Two katars

Jens Nordlunde · 24th February 2007, 02:22 PM

The dotted inscription on both sides of the side guards indicates that the katar at the top has been in the Bikaner armoury. The lower katar is marked with the Kishangarh armoury mark. That the katars are marked with the two armoury marks, means that they have been part of the weapons in the armoury, it does not necessarily mean that they were made there. They can have been, but they can also have been part of a looting, which means that they would have been made somewhere else, but I believe these to to be made where they were marked.

Lew · 24th February 2007, 05:57 PM

Jens

I have noticed that the Bikinar katars have faceted style cross bar grips and side bars that have less flaring at the ends. Is this a consistant trait found on a majority of Bikinar katars?

Lew

Jens Nordlunde · 25th February 2007, 12:42 PM

Hi Lew,

Many of the katars from Bikaner have a hilt like this one, but not all, they have different hilts and different looking blades, but most of the katars which I have seen from Bikaner looks like the one shown. The same goes for the Kishangarh katar, several looks like this one in the form, but others don’t.

Jim McDougall · 25th February 2007, 11:30 PM

Hi Jens,
On this picture of the katars it is with both parallel rather than upper and lower. Which one is which in this picture?
Best,
Jim

B.I · 26th February 2007, 06:59 AM

Hi Jens,
I am not certain that Kishanghar was an armoury like Bikaner. I could have been a collection, which is different. A collection is assembled with thought, whereas an armoury assembled for a purpose. I have a photo of the original Kishanghar 'collection/armoury' but cant show it without the owners permission (its never been published). The photo shows a wide selection of arms, but the way its laid out and displayed, you would think it done asthetically. Since it was (to my knowledge) never a museum, it makes me feel it could have been the collection of the maharaja. Maybe this explains the lavish, and time consuming markings (as apposed the the haphazard marking at Bikaner). But, what collector would mark (damage) their prized pieces in such a way?? Indians of course! Tipu marked his swords, as did the Talpurs. Just an opinion.
Changing the subject quite dramatically (but as this is Jens' post, I know he wont mind) we have discussed the origins and early 'sightings' of the katar in the past. I am away at the moment, and knee deep in Al-Berundi. He mentions The Hindus carrying a dagger in their waist sash, which is called a Khattar (or Khattari). Al-Berundi was in India from 1017-1030, so its an important early mention of this dagger type, and done some few hundred years before Ibn Battuta. Of course, Ibn Battuta gave a vague description, whereas Al-Berundi just mentions the name. We do not know whether a Khattari is a katar, or the name of another form of dagger. But, as I said, I am only knee deep so far. Hope to find out more when I am down to my elbows!! Interesting stuff!

Jens Nordlunde · 26th February 2007, 01:10 PM

Hi Jim,

After the text was done, I tried to put the picture in, but it was too big, so I had to turn it, and forgot to change the text – sorry. The Bikaner katar is the one to the left, and it sounds like a tuning fork, for a long time, when hit on wood.

For those of you who have Elgood's book Hindu Arms and Armour, but have not read Appendix 1 yet, do it, as it is very interesting. It is a translation of a book dated 1570, and tells how a horoscope can be made, to see if a sword and the owner fit together, but it also tells about the smell and the color of the steel, and many other useful things.

Hi B.I,

Maybe the picture you describe, is from the Maharajah's weapon collection, as he doubt could have had a collection as well as an armory. As the ending of Kishangarh is garh, which means a fort, I am sure there must have been an armory, but a collection as well is very possible.

Jim McDougall · 26th February 2007, 04:46 PM

Hi Jens,
Thank you so much for clarifying that. Incredibly fantastic pieces!!
Interesting point on the smell of the blades. I know that Indonesian blades have distinct smells due to the oils imbued in the blades, and that often old sword blades seem to have distinct fragrances or smells..usually good...some uh, not so good!

Hi Brian,
Very interesting trail you are on, but as we have often noted, beware the terms used in narratives, especially really old ones. I have some information from notes that pertain to a specific dagger form attributed to the Kafirs of Hindu-Kush (now Kalash tribes in Nuristan) which is known as 'katara'.

In Pant ("Indian Arms & Armour", New Delhi, 1980, p.174), he describes a 'katar' (illustr. fig. 532) as a short leaf shaped blade and a hilt with broad flat pommel and guard of same size and shape (like a capital I). He notes that this illustration and data are from Egerton (p.102, #344-45; plate IX,344) and that Egerton has called this a jamadhar-katari, noting that these were used by the Kafirs of Hindu-Kush and that these were popular through Northern India and Nepal from 16th-18th c. It is further noted that the illustration and material were taken by Egerton from the Ain-i-Akbari, which of course suggests the very early application of this term to this particular dagger form. The question really becomes, exactly how generally this term was applied descriptively in those times.

