Wootz Katar

Jens Nordlunde · 14th August 2016, 09:18 PM

You are more tham welcome, but I am afraid that you dont see the point, to my opinoin, you see your own point, but Ariel asked if these katars were only used for hunting.
So when you show a lot of hunting scenes where the katar is used, you dont see the point, and what more is, you dont even try to research if they were used for fighting as well.
I have said what I need to say on this thread, so I will leave you to teach the interested members how it really was.

Mercenary · 14th August 2016, 10:46 PM

I didn't mean to offend you. To be honest, in the first place the dagger was the subject of the costume. For example Akbar had 40 pieces of each kind of dagger and every day he changed them. Only in the second turn jamdhars were used for hunting and may be some times for fighting. But I do not think that they were richly decorated of hunting scenes items. Apparently this does not apply to simple daggers without decoration.

Mercenary · 14th August 2016, 10:57 PM

It looks weird, when we believe that "tulwars shikargah" were used specially for hunting, while similarly decorated jamdhars no.

ariel · 15th August 2016, 12:58 AM

Double post

ariel · 15th August 2016, 01:26 AM

Based on iconography, tulwars were used mainly for deer hunting, whereas katars were most often shown as implements of tiger hunting by the Rajahs.

Great populations of deer likely explain the abundance of hunting tulwars, but I have my doubts that there were enough tigers hunts to justify the profusion of katars with hunting scenes.

Here is my attempt to utilize Enrico Fermi's "guess-timate method" that served him exceedingly well : in a series of guesses, over,- and under estimates cancel each other.

As per this paper

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com...ting-in-india/

between 1875 and 1925, 80,000 tigers were killed in India, i.e. roughly 1 per day ( that includes organized hunts for visiting dignitaries as well as "mechanized" hunts with cars, machine guns and cannon). Also, that includes the REPORTED number of tigers killed by professional hunters outside the royal hunts, but let's ignore it for the sake of simplicity and attribute ALL to royal hunts.

Prior to Indian independence ( 1947) there were roughly 250 princely states

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tates_of_India.

Thus, each Rajah had a chance to organize a tiger hunt and to kill one tiger roughly every 250 days, i.e. once- twice a year.

Was it really necessary to produce that many tiger-hunting katars specifically for such an infrequent occurence?

Jens Nordlunde · 15th August 2016, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercenary

It looks weird, when we believe that "tulwars shikargah" were used specially for hunting, while similarly decorated jamdhars no.

Maybe it is not so strange, as we dont know if the two weapons were regarded with the same 'value' - there is like to have been a difference.
The sword decorated with hunting scenes, could have been for hunting only (for the ones who had money enough to own several swords), and the katar, as a secondary weapon, could have been used here and there - in spite of the decoration on the blade.

Jim McDougall · 15th August 2016, 05:47 PM

While the original topic here is a katar which is examined as to whether wootz or not, the evolving side topic is fascinating. That is just how these were actually used, how often, and whether in battle or hunting.

This is an intriguing topic as over the years it has often been wondered by myself and many others, not only the development of the katar historically, but how effective it was as a weapon. In most cases this was with regard to the properties of the weapon, used in slashing cuts, and those with the addition of reinforced armor piercing points.

I will note here as I have often mentioned, I have had the good fortune of observing and learning a great deal from Jens through many years as his tenacious study of these weapons has unfolded. The remarkable spectrum of these he has collected, examined and researched in my opinion thoroughly exceeds most published works and other key sources.

That being said, his very logical approach to the study of these gives us a more realistic perspective between many of the plausibly hubris filled and embellished accounts toward these weapons and the far less exciting but likely true cases.

The lore of arms and armour is wrought with fable, myth, and legend which has led to misperception and often complete misunderstanding as it was woven into the fabric of art and literature through artistic license.

As Jens has noted, all we have typically are the translated literature and narratives of the times, and artistic miniature paintings which purport to accurately depict the weapons, their character and how they were used.

It is fascinating to see the ratiocination and presentation of statistical probabilities and records compared and evaluated, to look at the question of actual use of these weapons here. Empirical research on arms is often difficult, in some cases nearly impossible, but much welcomed when researchers accept the challenge .

Regarding the case with 'shikargah' embellished weapons, I am wondering if in actuality, these might have been more court or parade wear sort of arms.
It seems that the 'fancy' nature of these and probable expense, and possible fragility of these might render them too valuable to endanger in actual rugged use. That is not to say they are not capable of such use, but that these figures might not wish to risk loss or damage to these status oriented arms.
I know that in cases of much decorated and presentation or gift weapons to officers in military cases, they typically would employ more standard type forms such as with 'fighting sabres' etc.

