Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

B.I · 5th January 2005, 10:48 PM

hi jens,
its strange that the most common of indian weapons is one that has never really been properly researched (apart from your own continuously valiant efforts). the dagger had not variated much in 400 years, from the mid 16th to the late 19th and for this reason alone, i think people are wary to take on the academic burden of written commitment. its form, as you say, differs from north regions to that of the south and this is understandable, given the different influences each region had. if you accept the weapon to be of hindu decent, then hundreds of years of influence from the moghul north and the sultanate south had imprinted the slight variations. these variations are indeed slight, if you discount the obvious difference of a handguard. people tend to assume that just the hooded katars are of the south and the plain 'H' shape grip is of the north. the hooded handguard seems to be a hybrid of the pata, or as i have speculated in the past, a development of an earlier weapon, of which the katar developed from as well. i say this is speculation due to no hard evidence, apart from crude or worn sculpture that hold strange weapons whose form seems to have not survived in real pieces. a type od standard H shaped katar existed in the south as well and this was a variant of the northern version, with subtle differences.
as for what is a katar, this is again down to the individual. i have always been of the opinion that i can call a weapon by any name if this name allows the person i am talking to to understand what i am talking about. i know others will disagree, but i have never held any interest in terminology, and have seen many discussions stop at this debate and go no further. i use the word katar loosely to refer to anything katar shaped that isnt a definate guantlet. this includes hooded katars of all lengths. it would be good to remember that egerton and hendley both spent many years in india (as well as cole, irving, watt etc) and held exhaulted positions with access to the many weapons of the time as this is where their passions lay. if they could not agree on terminology and they were there at the time, then it must make this unimportant today in the grander scheme of things.
back to the katars shape, the katars of the south (the unhooded ones) tended to have quite subtantial armour piercing blades as well. due to fashion and availability, european blades were widely used but they also used native blades as well. another point, especially as my passion is armour

the moghuls and rajputs tended to wear a lighter style of armour, especially into the 18thC. miniatures rarely show heavy armour, even those of the 16th/17thC and it is thought that the miniatures showed silk gowns that were laced on the inside with chainmail. some of these exist in the reserves at the V&A. even deccani miniatures tend to ignore the heavy armour, although we know that heavy armour was used, especially in the south. the bikaner armour is evidence of this. for this reason, armour piercing was as important in the south, if not more so. the nature of the katar as a weapon (in any length) lends to a heavy force that would pierce through armour, maybe even without the swollen tip. as the links in armour tended to be butted into the 18thC and definately the 19thC, where armour was almost pointless in the advent of firarms as a more available weapon, the armour piercing tip would have been good, but not necessarily essential.
the make up of early armour shows a need to protect the upper torso against a thrust, and for this reason it was appropriately thickened, and in some cases, the chainmail was doubled over. i am guessing this wouldnt be necessary for a sword slash. again, the martial aspect is not my interest and so will leave that for others.
interesting to note the form described in the late 19thC (from the 'seir mutaqherin of the mid 18thC - translated by haji mustapha) who says of the katar -
'a poignard peculiar to india made with a hilt, whose two branches extend along the arm, so as to shelter the arm and part of the hand. the blade is very thick with two cutting edges, having a breadth of three inches at the hilt and a solid point of about one inch in breadth. the blade cannot be bent and is so stiff that nothing will stop it but a cuirass. the total length is 2 to 2.5 feet, one half of this being the blade.'

your insistance on bringing indian weapons forward is appreciated, as always.

5th January 2005, 10:48 PM	#4
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi jens, its strange that the most common of indian weapons is one that has never really been properly researched (apart from your own continuously valiant efforts). the dagger had not variated much in 400 years, from the mid 16th to the late 19th and for this reason alone, i think people are wary to take on the academic burden of written commitment. its form, as you say, differs from north regions to that of the south and this is understandable, given the different influences each region had. if you accept the weapon to be of hindu decent, then hundreds of years of influence from the moghul north and the sultanate south had imprinted the slight variations. these variations are indeed slight, if you discount the obvious difference of a handguard. people tend to assume that just the hooded katars are of the south and the plain 'H' shape grip is of the north. the hooded handguard seems to be a hybrid of the pata, or as i have speculated in the past, a development of an earlier weapon, of which the katar developed from as well. i say this is speculation due to no hard evidence, apart from crude or worn sculpture that hold strange weapons whose form seems to have not survived in real pieces. a type od standard H shaped katar existed in the south as well and this was a variant of the northern version, with subtle differences. as for what is a katar, this is again down to the individual. i have always been of the opinion that i can call a weapon by any name if this name allows the person i am talking to to understand what i am talking about. i know others will disagree, but i have never held any interest in terminology, and have seen many discussions stop at this debate and go no further. i use the word katar loosely to refer to anything katar shaped that isnt a definate guantlet. this includes hooded katars of all lengths. it would be good to remember that egerton and hendley both spent many years in india (as well as cole, irving, watt etc) and held exhaulted positions with access to the many weapons of the time as this is where their passions lay. if they could not agree on terminology and they were there at the time, then it must make this unimportant today in the grander scheme of things. back to the katars shape, the katars of the south (the unhooded ones) tended to have quite subtantial armour piercing blades as well. due to fashion and availability, european blades were widely used but they also used native blades as well. another point, especially as my passion is armour the moghuls and rajputs tended to wear a lighter style of armour, especially into the 18thC. miniatures rarely show heavy armour, even those of the 16th/17thC and it is thought that the miniatures showed silk gowns that were laced on the inside with chainmail. some of these exist in the reserves at the V&A. even deccani miniatures tend to ignore the heavy armour, although we know that heavy armour was used, especially in the south. the bikaner armour is evidence of this. for this reason, armour piercing was as important in the south, if not more so. the nature of the katar as a weapon (in any length) lends to a heavy force that would pierce through armour, maybe even without the swollen tip. as the links in armour tended to be butted into the 18thC and definately the 19thC, where armour was almost pointless in the advent of firarms as a more available weapon, the armour piercing tip would have been good, but not necessarily essential. the make up of early armour shows a need to protect the upper torso against a thrust, and for this reason it was appropriately thickened, and in some cases, the chainmail was doubled over. i am guessing this wouldnt be necessary for a sword slash. again, the martial aspect is not my interest and so will leave that for others. interesting to note the form described in the late 19thC (from the 'seir mutaqherin of the mid 18thC - translated by haji mustapha) who says of the katar - 'a poignard peculiar to india made with a hilt, whose two branches extend along the arm, so as to shelter the arm and part of the hand. the blade is very thick with two cutting edges, having a breadth of three inches at the hilt and a solid point of about one inch in breadth. the blade cannot be bent and is so stiff that nothing will stop it but a cuirass. the total length is 2 to 2.5 feet, one half of this being the blade.' your insistance on bringing indian weapons forward is appreciated, as always. Last edited by B.I; 5th January 2005 at 11:41 PM.