Jamdhar katari - a theory

Jens Nordlunde · 30th July 2016, 08:33 PM

Hi Miguel,
Yes you are right, and I cant really tell you, to me it also seems to be impossible, I have tried to guess as well, and the only thing I have, so far, been able to come up with is, that maybe it was not a weapon from the start, but developed into a weapon over time.
Should I guess, I would say that a lot of the weapons were not meant as being weapons, but over time developed into weapons. I think some of the very early weapons were in a developing state, in the first century or so of their 'lives'. I may be very wrong, but that is the best I can say at the moment, but I am researching it, as it interests me a lot.
So end of story - I cant answer your very interesting question.

ariel · 30th July 2016, 09:49 PM

It is also conceivable that the drawing was not accurate: the bar might have been not straight and smooth, but more complex or deeply checkered. Old engravings often distorted reality.

Jens Nordlunde · 31st July 2016, 10:16 AM

Ariel, you could have been right, but if you look at the statue I think the drawing is correct.
Hindu Temple Art of Orissa vol. III. by Thomas E. Donaldson. E.J.Brill Leiden, 1987. Illustration no 3206.

Jens Nordlunde · 31st July 2016, 01:21 PM

Suddenly I was not certain if the drawing and the picture comes from the same place, so I double checked it.
Mitra in his book writes that the drawing is from the Gauri temple in Bhuwanesvara Orissa.
Donaldson, on the other hand, writes that the picture is from the sout side of the jagamohana - which as far as I know is a temple structure, and not a name of a temple.
So either the drawing has been made from the statue shown, or from another statue, which would mean that there must be at least two statues showing the same katar.
The Kedar Gauri temple was started by king Yayati Kesari III of the Kesari dynasty, and completed by his son Lalatendu Kesari in the 10th century.
Donaldson, however, dates the statue to last half of the 11th century, and as he does not mention from which temple the statue is, it may be possible that it is two different statues.

ariel · 31st July 2016, 01:45 PM

I see.

But again, the bar is hidden in the fist, and the only thing needed to prevent rotation of the hand during stabbing is to make it not perfectly round but somewhat flattened.

I am not arguing about the veracity of the examples ( both statue and engraving); just trying to think how to assure that the grip might be made secure.

Jens Nordlunde · 31st July 2016, 02:14 PM

I agree with you that neither the grip nor the protection was very good, but they did make some changes later.
Mitra seems to have been convinced that it was an early katar, and as an Indian historian and author, who had seen a lot of temple statues and decorations, and one who had quite a reputation for accuracy, I must say that I believe in what he has written.
You can also, later, find katars with side guards, but with only one cross bar.

Miguel · 2nd August 2016, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

I agree with you that neither the grip nor the protection was very good, but they did make some changes later.
Mitra seems to have been convinced that it was an early katar, and as an Indian historian and author, who had seen a lot of temple statues and decorations, and one who had quite a reputation for accuracy, I must say that I believe in what he has written.
You can also, later, find katars with side guards, but with only one cross bar.

Hi Jens, I think Ariel has a good point with the section shape of the grip and that perhaps the sketch is not entirely correct in showing to be round. I don't think that the arm extensions were missed off but I cant help but wonder whether the weapon shown in the sketch and frieze, although having a resemblance to the Katar as we know it, actually existed. Have any of these actually been found?

Regards
Miguel

Jens Nordlunde · 5th August 2016, 04:56 PM

The attached picture shows a sword with a handle like on the very early katar handle. If the man shown would be 170 cm tall, the weapon would be about 65 cm.
It is from South India, but I am sorry to say, that I done know from where it is, nor do I know the age of the frieze - but it lookss quite old to me.

Miguel · 5th August 2016, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

The attached picture shows a sword with a handle like on the very early katar handle. If the man shown would be 170 cm tall, the weapon would be about 65 cm.
It is from South India, but I am sorry to say, that I done know from where it is, nor do I know the age of the frieze - but it lookss quite old to me.

Hi Jens, I missed this one. This changes my opinion somewhat as the figure appears to be a man wielding the Katar looking weapon and not a six armed deity with one dangling from his fingers, thanks for posting.
Regards
Miguel

31st July 2016, 10:16 AM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Ariel, you could have been right, but if you look at the statue I think the drawing is correct. Hindu Temple Art of Orissa vol. III. by Thomas E. Donaldson. E.J.Brill Leiden, 1987. Illustration no 3206. Attached Images

31st July 2016, 01:21 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Suddenly I was not certain if the drawing and the picture comes from the same place, so I double checked it. Mitra in his book writes that the drawing is from the Gauri temple in Bhuwanesvara Orissa. Donaldson, on the other hand, writes that the picture is from the sout side of the jagamohana - which as far as I know is a temple structure, and not a name of a temple. So either the drawing has been made from the statue shown, or from another statue, which would mean that there must be at least two statues showing the same katar. The Kedar Gauri temple was started by king Yayati Kesari III of the Kesari dynasty, and completed by his son Lalatendu Kesari in the 10th century. Donaldson, however, dates the statue to last half of the 11th century, and as he does not mention from which temple the statue is, it may be possible that it is two different statues. Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 31st July 2016 at 02:00 PM.

31st July 2016, 02:14 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	I agree with you that neither the grip nor the protection was very good, but they did make some changes later. Mitra seems to have been convinced that it was an early katar, and as an Indian historian and author, who had seen a lot of temple statues and decorations, and one who had quite a reputation for accuracy, I must say that I believe in what he has written. You can also, later, find katars with side guards, but with only one cross bar. Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 31st July 2016 at 09:46 PM.

5th August 2016, 04:56 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	The attached picture shows a sword with a handle like on the very early katar handle. If the man shown would be 170 cm tall, the weapon would be about 65 cm. It is from South India, but I am sorry to say, that I done know from where it is, nor do I know the age of the frieze - but it lookss quite old to me. Attached Images

30th July 2016, 08:33 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Miguel, Yes you are right, and I cant really tell you, to me it also seems to be impossible, I have tried to guess as well, and the only thing I have, so far, been able to come up with is, that maybe it was not a weapon from the start, but developed into a weapon over time. Should I guess, I would say that a lot of the weapons were not meant as being weapons, but over time developed into weapons. I think some of the very early weapons were in a developing state, in the first century or so of their 'lives'. I may be very wrong, but that is the best I can say at the moment, but I am researching it, as it interests me a lot. So end of story - I cant answer your very interesting question.

30th July 2016, 09:49 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	It is also conceivable that the drawing was not accurate: the bar might have been not straight and smooth, but more complex or deeply checkered. Old engravings often distorted reality.

31st July 2016, 01:45 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I see. But again, the bar is hidden in the fist, and the only thing needed to prevent rotation of the hand during stabbing is to make it not perfectly round but somewhat flattened. I am not arguing about the veracity of the examples ( both statue and engraving); just trying to think how to assure that the grip might be made secure.