Jamdhar katari - a theory

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

To be honest. The facts say that using the katar in battle is exception, unlike hunting or wearing a suit.
Only two:

Only on these images there are examples of using katar during a battle????
But what about all the discourses about the terrible arms for punching armor ???

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

OK

The design of katar is the best design to stop the attacking predator.

First, what do you mean by "predator"? Does a human enemy qualify?

Second, there are many ways to skin a cat:-)

Personally, I would choose a good high-caliber rifle, just like big game hunters. They were available in 17-18 century India,
Then, a good " boar spear" would be my next choice: another 2-3 feet away from the teeth and claws could come handy. Regretfully, it would stop being a " boar spear" and become " tiger spear":-)

Third, African lion hunters manage quite well without katars: they use rather flimsily-looking spears and do just fine .

Short-bladed katar is no different from a garden variety knife: the latter can be gripped differently to be able to perform pure stabbing with straight arm and most knife-fighting techniques include this type of grip. Both knife and katar sacrifice safe distance for the dubious glory of a heroic kill with high likelihood of being maimed beyond recognition.

As an aside, Elgood's book on Hindu weapons shows statues with katars piercing some non-tiger looking animals: do I see hooves on some of them? If I am correct, would we call katar " buffalo dagger" or "horse dagger"?

I fully understand your excitement: it would have been very nice to pinpoint the original intended purpose of such an unusual weapon. I just find this hypothesis implausible. Sorry.

[ariel]

Going back to the original inquiry:
ANY handle of ANY dagger placed horizontally would resemble katar's handle placed vertically.
Deriving any far-reaching conclusions from that and supporting them with linguistic similarity of derivatives of the same root doesn't cut the mustard, IMHO.

[Ian]

As a somewhat irrelevant aside to this discussion, the Australian Customs Officers confiscated all of my katars when I returned to Australia last year. They classified them as "push daggers," which are prohibited imports into Australia. Push daggers are considered here to be too dangerous as weapons against other people to allow an ordinary citizen or collector to own one!


Ian.

[ariel]

Sorry to hear that.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Ian

As a somewhat irrelevant aside to this discussion, the Australian Customs Officers confiscated all of my katars when I returned to Australia last year. They classified them as "push daggers," which are prohibited imports into Australia. Push daggers are considered here to be too dangerous as weapons against other people to allow an ordinary citizen or collector to own one!


Ian.

Sadly ... I empathize with you ....

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

First, what do you mean by "predator"? Does a human enemy qualify?

Second, there are many ways to skin a cat:-)

Personally, I would choose a good high-caliber rifle, just like big game hunters. They were available in 17-18 century India,
Then, a good " boar spear" would be my next choice: another 2-3 feet away from the teeth and claws could come handy. Regretfully, it would stop being a " boar spear" and become " tiger spear":-)

Wow! Of course now we will see indian miniatures (of the appropriate period), confirmative to your words? Or is this another bla-bla-bla?

For now, I see that the Mercenary is showing compelling evidence, backed up by linguistics and Indian miniatures (of the relevant period). And those who disagree with him do not give any factual material .... They only voice their personal opinion, which is not confirmed by anything....

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Ian

As a somewhat irrelevant aside to this discussion, the Australian Customs Officers confiscated all of my katars when I returned to Australia last year. They classified them as "push daggers," which are prohibited imports into Australia. Push daggers are considered here to be too dangerous as weapons against other people to allow an ordinary citizen or collector to own one!


Ian.

I wrote in another topic that in the USSR the police did not consider knives of the type of a kard (zirakboukh ;-)) as a weapon, because the hand could slip from them when struck. The police have their own ideas.

[fernando]

As far back as the XVI century, there was at least one fighting style which focused on fighting with a pair of katars, one in each hand.
(Dr Tobias Capwell - 2009).

A XVII century from Lahore with goddess kali and god shiva on the blade. It was used to pierce the chain mail of armours.
(Dr. Jorge Caravana).

In the use of the katar emerged a form of dagger that could easily perforate the adversary chain mail or sustain the impact of a tiger jump-
(Rainer Daehnhardt).

