Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - Jamdhar katari

Jim McDougall · 26th February 2019, 05:36 PM

I don't think there can be any doubt that many cognate words diffused widely through cultures as languages and dialects evolved from the root languages over time.
The use of the term katar, regardless of spelling, is not really in question but it seems that Egerton who wrote his book in over 10 years prior to first publication in 1880 (republished 1896) transposed the term from the jamdhar -kitari to the transverse grip jamdhar (we now call katar).

As we cannot say for sure when, in the years compiling his data Egerton made this error, we can presume it was well prior to 1880.

Prior to this time, in India, these transverse grip daggers were known as jamdhar (= tooth of god of death, or to that effect). I was unaware of the use of the term 'kuttar' in Russia in 1860 in cataloging of the holdings of the Tsarskye Selo arsenal, and would be interested to know what the weapon described looked like.
If this was indeed the transverse grip 'jamdhar' type, then we may establish the error(?) to precede Egerton, and question whether Pant (1980) had sound evidence of the jamdhar term being correct for these in the first place.

We know, from the extensive research Jens has done over many years, that the term katar has been in use since about 13th century and of course for a dagger, but what type we do not know as no illustrations exist until much later.

We know that the "Ain I Akbari" , Abu'l Fazi , written in years 1551-1602, had a 'fist dagger' called 'maustika' looking of course like a rudimentary katar.

The term katar seems well represented in a number of Indian languages , where the Tamil 'kattari' became the Sanskrit 'katara' (the a dropped later).

With the 'katar' term this deeply embedded in various other languages specifically referring to the transverse grip daggers, I cannot help but question if the term jamdhar evolved as an alternate term at some point.

In this case Egerton was right all along, and the combining of the two terms jamdar-kitari to describe these curious daggers was perhaps Egerton trying to use both terms due to the character of the hilts.

While the katar has an 'H' shaped hilt it is vertically oriented and meant to be held transversely.

The jamdhar-kitari has an 'H' shaped hilt which is horizontal, that is meant to be gripped in the traditional dagger manner.

So possibly the 'katar' term has been correctly describing these transverse grip daggers all along...….and the conundrum brought up by Pant in 1980 setting off a red herring that has persisted since.

26th February 2019, 05:36 PM	#184
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,738	I don't think there can be any doubt that many cognate words diffused widely through cultures as languages and dialects evolved from the root languages over time. The use of the term katar, regardless of spelling, is not really in question but it seems that Egerton who wrote his book in over 10 years prior to first publication in 1880 (republished 1896) transposed the term from the jamdhar -kitari to the transverse grip jamdhar (we now call katar). As we cannot say for sure when, in the years compiling his data Egerton made this error, we can presume it was well prior to 1880. Prior to this time, in India, these transverse grip daggers were known as jamdhar (= tooth of god of death, or to that effect). I was unaware of the use of the term 'kuttar' in Russia in 1860 in cataloging of the holdings of the Tsarskye Selo arsenal, and would be interested to know what the weapon described looked like. If this was indeed the transverse grip 'jamdhar' type, then we may establish the error(?) to precede Egerton, and question whether Pant (1980) had sound evidence of the jamdhar term being correct for these in the first place. We know, from the extensive research Jens has done over many years, that the term katar has been in use since about 13th century and of course for a dagger, but what type we do not know as no illustrations exist until much later. We know that the "Ain I Akbari" , Abu'l Fazi , written in years 1551-1602, had a 'fist dagger' called 'maustika' looking of course like a rudimentary katar. The term katar seems well represented in a number of Indian languages , where the Tamil 'kattari' became the Sanskrit 'katara' (the a dropped later). With the 'katar' term this deeply embedded in various other languages specifically referring to the transverse grip daggers, I cannot help but question if the term jamdhar evolved as an alternate term at some point. In this case Egerton was right all along, and the combining of the two terms jamdar-kitari to describe these curious daggers was perhaps Egerton trying to use both terms due to the character of the hilts. While the katar has an 'H' shaped hilt it is vertically oriented and meant to be held transversely. The jamdhar-kitari has an 'H' shaped hilt which is horizontal, that is meant to be gripped in the traditional dagger manner. So possibly the 'katar' term has been correctly describing these transverse grip daggers all along...….and the conundrum brought up by Pant in 1980 setting off a red herring that has persisted since.