


Images of brave Indian personalities despatching tigers with katars are ( IMHO) likely to be of mainly glorifying or "advertising" value: bravery of a person fighting supremely dangerous animal one-on-one in close quarters. Multiple Indian miniatures show Rajahs or their close associates on a warpath, in the middle of the battle or just relaxing in the palace and... wearing katars under the belt. These are not hunting scenes and there are no tigers in the vicinity.

The allusion to katars as " tiger hunters" is of dubious value: khanjarli was often referred to as " elephant dagger". But it was not used for hunting elephants: most of them simply had elephant ivory handles ( Orissa was implicated as their origin). A subtype of khanjar with trilobate pommel is routinely called " tiger tooth". Because of the blade reminiscent of tiger's incisor or because of the pommel reminiscent of a molar? Or was it the true "tiger hunter"? A European " boar spear" ( with a horizontal metal "stop") was not necessarily used for boars only. My point is that many weapons had " honorific" monikers.


In general, weapons were developed initially for mixed purpose : both as man-fighting and utilitarian ( hunting included). Subsequently, these functions were largely separated by militarily-developed societies, with only a minority retaining their utilitarian/martial status in less organised societies ( machete in peaceful times, weapon during the war). Purely utilitarian implements are easily recognizable: fishing spear, whaling harpoon, eel catcher, pellet bow etc.

Without delving into documentary evidence and local semantics we are on very shaky grounds.

[kai]

Ok, back to blades:

Returning to the royal hunt in India in the light of Teriomachia. When the first person who as a rule considered himself "a great warrior" and "a fearless hunter", fired at a predator and only wounded him, in most cases the predator attacked in response. And then on its way there were alwais specially trained assistants in most cases with katars.
Seems like "heroic" deeds where mainly for the younger generation to prove themselves worthy (and/or chosen by god) - also a fairly global feature of human societies. I am in no way belittleing the courage as well as determination of hunters and warriors of old (and of many if not most cultures globally).


Because these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s. ;)
So, aside from the probably inconclusive issue of semantics, you base this hypothesis on the possible predominance in paintings (obvious usage in hunting vs. warfare 10:1) only? Does carrying a blade count or does it have to be shown in action? While already having acknowledged that hunts may have been more numerous than battles? For which area on the Indian subcontinent and during which period?

What about early examples from southern India? If only limited to northern India, how do the proportion of blades with thickened tips relate to your hypothesis?


Mind you, I have no stake in this discussion of traditional usage - just trying to understand your reasoning and playing devil's advocate...

Regards,
Kai

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you Ariel.
Jens

[Mercenary]

What is left, of course, is providing evidence that "their origin and old main purpose" was specifically tiger hunting:-)

Just consider one more opinion. I do not preach here, but just point to circumstances little known in the circle of dealers and collectors.

Images of brave Indian personalities despatching tigers with katars are ( IMHO) likely to be of mainly glorifying or "advertising" value: bravery of a person fighting supremely dangerous animal one-on-one in close quarters.
Bravo! Sometimes to understand something someone just need to retell it in your own words.

My point is that many weapons had " honorific" monikers.
Bingo!

In general, weapons were developed initially for mixed purpose : both as man-fighting and utilitarian ( hunting included). Subsequently, these functions were largely separated by militarily-developed societies, with only a minority retaining their utilitarian/martial status in less organised societies ( machete in peaceful times, weapon during the war). Purely utilitarian implements are easily recognizable: fishing spear, whaling harpoon, eel catcher, pellet bow etc.
This is a speculative abstract model.

[Mercenary]

Ok, back to blades:

So, aside from the probably inconclusive issue of semantics, you base this hypothesis on the apparently biased proportion of paintings (obvious usage in hunting vs. warfare) only;
Biased proportion? It is a fact actually. Take an another proportion of pictures. Could you?

What about early examples from southern India?
:)

[Mercenary]

It is amazing how determined threads tend to become a battlefield where a mix of political ingredients
I talked only about the history. But to make politics out of history is already a common tradition for both the West and the East.


where some are picking any possible word coming from the other side to transform the conversation into a rooster fight.
In the future, I can publish only pictures and quotes, but I suppose it still hurts someone

why my katar is better than yours ?
This is not your katar, not mine, not Ariel's, not Jens's and not even Egerton with Elgood. It was Indian one, but few know about it now because since 1840 it became European item and we can now easily and naturally talk about the functions and technical progress of Indian weapons.

Now really:
Without delving into documentary evidence and local semantics we are on very shaky grounds.
But I try to give here "documentary evidence and local semantics", don't I? :)

[kai]

Biased proportion? It is a fact actually.
I wasn't accusing you of introducing any malicious bias - I did rephrase my earlier posting for clarity, hopefully.

Still, if you only count actions scenes while ignoring warriors carrying these blades in a battle scenario (probably not for fun), this will exaggerate any differences. Also you did not answer how you'd suggest to normalize the statistics assuming that hunting was more common than battles...

It's easy to come up with statistics; making probabilities a really convincing case is a tad tougher.

Regards,
Kai

[Mercenary]

OK

The design of katar is the best design to stop the attacking predator. It is more comfortable to wear and use than a heavy spear.

Most of the situations we know where a tiger was stopping are illustrated with the katar.

In India, whether we like it or not, one of its names is "tiger dagger".

Within the framework of the concept of Theriomachia, the wearing of this dagger could imply that its owner is able to accept the challenge of a predator.

Wearing a status weapon as an element of costume at the royal court, I hope, raises no questions.

In the chronicles you can find many descriptions of how the heads are cut off with a simple dagger. How to thrust with katar? Good luck in search.

- That is all.
- Thank you, Mercenary, that we have learned something more. But excuse us because we will argue further.
- No problem. I understand. I was just glad to share my knowledge

[Mercenary]

To be honest. The facts say that using the katar in battle is exception, unlike hunting or wearing a suit.
Only two:

[mahratt]

To be honest. The facts say that using the katar in battle is exception, unlike hunting or wearing a suit.
Only two:

Only on these images there are examples of using katar during a battle????
But what about all the discourses about the terrible arms for punching armor ???

[ariel]

OK

The design of katar is the best design to stop the attacking predator.

First, what do you mean by "predator"? Does a human enemy qualify?

Second, there are many ways to skin a cat:-)

Personally, I would choose a good high-caliber rifle, just like big game hunters. They were available in 17-18 century India,
Then, a good " boar spear" would be my next choice: another 2-3 feet away from the teeth and claws could come handy. Regretfully, it would stop being a " boar spear" and become " tiger spear":-)

Third, African lion hunters manage quite well without katars: they use rather flimsily-looking spears and do just fine .

Short-bladed katar is no different from a garden variety knife: the latter can be gripped differently to be able to perform pure stabbing with straight arm and most knife-fighting techniques include this type of grip. Both knife and katar sacrifice safe distance for the dubious glory of a heroic kill with high likelihood of being maimed beyond recognition.

As an aside, Elgood's book on Hindu weapons shows statues with katars piercing some non-tiger looking animals: do I see hooves on some of them? If I am correct, would we call katar " buffalo dagger" or "horse dagger"?

I fully understand your excitement: it would have been very nice to pinpoint the original intended purpose of such an unusual weapon. I just find this hypothesis implausible. Sorry.

[ariel]

Going back to the original inquiry:
ANY handle of ANY dagger placed horizontally would resemble katar's handle placed vertically.
Deriving any far-reaching conclusions from that and supporting them with linguistic similarity of derivatives of the same root doesn't cut the mustard, IMHO.

[Ian]

As a somewhat irrelevant aside to this discussion, the Australian Customs Officers confiscated all of my katars when I returned to Australia last year. They classified them as "push daggers," which are prohibited imports into Australia. Push daggers are considered here to be too dangerous as weapons against other people to allow an ordinary citizen or collector to own one!


Ian.

[ariel]

Sorry to hear that.

[mahratt]

As a somewhat irrelevant aside to this discussion, the Australian Customs Officers confiscated all of my katars when I returned to Australia last year. They classified them as "push daggers," which are prohibited imports into Australia. Push daggers are considered here to be too dangerous as weapons against other people to allow an ordinary citizen or collector to own one!


Ian.


Sadly ... I empathize with you ....

[mahratt]

First, what do you mean by "predator"? Does a human enemy qualify?

Second, there are many ways to skin a cat:-)

Personally, I would choose a good high-caliber rifle, just like big game hunters. They were available in 17-18 century India,
Then, a good " boar spear" would be my next choice: another 2-3 feet away from the teeth and claws could come handy. Regretfully, it would stop being a " boar spear" and become " tiger spear":-)



Wow! Of course now we will see indian miniatures (of the appropriate period), confirmative to your words? Or is this another bla-bla-bla?

For now, I see that the Mercenary is showing compelling evidence, backed up by linguistics and Indian miniatures (of the relevant period). And those who disagree with him do not give any factual material .... They only voice their personal opinion, which is not confirmed by anything....

[Mercenary]

As a somewhat irrelevant aside to this discussion, the Australian Customs Officers confiscated all of my katars when I returned to Australia last year. They classified them as "push daggers," which are prohibited imports into Australia. Push daggers are considered here to be too dangerous as weapons against other people to allow an ordinary citizen or collector to own one!


Ian.
I wrote in another topic that in the USSR the police did not consider knives of the type of a kard (zirakboukh ;-)) as a weapon, because the hand could slip from them when struck. The police have their own ideas.

[fernando]

As far back as the XVI century, there was at least one fighting style which focused on fighting with a pair of katars, one in each hand.
(Dr Tobias Capwell - 2009).

A XVII century from Lahore with goddess kali and god shiva on the blade. It was used to pierce the chain mail of armours.
(Dr. Jorge Caravana).

In the use of the katar emerged a form of dagger that could easily perforate the adversary chain mail or sustain the impact of a tiger jump-
(Rainer Daehnhardt).

Thrust in this manner the blade, which generally has a thickened point, can even split open chain mail. The purpose of thickening the point is to pierce and break mail rings.
(E. Jaiwant Paul)

Katars with native blades are often thickened at the point to strengthen them for use against mail.
(Cameron Stone).

Across the world, the human drive for creation has always been accompanied by our almost inherent belligerent tendencies. Conflict is something that has existed in every human culture and society.
A lot can be learned by studying a certain culture's weapons. The characteristics of a civilization's weapons usually reflect its level of complexity. As such, it is no wonder that a culture as that of Ancient India would spawn weapons that match its richness and complexity, if rather unusual looking for the average western observer.
Read on to learn more about three highly exquisite and unusual weapons used in ancient India, up until the modern age.
While the concept of "punch daggers" (knives in which the grip and the grip are perpendicular to eachother) is not unique to India, none of those concepts or design were as widespread and rich as the Indian katar... leaf shaped blade carefully crafted so that the tip of the blade became thicker than the other parts. The reasoning behind this was to not only make the weapon more sturdy, but also make it useful in breaking chain or scale mail armor. In combat, the weapon would be thrust into the mail of an opponent with great force, easily forcing it through mail armor by breaking its links... Medieval katars also sometimes came with leaf or shell shaped handguards or even gauntlets that covered the hand and the forearm for extra protection, although this design fell into disuse later, probably due to the fact that katars would later be reduced to status symbols or ceremonial objects, being only used in duels and demonstrations rather than actual conflict.
The katar would become a status symbol among the upper class of Indian society, often being carried by princes and other noblemen as proof of their status, and not just for personal protection... It is said that some Rajputs (members of patrilineal clans from India and Pakistan) would even hunt tigers using only katars, as proof of their strength and courage
(Guilherme Radaeli).

The katar is also often referred to as a "punch-dagger" because of how it would have been used. The blades are of very high-quality steel, with edges as sharp as a razor, so it could also be used to slash an adversary, but it is most effective in the thrust... Depictions of slightly more heavily armed men would often show them armed with a katar and a sword, suggesting that the katar was also used as a left-hand weapon during sword-fighting. For this the side bar and the sturdy blade would have made the katar a very effective weapon for blocking a sword blow.
(Royal Ontario Museum).

Typically, katars were used in close range hand-to-hand combat, which is effective in armour piercing.
(Shirayan Vajramutthii Yuddha Shastra)

It is known that Ibn Battuta, an Algerian travelling in India in the 14th century, described an attack with a katar ...
(Quoting Eric S)

.

[fernando]

Ruler Maharaja Kumar Isri Singh in a pool of water, bare-chested, and in hand-to-hand combat with a crocodile. He has just plunged his katar into the creature, which has evidently been caught by surprise while eating.
(The Met)


.

[mahratt]

As far back as the XVI century, there was at least one fighting style which focused on fighting with a pair of katars, one in each hand.
(Dr Tobias Capwell - 2009).

A XVII century from Lahore with goddess kali and god shiva on the blade. It was used to pierce the chain mail of armours.
(Dr. Jorge Caravana).