Thrust in this manner the blade, which generally has a thickened point, can even split open chain mail. The purpose of thickening the point is to pierce and break mail rings.
(E. Jaiwant Paul)

Katars with native blades are often thickened at the point to strengthen them for use against mail.
(Cameron Stone).

Across the world, the human drive for creation has always been accompanied by our almost inherent belligerent tendencies. Conflict is something that has existed in every human culture and society.
A lot can be learned by studying a certain culture's weapons. The characteristics of a civilization's weapons usually reflect its level of complexity. As such, it is no wonder that a culture as that of Ancient India would spawn weapons that match its richness and complexity, if rather unusual looking for the average western observer.
Read on to learn more about three highly exquisite and unusual weapons used in ancient India, up until the modern age.
While the concept of "punch daggers" (knives in which the grip and the grip are perpendicular to eachother) is not unique to India, none of those concepts or design were as widespread and rich as the Indian katar... leaf shaped blade carefully crafted so that the tip of the blade became thicker than the other parts. The reasoning behind this was to not only make the weapon more sturdy, but also make it useful in breaking chain or scale mail armor. In combat, the weapon would be thrust into the mail of an opponent with great force, easily forcing it through mail armor by breaking its links... Medieval katars also sometimes came with leaf or shell shaped handguards or even gauntlets that covered the hand and the forearm for extra protection, although this design fell into disuse later, probably due to the fact that katars would later be reduced to status symbols or ceremonial objects, being only used in duels and demonstrations rather than actual conflict.
The katar would become a status symbol among the upper class of Indian society, often being carried by princes and other noblemen as proof of their status, and not just for personal protection... It is said that some Rajputs (members of patrilineal clans from India and Pakistan) would even hunt tigers using only katars, as proof of their strength and courage
(Guilherme Radaeli).

The katar is also often referred to as a "punch-dagger" because of how it would have been used. The blades are of very high-quality steel, with edges as sharp as a razor, so it could also be used to slash an adversary, but it is most effective in the thrust... Depictions of slightly more heavily armed men would often show them armed with a katar and a sword, suggesting that the katar was also used as a left-hand weapon during sword-fighting. For this the side bar and the sturdy blade would have made the katar a very effective weapon for blocking a sword blow.
(Royal Ontario Museum).

Typically, katars were used in close range hand-to-hand combat, which is effective in armour piercing.
(Shirayan Vajramutthii Yuddha Shastra)

It is known that Ibn Battuta, an Algerian travelling in India in the 14th century, described an attack with a katar ...
(Quoting Eric S)

.

[fernando]

Ruler Maharaja Kumar Isri Singh in a pool of water, bare-chested, and in hand-to-hand combat with a crocodile. He has just plunged his katar into the creature, which has evidently been caught by surprise while eating.
(The Met)


.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by fernando

As far back as the XVI century, there was at least one fighting style which focused on fighting with a pair of katars, one in each hand.
(Dr Tobias Capwell - 2009).

A XVII century from Lahore with goddess kali and god shiva on the blade. It was used to pierce the chain mail of armours.
(Dr. Jorge Caravana).

In the use of the katar emerged a form of dagger that could easily perforate the adversary chain mail or sustain the impact of a tiger jump-
(Rainer Daehnhardt).

Thrust in this manner the blade, which generally has a thickened point, can even split open chain mail. The purpose of thickening the point is to pierce and break mail rings.
(E. Jaiwant Paul)

Katars with native blades are often thickened at the point to strengthen them for use against mail.
(Cameron Stone).

Across the world, the human drive for creation has always been accompanied by our almost inherent belligerent tendencies. Conflict is something that has existed in every human culture and society.
A lot can be learned by studying a certain culture's weapons. The characteristics of a civilization's weapons usually reflect its level of complexity. As such, it is no wonder that a culture as that of Ancient India would spawn weapons that match its richness and complexity, if rather unusual looking for the average western observer.
Read on to learn more about three highly exquisite and unusual weapons used in ancient India, up until the modern age.
While the concept of "punch daggers" (knives in which the grip and the grip are perpendicular to eachother) is not unique to India, none of those concepts or design were as widespread and rich as the Indian katar... leaf shaped blade carefully crafted so that the tip of the blade became thicker than the other parts. The reasoning behind this was to not only make the weapon more sturdy, but also make it useful in breaking chain or scale mail armor. In combat, the weapon would be thrust into the mail of an opponent with great force, easily forcing it through mail armor by breaking its links... Medieval katars also sometimes came with leaf or shell shaped handguards or even gauntlets that covered the hand and the forearm for extra protection, although this design fell into disuse later, probably due to the fact that katars would later be reduced to status symbols or ceremonial objects, being only used in duels and demonstrations rather than actual conflict.
The katar would become a status symbol among the upper class of Indian society, often being carried by princes and other noblemen as proof of their status, and not just for personal protection... It is said that some Rajputs (members of patrilineal clans from India and Pakistan) would even hunt tigers using only katars, as proof of their strength and courage
(Guilherme Radaeli).

