Jamdhar katari - a theory
 

This theory of mine if true, may be common knowledge, and if so, please forgive me as I am not aware of it. It is also entirely possible that I am dead wrong but I think this is an interesting thought, so here it goes:

Yesterday, I was playing with my new jamdhar katari dagger and its name got me thinking... At a glance, it does not resemble a katar (nothing really does, besides pata) but "katar" is present in its name... Why? I remember reading somewhere that katar means a tooth or a fang in some native dialect. If so, why dont we have more edged weapons from India with "katar" in their name? Then I looked closely at the distinct shape of the grip and it dawned on me: It looks remarkably like a single grip bar on a katar! Jamdhar's oversized pommel and crossguard resemble the steel straps of the katar hilt and function much in the same way by locking the wrist in place. So I pulled out one of my katars and compared the two. Surprisingly, at both being 3 inches wide, even the size of the grip is virtually the same!

So, would it be safe to draw a conclusion that jamdhar katari and a katar share a similar grip? Aside from a differently oriented blade, they appear designed to be held in a similar way. Does this make these two weapons related somehow? And does it indicate any similarities in their use?

Some more

Also, while we are at it, I would be very gratefull if someone could help me desypher the writing on the blade. It may be pictures of some kind. They are present on both sides and are also faintly repeated on the front of the scabbard.

I only hope that one day I can be as insightful as you.... ;)

I think youve without doubt taken the history of these weapons one step further than anyone else.....

Spiral

Hi Stan,

I'll throw a wrinkle at you :) . I don't recall the source - it might have been in Pant, or in the old catalog about Akbar's weapons, I'm sure it's in one of the older threads here - but it seems that the naming connection is actually the other way around. What we known as "katar" is actually called "jamadhar" and the "katar" bit was erroneously attributed to the wrong knife type. Both knives were in the same drawing palte.

A quick search reveals that "katar" is a derivative of "kutarni" which means knife in Hindi. I think someone mentioned this in the old threads.

So "jamdhar katari" would be a knife of jamdhar type, not a jamdhar of katar type. Either way, "katari" refers to the blade, not the specific handle type.

Note than "jamadar" was a military rank. While it was a minor rank in modern times, I recall reading it was closer to the rank of captain in pre-colonial times.

Just some more thoughts...

Regards,
Emanuel

While searching for synonyms for "knife" I also found "chhuri" origin of the word "choora". "ch-huri" and "kutarni" both have feminine ending, while "choora" would have been masculine. This brings back to mind the debate over chooras and karuds. Since both words literally mean "knife" it wouldn't matter what we call them to their original owners/makers.

Emanuel

So is the similarity between hilts purely coincidental?

hello together
I find your thinking well!
in my records, "Hermann Historica," it says in Jamdhar Katari: the weapon of tribal Kafirs (Arabic for infidel).
Indo-folk on the southern slopes of the Hindu Kush, to the east of Kashmir .............
is that correct?
If so, you would have to find out what language does this folk, and then compare what knife in this language means. Perhaps it simply means knife?
here are my piece
greeting Chregu

Very astutely observed Stan, and admire your well thought out approach to learning and understanding more on these weapons. Personally I had not thought of or noticed the parallel bar comparison in the jamadhar katara vs. the katar, one vertically situated, the other transverse.

This is an excellent theory, and by no means is the history of these weapons common knowledge, actually among the more esoteric of the ethnographic fields. It is of course hard to say how much influential bearing these two dagger types have upon each other, and the terminology conundrum is much as always the case with these classifications, extremely complicated.

Emanuel has well noted that these jamadhar katara were discussed on a number of occasions through the years, and it while they appear named as such in Stone, it was indeed Pant who set forth clarification on them. He notes that it was Egerton (1884) who transposed the katar term to the jamadhar, and the error was perpetuated by writers who followed. The compound name was probably an attempt to resolve the matter. It is important to note that this particular type of dagger with broad, parallel pommel guard and crossguard is as Chregu has specified, known to have been used by the Kafirs of the region formerly Kafiristan (from Kipling, "Man Who Would Be King").

These Kafir tribes were animists who were largely dispersed when their homeland was invaded by Afghan Abdur Rahman Khan, and he changed the lands name to Nuristan. Those who dispersed went into regions in the Hindu Kush and Chitral and are known primarily as Kalash, their ancestral tribal group.

There are few references to this tribal group, but there are some which depict thier animist symbols and devices. Im unclear on the language they speak, certainly dialects present in Chitral regions and likely Urdu, Hindi and possibly Lohar.

Again, Stan very well placed thoughts, and the kind of thinking that the serious study of ethnographic arms desperately needs more of !!!
Thank you so much for sharing your observations.

All the very best,
JIm

My Jamdhar Katari
 

Very interesting thread! For comparison, here is the Jamdhar Katari in my collection.