A friend in Germany has a number of these in his collection, most of which were obtained in Nepal over the past ten years. I did more follow up on this and in "The Kafirs of the Hindu Kush" Vol II, Max Klimburg, Stuttgart, 1999, #811) found one of these daggers shown as 'katara'.

In Pant, he describes how the correct term for katar referring to the now familiar parallel bar, transverse grip punch dagger, should be 'jamadhar', and that the term katar is properly referring to the old standard form dagger with hilt of wide pommel and guard.

It would seem that these more ancient daggers may have evolved, much as the chilanum, from the early anthromorphic hilt forms of Hallstadt civilization in late Bronze to early Iron Age Europe. These later 'I' hilt daggers may have, much as in many weapons of these regions, beem atavistic forms recalling the weapons of ancient tradition.

All the best,
Jim

B.I · 27th February 2007, 04:45 AM

Hi Jim,
Yes, I agree. Its good to note down each time we see the term used, and also to keep looking for and more in depth description ttached to the term. There are many places that havent been looked in by any academic, so the search is still on.
Jens,
Yes, Ghar mean fort, but Kishanghar was a town and most towns were fortified. I was refering to the specific collection (whether it was the armoury or not) with these eched inscriptions. This collection was broken up, and brought to England some years back and the examples we are aware of (yours, Ricketts, one that was in a private collection etc) all came from this source. It is speculation to say that the image i have is the same collection that these pieces resided in (even though all was kishanghar) but an interesting point is the guy that bought the entire collection, also owns the photograph that I have. As far as I am aware, there was no armoury there, unless it was dispersed more than 20/25 years ago, which of course is a definate option. All we have is the little information that still exists. We know there was a collection, all of which were so inscribed. Whether they originally were part of an armoury, we can only guess at. As you say, Ghar means fort, and you would assume there was an armoury in a fortified town. But that can only be speculation. Fact, is that a collection, owned by the Maharaja was sold and brought to England, to be dispersed throughout the arms collection world, and all of these were inscribed with etched markings.

24th February 2007, 02:22 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Two katars The dotted inscription on both sides of the side guards indicates that the katar at the top has been in the Bikaner armoury. The lower katar is marked with the Kishangarh armoury mark. That the katars are marked with the two armoury marks, means that they have been part of the weapons in the armoury, it does not necessarily mean that they were made there. They can have been, but they can also have been part of a looting, which means that they would have been made somewhere else, but I believe these to to be made where they were marked. Attached Images Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 24th February 2007 at 03:47 PM.

24th February 2007, 05:57 PM	#2
Lew (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 3,191	Jens I have noticed that the Bikinar katars have faceted style cross bar grips and side bars that have less flaring at the ends. Is this a consistant trait found on a majority of Bikinar katars? Lew

25th February 2007, 12:42 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Lew, Many of the katars from Bikaner have a hilt like this one, but not all, they have different hilts and different looking blades, but most of the katars which I have seen from Bikaner looks like the one shown. The same goes for the Kishangarh katar, several looks like this one in the form, but others don’t.

25th February 2007, 11:30 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,942	Hi Jens, On this picture of the katars it is with both parallel rather than upper and lower. Which one is which in this picture? Best, Jim

26th February 2007, 06:59 AM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	Hi Jens, I am not certain that Kishanghar was an armoury like Bikaner. I could have been a collection, which is different. A collection is assembled with thought, whereas an armoury assembled for a purpose. I have a photo of the original Kishanghar 'collection/armoury' but cant show it without the owners permission (its never been published). The photo shows a wide selection of arms, but the way its laid out and displayed, you would think it done asthetically. Since it was (to my knowledge) never a museum, it makes me feel it could have been the collection of the maharaja. Maybe this explains the lavish, and time consuming markings (as apposed the the haphazard marking at Bikaner). But, what collector would mark (damage) their prized pieces in such a way?? Indians of course! Tipu marked his swords, as did the Talpurs. Just an opinion. Changing the subject quite dramatically (but as this is Jens' post, I know he wont mind) we have discussed the origins and early 'sightings' of the katar in the past. I am away at the moment, and knee deep in Al-Berundi. He mentions The Hindus carrying a dagger in their waist sash, which is called a Khattar (or Khattari). Al-Berundi was in India from 1017-1030, so its an important early mention of this dagger type, and done some few hundred years before Ibn Battuta. Of course, Ibn Battuta gave a vague description, whereas Al-Berundi just mentions the name. We do not know whether a Khattari is a katar, or the name of another form of dagger. But, as I said, I am only knee deep so far. Hope to find out more when I am down to my elbows!! Interesting stuff!

