While the original topic here is a katar which is examined as to whether wootz or not, the evolving side topic is fascinating. That is just how these were actually used, how often, and whether in battle or hunting.
This is an intriguing topic as over the years it has often been wondered by myself and many others, not only the development of the katar historically, but how effective it was as a weapon. In most cases this was with regard to the properties of the weapon, used in slashing cuts, and those with the addition of reinforced armor piercing points.
I will note here as I have often mentioned, I have had the good fortune of observing and learning a great deal from Jens through many years as his tenacious study of these weapons has unfolded. The remarkable spectrum of these he has collected, examined and researched in my opinion thoroughly exceeds most published works and other key sources.
That being said, his very logical approach to the study of these gives us a more realistic perspective between many of the plausibly hubris filled and embellished accounts toward these weapons and the far less exciting but likely true cases.
The lore of arms and armour is wrought with fable, myth, and legend which has led to misperception and often complete misunderstanding as it was woven into the fabric of art and literature through artistic license.
As Jens has noted, all we have typically are the translated literature and narratives of the times, and artistic miniature paintings which purport to accurately depict the weapons, their character and how they were used.
It is fascinating to see the ratiocination and presentation of statistical probabilities and records compared and evaluated, to look at the question of actual use of these weapons here. Empirical research on arms is often difficult, in some cases nearly impossible, but much welcomed when researchers accept the challenge .
Regarding the case with 'shikargah' embellished weapons, I am wondering if in actuality, these might have been more court or parade wear sort of arms.
It seems that the 'fancy' nature of these and probable expense, and possible fragility of these might render them too valuable to endanger in actual rugged use. That is not to say they are not capable of such use, but that these figures might not wish to risk loss or damage to these status oriented arms.
I know that in cases of much decorated and presentation or gift weapons to officers in military cases, they typically would employ more standard type forms such as with 'fighting sabres' etc.
It would seem that with the hunt, there may have been the case of regalia and hubris laden celebration after the events, where such arms might have been worn and displayed, while the weapons actually used were far less decorated and embellished.
I agree as well with the highly suspect tales of these heightened figures in Indian history using the katar to hunt tigers, at least in the wlld. As noted, it may have occurred in much more qualified or controlled circumstances and probably not a regular instance. Typically events are embellished over time and grow into much exaggerated descriptions and numbers.
I would here throw in some American folklore myth and legend, which clearly emulates that of ancient Greece and much of the classical world with heroes like Davy Crockett, Paul Bunyan, Daniel Boone and others.
Returning to the katar itself, and the examples shown here . Regardless of the much dimensioned lore around them, they are a fascinating weapon which has become an icon of the history of India and its arms.
|