Katar dagger, Rajput (?) late 18th c (?)

[Ian]

Jim,

You raise some interesting questions. There is a similarity to the example in the Danish museum, so a 17th C piece seems possible. BTW, I note that the two narrow fullers run through the tip of the blade. Is it possible this was a longer blade on a sword that was broken or cut down to create this katar?

Regards, Ian

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Ian

Jim,

You raise some interesting questions. There is a similarity to the example in the Danish museum, so a 17th C piece seems possible. BTW, I note that the two narrow fullers run through the tip of the blade. Is it possible this was a longer blade on a sword that was broken or cut down to create this katar?

Regards, Ian

Thanks Ian! I was surprised at the similarity, and have always thought of this as optimistically 18th c. Rajput, as it seems to correspond with other such examples.
I think it was indeed a full length blade cut down from a full size arming blade of 17th c. but hard to tell. Many European blades were coming into western India through Maratha traders as described by Elgood (2004). These of course diffused notably especially into the Rajasthan regions north.

I attached the katar from Danish museum photo for comparison (from OBJET article), noted as c.1674.

Best regards,
Jim

[Ian]

Thanks Jim. I see that the one in the Danish Museum has an extra hole below its present mounting at "forte," which suggests to me that it was mounted differently at one time. Perhaps the blade came from a sword that was damaged and converted into a katar also. Both blades could be foreign (firangi), as you suggest.

I remember Jens was trying to date when the katar appeared. IIRC correctly, he concluded it was sometime around the 16-17th C, so yours could be an early example.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Ian,
I recall the discussions of 10 years ago, and Jens was indeed trying to establish the origins of the katar, or the transverse grip weapon form dagger. I think the presumption that the use by Rajputs was sometime in 16th c. but the rest of the origins are unclear. It was of course well established in South India likely some time much earlier, but iconographic resources do not seem to present reliable assessment as the friezes and architectures evolved over centuries.

From what I understand, my katar is classified loosely as Deccani, but the Rajput association I think still stands in degree. I recall you presented pretty compelling evidence of the 16th c. Rajput status.

I agree on the hole, and likely the blade was remounted from another hilt form.

[Mercenary]

Jim, thanks for sharing this beautiful dagger!

Rajput culture largely followed Mughal culture. Your dagger is closer to Deccan culture.

P.S. Lumping the Deccan sultanates and the Vijayanagara Empire into a single category called "South India" is a strategic mistake. It will haunt us for many years to come.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Jim, thanks for sharing this beautiful dagger!

Rajput culture largely followed Mughal culture. Your dagger is closer to Deccan culture.

P.S. Lumping the Deccan sultanates and the Vijayanagara Empire into a single category called "South India" is a strategic mistake. It will haunt us for many years to come.

Thank you so much Mercenary, it is very gratifying to see one of my weapons acquired many years ago when my knowledge of Indian arms was so elementary noted with such recognition. It is a most complex field, and I still feel relatively a novice as I return to these studies of years ago.

What I have come to understand is that in the study of India, and its arms, there are separate denominators in approach, whether geographic, cultural, linguistic or religious to consider the broader spectrums.

I agree that the Rajput culture largely was aligned with that of the Mughals, although they were in degree often either aligned or at odds with them. As often the case naturally this would vary depending on the clans and varied groups in the Rajput spectrum and in different periods.

With the Deccan, again, it is a matter of perspective in determining exactly what parameters comprised the Deccan, but your point is well made that the 'Southern India' description is far too broad and ill defined to accurately depict these complex regions and the peoples and cultures within.

To describe the Vijayanagara kingdom as in any way connected to the Sultanates of Deccan under the heading 'South India' is as ludicrous as lumping Texas into the rest of the states in the U.S. culturally.

As you note, many of these faux pas in the years of literature on Indian arms and studies do remain a haunting element in circulating resources.

Returning to katars for example, the 'name game' as we have called it here in the many years of contentious debate, as Pant (1980) revealed.....these transverse grip daggers were actually 'jamdhar' NOT katar, which was more the traditional dagger/knife form. The transposing of the terms in Egerton (if I recall) forever made the dagger....the katar...as every arms writer following simply perpetuated the improper term.

I dont think we ever reached a consensus on the origins of the katar, and just how far into antiquity these distinctly configured daggers existed. What can be agreed on is that they were likely known to the Rajputs by late 16th c. and that they were well known in this open hilt form in the Deccan as well.

The 'South Indian' (just kidding)..Vijayanagara form was in variation with a 'hood'which was a gauntlet type hand guard. These of course appear to have been the prototypes for the gauntlet sword, pata.

All best regards
Jim

[Turkoman.khan]

Thank you, Jim, for publishing this wonderful piece. Katars are such a fascinating topic! Your example is quite classic, with deep chiseling and probably a European blade.
I immediately found a number of very similar examples and selected three pieces from different world museums to show the variations — giving you a range of dates and origins from the 17th to 19th centuries. 😄

https://objet.art/as/subscriptions/6...cb69001f99b0ce

https://objet.art/as/subscriptions/6...cb69001f99b0ce

https://objet.art/as/subscriptions/6...cb69001f99b0ce

And yes, Arthur Bijl is doing a great job keeping everything clear and focused on verified facts. There was also a wonderful recent article on South Indian so-called “Hooded Katars” from private collections — it honestly felt like browsing through a beautifully illustrated album from the old days. What did you think of it? https://objet.art/as/articles/68de54ba95a5c4789ff22de5

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

What can be agreed on is that they were likely known to the Rajputs by late 16th c. and that they were well known in this open hilt form in the Deccan as well.

Probably much earlier:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...06&postcount=6