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:

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.

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

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!

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.

Digressing ... a little
 

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)


.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Not from me.

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).

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".


.

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.

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.

Not so significant for the matter but, i should have written 1876 instead of 1896.

Not so significant for the matter. The example I gave refers to 1860;)

Yet the name game, for as much as we (sort of) forget, is an irreplaceable component of our spoken communication, right after we abandoned our ape stage of expressing ourselves by gestures. We have to get hold of alternative tricks like the consuetudinary resource to consider the determined name of one thing as being we are all talking about ... even with exceptions taken into account.
I recall illustreous Professor Agostinho da Silva )1906-1994) in that, every time they asked him his ideas on a subject, he started by recalling the etymology of the term, before unequivocally lecturing on such topic.
I wonder to which extent, if any, India's profusion of languages comprehends Western European tongues but, even if just for fun, it is worthy to note, within the Katar-Kutar saga that, in my lingo we say "Cortar" for cutting, from the Latin Curtãre. Can't deny the resemblance :shrug: .

I don't think there can be any doubt that many cognate words diffused widely through cultures as languages and dialects evolved from the root languages over time.
The use of the term katar, regardless of spelling, is not really in question but it seems that Egerton who wrote his book in over 10 years prior to first publication in 1880 (republished 1896) transposed the term from the jamdhar -kitari to the transverse grip jamdhar (we now call katar).

As we cannot say for sure when, in the years compiling his data Egerton made this error, we can presume it was well prior to 1880.

Prior to this time, in India, these transverse grip daggers were known as jamdhar (= tooth of god of death, or to that effect). I was unaware of the use of the term 'kuttar' in Russia in 1860 in cataloging of the holdings of the Tsarskye Selo arsenal, and would be interested to know what the weapon described looked like.
If this was indeed the transverse grip 'jamdhar' type, then we may establish the error(?) to precede Egerton, and question whether Pant (1980) had sound evidence of the jamdhar term being correct for these in the first place.


We know, from the extensive research Jens has done over many years, that the term katar has been in use since about 13th century and of course for a dagger, but what type we do not know as no illustrations exist until much later.


We know that the "Ain I Akbari" , Abu'l Fazi , written in years 1551-1602, had a 'fist dagger' called 'maustika' looking of course like a rudimentary katar.

The term katar seems well represented in a number of Indian languages , where the Tamil 'kattari' became the Sanskrit 'katara' (the a dropped later).

With the 'katar' term this deeply embedded in various other languages specifically referring to the transverse grip daggers, I cannot help but question if the term jamdhar evolved as an alternate term at some point.

In this case Egerton was right all along, and the combining of the two terms jamdar-kitari to describe these curious daggers was perhaps Egerton trying to use both terms due to the character of the hilts.

While the katar has an 'H' shaped hilt it is vertically oriented and meant to be held transversely.

The jamdhar-kitari has an 'H' shaped hilt which is horizontal, that is meant to be gripped in the traditional dagger manner.


So possibly the 'katar' term has been correctly describing these transverse grip daggers all along...….and the conundrum brought up by Pant in 1980 setting off a red herring that has persisted since.

Jim, in my opinion in the picture that I attached to the subject, it is clearly seen that in the catalog of weapons from Tsarskoye Selo is described the transverse grip 'jamdhar' type... Post № 180

Thank you for redirecting that, I overlooked it. So there we have the transverse grip c. 1860 which would likely precede Egerton's notes even if as early as 1860s-70s. It seems unlikely that Egerton would have had access to Russian notes or materials given the climate of relations in these times with Crimean War and its aftermath.


Again, I question Pant's declaration of the proper term for the transverse grip dagger being jamdhar, and suggest perhaps it was an alternative term. This of course completely overturns the notion I have long held that Pant was correct, and now compels rethinking.


That is the thing with research and assertions which have long stood sacrosanct in venerable volumes and long held views in the arms community, they are always subject to revision. Most authors not only expect this, but implore it, as the search for truth and accuracy needs to be relentless.
'

Jim, excuse me, I do not know very well the whole text of "Ain I Akbari", but in the chapter on weapons there is definitely no such dagger.

