Hindu Armour and the Katar?

B.I · 28th April 2006, 08:24 AM

not sure how much interest this will be to others, but it was a track i have been looking into for quite a long time. i have had an ongoing arguement/debate/discussion with a published islamic academic, about whether the hindus wore armour before the advent of islam (ie was armour introduced to the hindus by the muslims). iconography has always gone against me, as hindu sculpture represents a mythological mix of religion and history, and most warriors are represented in a semi-naked (pure) form.
however, i have found this useful piece of information.
i read through a translation of 2 12th century hindu texts (written in 1880), which, amongst other things, touches on army and weapons. it says this -

armour consists of scales, the breath of a grain of wheat, is of metal and firm, and is ornamented on the upper part of the body.

this is important to me, as it not only shows a complex armour srtucture (lamelar metal scales) but it also shows that it wasnt crude, but ornamented.
i know that my islamic friend will find a good way to twist this around, but it is still an important piece of information about early hindu armour.
also, for jens, it says this -

the maustika (fist sword, dagger) - has a good hilt, is a span long and ornamented. its end is sharp, it has a high neck, is broad in the midst and dark coloured. it can make all sorts of movements, as it is a small and handy weapon.

i know this is very loose, and purely speculative, but this could refer to an early version of the katar. a fist dagger points out it was held in a different way, and pointing out it can make all sorts of movements distinguishes it away from normally held daggers.
whether it is what i speculate it to be, its still intriguing enough to look into further.

Jens Nordlunde · 28th April 2006, 05:07 PM

You have found some most interesting pieces of information – and early ones as well. In India, Nepal and Tibet they have Guardians, on for each corner of the world. These are shown with arms and armour, so if it would be possible to find early bronzes of these figures, it should be possible to see their armour.

The information on the Maustika is of course far the most interesting, at least to me, but have a look here http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000653.html it is now up to Jim to tell us where he found the word and description.

It sounds very much as if the description of the Maustika is something quite different from an ordinary dagger, so it could well be an early description of a katar, and if it is, it is about 200 years older than the one Ibn Batutta describes.

B.I · 28th April 2006, 06:25 PM

@!!%&?//!!!!

it seems like my earth-shattering piece of information is old news!
where the kfc did jim find this??
oh well, i should have guessed that our mr McD would be a few steps ahead of me

i think i will stick to playing with arms, and leave acedemia to academics

Jens Nordlunde · 28th April 2006, 09:33 PM

It seems as if Jim was tipped of by Mabagani about a thread – but which thread?

Brian, you did well in mentioning the Maustika, as I did not know the word/dagger, and the only link I got from a Google search gave the link in my other mail. So all we have to di is to wait for Jim or Mabagani to show up.

Jim McDougall · 28th April 2006, 11:36 PM

Hi Brian and Jens,
I cant seem to display the link posted, and cant recall the specific discussion you reference, however, the data on the 'maushtika' was actually information found long ago in the venerable backbone of my library, Sir Richard Burton's "Book of the Sword" (1884, on p.215).
In this single sentenced reference, Burton notes, "...the maushtika (fist sword,stiletto) is only a span long, and thus very handy for all kinds of movements".
Ironically Brian, Burton's reference appears to be that of Professor Gustav Oppert, who published his "On the Weapons etc.of the Ancient Hindus" in London in 1880. It seems that Burton cited the same reference to the maushtika that you note. In checking other resources to find supporting or collaborating references to a weapon with this term, they all cite the Burton reference, without further notation or data.
Since Opperts work was not illustrated and we have simply a narrative description of the 'maushtika' , it does not offer more than suggestion that implies a possible proto-katar by the note terming it a 'fist' weapon. However it does certainly present strong plausibility.
It would be interesting to find this term or weapon described alternatively to its appearance in various references all borrowing from the same original source.
In Burton the text suggests that Oppert may have derived the material from Book III of the Nitiprakashika (op.cit. p.214).

Brian, your 'playing' with arms is where the real knowledge comes from !!!
The 'academic' references are simply support when correctly applied ...
so keep your observations comin'....puuullleeeze!!!

