Jamdhar katari - a theory

[Mercenary]

Thanks Jim. I only can added that these daggers in huge numbers got to Nepal from Bihar and Bengal along with fakirs after the suppression of their rebellion in 1799.
And not "jamdhar katari". Just "katar" or "katara"/"katarah". Dagger of Kafirs are an another type. I do not know what they are

[ariel]

Mahratt,
I intentionally do not react to your posts and this is my second appeal to you to do the same.
If you want to express your opinion related to my comments on this Forum, first, please keep it to yourself. If unable to do so , please express yourself in a civilized manner , without ad hominem attacks. This is obviously OK on the Russian Forum, but not here.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

The main idea is that this dagger has acquired its high status thanks to tigers. That is all. I myself do not understand why everyone argues with me.

In this case I misunderstood your thesis, or you might not have expressed it clear enough.

However:

Katars were in use all across India, in humongous numbers and over a very long period of time. Why do we have to suggest that they had especially high status ( vs, Khanda? Tulwar? khanjar?) and, if indeed they had, that tiger hunting had anything to do with it?

They were just a very effective weapon for a particular circumstance, I.e. close quarters fight, and were used by Rajahs and commoners alike with different degrees of rich decoration or total absence thereof. High status belonged to their owners, either because of their royal/court positions or because of their individual feats ( See Jens’ entry on a person killing a berserked elephant with a Katar and being rewarded with a governorship position for it).

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

In this case I misunderstood your thesis, or you might not have expressed it clear enough.

However:

Katars were in use all across India, in humongous numbers and over a very long period of time. Why do we have to suggest that they had especially high status ( vs, Khanda? Tulwar? khanjar?) and, if indeed they had, that tiger hunting had anything to do with it?

They were just a very effective weapon for a particular circumstance, I.e. close quarters fight, and were used by Rajahs and commoners alike with different degrees of rich decoration or total absence thereof. High status belonged to their owners, either because of their royal/court positions or because of their individual feats ( See Jens’ entry on a person killing a berserked elephant with a Katar and being rewarded with a governorship position for it).

The study of values ​​and statuses is another level of understanding of Eastern culture. What is suitable for thechnical sciences is not suitable for cultural or religious phenomena. Maybe such an approach seems unnecessarily complicated, but it allows you to penetrate into the culture deeper and eventually learn much more. The usual logic does not work in traditional culture.

I can not explain more, may be it is my problem, let it go.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Mahratt,
I intentionally do not react to your posts and this is my second appeal to you to do the same.
If you want to express your opinion related to my comments on this Forum, first, please keep it to yourself. If unable to do so , please express yourself in a civilized manner , without ad hominem attacks. This is obviously OK on the Russian Forum, but not here.

Ariel,
I know that you deliberately do not answer if you do not have an answer. This is a very convenient position. It seemed to me that this is an open forum, where everyone can express their opinions. I do not express the opinion "about your comments". I lead the discussion. Isn't the forum created to share information and debate using facts?
You personally have not been attacked (In addition to the fact that I asked you to argue your words with facts, and not "play with words").
By the way, You accuse me in what I do "ad hominem attacks", and you yourself speak insultingly about the Russian forum.

However, maybe we will return to the topic of discussion? For example, in the context of traditional Indian culture. Well, or at least we can discuss what is more important for the study of weapons, the images that are on the coins or images on miniatures and other works of art?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Thanks Jim. I only can added that these daggers in huge numbers got to Nepal from Bihar and Bengal along with fakirs after the suppression of their rebellion in 1799.
And not "jamdhar katari". Just "katar" or "katara"/"katarah". Dagger of Kafirs are an another type. I do not know what they are

Thank you so much for the attention to my post in trying to get back to the topic of this thread, the jamdhar-katari, which Stan posted so thoughtfully some 7 years ago.
As I was desperately trying to illustrate amid the rest of this specious katar discussion, the KATARA was indeed the dagger which was illustrated as the dagger of the Kafir people of what is now Nuristan (a province in Eastern Afghanistan). As I noted, I did research on these people, now called Kalash and situated in regions of Chitral to the west in Afghanistan.