In the 19th, 20th, 21th and even in 31th centuries, we can call these daggers as we please. But it is perfect for sure that in the 16th century the wide dagger with transverse grip was called "jamdhar", and the narrow dagger with ordinary handle - katar. This is documented facts.

Jim, you are absolutely right that the word "katara" was widespread in India. This word was used for all type of weapons that could cut (before the catalog of Lord Egerton became known in India through the work of Dr. Pant). Like all swords were "tulwars".

Very interesting how Kafirs themself called their daggers? I strongly suspect that "chura" or so. Didn't they?

I surely don't know the text of these volumes either of the Ain I Akbari, the corpus of the the "Akbarnama" of Mughal culture. I only know the plates I have seen with the transverse grip which I believe was called 'moustika', and this term is another puzzling type of gauntlet type weapon seen in Stone and Calvert ("Spanish Arms and Armor". 1907).

It is great to know that the term jamdhar was documented as for the transverse grip in 16th c. and I do know that katar was used for the regular hilt dagger as shown in Burton and Stone et al.
What I was trying to determine was at what point the terms became switched.
While it seems moot, it does make a difference in reading early contemporary accounts where we cannot visually know the weapon they refer to.

The term chura, if I recall correctly and understand, was a colloquial term used in Northwest Frontier regions for small knives of the pesh kabz variety. I do not think the Kalash (Kafirs) people would have that term in their lexicon, but who knows, dialects diffuse through these regions. That would be a good thing to look into further.

Dear Jim, you will be surprised, but Egerton saw items of weapons with descriptions from Tsarskoe Selo. This information is in his book:
A Description of Indian and Oriental Armour: Illustrated from the Collection Formerly in the India Office, Now Exhibited at South Kensington, and the Author's Private Collection

Jim, in Egerton's book there is a short chapter about Malayan and Indonesian arms. Plate VIII in it contains some quite detailed drawings of a Keris in the collection of Czar of Russia. So there is at least a possibility he has access to some materials from Russia.

Mahratt and Gustav, thank you so much guys!!! This is what discussion is all about......sharing info which someone is unaware of and which very much alters comments and observations. Excellent!!!! :)
I do not know the Tsarskoe Selo collection and totally missed these details in Egerton.

Yes, and the frontispiece shows sabers from the Tsarskoye Selo collection.
How Kaffirs themselves called their daggers? Since in the past they were at least in part Hinduists and the language of Hinduism was Sanskrit, they likely called any knife/dagger Ch'hura.
When they became Muslims, the Turkish influence ( if there was one) would advocate for Chaqu.

In the opinion of Trail Ronald L. and Cooper Gregory R. The "knife" in Kalash sounds: "katar" (Kalasha Dictionary)

You are not imagining.

Proto-Indo-European (PIE) languages include Greek and Italic. Latin is just one of the offshots of Italic.
“Cutting” and “knife” are very basic words. Such words, necessary for oral communication between the members of very early human communities, seem to share common elements. Mother in Sanskrit is Amba, in most modern Indian languages it is Amma, Maa or Ammee, and in virtually all European languages it does not even require a professional translator:-)
Father in Sanskrit is Pitar ( Latin Pater), water is wodr and fire is paewr or agni ( Lat. ignis) in PIE, etc.

Sir William Jones still rules!

Trick question: who knows why the old name of Iran was Pars ( Persia) , but their language is Farsi? As they say on TV games “The answers will surprise you!”. Hint: it has nothing to do with complex ancient linguistics.

Just for the fun of it:-)

Simplified answer. Persian/Persia are exonyms probably first coined by the Greeks around 500 BCE to describe the inhabitants of Pars, then extended to those on the Iranian Plateau. The Romans then adopted the term Persia to describe the same area.


Farsi is an endonym, also derived from the regional name Pars, to describe the main language of Iran.


Ian.

Yes, all true....
But why the language of Pars is Farsi? Why the F- word?

Does it have to do with the use of Persian/Arabic script not having a letter for "p"?! "Pars" is also written as "Fars" in Nasta-liq. The Fars province in Iran is also called Pars.
:shrug:

I always find linguistics fascinating, and this part of the discussion is truly interesting. It is a very big part of arms study, as we have always seen with what we here have called 'the name game' affectionately, however while I once somewhat dismissed the relevance, I have come to view it quite differently.

