Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
Excuse me, but what is the point of this “discussion”?
Is it aimed to prove that Katar was a primarily hunting weapon designed specifically to kill tigers ( or, occasionally, crocodiles and such)?
That from that function Indians got a sudden insight to use this primarily tiger-hunting implement against human enemies?
There are many miniatures showing hunting scenes with sabers used against antelopes. Are we expected to use the Katar analogy to postulate the genesis of a saber as a primarily hunting weapon with only later accidental realization that it can also be used on the battlefield?
Paintings are objects of art, not of science. They are useful only to demonstrate the existence of a particular object at a particular time and ( occasionally) place. The circumstances depicted were the choice of the artist and cannot tell us much ( or anything) about the frequency of such use, genesis of the weapon, or even the veracity of such an encounter.
|
Interesting post. Very interesting. I would like to hear your opinion, are the coins (numismatic) a more serious source than pictures? I heard that some researchers, even on the basis of a single coin, build entire theories about weapons.