Small Katar

[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)!"

[Jens Nordlunde]

I think this subject can be discussed well into 2025 - or longer.
A friend of Indian origin once showed me a bazu-band, and when I tried it on, and tried to close it I couldn't, but he could. I am 1.9 m and he is about the same size.

So let us conclude, that from the katar and tulwar hilts we have, the Indians at the time (over several centuries) must have had slimmer hands than we have to day.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

I think this subject can be discussed well into 2025 - or longer.
A friend of Indian origin once showed me a bazu-band, and when I tried it on, and tried to close it I couldn't, but he could. I am 1.9 m and he is about the same size.

So let us conclude, that from the katar and tulwar hilts we have, the Indians at the time (over several centuries) must have had slimmer hands than we have to day.

Well called Jens, it seems the hand size thing with Indian men has cycled through about every ten years here, so perhaps then or later we'll see it again here.
It would seem the Portuguese, of course, were the first to notice that Indian grip size (thus Indian hand size) was smaller (or narrower, or less wide, or slimmer, whatever the case 'at hand )than theirs, and the British later concurred as they made the same observation.

Regardless, I think that we can agree that a good degree of men in the Sub Continent, particularly in earlier times, were of smaller stature and physique which may account for the smaller grip size in certain of their edged weapons.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I think that we can agree that a good degree of men in the Sub Continent, particularly in earlier times, were of smaller stature and physique which may account for the smaller grip size in certain of their edged weapons.

As well as you may be a shorty and have large hands ... or vice versa.
And if i digress ...
A Sub Continent, well said; most probably each of the three basic ethnic groups (Dravidians, Mongols and Caucasians) have different anatomic (and bone structure) particularities. We are talking about 1,3 billion people, talking over 780 languages, from which only 22 have constitutional protection ... while over 196 are risking extinction.
Fascinating ... worth to bring back such greatness every now and then .

(A water color from the Codice Casanatense, by a Portuguese unmamed author of the XVI century)

.

[kahnjar1]

Mention has been made here regarding variation in stature over the years and this has also been discussed from memory on this Forum before. As an example, if one was to try to fit into a military uniform of the the 19th century, it would likely be far to small, as our average height and build has changed. The same is likely to apply to grips of weapons, so how does one establish if the subject Katar is of "normal" size for the period, or made for a boy?
Attached is a link of research done in the UK which clearly shows how we have changed in average size over the centuries. http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-04-18-...-2000-years-0#
Stu

[fernando]

Stu,
Curiously in a thread i recently submitted in the Euro forum, that implied men's stature, i have (equally) shown a chart showing Brits evolution but, may i dare say, is not the same thing as the one exploited here. The (upward) growth of men, whether varying within their ethnicity in different parts of the globe, from the Maasai to the Mbuti, is one thing, whereas their body (bone, shape) structure is another. One might be tall(er), but still have slim hands; even unproportionally, to the eyes of other races.
Thus may one say that, independently from body general mass, thin or large hands are a genetic typicality, like any other particularities ?

.