Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
I am not so pessimistic and dismissive about the value of the already existing books and articles. Purely statistically, only 2.5% of all published stuff is of tangible value. The bottom line,- choose what you want to read:-)
I find Jens’ paper “ How old is the Katar?” belonging to these 2.5%. It gives more actual historical information than anything I have gotten from the rest or books I have in my library. Of course, it is purely factual as are all historical studies: one cannot perform an experiment to validate one’s historical hypothesis , as is the norm in physics, physiology, engineering etc.
But I would strongly advise any person aspiring to re-write the “book” on the Katar to read it carefully.
One could notice that in the 12 century book “Pritviraj Raso” there already was a term for double- edged objects: dodhara ( just like the saw-edged objects aradam and arapusta: Indians were notorious for the obsessive-compulsive approach to precise descriptions). Thanks One could also put into his mental piggy bank that the Sanskritized names of Jamadhara and Katar are mentioned separately , telling us that those were separate ( at least in some way) weapons.
One would have to take the above into account while conducting a novel study of katars. Jens gave a superb basis for future endeavors; we may ignore it at our peril.