In the use of the katar emerged a form of dagger that could easily perforate the adversary chain mail or sustain the impact of a tiger jump-
(Rainer Daehnhardt).

Thrust in this manner the blade, which generally has a thickened point, can even split open chain mail. The purpose of thickening the point is to pierce and break mail rings.
(E. Jaiwant Paul)

Katars with native blades are often thickened at the point to strengthen them for use against mail.
(Cameron Stone).

Across the world, the human drive for creation has always been accompanied by our almost inherent belligerent tendencies. Conflict is something that has existed in every human culture and society.
A lot can be learned by studying a certain culture's weapons. The characteristics of a civilization's weapons usually reflect its level of complexity. As such, it is no wonder that a culture as that of Ancient India would spawn weapons that match its richness and complexity, if rather unusual looking for the average western observer.
Read on to learn more about three highly exquisite and unusual weapons used in ancient India, up until the modern age.
While the concept of "punch daggers" (knives in which the grip and the grip are perpendicular to eachother) is not unique to India, none of those concepts or design were as widespread and rich as the Indian katar... leaf shaped blade carefully crafted so that the tip of the blade became thicker than the other parts. The reasoning behind this was to not only make the weapon more sturdy, but also make it useful in breaking chain or scale mail armor. In combat, the weapon would be thrust into the mail of an opponent with great force, easily forcing it through mail armor by breaking its links... Medieval katars also sometimes came with leaf or shell shaped handguards or even gauntlets that covered the hand and the forearm for extra protection, although this design fell into disuse later, probably due to the fact that katars would later be reduced to status symbols or ceremonial objects, being only used in duels and demonstrations rather than actual conflict.
The katar would become a status symbol among the upper class of Indian society, often being carried by princes and other noblemen as proof of their status, and not just for personal protection... It is said that some Rajputs (members of patrilineal clans from India and Pakistan) would even hunt tigers using only katars, as proof of their strength and courage
(Guilherme Radaeli).

The katar is also often referred to as a "punch-dagger" because of how it would have been used. The blades are of very high-quality steel, with edges as sharp as a razor, so it could also be used to slash an adversary, but it is most effective in the thrust... Depictions of slightly more heavily armed men would often show them armed with a katar and a sword, suggesting that the katar was also used as a left-hand weapon during sword-fighting. For this the side bar and the sturdy blade would have made the katar a very effective weapon for blocking a sword blow.
(Royal Ontario Museum).

Typically, katars were used in close range hand-to-hand combat, which is effective in armour piercing.
(Shirayan Vajramutthii Yuddha Shastra)

It is known that Ibn Battuta, an Algerian travelling in India in the 14th century, described an attack with a katar ...
(Quoting Eric S)

.

With the exception of the last quotation (Ibn Battuta), the rest raise considerable doubts, because they are (as I recall) the own conclusions of the authors of these books, which are not supported by anything except their words. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

By the way, can you find out exactly how Ibn Battut's quotation sounds? Is jamadhar or katar mentioned?

It is strange to consider a mannequin from the museum (to the “hands” of which the museum employee gave the weapon he wanted) and the signature from the book Paul — a serious argument .....

+2 images with people who kill other people with katar. While the score is 11: 4 in favor of Teriomachia :)

[Mercenary]

Personally, I would choose a good high-caliber rifle, just like big game hunters. They were available in 17-18 century India,

I acted differently. I analyzed all the available literature and memories of hunting a tiger before I wrote something. A rifle or spear does not save from a sudden attack, the tiger does not attack in another way. Are you confusing a tiger hunt with a hunt for ... what did you hunt?


Third, African lion hunters manage quite well without katars: they use rather flimsily-looking spears and do just fine .

For the West it is no matter where cultural or historical events of the East take place: in Africa or India or Zombieland. I know.


Both knife and katar sacrifice safe distance for the dubious glory of a heroic kill with high likelihood of being maimed beyond recognition.

I said about this already. For someone it is heroism, for another it is stupidity. For someone it is the history, for another it is politics. For someone it is culture, for another it is barbarism. For someone it is research, for another it is just to talk.

As an aside, Elgood's book on Hindu weapons shows statues with katars piercing some non-tiger looking animals: do I see hooves on some of them? If I am correct, would we call katar " buffalo dagger" or "horse dagger"?
"Would we call..." :( Indians called.
We called just "zirak boukh", "mel puttah bemoh", "tooth of death god" and other rubbish. Enough already.

I fully understand your excitement: it would have been very nice to pinpoint the original intended purpose of such an unusual weapon. I just find this hypothesis implausible. Sorry

This is normal. Thank you. Just no other hypotheses.
But wait ... Katars were able to penetrate through the chain mail! And they were so good for it that such daggers were independently invented in all countries where there were chain mails! Or not? It is so hard to live in a country in the middle between The West and The East. ;)

[mahratt]

Ruler Maharaja Kumar Isri Singh in a pool of water, bare-chested, and in hand-to-hand combat with a crocodile. He has just plunged his katar into the creature, which has evidently been caught by surprise while eating.
(The Met)


Very good example. He perfectly confirms the words of the Mercenary. A miniature from the Metropolitan Museum shows the opposition of man and a large predatory animal.

[Mercenary]

Ruler Maharaja Kumar Isri Singh in a pool of water, bare-chested, and in hand-to-hand combat with a crocodile. He has just plunged his katar into the creature, which has evidently been caught by surprise while eating.
(The Met)


.

Thank you very much.

It is known that Ibn Battuta, an Algerian travelling in India in the 14th century, described an attack with a katar ..

It is very interesting to study what kind of daggers were called "katar" in India. I did it. But not from secondary sources.


(Dr Tobias Capwell).
(Dr. Jorge Caravana)
(Rainer Daehnhardt)
(E. Jaiwant Paul)
(Cameron Stone)
(Shirayan Vajramutthii Yuddha Shastra)

Excellent research. Thank you, it's not just an empty talk. I very respect it.

But who are these people? Among them are travelers in India in the 16-18 centuries?

P.S. How is nice when you can believe everything that is written in book or spoken on TV. But in the case of East it is.... the wrong way. ;)

[Mercenary]

All these images are a typical (standard) plot for illustrations of "Babur-name" in Akbar's time. Accordingly, warriors are armed in the same manner as the Mughals in the end of the 16th century.
On one of the images Babur fights with the Rajputs (description of the events of 1527). But we can see only Mughals weapons of the end of the 16th century. Can you indicate Rajputs there if not to take into account on what side the artillery is?
In another image, Babur fights with Ahmad Tambal (description of the events of 1499). Before Babur's invasion of India! Again Mughals weapons of the end of the 16th century.
Two images from one source, same time and even one workshop. Unlike images with scenes of hunting.

I know how according to Turkic warrior tradition an enemy was pulled off a horse, thrown to the ground and he was beaten with a dagger into open places or his head was cut off.
Someone may think that in the time of Akbar warriors were fighting on the horses with daggers? May be. They were trying to penetrate armour? May be.
No problems. Dig it and I will happy to learn something new for all of us. But as long as it is not, I'd rather go watch National Geographic on TV.

[ariel]

Wow! Of course now we will see indian miniatures (of the appropriate period), confirmative to your words? Or is this another bla-bla-bla?

.

Please behave yourself.

[fernando]

... +2 images with people who kill other people with katar. While the score is 11: 4 in favor of Teriomachia :)
Dear Mahrat, это не игра в футбол ;).
You know, i have this impression that you are in a recurrent status of dispute. Better not aim at me, "i am only the piano player"; my entries are no more than a modest contribution and we are not in a court of justice to either prove right or get condemned.
The manequin is not in the book of E. Jaiwant Paul. The picture scan posted from his book (from my little library) is the third one above. E. Jaiwant Paul lives in Delhi; he is a collector and author of five books in the area. All his life he had an interest in arms and armour, inherited from his father as well as his grandfather who served in the Princely States, where swords and daggers were their middle name..
Rainer Dahehnardt has been in India (more than once?) and had contacts with Indian traditional personalities, as we talk about when i visit him.
No, they have not been in India in the XVI-XVIII centuries; neither i have ... nor certainly you ;) . But they certainly are more documented tan me.
Ibn Battuta was a Moroccan Berber; i doubt of his writing abilities, as his adventures were dictated to his secretary. From among the zillion names given to the katar, i wonder what sound they have chosen to chaligraph; i see there is Tamil kaţţāri (கட்டாரி); also Tamil kuttuvāḷ (குத்துவாள்), adapted into Sanskrit as kaţāra (कट्टार) or kaţārī. Or would they prefer other regional names, like kaṭhāri (ಕಠಾರಿ) in Kannada, kaţāra (കട്ടാര) in Malayalam, kaṭyāra (कट्यार) in Marathi, kaṭār (ਕਟਾਰ) in Panjabi, and kaṭāra (कटार) or kaṭāri in Hindi
I guess however that they would have certainly not chosen the sound Katar, a modern Hindi fashion extended to colonial transliterations.
On the other hand, i don't see how i should not trust Battuta's (secretary) work translator; i trust it as it is ... until further notice.
You put the blame in others believing everything that is written in books; maybe not so. In any case, not all have the privilege to have traveled to India and reach for alternative sources, as i suspect you have :shrug:.
The painting in the Met, not properly a miniature with its 43X60 cms.,as i see it, is no more than a mere example of exoteric artwork. I don't know how much you are familiar to crocodiles, as i know there are places out there where natives deftly grab these dangerous reptiles but, if i wanted to discredit someone pretending that Indian big shots go hunting tigers, i would have no better way to put it; the poor croc is so confident that no better snacks (Maharaja and his party mates) come from his vicinity that he finds remedy in swallowing his little fish. I take it that such naivety may take place in both East and West, as long as the artist is compelled to please his lord :shrug:

Yours humbly :cool:

[mahratt]

Please behave yourself.

:D learning from you.

[Mercenary]

While the score is 11: 4 in favor of Teriomachia

11(+) : 0

Because this image we can thrown away too. European artists often painted only what people wanted to see.

[ariel]

Excuse me, but what is the point of this “discussion”?


Is it aimed to prove that Katar was a primarily hunting weapon designed specifically to kill tigers ( or, occasionally, crocodiles and such)?
That from that function Indians got a sudden insight to use this primarily tiger-hunting implement against human enemies?

There are many miniatures showing hunting scenes with sabers used against antelopes. Are we expected to use the Katar analogy to postulate the genesis of a saber as a primarily hunting weapon with only later accidental realization that it can also be used on the battlefield?

Paintings are objects of art, not of science. They are useful only to demonstrate the existence of a particular object at a particular time and ( occasionally) place. The circumstances depicted were the choice of the artist and cannot tell us much ( or anything) about the frequency of such use, genesis of the weapon, or even the veracity of such an encounter.

[fernando]

... European artists often painted only what people wanted to see...
Only European ?
Why are you so aggressive towards Westerners, Mercenary ... have you a prejudice about them ... something personal ?
Are you not an Eurasian yourself ? a young one, maybe ?
Why don't you lower your defenses ? This way, you will soon get old :shrug:.

[mahratt]

Dear fernando, your impression is not right :) I do not argue. I'm trying to figure out the new.
I was just taught to trust facts and not opinions ...
While I see such facts.
1) It turns out that there are many images of the use of the dagger katar in Teriomachia and few images of the use of the dagger katar in the battle between people (and in particular, I don’t see how the images of the dagger katar pierced the chain mail or other armor)
2) With the exception of data from Ibn Battuta, there is no evidence from eyewitnesses of the use of the dagger katar during a battle between people (but it turns out we don’t know if we are talking about that dagger katar we know today by that name)
3) All data on the use of the dagger kutar from the respected E. Jaiwant Paul is cited as a personal opinion of the collector, whose grandfather who served in the Princely States .... For example, my grandfather was a tankman, but this does not mean that I can manage a tank. ...
4) Rainer Dahehnardt the author, who wrote that the Talwars handles and the Talwars blades were kept in India in different towers ???? :)

It turns out that they documented their thoughts ... and no more ... But maybe I did not read their books carefully? E. Jaiwant Paul and Rainer Dahehnardt somewhere refer to sources 17 or 18-th century, which tells how the dagger kаtar was used? I have not found this information ...

I do not blame anyone :) Alternative sources in this topic were presented by the Mercenary.

Crocodiles in India attacked people (due to the fact that the corpses after the rite of burning were dumped into the water and the crocodiles got used to eating human meat). Therefore, a battle with him could be considered a heroic act no less dangerous than a battle with a tiger. But maybe you're right and this is exoteric artwork ;)

[Mercenary]

Excuse me, but what is the point of this “discussion”?


Is it aimed to prove that Katar was a primarily hunting weapon designed specifically to kill tigers ( or, occasionally, crocodiles and such)?
That from that function Indians got a sudden insight to use this primarily tiger-hunting implement against human enemies?

