Indian Katar

Jens Nordlunde · 1st November 2006, 01:35 PM

Hi Fernando,

You are not likely to see anything along that line proven by experts.

One of the only things I can suggest is to make the Barleycorn test, and see how it fits to your finger width. Eight Barleycorns should be the width of one index finger measured at the tip. This measure was used for measuring the length and width of blades, and possible hilts as well.

I have had a look at some katars, the most narrow one measures 6.2 cm at the cross bars and the biggest 8.5 cm. This is a difference of 2.3 cm, which I think is quite a lot. Another thing which we must be remembered is, that people who could afford it, had weapons ‘tailored’ to fit them, but those who could not afford this, had to do with the standard size, made by the armouries. In India boys were trained in using weapons, from they were very young, and I have no doubt, that they also had their own weapons, could their parents afford it – made to fit their size of course.

fernando · 1st November 2006, 08:28 PM

Thanks a lot Jens, for your info and explanations.
fernando

CollectingNewbie · 1st November 2006, 08:40 PM

Ive owned a few of them since I started collecting and since I knew nothing about them at the time I assumed the small handles which would not fit my hand were made for children and resold them

But I just recently bought one with a 10 inch blade and maybe I missed this in a priv. post but does anyone know excatally why the handles are so small? Did they all just have very small hands or did they hold them diffrently then the design indicates? Im lost maybe someone out there knows.

Tim Simmons · 1st November 2006, 08:51 PM

Boy soldiers. I have stated this before which was left in question. I cannot see why this is not so, boys have been used in the British army up untill the later part of the 19th century, and are still used in Africa today. I might add also anywhere conflict is out of the way and not involving the latest weapons technology.

Lew · 1st November 2006, 09:01 PM

Newbie

Most of these katars are from the 1700s and early 1800s people in general were smaller than we are today therefore smaller people smaller hands. My grandparents who first arrived from Europe in the late 1800s were small grandpa was 5'4" and grandmother was 4'10" I am 5'11" tall so go figure?

Lew

CollectingNewbie · 1st November 2006, 09:24 PM

I figured after the frist few katars Ive owned and the articles Ive seen that it was the case that they were just generaly smaller, Ive noticed it in other daggers and even swords I have that the handles were for smaller hands. And generaly speaking from my knoledge on the era wasnt it standard for younger people to be made up of most of the armies, maybe Im mistaken, but it seems as though it would make sense that more young people were used as people didnt live as long especially in times of war.

Lew · 1st November 2006, 10:09 PM

I would say 18 yrs would have been the starting point for most and you would be at almost full height by that age. So if you mean young 16 might be the limit I am sure there were no 12yr olds running around the battle field swinging swords. Average height back then was around 5ft 2inches-5ft 7 inches and 125 lbs-150lbs for men.

Jens Nordlunde · 2nd November 2006, 02:01 PM

People living several hundred years ago were no doubt, like Lew says, smaller than people living to day. If we accept Lew’s theory, that their hands were slimmer than the hands of people living to day, and to this add a finer bone structure, then the hands of the Indians living one or two hundred years ago, would no doubt have fitted a katar or tulwar hilt. There is however one thing, which bothers me with the theory, that tall people, has big hands but people being not so tall have small hands. I am rather tall, but I know people a head smaller than I am, with hands as big, or almost as big, as mine. However, the Chinese, Thai and Indians I have met, all have a finer bone structure than I have, and therefore slimmer hands. It could, of course, also be that Lew’s theory holds, so it would be a combination of smaller size and finer bone structure.

1st November 2006, 01:35 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	Hi Fernando, You are not likely to see anything along that line proven by experts. One of the only things I can suggest is to make the Barleycorn test, and see how it fits to your finger width. Eight Barleycorns should be the width of one index finger measured at the tip. This measure was used for measuring the length and width of blades, and possible hilts as well. I have had a look at some katars, the most narrow one measures 6.2 cm at the cross bars and the biggest 8.5 cm. This is a difference of 2.3 cm, which I think is quite a lot. Another thing which we must be remembered is, that people who could afford it, had weapons ‘tailored’ to fit them, but those who could not afford this, had to do with the standard size, made by the armouries. In India boys were trained in using weapons, from they were very young, and I have no doubt, that they also had their own weapons, could their parents afford it – made to fit their size of course.

1st November 2006, 08:28 PM	#2
fernando Lead Moderator European Armoury Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,666	Thanks a lot Jens, for your info and explanations. fernando

1st November 2006, 08:40 PM	#3
CollectingNewbie Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 160	Ive owned a few of them since I started collecting and since I knew nothing about them at the time I assumed the small handles which would not fit my hand were made for children and resold them But I just recently bought one with a 10 inch blade and maybe I missed this in a priv. post but does anyone know excatally why the handles are so small? Did they all just have very small hands or did they hold them diffrently then the design indicates? Im lost maybe someone out there knows.

1st November 2006, 08:51 PM	#4
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,747	Boy soldiers. I have stated this before which was left in question. I cannot see why this is not so, boys have been used in the British army up untill the later part of the 19th century, and are still used in Africa today. I might add also anywhere conflict is out of the way and not involving the latest weapons technology.

1st November 2006, 09:01 PM	#5
Lew (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 3,191	Newbie Most of these katars are from the 1700s and early 1800s people in general were smaller than we are today therefore smaller people smaller hands. My grandparents who first arrived from Europe in the late 1800s were small grandpa was 5'4" and grandmother was 4'10" I am 5'11" tall so go figure? Lew

1st November 2006, 09:24 PM	#6
CollectingNewbie Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 160	I figured after the frist few katars Ive owned and the articles Ive seen that it was the case that they were just generaly smaller, Ive noticed it in other daggers and even swords I have that the handles were for smaller hands. And generaly speaking from my knoledge on the era wasnt it standard for younger people to be made up of most of the armies, maybe Im mistaken, but it seems as though it would make sense that more young people were used as people didnt live as long especially in times of war.

1st November 2006, 10:09 PM	#7
Lew (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 3,191	I would say 18 yrs would have been the starting point for most and you would be at almost full height by that age. So if you mean young 16 might be the limit I am sure there were no 12yr olds running around the battle field swinging swords. Average height back then was around 5ft 2inches-5ft 7 inches and 125 lbs-150lbs for men.

2nd November 2006, 02:01 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,713	People living several hundred years ago were no doubt, like Lew says, smaller than people living to day. If we accept Lew’s theory, that their hands were slimmer than the hands of people living to day, and to this add a finer bone structure, then the hands of the Indians living one or two hundred years ago, would no doubt have fitted a katar or tulwar hilt. There is however one thing, which bothers me with the theory, that tall people, has big hands but people being not so tall have small hands. I am rather tall, but I know people a head smaller than I am, with hands as big, or almost as big, as mine. However, the Chinese, Thai and Indians I have met, all have a finer bone structure than I have, and therefore slimmer hands. It could, of course, also be that Lew’s theory holds, so it would be a combination of smaller size and finer bone structure.