Indian Katar - Page 2

fernando · 7th November 2006, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

It would be interesting to compere the hilts with medieval and later hilts of some of the shorter European people.

Hi Tim,
In page 191 of HOMENS ESPADAS E TOMATES ( MEN, SWORDS AND BALLS ), the author Rainer Daehnhardt, after weaving some interesting considerations on the Tulwar origins and use, writes: The Portuguese would not use this weapon, firstly because they trusted more their own, and also because the majority of Tulwars grips was so small that rare were the Portuguese hands that could fit into them ( Pictures 51, 52 and 100 ).
This is the guy who owns the shop i bought the pictured katar from.
... and Portuguese were not that big.

Jeff D · 8th November 2006, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

I have to agree with Fernando. I just cannot believe that a large amout of adult Indian WARRIORS with training and so on were only the size of the average modern western teenager. Some weapons may have been used with a glove but that still leaves a huge question about all the others.

Hi Tim.

Frederick Wilkinson Quotes P. Bramley who was the Deputy Inspector-General of the North Western Provinces and Oudh Police in the late 19th century, on Pg 190 of
Swords and Hilt Weapons 'Mr Bramley also comments on the hilt of the talwar, pointing out that for the average European hand the grip feels cramped and uncomfortable since the average Indian hand is smaller than that of a European'

On a side note, most of the real skeletons found in anatomy labs came from India (I think this was stopped in the 1970's), because of this there have been many upset first year medical students thinking that "their bones" were from children which was not the case.
Europeans on the other hand, were similar size to us now during the middle ages, we only began shrinking when the over crowded and poor nutritional conditions occured during the industrial revolution.

hope this is useful.
Jeff

B.I · 8th November 2006, 04:41 AM

it seems everyone is getting at tim....so i may as well join in

if you pop down to southall, after spending 2 hours trying to park, you'll easily notice mine and jens' point. i am not saying we are right, but you will see whare we are coming from.
i have a group of cousins from my mothers side - 3 guys, aged between 30 and 40, all of whome can hold my swords that i could hardly fit 4 fingers into. if you go to india, this becomes really apparant as the size difference is very noticeable. the mughal left their mark in more than the architecture, but there are still enough pure hindus to keep me happy in my theory.

a side note, the 16thC 'madrasi' sword that elgood illustrates all have even smaller hilts than a standard tulwar. these are absolutely tiny and date from the 16thC (and before). all of the examples i have seen, and i have seen enough to make a comparison, are of the same small size.
so, i believe both theories work. jens and i believe the hindu 'throwbacks' still exist in small stature, and their ancestors were probably even smaller if you compare these early swords of pure hindu form ot the still-small tulwars of the 19thC.

Tim Simmons · 8th November 2006, 07:47 AM

My shoulders are broad enough

If ever you need a people to pick on it is us Brits. We are tough but most of all enjoy laughing at ourselves

. I am sure you are all correct but I shall still mantain that as in other current conflicts an element of combatants were and are teenagers.

B.I · 8th November 2006, 08:19 AM

hi tim,
i think there is a crossing of points, no doubt instigated by me bowling in without looking!
i agree that weapons in india were also made for the young, but these were exceptionally small. i was referring to the hilts in general being smaller than a european hand could manage, which is an on-going point of discussion (the dreaded fingered ricasso!!).
there are plenty of victorian photos of youths armed, although these are normally children of royalty (only because they were the only ones the photographer was interested in).
all types of arms were made in various sizes (down to daggers for the very young in almost miniature size).
i have also seen full armour made for children.

Jeff D · 8th November 2006, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.I

hi tim,
i think there is a crossing of points, no doubt instigated by me bowling in without looking!
i agree that weapons in india were also made for the young, but these were exceptionally small. i was referring to the hilts in general being smaller than a european hand could manage, which is an on-going point of discussion (the dreaded fingered ricasso!!).
there are plenty of victorian photos of youths armed, although these are normally children of royalty (only because they were the only ones the photographer was interested in).
all types of arms were made in various sizes (down to daggers for the very young in almost miniature size).
i have also seen full armour made for children.

Did someone say ricasso?