In my research I obtained the two volume set of "The Kafirs of Hindu Kush: A Study of the Waigal and Ashkun Kafirs" by Max Klimburg (1999).
In this book these daggers are illustrated and called katara.


I hope I can make this clear enough as it was queried in the original post 7 years ago. The transverse grip dagger we these days call katar…...was originally called jamdhar. Egerton in his writing (1885) for some yet unknown reason termed these H hilt daggers attributed to Nepal the JAMDHAR-KITARI.

What transpired after this appears that the jamdhar term which SHOULD have been used for the many transverse gripped daggers illustrated inexplicably became noted as katars. This profound oversight or error became the ever known term for these daggers in the literature to this day.


The note that the katara daggers got to Nepal via the fakirs rebellion from Bengal is most interesting and I would not dispute that this form was known over many regions in these areas, and surely not exclusive only to the Kafirs any more than people in Nepal. I have always been under the impression that fakirs were not allowed weapons and used their innovative and 'disguised' forms.....but in a formalized insurgence the use of any weapon would be understood.


This again is simply another futile effort to address the topic of the thread originally and avoid further attention to the specious debate digressing presently, and frankly disappointingly ridiculous.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Thank you so much for the attention to my post in trying to get back to the topic of this thread, the jamdhar-katari, which Stan posted so thoughtfully some 7 years ago.
As I was desperately trying to illustrate amid the rest of this specious katar discussion, the KATARA was indeed the dagger which was illustrated as the dagger of the Kafir people of what is now Nuristan (a province in Eastern Afghanistan). As I noted, I did research on these people, now called Kalash and situated in regions of Chitral to the west in Afghanistan.

In my research I obtained the two volume set of "The Kafirs of Hindu Kush: A Study of the Waigal and Ashkun Kafirs" by Max Klimburg (1999).
In this book these daggers are illustrated and called katara.


I hope I can make this clear enough as it was queried in the original post 7 years ago. The transverse grip dagger we these days call katar…...was originally called jamdhar. Egerton in his writing (1885) for some yet unknown reason termed these H hilt daggers attributed to Nepal the JAMDHAR-KITARI.

What transpired after this appears that the jamdhar term which SHOULD have been used for the many transverse gripped daggers illustrated inexplicably became noted as katars. This profound oversight or error became the ever known term for these daggers in the literature to this day.


The note that the katara daggers got to Nepal via the fakirs rebellion from Bengal is most interesting and I would not dispute that this form was known over many regions in these areas, and surely not exclusive only to the Kafirs any more than people in Nepal. I have always been under the impression that fakirs were not allowed weapons and used their innovative and 'disguised' forms.....but in a formalized insurgence the use of any weapon would be understood.


This again is simply another futile effort to address the topic of the thread originally and avoid further attention to the specious debate digressing presently, and frankly disappointingly ridiculous.

Thank you very much. I will study your post many times. But what do you think, it is correct to compare the dagger of 2nd century and Kafir's dagger of the first post of thread. How old are Kafirs? )))

P.S. Maybe moderator will let Ariel and Mahratt write here in Russian? It is the native language for both, I think it will be better for all.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I have always been under the impression that fakirs were not allowed weapons and used their innovative and 'disguised' forms.....but in a formalized insurgence the use of any weapon would be understood.
.

"Fakirs" it is the name given by Europeans to a large group of people including ascetic-warriors. They were really not allowed weapons... but after 1799 and not in Nepal )

http://indianfight.com/fighting-ascetics/

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Thank you very much. I will study your post many times. But what do you think, it is correct to compare the dagger of 2nd century and Kafir's dagger of the first post of thread. How old are Kafirs? )))

P.S. Maybe moderator will let Ariel and Mahratt write here in Russian? It is the native language for both, I think it will be better for all.

I would appreciate that as the research and material I have entered is of considerable time, effort and expense of many years ago and my sharing these notes here are in the spirit of constructive discussion instead of specious debate. Can you please tell me what dagger of 2nd century is referred to?

Without considerable research further it is hard to define how 'old' Kafirs are as the term is likely recent (i.e. last 300 yrs +) but to get into anthropological analysis would be far more complex. The term 'Kafir' as you certainly know means loosely 'infidel' in Islamic parlance, and their exodus from the regions now Nuristan were due to Afghan khanate invasion.


