27th February 2006, 10:39 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England, Northumberland
Posts: 85
|
Do it yourself Pata!!!
Ive been after one of these for a while, so when offerd this found it hard to refuse, even if it isnt in my opinion a great example....or possibly even real!.
I thought patas were high status cavalry weapons. Would an example like this, heavily and rather crudely repaired have existed. Opinions very much appreciated. Cheers Andy |
27th February 2006, 10:41 AM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England, Northumberland
Posts: 85
|
One more photo
The other side. I would guess the small holes at the side are supposed to hold an internal lining but what are the large rings for?
|
27th February 2006, 10:44 AM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,625
|
I would guess they were used to hold leather straps for fastening the pata onto the hand, and the small holes probably had maille once, but is there welding that I see?
|
27th February 2006, 08:25 PM | #4 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
Well, it is not a museum piece for sure and I would not pay more than $1.95 in 3 easy payments for it, but... if you are caught in a shopping mall wearing this "glove", call Andy: you sure need a lawyer
One can skewer a lot of chicken for a neighborhood BBQ on this Pata! |
27th February 2006, 09:13 PM | #5 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,957
|
Hi Andy,
The single pata I own also is on the very 'rough' side, and I have owned it for over 30 years. I wanted a representative example, and frankly despite not being able to afford the 'museum quality' pieces, these rough examples more appeal to me, and I have always treasured this piece.Certainly the higher end items represent well stationed individuals that were able to afford such distinctive quality weapons, but the Mahrattas were a tribal people, and not everyone was a Raja or a chieftain. Individual fighting warriors were required to arm themselves, and it would not be surprising to see such 'blacksmith' quality weapons among these forces. The reason these typically no longer are found is that they were thrown into scrap heaps during the Raj (such as those destroyed at Tanjore and other armouries) after being captured whether in battle or confiscation. These rough examples in my opinion are too clumsy and rough to be intended to be tourist pieces, and far too rough to be reproductions intended for the deceptive market. Therefore, they are more likely rank and file interpretations or refurbishings to be used as is whether in combat or possibly even village examples for ceremonial use. This may explain the rings, which may have been intended for decorations or festoons. Possibly being too romantic, I sense this piece may have stories to tell Very interesting pata, I would have bought it too!!! All the best, Jim |
27th February 2006, 09:43 PM | #6 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England, Northumberland
Posts: 85
|
Ah Jim you are a romantic similar to my own heart.
That aside! I agree with you, so rough that it cant be modern and as a tourist piece its hardly the sort of thing that can be easily put in your luggage. The multitude of different grades of steel, brass and copper, all seem to indicate repairs and rebuilds over a period of time. The one thing that doesnt look rough is the blade and that I guess should be the true indication, that it is intended for use. |
27th February 2006, 10:24 PM | #7 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,957
|
Spot on Andy!!!!
Congratulations on your well placed acquisition!!! I'm glad that it has found a good home!!! All the best, Jim |
|
|