A katar is a katar till......

[Nihl]

Excellent overview Jim! Unfortunately that summarizes my knowledge of the form as well. I did a little bit of looking around online and found an example that has the more usual two-bar grip instead of a single bar, though it's most likely an outlier and not some big subcategory or anything.

Back to the topic of leafs & blades briefly, my simple contribution is the leaf-bladed sword category itself. This is a style (that I'm sure everyone's familiar with) that is double-edged and has a slightly swollen "belly" or midsection that then tapers back down to a point (like a leaf), found all over the world.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Nihl!
This 'Garsoe' topic has got me going and I saw a post of mine from 2012 where I asked (rheotorically) I wonder what that term means?

I found a post by Jens about that time, where he had found a coin from 1871 with an image of a katar with distinctive curved ends on the side bars.
This is atypical for katars (as are the scrolled side bars on 'garsoe'), and the coin is from Nawanagar on the Kathiswar peninsula in Kutch .
It is noted that the suffix 'GAR' (=fort).

In Kathiwar (also in Gujerat) the Kuttee people hsve a key affinity for the katar and regard it as a symbol of honor, to the point that any agreement, oath or contract is signed with the mark of the katar. Any breech of said contract is considered dishonorable and requires 'traga', often simply a cut by the katar but is even more dramatically suicide (seldom carried out).
There are talwars which have a katar marked on the blade, which we presume from these regions.

It would seem that the katar has an unusually key significance in these regions of Kutch in a traditional and symbolic manner, and clearly a certain application of 'design' seems afforded the weaponry there.
The 'garsoe' and this other Kutch form with upturned side guard noted (as pictured) seem to reflect such design features of these regions.

The note on 'GAR' meaning fort gives a clue, that perhaps the design for the garsoe might be attributed to an armory (?) in a local fort in Kutch, where such design was fashioned for someone in the princely retinue, or other person of standing

Going through references, this is what I can find thus far. The entry by Jens where he matched the coin to the shape of the katar hilt illustrates the kind of astute research he carries out on these weapons. Amazing!

While speculative, perhaps tenuous, these factors are worth considering.

[Mercenary]

It is very likely that the “garsoe” is a highly distorted “plow-shaped”. Plows which look like a handlebar of Harley-Davidson's chopper are much more common in South India, but even single-lever plows often have a curved handle.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

It is very likely that the “garsoe” is a highly distorted “plow-shaped”. Plows which look like a handlebar of Harley-Davidson's chopper are much more common in South India, but even single-lever plows often have a curved handle.

That is a most interesting observation (love the Harley analogy! back in the day they called those 'monkey hangers' on their choppers).
It is true many weapons were formed after various tools and implements, but not sure on these distinctively curved bars being so fashioned.

Im more curious on what in the world 'garsoe' means, and where Egerton got the term. As I noted the suffix 'gar' means fort in dialects in Gujerati areas, but hope linguists here can offer some insights.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Sorry for the late reply, but I have been away for a few days.
Jim shows a katar and two coins, but it is known that the curwed side guards can be seen in the Hamza - so they go back for centuries.
The katar shown in Holstein and in Jim's post no 31 is a drawing. Only after I pubished the article How Old is the Katar? I found a photo of the katar in Hindu Temple art of Orissa, vol. III by T.E.Donaldson.



I have a funny feeling that Pant used the name Jamdhar like we use the name Katar. To him it seems, as if all these daggers were Jamdhars, although he seems to have added some other dagger to this group - see below.


Studies in Indian Weapons and Warfare, p. 159.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Sorry for the late reply, but I have been away for a few days.
Jim shows a katar and two coins, but it is known that the curwed side guards can be seen in the Hamza - so they go back for centuries.
The katar shown in Holstein and in Jim's post no 31 is a drawing. Only after I pubished the article How Old is the Katar? I found a photo of the katar in Hindu Temple art of Orissa, vol. III by T.E.Donaldson.



I have a funny feeling that Pant used the name Jamdhar like we use the name Katar. To him it seems, as if all these daggers were Jamdhars, although he seems to have added some other dagger to this group - see below.


