Jamdhar katari - a theory

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by kai

Hello Jim,


Looking at those paintings, I get the impression that a majority of the depicted hunters were not entirely happy: even if they managed to fatally wound the tiger or lion (some already wounded during hunting them down), most are shown getting severely scathed and some probably killed. (I rather doubt these paintings were meant as photographic evidence and there may be an element of exaggeration and even display of so-called heroism expected from the artists...

It certainly needs a lot of courage to face any dangerous and cornered animal with close-distance weapons only. However, let's not forget that arguably the only animal that deserves to be tagged as killer is us humans - killing for fun or display of "bravery" is something that is exceedingly rare for any other species...

BTW, despite ample hunting from Indian and English nobility, the tiger was not extinct in northern India during the 19th century.

Regards,
Kai

Thank you Kai, and I could not agree more with your observations! Of course my note on the use of paintings and other art work as evidence was meant rather tongue in cheek. Art depicting these kinds of themes is invariably based on accounts from persons long after the events and as always, surely embellished as most stories in the telling. I have researched many art works of famous events and the accuracy is ranging from altered to severely compromised, sometimes outlandish.


As you well note, these pictures are clearly well slanted toward the prowess of the 'hunter' and do not portray the probable true character of such an event. I very much like, and agree with your comment ...that only humans kill for sport or to show 'bravery', but in my view such acts of hunting with such an obviously inadequate weapon alone is simply foolhardy. While I can understand that in some cultures these things are viewed differently, I must rely on my own perspective in how I see it personally.


The note on 'extinction' of the North Indian tiger was simply an extension of the quip by Ariel in 2016 about same. Obviously the diminished state of the species was more to natural circumstances, but not during the 19th c.



Mercenary, well noted, the use of the katar, or at least presence of them, was far more common on hunts than in battle. Again, this may have been due to the fact that the Royals and entourage were the ones hunting, and these were favored accoutrements in this group. I can see the katar used as weapon used in a coup de grace type manner, perhaps thus bringing the accounts of 'killing a tiger with a katar'. True, this was the final closure, but after the tiger was down.


Close quarters weapons were not intended as attack weapons for initial impact, but as secondary arms used in close quarters melee or if otherwise compromised as far as I have understood.

[Jens Nordlunde]

In 1883 Surgeon-Major Th. H. Hendleyi wrote that it is; “adapted for thrusting, and makes a wide and dangerous wound, which is enlarged in the act of withdrawing the weapon, as both edges are very sharp. Some katars are made to open like scissors blades, others have small pistols attached to the side guards, and in a third variety the open sides reveal a small point within. All these arrangements are devised to make the wound more horrible, and as, in hand to hand conflicts with

tigers and other large savage animals, it is essential to produce a considerable effect at once on the beast, this quality of the katar, which is often used in such sports, is very advantageous.”
i Memorials of the Jaypore Exhibition. P 9. Surgeon-Major Th. H. Hendley, who did service in India for many years, wrote a number of books about Indian weapons and artefacts.


Quote from How Old is the Katar?

To me, the quote above means that the katar was used both for hunting and in battle.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

In 1883 Surgeon-Major Th. H. Hendleyi wrote that it is; “adapted for thrusting, and makes a wide and dangerous wound, which is enlarged in the act of withdrawing the weapon, as both edges are very sharp. Some katars are made to open like scissors blades, others have small pistols attached to the side guards, and in a third variety the open sides reveal a small point within. All these arrangements are devised to make the wound more horrible, and as, in hand to hand conflicts with

tigers and other large savage animals, it is essential to produce a considerable effect at once on the beast, this quality of the katar, which is often used in such sports, is very advantageous.”
i Memorials of the Jaypore Exhibition. P 9. Surgeon-Major Th. H. Hendley, who did service in India for many years, wrote a number of books about Indian weapons and artefacts.


Quote from How Old is the Katar?

To me, the quote above means that the katar was used both for hunting and in battle.

Wonderfully cited quotes from Hendley Jens!!! from a key source of insight on Indian arms, reflected by the fact that not only was in in India during important times, but readily observed many details.


I think that the often innovative features on Indian arms of these times were in many cases derived from some European sources and in some simply armourers trying to impress their patrons. In "Firearms Curiosa" (Winant) there are examples of firearm/sword combinations as seen often in hunting swords. In other cases, it would seem that the gun (single shot of course) was likely discharged, and if its effect failed, a secind weapon was literally in hand.


With the expanding (scissors type) blades, it seems we have determined that the potential for this supposed use in exacerbating wounds was quite improbable in most cases as it was unlikely to be able to expand within such anatomical enclosure. Also, obviously withdrawal would be impossible, thus the user would be left unarmed.


While these are the notable possibilities with these features in these weapons, there is of course no limit to what might occur or how they might be used in actual circumstances or situations. In situations almost anything can become a weapon 'of opportunity' and the results surprising.


I think that the katar would easily have been present in both hunting and battle, but worn by the upper echelon who were afforded these kinds of weapons. As previously noted, in my opinion they would have remained secondary weapons for use in final dispatch of an animal in hunting, and close quarters use in melee in battle.


While primary use of the katar certainly offers heroic image in illustration, it still seems to me an unusual circumstance, and expectedly questioned.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

While primary use of the katar certainly offers heroic image in illustration, it still seems to me an unusual circumstance, and expectedly questioned.

The Hero of the East goes one on one against a predator. The Hero of the West - presses a button watching the monitor. Different cultures. Still.

[Mercenary]

This is ridiculous, but I cannot find in European languages ​​how to translate the Greek term "θηριομαχία" (θηριομαχίᾱͅ) and the cultural phenomenon that stands behind it in traditional societies of the East.

[fernando]

Θηριομαχία η transliterates to Thereumachi, meaning (sort of) a combat with wild beasts .


.

[Mercenary]

fernando, good search ))

But this is not only gladiatorial performances in the arena. In the East, teriomachia was a way of confirmation of the royal power, the status of a hero and leader. Like in story about Akela's hunting in The Jungle Book.