There are many miniatures showing hunting scenes with sabers used against antelopes. Are we expected to use the Katar analogy to postulate the genesis of a saber as a primarily hunting weapon with only later accidental realization that it can also be used on the battlefield?

Paintings are objects of art, not of science. They are useful only to demonstrate the existence of a particular object at a particular time and ( occasionally) place. The circumstances depicted were the choice of the artist and cannot tell us much ( or anything) about the frequency of such use, genesis of the weapon, or even the veracity of such an encounter.

The main idea is that this dagger has acquired its high status thanks to tigers. That is all. I myself do not understand why everyone argues with me.

[mahratt]

Excuse me, but what is the point of this “discussion”?


Is it aimed to prove that Katar was a primarily hunting weapon designed specifically to kill tigers ( or, occasionally, crocodiles and such)?
That from that function Indians got a sudden insight to use this primarily tiger-hunting implement against human enemies?

There are many miniatures showing hunting scenes with sabers used against antelopes. Are we expected to use the Katar analogy to postulate the genesis of a saber as a primarily hunting weapon with only later accidental realization that it can also be used on the battlefield?

Paintings are objects of art, not of science. They are useful only to demonstrate the existence of a particular object at a particular time and ( occasionally) place. The circumstances depicted were the choice of the artist and cannot tell us much ( or anything) about the frequency of such use, genesis of the weapon, or even the veracity of such an encounter.

Interesting post. Very interesting. I would like to hear your opinion, are the coins (numismatic) a more serious source than pictures? I heard that some researchers, even on the basis of a single coin, build entire theories about weapons.

[Mercenary]

For fernando

Originally "katar" it is very old type of straight dagger. Long before jamdhar. Europeans ... O... White men... I am sorry again... man/woman.. People (!) described katar as "a dirk".

[fernando]

... Dear fernando, your impression is not right :) I do not argue.
Of course you don't ;).

... For example, my grandfather was a tankman, but this does not mean that I can manage a tank. ...
Have you ever tried ? i guess you would manage well ;).

...Crocodiles in India attacked people
Not only in India, as you should know; take Africa, for one. And it is not only because they get the habit by eating corpses; living warm blood mammals are just fine for their diet.

[Mercenary]

This term was used for different kind of weapon because in meant just "to cut" (as a rule for a straight item). Ibn Batuta in fact described jamdhar, but with the blade two cubits long (one metr?). May be it was proto-pata?

[fernando]

... Originally "katar" it is very old type of straight dagger. Long before jamdhar. Europeans ... O... White men... I am sorry again... man/woman.. People (!) described katar as "a dirk".
Is that an attempt to be funny ? no point in trying ... seriously !
Perhaps you have missed the original subject of this thread; there is a couple of those in the first page.

[fernando]

... Ibn Batuta in fact described jamdhar, but with the blade two cubits long (one metr?). May be it was proto-pata?
Two cubits measure 90 cms., which is also the longest known length of katars. But you are probably right. Unless it was a hybrid of both ... or other period styles; India had/has such immense profusion of weapons !

[Jim McDougall]

It seems it was cleared up years ago (we have been discussing and researching katars here for over 20 yrs) that the jamadhar was actually the transverse gripped dagger we have known collectively as the katar. The error in term seems to have originated with Egerton (1885) who transposed the terms in his description. This was well pointed out by Pant (1980) and noted that despite the proper term 'jamdhar' for the 'katar'......he seems to have juxtaposed the two with the classification of the 'jamdhar/katari'.

As this was the actual topic of this thread when it began, it seems appropriate to reattend to it here.

The jamdhar/kitari is an H shaped hilt on a dagger blade, and as Egerton has described, well known in Nepal (#344-45) I know this form of dagger, actually termed 'katara' is indeed well known there as a good friend from Germany who travelled in Nepal extensively for many years, always found them in great number there.
Also, these were well known in Nuristan( formerly Kafiristan) in India, where they were used by tribes known as Kafirs. These tribes relocated in regions in Chitral and are now known as the Kalash people. In research on them I communicated with tribal elders and others of this heritage.

Image of katara attached.


The katar (jamdhar) we are familiar with seems to have mysteriously appeared much earlier than the examples we know now of 17th-19th c.
and as noted is even described in writings of 13th-14th c. as katar. But do we know what weapon was actually meant? No.

The 'katar' term seems a well used cognate of words for cut or knife etc.


It seems that early examples of katar from Vijayanagara etc. are indeed larger than later examples (I am not familiar with cubits, aside from use describing the ark). It does seem that the hooded examples probably did inspire the eventual evolution of the pata.


The description used as 'dirk' for katar is believed to have derived from the common repurposing of blades, whether broken or otherwise, from full size swords...in the manner of Scottish dirks. We know it was common practice to reue the valuable blades from basket hilts into dirks. When these were proscribed in the 18th c. the dirk was still allowed as it was regarded as utilitarian.

When European blades flooded into India in late 16th-17th c. they were often fashioned into katar blades.


Now all of this is truly DIGRESSION......back to the actual topic here.....the JAMDHAR KATARI . :)

[Mercenary]

Thanks Jim. I only can added that these daggers in huge numbers got to Nepal from Bihar and Bengal along with fakirs after the suppression of their rebellion in 1799.
And not "jamdhar katari". Just "katar" or "katara"/"katarah". Dagger of Kafirs are an another type. I do not know what they are :shrug:

[ariel]

Mahratt,
I intentionally do not react to your posts and this is my second appeal to you to do the same.
If you want to express your opinion related to my comments on this Forum, first, please keep it to yourself. If unable to do so , please express yourself in a civilized manner , without ad hominem attacks. This is obviously OK on the Russian Forum, but not here.

[ariel]

The main idea is that this dagger has acquired its high status thanks to tigers. That is all. I myself do not understand why everyone argues with me.


In this case I misunderstood your thesis, or you might not have expressed it clear enough.

However:

Katars were in use all across India, in humongous numbers and over a very long period of time. Why do we have to suggest that they had especially high status ( vs, Khanda? Tulwar? khanjar?) and, if indeed they had, that tiger hunting had anything to do with it?

They were just a very effective weapon for a particular circumstance, I.e. close quarters fight, and were used by Rajahs and commoners alike with different degrees of rich decoration or total absence thereof. High status belonged to their owners, either because of their royal/court positions or because of their individual feats ( See Jens’ entry on a person killing a berserked elephant with a Katar and being rewarded with a governorship position for it).

[Mercenary]

In this case I misunderstood your thesis, or you might not have expressed it clear enough.

However:

Katars were in use all across India, in humongous numbers and over a very long period of time. Why do we have to suggest that they had especially high status ( vs, Khanda? Tulwar? khanjar?) and, if indeed they had, that tiger hunting had anything to do with it?

They were just a very effective weapon for a particular circumstance, I.e. close quarters fight, and were used by Rajahs and commoners alike with different degrees of rich decoration or total absence thereof. High status belonged to their owners, either because of their royal/court positions or because of their individual feats ( See Jens’ entry on a person killing a berserked elephant with a Katar and being rewarded with a governorship position for it).

The study of values ​​and statuses is another level of understanding of Eastern culture. What is suitable for thechnical sciences is not suitable for cultural or religious phenomena. Maybe such an approach seems unnecessarily complicated, but it allows you to penetrate into the culture deeper and eventually learn much more. The usual logic does not work in traditional culture.

I can not explain more, may be it is my problem, let it go.

[mahratt]

Mahratt,
I intentionally do not react to your posts and this is my second appeal to you to do the same.
If you want to express your opinion related to my comments on this Forum, first, please keep it to yourself. If unable to do so , please express yourself in a civilized manner , without ad hominem attacks. This is obviously OK on the Russian Forum, but not here.

Ariel,
I know that you deliberately do not answer if you do not have an answer. This is a very convenient position. It seemed to me that this is an open forum, where everyone can express their opinions. I do not express the opinion "about your comments". I lead the discussion. Isn't the forum created to share information and debate using facts?
You personally have not been attacked (In addition to the fact that I asked you to argue your words with facts, and not "play with words").
By the way, You accuse me in what I do "ad hominem attacks", and you yourself speak insultingly about the Russian forum.

However, maybe we will return to the topic of discussion? For example, in the context of traditional Indian culture. Well, or at least we can discuss what is more important for the study of weapons, the images that are on the coins or images on miniatures and other works of art?

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Jim. I only can added that these daggers in huge numbers got to Nepal from Bihar and Bengal along with fakirs after the suppression of their rebellion in 1799.
And not "jamdhar katari". Just "katar" or "katara"/"katarah". Dagger of Kafirs are an another type. I do not know what they are :shrug:


Thank you so much for the attention to my post in trying to get back to the topic of this thread, the jamdhar-katari, which Stan posted so thoughtfully some 7 years ago.
As I was desperately trying to illustrate amid the rest of this specious katar discussion, the KATARA was indeed the dagger which was illustrated as the dagger of the Kafir people of what is now Nuristan (a province in Eastern Afghanistan). As I noted, I did research on these people, now called Kalash and situated in regions of Chitral to the west in Afghanistan.

In my research I obtained the two volume set of "The Kafirs of Hindu Kush: A Study of the Waigal and Ashkun Kafirs" by Max Klimburg (1999).
In this book these daggers are illustrated and called katara.


I hope I can make this clear enough as it was queried in the original post 7 years ago. The transverse grip dagger we these days call katar…...was originally called jamdhar. Egerton in his writing (1885) for some yet unknown reason termed these H hilt daggers attributed to Nepal the JAMDHAR-KITARI.

What transpired after this appears that the jamdhar term which SHOULD have been used for the many transverse gripped daggers illustrated inexplicably became noted as katars. This profound oversight or error became the ever known term for these daggers in the literature to this day.


The note that the katara daggers got to Nepal via the fakirs rebellion from Bengal is most interesting and I would not dispute that this form was known over many regions in these areas, and surely not exclusive only to the Kafirs any more than people in Nepal. I have always been under the impression that fakirs were not allowed weapons and used their innovative and 'disguised' forms.....but in a formalized insurgence the use of any weapon would be understood.


This again is simply another futile effort to address the topic of the thread originally and avoid further attention to the specious debate digressing presently, and frankly disappointingly ridiculous.

[Mercenary]

Thank you so much for the attention to my post in trying to get back to the topic of this thread, the jamdhar-katari, which Stan posted so thoughtfully some 7 years ago.
As I was desperately trying to illustrate amid the rest of this specious katar discussion, the KATARA was indeed the dagger which was illustrated as the dagger of the Kafir people of what is now Nuristan (a province in Eastern Afghanistan). As I noted, I did research on these people, now called Kalash and situated in regions of Chitral to the west in Afghanistan.

In my research I obtained the two volume set of "The Kafirs of Hindu Kush: A Study of the Waigal and Ashkun Kafirs" by Max Klimburg (1999).
In this book these daggers are illustrated and called katara.


I hope I can make this clear enough as it was queried in the original post 7 years ago. The transverse grip dagger we these days call katar…...was originally called jamdhar. Egerton in his writing (1885) for some yet unknown reason termed these H hilt daggers attributed to Nepal the JAMDHAR-KITARI.

What transpired after this appears that the jamdhar term which SHOULD have been used for the many transverse gripped daggers illustrated inexplicably became noted as katars. This profound oversight or error became the ever known term for these daggers in the literature to this day.


The note that the katara daggers got to Nepal via the fakirs rebellion from Bengal is most interesting and I would not dispute that this form was known over many regions in these areas, and surely not exclusive only to the Kafirs any more than people in Nepal. I have always been under the impression that fakirs were not allowed weapons and used their innovative and 'disguised' forms.....but in a formalized insurgence the use of any weapon would be understood.


This again is simply another futile effort to address the topic of the thread originally and avoid further attention to the specious debate digressing presently, and frankly disappointingly ridiculous.

Thank you very much. I will study your post many times. But what do you think, it is correct to compare the dagger of 2nd century and Kafir's dagger of the first post of thread. How old are Kafirs? )))

P.S. Maybe moderator will let Ariel and Mahratt write here in Russian? It is the native language for both, I think it will be better for all.

[Mercenary]

I have always been under the impression that fakirs were not allowed weapons and used their innovative and 'disguised' forms.....but in a formalized insurgence the use of any weapon would be understood.
.
"Fakirs" it is the name given by Europeans to a large group of people including ascetic-warriors. They were really not allowed weapons... but after 1799 and not in Nepal )

http://indianfight.com/fighting-ascetics/

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you very much. I will study your post many times. But what do you think, it is correct to compare the dagger of 2nd century and Kafir's dagger of the first post of thread. How old are Kafirs? )))

P.S. Maybe moderator will let Ariel and Mahratt write here in Russian? It is the native language for both, I think it will be better for all.


I would appreciate that as the research and material I have entered is of considerable time, effort and expense of many years ago and my sharing these notes here are in the spirit of constructive discussion instead of specious debate. Can you please tell me what dagger of 2nd century is referred to?