The suggestion to allowing Russian language debate to be included here is as you must know, completely counter productive and I will withhold any further comment toward that suggestion.I do appreciate your effort to maintain focus on the actual topic of this thread.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

"Fakirs" it is the name given by Europeans to a large group of people including ascetic-warriors. They were really not allowed weapons... but after 1799 and not in Nepal )

http://indianfight.com/fighting-ascetics/

Thank you very much for that clarification. This is an area obviously quite obviously misunderstood by many, including myself, so your expertise is appreciated.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I would appreciate that as the research and material I have entered is of considerable time, effort and expense of many years ago and my sharing these notes here are in the spirit of constructive discussion instead of specious debate. Can you please tell me what dagger of 2nd century is referred to?.

It is the very interesting field of research because the area around modern Afghanistan was the center of culture for centuries. I know a little in the field and it will be very interesting to learn how all of these developed over time.
This dagger:

[ariel]

http://indianfight.com/fighting-ascetics/

Mercenary,
I see that this site is bilingual: English and Russian.
Are you the author of the papers published there?

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

http://indianfight.com/fighting-ascetics/

Mercenary,
I see that this site is bilingual: English and Russian.
Are you the author of the papers published there?

Yes, I write for the site but in popular manner because it is martial art site.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

"Fakirs" it is the name given by Europeans to a large group of people including ascetic-warriors. They were really not allowed weapons... but after 1799 and not in Nepal )

http://indianfight.com/fighting-ascetics/

Thank you for the interesting article and very interesting facts on the topic of discussion.

[ariel]

Mercenary,

Very good job!
One could argue with some of your statements and notice some inconsistencies, but this is a popular site, as you have mentioned.

You might want to convert some chapters into real papers and submit them to professional journals. They will have to be expanded and the argumentation tightened up, but you have excellent starting points. Journal of Royal Armories seems to be interested in Indian weapons and that might be your first choice. If I were you, I would send them first for unofficial reviews to some people here, who know a thing or two about Indian military practices ( Jim? Jens?). I am sure they would not refuse to help a colleague Forumite. If you think I can be of help, please feel free to get in touch.


Having undergone a careful and objective peer review by the editorial board and published in a respectable professional journal, your “ popular “ versions would acquire a real academic weight i.e. exactly what you want to achieve. And they have a real potential.

Once again,- nicely done!

[ariel]

Mahratt,

Let me clarify something.

First, my “coin” paper, proposing the likely Khazar source of the saber’s entry into the Arabian Islamic realm. What you have read was a quick draft of a proposal for an invited paper. Regretfully, it was published by a Ukrainian journal without my knowledge and approval, and I was not the only person who was dealt such a blow. I have reworked and expanded it, and it was published in a European peer-reviewed journal with full disclosure of its previous publication. It got positive reviews from several people in the field including Bashir Mohamed. Thus, your persistent sniping at it currently has no basis and carries no weight. You may relax.

I understand you are still smarting from my post here re-analyzing your paper on the genesis of the term Karud. Indeed, you found a perfect documentary source but completely mis-read it. Again, that paper was also published in a peer-reviewed journal and I got a letter from Robert Elgood who enthusiastically congratulated me on finally closing the minor but annoying chapter of terminology. Your source of information was properly cited and credited.

Having clarified these two issues, I again respectfully ask you to stop your ad hominem attacks on me. They are not constructive and only poison the atmosphere on this Forum. It would be better for everybody involved if you just ignore my entries.

I hope this is the last time I am forced to contact you.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... The term 'Kafir' as you certainly know means loosely 'infidel' in Islamic parlance ...

