Popularity of 'katar' shapes?
 

I have been doing research on kalaripayattu (what little is available to the average joe), and I saw on youtube videos that oftentimes they used a katar(a) with a curved blade like a relatively straight S. There's also ones that curved straight up like a mini-saber. Of course there's a plethora of simpler dagger-like shapes. I can see the upwards-curved katar being an excellent slasher, the S-curved ones being decent at slashing, chopping, and puncturing... and the dagger-like kind great for thrusts and decent at slashing/chopping. What's interesting is that many Indian martial arts seem to see the katar as a weapon that is to be used for slashing in addition to the obvious thrust. What surprises me is that when I look on antique websites, peoples' posts here, and eBay the most popular kind I see is the straight dagger type...

What I am wondering is: are the straight dagger-like katar more popular amongst buyers or just more popular amongst warriors back then?

For example, the keris/kris often conjures the popular image of a Malay-Indonesia wavy dagger or a Moro wavy sword... and yet, many (often more practical ones) were the swollen tipped Keris and the straight or straighter kris swords. Some obviously had more symbolic and talismanic qualities, but it came at a cost. Like the doppelsoldners' swords, some had practical straight swords, and flamed parade swords...

I'm a novice in all this stuff, but hopefully my question can spark a great discussion :)

Katars blade geometry are really not conducive to slashing the last few inches of the blade are quite thick with no real edge. The reason you see more straight blades is that they were more functional at punching through chain mail. A curved blade would be pretty useless against chain mail. I have seen a few curved ones but with a slight upswept blade that could still be used to pierce armor.

Lew

Thanks, but still, that confuses me.... why practice a lot of slashing moves when your main move is a punch? Is it because many went without armor of any sort (in the areas where slashes were practiced)? Is hacking away at the opponent just a way to overwhelm his defense and go in for the jab, or a throw followed up by a finishing punch...? :shrug:

Here's another picture of a Kalaripayattu training place with curved katars

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1751/86623197.jpg

It seems more common than straight ones. Granted this is kalaripyattu, a martial art from Kerala. Perhaps the people of northern and central India used straight katars more? I say this because in all the searching I have done on Shastar Vidiya and Gatka have come up with mainly straight dagger-like katars.

Check the videos near the bottom of page

It appears to be used by Nidar Singh Nihang (along with another dagger) as a "main-gauche" of sorts. It seems like a good close-quarters and bridging weapon in combination with a sword. On the battlefield it was probably secondary to longer ranged weapons like spears, bows, swords, and matchlocks.
I imagine in the old days, in city streets and alleys, a katar alone would be a formidable close-in fighting weapon in a martial world with a plethora of knives, daggers, claws, fighting bracelets, etc.

bump in case any jamdhar or Indian weaponry specialist comes along :D

While extremely limited in my understanding of most martial arts, the katar is a most interesting weapon, which we have discussed considerably over the years. It seems that the armour piercing (malle perce) feature of strengthed tip is considered more prevalent in areas to the north where chain mail was more typically present. In the central and southern regions, such armour, while certainly nominally present, was not as common, so armour piercing weapons were not typical either.

The katar itself, much as the pata, its sword length counterpart, the gauntlet sword, was initially and more commonly a slashing weapon. The Mahrattas, one of the earlier groups generally held to have been among the earliest users of these weapons, are known for thier slashing preference with edged weapons, and typically were against the use of the thrust.

It is my understanding that among the earliest katars, especially those in Mahratta regions to the west, cut down European blades were used in them. While straight blades of course, they certainly would not have been for armour piercing any more than the original sword blade was, and the slashing cuts probably parallel to any other straight blades use.

I havent looked further into notes on these curved blade examples yet, but I would be inclined to think of them as to the northwest, and perhaps favored as a hunting type weapon. It is known that in these regions, among Mughals and Rajputs, to hunt tigers etc. with the katar was a pronounced mark of bravery, and the curved, uptick blade is in my understanding for a thrust and upward tear.
OTH, the curved blade as seen it seems in the slashing sense does, in the same effect as a sabre in providing more cutting surface in the movement of the cut.
Just cursory thoughts, and I hope they might be of some use.

All the best,
Jim

Thanks. It is interesting you note regional armor-usage and Mahratta preference for slashing in their fighting, I'll keep those two things in mind as I keep looking at different katars!

It's just fascinating to see how different Indian martial arts use the same type of weapon very differently...

The manner of holding katars as well as their frequent feature of reinforced tips ostensibly suggests exclusively ( or, at least, mainly) stabbing purpose. However, their long relative, Pata, was an exclusively slashing weapon. Jim is also correct in pointing out the widespread use of european blades,- thin and flexible, with (often) rounded tips, not suitable for stabbing, especially through the armor.
As a matter of fact, katars are quite handy slashing weapons: just grab one and try :-)
Even if their original purpose was stabbing ( see Elgood's book with photographs of statues), it was inevitable for their slashing ability to be emphasized in the creation of curved blades.

Hi Kukulz,
I would like to thank you for opening this great topic for discussion, and you have indeed piqued my curiosity! Frankly, though we have discussed katars many times through the years, and the obvious selection of curved vs. the prevalent straight blades has not as far as I know, been considered.

I have looked through most of the extant resources, which offer no tangible explanation for blade variations, though noting the examples typically catalogued or pictured, the blades are indeed most often straight. The resources I looked into were "Hindu Arms and Ritual" (Robert Elgood); "Indian Arms and Armour" (G.N.Pant); "Traditional Weapons of India" (E.Jaiwent Paul); and of course the venerable Egerton reference.