I'm not seeing the connection between the two . :shrug:

Maybe there is no connection after all... But consider this:

1. Older jamdhar katari were often cast in one piece just like a northern version of a katar

2. "Newer" versions, lets say from the 19th century onward, seem to be composite pieces where a tang-less blade is secured to the hilt with rivets - much like a katar with a sword tip blade

3. Thin metal grip of jamdhar katari features structures similar to the ones found on the grips of many katars. Their main function in all cases is without a doubt to prevent the hand from slipping from a thin grip, but it's peculiar that it is found on both jamdhars and katars

4. A long slender pommel and crossguard on jamdhar katari is designed to lock the wrist. The same feature is almost always present in katars in the form of the side bars

5. Based on teh above, if you can visualize taking a katar and reversing the blade where it is positioned as it would be on a typical dagger, you get jamdhar katari. This also seems to work in reverse. The shape of the blade is somewhat different (except on the old versions of jamdhar katari that feature a straight triangular blade) but otherwise they are similar

Once again, this is just a thought. There may be no connection what so ever, or maybe parituclar styles of these two knives are dictated by simple aesthetics of the people that used them. And being that these people intermingled in the same region, it could be that both forms developed independantly but following some common principle unknown to us.

Here is the old thread I spoke of, Jens' Jamdhar/katar why do we call it a katar?. I recall that the A’in-i-Akbari is actually available online somewhere and I had downloaded a copy, I will look for it.

In regards to the characteristic handle bar, I seem to recall certain old south Indian rapiers and swords with identical handles (see Elgood's Hindu Arms and Ritual: Arms and Armour from India 1400-1865, don't have it with me so can't say which pages).

Emanuel

Text book example
 

I think this piece is the very one illustrated in Anthony Tirri's, Islamic Weapons, Maghrib to Mogul. I bought it from Oriental Arms.

I once researched the origin of the katar, and took it back to 10th century of Orissa. Search for How Old is the Katar?
I dont think it has anythimg to do with the knife in question I am sorry to say.

photo in Tirri
 

Figure 216A, page 296

In my opinion there is absolutely no similarity at all.
Completely different hilts, completely different gripping styles and completely different blade orientation.
Well, they are about as similar as Pata sword is to a Khanda...
But that's just my opinion of course. :shrug:

PS: My opinion and Jens'.

I have to agree with Jens.

Nothing in common, except for the use of words with a Sanskrit root " kut, kat" relating to cutting, slashing, slicing etc. Omani Kattara, a long-bladed weapon, having nothing in common technically with either of the daggers discussed here, is sharing the same root with them. A Roma word kat means scissors: and Gypsies stem from India.

I think we are not talking about anything structural, engineering etc: I think it is just philology.

Jens is right.....no similarity (obviously), mostly the only connection is via the usual 'name game' that so predisposes so many collectors.

I am like Rick cannot see the connection.
Miguel

We seem to have a consensus ....interesting...like retrying an old case, this one over four years old......this time. Original research on these was about 13 years ago.

Hi Stan,
It was a try, and not a bad one.
What you have shown is important, you try to think in different ways, and that is very important, for someone who is interested in researching.
I dont know how many books you have, but like Nidhin (one of the members of this forum) said, "if you buy two pounds of weapons, you should buy four pounds of books" - and he is right, of course.

Making questions like the one you have, shows that you are on the right way - you have found the light - so to say.

Happy researches in the future.

Jens

I refer readers to an excellent description of this weapon at Atkinsons swords on http://atkinson-swords.com/collectio...ghanistan.html and by the author above at # 10.

I extract from his fine summary the following; Quote"There is much debate about the origin of the name and in fact which name is “correct” (jamadhar, jandad, jamdhar, jumdud). The spelling jamdhar seems to indicate Hindi origin yet “Jamdar” may also be a Persian word with the suggested etymology of janb-dar, that is, 'flank render.' An alternative theory is that "jamdhar" is an evolution of the words "Yama" (Lord of death to Hindus) and "Daushtra" (tooth, in Sanskrit). This became "Yama+Dadh", Jamdhad, and now "Jamdhar". In support of this derivation, the word "katar" was originally termed "jamdhar" and loosely translated as "tooth of death." The term "katar" is now applied generally to transverse grip "push" daggers".Unquote.

Here you can read an abstract from the article How Old is the Katar?
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...nalCode=yaaa20

In India, Art and Culture 1300-1900 Stuart Cary Welsh on page 271 writes thet the katar probably originated in southers India. Unfortunately he does not explain how he came to that conclusion.
But as you can see ffor the abstract mentioned above I agree with him. The katar in question is no 205 on the drawing. A photo of the statue holding the katar is shown inthis book. Donaldson, Thomas E.:Hindu Temple Art of Orissa, vol. III. E.J.Brill, Leiden 1987.

Hello Jens, I seem to remember a fairly recent thread where Katars with one bar were shown, possibly the same image together with old carvings, were discussed and I still do not understand how you can effectively hold a Katar with no side arms and only one round grip bar to stab someone, surely it could not be gripped firmly enough for this. I suppose it could be used as a club by striking with the flat of the blade but this is obviously not its purpose so how was a strong enough grip realised? I would love to know.
Regards
Miguel

Hi Miguel,
Yes you are right, and I cant really tell you, to me it also seems to be impossible, I have tried to guess as well, and the only thing I have, so far, been able to come up with is, that maybe it was not a weapon from the start, but developed into a weapon over time.
Should I guess, I would say that a lot of the weapons were not meant as being weapons, but over time developed into weapons. I think some of the very early weapons were in a developing state, in the first century or so of their 'lives'. I may be very wrong, but that is the best I can say at the moment, but I am researching it, as it interests me a lot.
So end of story - I cant answer your very interesting question.

