Wootz Katar

[Jens Nordlunde]

Yes, but you must remember that they, in the south, hardly if ever showed battle scenes.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Yes, but you must remember that they, in the south, hardly if ever showed battle scenes.

Many thanks. Of course. I know only TWO battle scenes with using jamdhar. However I'm sure that hunting was weekly or monthly, but battles weren't.

[Jens Nordlunde]

You are more tham welcome, but I am afraid that you dont see the point, to my opinoin, you see your own point, but Ariel asked if these katars were only used for hunting.
So when you show a lot of hunting scenes where the katar is used, you dont see the point, and what more is, you dont even try to research if they were used for fighting as well.
I have said what I need to say on this thread, so I will leave you to teach the interested members how it really was.

[Mercenary]

I didn't mean to offend you. To be honest, in the first place the dagger was the subject of the costume. For example Akbar had 40 pieces of each kind of dagger and every day he changed them. Only in the second turn jamdhars were used for hunting and may be some times for fighting. But I do not think that they were richly decorated of hunting scenes items. Apparently this does not apply to simple daggers without decoration.

[Mercenary]

It looks weird, when we believe that "tulwars shikargah" were used specially for hunting, while similarly decorated jamdhars no.

[ariel]

Double post

[ariel]

Based on iconography, tulwars were used mainly for deer hunting, whereas katars were most often shown as implements of tiger hunting by the Rajahs.

Great populations of deer likely explain the abundance of hunting tulwars, but I have my doubts that there were enough tigers hunts to justify the profusion of katars with hunting scenes.


Here is my attempt to utilize Enrico Fermi's "guess-timate method" that served him exceedingly well : in a series of guesses, over,- and under estimates cancel each other.

As per this paper

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com...ting-in-india/

between 1875 and 1925, 80,000 tigers were killed in India, i.e. roughly 1 per day ( that includes organized hunts for visiting dignitaries as well as "mechanized" hunts with cars, machine guns and cannon). Also, that includes the REPORTED number of tigers killed by professional hunters outside the royal hunts, but let's ignore it for the sake of simplicity and attribute ALL to royal hunts.

Prior to Indian independence ( 1947) there were roughly 250 princely states

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tates_of_India.

Thus, each Rajah had a chance to organize a tiger hunt and to kill one tiger roughly every 250 days, i.e. once- twice a year.

Was it really necessary to produce that many tiger-hunting katars specifically for such an infrequent occurence?

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

If compared the number of hunts and battles in the history of India (both South and North), the answer will be obvious

The problem with this assertion is that you do not know the number of tiger hunts ( unless you can guess-timate them as above) and the number of military confrontations large and small, recorded and unrecorded, number of warriors involved, number of iconographic sources, their emphasis on the specific use of katars etc, etc, etc.

There are multiple iconographic sources of warriors armed with katars. Do you suggest they carried them into battle to protect themselves against tigers?


One can just as well posit that EVERY glorious occasion of a Rajah dispatching a tiger with katar was immediately immortalized in a miniature:-)))

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

One can just as well posit that EVERY glorious occasion of a Rajah dispatching a tiger with katar was immediately immortalized in a miniature:-)))

Killing a tiger with a Katar?!


Unless one is "Chuck Norris" ... or the tiger is half dead, that belongs to legend, not reality!

Even a severely wounded tiger could easily kill an approaching human, unless the tiger is bound and immobilized.

How many stories about Rajas being killed by tigers are there?!

How many stories/depictions of glorious Rajas killing strong and healthy tigers, single handedly and without suffering the slightest scratch are there?!


So, how realistic all these sories/depictions are?!

[Jens Nordlunde]

Mercenary, you did not offend me, but I can add anything to what I have already written.
There are katar on which are written that they can penetrate the head of an elephant. This does, however, not mean, that they were used for penetrating heads of elephants.
I still believe, that katars with hunting scenes on the blade were used for hunting, but I also believe that they were also used in other connections.

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Killing a tiger with a Katar?!


Unless one is "Chuck Norris" ... or the tiger is half dead, that belongs to legend, not reality!

Hi Marius,
I have an official story from Indonesia from two guys which were sentenced to death and fight against a tiger with a Keris as a kind of last chance. They had Keris with broken tips and one guy was mauled after a few minutes but the other one was fighting for more than one and a half hour. He was able to kill the tiger by constantly attacking his ears and eyes.
The winner became a high member of the government.

Roland

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

I still believe, that katars with hunting scenes on the blade were used for hunting, but I also believe that they were also used in other connections.

And most likely, orders of magnitude more often on a battlefield than in a single combat against a tiger.

Marius made his point abundantly clear and I can sign under every word.

Otherwise, the average number of tigers fights per Rajah would be one. Never two:-)



There was a young lady of Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger;
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside,
And the smile on the face of the tiger.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

It looks weird, when we believe that "tulwars shikargah" were used specially for hunting, while similarly decorated jamdhars no.

Maybe it is not so strange, as we dont know if the two weapons were regarded with the same 'value' - there is like to have been a difference.
The sword decorated with hunting scenes, could have been for hunting only (for the ones who had money enough to own several swords), and the katar, as a secondary weapon, could have been used here and there - in spite of the decoration on the blade.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by Roland_M

Hi Marius,
I have an official story from Indonesia from two guys which were sentenced to death and fight against a tiger with a Keris as a kind of last chance. They had Keris with broken tips and one guy was mauled after a few minutes but the other one was fighting for more than one and a half hour. He was able to kill the tiger by constantly attacking his ears and eyes.
The winner became a high member of the government.

