Indian Katar

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.

B.I · 7th November 2006, 03:38 PM

the hilt size has been an on-going discussion/debate and, as it is all speculation, people tend to stick to their camps and believe what in their own different theories. all are valid, but i fear it cant really go past guesswork.
my theory runs along the same lines as jens. if you go to any 'indian' area, you will see a wide spectrum of cultures, all roped within that continent. however, it is apparant that a large body of indians are small in size (even today). their bone structure is noticibly lighter than normal, and their hands are small. my theory is that these people originate from the early hindus, pre-islamic 'invasion'.
persians, turks, ottomans etc tend to be of a bulkier frame (much like the western form) and i think that with a 1000 or so years of infiltration, the indian body has, in general, incorporated these genes within. so, you have rajputs that are bigger in size but i think that ancestrally, they were much smaller. there are many full grown indians that can easily hold a 'normal' size tulwar and katar.
i have seen/owned many indian pieces of various sizes. in general, they are smaller, but i have pieces that i can easily wield.

Lew · 7th November 2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Lew,

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

Jens

I am pretty sure this katar is from Bikaner it also has a W11 engraved on the side bar which I was told came from a famous British arms collection the Rotunda at Woolwich that was on display for many years until it was broken up in the middle of the 20th century.

http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/green...ich/rotunda.htm
http://www.oldtowns.co.uk/Kent/woolwich.htm
http://viewfinder.english-heritage....76285&=&JS=True

Lew

Jens Nordlunde · 7th November 2006, 05:23 PM

Hi Brian, very well described - thank you very much

.

Hi Lew, I can't say, 'if you have seen one, you have seen them all', but have a look.

2nd November 2006, 04:54 PM	#3
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	#4
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.

7th November 2006, 05:23 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Brian, very well described - thank you very much. Hi Lew, I can't say, 'if you have seen one, you have seen them all', but have a look. Attached Images

2nd November 2006, 02:32 PM	#1
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	#2
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	#5
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.

7th November 2006, 03:38 PM	#6
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	the hilt size has been an on-going discussion/debate and, as it is all speculation, people tend to stick to their camps and believe what in their own different theories. all are valid, but i fear it cant really go past guesswork. my theory runs along the same lines as jens. if you go to any 'indian' area, you will see a wide spectrum of cultures, all roped within that continent. however, it is apparant that a large body of indians are small in size (even today). their bone structure is noticibly lighter than normal, and their hands are small. my theory is that these people originate from the early hindus, pre-islamic 'invasion'. persians, turks, ottomans etc tend to be of a bulkier frame (much like the western form) and i think that with a 1000 or so years of infiltration, the indian body has, in general, incorporated these genes within. so, you have rajputs that are bigger in size but i think that ancestrally, they were much smaller. there are many full grown indians that can easily hold a 'normal' size tulwar and katar. i have seen/owned many indian pieces of various sizes. in general, they are smaller, but i have pieces that i can easily wield.