Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

B.I · 26th February 2007, 06:59 AM

Hi Jens,
I am not certain that Kishanghar was an armoury like Bikaner. I could have been a collection, which is different. A collection is assembled with thought, whereas an armoury assembled for a purpose. I have a photo of the original Kishanghar 'collection/armoury' but cant show it without the owners permission (its never been published). The photo shows a wide selection of arms, but the way its laid out and displayed, you would think it done asthetically. Since it was (to my knowledge) never a museum, it makes me feel it could have been the collection of the maharaja. Maybe this explains the lavish, and time consuming markings (as apposed the the haphazard marking at Bikaner). But, what collector would mark (damage) their prized pieces in such a way?? Indians of course! Tipu marked his swords, as did the Talpurs. Just an opinion.
Changing the subject quite dramatically (but as this is Jens' post, I know he wont mind) we have discussed the origins and early 'sightings' of the katar in the past. I am away at the moment, and knee deep in Al-Berundi. He mentions The Hindus carrying a dagger in their waist sash, which is called a Khattar (or Khattari). Al-Berundi was in India from 1017-1030, so its an important early mention of this dagger type, and done some few hundred years before Ibn Battuta. Of course, Ibn Battuta gave a vague description, whereas Al-Berundi just mentions the name. We do not know whether a Khattari is a katar, or the name of another form of dagger. But, as I said, I am only knee deep so far. Hope to find out more when I am down to my elbows!! Interesting stuff!

26th February 2007, 06:59 AM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	Hi Jens, I am not certain that Kishanghar was an armoury like Bikaner. I could have been a collection, which is different. A collection is assembled with thought, whereas an armoury assembled for a purpose. I have a photo of the original Kishanghar 'collection/armoury' but cant show it without the owners permission (its never been published). The photo shows a wide selection of arms, but the way its laid out and displayed, you would think it done asthetically. Since it was (to my knowledge) never a museum, it makes me feel it could have been the collection of the maharaja. Maybe this explains the lavish, and time consuming markings (as apposed the the haphazard marking at Bikaner). But, what collector would mark (damage) their prized pieces in such a way?? Indians of course! Tipu marked his swords, as did the Talpurs. Just an opinion. Changing the subject quite dramatically (but as this is Jens' post, I know he wont mind) we have discussed the origins and early 'sightings' of the katar in the past. I am away at the moment, and knee deep in Al-Berundi. He mentions The Hindus carrying a dagger in their waist sash, which is called a Khattar (or Khattari). Al-Berundi was in India from 1017-1030, so its an important early mention of this dagger type, and done some few hundred years before Ibn Battuta. Of course, Ibn Battuta gave a vague description, whereas Al-Berundi just mentions the name. We do not know whether a Khattari is a katar, or the name of another form of dagger. But, as I said, I am only knee deep so far. Hope to find out more when I am down to my elbows!! Interesting stuff!