It is also conceivable that the drawing was not accurate: the bar might have been not straight and smooth, but more complex or deeply checkered. Old engravings often distorted reality.

Ariel, you could have been right, but if you look at the statue I think the drawing is correct.
Hindu Temple Art of Orissa vol. III. by Thomas E. Donaldson. E.J.Brill Leiden, 1987. Illustration no 3206.

Suddenly I was not certain if the drawing and the picture comes from the same place, so I double checked it.
Mitra in his book writes that the drawing is from the Gauri temple in Bhuwanesvara Orissa.
Donaldson, on the other hand, writes that the picture is from the sout side of the jagamohana - which as far as I know is a temple structure, and not a name of a temple.
So either the drawing has been made from the statue shown, or from another statue, which would mean that there must be at least two statues showing the same katar.
The Kedar Gauri temple was started by king Yayati Kesari III of the Kesari dynasty, and completed by his son Lalatendu Kesari in the 10th century.
Donaldson, however, dates the statue to last half of the 11th century, and as he does not mention from which temple the statue is, it may be possible that it is two different statues.

I see.

But again, the bar is hidden in the fist, and the only thing needed to prevent rotation of the hand during stabbing is to make it not perfectly round but somewhat flattened.

I am not arguing about the veracity of the examples ( both statue and engraving); just trying to think how to assure that the grip might be made secure.

I agree with you that neither the grip nor the protection was very good, but they did make some changes later.
Mitra seems to have been convinced that it was an early katar, and as an Indian historian and author, who had seen a lot of temple statues and decorations, and one who had quite a reputation for accuracy, I must say that I believe in what he has written.
You can also, later, find katars with side guards, but with only one cross bar.

Hi Jens, I think Ariel has a good point with the section shape of the grip and that perhaps the sketch is not entirely correct in showing to be round. I don't think that the arm extensions were missed off but I cant help but wonder whether the weapon shown in the sketch and frieze, although having a resemblance to the Katar as we know it, actually existed. Have any of these actually been found? :shrug:
Regards
Miguel

I totally agree!

The fact that a reputed author illustrated a Katar like that, doesn't mean that it actually existed! Most likely it didn't, since not a single example like this seems to have been found.

Maybe the author saw a Katar sometime, somewhere, then draw the sketch a couple of years later, based on a faded memory.

However, the illustration is a single perspective of the katar and from this single perspective it is impossible to discern whether the hand-piece is round or flat in cross-section.

But we must remember that even the most reputed authors are humans and subject to mistake, so we must analyze critically and logically every single piece of information.

Dubito, ergo cogito! ;)

I have very little doubt that similar examples existed early on: the statue is a perfect iconographic evidence.


I do not think that sidebars are very crucial determinants of a firm and secure grip; they are more like rudimentary bazu-bands, providing protection to the forearms. My only suggestion is about the handbar: perfectly round, it would twist in the hand, but some change in geometry ( flattening, checkering, more complex profile etc) would largely fix the problem. Regretfully, the statue does not show us the true (?) profile, and the lithograph was likely copied from the statue and " simplified" the handbar.

Just Google "pushdagger": none of the modern ones have sidebars, but their handbars are all flattened or "distorted" to assure good grip.

Kubur, In India the dead ones were burned - with or without their weapons, I dont know. In other countries the dead ones were burried with their weapons, and so we have weapons, and know how old they are.
In India, when weapons were worn, or went out of fashion, they were melted down and new weapons were made of the iron/steel. This is why really old weapons are more than rare, and I doubt that weapons from the 10th century would be impossible to find.
In Khorasan they have found parts of a sword from the 9 th century, but it was burried together with the former owner - so it was found in a grave.

Ariel, I agree with you about the grip/hilt of this katar, but I cant explain why it was made so. One can always start guessing, but it haardly brings us closer to the truth.

Jens,
The same was true about Caucasian weapons, with no known examples of kindjals and shashkas older than 18 century, and in Turkey, with no known examples before (roughly) the reign of Mehmet II.

The higher the intensity of warfare in a society, the lower the chance for the older examples to survive.

Also, on a second thought, I might have been wrong insisting on a more functional grip: the earliest examples of katar might have been ( and likely were) uncomfortable and engineeringly silly. But they had the "grain of truth" in them, and that preserved the idea for a while, providing time for successive generations to introduce improvements. Karl Benz's first production automobile would not have been a Car of the Year in 2016:-)

Ariel, it is quite funny. When I yesterday thought about the subject, it was exactly Karl Benz's first car I was thinking of, and how the cars look to day.

Some minds think alike .
Not necessarily great, but not shabby either:-)

I still have my doubts as to whether a Katar of the form shown actually existed until more conclusive evidence comes to light, at the moment the resons given for not finding at least part of one don't stack up to me.
Miguel

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

:-)))))