Indian Katar

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.

Tim Simmons · 2nd November 2006, 02:32 PM

It is a difficult question as there are a great many Indian weapons with what you think of as a normal hand grip. In some environments males may come of age and enter the adult world at 14/15. Add to that a poor diet and all the stuff about bone structure. You would need a smaller grip.

Lew · 2nd November 2006, 03:49 PM

Jens

We are bigger boned due to our Viking genes

I actually have an old tulwar with a larger hilt that my hand fits into so maybe some swords were fitted with larger hilts to accommodate taller larger warriors.

Lew

Jens Nordlunde · 2nd November 2006, 04:54 PM

Lew

,

So far nothing has been said more concrete, but as we are discussing a katar, I guess we are discussing a katar and possible a tulwar hilt. It is true that both katar and tulwar hilts can be found in different sizes, but it is also true, that the bigger part of the hilts are small for Western hands. If we move to khanda/firangi hilts, they are bigger, and I more than doubt, that they were only meant for the ones with beefy hands. One thing could be, the different ways of fighting with the different swords; fighting with some types needed more movement than fighting with another type. Now, let us make it a bit more complicated, have a look at a typical South Indian hilt – it is even smaller than the katar/tulwar hilts. This suggests to me, that the way the swords were held could be different – or they must have had even smaller hands – but I doubt that very much.

Another thing is, if you look at the bronze deities armed with swords, some of the swords have a flat half circle pommel and a short grip. If the proportions are correct, this would suggest that you did not grip it with all fingers, but that the little finger and the hand palm rested on the half disc – but that is another story

.

Jens

Lew · 7th November 2006, 03:26 AM

Jens

Here are a few shots of my 14 year old son holding a katar and tulwar. Notice his hand fits nicely into both. Well he stands 5ft 5 inches tall and weighs 100lbs which helps show that the warriors of 200 years ago were as smalled boned as a modern 14-15 year old teenager.

Lew

Jens Nordlunde · 7th November 2006, 02:35 PM

Lew,

That is exactly what I mean, thank you for showing. But I mean more than that, I think that you even to day will be able to find many Indians who can easily hold a tulwar or a katar, and I believe it is due to a finer bone structure, than the one most from the western part of the World have.

Nice katar. No decoration, but maybe a dot marking – am I right? If I am right, it maybe could come from the Bikaner armoury.

2nd November 2006, 04:54 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Lew, So far nothing has been said more concrete, but as we are discussing a katar, I guess we are discussing a katar and possible a tulwar hilt. It is true that both katar and tulwar hilts can be found in different sizes, but it is also true, that the bigger part of the hilts are small for Western hands. If we move to khanda/firangi hilts, they are bigger, and I more than doubt, that they were only meant for the ones with beefy hands. One thing could be, the different ways of fighting with the different swords; fighting with some types needed more movement than fighting with another type. Now, let us make it a bit more complicated, have a look at a typical South Indian hilt – it is even smaller than the katar/tulwar hilts. This suggests to me, that the way the swords were held could be different – or they must have had even smaller hands – but I doubt that very much. Another thing is, if you look at the bronze deities armed with swords, some of the swords have a flat half circle pommel and a short grip. If the proportions are correct, this would suggest that you did not grip it with all fingers, but that the little finger and the hand palm rested on the half disc – but that is another story. Jens

7th November 2006, 03:26 AM	#6
Lew (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 3,191	Jens Here are a few shots of my 14 year old son holding a katar and tulwar. Notice his hand fits nicely into both. Well he stands 5ft 5 inches tall and weighs 100lbs which helps show that the warriors of 200 years ago were as smalled boned as a modern 14-15 year old teenager. Lew Attached Images Last edited by LOUIEBLADES; 7th November 2006 at 04:06 AM.

1st November 2006, 10:09 PM	#1
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	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	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.

2nd November 2006, 02:32 PM	#3
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,844	It is a difficult question as there are a great many Indian weapons with what you think of as a normal hand grip. In some environments males may come of age and enter the adult world at 14/15. Add to that a poor diet and all the stuff about bone structure. You would need a smaller grip.

2nd November 2006, 03:49 PM	#4
Lew (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 3,191	Jens We are bigger boned due to our Viking genes I actually have an old tulwar with a larger hilt that my hand fits into so maybe some swords were fitted with larger hilts to accommodate taller larger warriors. Lew

7th November 2006, 02:35 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Lew, That is exactly what I mean, thank you for showing. But I mean more than that, I think that you even to day will be able to find many Indians who can easily hold a tulwar or a katar, and I believe it is due to a finer bone structure, than the one most from the western part of the World have. Nice katar. No decoration, but maybe a dot marking – am I right? If I am right, it maybe could come from the Bikaner armoury.