Roland

Hello Roland,

Maybe true... but just maybe!

The numerous stories of the Indian Rajas killing single handedly a tiger were also official. Some of them, even officially recorded.

That said, it should be noted that
1. the guy in your story was fighting an Indonesian tiger, which was significantly smaller (about half the size) than a Bengali Tiger;
2. it was a captive tiger that most likely was raised in captivity and didn't even know how to hunt and didn't see humans as prey, and that might have been in significantly worse shape than a healthy free-roaming Indian tiger;
3. the fight was in a closed enclosure;
4. even if he killed the tiger, it might have been a lucky exception rather than the rule;
5. even with all points 1-4 taken into consideration, the statistical odds of winning a fight with a tiger was only 50% since the other prisoneer was killed.


PS: This doesn't mean it isn't possible to kill a tiger with a knife, and survive the fight... but it is extremely improbable.

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

I still believe, that katars with hunting scenes on the blade were used for hunting, but I also believe that they were also used in other connections.

Jens, many thanks. It is balanced and absolutely correct opinion. It is not contrary to the fact that decorative motive, corresponding to the original, the main purpose of the using such daggers became familiar and permanent. Even when tigers run out of. But prior to that tigers and lions were a lot. We know How old is katar.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

Here is a quote from "Hand-book of the Manufactures & Arts of the Punjab: With a Combined Glossary & Index of Vernacular Trades & Technical Terms ... Forming Vol. Ii to the "Hand-book of the Economic Products of the Punjab" Prepared Under the Orders of Government" Baden Henry Baden-Powell,Punjab Printing Company, 1872

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Eric, as always you are phenomenal at locating these most pertinent references!!!
So it would seem that the figure laden blades were certainly less than rare, in fact being noted as 'common' , thus not unlikely to be used in the field rather than simply in celebratory events
That answers my question perfectly.

Mercenary, do we actually KNOW how old the katar is? It seems we have a good idea as far as established iconographically, but much of the research into much older periods remains dauntingly speculative. I think Jens has accomplished some of the most compelling data in the many years he has studied the katar, but he as always maintains his most responsible reservations in asserting such dates until more definitive data can corroborate.

It would seem that use and wear of these weapons might comprise different circumstances much as I asked as far as whether shikargah blades were actually used in the field, or simply as prestigious accoutrements. It would seem that they may well have been both.

While tulwars and shamshirs may well have been used in hunting game such as deer and other, I personally am somewhat in doubt of the use of the katar regularly in hunting tigers or big cats. While there were probably situational circumstances where a katar was used to dispatch a tiger, I am wondering whether that was with an already wounded or spent animal might have been the case, and suitably embellished over time.

Again, we are getting off the main course though

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...
I personally am somewhat in doubt of the use of the katar regularly in hunting tigers or big cats. While there were probably situational circumstances where a katar was used to dispatch a tiger, I am wondering whether that was with an already wounded or spent animal might have been the case, and suitably embellished over time.
...

modern wild boar hunters in the USA frequently use katar length knives to dispatch their quarry, with a thrust thru the heart, usually with an armoured dog holding either end of the piggy. (the smarter ones use a spear, the really smart ones buy their bacon in the supermarket, (piggly wiggly is a personal favouite)). the american term for a knife, 'pig-sticker', derives from this. tigers and bears were dispatched in nepal with khukuri by villagers, tho usually at a cost to their physical integrity. i seeem to recall one of those indian paintings with a tiger being accosted with a katar wielding mughal (found one, see below).

two paintings, tiger hunters with shamshir/talwars, and a found one of a guy carrying a katar while sensibly shooting the tiger with a bow. i also noted in a number of photos, horsemen with distinctly katar-like points on their tiger hunting lances. then i stumbled on the last photo of a katar cum spear socket.

[Jim McDougall]

Wayne,
Thanks very much for that interesting art work! As always, we try to imagine just how much license went into these paintings, but they seem portrayed pretty fairly.
Well understood about wild boar hunting, but I will say that out here in Sonora desert regions in Arizona, the javelina (peccari) are some of the most fearsome, unpredictable wild animals. Being anywhere one of them with anything as close quarters as a knife sounds pretty insane.

The idea of mounting a knife or katar (as discussed) on a shaft makes sense, and lances using metal blades often from cut down swords or knife blades often the weapon of choice out here in the Southwest.

[ariel]

Those are not katar-tipped lances.
Hunting spears had a crossguard close to the tip to prevent the animal from sliding along the shaft toward the hunter.

Remember King Arthur spearing Mordred without that precaution? Didn't end well:-)

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Those are not katar-tipped lances.
Hunting spears had a crossguard close to the tip to prevent the animal from sliding along the shaft toward the hunter.

Remember King Arthur spearing Mordred without that precaution? Didn't end well:-)

These spears may be an example.

[ariel]

Or these.
And, BTW, the "katar-spear" in Kronckew's post looks like a very recent Indian fantasy:-)

[ariel]

Those of us who have cats know full well that just playing with them entails a huge risk of bites and scratches.


Being close enough to an enraged tiger to stab it with a katar guarantees either disembowelment or just decapitation.

The whole idea is to keep a distance much longer than its paws. Spear is good, gun is better. Knife or katar.... forget it!:-)))


Let's take a short break and enjoy the classic!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLdk2C25Z14

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

This would hurt....

[ariel]

Yup...

His groin must have been sore for weeks:-)