Small Katar

[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 ?

.

[Jens Nordlunde]

We can go on with this discussion for a very long time, but the fact is, that the katars/tulwars have the grip size they have - like it or not.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

We can go on with this discussion for a very long time, but the fact is, that the katars/tulwars have the grip size they have - like it or not.

True, the discussion can go on a long time, but however specious it might seem it is good to see participants coming in with viable and supported observations on the topic of hand size, which was included in the original post here.

As has been mentioned, the size of sword grips typically with regard to Indian weapons, has been reviewed on numerous occasions, however these instances typically did not result in any serious investigation of note (in my opinion).

I always value these investigative discussions here as some great perspective can come out of them. Many collectors and members have ajendas which may not include discussing these kinds of aspects of arms study. I always do because I invariably learn from the input from others, as well as my own research which is prompted by the topic.

With that I would thank you for your always valuable contributions along with the others here which have given me, and I hope others, much better understanding of the circumstances plausibly connected to these size anomalies in arms.