It would seem that with the hunt, there may have been the case of regalia and hubris laden celebration after the events, where such arms might have been worn and displayed, while the weapons actually used were far less decorated and embellished.

I agree as well with the highly suspect tales of these heightened figures in Indian history using the katar to hunt tigers, at least in the wlld. As noted, it may have occurred in much more qualified or controlled circumstances and probably not a regular instance. Typically events are embellished over time and grow into much exaggerated descriptions and numbers.
I would here throw in some American folklore myth and legend, which clearly emulates that of ancient Greece and much of the classical world with heroes like Davy Crockett, Paul Bunyan, Daniel Boone and others.

Returning to the katar itself, and the examples shown here . Regardless of the much dimensioned lore around them, they are a fascinating weapon which has become an icon of the history of India and its arms.

estcrh · 16th August 2016, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Regarding the case with 'shikargah' embellished weapons, I am wondering if in actuality, these might have been more court or parade wear sort of arms.
It seems that the 'fancy' nature of these and probable expense, and possible fragility of these might render them too valuable to endanger in actual rugged use. That is not to say they are not capable of such use, but that these figures might not wish to risk loss or damage to these status oriented arms.

Here is a quote from "Hand-book of the Manufactures & Arts of the Punjab: With a Combined Glossary & Index of Vernacular Trades & Technical Terms ... Forming Vol. Ii to the "Hand-book of the Economic Products of the Punjab" Prepared Under the Orders of Government" Baden Henry Baden-Powell,Punjab Printing Company, 1872

Jim McDougall · 16th August 2016, 06:37 PM

Thank you Eric, as always you are phenomenal at locating these most pertinent references!!!
So it would seem that the figure laden blades were certainly less than rare, in fact being noted as 'common' , thus not unlikely to be used in the field rather than simply in celebratory events
That answers my question perfectly.

Mercenary, do we actually KNOW how old the katar is? It seems we have a good idea as far as established iconographically, but much of the research into much older periods remains dauntingly speculative. I think Jens has accomplished some of the most compelling data in the many years he has studied the katar, but he as always maintains his most responsible reservations in asserting such dates until more definitive data can corroborate.

It would seem that use and wear of these weapons might comprise different circumstances much as I asked as far as whether shikargah blades were actually used in the field, or simply as prestigious accoutrements. It would seem that they may well have been both.

While tulwars and shamshirs may well have been used in hunting game such as deer and other, I personally am somewhat in doubt of the use of the katar regularly in hunting tigers or big cats. While there were probably situational circumstances where a katar was used to dispatch a tiger, I am wondering whether that was with an already wounded or spent animal might have been the case, and suitably embellished over time.

Again, we are getting off the main course though

14th August 2016, 09:18 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	You are more tham welcome, but I am afraid that you dont see the point, to my opinoin, you see your own point, but Ariel asked if these katars were only used for hunting. So when you show a lot of hunting scenes where the katar is used, you dont see the point, and what more is, you dont even try to research if they were used for fighting as well. I have said what I need to say on this thread, so I will leave you to teach the interested members how it really was. Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 14th August 2016 at 09:37 PM.

14th August 2016, 10:46 PM	#2
Mercenary Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 426	I didn't mean to offend you. To be honest, in the first place the dagger was the subject of the costume. For example Akbar had 40 pieces of each kind of dagger and every day he changed them. Only in the second turn jamdhars were used for hunting and may be some times for fighting. But I do not think that they were richly decorated of hunting scenes items. Apparently this does not apply to simple daggers without decoration. Last edited by Mercenary; 14th August 2016 at 11:11 PM.

14th August 2016, 10:57 PM	#3
Mercenary Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 426	It looks weird, when we believe that "tulwars shikargah" were used specially for hunting, while similarly decorated jamdhars no. Last edited by Mercenary; 14th August 2016 at 11:11 PM.

15th August 2016, 12:58 AM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Double post Last edited by ariel; 15th August 2016 at 01:27 AM.

