Wootz Katar
 

Your opinion about this Katar.

Very beautiful and quite big, but I cannot see any wootz patterning.

How do you know that is wootz?

Do you have more detailed photos? :shrug:

Anyhow, I believe your Katar could greatly benefit from some etching. If it were mine, i would try etching it then selectively remove the etch from the edges and the high relief figures, leaving the darker etch on the base metal and incised areas.

Please! :)

http://oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=2351

Now I saw it!
:)

Anyhow, I believe your magnificent Katar could benefit greatly from some etching.

With or without ething it is magnificent! Congratulations! :)

Of course you are right :)

double message deleted

Although I prefer to etching in such a wootz :)

Properly done, the Katar will look the same or even better!

And it will be much easier to etch as it doesn't have koftgari areas that need special attention.

I also believe that this would be considered a hunting katar. They usually have chiseled animal and hunting designs like this.

Please show pictures of the end results of the etching. Almost looks like crystalline wootz.

I would like to ask Jens whether katars with hunting scenes were strictly hunting.

I'm struck by the contrast between the two sets of photos. While obviously the same katar, the Oriental Arms photos give an impression of considerable flatness in the figures on the blade, while emphasising the grain of the wootz. The photos by the OP show more curvilinear sculpting, and eliminate the grain in the steel.

Pictures don't lie, but certainly are unable to completely elicit Truth.

It all depends on perspective and on how is the light from the light sources.

It is extremely difficult to capure the wootz paterning in photos, because of the glare you get from the metal surface. And even more so when there are just faint remains of watering surrounded by shiny metal.

I assume Artzi gave much more attention and spent much more time searching for the right light and angles to capture exactly that faint trace of watering.

I honestly have serious doubts about the "hunting katars." The katar is a quite effective close quarter combat weapon and other than applying the "coup de grace" to the already dying game, I think it is totally unsuitable for hunting.

Yes, many katars are decorated with hunting scenes, and most probably they were part of the hunting gear of the time, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were primarily used for hunting.

I think you should read the article about Katar.

Unless this katar was purchased directly from Artzi it could have been worked on, polished etc in some way, the two images do look to show a different surface appearance.

Yes, katar was not purchased directly from Artzi.

Posibly you are right, but I am more inclined to think it's just the play of reflections and shadows.

:shrug:

PS: After carefully examining both photos in detail, I am pretty sure there was absolutely no other polishing done (well maybe some very mild cleaning). Artzi's photo generally is very flat, showing no relief because of the angle and the absence of shadows.

However, if we examine all the scratches, oxidation and traces of pitting (on the edges, on the high relief figures as well as on the chiseled down base metal), we can clearly see them present in both photos in the same configuration. Any polishing would have, if not completely removed, certainly reduced those traces of oxidation and pitting. :cool:

Yes it is a nice katar, but could we please see what the side guards looks like.

It is true that it can be very difficult to photograph wootz, and it is also true that different light sources can change a picture of a weapon very much, and to this comes in which angle the picture has been taken and how the shadows fall. This are some of the things which can make a weapon look quite different.

When we discuss the 'hunting katar', we must remember that non of us lived at the time. What we have are descriptions by authors and collectors of earlier times, and these descriptions may be correct, or the may not be exactly correct. An European could have joined an Indian hunt, and seen some katars with hunting scenes drawn, thinking these katars must be for hunting, and that was what he would write.
In daily life the Indian's did not draw their katars all the time, so it is difficult to say if the katars had hunting scenes on the blade or not.
I think any katar, the ones decorated with hunting scenes and the more plain ones were used for hunting, but I also think both types were used for war, unless the owner had a great number of katars to choose from.

Very logical! My point also. :)

You are probably right.

I like these hunting scenes, they give some interesting details. Below is one from the Met Museum collection.

Please accept the opinion of a professional photographer. The only difference between these two images (beyond positioning and background) is the lighting. ;)

Considering that the Indian aristocracy didn't go to war every day, neither did they go out to kill somebody regularly, it is quite logical to assume hunting was a much more common activity, and therefore the Katars were used much more frequently at hunting. But that doesn't make them hunting daggers.

It is like many hunters have and use a Kabar USMC, but that doesn't make it a hunting knife.

Interesting that I have seen many Katars, Khanjars and even Tulwars with hunting scenes, but not a single one with a battle scene. :shrug:

Thank you for the photos! :)

I would love to get my hand on a Katar like Mahratt's!