,

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this before, on Pg 21 of P.S. Rawson's
The Indian Sword, Rawson in discussion on the ricasso states this "The reason for its existance may be to have safeguard the index finger, which art shows to have been sometimes hooked round the front quillion of the hilt in India." Although examples are not given he has some credibility in this satement because, as we all know Rawson's main area of interest was art and the history of art.

All the best.
Jeff

Jeff D · 8th November 2006, 05:48 PM

Oops! i should have used the search function prior to posting above. It seems Jim (of course!) mentions this in this excellent thread http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...rawson+ricasso

so what is the controversy?

All the best
Jeff

Jens Nordlunde · 8th November 2006, 06:04 PM

Hi Jeff,

There are three editions of Rawson’s book. The English and the American are most likely alike, but the Danish one have pictures from Danish collections, so referring to a page does not give much point, unless you also say which edition you have. I doubt that you have the Danish edition, so I will have to go looking on which page it is in my edition – as I have the Danish one.

I will not say that I think Rawson’s theory is wrong, only that I doubt it, as there are quite a number of tulwars without ricasso, and these poor chaps without ricasso – what would they do? Had it been like Rawson suggests, I am sure a ricasso would have been made on the blades without.

Jens

Jeff D · 8th November 2006, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Hi Jeff,

There are three editions of Rawson’s book. The English and the American are most likely alike, but the Danish one have pictures from Danish collections, so referring to a page does not give much point, unless you also say which edition you have. I doubt that you have the Danish edition, so I will have to go looking on which page it is in my edition – as I have the Danish one.

I will not say that I think Rawson’s theory is wrong, only that I doubt it, as there are quite a number of tulwars without ricasso, and these poor chaps without ricasso – what would they do? Had it been like Rawson suggests, I am sure a ricasso would have been made on the blades without.

Jens

Hi Jens,

I have the British 1968 copy (A Danish copy?

).It is in the mid section of his Northern half of India chapter under the Islamic period. My personal opinion is that some were fingered and some were not, probably related to where the individual learned his technique.

All the Best
Jeff

Jens Nordlunde · 8th November 2006, 06:18 PM

Hi Jeff

,

You may be right, only you would have to remember which tulwar you were using, not to finger one without ricasso

.
The Danish edition was published by The Danish Arms and Armour Society, 1967. The number of copies was small, as it was only for the mebmers of the Society.

Jens

Jeff D · 8th November 2006, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Hi Jeff

,

You may be right, only you would have to remember which tulwar you were using, not to finger one without ricasso

.

Jens

I wonder if there were a number of Indian Alzheimer's patients nick named "stumpy"

.

Jeff

B.I · 9th November 2006, 12:59 AM

hi jeff,
i may have shot myself in the foot by mentioning the ricasso thing, as its a subject i was hoping to avoid (for the rest of my life, and i intend on hanging around for quite a while yet!)
just for the record, i have never agreed with rawson on this point. i have studied miniatures for many years, in regard to the forms of arms and i have never seen what rawson claimed...not once.
i love rawsons book, as i enjoy his style of writing. i have read it many times as it is enjoyable and well put together. however, he has glossed over many points, ignored important references and seems to have assumed may things which stem from no real grounding. his terminology is one that he created for his own use, which is quite frustrating as you want him to be right, and be able to use the same for your own studies but none of it has any substance.
but, saying all of that, its still one of my favourite books!
when (or if) i finally stumble across a fingered ricasso, i may cede the point with its potential. until then, i think it a european trying to use an indian sword without understanding it. of course it feels right, as there is no other way you could hold it...unless your hands were smaller of course :-)

but... there are many miniatures i havent as yet seen so the search continues!

Jeff D · 9th November 2006, 08:22 AM

Hi Brian,

Since i would like you around for a while yet, I will end this side topic for now. But who knows what will come up when another misfire occurs.

.

All the Best
Jeff

B.I · 9th November 2006, 10:04 PM

thanks jeff

but dont worry, i am a huge fan of proving myself wrong (i normally try to get in there before someone else does!) and love to be caught out by my own arrogance. humility and humble pie should be force fed in abundance!!
i will always keep an eye out for this as the first thing i look for in a miniature is the hilt form.
if i see a pinky sticking out, i'll let you know!