Without considerable research further it is hard to define how 'old' Kafirs are as the term is likely recent (i.e. last 300 yrs +) but to get into anthropological analysis would be far more complex. The term 'Kafir' as you certainly know means loosely 'infidel' in Islamic parlance, and their exodus from the regions now Nuristan were due to Afghan khanate invasion.


The suggestion to allowing Russian language debate to be included here is as you must know, completely counter productive and I will withhold any further comment toward that suggestion.I do appreciate your effort to maintain focus on the actual topic of this thread.

[Jim McDougall]

"Fakirs" it is the name given by Europeans to a large group of people including ascetic-warriors. They were really not allowed weapons... but after 1799 and not in Nepal )

http://indianfight.com/fighting-ascetics/


Thank you very much for that clarification. This is an area obviously quite obviously misunderstood by many, including myself, so your expertise is appreciated.

[Mercenary]

I would appreciate that as the research and material I have entered is of considerable time, effort and expense of many years ago and my sharing these notes here are in the spirit of constructive discussion instead of specious debate. Can you please tell me what dagger of 2nd century is referred to?.
It is the very interesting field of research because the area around modern Afghanistan was the center of culture for centuries. I know a little in the field and it will be very interesting to learn how all of these developed over time.
This dagger:

[ariel]

http://indianfight.com/fighting-ascetics/

Mercenary,
I see that this site is bilingual: English and Russian.
Are you the author of the papers published there?

[Mercenary]

http://indianfight.com/fighting-ascetics/

Mercenary,
I see that this site is bilingual: English and Russian.
Are you the author of the papers published there?
Yes, I write for the site but in popular manner because it is martial art site.

[mahratt]

"Fakirs" it is the name given by Europeans to a large group of people including ascetic-warriors. They were really not allowed weapons... but after 1799 and not in Nepal )

http://indianfight.com/fighting-ascetics/

Thank you for the interesting article and very interesting facts on the topic of discussion.

[ariel]

Mercenary,

Very good job!
One could argue with some of your statements and notice some inconsistencies, but this is a popular site, as you have mentioned.

You might want to convert some chapters into real papers and submit them to professional journals. They will have to be expanded and the argumentation tightened up, but you have excellent starting points. Journal of Royal Armories seems to be interested in Indian weapons and that might be your first choice. If I were you, I would send them first for unofficial reviews to some people here, who know a thing or two about Indian military practices ( Jim? Jens?). I am sure they would not refuse to help a colleague Forumite. If you think I can be of help, please feel free to get in touch.


Having undergone a careful and objective peer review by the editorial board and published in a respectable professional journal, your “ popular “ versions would acquire a real academic weight i.e. exactly what you want to achieve. And they have a real potential.

Once again,- nicely done!

[ariel]

Mahratt,

Let me clarify something.

First, my “coin” paper, proposing the likely Khazar source of the saber’s entry into the Arabian Islamic realm. What you have read was a quick draft of a proposal for an invited paper. Regretfully, it was published by a Ukrainian journal without my knowledge and approval, and I was not the only person who was dealt such a blow. I have reworked and expanded it, and it was published in a European peer-reviewed journal with full disclosure of its previous publication. It got positive reviews from several people in the field including Bashir Mohamed. Thus, your persistent sniping at it currently has no basis and carries no weight. You may relax.

I understand you are still smarting from my post here re-analyzing your paper on the genesis of the term Karud. Indeed, you found a perfect documentary source but completely mis-read it. Again, that paper was also published in a peer-reviewed journal and I got a letter from Robert Elgood who enthusiastically congratulated me on finally closing the minor but annoying chapter of terminology. Your source of information was properly cited and credited.

Having clarified these two issues, I again respectfully ask you to stop your ad hominem attacks on me. They are not constructive and only poison the atmosphere on this Forum. It would be better for everybody involved if you just ignore my entries.

I hope this is the last time I am forced to contact you.

[fernando]

... The term 'Kafir' as you certainly know means loosely 'infidel' in Islamic parlance ...
Jim, for a moment i got tangled by the Kafir v Fakir term similarity.
As in several other cases, the term Kafir كافر used by Arab merchants was brought to Africa (by European navigators) and by some parallelism deviated its virtual attribution to a pejorative way to call the natives, where i first became acquainted with it.
Also Fakir seem to have its paralels, like those called Jogues by gentiles and Calândares by the Moors, as often alluded by Portuguese chroniclers. Hindu ascetics, João de Barros (1496-1570) typifies them as "in a mode of philosophers, whom leave the world in low and vile habit going by all places and pilgrimages and some times get apart to do penitence... Their only attire is composed by some skins that only cover their shameful parts". Other chroniclers say that "they only wear capes made of rags found in the trash". Barbosa (1500-1517 in India) says that "they have a good mood and are good looking; never comb their hair and use it braided". Garcia de Orta (1501-158) wrote that "they go floured with ashes all over their body, a means of sanctification; ashes made of cow dung, they sanctify themselves every morning in this way, which they call "curi".
Uploaded is how a Portuguese anonymous navigator artist saw them in the XVI century.
(Codice Casanatense)


.

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando, thank you for the insight into the 'fakir' matter. I have of course heard of these unusual mendicants but honestly knew little beyond the almost cliche' images. Great perspective.

Ariel, Mahratt and Mercenary,
Guys thank you so much for working toward better rapport here. You are all sound researchers and great writers in your chosen fields of study and while you may all have differences in cases, I think you enhance your skills with good discussion presenting objective supported evidence and observations which really benefit the readers here including myself. I know I enjoy reading threads which do this on topics I am not familiar with, and good flowing discussion without any personal friction makes all the difference.


I have learned that such sound discussion becomes a learning experience for all both participants and readers, which is the very reason I joined these forums over twenty years ago. It is a wonderful opportunity and privilege for which I am very grateful.

[mahratt]

Mahratt,

Let me clarify something.

First, my “coin” paper, proposing the likely Khazar source of the saber’s entry into the Arabian Islamic realm. What you have read was a quick draft of a proposal for an invited paper. Regretfully, it was published by a Ukrainian journal without my knowledge and approval, and I was not the only person who was dealt such a blow. I have reworked and expanded it, and it was published in a European peer-reviewed journal with full disclosure of its previous publication. It got positive reviews from several people in the field including Bashir Mohamed. Thus, your persistent sniping at it currently has no basis and carries no weight. You may relax.

I understand you are still smarting from my post here re-analyzing your paper on the genesis of the term Karud. Indeed, you found a perfect documentary source but completely mis-read it. Again, that paper was also published in a peer-reviewed journal and I got a letter from Robert Elgood who enthusiastically congratulated me on finally closing the minor but annoying chapter of terminology. Your source of information was properly cited and credited.

Having clarified these two issues, I again respectfully ask you to stop your ad hominem attacks on me. They are not constructive and only poison the atmosphere on this Forum. It would be better for everybody involved if you just ignore my entries.

I hope this is the last time I am forced to contact you.

Ariel,
I did not mention your name anywhere. Therefore, your "nervous" reaction surprises me. You questioned the meaning of the images. I, in turn, remembered that some researchers write scientific papers, exploring the images on the coins. As far as I remember, I did not mention your name anywhere in connection with such works. Or I'm wrong?
I am very glad that some of your scientific work on weapons has received positive feedback. Congratulations. Unfortunately, the public (most people) is not familiar with this scientific article, which you written. Maybe you will create a separate topic, lay out scans of pages and allow forum participants to enjoy your research?

I do not understand at all, in connection with which you remembered the term "Karud", especially in connection with me ... I think you should not get personal. Do I understand correctly that you have published an article about the term "Karud"? It would be very interesting to read it.

Ariel, we here on the forum communicate and discuss. If you have voiced some opinion, then you need to be prepared that you will be asked questions. And this is nothing personal. I hope you calm down. I think it will be right for you to think less about your ego. And then we can all communicate normally.

[Mercenary]

Mercenary,

Very good job!
One could argue with some of your statements and notice some inconsistencies, but this is a popular site, as you have mentioned.

You might want to convert some chapters into real papers and submit them to professional journals. They will have to be expanded and the argumentation tightened up, but you have excellent starting points. Journal of Royal Armories seems to be interested in Indian weapons and that might be your first choice. If I were you, I would send them first for unofficial reviews to some people here, who know a thing or two about Indian military practices ( Jim? Jens?). I am sure they would not refuse to help a colleague Forumite. If you think I can be of help, please feel free to get in touch.


Having undergone a careful and objective peer review by the editorial board and published in a respectable professional journal, your “ popular “ versions would acquire a real academic weight i.e. exactly what you want to achieve. And they have a real potential.

Once again,- nicely done!

Thank you very much for your opinion, it is very honorable for me. But publishing articles even in respected journals is not an end in itself. Studies in the field of historical weapons or military practices are not the main topics of my researches. That is why I am writing about them on the forums and on websites.

[Battara]

My suggestion boys is that we stick to the subject matter at hand in this thread. No more steering off course please.

[ariel]

Thank you very much for your opinion, it is very honorable for me. But publishing articles even in respected journals is not an end in itself. Studies in the field of historical weapons or military practices are not the main topics of my researches. That is why I am writing about them on the forums and on websites.

Mercenary,
As they say, If it is not written ( and published) it did not happen.
At least, think about it.

[ariel]

My suggestion boys is that we stick to the subject matter at hand in this thread. No more steering off course please.


Jose,
I just a). cleared the air for the general benefit of the Forum and b). expressed support for Mercenary's endeavors directly related to the topic of this discussion.
I shall do my best not to digress in the future, but occasionally free associations take over:-) And, as a matter of fact, they often open unexpected sides of the subject of discussion.

[Battara]

As long as it doesn’t get personal or ugly. 😊

[ariel]

Not from me.

[Battara]

Thank you. 😊

After all this is a good thread. We don’t get to hear as much about this type of weapon scholastically.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you. 😊

After all this is a good thread. We don’t get to hear as much about this type of weapon scholastically.



VERY MUCH agreed!!! This is indeed a great thread, and there is absolutely no need for or purpose in these personality oriented entries. Lack of objectivity simply reveals lack of tangible subject matter for discussion in my opinion which I find disappointing especially considering certain people involved.
So lets get back to the topic:
JANDHAR-KITARA and the mysteries of the form(s).

[fernando]

... I hope I can make this clear enough as it was queried in the original post 7 years ago. The transverse grip dagger we these days call katar…...was originally called jamdhar. Egerton in his writing (1885) for some yet unknown reason termed these H hilt daggers attributed to Nepal the JAMDHAR-KITARI.
What transpired after this appears that the jamdhar term which SHOULD have been used for the many transverse gripped daggers illustrated inexplicably became noted as katars. This profound oversight or error became the ever known term for these daggers in the literature to this day...
Can you establish a relation in that, according to what i have been told, the term "Kuthar" was used by Rajendralala Mitra (The Antiquaries of Orissa) in 1876, thus earlier than Egerton adopted the term "Katar".


.

[ariel]

An almost literal translation of Jamdhar Katari would be something like “ Sharp-edged cutter of the God of Death”.
This is a purely poetic moniker and as such it cannot be used for any historical or technical analysis or conclusions.

The most frustrating example of such a name is Dhu -l -Fakar ( literally spiny, ridged) the real form of which is still a mystery despite its major significance.

If we take 10 people totally ignorant of Oriental weapons and ask them to draw their images of some fighting implement called “ lion’s tail “ or “scorpion” , we shall get 11 different images having nothing to do with shamshir or bich’hwa.

India is a multiethnic, multilingual country with a millennial history of mass migrations. One needs to be well-versed in its minute details of history and fluent in several of its languages to even start thinking about the meaning of its weapons’ names. Otherwise, it is the lowest degree of the infamous “name game” belonging to a cynically defined “ intellectual masturbation”. We should resign to the fact that we have no idea and either make peace with it or wait for a true specialist.

Elgood’s entry in his Glossary ( see Jodhpur book) consists of 2 words :
“Jamdhar: Katar”. Also, he shows several “Khandas” that have nothing to do with Egerton’s or Stone’s stereotypes.

[mahratt]

Can you establish a relation in that, according to what i have been told, the term "Kuthar" was used by Rajendralala Mitra (The Antiquaries of Orissa) in 1896, thus earlier than Egerton adopted the term "Katar".


In 1860, the word “katar” was used by the Russian researcher Florian Gille in the spelling of “kuttar”, describing the arsenal of Russian Imperators in Tsarskoye Selo.

[fernando]

Can you establish a relation in that, according to what i have been told, the term "Kuthar" was used by Rajendralala Mitra (The Antiquaries of Orissa) in 1876, thus earlier than Egerton adopted the term "Katar"...
Not so significant for the matter but, i should have written 1876 instead of 1896.

[mahratt]

Not so significant for the matter but, i should have written 1876 instead of 1896.