Jim, for a moment i got tangled by the Kafir v Fakir term similarity.
As in several other cases, the term Kafir كافر used by Arab merchants was brought to Africa (by European navigators) and by some parallelism deviated its virtual attribution to a pejorative way to call the natives, where i first became acquainted with it.
Also Fakir seem to have its paralels, like those called Jogues by gentiles and Calândares by the Moors, as often alluded by Portuguese chroniclers. Hindu ascetics, João de Barros (1496-1570) typifies them as "in a mode of philosophers, whom leave the world in low and vile habit going by all places and pilgrimages and some times get apart to do penitence... Their only attire is composed by some skins that only cover their shameful parts". Other chroniclers say that "they only wear capes made of rags found in the trash". Barbosa (1500-1517 in India) says that "they have a good mood and are good looking; never comb their hair and use it braided". Garcia de Orta (1501-158) wrote that "they go floured with ashes all over their body, a means of sanctification; ashes made of cow dung, they sanctify themselves every morning in this way, which they call "curi".
Uploaded is how a Portuguese anonymous navigator artist saw them in the XVI century.
(Codice Casanatense)


.

[Jim McDougall]

Fernando, thank you for the insight into the 'fakir' matter. I have of course heard of these unusual mendicants but honestly knew little beyond the almost cliche' images. Great perspective.

Ariel, Mahratt and Mercenary,
Guys thank you so much for working toward better rapport here. You are all sound researchers and great writers in your chosen fields of study and while you may all have differences in cases, I think you enhance your skills with good discussion presenting objective supported evidence and observations which really benefit the readers here including myself. I know I enjoy reading threads which do this on topics I am not familiar with, and good flowing discussion without any personal friction makes all the difference.


I have learned that such sound discussion becomes a learning experience for all both participants and readers, which is the very reason I joined these forums over twenty years ago. It is a wonderful opportunity and privilege for which I am very grateful.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Mahratt,

Let me clarify something.

First, my “coin” paper, proposing the likely Khazar source of the saber’s entry into the Arabian Islamic realm. What you have read was a quick draft of a proposal for an invited paper. Regretfully, it was published by a Ukrainian journal without my knowledge and approval, and I was not the only person who was dealt such a blow. I have reworked and expanded it, and it was published in a European peer-reviewed journal with full disclosure of its previous publication. It got positive reviews from several people in the field including Bashir Mohamed. Thus, your persistent sniping at it currently has no basis and carries no weight. You may relax.

I understand you are still smarting from my post here re-analyzing your paper on the genesis of the term Karud. Indeed, you found a perfect documentary source but completely mis-read it. Again, that paper was also published in a peer-reviewed journal and I got a letter from Robert Elgood who enthusiastically congratulated me on finally closing the minor but annoying chapter of terminology. Your source of information was properly cited and credited.

Having clarified these two issues, I again respectfully ask you to stop your ad hominem attacks on me. They are not constructive and only poison the atmosphere on this Forum. It would be better for everybody involved if you just ignore my entries.

I hope this is the last time I am forced to contact you.

Ariel,
I did not mention your name anywhere. Therefore, your "nervous" reaction surprises me. You questioned the meaning of the images. I, in turn, remembered that some researchers write scientific papers, exploring the images on the coins. As far as I remember, I did not mention your name anywhere in connection with such works. Or I'm wrong?
I am very glad that some of your scientific work on weapons has received positive feedback. Congratulations. Unfortunately, the public (most people) is not familiar with this scientific article, which you written. Maybe you will create a separate topic, lay out scans of pages and allow forum participants to enjoy your research?

I do not understand at all, in connection with which you remembered the term "Karud", especially in connection with me ... I think you should not get personal. Do I understand correctly that you have published an article about the term "Karud"? It would be very interesting to read it.

Ariel, we here on the forum communicate and discuss. If you have voiced some opinion, then you need to be prepared that you will be asked questions. And this is nothing personal. I hope you calm down. I think it will be right for you to think less about your ego. And then we can all communicate normally.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Mercenary,

Very good job!
One could argue with some of your statements and notice some inconsistencies, but this is a popular site, as you have mentioned.

You might want to convert some chapters into real papers and submit them to professional journals. They will have to be expanded and the argumentation tightened up, but you have excellent starting points. Journal of Royal Armories seems to be interested in Indian weapons and that might be your first choice. If I were you, I would send them first for unofficial reviews to some people here, who know a thing or two about Indian military practices ( Jim? Jens?). I am sure they would not refuse to help a colleague Forumite. If you think I can be of help, please feel free to get in touch.


