Jamdhar katari - a theory

[Mercenary]

Returning to the royal hunt in India in the light of Teriomachia. When the first person who as a rule considered himself "a great warrior" and "a fearless hunter", fired at a predator and only wounded him, in most cases the predator attacked in response. And then on its way there were alwais specially trained assistants in most cases with katars. Because these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

... When the first person who as a rule considered himself "a great warrior" and "a fearless hunter", fired at a predator and only wounded him, in most cases the predator attacked in response. And then on its way there were always specially trained assistants in most cases with katars. Because these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s.

A rather plausible approach.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Returning to the royal hunt in India in the light of Teriomachia.

..... these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s.

What is left, of course, is providing evidence that "their origin and old main purpose" was specifically tiger hunting:-)


Images of brave Indian personalities despatching tigers with katars are ( IMHO) likely to be of mainly glorifying or "advertising" value: bravery of a person fighting supremely dangerous animal one-on-one in close quarters. Multiple Indian miniatures show Rajahs or their close associates on a warpath, in the middle of the battle or just relaxing in the palace and... wearing katars under the belt. These are not hunting scenes and there are no tigers in the vicinity.

The allusion to katars as " tiger hunters" is of dubious value: khanjarli was often referred to as " elephant dagger". But it was not used for hunting elephants: most of them simply had elephant ivory handles ( Orissa was implicated as their origin). A subtype of khanjar with trilobate pommel is routinely called " tiger tooth". Because of the blade reminiscent of tiger's incisor or because of the pommel reminiscent of a molar? Or was it the true "tiger hunter"? A European " boar spear" ( with a horizontal metal "stop") was not necessarily used for boars only. My point is that many weapons had " honorific" monikers.


In general, weapons were developed initially for mixed purpose : both as man-fighting and utilitarian ( hunting included). Subsequently, these functions were largely separated by militarily-developed societies, with only a minority retaining their utilitarian/martial status in less organised societies ( machete in peaceful times, weapon during the war). Purely utilitarian implements are easily recognizable: fishing spear, whaling harpoon, eel catcher, pellet bow etc.

Without delving into documentary evidence and local semantics we are on very shaky grounds.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you Ariel.
Jens

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

What is left, of course, is providing evidence that "their origin and old main purpose" was specifically tiger hunting:-)

Just consider one more opinion. I do not preach here, but just point to circumstances little known in the circle of dealers and collectors.

Images of brave Indian personalities despatching tigers with katars are ( IMHO) likely to be of mainly glorifying or "advertising" value: bravery of a person fighting supremely dangerous animal one-on-one in close quarters.

Bravo! Sometimes to understand something someone just need to retell it in your own words.

My point is that many weapons had " honorific" monikers.

Bingo!

In general, weapons were developed initially for mixed purpose : both as man-fighting and utilitarian ( hunting included). Subsequently, these functions were largely separated by militarily-developed societies, with only a minority retaining their utilitarian/martial status in less organised societies ( machete in peaceful times, weapon during the war). Purely utilitarian implements are easily recognizable: fishing spear, whaling harpoon, eel catcher, pellet bow etc.

This is a speculative abstract model.

[kai]

Ok, back to blades:

Returning to the royal hunt in India in the light of Teriomachia. When the first person who as a rule considered himself "a great warrior" and "a fearless hunter", fired at a predator and only wounded him, in most cases the predator attacked in response. And then on its way there were alwais specially trained assistants in most cases with katars.

Seems like "heroic" deeds where mainly for the younger generation to prove themselves worthy (and/or chosen by god) - also a fairly global feature of human societies. I am in no way belittleing the courage as well as determination of hunters and warriors of old (and of many if not most cultures globally).

Because these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s.

So, aside from the probably inconclusive issue of semantics, you base this hypothesis on the possible predominance in paintings (obvious usage in hunting vs. warfare 10:1) only? Does carrying a blade count or does it have to be shown in action? While already having acknowledged that hunts may have been more numerous than battles? For which area on the Indian subcontinent and during which period?

What about early examples from southern India? If only limited to northern India, how do the proportion of blades with thickened tips relate to your hypothesis?


Mind you, I have no stake in this discussion of traditional usage - just trying to understand your reasoning and playing devil's advocate...

Regards,
Kai

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by kai

Ok, back to blades:

So, aside from the probably inconclusive issue of semantics, you base this hypothesis on the apparently biased proportion of paintings (obvious usage in hunting vs. warfare) only;

Biased proportion? It is a fact actually. Take an another proportion of pictures. Could you?

What about early examples from southern India?

[kai]

Biased proportion? It is a fact actually.

I wasn't accusing you of introducing any malicious bias - I did rephrase my earlier posting for clarity, hopefully.

Still, if you only count actions scenes while ignoring warriors carrying these blades in a battle scenario (probably not for fun), this will exaggerate any differences. Also you did not answer how you'd suggest to normalize the statistics assuming that hunting was more common than battles...

