Small Katar

[corrado26]

I got this katar with its sheeth. What is remarkable is its small wideness of its handle of only 58mm what makes it unusable for a men's hand. The total length is 340mm and its weight is 223g. Was it perhaps made for a child?
corrado26

[adrian]

Their general stature was much smaller than the average of today. My Katar is also too small for my hand, as is my Tulwar.
That is a nice example.

[Jim McDougall]

This is interesting as we are discussing a rather diminutive breast plate on Euro right now, which is clearly too small for a normal male chest, and there are concerns whether it might have even been for a child (lack of slits or means for wear attachment notwithstanding). There is the possibility of this example being a model or display piece, but of course uncertain. With some weaponry in India, it seems that sometimes the innovation in arms making extended even to novelty with armorers producing unusual pieces, perhaps even miniatures, for patrons.

It has been a topic discussed for many years here, whether smaller grips in Indian sword hilts would suggest smaller stature of men there, or perhaps even the manner in which the sword was held. It does seem that certain instances of sword hilt character did result in smaller size of grip with regulation British pattern (1908) made for native troops. This does not seem to have become widely practiced prior to this, as far as regularly noted pattern records I have seen.

The size of this katar does seem remarkably small, and I would note that some katars made by innovative armorers consisted of several which were carried together in either same scabbard or even enclosed in the larger dagger. This could be one of the smaller 'case' members but now put into its own scabbard.

Returning to the childs accouterment idea, in India, as in many cultures, children reached majority in station often at early age. There were many extremely young princes and court members who would have been given weapons of the regularly worn types in accord with those of adults nominally in their charge or station.

Obviously, they were not expected to be used, but a matter of tradition and protocol .

This may be a plausible explanation for consideration.

[corrado26]

I am sorry for having posted this katar in the wrong category. Would it be possible to place it in the ethnographic category please?
corrado26

[fernando]

Originally Posted by corrado26

I am sorry for having posted this katar in the wrong category. Would it be possible to place it in the ethnographic category please?
corrado26

Right away, Udo .

[fernando]

Originally Posted by adrian

Their general stature was much smaller than the average of today. My Katar is also too small for my hand, as is my Tulwar...

I will obviously concur with such assessment. Not only their hands were small but also slim ... enough to fit into those weapons narrow hilts. There are so many accounts of this particularity that, otherwise, all such recorded Indian hilts being for young men, would be implausible.

[Jens Nordlunde]

The katar could have been made for a child or a young man.
In India many boys at the age of seven or eight had replicas of the grown ups weapons, and was trained in using them.
I have a number of katars and most have cross bars of 7.5 cm, a few of 8 cm, and one or two of 6 cm - see the attached.
When it comes to how tall the average Indian was, it is mentioned in an article in Sultans of the South. Arts of India's Deccan Courts, 1323-1687. Fortifications and Gunpowder in the Deccan, 1368-1687 by Klaus Roetzer. Here the author gives the average hight to 1.7 meter.
It must also be remembered, that many Indians have a finer bone building that most Europeans.
Most tulwar hilts and katars are too narrow for an European, but would fit an Indian hand. When it comes to the tulwar hilt, it must also be remembered, that the way they used the sword, it was important that the grip was very tight.
Overall length 43 cm, blade 24 cm.

[corrado26]

Many thanks to all who answered my question, it was all of great help.
corrado26

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

... It must also be remembered, that many Indians have a finer bone building that most Europeans...

So indeed, Jens.

[Jim McDougall]

In accord with Jens' excellent entry and suggestion of this katar made for a young boy or young man, I would note the comparison between a regular sized Hindu basket hilt and a khanda for a boy. In ensuring we keep the focus on Indian arms this illustration serves well.

In addition to knowing that in India young regal figures were given edged weapons for their wear, obviously smaller than usual, it does seem regularly noted than the stature, and obviously hands were often smaller.

In Brian Robson's book on British army swords, but noting the M1908 sword for the ARMY OF INDIA, though the pattern followed that of the British model, but it "...featured a smaller grip to match the generally smaller hands of the troopers recruited in the Sub Continent".

It is surprising that more attention is not given in the many references on Indian arms toward edged weapons for children, young boys at least in some degree as it does seem fairly well known.

These dimensions of the transverse bars on examples noted by Jens measuring from just over 2.5" to just over 3" on small katars seems of note in comparison to my own hand which measures just over 4.5" wide. Clearly a dramatic difference in being able to hold such a weapon.

[Jens Nordlunde]

In this discussion I am not too fond of 'smaller hands', I prefer slimmer hands, as their bone structure is finer than the Europeans.


The katar shown below is made for a child. Deccan early 18th century. overall length 20 cm, blade 10 cm, and the cross bars 6.5 cm.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

In this discussion I am not too fond of 'smaller hands', I prefer slimmer hands, as their bone structure is finer than the Europeans ...

I am glad you confirm that, Jens ... as i attempted in my post #4.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

In this discussion I am not too fond of 'smaller hands', I prefer slimmer hands, as their bone structure is finer than the Europeans.


The katar shown below is made for a child. Deccan early 18th century. overall length 20 cm, blade 10 cm, and the cross bars 6.5 cm.

Good to point out Jens, and it does seem that Fernando did use the term 'slimmer' in noting the character of hands that would suit these narrow hilts we are discussing on katars (#4).

