Jamdhar katari - a theory

ariel · 31st July 2016, 02:45 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, 03:14 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, 08:55 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

mariusgmioc · 2nd August 2016, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miguel

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

I totally agree!

The fact that a reputed author illustrated a Katar like that, doesn't mean that it actually existed! Most likely it didn't, since not a single example like this seems to have been found.

Maybe the author saw a Katar sometime, somewhere, then draw the sketch a couple of years later, based on a faded memory.

However, the illustration is a single perspective of the katar and from this single perspective it is impossible to discern whether the hand-piece is round or flat in cross-section.

But we must remember that even the most reputed authors are humans and subject to mistake, so we must analyze critically and logically every single piece of information.

Dubito, ergo cogito!

ariel · 2nd August 2016, 11:45 PM

I have very little doubt that similar examples existed early on: the statue is a perfect iconographic evidence.

I do not think that sidebars are very crucial determinants of a firm and secure grip; they are more like rudimentary bazu-bands, providing protection to the forearms. My only suggestion is about the handbar: perfectly round, it would twist in the hand, but some change in geometry ( flattening, checkering, more complex profile etc) would largely fix the problem. Regretfully, the statue does not show us the true (?) profile, and the lithograph was likely copied from the statue and " simplified" the handbar.

Just Google "pushdagger": none of the modern ones have sidebars, but their handbars are all flattened or "distorted" to assure good grip.

Jens Nordlunde · 3rd August 2016, 11:23 AM

Kubur, In India the dead ones were burned - with or without their weapons, I dont know. In other countries the dead ones were burried with their weapons, and so we have weapons, and know how old they are.
In India, when weapons were worn, or went out of fashion, they were melted down and new weapons were made of the iron/steel. This is why really old weapons are more than rare, and I doubt that weapons from the 10th century would be impossible to find.
In Khorasan they have found parts of a sword from the 9 th century, but it was burried together with the former owner - so it was found in a grave.

Ariel, I agree with you about the grip/hilt of this katar, but I cant explain why it was made so. One can always start guessing, but it haardly brings us closer to the truth.

ariel · 3rd August 2016, 12:42 PM

Jens,
The same was true about Caucasian weapons, with no known examples of kindjals and shashkas older than 18 century, and in Turkey, with no known examples before (roughly) the reign of Mehmet II.

The higher the intensity of warfare in a society, the lower the chance for the older examples to survive.

Also, on a second thought, I might have been wrong insisting on a more functional grip: the earliest examples of katar might have been ( and likely were) uncomfortable and engineeringly silly. But they had the "grain of truth" in them, and that preserved the idea for a while, providing time for successive generations to introduce improvements. Karl Benz's first production automobile would not have been a Car of the Year in 2016:-)

Jens Nordlunde · 5th August 2016, 05:56 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, 08:12 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, 03:14 PM	#2
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 10:46 PM.

5th August 2016, 05:56 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

31st July 2016, 02:45 PM	#1
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.

2nd August 2016, 11:45 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I have very little doubt that similar examples existed early on: the statue is a perfect iconographic evidence. I do not think that sidebars are very crucial determinants of a firm and secure grip; they are more like rudimentary bazu-bands, providing protection to the forearms. My only suggestion is about the handbar: perfectly round, it would twist in the hand, but some change in geometry ( flattening, checkering, more complex profile etc) would largely fix the problem. Regretfully, the statue does not show us the true (?) profile, and the lithograph was likely copied from the statue and " simplified" the handbar. Just Google "pushdagger": none of the modern ones have sidebars, but their handbars are all flattened or "distorted" to assure good grip.

3rd August 2016, 11:23 AM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Kubur, In India the dead ones were burned - with or without their weapons, I dont know. In other countries the dead ones were burried with their weapons, and so we have weapons, and know how old they are. In India, when weapons were worn, or went out of fashion, they were melted down and new weapons were made of the iron/steel. This is why really old weapons are more than rare, and I doubt that weapons from the 10th century would be impossible to find. In Khorasan they have found parts of a sword from the 9 th century, but it was burried together with the former owner - so it was found in a grave. Ariel, I agree with you about the grip/hilt of this katar, but I cant explain why it was made so. One can always start guessing, but it haardly brings us closer to the truth.

3rd August 2016, 12:42 PM	#7
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Jens, The same was true about Caucasian weapons, with no known examples of kindjals and shashkas older than 18 century, and in Turkey, with no known examples before (roughly) the reign of Mehmet II. The higher the intensity of warfare in a society, the lower the chance for the older examples to survive. Also, on a second thought, I might have been wrong insisting on a more functional grip: the earliest examples of katar might have been ( and likely were) uncomfortable and engineeringly silly. But they had the "grain of truth" in them, and that preserved the idea for a while, providing time for successive generations to introduce improvements. Karl Benz's first production automobile would not have been a Car of the Year in 2016:-)