Not so significant for the matter. The example I gave refers to 1860;)

[fernando]

An almost literal translation of Jamdhar Katari would be something like “ Sharp-edged cutter of the God of Death”.
India is a multiethnic, multilingual country with a millennial history of mass migrations. One needs to be well-versed in its minute details of history and fluent in several of its languages to even start thinking about the meaning of its weapons’ names. Otherwise, it is the lowest degree of the infamous “name game” ...
Yet the name game, for as much as we (sort of) forget, is an irreplaceable component of our spoken communication, right after we abandoned our ape stage of expressing ourselves by gestures. We have to get hold of alternative tricks like the consuetudinary resource to consider the determined name of one thing as being we are all talking about ... even with exceptions taken into account.
I recall illustreous Professor Agostinho da Silva )1906-1994) in that, every time they asked him his ideas on a subject, he started by recalling the etymology of the term, before unequivocally lecturing on such topic.
I wonder to which extent, if any, India's profusion of languages comprehends Western European tongues but, even if just for fun, it is worthy to note, within the Katar-Kutar saga that, in my lingo we say "Cortar" for cutting, from the Latin Curtãre. Can't deny the resemblance :shrug: .

[Jim McDougall]

I don't think there can be any doubt that many cognate words diffused widely through cultures as languages and dialects evolved from the root languages over time.
The use of the term katar, regardless of spelling, is not really in question but it seems that Egerton who wrote his book in over 10 years prior to first publication in 1880 (republished 1896) transposed the term from the jamdhar -kitari to the transverse grip jamdhar (we now call katar).

As we cannot say for sure when, in the years compiling his data Egerton made this error, we can presume it was well prior to 1880.

Prior to this time, in India, these transverse grip daggers were known as jamdhar (= tooth of god of death, or to that effect). I was unaware of the use of the term 'kuttar' in Russia in 1860 in cataloging of the holdings of the Tsarskye Selo arsenal, and would be interested to know what the weapon described looked like.
If this was indeed the transverse grip 'jamdhar' type, then we may establish the error(?) to precede Egerton, and question whether Pant (1980) had sound evidence of the jamdhar term being correct for these in the first place.


We know, from the extensive research Jens has done over many years, that the term katar has been in use since about 13th century and of course for a dagger, but what type we do not know as no illustrations exist until much later.


We know that the "Ain I Akbari" , Abu'l Fazi , written in years 1551-1602, had a 'fist dagger' called 'maustika' looking of course like a rudimentary katar.

The term katar seems well represented in a number of Indian languages , where the Tamil 'kattari' became the Sanskrit 'katara' (the a dropped later).

With the 'katar' term this deeply embedded in various other languages specifically referring to the transverse grip daggers, I cannot help but question if the term jamdhar evolved as an alternate term at some point.

In this case Egerton was right all along, and the combining of the two terms jamdar-kitari to describe these curious daggers was perhaps Egerton trying to use both terms due to the character of the hilts.

While the katar has an 'H' shaped hilt it is vertically oriented and meant to be held transversely.

The jamdhar-kitari has an 'H' shaped hilt which is horizontal, that is meant to be gripped in the traditional dagger manner.


So possibly the 'katar' term has been correctly describing these transverse grip daggers all along...….and the conundrum brought up by Pant in 1980 setting off a red herring that has persisted since.

[mahratt]

Prior to this time, in India, these transverse grip daggers were known as jamdhar (= tooth of god of death, or to that effect). I was unaware of the use of the term 'kuttar' in Russia in 1860 in cataloging of the holdings of the Tsarskye Selo arsenal, and would be interested to know what the weapon described looked like.
If this was indeed the transverse grip 'jamdhar' type, then we may establish the error(?) to precede Egerton, and question whether Pant (1980) had sound evidence of the jamdhar term being correct for these in the first place.


Jim, in my opinion in the picture that I attached to the subject, it is clearly seen that in the catalog of weapons from Tsarskoye Selo is described the transverse grip 'jamdhar' type... Post № 180

[Jim McDougall]

Jim, in my opinion in the picture that I attached to the subject, it is clearly seen that in the catalog of weapons from Tsarskoye Selo is described the transverse grip 'jamdhar' type... Post № 180

Thank you for redirecting that, I overlooked it. So there we have the transverse grip c. 1860 which would likely precede Egerton's notes even if as early as 1860s-70s. It seems unlikely that Egerton would have had access to Russian notes or materials given the climate of relations in these times with Crimean War and its aftermath.


Again, I question Pant's declaration of the proper term for the transverse grip dagger being jamdhar, and suggest perhaps it was an alternative term. This of course completely overturns the notion I have long held that Pant was correct, and now compels rethinking.


That is the thing with research and assertions which have long stood sacrosanct in venerable volumes and long held views in the arms community, they are always subject to revision. Most authors not only expect this, but implore it, as the search for truth and accuracy needs to be relentless.
'

[Mercenary]

We know that the "Ain I Akbari" , Abu'l Fazi , written in years 1551-1602, had a 'fist dagger' called 'maustika' looking of course like a rudimentary katar.

Jim, excuse me, I do not know very well the whole text of "Ain I Akbari", but in the chapter on weapons there is definitely no such dagger.

[Mercenary]

In the 19th, 20th, 21th and even in 31th centuries, we can call these daggers as we please. But it is perfect for sure that in the 16th century the wide dagger with transverse grip was called "jamdhar", and the narrow dagger with ordinary handle - katar. This is documented facts.

Jim, you are absolutely right that the word "katara" was widespread in India. This word was used for all type of weapons that could cut (before the catalog of Lord Egerton became known in India through the work of Dr. Pant). Like all swords were "tulwars".

Very interesting how Kafirs themself called their daggers? I strongly suspect that "chura" or so. Didn't they?

[Jim McDougall]

In the 19th, 20th, 21th and even in 31th centuries, we can call these daggers as we please. But it is perfect for sure that in the 16th century the wide dagger with transverse grip was called "jamdhar", and the narrow dagger with ordinary handle - katar. This is documented facts.

Jim, you are absolutely right that the word "katara" was widespread in India. This word was used for all type of weapons that could cut (before the catalog of Lord Egerton became known in India through the work of Dr. Pant). Like all swords were "tulwars".

Very interesting how Kafirs themself called their daggers? I strongly suspect that "chura" or so. Didn't they?


I surely don't know the text of these volumes either of the Ain I Akbari, the corpus of the the "Akbarnama" of Mughal culture. I only know the plates I have seen with the transverse grip which I believe was called 'moustika', and this term is another puzzling type of gauntlet type weapon seen in Stone and Calvert ("Spanish Arms and Armor". 1907).

It is great to know that the term jamdhar was documented as for the transverse grip in 16th c. and I do know that katar was used for the regular hilt dagger as shown in Burton and Stone et al.
What I was trying to determine was at what point the terms became switched.
While it seems moot, it does make a difference in reading early contemporary accounts where we cannot visually know the weapon they refer to.

The term chura, if I recall correctly and understand, was a colloquial term used in Northwest Frontier regions for small knives of the pesh kabz variety. I do not think the Kalash (Kafirs) people would have that term in their lexicon, but who knows, dialects diffuse through these regions. That would be a good thing to look into further.

[mahratt]

Thank you for redirecting that, I overlooked it. So there we have the transverse grip c. 1860 which would likely precede Egerton's notes even if as early as 1860s-70s. It seems unlikely that Egerton would have had access to Russian notes or materials given the climate of relations in these times with Crimean War and its aftermath.
'

Dear Jim, you will be surprised, but Egerton saw items of weapons with descriptions from Tsarskoe Selo. This information is in his book:
A Description of Indian and Oriental Armour: Illustrated from the Collection Formerly in the India Office, Now Exhibited at South Kensington, and the Author's Private Collection

[Gustav]

Thank you for redirecting that, I overlooked it. So there we have the transverse grip c. 1860 which would likely precede Egerton's notes even if as early as 1860s-70s. It seems unlikely that Egerton would have had access to Russian notes or materials given the climate of relations in these times with Crimean War and its aftermath.



Jim, in Egerton's book there is a short chapter about Malayan and Indonesian arms. Plate VIII in it contains some quite detailed drawings of a Keris in the collection of Czar of Russia. So there is at least a possibility he has access to some materials from Russia.

[Jim McDougall]

Dear Jim, you will be surprised, but Egerton saw items of weapons with descriptions from Tsarskoe Selo. This information is in his book:
A Description of Indian and Oriental Armour: Illustrated from the Collection Formerly in the India Office, Now Exhibited at South Kensington, and the Author's Private Collection


Mahratt and Gustav, thank you so much guys!!! This is what discussion is all about......sharing info which someone is unaware of and which very much alters comments and observations. Excellent!!!! :)
I do not know the Tsarskoe Selo collection and totally missed these details in Egerton.

[ariel]

Yes, and the frontispiece shows sabers from the Tsarskoye Selo collection.
How Kaffirs themselves called their daggers? Since in the past they were at least in part Hinduists and the language of Hinduism was Sanskrit, they likely called any knife/dagger Ch'hura.
When they became Muslims, the Turkish influence ( if there was one) would advocate for Chaqu.

[mahratt]

The term chura, if I recall correctly and understand, was a colloquial term used in Northwest Frontier regions for small knives of the pesh kabz variety. I do not think the Kalash (Kafirs) people would have that term in their lexicon, but who knows, dialects diffuse through these regions. That would be a good thing to look into further.

In the opinion of Trail Ronald L. and Cooper Gregory R. The "knife" in Kalash sounds: "katar" (Kalasha Dictionary)

[ariel]

I wonder to which extent, if any, India's profusion of languages comprehends Western European tongues but, even if just for fun, it is worthy to note, within the Katar-Kutar saga that, in my lingo we say "Cortar" for cutting, from the Latin Curtãre. Can't deny the resemblance :shrug: .

You are not imagining.

Proto-Indo-European (PIE) languages include Greek and Italic. Latin is just one of the offshots of Italic.
“Cutting” and “knife” are very basic words. Such words, necessary for oral communication between the members of very early human communities, seem to share common elements. Mother in Sanskrit is Amba, in most modern Indian languages it is Amma, Maa or Ammee, and in virtually all European languages it does not even require a professional translator:-)
Father in Sanskrit is Pitar ( Latin Pater), water is wodr and fire is paewr or agni ( Lat. ignis) in PIE, etc.

Sir William Jones still rules!

Trick question: who knows why the old name of Iran was Pars ( Persia) , but their language is Farsi? As they say on TV games “The answers will surprise you!”. Hint: it has nothing to do with complex ancient linguistics.

Just for the fun of it:-)

[Ian]

... Trick question: who knows why the old name of Iran was Pars ( Persia) , but their language is Farsi? As they say on TV games “The answers will surprise you!”. Hint: it has nothing to do with complex ancient linguistics. ...
Simplified answer. Persian/Persia are exonyms probably first coined by the Greeks around 500 BCE to describe the inhabitants of Pars, then extended to those on the Iranian Plateau. The Romans then adopted the term Persia to describe the same area.


Farsi is an endonym, also derived from the regional name Pars, to describe the main language of Iran.


Ian.

[ariel]

Yes, all true....
But why the language of Pars is Farsi? Why the F- word?

[mariusgmioc]

Yes, all true....
But why the language of Pars is Farsi? Why the F- word?

Does it have to do with the use of Persian/Arabic script not having a letter for "p"?! "Pars" is also written as "Fars" in Nasta-liq. The Fars province in Iran is also called Pars.
:shrug:

[Jim McDougall]

I always find linguistics fascinating, and this part of the discussion is truly interesting. It is a very big part of arms study, as we have always seen with what we here have called 'the name game' affectionately, however while I once somewhat dismissed the relevance, I have come to view it quite differently.

Regarding my misspeaking on the Tsarkoe Selo Collection and my assumption that Egerton may not have had insight into it...…..I wanted to thank Mahratt again for correcting me. With that I finally 'excavated' my copy of Egerton, and realized I should have gone to it in the first place rather than relying on my clearly fallible memory :)

As Ariel noted, indeed the frontispiece was FROM that Russian collection, and Egerton describes specifically the value of these folio/volumes which he was quite aware of as he began his collecting in 1855 (he published in 1880).


Here Mercenary directed that the use of the term 'jamdhar' was clearly used for the transverse grip dagger which we now term katar (Egerton, p.23 shows the illustrated page from Ain I Akbari) . As Mercenary suggested it WAS indeed documented as the term here and it was 16th century.

In the same page, the Ain I Akbari illustrates the very dagger of the Kafir/Kalash as the 'katarah' as the vertical H shape hilt (pommel and guard perpendicular to grip).


It was suggested that perhaps the term ch'hura (choora) might have been used to describe these Kafir daggers. Here I would note discussions going back to 2007 regarding the more commonly known daggers of Khyber regions termed 'choora' by collectors today.

