Small Katar

[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.

[mariusgmioc]

I am 1.65 m tall and have fine bone structure. When I was in India, I clearly felt that I am at least as tall as the majority of Indians, if not somehow taller. So, I beleve the 1.7 cm in Jens' posting is rather generous.

Most Indian Katars I have a grip width of 6.5-7 cm and fit my hand tightly.

The Katar, like the Tulwar require a very tight grip to ensure good control and strength.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks guys, it is amazing how much 'fine tuning' is necessary in some discussions which are indeed figuratively 'narrow' in themselves as are the certain elements which are in question. I do think however that additional clarification must be made, as Jens notes, a hand may be slim...but not necessarily 'narrow' (=long?).

So we are thinking of the depth of the hand rather than the length.
Equally, by narrow we must consider the width of the hand, as the katar grips are enclosed at either side. My hand is over 4" wide, far too wide for a 2.5" to 3" enclosure.

With the tulwar and the khanda, the hand is around the grip without as notable an enclosure (unless the distance between guard and is very narrow). I noticed a reference in reading that one figure in an Indian court was 'large' (larger?) but that his weapons were indeed made larger in accord.

Does this mean he was of 'regular' size as opposed to 'smaller' (in stature) Indian men, or that he was even notably larger than even the normal size men of the period overall ?

I find it rather surprising to think that the author, Mr. Daehnhardt, would not care about a term he used in description, but perhaps considered such' hair splitting' irrelevant. He undoubtedly presumed those inclined to read his book were peers who were able to discern what he meant.
It would seem that the note toward the Portuguese preferring their own weapons over the Indian talwar because the grips on them were too small, made the specification obvious.
It would seem that the 'peculiarity' of smaller size in 'many' Indian men in certain ethnographic groups is fairly well known, and applies not to physiological or especially anatomical particulars, but to general physique which includes hands.

As for the preference of the Portuguese to their own weapons, it was not just the grip sizes of talwars* but that the Portuguese were Iberian, and had a deep affinity for their rapiers (and other swords) which were designed for their own forms of swordsmanship. A talwar was hardly designed for sword to sword combat (fencing).

* unsure of the spelling, some references say 'tulwar' rather than 'talwar'.

[fernando]

Discussed problemaric extensive to patas, as IN HERE...
"The restrictive handle (which British colonists point out was uncomfortably small for most European hands)!"