26th February 2007, 01:10 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Jim, After the text was done, I tried to put the picture in, but it was too big, so I had to turn it, and forgot to change the text – sorry. The Bikaner katar is the one to the left, and it sounds like a tuning fork, for a long time, when hit on wood. For those of you who have Elgood's book Hindu Arms and Armour, but have not read Appendix 1 yet, do it, as it is very interesting. It is a translation of a book dated 1570, and tells how a horoscope can be made, to see if a sword and the owner fit together, but it also tells about the smell and the color of the steel, and many other useful things. Hi B.I, Maybe the picture you describe, is from the Maharajah's weapon collection, as he doubt could have had a collection as well as an armory. As the ending of Kishangarh is garh, which means a fort, I am sure there must have been an armory, but a collection as well is very possible.

26th February 2007, 04:46 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,942	Hi Jens, Thank you so much for clarifying that. Incredibly fantastic pieces!! Interesting point on the smell of the blades. I know that Indonesian blades have distinct smells due to the oils imbued in the blades, and that often old sword blades seem to have distinct fragrances or smells..usually good...some uh, not so good! Hi Brian, Very interesting trail you are on, but as we have often noted, beware the terms used in narratives, especially really old ones. I have some information from notes that pertain to a specific dagger form attributed to the Kafirs of Hindu-Kush (now Kalash tribes in Nuristan) which is known as 'katara'. In Pant ("Indian Arms & Armour", New Delhi, 1980, p.174), he describes a 'katar' (illustr. fig. 532) as a short leaf shaped blade and a hilt with broad flat pommel and guard of same size and shape (like a capital I). He notes that this illustration and data are from Egerton (p.102, #344-45; plate IX,344) and that Egerton has called this a jamadhar-katari, noting that these were used by the Kafirs of Hindu-Kush and that these were popular through Northern India and Nepal from 16th-18th c. It is further noted that the illustration and material were taken by Egerton from the Ain-i-Akbari, which of course suggests the very early application of this term to this particular dagger form. The question really becomes, exactly how generally this term was applied descriptively in those times. A friend in Germany has a number of these in his collection, most of which were obtained in Nepal over the past ten years. I did more follow up on this and in "The Kafirs of the Hindu Kush" Vol II, Max Klimburg, Stuttgart, 1999, #811) found one of these daggers shown as 'katara'. In Pant, he describes how the correct term for katar referring to the now familiar parallel bar, transverse grip punch dagger, should be 'jamadhar', and that the term katar is properly referring to the old standard form dagger with hilt of wide pommel and guard. It would seem that these more ancient daggers may have evolved, much as the chilanum, from the early anthromorphic hilt forms of Hallstadt civilization in late Bronze to early Iron Age Europe. These later 'I' hilt daggers may have, much as in many weapons of these regions, beem atavistic forms recalling the weapons of ancient tradition. All the best, Jim

27th February 2007, 04:45 AM	#8
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	Hi Jim, Yes, I agree. Its good to note down each time we see the term used, and also to keep looking for and more in depth description ttached to the term. There are many places that havent been looked in by any academic, so the search is still on. Jens, Yes, Ghar mean fort, but Kishanghar was a town and most towns were fortified. I was refering to the specific collection (whether it was the armoury or not) with these eched inscriptions. This collection was broken up, and brought to England some years back and the examples we are aware of (yours, Ricketts, one that was in a private collection etc) all came from this source. It is speculation to say that the image i have is the same collection that these pieces resided in (even though all was kishanghar) but an interesting point is the guy that bought the entire collection, also owns the photograph that I have. As far as I am aware, there was no armoury there, unless it was dispersed more than 20/25 years ago, which of course is a definate option. All we have is the little information that still exists. We know there was a collection, all of which were so inscribed. Whether they originally were part of an armoury, we can only guess at. As you say, Ghar means fort, and you would assume there was an armoury in a fortified town. But that can only be speculation. Fact, is that a collection, owned by the Maharaja was sold and brought to England, to be dispersed throughout the arms collection world, and all of these were inscribed with etched markings.