Egerton plate XIV shows one of these (#624) and describes it as a pesh kabz. It is further attributed to 'Banu' and the embossed brass mounts noted.

Banu refers to Bannuchi tribe of Khyber regions who use a small hafted pick termed 'Lohar' (Stone). It is interesting that these lohar picks are often of the same character and decoration as the 'pesh kabz' form which we now term 'choora'.


Apparently if I recall research correctly (here I go again) Lohar refers to a dialect of Hindi and the people who were itinerant blacksmiths and metal workers who frequented Northwest Frontier regions, and somehow the term became applied to these small picks.


This would add impetus to the notion that ch'hura, a colloquial term in Sanskrit with various connotations might be applied to these pesh kabz variant form knives. While attributed often to the Mahsud tribes, they of course were widely found, and in effect seem to be smaller versions of the T blade 'karud', another knife which seems to have been considered in the pesh kabz spectrum in the 1860s and even by Holstein (1931).


So in summary, it would seem that jamdhar indeed was known term for transverse grip dagger in 16th c. and the traditional dagger with wide pommel and guard (of the form used by Kalash) was known as katarah.


The term ch'hura (which term also seems well known in Hindu bridal beads) does not seem likely to have been used by Kalash for these daggers. In my view the ch'hura term was likely misinterpreted in seeking terms for specific weapons as noted in the 2007 discussions.

This was likely in the manner of presuming the term for the small picks, often fashioned by the Lohar people, and the decoration etc. of these as well as the fancy daggers might have had the term ch'hura used in conversation asking for terms called by. Perhaps reference to the fancy Hindu bridal beads etc. ? It does not seem the pejorative connotation of ch'hura used otherwise would be the case.


Attached are the 'choora' dagger and the haft/hilt of the lohar axe.....note the similar 'beak' effect at pommel which seem shared in many examples, and the similarity on decoration and materials.

[fernando]

... “Cutting” and “knife” are very basic words. Such words, necessary for oral communication between the members of very early human communities, seem to share common elements.
Speaking of which, when searching the 1206 pages of Luso-Asiatic Glossary (Monsenhor Sebastião Dalgado 1919) one most surprisingly can not find the term katar (or catar, as the K is absent in Portuguese) as a weapon, but finds (possible) analogies in that the term is related with light slim and fast boats that cut the waves (bolds are mine). Fray João Moura derives it from the Persian Kãtür, which however there are no records of such dictations in Arabic and Persian. Crooke suggests as possible ethym the sanscrit chatura "legere". However Dalgado goes for the version malaiala kattiri or neo-Arico Kãtar, from the sanscrit kartari "scissors" literally cutter, from the verb krt "to cut". Dalgado further opines that this boat could well be called katar, which is employed in various metaphoric senses like, in Concani, truss, pyramid, obelisc.
On the other hand, the term katar (or catar) in his strict wording only appears as Persian-Arabic "qatâr", meaning a set of (often seven) camels or mules, used by cargo collectors that cover all Persia transporting goods from a city to another (Domingos Vieira 1529).
As i first said, among 1250 pages of terms picked or shared with Asians since the XV century. Unless some unknown transliteration prevents from reaching further.

[ariel]

Does it have to do with the use of Persian/Arabic script not having a letter for "p"?! "Pars" is also written as "Fars" in Nasta-liq. The Fars province in Iran is also called Pars.
:shrug:

Bravo!
Only the matter is not in the absense of a letter “p”, but of a sound “p”.
Arabs replace it with either f or b.
Old biblical town Shkhem after the destruction of the Second Temple was re-named Neapolis by the victorious Romans. When the Arab captured it in the VII century, they kept the Roman name, but pronounced it as Nablus. A beautiful stream with waterfalls at the Northern Golan Heights was a spa town for Roman officers. They called it Panus ( one of the minor deities, always drunk and horny). Arabs call it Banias.
That is how you find them in Wiki even today.

The easiest example of a p-to-f transition is old biblical Plishtin becoming Palestina by Roman decree and Filastin in Arabic.

Just for a change, we are not dealing here with complex linguistical constructions, just with the simplest phonetics,yes siree:-) . Kind of like Kard/Karud.

[ariel]

Jim McDougall:
“I once somewhat dismissed the relevance, I have come to view it quite differently.”
——————————————————————————————


Jim,
I am glad you have seen the light:-)
History of everything consists of multiple facets and needs to be looked at from different angles.

The “ name game” can be ridiculous or enlightening depending on the question asked and the quality of an answer. But the same is true about engineering aspects of different weapons, their usage, materials, decorations, etc.

Each and every approach adds something new and potentially important to our understanding of the fascinating subject of the history of weapons. Ignoring names or mis-naming the objects is as detrimental to our understanding of their history as ignoring their sacral meanings.

I have a term for it, “ The Rumpelstiltskin syndrome”: know my name and you become my master. And the corollary: misname me at your peril.

In a way, our Kris colleagues got it right: they are meticulous about naming different pamors and minute details of structure and decorations and correlating them with local traditions of manufacture, sacral and mystical features of their objects of interest, names of masters, materials, age etc. I tried but could never become really interested in Indonesian weapons, but I admire their aficionados.

[Jim McDougall]

Jim McDougall:
“I once somewhat dismissed the relevance, I have come to view it quite differently.”
——————————————————————————————


Jim,
I am glad you have seen the light:-)
History of everything consists of multiple facets and needs to be looked at from different angles.

The “ name game” can be ridiculous or enlightening depending on the question asked and the quality of an answer. But the same is true about engineering aspects of different weapons, their usage, materials, decorations, etc.

Each and every approach adds something new and potentially important to our understanding of the fascinating subject of the history of weapons. Ignoring names or mis-naming the objects is as detrimental to our understanding of their history as ignoring their sacral meanings.

I have a term for it, “ The Rumpelstiltskin syndrome”: know my name and you become my master. And the corollary: misname me at your peril.

In a way, our Kris colleagues got it right: they are meticulous about naming different pamors and minute details of structure and decorations and correlating them with local traditions of manufacture, sacral and mystical features of their objects of interest, names of masters, materials, age etc. I tried but could never become really interested in Indonesian weapons, but I admire their aficionados.



Ariel, it does seem I have a good number of ephiphanies of late.......does this mean Im getting old? :)

I like the Rumpelstiltskin bit!!!!

[ariel]

You are not the only one with epiphanies:-)
But, as they say, not always wisdom comes with old age, sometimes old age comes alone.And.....youth is wasted on the young.

[fernando]

... But, as they say, not always wisdom comes with old age, sometimes old age comes alone. And.....youth is wasted on the young.
Brilliant ...and so true :cool:.
Another one to be beaten is:
“Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.... “
FZ (1940-1993).

- Herewith an Indo-Portuguese oil painting depicting three Malabar warriors with musket, tulwar, katar, shield an pata. In the back a view of Pangim over the river Mandovi, backed by the fortresses of Aguada and Reis Magos.
(collection Georg Scheder-Bieschin. How i envy this guy :shrug:

... And by the way, pick one of these below... from the said glossary. "Cotari" was the key (in Portuguese).



.

[Rick]

In a way, our Kris colleagues got it right: they are meticulous about naming different pamors and minute details of structure and decorations and correlating them with local traditions of manufacture, sacral and mystical features of their objects of interest, names of masters, materials, age etc.
I dare say we'd be lost in there without nomenclature Ariel.
On the other hand, many features have multiple names depending upon the particular keris culture we are discussing.

[Jim McDougall]

I dare say we'd be lost in there without nomenclature Ariel.
On the other hand, many features have multiple names depending upon the particular keris culture we are discussing.

The keris has to me always been one of the most daunting fields of study, not only for the variety and scope of the form, but the very subjective and powerful traditions held deeply in their tradition. I have always admired the tenacity and dedication of those who have mastered these complexities.

With what I do know of keris study is that the nomenclature does seem pretty clearly set, and while there are dialectic variations in expressing these terms, they do not seem to carry as much dispute as with transliterations and colloquial misunderstandings with other ethnographic forms. If I am not mistaken, my limited foray into the keris field seemed as if the terms were often cross references or noted with variations to eliminate misunderstandings.

That is what I wish could be better accomplished in the study of these various ethnographic forms, to simply cross reference the various terms rather than place an adamant classification which will inevitably be disputed.
As has been said many times, according to ones perspective, the same weapon will be referred to by various terms, and the use of variant terms affords more universal understanding.

As noted, the nomenclature is very essential in the understanding of the complex nature of the keris and its varying forms culturally, just as we study other ethnographic weapon forms in similar manner.

[Mercenary]

.

[Jim McDougall]

Cool.
What is this from, any info? What is the purpose of the image?
Nice to see this thread again, but what are we looking at?

[Mercenary]

Cool.
What is this from, any info? What is the purpose of the image?
Nice to see this thread again, but what are we looking at?

Using of katar. Maybe piercing through the mail.

Illustration from Genghis-nama. Mugals, 16c.
"Turkish tribes slay Jenghiz Khan's ancestors in the Land of Argune-Kun" :)

[Jim McDougall]

Using of katar. Maybe piercing through the mail.

Illustration from Genghis-nama. Mugals, 16c.
"Turkish tribes slay Jenghiz Khan's ancestors in the Land of Argune-Kun" :)

Thank you Mercenary, excellent illustration!!

[ariel]

I agree!
I still remember Mercenary’s posting of pictures of a battle between Persian and Afghani armies showing guardless sabers ( shashkas?) from the era of Nadir Shah.
The only one comparable in its impact was a pic of Baluchistan warriors carrying sabers with camel head-like pommel and a ring. That one was found by Eric ( estcrh).


I know, I know , some pseudoacademic characters may persist in doubting the impact of those iconographic pieces of evidence against the popularly accepted dating of shashkas or the attribution of Hyderabadi swords.

But IMHO they can just go and beat their heads against the Great Wall of China.

My hat is off to these two guys!

[Bob A]

First, I'd like to remark Mercenary's illustration depicting not only the use of katar as armor-piercing weapon, but also to note the soldier being attacked seems to be wielding a jamdhar katari. Two for one!

I have posted below a few poor cellphone pictures.

One illustrates the near-identical distance between the bars of a katar, and those of a jamghar katari. Each is about 8.5cm. However much they may be dissimilar in other ways, the grip size is equivalent. While probably useless as information, a comparison seemed worthwhile.

Other photos illustrate the way that the nature of the grip forces hand position; the weapons are dissimilar in use and function, but they sit in hand identically. Th only difference is the way the blade projects from the hand.

Finally, the thickness, or lack thereof, of the blades is worthy of remark. The jamdhar katari's blade is remarkable for its thinness. This is not a weapon for slaying tigers. I can see it slipping nicely between someone's ribs, though.

Similar names, similar hilts - with a twist - but totally different uses.

Finally, the hilt design of the jamdhar katari is notably similar to that of the chillanum, to my eye at any rate. Of course there are obvious differences, but the underlying concept seems to derive from an archetype common to both. (No chillanum pics, though.) Apologies for the implied derailment here.

[ariel]

Bob,


Agree with you completely. The only similarity between the two is, as you have mentioned, the distance between the bars of the Katar and the upper and lower “ quillons” of the Jamdhar Katari. The explanation is simple: both of them demarcate the grip, the size of which is determined by the width of human fist. Any dagger will have approximately same size grip: chillanum, ch’hura, khanjarli etc.

It is the position of the grip that determines the function, and the transverse positioning of it in case of katars is unique: it is a perfect stabber but an extremely poor slasher.

No matter how Jamdhar Katari and Katar might be similar phonetically or linguistically, they are two different weapons with two different engineering solutions. Linguistics is the only thing that unites them

Once again, I would like to remind Elgood’s definition: “ Jamdhar= Katar”. But that is all that unites them.

What is interesting, IMHO, that blades of South Indian katars were flat to the point that many used a fragment of European rapiers. But the North Indian ones had inherently reinforced points in a manner of Zirah Bouks. Does it suggest that North Indians constructed them with a view to more heavily armored opponents?

[fernando]

Thank you Mercenary, excellent illustration!!
Voilá ... a scene in that katars are not being used in tiger hunting ;)

[Bob A]

What is interesting, IMHO, that blades of South Indian katars were flat to the point that many used a fragment of European rapiers. But the North Indian ones had inherently reinforced points in a manner of Zirah Bouks. Does it suggest that North Indians constructed them with a view to more heavily armored opponents?

An interesting point, so to speak.

I'm not sufficiently versed in battle wear of North or South Indians to come to a conclusion, but I suspect that the further south you travel on the Indian subcontinent, the lighter one's clothing must be. Stabbing through several layers of cloth and leather would require a sturdier blade than one that has little or no barrier between the attacker and the target's flesh.

This begs the question whether my jamdhr katari, with its 2mm blade thickness, hails from a southern area?

