I'm glad to see you in on this Jens! Thank you for the Hendley data , which is most helpful material and I had forgotten about that resource. The information on the katar also is outstanding and I knew there was material about earlier presence of the katar that we had discussed long ago, but did not recall Ibn Batuta's narrative. I think one of the concerns was that going by the term 'katar' in such an early narrative are the possibilities that the weapon form so described may have been different than we picture it. It seems there is a weapon shown as 'katar' (I think in Pant?) that is a standard hilted knife or dagger, from northern India regions. Pant was of course stating elsewhere in his "Indian Arms and Armour" that the correct term for the katar was actually 'jemadhar', and the original error in application occurred in Egerton.
I still agree that the katar as a weapon in its transversely gripped form was a much earlier weapon as you note, but where in the world did this idea come from? We know that so many weapon influences entered India from other places, noteably China, Persia for example, with European influences much later around 16th c. but such transverse grips do not occur outside the subcontinent ..aside from the mysterious 'manople' which remains simply an anomaly.
Fernando,
Thank you for adding the excellent detail! and some very good data on the terminology for the pata. The only etymology I was aware of was the term Pata deriving from Hindi (= long straight leaf) suggesting the long straight broadsword blades. I had not seen the Wikipedia entry noting the term as it is typically pronounced and surprisingly indicating a Portuguese apparantly colloquial term for horse hoof. That would make sense as the use of Portuguese blades was so prevalent in these and of course the 'firangi' or khanda (that term supposedly referring to 'foreigner' or more specifically Portuguese). The Portuguese may well have viewed these heavily enclosed gauntlet hilts as clumsy considering thier preference for thier own intricately fashioned guards on the rapiers they presumably carried, and the horse hoof term was likely meant somewhat derisively.
I had not thought of the Pathans being associated with the weapon as most of the focus on its use is applied in more southern regions with the Marathas the group primarily associated with the pata. It is of course known that, as Daehnhardt has noted, the Pathans were indeed warriors of numerous tribes in the north that did often serve as mercenaries for the Mughals. While I am aware that the pata did find use in limited degree far the the north, I am not aware that it would have been used by Pathans. I am inclined not to consider the Pathan term for a source for the etymology of the term for this sword type. Regardless, good observation!!
I am unclear on who the military monks of Jeypore were, and am not aware of Nagan use of the pata....can we clarify who these were and can anyone provide more on the Nagans?
Also, there seems to be variations of the term Maratha/ Mahratta. Why the difference in spelling and is one considered more correct than the other?
Were Rajputs known to have used the pata? We know of course they used the khanda/ or Hindu basket hilt.
Best regards,
Jim