The katar is also often referred to as a "punch-dagger" because of how it would have been used. The blades are of very high-quality steel, with edges as sharp as a razor, so it could also be used to slash an adversary, but it is most effective in the thrust... Depictions of slightly more heavily armed men would often show them armed with a katar and a sword, suggesting that the katar was also used as a left-hand weapon during sword-fighting. For this the side bar and the sturdy blade would have made the katar a very effective weapon for blocking a sword blow.
(Royal Ontario Museum).

Typically, katars were used in close range hand-to-hand combat, which is effective in armour piercing.
(Shirayan Vajramutthii Yuddha Shastra)

It is known that Ibn Battuta, an Algerian travelling in India in the 14th century, described an attack with a katar ...
(Quoting Eric S)

.

With the exception of the last quotation (Ibn Battuta), the rest raise considerable doubts, because they are (as I recall) the own conclusions of the authors of these books, which are not supported by anything except their words. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

By the way, can you find out exactly how Ibn Battut's quotation sounds? Is jamadhar or katar mentioned?

It is strange to consider a mannequin from the museum (to the “hands” of which the museum employee gave the weapon he wanted) and the signature from the book Paul — a serious argument .....

+2 images with people who kill other people with katar. While the score is 11: 4 in favor of Teriomachia

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Personally, I would choose a good high-caliber rifle, just like big game hunters. They were available in 17-18 century India,

I acted differently. I analyzed all the available literature and memories of hunting a tiger before I wrote something. A rifle or spear does not save from a sudden attack, the tiger does not attack in another way. Are you confusing a tiger hunt with a hunt for ... what did you hunt?

Third, African lion hunters manage quite well without katars: they use rather flimsily-looking spears and do just fine .

For the West it is no matter where cultural or historical events of the East take place: in Africa or India or Zombieland. I know.

Both knife and katar sacrifice safe distance for the dubious glory of a heroic kill with high likelihood of being maimed beyond recognition.

I said about this already. For someone it is heroism, for another it is stupidity. For someone it is the history, for another it is politics. For someone it is culture, for another it is barbarism. For someone it is research, for another it is just to talk.

As an aside, Elgood's book on Hindu weapons shows statues with katars piercing some non-tiger looking animals: do I see hooves on some of them? If I am correct, would we call katar " buffalo dagger" or "horse dagger"?

"Would we call..." Indians called.
We called just "zirak boukh", "mel puttah bemoh", "tooth of death god" and other rubbish. Enough already.

I fully understand your excitement: it would have been very nice to pinpoint the original intended purpose of such an unusual weapon. I just find this hypothesis implausible. Sorry

This is normal. Thank you. Just no other hypotheses.
But wait ... Katars were able to penetrate through the chain mail! And they were so good for it that such daggers were independently invented in all countries where there were chain mails! Or not? It is so hard to live in a country in the middle between The West and The East.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by fernando

Ruler Maharaja Kumar Isri Singh in a pool of water, bare-chested, and in hand-to-hand combat with a crocodile. He has just plunged his katar into the creature, which has evidently been caught by surprise while eating.
(The Met)

Very good example. He perfectly confirms the words of the Mercenary. A miniature from the Metropolitan Museum shows the opposition of man and a large predatory animal.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by fernando

Ruler Maharaja Kumar Isri Singh in a pool of water, bare-chested, and in hand-to-hand combat with a crocodile. He has just plunged his katar into the creature, which has evidently been caught by surprise while eating.
(The Met)


.