For comparison purposes, the thickest section of the katar blade illustrated above is about 9.6mm. The tool, ideally, defines its purpose.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Bob why dont you show us your katar?
Yes the difference of the blades can be big, especially on the early katars, and it could be due to the different way they dressed, but as Henderly wrote, the wounds from katars were very bad, I think he must have meant the wounds from the katars with the armourpiersing tips.

[ariel]

Wasn’t “ bad wound” a desired effect of using katars for their alleged main function, i.e. tiger hunting?:-)

Fernando, we seem to be on the same page ( both literally and figuratively).

[fernando]

...Fernando, we seem to be on the same page ( both literally and figuratively).

;)

[ariel]

An interesting point, so to speak.



This begs the question whether my jamdhr katari, with its 2mm blade thickness, hails from a southern area?

For comparison purposes, the thickest section of the katar blade illustrated above is about 9.6mm. The tool, ideally, defines its purpose.

Bob,
Your last sentence perfectly captures the gist of this discussion. Engineering construction of any well-developed weapon is the strongest indicator of its intended mode of action. This, IMHO, is perfectly reflected in the Persian name of short bladed daggers with reinforced point: Zirah Bouk, Mail Piercer, a purely function-describing approach.

This is also why attempts to propose evolution of Ch’hura from “Karud” as a consequence of transitioning from real mail to padded clothing makes no sense: their blades are indistinguishable, and better defined lower stop of the Ch’hura’s handle further prevents hand sliding during stabbing action.

Why were Jamadhar Katari blades thin? I do not think that can serve as the evidence of its Southern origin; rather I would be interested to know whether mail was widespread in Kafiristan early on.

Any information?

[Jim McDougall]

In looking into the 'jamadhar-katari' there are a number of things to consider about these daggers as far as ethnographically as well as martially (in manner of use).
These were weapons of the Kafir tribes of Hindu Kush, regions of Eastern Afghanistan near Chitral areas. This region was known historically as Kafiristan as the tribes (collectively Kafirs) practiced an animist religion nominally with Hindu associations. When Pushtuns invaded and eventually converted many these areas became known as Nuristan.
The tribes relocated to avoid conversion to Islam, and here it becomes complicated. There are tribes known as Kalash believed to descend from the Kafirs in Chitral, while other Kafirs known as Siah-Posh (back robes) are in other areas (who claim they are not 'directly related to the Kalash).

Apparently these Kafir tribes were not easily subdued, probably mostly for their guerilla style warfare, and they were known for use of axes, bow and arrow, as well as the dagger. In images I have seen of one holding a dagger, it is like a 'fist' dagger grasped for downward stab.

I would note here an interesting detail, the tribes of Kafirs had of course different names, and one tribe decribed were known as the 'Katars'
This was found in an online reference about the Kafirs of Nuristan.
One of the sources listed was "Notes on Kafiristan" by H,G.Raferty , 1859.

In considering the construction of these jamadhar katari it seems there is concern directed to the thinness of the blade. It would appear these daggers have, like the khanjhar in Arabia, become a status symbol worn by men as an element of traditional wear. Obviously, these accoutrements are not made with the same martial soundness as earlier weapons intended for combat.

It does not seem like these Kafir tribes fought in pitched combat formations and as noted used bow and arrow and axes, with these daggers probably in close quarter contact. I would look forward to others insight into the case for use of mail by their opponents, but I strongly doubt that the Pashtuns who primarily fought them wore such armor.

[fernando]

... What is interesting, IMHO, that blades of South Indian katars were flat to the point that many used a fragment of European rapiers. But the North Indian ones had inherently reinforced points in a manner of Zirah Bouks. Does it suggest that North Indians constructed them with a view to more heavily armored opponents?
I will humbly look forward to hear those knowledgeable (as you are) opining that, the different type of blades (reinforced or flat tipped) is more a circumstantial choice (read resource) than a selective one, thus armour piercing not being the obliging factor. As an example would be the Mahratas, being more in contact with Europeans, whether capturing their blades in combat or acquiring them in trade.
I have read someone (gratuitously) saying that, the reinforced tip does not necessarily have more efficacy in piercing armor than narrow and slender blades, their primary function being that of preventing them from bending or breaking, such is the force applied to their thrust.

[Jim McDougall]

In rereading some of this thread, I came across some notes I had made last February (#156), concerning the use of these daggers by the Kafirs, and that the distinction of the term jamadhar katari apparently derived through Egerton (1880) in some confusion on weapon descriptions.

As I noted, the dagger form we are apparently referring to as used by the Kafirs is termed a katarah (or katara) by the Kafirs, as I found in the 1999 book "Kafirs of Hindu Kush: A Study of the Waigal and Ashkun Kafirs" by Max Klimburg.

Many salient facts and notes are often lost in the volume of these long standing threads so sometimes helpful to bring forward certain notes for the benefit of current readers.

These katara daggers, at least the ones I have seen are not 'armor piercing' blades, but more leaf shaped straight, or with slightly curved khanjhar like blades.

I think we are confusing these apparently mistermed jamadhar-katari with the katar (jamdhar) of northern regions (Rajasthan, Lahore etc.) which indeed had malle perce (reinforced) tip blades. The katars of the Deccan and southern regions did indeed use fragments of European blades for katars, but these were not typically 'rapier' blades but those of the heavier European arming swords. The use of actual narrow rapier blades was it seems usually confined to full size khanda type swords intended more as prestigious court type weapons in my view.

[Jim McDougall]

As I have noted previously, this is a pretty monumental thread, begun with Stan S. who was posting thoughts on the JAMADHAR KATARI in April of 2012.This drifted into a 4 year chat on the katar, and lost sight of the original query on these jamadhar katari daggers.

In my previous post I noted that the jamadhar katari term seems to have come from Egerton (1880, #344,345) where he uses this to describe these H shape hilt daggers. They are curiously noted as from Nepal.

As has been noted many times over as many years here, the term katar was apparently somehow used by Egerton to describe the transverse grip 'punch' daggers which according to Pant (1980) are properly termed 'jamadhar'.

The original post by Stan some 5 years ago observes that along with the confusion in terms to these two dagger forms, he suggests that perhaps the grip or hand hold has a similarity, though in different disposition as far as position.

Some years ago while researching with a German colleague on the Kafirs and their unique weapons and culture, I was shown numbers of these daggers, which in actuality are termed 'katarah'. These are as I describe in the previous post yesterday, used in areas of Afghanistan to the east by Kafirs (also Kalash) and their tribal groups in Chital to Nuristan.
Apparantly these were held in a fisted grasp, indeed much like the 'katar' and the bar like pommel and crossguard form similar support afforded to the hand of the wielder by the side bars.
(see attached of Kafir man holding one).
Also attached are the entries in Egerton (1880) with the daggers illustrated accordingly.

Also: Regarding the curious attribution to Nepal. My German friend would often travel to Nepal to acquire weapons, and gathering quite a number of these there. Apparently there was a notable diaspora of Kafirs out of the Nuristan regions when subjugated by Abdur Rahman in the late 1890s, however there must have been a flow of them to Nepal prior to this as Egerton did his research many years prior to this. The reason for the movement was of course the Kafir folk religion and avoidance of conversion to Islam. They were animists as well as closer to Hinduism, which along with Buddhism was prevalent in Nepal.
Attaching also examples of katarah (jamdhar katari) .

[fernando]

The use of actual narrow rapier blades was it seems usually confined to full size khanda type swords intended more as prestigious court type weapons in my view.
Ah ... Jim, don't forget the pata, often mounted with European blades. My late example had a long slim one (960X25 m/m).

[Jim McDougall]

Ah ... Jim, don't forget the pata, often mounted with European blades. My late example had a long slim one (960X25 m/m).

Yes indeed, I had overlooked noting that pata also sometimes received rapier blades.

[fernando]

Yes indeed, I had overlooked noting that pata also sometimes received rapier blades.
Many times, definitely ... thin and flexible :o.

[Jim McDougall]

Many times, definitely ... thin and flexible :o.

Exactly, which is why they would not have served well for a katar. Whether on khanda or pata, these blades were strictly prestige oriented as there were no provisions for European fencing techniques in indian swordsmanship.

[Bob A]

Having made an effort to look into Kafiristani costumery, I admit my thought that the thinner blade of the Jamdhar katari is not influenced by scanty dress. Those folks live in an area demanding reasonable-to-serious clothing.

My example was deemed to be early 17th century by Artzi, and is in fact rather different from the later examples, with regard to the hilt geometry. Assuming the kafiristan location attributed to these weapons, I have to assume that their blades are standard and of long standing. I'm still unsure of their intended function, given the nature of the weapon. I assume it would be just the thing for close-in assassination; aside from that I'd be hard pressed to think what to do with it.

All that said, it remains a very attractive dagger.

[Bob A]

Pics of my katars per request:

I thought I'd append extra information. The Jamdhar katari weighs 215grams; the scalloped katar is 347g; the big nasty one is in excess of 610 gram (I misplaced my scale-extender for the balance. Probably <700g).

[Jim McDougall]

Pics of my katars per request:

I thought I'd append extra information. The Jamdhar katari weighs 215grams; the scalloped katar is 347g; the big nasty one is in excess of 610 gram (I misplaced my scale-extender for the balance. Probably <700g).


Bob, which of these is presumed to be a jamadhar katari? Please see my post #244 just a few before this. It presents the jamadhar katari dilemma created prior to 1880 by Egerton with the misnomer.

These daggers are both katars, and as far as I know, these have nothing to with the Kafirs we have been discussing. Both of these appear to have the bolstered points. Did Artzi give more specific details on perhaps the regions these are from?


Attached is the dagger referred to as jamadhar katari (1880) which is actually a Kafir 'katarah'.


A comparison of KATAR and JAMADHAR KATARI from the OP from April, 2012 here.
I just wanted to illustrate the difference between the two weapons.
I will avoid elaborating on the proper terms for these two daggers so as not to confuse things further.

[fernando]

..., Whether on khanda or pata, these blades were strictly prestige oriented as there were no provisions for European fencing techniques in indian swordsmanship.
May i fully disagree, Jim. On the contrary, patas were mainly used in the field, despite requiring exclusively oriented training on their own, the reason why these formidable Mahrata swords were not adopted by other nations. Prestige orientation was not the issue.
The deliberate flexibility of the blade, with a length varying from 120 to a 150 centimeters, was an added advantage, because if it hit across a hard or resistant object, it merely bent over and thus prevented the rider from being unhorsed. You are surely aware of Egerton quoting Capt. Mundys journal, recounting a demonstration of the pata: The gauntlet sword whose blade fully 5 feet long in the hands of a practiced swordsman appears a terrible weapon, though to those unaccustomed to its use, it is but an awkward instrument ... the performer describing a variety of revolutions, not unlike an exaggerated waltz.
These assumptions are not distant from those of Rainer Daehnhardt, who also emphasizes the need for special training of these ideal (SIC) swords.

[Jim McDougall]

May i fully disagree, Jim. On the contrary, patas were mainly used in the field, despite requiring exclusively oriented training on their own, the reason why these formidable Mahrata swords were not adopted by other nations. Prestige orientation was not the issue.
The deliberate flexibility of the blade, with a length varying from 120 to a 150 centimeters, was an added advantage, because if it hit across a hard or resistant object, it merely bent over and thus prevented the rider from being unhorsed. You are surely aware of Egerton quoting Capt. Mundys journal, recounting a demonstration of the pata: The gauntlet sword whose blade fully 5 feet long in the hands of a practiced swordsman appears a terrible weapon, though to those unaccustomed to its use, it is but an awkward instrument ... the performer describing a variety of revolutions, not unlike an exaggerated waltz.
These assumptions are not distant from those of Rainer Daehnhardt, who also emphasizes the need for special training of these ideal (SIC) swords.


Are we still talking about European 'rapier blades'??? These thin blades for civilian combat/dueling/fencing were entirely inadequate on the battlefield, which was why swords with similar hilts/guards began having 'arming' blades. These were heavier blades, wider and still flexible.

I have no problem with the actual viability and skills of Indian swordsmen with pata and khanda, but with narrow, thin rapier blades (as in cup hilt rapiers)? I have seen and had many 'firangi' pata and khanda with good size blades, and have always been impressed with the way they were used as such. From what I have understood, the Marathas had great disdain for the thrust, which of course was the primary function of the rapier blades I was referring to.

[Bob A]

Jim, neither of the two katars in the post responding to a request for pics of my katar are jamdhal kataris, nor did either of them come through Artzi.

I thought I might as well illustrate both of the katars I have at present, since the scalloped one is unusual and attractive, and I bethought myself that it would be of some interest to folk here.

My jamdhal katari came from Artzi recently, and is illustrated in my earlier post on the topic.

I understand the confusion which currently reigns supreme on the topic, and the emotions which sometimes are inspired by the Name Game; this is of little interest to me just now. My interest is driven by the nature of the jamhhal katari and its reason for being.