Regarding my misspeaking on the Tsarkoe Selo Collection and my assumption that Egerton may not have had insight into it...…..I wanted to thank Mahratt again for correcting me. With that I finally 'excavated' my copy of Egerton, and realized I should have gone to it in the first place rather than relying on my clearly fallible memory :)

As Ariel noted, indeed the frontispiece was FROM that Russian collection, and Egerton describes specifically the value of these folio/volumes which he was quite aware of as he began his collecting in 1855 (he published in 1880).


Here Mercenary directed that the use of the term 'jamdhar' was clearly used for the transverse grip dagger which we now term katar (Egerton, p.23 shows the illustrated page from Ain I Akbari) . As Mercenary suggested it WAS indeed documented as the term here and it was 16th century.

In the same page, the Ain I Akbari illustrates the very dagger of the Kafir/Kalash as the 'katarah' as the vertical H shape hilt (pommel and guard perpendicular to grip).


It was suggested that perhaps the term ch'hura (choora) might have been used to describe these Kafir daggers. Here I would note discussions going back to 2007 regarding the more commonly known daggers of Khyber regions termed 'choora' by collectors today.

Egerton plate XIV shows one of these (#624) and describes it as a pesh kabz. It is further attributed to 'Banu' and the embossed brass mounts noted.

Banu refers to Bannuchi tribe of Khyber regions who use a small hafted pick termed 'Lohar' (Stone). It is interesting that these lohar picks are often of the same character and decoration as the 'pesh kabz' form which we now term 'choora'.


Apparently if I recall research correctly (here I go again) Lohar refers to a dialect of Hindi and the people who were itinerant blacksmiths and metal workers who frequented Northwest Frontier regions, and somehow the term became applied to these small picks.


This would add impetus to the notion that ch'hura, a colloquial term in Sanskrit with various connotations might be applied to these pesh kabz variant form knives. While attributed often to the Mahsud tribes, they of course were widely found, and in effect seem to be smaller versions of the T blade 'karud', another knife which seems to have been considered in the pesh kabz spectrum in the 1860s and even by Holstein (1931).


So in summary, it would seem that jamdhar indeed was known term for transverse grip dagger in 16th c. and the traditional dagger with wide pommel and guard (of the form used by Kalash) was known as katarah.


The term ch'hura (which term also seems well known in Hindu bridal beads) does not seem likely to have been used by Kalash for these daggers. In my view the ch'hura term was likely misinterpreted in seeking terms for specific weapons as noted in the 2007 discussions.

This was likely in the manner of presuming the term for the small picks, often fashioned by the Lohar people, and the decoration etc. of these as well as the fancy daggers might have had the term ch'hura used in conversation asking for terms called by. Perhaps reference to the fancy Hindu bridal beads etc. ? It does not seem the pejorative connotation of ch'hura used otherwise would be the case.


Attached are the 'choora' dagger and the haft/hilt of the lohar axe.....note the similar 'beak' effect at pommel which seem shared in many examples, and the similarity on decoration and materials.

Speaking of which, when searching the 1206 pages of Luso-Asiatic Glossary (Monsenhor Sebastião Dalgado 1919) one most surprisingly can not find the term katar (or catar, as the K is absent in Portuguese) as a weapon, but finds (possible) analogies in that the term is related with light slim and fast boats that cut the waves (bolds are mine). Fray João Moura derives it from the Persian Kãtür, which however there are no records of such dictations in Arabic and Persian. Crooke suggests as possible ethym the sanscrit chatura "legere". However Dalgado goes for the version malaiala kattiri or neo-Arico Kãtar, from the sanscrit kartari "scissors" literally cutter, from the verb krt "to cut". Dalgado further opines that this boat could well be called katar, which is employed in various metaphoric senses like, in Concani, truss, pyramid, obelisc.
On the other hand, the term katar (or catar) in his strict wording only appears as Persian-Arabic "qatâr", meaning a set of (often seven) camels or mules, used by cargo collectors that cover all Persia transporting goods from a city to another (Domingos Vieira 1529).
As i first said, among 1250 pages of terms picked or shared with Asians since the XV century. Unless some unknown transliteration prevents from reaching further.