8th November 2006, 06:18 PM	#40
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Jeff, You may be right, only you would have to remember which tulwar you were using, not to finger one without ricasso. The Danish edition was published by The Danish Arms and Armour Society, 1967. The number of copies was small, as it was only for the mebmers of the Society. Jens

8th November 2006, 04:41 AM	#33
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	it seems everyone is getting at tim....so i may as well join in if you pop down to southall, after spending 2 hours trying to park, you'll easily notice mine and jens' point. i am not saying we are right, but you will see whare we are coming from. i have a group of cousins from my mothers side - 3 guys, aged between 30 and 40, all of whome can hold my swords that i could hardly fit 4 fingers into. if you go to india, this becomes really apparant as the size difference is very noticeable. the mughal left their mark in more than the architecture, but there are still enough pure hindus to keep me happy in my theory. a side note, the 16thC 'madrasi' sword that elgood illustrates all have even smaller hilts than a standard tulwar. these are absolutely tiny and date from the 16thC (and before). all of the examples i have seen, and i have seen enough to make a comparison, are of the same small size. so, i believe both theories work. jens and i believe the hindu 'throwbacks' still exist in small stature, and their ancestors were probably even smaller if you compare these early swords of pure hindu form ot the still-small tulwars of the 19thC.

8th November 2006, 07:47 AM	#34
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,807	My shoulders are broad enough If ever you need a people to pick on it is us Brits. We are tough but most of all enjoy laughing at ourselves . I am sure you are all correct but I shall still mantain that as in other current conflicts an element of combatants were and are teenagers.

8th November 2006, 08:19 AM	#35
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi tim, i think there is a crossing of points, no doubt instigated by me bowling in without looking! i agree that weapons in india were also made for the young, but these were exceptionally small. i was referring to the hilts in general being smaller than a european hand could manage, which is an on-going point of discussion (the dreaded fingered ricasso!!). there are plenty of victorian photos of youths armed, although these are normally children of royalty (only because they were the only ones the photographer was interested in). all types of arms were made in various sizes (down to daggers for the very young in almost miniature size). i have also seen full armour made for children.

8th November 2006, 05:48 PM	#37
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Oops! i should have used the search function prior to posting above. It seems Jim (of course!) mentions this in this excellent thread http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...rawson+ricasso so what is the controversy? All the best Jeff

8th November 2006, 06:04 PM	#38
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Jeff, There are three editions of Rawson’s book. The English and the American are most likely alike, but the Danish one have pictures from Danish collections, so referring to a page does not give much point, unless you also say which edition you have. I doubt that you have the Danish edition, so I will have to go looking on which page it is in my edition – as I have the Danish one. I will not say that I think Rawson’s theory is wrong, only that I doubt it, as there are quite a number of tulwars without ricasso, and these poor chaps without ricasso – what would they do? Had it been like Rawson suggests, I am sure a ricasso would have been made on the blades without. Jens

9th November 2006, 12:59 AM	#42
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi jeff, i may have shot myself in the foot by mentioning the ricasso thing, as its a subject i was hoping to avoid (for the rest of my life, and i intend on hanging around for quite a while yet!) just for the record, i have never agreed with rawson on this point. i have studied miniatures for many years, in regard to the forms of arms and i have never seen what rawson claimed...not once. i love rawsons book, as i enjoy his style of writing. i have read it many times as it is enjoyable and well put together. however, he has glossed over many points, ignored important references and seems to have assumed may things which stem from no real grounding. his terminology is one that he created for his own use, which is quite frustrating as you want him to be right, and be able to use the same for your own studies but none of it has any substance. but, saying all of that, its still one of my favourite books! when (or if) i finally stumble across a fingered ricasso, i may cede the point with its potential. until then, i think it a european trying to use an indian sword without understanding it. of course it feels right, as there is no other way you could hold it...unless your hands were smaller of course :-) but... there are many miniatures i havent as yet seen so the search continues!

9th November 2006, 08:22 AM	#43
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi Brian, Since i would like you around for a while yet, I will end this side topic for now. But who knows what will come up when another misfire occurs. . All the Best Jeff

9th November 2006, 10:04 PM	#44
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	thanks jeff but dont worry, i am a huge fan of proving myself wrong (i normally try to get in there before someone else does!) and love to be caught out by my own arrogance. humility and humble pie should be force fed in abundance!! i will always keep an eye out for this as the first thing i look for in a miniature is the hilt form. if i see a pinky sticking out, i'll let you know!