Thank you David, I had hoped that you could comment on the pictures, as I am only an amateur.

I do not think it is a katar, I would like to see the whole image though, nice wootz pattern.

No, no, the one with the hunting scene. That's the one I would like to have! :)

But I wouldn't say no to this one as well (it seems to be a Khanjar or a relative). The etching is poorly done as the surface was crudely cleaned, but not polished adequately (up to 2000-3000 grit). :cool:

Marius,
Where would you say stop - no, no, no:-):-)?
We all have our limits, where is yours?

Don't know. Didn't reach it yet. Will let you know as soon as I get there.
;) :D

I know where my limits are, in both ends of the scala - and I have known for a very long time, but I wont tell :-).

If compared the number of hunts and battles in the history of India (both South and North), the answer will be obvious :)

Yes, but you must remember that they, in the south, hardly if ever showed battle scenes.

Many thanks. Of course. I know only TWO battle scenes with using jamdhar. However I'm sure that hunting was weekly or monthly, but battles weren't.

You are more tham welcome, but I am afraid that you dont see the point, to my opinoin, you see your own point, but Ariel asked if these katars were only used for hunting.
So when you show a lot of hunting scenes where the katar is used, you dont see the point, and what more is, you dont even try to research if they were used for fighting as well.
I have said what I need to say on this thread, so I will leave you to teach the interested members how it really was.

I didn't mean to offend you. To be honest, in the first place the dagger was the subject of the costume. For example Akbar had 40 pieces of each kind of dagger and every day he changed them. Only in the second turn jamdhars were used for hunting and may be some times for fighting. But I do not think that they were richly decorated of hunting scenes items. Apparently this does not apply to simple daggers without decoration.

It looks weird, when we believe that "tulwars shikargah" were used specially for hunting, while similarly decorated jamdhars no.

Double post

Based on iconography, tulwars were used mainly for deer hunting, whereas katars were most often shown as implements of tiger hunting by the Rajahs.

Great populations of deer likely explain the abundance of hunting tulwars, but I have my doubts that there were enough tigers hunts to justify the profusion of katars with hunting scenes.


Here is my attempt to utilize Enrico Fermi's "guess-timate method" that served him exceedingly well : in a series of guesses, over,- and under estimates cancel each other.

As per this paper

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com...ting-in-india/

between 1875 and 1925, 80,000 tigers were killed in India, i.e. roughly 1 per day ( that includes organized hunts for visiting dignitaries as well as "mechanized" hunts with cars, machine guns and cannon). Also, that includes the REPORTED number of tigers killed by professional hunters outside the royal hunts, but let's ignore it for the sake of simplicity and attribute ALL to royal hunts.

Prior to Indian independence ( 1947) there were roughly 250 princely states

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tates_of_India.

Thus, each Rajah had a chance to organize a tiger hunt and to kill one tiger roughly every 250 days, i.e. once- twice a year.

Was it really necessary to produce that many tiger-hunting katars specifically for such an infrequent occurence?

The problem with this assertion is that you do not know the number of tiger hunts ( unless you can guess-timate them as above) and the number of military confrontations large and small, recorded and unrecorded, number of warriors involved, number of iconographic sources, their emphasis on the specific use of katars etc, etc, etc.

There are multiple iconographic sources of warriors armed with katars. Do you suggest they carried them into battle to protect themselves against tigers?


One can just as well posit that EVERY glorious occasion of a Rajah dispatching a tiger with katar was immediately immortalized in a miniature:-)))

Killing a tiger with a Katar?!
:rolleyes:

Unless one is "Chuck Norris" ... or the tiger is half dead, that belongs to legend, not reality! ;)

Even a severely wounded tiger could easily kill an approaching human, unless the tiger is bound and immobilized.

How many stories about Rajas being killed by tigers are there?!

How many stories/depictions of glorious Rajas killing strong and healthy tigers, single handedly and without suffering the slightest scratch are there?!
;)

So, how realistic all these sories/depictions are?!

Mercenary, you did not offend me, but I can add anything to what I have already written.
There are katar on which are written that they can penetrate the head of an elephant. This does, however, not mean, that they were used for penetrating heads of elephants.
I still believe, that katars with hunting scenes on the blade were used for hunting, but I also believe that they were also used in other connections.