Studies in Indian Weapons and Warfare, p. 159.

Jens, welcome back! and as you can see, we have needed you here to facilitate our look into these katars in discussion.
As you note, the curved side bars are quite likely to have existed in other than the 'garsoe' termed versions, and even earlier, however not that I have been aware of, which is the objective of my query, to become aware of others.

The plate you show of these daggers is most telling, and ironically Pant seems to have fallen into the same 'trap' that Egerton did in the 'cross use' of a term. Pant had emphatically rebutted the use of 'katar' for the transverse grip dagger he claims was initiated by Egerton, and actually describes the 'jamadhar' .
Here clearly he includes 'bichwa' and another curious baselard looking dagger which has normally configured hilt with 'H' shape, all as 'jamadhars'.

Given the suggested definition of jamadhar as 'tooth of death' or to that effect, there does not seem to be any qualification to a dagger with a distinctive 'transverse grip'.

Could the inclusion of these other daggers in a plate identified as 'jamadhars' be an editing error with publishers? or was it indeed an interpolation by Pant himself?

Is Pant's effort to rebut Egerton's work perhaps too arbitrary? and possibly the jamadhar term had been more broadly used than thought?
That does seem to be the case with vernacular use of words and terms in many cases, and the name game ever plagues historians.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

and possibly the jamadhar term had been more broadly used than thought?

If we try to understand what meant these terms by using secondary sources I can say that this is a completely useless exercise, a waste of time and repeating other people's mistakes.

From an etymological point of view, I already wrote before: in sanskrit "jamdhar" meant just "double edge" weapon. But for thousands of years, not only the form of words, but also their meaning and using often change.

So these are different tasks of trying to understand what Pant or Egerton meant, what did it mean in the 19th century, in the 16th or 10th.

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=Mercenary]If we try to understand what meant these terms by using secondary sources I can say that this is a completely useless exercise, a waste of time and repeating other people's mistakes.

From an etymological point of view, I already wrote before: in sanskrit "jamdhar" meant just "double edge" weapon. But for thousands of years, not only the form of words, but also their meaning and using often change.

So these are different tasks of trying to understand what Pant or Egerton meant, what did it mean in the 19th century, in the 16th or 10th.[/QUOTE





Thank you Mercenary, I had forgotten you had noted that etymology on jamadhar. As you say, words often take on almost entirely different meanings over time and through semantics and sometimes transliterations. In English, I know that many people would be stunned to see words meaning now, as opposed to the archaic meaning.

As you also well note, following secondary sources and beyond in trying to determine etymology and meanings is indeed often futile. But sometimes researchers can use developmental clues in sort of 'reverse engineering' a term which can offer a kind of 'trail'. This is the methodology used in what is known as historical detection, and actually can have productive results.
What is considered a waste of time to many, may be a productive route for some intrepid researchers, more tenacious than many of us.

[ariel]

I would be interested to know the original source of translating “ Jamdhar” from Sanskrit to English as “ double edged dagger”.
Was it a primary source or that of a European visitor concentrating on the appearance of a particular object and using it as a general term?

Indeed, all jamadhars ( katars) are double edged, but so are many other short-, and even long-bladed Indian weapons. Is chillanum a Jamadhar? A Bich’hwa? A Khanda?

[Mercenary]

Linguistics is an exact science as is mathematics. There is no need to explore unprofessional glossaries and dictionaries, interview modern Indians who have long been speaking a different language.

The Yamuna River is so named because it is the twin sister of the Ganges, because it flows in parallel.
YAM = twin
DHAR - it is "edge" even in Hindi. Up to now.
In Sanskrit was a some different word formation and such a word as "double edged" was possible in it.

How can we study Indian weapons without knowing the basics? Unfortunately we can...

