Ok, back to blades:
Quote:
|
Returning to the royal hunt in India in the light of Teriomachia. When the first person who as a rule considered himself "a great warrior" and "a fearless hunter", fired at a predator and only wounded him, in most cases the predator attacked in response. And then on its way there were alwais specially trained assistants in most cases with katars.
|
Seems like "heroic" deeds where mainly for the younger generation to prove themselves worthy (and/or chosen by god) - also a fairly global feature of human societies. I am in no way belittleing the courage as well as determination of hunters and warriors of old (and of many if not most cultures globally).
Quote:
Because these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s. 
|
So, aside from the probably inconclusive issue of semantics, you base this hypothesis on the possible predominance in paintings (obvious usage in hunting vs. warfare 10:1) only? Does carrying a blade count or does it have to be shown in action? While already having acknowledged that hunts may have been more numerous than battles? For which area on the Indian subcontinent and during which period?
What about early examples from southern India? If only limited to northern India, how do the proportion of blades with thickened tips relate to your hypothesis?
Mind you, I have no stake in this discussion of traditional usage - just trying to understand your reasoning and playing devil's advocate...
Regards,
Kai