Thank you very much.

It is known that Ibn Battuta, an Algerian travelling in India in the 14th century, described an attack with a katar ..

It is very interesting to study what kind of daggers were called "katar" in India. I did it. But not from secondary sources.

(Dr Tobias Capwell).
(Dr. Jorge Caravana)
(Rainer Daehnhardt)
(E. Jaiwant Paul)
(Cameron Stone)
(Shirayan Vajramutthii Yuddha Shastra)

Excellent research. Thank you, it's not just an empty talk. I very respect it.

But who are these people? Among them are travelers in India in the 16-18 centuries?

P.S. How is nice when you can believe everything that is written in book or spoken on TV. But in the case of East it is.... the wrong way.

[Mercenary]

All these images are a typical (standard) plot for illustrations of "Babur-name" in Akbar's time. Accordingly, warriors are armed in the same manner as the Mughals in the end of the 16th century.
On one of the images Babur fights with the Rajputs (description of the events of 1527). But we can see only Mughals weapons of the end of the 16th century. Can you indicate Rajputs there if not to take into account on what side the artillery is?
In another image, Babur fights with Ahmad Tambal (description of the events of 1499). Before Babur's invasion of India! Again Mughals weapons of the end of the 16th century.
Two images from one source, same time and even one workshop. Unlike images with scenes of hunting.

I know how according to Turkic warrior tradition an enemy was pulled off a horse, thrown to the ground and he was beaten with a dagger into open places or his head was cut off.
Someone may think that in the time of Akbar warriors were fighting on the horses with daggers? May be. They were trying to penetrate armour? May be.
No problems. Dig it and I will happy to learn something new for all of us. But as long as it is not, I'd rather go watch National Geographic on TV.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Wow! Of course now we will see indian miniatures (of the appropriate period), confirmative to your words? Or is this another bla-bla-bla?

.

Please behave yourself.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by mahratt

... +2 images with people who kill other people with katar. While the score is 11: 4 in favor of Teriomachia

Dear Mahrat, это не игра в футбол .
You know, i have this impression that you are in a recurrent status of dispute. Better not aim at me, "i am only the piano player"; my entries are no more than a modest contribution and we are not in a court of justice to either prove right or get condemned.
The manequin is not in the book of E. Jaiwant Paul. The picture scan posted from his book (from my little library) is the third one above. E. Jaiwant Paul lives in Delhi; he is a collector and author of five books in the area. All his life he had an interest in arms and armour, inherited from his father as well as his grandfather who served in the Princely States, where swords and daggers were their middle name..
Rainer Dahehnardt has been in India (more than once?) and had contacts with Indian traditional personalities, as we talk about when i visit him.
No, they have not been in India in the XVI-XVIII centuries; neither i have ... nor certainly you . But they certainly are more documented tan me.
Ibn Battuta was a Moroccan Berber; i doubt of his writing abilities, as his adventures were dictated to his secretary. From among the zillion names given to the katar, i wonder what sound they have chosen to chaligraph; i see there is Tamil kaţţāri (கட்டாரி); also Tamil kuttuvāḷ (குத்துவாள்), adapted into Sanskrit as kaţāra (कट्टार) or kaţārī. Or would they prefer other regional names, like kaṭhāri (ಕಠಾರಿ) in Kannada, kaţāra (കട്ടാര) in Malayalam, kaṭyāra (कट्यार) in Marathi, kaṭār (ਕਟਾਰ) in Panjabi, and kaṭāra (कटार) or kaṭāri in Hindi
I guess however that they would have certainly not chosen the sound Katar, a modern Hindi fashion extended to colonial transliterations.
On the other hand, i don't see how i should not trust Battuta's (secretary) work translator; i trust it as it is ... until further notice.
You put the blame in others believing everything that is written in books; maybe not so. In any case, not all have the privilege to have traveled to India and reach for alternative sources, as i suspect you have .
The painting in the Met, not properly a miniature with its 43X60 cms.,as i see it, is no more than a mere example of exoteric artwork. I don't know how much you are familiar to crocodiles, as i know there are places out there where natives deftly grab these dangerous reptiles but, if i wanted to discredit someone pretending that Indian big shots go hunting tigers, i would have no better way to put it; the poor croc is so confident that no better snacks (Maharaja and his party mates) come from his vicinity that he finds remedy in swallowing his little fish. I take it that such naivety may take place in both East and West, as long as the artist is compelled to please his lord

Yours humbly

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Please behave yourself.

learning from you.