[Jens Nordlunde]

I dont know which thoughts Pant had with the plate, and it is too late to ask him,, but it seems to me that he called almost all 'katars' for jamdahar, with a few exceptions, so I dont see why we cant stick to the name katar/jamdahar and leave out all the 'artistic' names.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

I dont know which thoughts Pant had with the plate, and it is too late to ask him,, but it seems to me that he called almost all 'katars' for jamdahar, with a few exceptions, so I dont see why we cant stick to the name katar/jamdahar and leave out all the 'artistic' names.

I fully support your opinion. For 400-600 years available to us to study, such daggers were called interchangeably katar/jamdhar.

I am little more a supporter of the term "jamdhar" only because the Mughals themself distinguished only two types of Indian daggers (not counting the well-known for them "khanjars"): "jamdhar" (H-shaped) and "khapwa" - Indian dagger with a double bend blade, falsely known to us as chilanum ("falsely" until someone will be able to find confirmation of the actual use of this term. Although it is also associated with the verb "to cut", like most other Indian weapon terms, I have not seen evidence. But please don't tell me about the "glossaries").

The Mughals clearly distinguished these two types of daggers. The term "kattara" was apparently used to refer widely to Indian daggers as a whole.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

I dont know which thoughts Pant had with the plate, and it is too late to ask him,, but it seems to me that he called almost all 'katars' for jamdahar, with a few exceptions, so I dont see why we cant stick to the name katar/jamdahar and leave out all the 'artistic' names.

Agree wholeheartedly.
None of us (and all together) know Sanskrit or any other Indian language well enough to even think about our ability to perform a linguistical analysis. In the current state this is the worst example of " name game".


Let's agree that calling these strange implements katar or jamadhar is a personal choice and drop the historical and linguistical confabulations altogether until somebody smarter and professionally better trained than us performs a detailed and conclusive study.

Katar= jamadhar?

My vote: Aye!

[Nihl]

I agree with Ariel and (it seems) everyone else that this discussion is a bit silly. Whether we like it or not, in modern times, katar is staying as the "common" name for these punch daggers until a tv show or movie calls it a jam(a)dhar.

I also personally prefer the name jamdhar, partially because the (incorrect?) explanation that it means "tooth of death" sounds really cool to me, but also because when I say "katar" out loud it sounds a bit too close to "guitar" for comfort, so jamdhar is easier for me to say .

Actually on that note, though, Mercenary, as you seem rather knowledgeable in Hindi/Sanskrit, is the idea that jama = yama, the god of death, totally false? It's just that, personally, I could totally see yama becoming jama, and, with the edition of dhar, the word overall translating to some version of tooth/blade of death.

Finally, just to continue our discussion of odd katar forms, I've attached some examples that always looked unusual to me (and are hopefully discussion-provoking to you guys). The last one isn't technically a katar, but these odd "parrying weapons" seem to always be mounted with katar blades.

[fernando]

I wonder if these locals know why their place is called JAMDHAR


.

[Mercenary]

The problem is that never serious historians or linguists were interested in research in the field of Indian weapons. All published books somehow compile each other and are not much advanced further than the Egerton catalog or Hendley's books. Because they are intended not for other scientists or researchers, but for collectors (dealers) and for just interested people.

In this situation, amateurs have a chance to bring something new. For this reason this forum is much more interesting and closer to me than published books of faimous authors, in which there is nothing new. Because interesting, unexpected and most importantly - new questions are raised right here.

I am sorry gentlemen, but "jamdhar" as "double edged" it is a fact from Sanskrit texts, like it or not. This word could in time denote different weapons, but its etymology was established long ago. "Tooth of the god of death" is poetical homonym.

I would be happy to read somewhere what the Sanskrit names of weapons really meant, because many of them are compound words and make sense, as "tulwar" for example. But since no one is obviously going to do this (because it is impossible to take it from somewhere to rewrite and publish), I will do it myself, I have been working on it for a couple of years and I will need as much again.

Anyway, thanks for our discussions. They do not leave me indifferent.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by ariel

......until somebody smarter and professionally better trained than us performs a detailed and conclusive study.

Who knows? Maybe you are that man. After all, Neo was The One to destroy the “Matrix”.......

