...

////

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.

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.

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.

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.

In 1883 Surgeon-Major Th. H. Hendleyi 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 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.

Well, we may not forget it but, it makes no harm to remind it now and then.

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

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.

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.
;)

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.

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


.

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.

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!

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".

Naturally !

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.

The only way it had is because when peasants went through such episodes were not covered by the period press as royals did !

Indeed !

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.

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. ;)

Better not take that road, don't you agree ? ;) .

A rather plausible approach.

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

Ok, Fernando, you beat me to it... :)

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

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.

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.

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

Could you check the difference between Colonization and Colonialism?

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. :(

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

An extemporaneous lament ... maybe
 

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:

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.

Ok, back to blades:

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).


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

Thank you Ariel.
Jens

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

Bravo! Sometimes to understand something someone just need to retell it in your own words.

Bingo!

This is a speculative abstract model.

Biased proportion? It is a fact actually. Take an another proportion of pictures. Could you?

:)

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.


In the future, I can publish only pictures and quotes, but I suppose it still hurts someone

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:
But I try to give here "documentary evidence and local semantics", don't I? :)

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

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

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