It's easy to come up with statistics; making probabilities a really convincing case is a tad tougher.

Regards,
Kai

[Mercenary]

OK

The design of katar is the best design to stop the attacking predator. It is more comfortable to wear and use than a heavy spear.

Most of the situations we know where a tiger was stopping are illustrated with the katar.

In India, whether we like it or not, one of its names is "tiger dagger".

Within the framework of the concept of Theriomachia, the wearing of this dagger could imply that its owner is able to accept the challenge of a predator.

Wearing a status weapon as an element of costume at the royal court, I hope, raises no questions.

In the chronicles you can find many descriptions of how the heads are cut off with a simple dagger. How to thrust with katar? Good luck in search.

- That is all.
- Thank you, Mercenary, that we have learned something more. But excuse us because we will argue further.
- No problem. I understand. I was just glad to share my knowledge

[Mercenary]

To be honest. The facts say that using the katar in battle is exception, unlike hunting or wearing a suit.
Only two:

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

To be honest. The facts say that using the katar in battle is exception, unlike hunting or wearing a suit.
Only two:

Only on these images there are examples of using katar during a battle????
But what about all the discourses about the terrible arms for punching armor ???

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

OK

The design of katar is the best design to stop the attacking predator.

First, what do you mean by "predator"? Does a human enemy qualify?

Second, there are many ways to skin a cat:-)

Personally, I would choose a good high-caliber rifle, just like big game hunters. They were available in 17-18 century India,
Then, a good " boar spear" would be my next choice: another 2-3 feet away from the teeth and claws could come handy. Regretfully, it would stop being a " boar spear" and become " tiger spear":-)

Third, African lion hunters manage quite well without katars: they use rather flimsily-looking spears and do just fine .

Short-bladed katar is no different from a garden variety knife: the latter can be gripped differently to be able to perform pure stabbing with straight arm and most knife-fighting techniques include this type of grip. Both knife and katar sacrifice safe distance for the dubious glory of a heroic kill with high likelihood of being maimed beyond recognition.

As an aside, Elgood's book on Hindu weapons shows statues with katars piercing some non-tiger looking animals: do I see hooves on some of them? If I am correct, would we call katar " buffalo dagger" or "horse dagger"?

I fully understand your excitement: it would have been very nice to pinpoint the original intended purpose of such an unusual weapon. I just find this hypothesis implausible. Sorry.

[ariel]

Going back to the original inquiry:
ANY handle of ANY dagger placed horizontally would resemble katar's handle placed vertically.
Deriving any far-reaching conclusions from that and supporting them with linguistic similarity of derivatives of the same root doesn't cut the mustard, IMHO.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

First, what do you mean by "predator"? Does a human enemy qualify?

Second, there are many ways to skin a cat:-)

Personally, I would choose a good high-caliber rifle, just like big game hunters. They were available in 17-18 century India,
Then, a good " boar spear" would be my next choice: another 2-3 feet away from the teeth and claws could come handy. Regretfully, it would stop being a " boar spear" and become " tiger spear":-)

Wow! Of course now we will see indian miniatures (of the appropriate period), confirmative to your words? Or is this another bla-bla-bla?

For now, I see that the Mercenary is showing compelling evidence, backed up by linguistics and Indian miniatures (of the relevant period). And those who disagree with him do not give any factual material .... They only voice their personal opinion, which is not confirmed by anything....

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Personally, I would choose a good high-caliber rifle, just like big game hunters. They were available in 17-18 century India,

I acted differently. I analyzed all the available literature and memories of hunting a tiger before I wrote something. A rifle or spear does not save from a sudden attack, the tiger does not attack in another way. Are you confusing a tiger hunt with a hunt for ... what did you hunt?

Third, African lion hunters manage quite well without katars: they use rather flimsily-looking spears and do just fine .

For the West it is no matter where cultural or historical events of the East take place: in Africa or India or Zombieland. I know.

Both knife and katar sacrifice safe distance for the dubious glory of a heroic kill with high likelihood of being maimed beyond recognition.

I said about this already. For someone it is heroism, for another it is stupidity. For someone it is the history, for another it is politics. For someone it is culture, for another it is barbarism. For someone it is research, for another it is just to talk.

As an aside, Elgood's book on Hindu weapons shows statues with katars piercing some non-tiger looking animals: do I see hooves on some of them? If I am correct, would we call katar " buffalo dagger" or "horse dagger"?

"Would we call..." Indians called.
We called just "zirak boukh", "mel puttah bemoh", "tooth of death god" and other rubbish. Enough already.

I fully understand your excitement: it would have been very nice to pinpoint the original intended purpose of such an unusual weapon. I just find this hypothesis implausible. Sorry

This is normal. Thank you. Just no other hypotheses.
But wait ... Katars were able to penetrate through the chain mail! And they were so good for it that such daggers were independently invented in all countries where there were chain mails! Or not? It is so hard to live in a country in the middle between The West and The East.