Jamdhar katari - a theory

[Mercenary]

While the wild eastern countries were thinking about the royal power and the royal hunts, highly cultured western countries began to hunt the eastern countries themselves.

[Mercenary]

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. Because these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

... 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 always specially trained assistants in most cases with katars. Because these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s.

A rather plausible approach.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Returning to the royal hunt in India in the light of Teriomachia.

..... these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s.

What is left, of course, is providing evidence that "their origin and old main purpose" was specifically tiger hunting:-)


Images of brave Indian personalities despatching tigers with katars are ( IMHO) likely to be of mainly glorifying or "advertising" value: bravery of a person fighting supremely dangerous animal one-on-one in close quarters. Multiple Indian miniatures show Rajahs or their close associates on a warpath, in the middle of the battle or just relaxing in the palace and... wearing katars under the belt. These are not hunting scenes and there are no tigers in the vicinity.

The allusion to katars as " tiger hunters" is of dubious value: khanjarli was often referred to as " elephant dagger". But it was not used for hunting elephants: most of them simply had elephant ivory handles ( Orissa was implicated as their origin). A subtype of khanjar with trilobate pommel is routinely called " tiger tooth". Because of the blade reminiscent of tiger's incisor or because of the pommel reminiscent of a molar? Or was it the true "tiger hunter"? A European " boar spear" ( with a horizontal metal "stop") was not necessarily used for boars only. My point is that many weapons had " honorific" monikers.


In general, weapons were developed initially for mixed purpose : both as man-fighting and utilitarian ( hunting included). Subsequently, these functions were largely separated by militarily-developed societies, with only a minority retaining their utilitarian/martial status in less organised societies ( machete in peaceful times, weapon during the war). Purely utilitarian implements are easily recognizable: fishing spear, whaling harpoon, eel catcher, pellet bow etc.

Without delving into documentary evidence and local semantics we are on very shaky grounds.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you Ariel.
Jens

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

What is left, of course, is providing evidence that "their origin and old main purpose" was specifically tiger hunting:-)

Just consider one more opinion. I do not preach here, but just point to circumstances little known in the circle of dealers and collectors.

Images of brave Indian personalities despatching tigers with katars are ( IMHO) likely to be of mainly glorifying or "advertising" value: bravery of a person fighting supremely dangerous animal one-on-one in close quarters.

Bravo! Sometimes to understand something someone just need to retell it in your own words.

My point is that many weapons had " honorific" monikers.

Bingo!

In general, weapons were developed initially for mixed purpose : both as man-fighting and utilitarian ( hunting included). Subsequently, these functions were largely separated by militarily-developed societies, with only a minority retaining their utilitarian/martial status in less organised societies ( machete in peaceful times, weapon during the war). Purely utilitarian implements are easily recognizable: fishing spear, whaling harpoon, eel catcher, pellet bow etc.

This is a speculative abstract model.

[kai]

Ok, back to blades:

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).

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

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by kai

Ok, back to blades:

So, aside from the probably inconclusive issue of semantics, you base this hypothesis on the apparently biased proportion of paintings (obvious usage in hunting vs. warfare) only;

Biased proportion? It is a fact actually. Take an another proportion of pictures. Could you?

What about early examples from southern India?

[kai]

Biased proportion? It is a fact actually.

I wasn't accusing you of introducing any malicious bias - I did rephrase my earlier posting for clarity, hopefully.

Still, if you only count actions scenes while ignoring warriors carrying these blades in a battle scenario (probably not for fun), this will exaggerate any differences. Also you did not answer how you'd suggest to normalize the statistics assuming that hunting was more common than battles...

It's easy to come up with statistics; making probabilities a really convincing case is a tad tougher.

Regards,
Kai

[Mercenary]

OK

The design of katar is the best design to stop the attacking predator. It is more comfortable to wear and use than a heavy spear.

Most of the situations we know where a tiger was stopping are illustrated with the katar.

In India, whether we like it or not, one of its names is "tiger dagger".

Within the framework of the concept of Theriomachia, the wearing of this dagger could imply that its owner is able to accept the challenge of a predator.

Wearing a status weapon as an element of costume at the royal court, I hope, raises no questions.

In the chronicles you can find many descriptions of how the heads are cut off with a simple dagger. How to thrust with katar? Good luck in search.

- That is all.
- Thank you, Mercenary, that we have learned something more. But excuse us because we will argue further.
- No problem. I understand. I was just glad to share my knowledge

[Mercenary]

To be honest. The facts say that using the katar in battle is exception, unlike hunting or wearing a suit.
Only two:

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

OK

The design of katar is the best design to stop the attacking predator.

First, what do you mean by "predator"? Does a human enemy qualify?

Second, there are many ways to skin a cat:-)

Personally, I would choose a good high-caliber rifle, just like big game hunters. They were available in 17-18 century India,
Then, a good " boar spear" would be my next choice: another 2-3 feet away from the teeth and claws could come handy. Regretfully, it would stop being a " boar spear" and become " tiger spear":-)

Third, African lion hunters manage quite well without katars: they use rather flimsily-looking spears and do just fine .

Short-bladed katar is no different from a garden variety knife: the latter can be gripped differently to be able to perform pure stabbing with straight arm and most knife-fighting techniques include this type of grip. Both knife and katar sacrifice safe distance for the dubious glory of a heroic kill with high likelihood of being maimed beyond recognition.

As an aside, Elgood's book on Hindu weapons shows statues with katars piercing some non-tiger looking animals: do I see hooves on some of them? If I am correct, would we call katar " buffalo dagger" or "horse dagger"?