All best regards,
Jim

B.I · 29th April 2006, 08:27 AM

hi jim,
ok, so it was burton that beat me to it

it was oppert's book that i read, and the book is the translation of parts of 2 hindu manuscripts (the weapons/army references), the Nitiprakashika and the Sukraniti. the former was unknown prior to his involvement and it seems it was quite a find of the day.
to be honest, jim, i actually enjoy both reading and playing, and find myself researching more than collecting these days. i dont call myself academic due to a short memory span and low boredom threshold. also, most academics dont go out much, are antisocial, exceedingly dull and look like their mothers still dress them

28th April 2006, 08:24 AM	#1
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	Hindu Armour and the Katar? not sure how much interest this will be to others, but it was a track i have been looking into for quite a long time. i have had an ongoing arguement/debate/discussion with a published islamic academic, about whether the hindus wore armour before the advent of islam (ie was armour introduced to the hindus by the muslims). iconography has always gone against me, as hindu sculpture represents a mythological mix of religion and history, and most warriors are represented in a semi-naked (pure) form. however, i have found this useful piece of information. i read through a translation of 2 12th century hindu texts (written in 1880), which, amongst other things, touches on army and weapons. it says this - armour consists of scales, the breath of a grain of wheat, is of metal and firm, and is ornamented on the upper part of the body. this is important to me, as it not only shows a complex armour srtucture (lamelar metal scales) but it also shows that it wasnt crude, but ornamented. i know that my islamic friend will find a good way to twist this around, but it is still an important piece of information about early hindu armour. also, for jens, it says this - the maustika (fist sword, dagger) - has a good hilt, is a span long and ornamented. its end is sharp, it has a high neck, is broad in the midst and dark coloured. it can make all sorts of movements, as it is a small and handy weapon. i know this is very loose, and purely speculative, but this could refer to an early version of the katar. a fist dagger points out it was held in a different way, and pointing out it can make all sorts of movements distinguishes it away from normally held daggers. whether it is what i speculate it to be, its still intriguing enough to look into further.

28th April 2006, 05:07 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	You have found some most interesting pieces of information – and early ones as well. In India, Nepal and Tibet they have Guardians, on for each corner of the world. These are shown with arms and armour, so if it would be possible to find early bronzes of these figures, it should be possible to see their armour. The information on the Maustika is of course far the most interesting, at least to me, but have a look here http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000653.html it is now up to Jim to tell us where he found the word and description. It sounds very much as if the description of the Maustika is something quite different from an ordinary dagger, so it could well be an early description of a katar, and if it is, it is about 200 years older than the one Ibn Batutta describes.

28th April 2006, 06:25 PM	#3
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	@!!%&?//!!!! it seems like my earth-shattering piece of information is old news! where the kfc did jim find this?? oh well, i should have guessed that our mr McD would be a few steps ahead of me i think i will stick to playing with arms, and leave acedemia to academics

28th April 2006, 09:33 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	It seems as if Jim was tipped of by Mabagani about a thread – but which thread? Brian, you did well in mentioning the Maustika, as I did not know the word/dagger, and the only link I got from a Google search gave the link in my other mail. So all we have to di is to wait for Jim or Mabagani to show up.

28th April 2006, 11:36 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,896	Hi Brian and Jens, I cant seem to display the link posted, and cant recall the specific discussion you reference, however, the data on the 'maushtika' was actually information found long ago in the venerable backbone of my library, Sir Richard Burton's "Book of the Sword" (1884, on p.215). In this single sentenced reference, Burton notes, "...the maushtika (fist sword,stiletto) is only a span long, and thus very handy for all kinds of movements". Ironically Brian, Burton's reference appears to be that of Professor Gustav Oppert, who published his "On the Weapons etc.of the Ancient Hindus" in London in 1880. It seems that Burton cited the same reference to the maushtika that you note. In checking other resources to find supporting or collaborating references to a weapon with this term, they all cite the Burton reference, without further notation or data. Since Opperts work was not illustrated and we have simply a narrative description of the 'maushtika' , it does not offer more than suggestion that implies a possible proto-katar by the note terming it a 'fist' weapon. However it does certainly present strong plausibility. It would be interesting to find this term or weapon described alternatively to its appearance in various references all borrowing from the same original source. In Burton the text suggests that Oppert may have derived the material from Book III of the Nitiprakashika (op.cit. p.214). Brian, your 'playing' with arms is where the real knowledge comes from !!! The 'academic' references are simply support when correctly applied ... so keep your observations comin'....puuullleeeze!!! All best regards, Jim

29th April 2006, 08:27 AM	#6
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi jim, ok, so it was burton that beat me to it it was oppert's book that i read, and the book is the translation of parts of 2 hindu manuscripts (the weapons/army references), the Nitiprakashika and the Sukraniti. the former was unknown prior to his involvement and it seems it was quite a find of the day. to be honest, jim, i actually enjoy both reading and playing, and find myself researching more than collecting these days. i dont call myself academic due to a short memory span and low boredom threshold. also, most academics dont go out much, are antisocial, exceedingly dull and look like their mothers still dress them