My current understanding is that it hails from Kafiristan, or Nuristan, or whatever the region might be called, which refuted my earlier speculation regarding a more southerly origin, which appears to be erroneous.

I took the liberty of mentioning chillanum, due to the nature of the hilts having passing similarity. Again, following the lead of the OP in indulging in speculation which might strike a spark, perhaps leading to some insight. Or it might just be a passing derailment of our trains of thought.

I'm further interested, viewing examples early and late, in the gradual evolution of the hilt design, and questioning whether these changes represent evolution or devolution of design as a function of utility. Seem to me, based merely on appearance of later examples, that the earlier ones would be more utilitarian, while still being more elegantly rendered than the later examples.

If there is interest, I'd gladly post up more pics of my jamdhal katari (so called) to illustrate the nature of the hilt. While photos are available on Artzi's site, I continue to be charmed by the various treatments seen in the hilt - which seems to be hollow, which contributes to its remarkable (lack of) mass.

If I have contributed more than my share of confusion to the subject, I either apologise or accept credit for extending the breadth of the dialogue, whichever might be found appropriate.

[Jim McDougall]

Bob, thank you for the thoughtful and well expressed explanation, and now I can see we are pretty much on the same page.
There has always been a degree of confusion on these pages, mostly simple misunderstandings or that often people post without reading what has previously been said. With threads of this size and duration it is understandable as few care to read back through sometimes years of dialogue.

While I have reread this thread I overlooked the jamadhar katari that you mention and your well placed observation on the similar holds of this and the katar. Actually that was what I had I mind when I posted the image of the Kafir man holding one of these.

As I had described earlier, my research on the Kafirs began nearly 20 years ago with a colleague in Germany researching their axes. I became even more intrigued by watching the movie "Man Who Would be King" based on Kipling's writing and focused on Kafiristan.

Later I became connected with a Kalash man here in the US but intent on preserving the culture and language of his people now in Chitral.

The chilanum comparison is a fair one, and these jamadhar katari have some resemblance, but as you note, the chilanum is it seems farther south.

The jamadhar katari, though I regret having to defer to the maddening name game, I think we need to clear up.

These are actually 'katarah' (jamadhar thing is totally Egerton)….and the katar (transverse grips) is a jamadhar. With katar, the term has become too 'died in the wool' to change, so we keep calling them that.

With the KATARAH, these are little known and unlikely to cause great disturbance in the collectors lexicon by using this simpler term instead of the compound.

These have been around for some time, and I have even seen examples with the Afghan state seal etc. As with most traditional weapons, earlier ones were of course more utilitarian, becoming less so and more decorative in recent times.

The Hindu Kush regions of Afghanistan to the east are where the lands of these people historically were termed Kafiristan, but after subjugation by Abdur Rahman in 1890s, were named Nuristan.
The Kalash people primarily in Chitral are deemed loosely aligned with the Kafirs, but more research needed there. Diffusion in these regions is of course complex.

Hopefully what I have noted may help in some degree, and clearly I need to retrace these details myself again..its been too many years.

[ariel]

I am with Fernando.
Mahratta irregular cavalry was a very disorganized bunch: none of the British Light Brigade iron discipline or Mongolian tightly coordinated feint attacks. They just rode full gallop without any order, clashed with the opposing force , slashed two or three times , and turned back full speed. Their mass-produced Patas ( Portuguese “paws”? Fernando, how am I doing?) were very flexible , designed to slash and bounce, distantly reminiscent of South Indian/ Sri Lankan Urumi.
My Pata is so flexible, that if an opponent tries to parry the cut with his sword, my blade will just bend around it and hit him behind the block.

These attacks must have left behind very few dead , but multiple wounded and disabled men and horses.

[ariel]

This particular name game ( jamadhar vs. katar) is not very productive unless based on extremely thorough knowledge of Great Indian linguistics.
Currently, Indian government accepts 22 official languages and 6 special ones. Overall, there are 122 major languages, and 1599 “other” languages.
Thirty languages are spoken by more than a million “native speakers”, and 122 by more than 10,000. How many simply vanished over the past 1000 years is a scary thought.

Different weapons might have been given similarly sounding names and same weapons - differently sounding ones. Mysore/ Haiderabadi Bich’hwa, Baku from Kannada and Marathi Vinchu - are the same weapon. So is Jamdhar and Katar, but in different locations. Add to it transliterations by the British: Seilawa in Afghanistan and sailaba in Deccan, - almost identical weapons, but the former one became known as Khyber knife, and the latter is so esoteric, that only devoted readers of Elgood’s Glossary know what it means.

These questions must be left to professional linguists who, on top of their deep knowledge of languages, are thoroughly familiar with long and complicated history of India, population migrations, conquests, subjugations etc., as well as with weapons themselves. This is a tall order, but anything less than that will only lead to embarrassing “ discoveries” . We have had some of those published here and that’s enough already.

[fernando]

Are we still talking about European 'rapier blades'??? These thin blades for civilian combat/dueling/fencing were entirely inadequate on the battlefield, which was why swords with similar hilts/guards began having 'arming' blades. These were heavier blades, wider and still flexible.

I have no problem with the actual viability and skills of Indian swordsmen with pata and khanda, but with narrow, thin rapier blades (as in cup hilt rapiers)? I have seen and had many 'firangi' pata and khanda with good size blades, and have always been impressed with the way they were used as such. From what I have understood, the Marathas had great disdain for the thrust, which of course was the primary function of the rapier blades I was referring to.
Perhaps the best is to call off the 'rapier' concept from the conversation, due to the amplitude within which the term may navigate. In the extreme, rapier (ropera) blades can be extremely thin, even diamond section and tense like spikes, with points like tooth picks ... but also non troppo.
Patas could (should) be relatively flat narrow... flexible and long, with lengths even greater than regular European blades of the period. Commissioned for the purpose to Venetian and Portuguese traders, exception (possibly) made for those of swords captured in earlier times (end XV beg. XVI Centuries), as then these were not lengthier than the ones used in Europe ... pass the off mark examples.
Blades occasionally made locally were more to the junk side.

.

[fernando]

Their mass-produced Patas ( Portuguese “paws”? Fernando, how am I doing?) were very flexible , designed to slash and bounce, distantly reminiscent of South Indian/ Sri Lankan Urumi...
Well said Ariel ... the translation, but not the attribution, i am afraid.
I would rather tend to the version in which the patá (पट) comes from the "Pathans, a subdivision of the Kchatrya cast, or Indian warriors, devoted to military life, in his fatherland as in other nations" (Friar Sebastião Manrique 1590 -1669). But i wouldn't put my hand on the chopping block for that ... even my (already) chopped off one :rolleyes: .

[Jens Nordlunde]

Are we now discussing patas, should they not be discussed on another thread?

[fernando]

Don't get upset Jens; diverting a bit doesn't hurt ! We are still in Indian weapons ;) .
Back on track, then :shrug: .

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hmmm - may be.

[Jim McDougall]

I agree with Jens, this discussion has gone 'nomadic' wandering off into the realm of the khanda and pata, which can be traced to the comment by Ariel (#214) noting the use of 'fragments of European rapiers' mounted in South Indian katars.

This comment developed 'legs' with my note (#223)in response suggesting that these katars noted were mounted indeed with fragments of European blades, but NOT of rapiers but full size arming blades. What took the wind was that I suggested that instances of use of the mounting of the thin rapier blades (fencing type) were likely for prestigious court weapons such as some khanda. I admit that I cannot now recall a khanda (firangi) with such a rapier blade.

Fernando (#225) then notes not to forget the pata with' European' blades (quoting my comment on rapier blades).

The discussion then devolves into the non sequiter debate on the skills and dexterity of Indian swordsmen with the pata, loosing track of the 'rapier' blade matter which brought these weapons into the mix.

I would simply say here, my mention of European 'rapier' blades was toward the VERY thin and narrow blades of 'rapiers' , those of swept hilt and cup hilt form, which were intended for civilian wear, and use in fencing (duels) etc.
These were NOT used as a rule in combat situations for obvious reasons, presumably these were so thin and narrow they would snap in the type of action required. I anxiously await being shown that description invalid.

Getting to the often contentious name game, the term rapier was often indiscriminately applied to swords in these times which had similar type hilts but the blades were much wider and more substantial (arming blades).

My remark on khanda or pata hilts with rapier blades as 'prestigious' character weapons may have been too broadly placed...…...and the references I have found note (usually pata) mounted with such 'rapier' blades (the exact character in heft unknown) were often used in demonstrations of skill of use, but not in field combat. It was noted that it was surprising that these were not more widely adopted (Pant).

I hope that will effectively close the rapier/pata /khanda chapter in this discussion on the JAMADHAR/KITARI, and that Bob and readers will accept my apologies for perpetuating the irrelevant 'rapier' issue. :)

[ariel]

Jim,
You have perfectly described the course of any freewheeling discussion: they tend to veer off in unexpected directions and then happily return back on track. This is one of the charming features of this Forum, although sometimes it may get rather annoying.

Steady as she goes, boys!

[Jim McDougall]

Jim,
You have perfectly described the course of any freewheeling discussion: they tend to veer off in unexpected directions and then happily return back on track. This is one of the charming features of this Forum, although sometimes it may get rather annoying.

Steady as she goes, boys!

Roger that Ariel!!! I like that ….'freewheeling' :)
Actually I'm Ok with that idea, but sometimes some really good stuff, like this rapier blades on patas thing, get lost under the heading jamadhar kitari.

Actually I've been learning a lot on that as Ive kept researching it, and have found khandas with what appear to be rapier blades, and that patas did have them too. Years ago I read somewhere that Marathas disdained the thrust and only subscribed to slashing cuts...……..it sure would appear that's wrong.
So there's the beauty of conflict and different views...…..there are things to be learned. …..possibly this becomes a topic for its own thread.

Regardless, I see your point, and well stated.
Steady on boys :)

[Bob A]

This thread opened on a speculative note, and seems to have benefited from observations and excursions into the surrounding thoughtscape. One never knows what piece of information might strike a spark and illuminate the darkness, or what might be found therein.

Tangential byways sometimes lead to serendipitous discoveries, though I hasten to admit that Serendip is probably too southerly to be considered relevant to the subject(s) herein under discussion.

[Jim McDougall]

Tangential byways sometimes lead to serendipitous discoveries, though I hasten to admit that Serendip is probably too southerly to be considered relevant to the subject(s) herein under discussion.[/QUOTE]


LOL! VERY cleverly put Bob! :)
I am glad we all agree that certain expansions and tangents in a discussion can often lead to key discoveries on a particular subject which may not have otherwise be found. I know that in research I have often found answers in unrelated places, almost in a bizarre circumstance at times...…..and indeed in the 'Serendip' realm.

Personally I feel I am learning a lot from our discussion here, and before returning to the jamadhar-kitari, I wanted to note that the 'rapier' excursion has revealed that some of my perceptions on these blades being used in khanda and pata were apparently patently incorrect.

Much of this derived from some 'chestnut' I read somewhere that claimed that the Marathas in swordsmanship despised the thrust, and preferred slashing cuts alone. That was clearly not entirely true as I have been finding references which not only pictured and noted rapier blades on these weapons, but clearly compelled the fact that they must have been used for thrusting. On that note I am opening a separate thread on this topic.

Returning to the jamadhar-kitari (KATARAH) , a line illustration of one of these is depicted in Pant ("Indian Arms & Armour", 1980, p.174, fig. 532) where Pant refers to the Egerton (1880, p.102) entries noting these as daggers of the Kafirs of Hindu Kush. Here Pant suggests these daggers were actually popular all over North India and Nepal from 16th through 18th centuries.
Here Pant further attributes this material to Stone (1934, p.314, fig. 398).

I would note here that this diffusion of the form is of course not surprising, as we have discussed the disparity between the animist/Hindu religion of the Kafir and related tribes of the Hindu Kush regions and the Muslim regime intent on subduing them. The diaspora of these tribes surely carried to form widely in many directions.

[Mercenary]

In the 16th century in India there were a lot of not only tigers :)

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Reference;
A. http://atkinson-swords.com/collection-by-region/indian-subcontinent/pakistan/chilanum/
B. http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17459


The webpage at Reference A gives a great summary on this weapon and the people who used it. The web page illustrates the weapon below against a grey background and hilt at the top...as being a single piece molding rather than a pinned blade...

The weapon below with the spear shaped blade is from Reference B. which also gives a fascinating word terminology of its meaning at #18 which I must place here in full by bhushan_lawate . Six Years Ago !

The "Jamdhar" is a loose distortion of "Yamadaushtra" and evolved in the following way:

1. Yama (Lord of death per the Hindus) + Daushtra (tooth in Sanskrit)

which became - Yama + Dadh or "Jamdhad"

which is now "Jamdhar"

It is also used synonymous to Katars in some places in India.