Godspeed!

[Jens Nordlunde]

I find the research of the names interesting, but what I find more important is the research of the weapons themselves.

I did some research of the katar (How Old is the Katar?), and I do hope that others will follow up on this research, not only on the katar, but on all the Indian weapons, as deep research is the only way to new knowledge.

[Jim McDougall]

Mercenary, that is probably one of the most succinct, brilliantly reasoned analysis' of what we have 'playfully' (if not frustratedly) termed the 'name game' I have ever read. It is abundantly clear that you have indeed spent some years on serious study of Indian languages, and it is more than encouraging to know that you are intent on continuing your work.

I also applaud your recognition that these discussions here, in degree often amateur and sometimes even heated, do often produce important findings, prompted by discovering the proper questions that must be asked.

As you have respectfully noted, the many published references of long venerated and famed authors do not usually hold new information, but I believe serving as key benchmarks for further study, they do often set us well on our way for further research.

I am also grateful for our discussions here, and thank you for your tenacity and patience in sharing the many details of your studies.

Now if we could just solve the mystery of what in the world 'garsoe' means on those perplexing unusual katars (jamadhars)

Like Jens, I find the nomenclature and linguistics interesting (actually quite fascinating) but ultimately it is the weapons' secrets I want to learn.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Nihl

I agree with Ariel and (it seems) everyone else that this discussion is a bit silly. Whether we like it or not, in modern times, katar is staying as the "common" name for these punch daggers until a tv show or movie calls it a jam(a)dhar.

I also personally prefer the name jamdhar, partially because the (incorrect?) explanation that it means "tooth of death" sounds really cool to me, but also because when I say "katar" out loud it sounds a bit too close to "guitar" for comfort, so jamdhar is easier for me to say .

Actually on that note, though, Mercenary, as you seem rather knowledgeable in Hindi/Sanskrit, is the idea that jama = yama, the god of death, totally false? It's just that, personally, I could totally see yama becoming jama, and, with the edition of dhar, the word overall translating to some version of tooth/blade of death.

Finally, just to continue our discussion of odd katar forms, I've attached some examples that always looked unusual to me (and are hopefully discussion-provoking to you guys). The last one isn't technically a katar, but these odd "parrying weapons" seem to always be mounted with katar blades.

Nihl,
I wanted to address your post directly as you have gratefully redirected away from the linguistics issues to continue the discussion on unusual jamadhar
Most intriguing is the one with five blades which indeed appear to be of jamadhar form, but mounted perpendicularly on what appears to be a 'vambrace'. These have apparently occurred with up to seven blades, but as usual, their manner of use is unclear.

I was surprised to see one offered in sale which showed the interior, which had a centrally situated transverse handle, and it seems suggested it was used in a slashing manner.
I had always though, with the flueret like fixtures at each end (with apertures which seemed for lashing or securing to the forearm) that perhaps these might have been used in a kind of fearsome armor attire......as seen in the curious figure (attached photo) bristling with blades. This somewhat well known photo seems to have fancifully labeled 'the executioner' but I cannot recall the source (I expect my mention of this will result in scathing rebuttal here) and even more specifically has been claimed to be from a durbar in Delhi. Again, I am simply recounting what I recall of this well known image without suggesting or implying accuracy or meaning or intent. It is for the purpose of illustrating 'possible' applications of such 'innovative weaponry'.
As noted, this would seem aside from the example of these with inner handle which obviously would not be worn on the forearm as a vambrace.

[ariel]

I am not so pessimistic and dismissive about the value of the already existing books and articles. Purely statistically, only 2.5% of all published stuff is of tangible value. The bottom line,- choose what you want to read:-)
I find Jens’ paper “ How old is the Katar?” belonging to these 2.5%. It gives more actual historical information than anything I have gotten from the rest or books I have in my library. Of course, it is purely factual as are all historical studies: one cannot perform an experiment to validate one’s historical hypothesis , as is the norm in physics, physiology, engineering etc.
But I would strongly advise any person aspiring to re-write the “book” on the Katar to read it carefully.
One could notice that in the 12 century book “Pritviraj Raso” there already was a term for double- edged objects: dodhara ( just like the saw-edged objects aradam and arapusta: Indians were notorious for the obsessive-compulsive approach to precise descriptions). Thanks One could also put into his mental piggy bank that the Sanskritized names of Jamadhara and Katar are mentioned separately , telling us that those were separate ( at least in some way) weapons.