It was in my description that I used the term 'smaller' hands, mostly as I was considering a broader scope toward arms and armor with smaller elements possibly made for children.

Obviously when we are considering the katar, a weapon with transverse grips which cause the hand to be enclosed by the outside bars which attach these grips, if these bars are short, thus narrow...then only a narrow (=slim) hand would fit inside.
I should have better qualified my description ( not realizing the importance of narrow/slim vs. small) to suit the weapon form discussed. Clearly my notes on other arms forms which were perhaps for children or smaller statured persons carried the focus into a more comprehensive scope, as seen with my notes on swords and the equally tenuously mentioned armor.

When reviewing the 'sizes' of these Indian weapons, I think back to years ago when we were reading through 'Tod' and the measuring of blades (mostly) in barley corns.

[Norman McCormick]

This may be of some interest if watched in entirety.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz8E...&index=91&t=0s


Regards,
Norman.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Norman, that really is a fascinating talk, and this guy is pretty good. He always well explains things and I like the way he uses actual examples of weapons as he describes how they were used.

I think one of the most salient points he brings up, and most pertinent to the hilt size issue, is the notion of one finger 'outside' the grip area. While this has often been contested, it seems most logical and that it is supported by evidence (or suggestion in artwork) which has been noted by many researchers.

With the tulwar, it is noted that the forefinger was wrapped around the guard quillon, and in describing the method of use of the tulwar, the disc pommel is also an element of the arm position dictating the position of the arm in the strike and cut.
While many suggest that the forefinger would be threatened by the sword of the opponent in parry, it is remembered that the shield was used to parry in Indian swordsmanship. The idea of the forefinger around the quillon was to strengthen the integrity of the strike and cut at impact.

The extending of forefinger around quillon in the case of European swordsmanship and the rapier, while similar, really does not apply to the case of same with Indian tulwar in my opinion.

Returning to the question of 'narrow' hilt on katar of the topic here, in the video linked by Norman, the speaker notes that the grip of the weapon in such narrow hilts could be accommodated by extending the 'pinky' finger outside the grip in similar manner as that mentioned on tulwar.

This would seem a viable solution, however it would seem a weapon that was specifically made for an individual would be made to be of adequate size for the entire hand. It seemed worthy of note here that the finger extension might be considered, even if tenuously.

[fernando]

What a coincidence; i spotted the link shown by Norman this morning.
Now, could it be my poor English or my poor hear ...
Do i understand from you Jim that, the guy in the video is suggesting that, the resource to place one finger outside the grip in has an intended purpose, that not the alternative for a 'regular' size hand to be able to hold an (too) narrow hilted the weapon ?

[Jens Nordlunde]

Fernando, it was my impression that your English is better than mine, but we seem to be on the same level.
We have had this discussion years ago, and at the time I wrote, that if the Indians had used the forefinger aroundd the quillon, there would have been a finger protection.
Another thing is, that some blades have a ricasso, while others dont have one, so the blade is sharp to the hilt.

[Mercenary]

Never in the past or even now in authentic Indian martial arts there are not any fingers outside the grip. The ricasso is only for keeping by second hand in the case when it is necessary to strengthen the blow - then two or three fingers of second hand are out of the handle and overlap the ricasso.

[Jim McDougall]

Actually both of you have phenomenal command of English, and the skills at parsing wording reaches levels that even native English speakers never attain!
I surely could never reach such levels in Portuguese or Danish (if I did speak them).

Fernando, what I understood from the guy in the video was that the placement of fingers 'outside' the structural elements of the hilt was more an adaptive practice, not widely spread technique. Obviously if a man had a weapon made it would be to suit his own hand, but if it were a weapon obtained otherwise, its use would of course require 'adaption'.

With the katar, this would not be an alternative purpose, and I understood the speaker to be saying it would be feasible adaption to the circumstance for use of a weapon whose grip was too small for the hand of the person using it.
This was more of a suggestion.

With the tulwar, it has been suggested over the years that the forefinger around the quillon strengthened the grasp of the hilt in striking cuts. The speaker noted the position maintained by the forearm dictated by the disc pommel was part of the technique in this system.

The matter of the 'Indian ricasso', that is the blunt choil at the hilt area of the blade, is also supportive of the extended forefinger around the quillon. Clearly this technique would not be feasible if the blade were sharpened all the way to the hilt, as with shamshirs etc.

In European swords, the use of the rapier often had the forefinger extended in this manner, and was protected by the quillons which were part of the developed guard covering the ricasso area. This as previously noted, had nothing to do with the suggested Indian practice of forefinger extension being discussed.

With the tulwar, my question would be, why would the extended forefinger need protection? In Indian swordsmanship they were not fencing, but engaged in sweeping cuts, and parrying used a shield to receive blows.

The khanda, altered into the 'Hindu basket hilt' (post contact) was clearly a different matter, here there was no potential for the extended finger method as the large guard prohibited such a thing. Naturally this is a quite different weapon, and used by people to more southern regions than the tulwar usually. Their techniques were different until melded together with influences from other groups, and those matters exceed this discussion.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Robert Elgood in Rajput Arms & Armour, Vol. II shows some childrens katars, and he gives the measurers of the cross bars as follows. 4.3 cm, 4.2 cm, 5.0 cm and 3.8 cm.