Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 10th December 2006, 07:52 PM

This is a truly unusual example of 'katar' and I agree with B.I.'s assessment of southern India. From the look of the patination etc. it shows good age and likely early 19th c. seems probable. I have not ever seen one of these mounted in this manner, with the transverse grips actually fixed handles welded to the plate type handguard. I agree with Andrew that this piece seems 'ceremonial' as the more two dimensional construction with the plate type guard, rather than contoured hand enclosure suggests that. I dont believe the construction seems weak at all, but the ceremonial application seems supported as well by the nagan or serpentine blade form, which in most cases I have seen have been determined to be in this category.

I think the decorative motif on the guard 'plate' may be the best indicator of the provenance of this distinctly unusual piece. The scalloped edges of the upper and lower udges of the guard plate recall the 'cusped arch' seen in the Peacock Gate of the city palace at Jaipur ("Arts and Crafts of India", Cooper & Gillow, 1996, p.147). While this design here may be Hindu, it is also noted that the four cusp design seen at base of the blade on some Vijayanagara period katars (latter 16th c.) reflect similarity to Muslim architecture ("Hindu Arms and Ritual" p.147). The diamond sectioned diaper pattern enclosing a floral motif seems to me key to Mughal form , and possibly Jens can add more on this.

The holes which may be for the addition of padding also suggest this may be a ceremonial item. It would seem to me that padding would be superfluous to the gauntleted hand of an armored warrior, although we do know that many pieces such as the khandas mentioned and of course patas did have pads.
Elgood has suggested (op.cit.p.147) that on many katar examples of the hooded form padding is absent because of no apparant means of attaching it. Possibly, padding only existed on weapons used by the more pedestrian rank and file? where gauntlets and such armor were not available to them.

This seems a very important and key find and I look forward to learning more from it!! Hopefully there will be more observations from B.I. and Jens on the motif and especially what the floral motif depicts.

All the best,
Jim

10th December 2006, 07:52 PM	#13
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,767	This is a truly unusual example of 'katar' and I agree with B.I.'s assessment of southern India. From the look of the patination etc. it shows good age and likely early 19th c. seems probable. I have not ever seen one of these mounted in this manner, with the transverse grips actually fixed handles welded to the plate type handguard. I agree with Andrew that this piece seems 'ceremonial' as the more two dimensional construction with the plate type guard, rather than contoured hand enclosure suggests that. I dont believe the construction seems weak at all, but the ceremonial application seems supported as well by the nagan or serpentine blade form, which in most cases I have seen have been determined to be in this category. I think the decorative motif on the guard 'plate' may be the best indicator of the provenance of this distinctly unusual piece. The scalloped edges of the upper and lower udges of the guard plate recall the 'cusped arch' seen in the Peacock Gate of the city palace at Jaipur ("Arts and Crafts of India", Cooper & Gillow, 1996, p.147). While this design here may be Hindu, it is also noted that the four cusp design seen at base of the blade on some Vijayanagara period katars (latter 16th c.) reflect similarity to Muslim architecture ("Hindu Arms and Ritual" p.147). The diamond sectioned diaper pattern enclosing a floral motif seems to me key to Mughal form , and possibly Jens can add more on this. The holes which may be for the addition of padding also suggest this may be a ceremonial item. It would seem to me that padding would be superfluous to the gauntleted hand of an armored warrior, although we do know that many pieces such as the khandas mentioned and of course patas did have pads. Elgood has suggested (op.cit.p.147) that on many katar examples of the hooded form padding is absent because of no apparant means of attaching it. Possibly, padding only existed on weapons used by the more pedestrian rank and file? where gauntlets and such armor were not available to them. This seems a very important and key find and I look forward to learning more from it!! Hopefully there will be more observations from B.I. and Jens on the motif and especially what the floral motif depicts. All the best, Jim