One would have to take the above into account while conducting a novel study of katars. Jens gave a superb basis for future endeavors; we may ignore it at our peril.

[ariel]

Fernando,

You have nailed it!
Jens have attributed the oldest Katar to Orissa.
Jamdhar village is in the Kendrapara district. But not far away , in the Sambalpur district there is a village Katarbag.
Isn’t it obvious that these 2 villages used to be invention and production centers of this peculiar punch dagger that they called after their localities?

I am going to write a paper to The Journal of Irreproducible Results with this brilliant analysis and in the best ( or worst) tradition of academic research will appropriate full credit for this momentous discovery! Your name will not even be mentioned.
The Ig Nobel will be mine and mine alone!


After all, as Kissinger was fond of saying, academic battles are vicious because the stakes are very small.

Tongue in cheek, boys, tongue in cheek:-)

[Jim McDougall]

I think Jens' work on the katar (jamadhar) is not only superb, but even surpasses assignment to any percentile of published arms material of 'tangible value' of a statistic of 2.5% (unsure of how this is calculated). I would say that his work on the katar is in the top ranking, without such numbers. I think the assessment of tangible value is purely subjective as it depends on what is being sought in the material. As I had mentioned, much material serves as benchmark for future research.

With Jens' work, I know how intensely and for how many years he researched all of this, and how carefully scrutinized he vetted his material before publishing. Still, even he will not consider his work the final word on the katar, and his research never stops.

I do appreciate the tongue in cheek humor in associating this term or its variants to places and presuming some sort of central location named for the weapon or in some tenuous way related to them. Ironically, this kind of approach still lurks among arms researchers. Pant used this sort of idea in some of the terms for regional hilt forms on tulwars, such as 'Delhi shahi' as that was where the style was 'invented', among others. However we know hilt styling was not 'invented' in any particular moment or place, but they evolved subtly over time and in undetermined locations.

Humor is always good, as sometimes serious research and discussion can get kinda heavy sometimes.

[Nihl]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I wanted to address your post directly...

I was surprised to see one offered in sale which showed the interior, which had a centrally situated transverse handle, and it seems suggested it was used in a slashing manner.
I had always though, with the flueret like fixtures at each end (with apertures which seemed for lashing or securing to the forearm) that perhaps these might have been used in a kind of fearsome armor attire......as seen in the curious figure (attached photo) bristling with blades. This somewhat well known photo seems to have fancifully labeled 'the executioner' but I cannot recall the source (I expect my mention of this will result in scathing rebuttal here) and even more specifically has been claimed to be from a durbar in Delhi. Again, I am simply recounting what I recall of this well known image without suggesting or implying accuracy or meaning or intent. It is for the purpose of illustrating 'possible' applications of such 'innovative weaponry'.
As noted, this would seem aside from the example of these with inner handle which obviously would not be worn on the forearm as a vambrace.

Jim,

Also to address your post directly it seems to me like these things are the indian equivalent of the european "sword breaker" dagger. Though of course it has just about the same capacity to break an opponent's blade (not much), it looks like a formidable trapping weapon, with the projections on either side serving as additional pieces to parry with. The example I posted from arms&antiques (which claims that its example is from the 17th century, possibly making this a less-than-modern invention) also has this katar-style grip, which supports how these are to be held, placing the apparatus over the hand and wrist, and not directly in front of the hand/knuckles. This arrangement (over the hand) would prevent the katar blades from being easily used in their standard punching manner, further supporting that it is an odd parrying weapon, and not necessarily for direct offensive purposes. The multiple blades would make slashing difficult, and further on the punching aspect, thrusting (punching) with the blades seems incredibly awkward and almost pointless. Trapping or deflecting (given the tubular shape of the "guard") would work, but it seems like at best you could only give someone a really painful shove with the thing, assuming their armor doesn't nullify the points of the blades.