[Mercenary]

While the score is 11: 4 in favor of Teriomachia

11(+) : 0

Because this image we can thrown away too. European artists often painted only what people wanted to see.

[ariel]

Excuse me, but what is the point of this “discussion”?


Is it aimed to prove that Katar was a primarily hunting weapon designed specifically to kill tigers ( or, occasionally, crocodiles and such)?
That from that function Indians got a sudden insight to use this primarily tiger-hunting implement against human enemies?

There are many miniatures showing hunting scenes with sabers used against antelopes. Are we expected to use the Katar analogy to postulate the genesis of a saber as a primarily hunting weapon with only later accidental realization that it can also be used on the battlefield?

Paintings are objects of art, not of science. They are useful only to demonstrate the existence of a particular object at a particular time and ( occasionally) place. The circumstances depicted were the choice of the artist and cannot tell us much ( or anything) about the frequency of such use, genesis of the weapon, or even the veracity of such an encounter.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

... European artists often painted only what people wanted to see...

Only European ?
Why are you so aggressive towards Westerners, Mercenary ... have you a prejudice about them ... something personal ?
Are you not an Eurasian yourself ? a young one, maybe ?
Why don't you lower your defenses ? This way, you will soon get old .

[mahratt]

Dear fernando, your impression is not right I do not argue. I'm trying to figure out the new.
I was just taught to trust facts and not opinions ...
While I see such facts.
1) It turns out that there are many images of the use of the dagger katar in Teriomachia and few images of the use of the dagger katar in the battle between people (and in particular, I don’t see how the images of the dagger katar pierced the chain mail or other armor)
2) With the exception of data from Ibn Battuta, there is no evidence from eyewitnesses of the use of the dagger katar during a battle between people (but it turns out we don’t know if we are talking about that dagger katar we know today by that name)
3) All data on the use of the dagger kutar from the respected E. Jaiwant Paul is cited as a personal opinion of the collector, whose grandfather who served in the Princely States .... For example, my grandfather was a tankman, but this does not mean that I can manage a tank. ...
4) Rainer Dahehnardt the author, who wrote that the Talwars handles and the Talwars blades were kept in India in different towers ????

It turns out that they documented their thoughts ... and no more ... But maybe I did not read their books carefully? E. Jaiwant Paul and Rainer Dahehnardt somewhere refer to sources 17 or 18-th century, which tells how the dagger kаtar was used? I have not found this information ...

I do not blame anyone Alternative sources in this topic were presented by the Mercenary.

Crocodiles in India attacked people (due to the fact that the corpses after the rite of burning were dumped into the water and the crocodiles got used to eating human meat). Therefore, a battle with him could be considered a heroic act no less dangerous than a battle with a tiger. But maybe you're right and this is exoteric artwork

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Excuse me, but what is the point of this “discussion”?


Is it aimed to prove that Katar was a primarily hunting weapon designed specifically to kill tigers ( or, occasionally, crocodiles and such)?
That from that function Indians got a sudden insight to use this primarily tiger-hunting implement against human enemies?

There are many miniatures showing hunting scenes with sabers used against antelopes. Are we expected to use the Katar analogy to postulate the genesis of a saber as a primarily hunting weapon with only later accidental realization that it can also be used on the battlefield?

Paintings are objects of art, not of science. They are useful only to demonstrate the existence of a particular object at a particular time and ( occasionally) place. The circumstances depicted were the choice of the artist and cannot tell us much ( or anything) about the frequency of such use, genesis of the weapon, or even the veracity of such an encounter.

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.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

Excuse me, but what is the point of this “discussion”?


Is it aimed to prove that Katar was a primarily hunting weapon designed specifically to kill tigers ( or, occasionally, crocodiles and such)?
That from that function Indians got a sudden insight to use this primarily tiger-hunting implement against human enemies?

