Small Katar

[Jens Nordlunde]

The katar could have been made for a child or a young man.
In India many boys at the age of seven or eight had replicas of the grown ups weapons, and was trained in using them.
I have a number of katars and most have cross bars of 7.5 cm, a few of 8 cm, and one or two of 6 cm - see the attached.
When it comes to how tall the average Indian was, it is mentioned in an article in Sultans of the South. Arts of India's Deccan Courts, 1323-1687. Fortifications and Gunpowder in the Deccan, 1368-1687 by Klaus Roetzer. Here the author gives the average hight to 1.7 meter.
It must also be remembered, that many Indians have a finer bone building that most Europeans.
Most tulwar hilts and katars are too narrow for an European, but would fit an Indian hand. When it comes to the tulwar hilt, it must also be remembered, that the way they used the sword, it was important that the grip was very tight.
Overall length 43 cm, blade 24 cm.

[corrado26]

Many thanks to all who answered my question, it was all of great help.
corrado26

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

... It must also be remembered, that many Indians have a finer bone building that most Europeans...

So indeed, Jens.

[Jim McDougall]

In accord with Jens' excellent entry and suggestion of this katar made for a young boy or young man, I would note the comparison between a regular sized Hindu basket hilt and a khanda for a boy. In ensuring we keep the focus on Indian arms this illustration serves well.

In addition to knowing that in India young regal figures were given edged weapons for their wear, obviously smaller than usual, it does seem regularly noted than the stature, and obviously hands were often smaller.

In Brian Robson's book on British army swords, but noting the M1908 sword for the ARMY OF INDIA, though the pattern followed that of the British model, but it "...featured a smaller grip to match the generally smaller hands of the troopers recruited in the Sub Continent".

It is surprising that more attention is not given in the many references on Indian arms toward edged weapons for children, young boys at least in some degree as it does seem fairly well known.

These dimensions of the transverse bars on examples noted by Jens measuring from just over 2.5" to just over 3" on small katars seems of note in comparison to my own hand which measures just over 4.5" wide. Clearly a dramatic difference in being able to hold such a weapon.

[Jens Nordlunde]

In this discussion I am not too fond of 'smaller hands', I prefer slimmer hands, as their bone structure is finer than the Europeans.


The katar shown below is made for a child. Deccan early 18th century. overall length 20 cm, blade 10 cm, and the cross bars 6.5 cm.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

In this discussion I am not too fond of 'smaller hands', I prefer slimmer hands, as their bone structure is finer than the Europeans ...

I am glad you confirm that, Jens ... as i attempted in my post #4.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

In this discussion I am not too fond of 'smaller hands', I prefer slimmer hands, as their bone structure is finer than the Europeans.


The katar shown below is made for a child. Deccan early 18th century. overall length 20 cm, blade 10 cm, and the cross bars 6.5 cm.

Good to point out Jens, and it does seem that Fernando did use the term 'slimmer' in noting the character of hands that would suit these narrow hilts we are discussing on katars (#4).

It was in my description that I used the term 'smaller' hands, mostly as I was considering a broader scope toward arms and armor with smaller elements possibly made for children.

Obviously when we are considering the katar, a weapon with transverse grips which cause the hand to be enclosed by the outside bars which attach these grips, if these bars are short, thus narrow...then only a narrow (=slim) hand would fit inside.
I should have better qualified my description ( not realizing the importance of narrow/slim vs. small) to suit the weapon form discussed. Clearly my notes on other arms forms which were perhaps for children or smaller statured persons carried the focus into a more comprehensive scope, as seen with my notes on swords and the equally tenuously mentioned armor.

When reviewing the 'sizes' of these Indian weapons, I think back to years ago when we were reading through 'Tod' and the measuring of blades (mostly) in barley corns.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Well Jim, I feel that especially in this case, slim is important, as an Indian can have hand as long as mine, but it is mostly slimmer.
Katar and tulwars would need a tight grip the way they were used, but a khanda was used in another way, so these grips are mostly bigger, and no doubt, an Indian with big hands would have had weapons accordingly.

[fernando]

In quoting Rainer Daehnhardt's work HOMENS ESPADAS E TOMATES, in page 191, referring to Talwars:
Portuguese would not use this weapon, firstly because they trusted more their own and secondly because the majority of the grips of Talwars is so small* that few were the Portuguese hands that would enter them.
* I would rather see Mr. Daehnhardt using the term slim; notwithstanding he didn't care, in the context, to resource a more exact term for India natives anatomic particularity.