To everybody else in the thread, not to be rude, but if we are to keep discussing vague aspects of indian arms research instead of the very real forms of katar that don't even have a name, could we at least try to define the kind of research/information that is to be looked for? Just a simple idea really, but it is easier to discuss/research things when you actually know what those "things" are. Vague mutterings about how "more research can be done" seem rather pointless if said research isn't even talked about, especially in a thread where the whole (original) topic is about clarifying old, obscure information.

I very much appreciate Ariel's quips though .

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Nihl

Jim,

Also to address your post directly it seems to me like these things are the indian equivalent of the european "sword breaker" dagger. Though of course it has just about the same capacity to break an opponent's blade (not much), it looks like a formidable trapping weapon, with the projections on either side serving as additional pieces to parry with. The example I posted from arms&antiques (which claims that its example is from the 17th century, possibly making this a less-than-modern invention) also has this katar-style grip, which supports how these are to be held, placing the apparatus over the hand and wrist, and not directly in front of the hand/knuckles. This arrangement (over the hand) would prevent the katar blades from being easily used in their standard punching manner, further supporting that it is an odd parrying weapon, and not necessarily for direct offensive purposes. The multiple blades would make slashing difficult, and further on the punching aspect, thrusting (punching) with the blades seems incredibly awkward and almost pointless. Trapping or deflecting (given the tubular shape of the "guard") would work, but it seems like at best you could only give someone a really painful shove with the thing, assuming their armor doesn't nullify the points of the blades.

To everybody else in the thread, not to be rude, but if we are to keep discussing vague aspects of indian arms research instead of the very real forms of katar that don't even have a name, could we at least try to define the kind of research/information that is to be looked for? Just a simple idea really, but it is easier to discuss/research things when you actually know what those "things" are. Vague mutterings about how "more research can be done" seem rather pointless if said research isn't even talked about, especially in a thread where the whole (original) topic is about clarifying old, obscure information.

I very much appreciate Ariel's quips though .

Hi Nihl,
Very well noted on the often wandering path these threads can take. While the discussion was primarily on katars and resultant vageries of Indian arms nomenclature, this multi bladed vambrace (?) or curiously fashioned gauntlet weapon is a conundrum indeed, and deserves more review. Although of course NOT a katar, the fact that it uses what appear to be katar blades suggests it could be a version of multi bladed katar as it does have a transverse grip.

As you have suggested, there do seem to be certain 'parrying' properties inherent in this curious appliance, despite the degree of actual feasibility. I had always thought of Indian sword fighting techniques as using the shield for parrying, however it does seem that various also 'innovative' Indian arms forms have been considered 'parrying' weapons.
Primary example is the 'madu' , which originally was fashioned with a small shield with roebuck horns extending on either side, these later becoming opposed blades. This weapon later became the 'haladie' dual bladed weapon found in Sudan, but regarded as the 'Syrian knife' (by Stone, 1934) with Rajput origins.

The idea of the sword breaker, as known in European left hand daggers seems apparently a somewhat fanciful notion, as described in "Schools and Masters of Fence" (Egerton Castle, London, 1885, p.246).."...the very vicious looking and somewhat fantastic so called sword breakers represented as usual fencing weapons of the main gauche class by so many arms and armor writers never were at any time but the result of individual fantasy."

While the idea of this weapon being used to catch an opponents weapon in a parry seems unlikely, or of damaging it even more unlikely......the idea of its function in parry seems incidental and not specifically intended.
We know that many shields/bucklers had blades or spikes mounted in the center with the boss, and quite honestly, the transverse grip holding the shield and punching with that blade or spike has been considered as perhaps something to do with origins of the 'punch dagger' (katar)!