There are many miniatures showing hunting scenes with sabers used against antelopes. Are we expected to use the Katar analogy to postulate the genesis of a saber as a primarily hunting weapon with only later accidental realization that it can also be used on the battlefield?

Paintings are objects of art, not of science. They are useful only to demonstrate the existence of a particular object at a particular time and ( occasionally) place. The circumstances depicted were the choice of the artist and cannot tell us much ( or anything) about the frequency of such use, genesis of the weapon, or even the veracity of such an encounter.

Interesting post. Very interesting. I would like to hear your opinion, are the coins (numismatic) a more serious source than pictures? I heard that some researchers, even on the basis of a single coin, build entire theories about weapons.

[Mercenary]

For fernando

Originally "katar" it is very old type of straight dagger. Long before jamdhar. Europeans ... O... White men... I am sorry again... man/woman.. People (!) described katar as "a dirk".

[fernando]

Originally Posted by mahratt

... Dear fernando, your impression is not right I do not argue.

Of course you don't .

Originally Posted by mahratt

... For example, my grandfather was a tankman, but this does not mean that I can manage a tank. ...

Have you ever tried ? i guess you would manage well .

Originally Posted by mahratt

...Crocodiles in India attacked people

Not only in India, as you should know; take Africa, for one. And it is not only because they get the habit by eating corpses; living warm blood mammals are just fine for their diet.

[Mercenary]

This term was used for different kind of weapon because in meant just "to cut" (as a rule for a straight item). Ibn Batuta in fact described jamdhar, but with the blade two cubits long (one metr?). May be it was proto-pata?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

... Originally "katar" it is very old type of straight dagger. Long before jamdhar. Europeans ... O... White men... I am sorry again... man/woman.. People (!) described katar as "a dirk".

Is that an attempt to be funny ? no point in trying ... seriously !
Perhaps you have missed the original subject of this thread; there is a couple of those in the first page.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

... Ibn Batuta in fact described jamdhar, but with the blade two cubits long (one metr?). May be it was proto-pata?

Two cubits measure 90 cms., which is also the longest known length of katars. But you are probably right. Unless it was a hybrid of both ... or other period styles; India had/has such immense profusion of weapons !

[Jim McDougall]

It seems it was cleared up years ago (we have been discussing and researching katars here for over 20 yrs) that the jamadhar was actually the transverse gripped dagger we have known collectively as the katar. The error in term seems to have originated with Egerton (1885) who transposed the terms in his description. This was well pointed out by Pant (1980) and noted that despite the proper term 'jamdhar' for the 'katar'......he seems to have juxtaposed the two with the classification of the 'jamdhar/katari'.

As this was the actual topic of this thread when it began, it seems appropriate to reattend to it here.

The jamdhar/kitari is an H shaped hilt on a dagger blade, and as Egerton has described, well known in Nepal (#344-45) I know this form of dagger, actually termed 'katara' is indeed well known there as a good friend from Germany who travelled in Nepal extensively for many years, always found them in great number there.
Also, these were well known in Nuristan( formerly Kafiristan) in India, where they were used by tribes known as Kafirs. These tribes relocated in regions in Chitral and are now known as the Kalash people. In research on them I communicated with tribal elders and others of this heritage.

Image of katara attached.


The katar (jamdhar) we are familiar with seems to have mysteriously appeared much earlier than the examples we know now of 17th-19th c.
and as noted is even described in writings of 13th-14th c. as katar. But do we know what weapon was actually meant? No.

The 'katar' term seems a well used cognate of words for cut or knife etc.


It seems that early examples of katar from Vijayanagara etc. are indeed larger than later examples (I am not familiar with cubits, aside from use describing the ark). It does seem that the hooded examples probably did inspire the eventual evolution of the pata.


The description used as 'dirk' for katar is believed to have derived from the common repurposing of blades, whether broken or otherwise, from full size swords...in the manner of Scottish dirks. We know it was common practice to reue the valuable blades from basket hilts into dirks. When these were proscribed in the 18th c. the dirk was still allowed as it was regarded as utilitarian.

When European blades flooded into India in late 16th-17th c. they were often fashioned into katar blades.


Now all of this is truly DIGRESSION......back to the actual topic here.....the JAMDHAR KATARI .