Jamdhar katari - a theory

[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.

[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.

[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 .

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

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.

In this case I misunderstood your thesis, or you might not have expressed it clear enough.

However:

Katars were in use all across India, in humongous numbers and over a very long period of time. Why do we have to suggest that they had especially high status ( vs, Khanda? Tulwar? khanjar?) and, if indeed they had, that tiger hunting had anything to do with it?

They were just a very effective weapon for a particular circumstance, I.e. close quarters fight, and were used by Rajahs and commoners alike with different degrees of rich decoration or total absence thereof. High status belonged to their owners, either because of their royal/court positions or because of their individual feats ( See Jens’ entry on a person killing a berserked elephant with a Katar and being rewarded with a governorship position for it).

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

In this case I misunderstood your thesis, or you might not have expressed it clear enough.

However:

Katars were in use all across India, in humongous numbers and over a very long period of time. Why do we have to suggest that they had especially high status ( vs, Khanda? Tulwar? khanjar?) and, if indeed they had, that tiger hunting had anything to do with it?

They were just a very effective weapon for a particular circumstance, I.e. close quarters fight, and were used by Rajahs and commoners alike with different degrees of rich decoration or total absence thereof. High status belonged to their owners, either because of their royal/court positions or because of their individual feats ( See Jens’ entry on a person killing a berserked elephant with a Katar and being rewarded with a governorship position for it).

The study of values ​​and statuses is another level of understanding of Eastern culture. What is suitable for thechnical sciences is not suitable for cultural or religious phenomena. Maybe such an approach seems unnecessarily complicated, but it allows you to penetrate into the culture deeper and eventually learn much more. The usual logic does not work in traditional culture.

I can not explain more, may be it is my problem, let it go.

[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.