15th August 2016, 01:26 AM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Based on iconography, tulwars were used mainly for deer hunting, whereas katars were most often shown as implements of tiger hunting by the Rajahs. Great populations of deer likely explain the abundance of hunting tulwars, but I have my doubts that there were enough tigers hunts to justify the profusion of katars with hunting scenes. Here is my attempt to utilize Enrico Fermi's "guess-timate method" that served him exceedingly well : in a series of guesses, over,- and under estimates cancel each other. As per this paper http://voices.nationalgeographic.com...ting-in-india/ between 1875 and 1925, 80,000 tigers were killed in India, i.e. roughly 1 per day ( that includes organized hunts for visiting dignitaries as well as "mechanized" hunts with cars, machine guns and cannon). Also, that includes the REPORTED number of tigers killed by professional hunters outside the royal hunts, but let's ignore it for the sake of simplicity and attribute ALL to royal hunts. Prior to Indian independence ( 1947) there were roughly 250 princely states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tates_of_India. Thus, each Rajah had a chance to organize a tiger hunt and to kill one tiger roughly every 250 days, i.e. once- twice a year. Was it really necessary to produce that many tiger-hunting katars specifically for such an infrequent occurence? Last edited by ariel; 15th August 2016 at 07:32 AM.

15th August 2016, 05:47 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,200	While the original topic here is a katar which is examined as to whether wootz or not, the evolving side topic is fascinating. That is just how these were actually used, how often, and whether in battle or hunting. This is an intriguing topic as over the years it has often been wondered by myself and many others, not only the development of the katar historically, but how effective it was as a weapon. In most cases this was with regard to the properties of the weapon, used in slashing cuts, and those with the addition of reinforced armor piercing points. I will note here as I have often mentioned, I have had the good fortune of observing and learning a great deal from Jens through many years as his tenacious study of these weapons has unfolded. The remarkable spectrum of these he has collected, examined and researched in my opinion thoroughly exceeds most published works and other key sources. That being said, his very logical approach to the study of these gives us a more realistic perspective between many of the plausibly hubris filled and embellished accounts toward these weapons and the far less exciting but likely true cases. The lore of arms and armour is wrought with fable, myth, and legend which has led to misperception and often complete misunderstanding as it was woven into the fabric of art and literature through artistic license. As Jens has noted, all we have typically are the translated literature and narratives of the times, and artistic miniature paintings which purport to accurately depict the weapons, their character and how they were used. It is fascinating to see the ratiocination and presentation of statistical probabilities and records compared and evaluated, to look at the question of actual use of these weapons here. Empirical research on arms is often difficult, in some cases nearly impossible, but much welcomed when researchers accept the challenge . Regarding the case with 'shikargah' embellished weapons, I am wondering if in actuality, these might have been more court or parade wear sort of arms. It seems that the 'fancy' nature of these and probable expense, and possible fragility of these might render them too valuable to endanger in actual rugged use. That is not to say they are not capable of such use, but that these figures might not wish to risk loss or damage to these status oriented arms. I know that in cases of much decorated and presentation or gift weapons to officers in military cases, they typically would employ more standard type forms such as with 'fighting sabres' etc. It would seem that with the hunt, there may have been the case of regalia and hubris laden celebration after the events, where such arms might have been worn and displayed, while the weapons actually used were far less decorated and embellished. I agree as well with the highly suspect tales of these heightened figures in Indian history using the katar to hunt tigers, at least in the wlld. As noted, it may have occurred in much more qualified or controlled circumstances and probably not a regular instance. Typically events are embellished over time and grow into much exaggerated descriptions and numbers. I would here throw in some American folklore myth and legend, which clearly emulates that of ancient Greece and much of the classical world with heroes like Davy Crockett, Paul Bunyan, Daniel Boone and others. Returning to the katar itself, and the examples shown here . Regardless of the much dimensioned lore around them, they are a fascinating weapon which has become an icon of the history of India and its arms.

16th August 2016, 06:37 PM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,200	Thank you Eric, as always you are phenomenal at locating these most pertinent references!!! So it would seem that the figure laden blades were certainly less than rare, in fact being noted as 'common' , thus not unlikely to be used in the field rather than simply in celebratory events That answers my question perfectly. Mercenary, do we actually KNOW how old the katar is? It seems we have a good idea as far as established iconographically, but much of the research into much older periods remains dauntingly speculative. I think Jens has accomplished some of the most compelling data in the many years he has studied the katar, but he as always maintains his most responsible reservations in asserting such dates until more definitive data can corroborate. It would seem that use and wear of these weapons might comprise different circumstances much as I asked as far as whether shikargah blades were actually used in the field, or simply as prestigious accoutrements. It would seem that they may well have been both. While tulwars and shamshirs may well have been used in hunting game such as deer and other, I personally am somewhat in doubt of the use of the katar regularly in hunting tigers or big cats. While there were probably situational circumstances where a katar was used to dispatch a tiger, I am wondering whether that was with an already wounded or spent animal might have been the case, and suitably embellished over time. Again, we are getting off the main course though