I fully understand your excitement: it would have been very nice to pinpoint the original intended purpose of such an unusual weapon. I just find this hypothesis implausible. Sorry.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

While the wild eastern countries were thinking about the royal power and the royal hunts, highly cultured western countries began to hunt the eastern countries themselves.

Better not take that road, don't you agree ? .

[kai]

Better not take that road, don't you agree ? .

Ok, Fernando, you beat me to it...

[fernando]

So back to (katar/katari) business .

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by fernando

Better not take that road, don't you agree ? .

That is just history. Europeans misunderstanding of Eastern culture always led to mistakes. As in the case of wars and in the case of ... katars.

A rather plausible approach.

Thank you. But this is not an approach. This is a conclusion.

This certainly is not a West vs. East thing: Some of the most extensive political entities build upon imperialist approaches were decidedly "East" by whatever definition: Ottomans, Egypt, Persia, Mongols, China, Japan just to name a very few of the obvious contenders. Like European kingdoms, the kingdoms on the Indian subcontinent where also not exactly peaceful nor abstinent from colonial aspirations. Heck, show me any culture that has a proven track record of not preying upon neighboring ethnic groups and, if given a decent chance, possibly more distant peoples - and you'll have found a very rare and possibly short-lived exception to the rule...

Could you check the difference between Colonization and Colonialism?

[kai]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Could you check the difference between Colonization and Colonialism?

Aye, aye, Sir!

According to Merriam-Webster:

Colonization: an act or instance of colonizing
Colonizing: to establish a colony

Colonialism
1 : the quality or state of being colonial
2 : something characteristic of a colony
3a : control by one power over a dependent area or people
3b : a policy advocating or based on such control


Unless you colonize barren land not even utilzed by hunterers and gatherers, chances are very high that you'll subdue the local populace and also exploit it and its resources. (Limited and mutually agreed upon trade colonies may be an exception; however, if there are no checks and balances, chances are that conflict will arise, especially if the resources are considerable and/or the power unequally distributed.)

In reality, it often may only be a matter of perspective: The European settlers in northern America may well have thought they were colonizing the "new" world for good (and god); for the native nations it certainly was pure colonialism and bigotry. When the Vikings settled on Greenland during the limited spell of warm climate, it may be possible that the Inuit had already left; in most other cases, there hasn't been any relevant amount of "empty spots" to fill with gentle colonization during the last millennia...

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

While the wild eastern countries were thinking about the royal power and the royal hunts, highly cultured western countries began to hunt the eastern countries themselves.

Well, man has always been man's worst enemy. Period.

This certainly is not a West vs. East thing: Some of the most extensive political entities build upon imperialist approaches were decidedly "East" by whatever definition: Ottomans, Egypt, Persia, Mongols, China, Japan just to name a very few of the obvious contenders. Like European kingdoms, the kingdoms on the Indian subcontinent where also not exactly peaceful nor abstinent from colonial aspirations. Heck, show me any culture that has a proven track record of not preying upon neighboring ethnic groups and, if given a decent chance, possibly more distant peoples - and you'll have found a very rare and possibly short-lived exception to the rule...

Regards,
Kai

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

While the wild eastern countries were thinking about the royal power and the royal hunts, highly cultured western countries began to hunt the eastern countries themselves.

Civilization and progress do not imply spinelesness.
On the contrary, they are the engines of technological and military progress.

“Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun and they have not”

However, the Maxim gun took a distant second in accomplishing Western victories over Eastern militaries from times immemorial. Strongly advise a book by Victor Davis Hanson “Carnage and Culture”, an account of West-East military confrontations beginning with ancient Greeks.

As a quick example you might also ponder on the battle of Assaye, where Wellington’s 9,500 soldiers with 17 cannons utterly destroyed Maratha force of 60,000 - 70,000 with > 100 guns.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Civilization and progress do not imply spinelesness.
On the contrary, they are the engines of technological and military progress.

“Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun and they have not”

However, the Maxim gun took a distant second in accomplishing Western victories over Eastern militaries from times immemorial. Strongly advise a book by Victor Davis Hanson “Carnage and Culture”, an account of West-East military confrontations beginning with ancient Greeks.

As a quick example you might also ponder on the battle of Assaye, where Wellington’s 9,500 soldiers with 17 cannons utterly destroyed Maratha force of 60,000 - 70,000 with > 100 guns.

The West have not been distinguish the technical progress from the culture. Hence the lack of understanding of the phenomenon of traditional weapons in general.

[fernando]

It is amazing how determined threads tend to become a battlefield where a mix of political ingredients and personal jabs spoil the flavor of the intended recipe. I blame myself for having, for a moment or two, contributed with fuel for such racing session; where some are picking any possible word coming from the other side to transform the conversation into a rooster fight.
Why do we have this mania that our hen is better than that of our neighbor ... or, to stay within topic, why my katar is better than yours ?

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by fernando

It is amazing how determined threads tend to become a battlefield where a mix of political ingredients

I talked only about the history. But to make politics out of history is already a common tradition for both the West and the East.

where some are picking any possible word coming from the other side to transform the conversation into a rooster fight.

In the future, I can publish only pictures and quotes, but I suppose it still hurts someone

why my katar is better than yours ?

This is not your katar, not mine, not Ariel's, not Jens's and not even Egerton with Elgood. It was Indian one, but few know about it now because since 1840 it became European item and we can now easily and naturally talk about the functions and technical progress of Indian weapons.

Now really:

Without delving into documentary evidence and local semantics we are on very shaky grounds.

But I try to give here "documentary evidence and local semantics", don't I?