Having undergone a careful and objective peer review by the editorial board and published in a respectable professional journal, your “ popular “ versions would acquire a real academic weight i.e. exactly what you want to achieve. And they have a real potential.

Once again,- nicely done!

Thank you very much for your opinion, it is very honorable for me. But publishing articles even in respected journals is not an end in itself. Studies in the field of historical weapons or military practices are not the main topics of my researches. That is why I am writing about them on the forums and on websites.

[Battara]

My suggestion boys is that we stick to the subject matter at hand in this thread. No more steering off course please.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Thank you very much for your opinion, it is very honorable for me. But publishing articles even in respected journals is not an end in itself. Studies in the field of historical weapons or military practices are not the main topics of my researches. That is why I am writing about them on the forums and on websites.

Mercenary,
As they say, If it is not written ( and published) it did not happen.
At least, think about it.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Battara

My suggestion boys is that we stick to the subject matter at hand in this thread. No more steering off course please.

Jose,
I just a). cleared the air for the general benefit of the Forum and b). expressed support for Mercenary's endeavors directly related to the topic of this discussion.
I shall do my best not to digress in the future, but occasionally free associations take over:-) And, as a matter of fact, they often open unexpected sides of the subject of discussion.

[Battara]

As long as it doesn’t get personal or ugly. 😊

[ariel]

Not from me.

[Battara]

Thank you. 😊

After all this is a good thread. We don’t get to hear as much about this type of weapon scholastically.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Battara

Thank you. 😊

After all this is a good thread. We don’t get to hear as much about this type of weapon scholastically.

VERY MUCH agreed!!! This is indeed a great thread, and there is absolutely no need for or purpose in these personality oriented entries. Lack of objectivity simply reveals lack of tangible subject matter for discussion in my opinion which I find disappointing especially considering certain people involved.
So lets get back to the topic:
JANDHAR-KITARA and the mysteries of the form(s).

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I hope I can make this clear enough as it was queried in the original post 7 years ago. The transverse grip dagger we these days call katar…...was originally called jamdhar. Egerton in his writing (1885) for some yet unknown reason termed these H hilt daggers attributed to Nepal the JAMDHAR-KITARI.
What transpired after this appears that the jamdhar term which SHOULD have been used for the many transverse gripped daggers illustrated inexplicably became noted as katars. This profound oversight or error became the ever known term for these daggers in the literature to this day...

Can you establish a relation in that, according to what i have been told, the term "Kuthar" was used by Rajendralala Mitra (The Antiquaries of Orissa) in 1876, thus earlier than Egerton adopted the term "Katar".


.

[ariel]

An almost literal translation of Jamdhar Katari would be something like “ Sharp-edged cutter of the God of Death”.
This is a purely poetic moniker and as such it cannot be used for any historical or technical analysis or conclusions.

The most frustrating example of such a name is Dhu -l -Fakar ( literally spiny, ridged) the real form of which is still a mystery despite its major significance.

If we take 10 people totally ignorant of Oriental weapons and ask them to draw their images of some fighting implement called “ lion’s tail “ or “scorpion” , we shall get 11 different images having nothing to do with shamshir or bich’hwa.

India is a multiethnic, multilingual country with a millennial history of mass migrations. One needs to be well-versed in its minute details of history and fluent in several of its languages to even start thinking about the meaning of its weapons’ names. Otherwise, it is the lowest degree of the infamous “name game” belonging to a cynically defined “ intellectual masturbation”. We should resign to the fact that we have no idea and either make peace with it or wait for a true specialist.

Elgood’s entry in his Glossary ( see Jodhpur book) consists of 2 words :
“Jamdhar: Katar”. Also, he shows several “Khandas” that have nothing to do with Egerton’s or Stone’s stereotypes.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by fernando

Can you establish a relation in that, according to what i have been told, the term "Kuthar" was used by Rajendralala Mitra (The Antiquaries of Orissa) in 1896, thus earlier than Egerton adopted the term "Katar".

In 1860, the word “katar” was used by the Russian researcher Florian Gille in the spelling of “kuttar”, describing the arsenal of Russian Imperators in Tsarskoye Selo.