South Indian stone relief

Jens Nordlunde · 27th April 2009, 03:49 PM

Hello All, thank you for your comments on this topic, which I find interesting.

I am truly sorry I did not write down from where the relief is, and how old it is, as there are some problems with the age.

Look at the sword on the relief I show, the hilt is katar like, but not centred precisely over the blade, and there are no side guards, which I find rather interesting, as protection of the hand/arm must have been a must. This could, maybe, suggest an early type of sword/dagger, but look also at the blade, it is very heavy and thick, either to give it more weight, or because they did not have the technique to make the blades thinner. However the relief could also describe something which had happened centuries before, and the artist could have wanted to show the scene as he thought it would have looked like at the time. If it is the one or the other, we will never know, as I am unlikely to find the picture again.

Look at the pictures, which Rand shows from Elgood’s book, the katar blade shown, looks thin, so in the 16th century they could make thin blades, even on stone reliefs, and with fine details as well – unlike the sword on the relief I have shown, where the details on the relief itself, like Nidhi mentions, are fine, but not the sword blade.

Nidhi, does the warrior on the relief I show have two swords, or is the one in his left hand a kind of a square shield? I have read about someone fighting with two katars, but I have never read about someone fighting with two patas. I would think that would be impossible, as fighting with one, was said to be only for very well trained warriors. It was difficult to master it, but when they did, it was a very deadly weapon.

So the sword/katar on the relief I have shown shows a primitive type of weapon, but when you look at the katar from Elgood’s book, from the 16th century. You see, not only a fully developed katar, but a very refined one as well.

Any further comments to the two reliefs?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

27th April 2009, 03:49 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hello All, thank you for your comments on this topic, which I find interesting. I am truly sorry I did not write down from where the relief is, and how old it is, as there are some problems with the age. Look at the sword on the relief I show, the hilt is katar like, but not centred precisely over the blade, and there are no side guards, which I find rather interesting, as protection of the hand/arm must have been a must. This could, maybe, suggest an early type of sword/dagger, but look also at the blade, it is very heavy and thick, either to give it more weight, or because they did not have the technique to make the blades thinner. However the relief could also describe something which had happened centuries before, and the artist could have wanted to show the scene as he thought it would have looked like at the time. If it is the one or the other, we will never know, as I am unlikely to find the picture again. Look at the pictures, which Rand shows from Elgood’s book, the katar blade shown, looks thin, so in the 16th century they could make thin blades, even on stone reliefs, and with fine details as well – unlike the sword on the relief I have shown, where the details on the relief itself, like Nidhi mentions, are fine, but not the sword blade. Nidhi, does the warrior on the relief I show have two swords, or is the one in his left hand a kind of a square shield? I have read about someone fighting with two katars, but I have never read about someone fighting with two patas. I would think that would be impossible, as fighting with one, was said to be only for very well trained warriors. It was difficult to master it, but when they did, it was a very deadly weapon. So the sword/katar on the relief I have shown shows a primitive type of weapon, but when you look at the katar from Elgood’s book, from the 16th century. You see, not only a fully developed katar, but a very refined one as well. Any further comments to the two reliefs?