Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mahratt
... +2 images with people who kill other people with katar. While the score is 11: 4 in favor of Teriomachia  |
Dear Mahrat, это не игра в футбол
.
You know, i have this impression that you are in a recurrent status of dispute. Better not aim at me, "i am only the piano player"; my entries are no more than a modest contribution and we are not in a court of justice to either prove right or get condemned.
The manequin is not in the book of E. Jaiwant Paul. The picture scan posted from his book (from my little library) is the third one above. E. Jaiwant Paul lives in Delhi; he is a collector and author of five books in the area. All his life he had an interest in arms and armour, inherited from his father as well as his grandfather who served in the Princely States, where swords and daggers were their middle name..
Rainer Dahehnardt has been in India (more than once?) and had contacts with Indian traditional personalities, as we talk about when i visit him.
No, they have not been in India in the XVI-XVIII centuries; neither i have ... nor certainly you
. But they certainly are more documented tan me.
Ibn Battuta was a Moroccan Berber; i doubt of his writing abilities, as his adventures were dictated to his secretary. From among the zillion names given to the katar, i wonder what sound they have chosen to chaligraph; i see there is Tamil kaţţāri (கட்டாரி); also Tamil kuttuvāḷ (குத்துவாள்), adapted into Sanskrit as kaţāra (कट्टार) or kaţārī. Or would they prefer other regional names, like kaṭhāri (ಕಠಾರಿ) in Kannada, kaţāra (കട്ടാര) in Malayalam, kaṭyāra (कट्यार) in Marathi, kaṭār (ਕਟਾਰ) in Panjabi, and kaṭāra (कटार) or kaṭāri in Hindi
I guess however that they would have certainly not chosen the sound Katar, a modern Hindi fashion extended to colonial transliterations.
On the other hand, i don't see how i should not trust Battuta's (secretary) work translator; i trust it as it is ... until further notice.
You put the blame in others believing everything that is written in books; maybe not so. In any case, not all have the privilege to have traveled to India and reach for alternative sources, as i suspect you have
.
The painting in the Met, not properly a miniature with its 43X60 cms.,as i see it, is no more than a mere example of exoteric artwork. I don't know how much you are familiar to crocodiles, as i know there are places out there where natives deftly grab these dangerous reptiles but, if i wanted to discredit someone pretending that Indian big shots go hunting tigers, i would have no better way to put it; the poor croc is so confident that no better snacks (Maharaja and his party mates) come from his vicinity that he finds remedy in swallowing his little fish. I take it that such naivety may take place in both East and West, as long as the artist is compelled to please his lord
Yours humbly