It does seem, again looking at the bristly character of the Delhi Durbar (?) with blades projecting all over his person, there does seem to have been a certain penchant for mounting blades all over the place, in seemingly almost wildly positioned locations and configurations. If the multi bladed katars strain our imaginations, some of these bizarre innovations take it to the next level.

The Persians of course even had spikes on their kulah-khud helmets! which became naturally commonly seen in India.

This multi bladed weapon we are looking at, at first glance (before seeing the interior and transverse handle) looked like a vambrace (forearm armor) but in Indo-Persian nomenclature termed a 'bazuband'....the term in that parlance to describe the same type armor element. I would note here (entirely in passing) that this term 'bazuband', is also the name of a village in Razavi Khorasan province in now Iran. Any association between it and the armor item is likely doubtful.

The photos are of course, our mysterious multi bladed 'katar' with the outward appearance of a bazuband.
The haladie which is dual bladed 'parry' weapon, evolved from the madu which was a central shield with roebuck horns on either side.
The santal, shield with spike central, and extending blades
Our 'bristly' friend from Delhi .

[Jens Nordlunde]

I think the thread has taken a turn where I will leave.
Jim could you please make the pictures a bit smaller, so the reader does not have to scroll a lot - thank you.
I am aware of, that some useres of the forum are not the researcher type, as they relay only on the informationms they get from the forum, but you should try to research - it may be hard at the beginning, but it pays.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

I think the thread has taken a turn where I will leave.
Jim could you please make the pictures a bit smaller, so the reader does not have to scroll a lot - thank you.
I am aware of, that some useres of the forum are not the researcher type, as they relay only on the informationms they get from the forum, but you should try to research - it may be hard at the beginning, but it pays.

Jens, my apologies for the inconvenience with the photos, which I removed and will resize accordingly.

Adding the photos here for previous post (edit window expired).
the 'madu' which is a dual bladed weapon ostensibly for parrying, note extra blade for stabbing.
the 'bristly' character from Delhi with blades everywhere
the weapon we are discussing which looks like a bazuband (vambrace) but has transverse grips inside (as in gauntlet sword).
The Persian kulah khud helmet with 'stabbing' point on top
shield with stabbing point and blades.

All illustrate the Indian penchant for innovation in combining features of various weapons for optimum combative application, or appearance of.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Jim, dont worry, as I do know that threads tend to change the subject after some posts. You should not have removed the pictures - I am sorry I mentioned it.
My comment on research was meant in generel, as although many interesting pieces of information can be found on the forum, it is hardly research.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Jim, dont worry, as I do know that threads tend to change the subject after some posts. You should not have removed the pictures - I am sorry I mentioned it.
My comment on research was meant in generel, as although many interesting pieces of information can be found on the forum, it is hardly research.

Thanks Jens, no problem. Actually I had noted the size was troublesome but had not yet gotten to resizing (it was aggravating me too as I could not get to the edit box). I have now gotten the hang of resizing so these pics should be OK.
Back to business:


Nihl,
In the photo of this unusual katar, which is clearly from southern India (primarily the use of brass or gold metal which often signals that) it has a slightly curved blade, very much resembling a tooth. We think of the jhamdhar term (= tooth of death etc) and perhaps the symbolism carried.
It also brings to mind the bagh nakh (=tigers claw) which has been mentioned in accord with this multi 'katar' bladed weapon which is mindful of a full set of claws.

When the famed Hindu ruler Shivaji (1627-1680) killed Afzal Khan in 1657, it is generally held that he used a bagh nagh in one hand, and a bichwa dagger in the other.
With the Indian penchant for combining weapons, we see the example of bichwa fashioned with bagh nakh blades in its handle.

We then consider thoughts of these combination weapons, the katar variants and perhaps such events possibly inspiring their creation.

[Jens Nordlunde]

The discussion has been quite interesting, but did any of you notice the difference of the hilt bases of the katars shown in the first picture and in pictures like no 11 and 16?
The 'V' type of base is shown in the Hamza, so it is at least 16th century, but what about the curved base - and how old is the 'V' base?

Was it invented by the Mughals?