In previous discussions of the development of the pata, the well known 'gauntlet' sword, it seems generally held that these evolved from the katar. What remains uncertain is the origin and development of the katar itself, and one of the most unusual references is in Stone, showing a curious weapon claimed c.15th century, 'Moorish', and termed the 'manople'. This is a gauntlet type weapon with straight blade and blades parallel on either side of the central larger blade, giving it a trident effect. For a time, this curious weapon was somewhat entertained as a potential proto-katar/pata, but later discovered that Stone had perpetuated an error from earlier cataloguing of the Armeria Real in Madrid (Jubinal, c.1840), and that this was simply a version of pata with unclear provenance. The resemblance to the trident (trisula) of Shiva is clear evidence of Indian influence, or possibly even provenance.

Whatever the case, it remains that most katar blades are straight, with those of primarily Mahratta origin with cut down European sword blades, in the west, to the hooded hand guard examples of Tanjore, to the east. The preponderance of katars of the most commonly seen form, and with reinforced armor piercing tip, seem to be from the northern regions with Rajput and Sikh provenance. In Egerton, the captions reflect provenance for most of these from Lahore, Patiala, and Punjab, all northern regions.

To the south of these regions is Gujerat and Kach, where the rather distinct hilt of the so called 'Garsoe' katar is found, again typically straight blades.
In these regions, the katar is a profound symbol, where in Kathiwar and the Kattee people swear oaths and agreements on its blade.

In Pant, there is mention of a katar with curved blade in the Prince of Wales Museum in Bombay (p.170) and it is stated of 17th century and Maratha, curiously noting it is thickened at the tip, which seems atypical with the known use of slashing cuts employed by them. Perhaps a suggestion that the katar may have developed in the north in Rajput regions as often suggested?
However, it should be noted that Pant often seems quite liberal in his assignment of period, and items referenced from many museums are from provenances that seem, in my opinion, seriously clouded.

Pant also cites a curved blade example of late 17th century from Delhi (p.170, fig. 527) with a blade recurved in 'bichwa' form. It is important to note that in Pant, the katar is referred to by the apparantly proper term, 'jamadhar' which is the word describing this weapon in Indian language. The katar term is believed to have become misapplied in the Egerton work, and became a collectors reference to the transverse hilt 'punch daggers'.
It is so soundly entrenched as the descriptive term in place, it would only be counterproductive and confusing to try to correct this error at this point.

With this overview, I have added simply for the benefit of general readers and those not already familiar with all of this information, I think it would be interesting to continue the discussion of the query Kukulz has posed.

Although there are seemingly few examples of curved bladed katars, what would compel the choice of these blades? We know that the manner of use may be of course, the key factor, and that most katars familiar to us are the northern versions with reinforced armour piercing tip. We also know that the bichwa daggers with recurved blades were a popularly chosen form, and perhaps if I recall, somewhat regional. Possibly regions favoring the bichwa may be of some association to curved blade katars?

I do hope others out there will join in with thier ideas, as I think Kukulz has presented a most astutely observed question, and this is our opportunity to learn more on these familiar, yet apparantly under researched weapons.

All very best regards,
Jim

Thanks ariel and Jim for the input.
I am surprised it has not been brought up more! :D

I never knew the manople was actually a mislabled pata - I wonder how many more naming mistakes are currently unknown since the Western world of catalogers often rely on the worked done before them. For example we may call something a sirupati or sundang or cutacha... but it may mean something different to the locals using it, whether they call all kukris sirupatis, or only certain bolos sundangs, or all machetes (regardless of use) a machete... (or perhaps local categorization is different).

It is interesting to note the bichwa-shaped blade on a katar - while that shape is so different than the triangular one we are used to, it seems ubiquitous in all of today's Kalaripayattu halls as far as I know. I understand that Bichwa were popular in the Maratha areas (Western Ghats? my Indian geography is shaky), but that Bichwa dagger-styles were also to be found in Tamil areas - not necessarily in loop handles, sometimes with conventional grips. So was the bichwa design prevalent in Kerala? I doubt they were ignorant of it, it seems to be popular throughout India, especially in Maratha places.

But why change the design? It was already an effective slashing weapon with the triangular blade, as seen with the Marathas.... if those slashing and punching moves worked on armored (mail and padded cloth) opponents, why would there be any changes necessary to accommodate the scantily clothed in the south? Perhaps styles and preferences diverged a long time ago?

As Jim mentioned, the katars in the north often had swollen tips, Marathas often had European blades riveted to the katar handles, the East often exhibited the hand guard... perhaps the novelty of the southern katar was it's blade shape - but what could lead to this uniqueness?

I am aware it might be 'dangerous' to generalize and stereotpye the katars of each region. If there's one thing I learned on these forums, it's that things are not concrete, a Dutch cutlass blade in Javanese handle, a laminated Jian in villager dress, Persian wootz in Russian dagger, German sword blade in African sword, Yunnan swords used by Koxinga troops, katanas imitated by SE Asians, etc.

Jens Nordlunde seemed to have touched on a very similar theme in this old thread. :)

I'm not sure if it's "OK" to resurrect this thread, about 8 months since it's start... but I thought this would interest some people. I did not have a good clear photo of a Kerala-katar used in Kalaripayattu, and I don't think many outside of Kerala and Kalaripayattu training know much about it specifically...

link the Kerala-katar

Photo edited to be "right-side up"
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/3299/untadled.jpg

Found this guy while looking up Taiwanese aboriginal knives and Native American quivers in the database.

Good enough example? Any interest for discussion?

Could this Kerala / Kalaripayattu style katar simply be a martial arts specialization weapon? Some martial arts have a specialized weapon that their art is often known by... or a master fighter had taken a common or uncommon weapon and further modified it and developed further techniques for it that is carried down in his fighting art.