Is it a katar dagger ?

mariusgmioc · 18th January 2020, 09:36 AM

Definitely not a katar as it would be impossible to use, thus useless.
This contraption simply cannot be held firmly in the hand.

fernando · 18th January 2020, 11:15 AM

That this is or not a katar, i wouldn't presume to have the luggage to judge on it but, i wouldn't easily reject that its sole bar doesn't allow for a firm grip, without pondering on its (missing) handle. Think of such being of a (wooden) square cross section ... or ovoid, like the naginata, for one

.

ariel · 18th January 2020, 02:02 PM

I also would not dismiss the idea of it being a fighting weapon simply on the basis of a “single bar” argument.
Jens was kind enough to provide a link to his paper. Go there and look at the pics. #205 has a single crossbar and no side bars at all.
Naturally, all old original examples of whatever mechanical creations had engineering imperfections and those were tweaked during subsequent development. Compare nomadic sabers with their barely effectual handguards with the later examples from a multitude of cultures. Pata has retained a single bar but introduced other solutions of the “infirm grip” problem. A similar problem of round Persian Shamshir grips was solved in Georgia by gradual widening of the grip toward the quillon block. Just making the bar flat instead of round would have improved the firmness of the grip.
As they say in Russian, the first blin ( thin pancake) always comes out as a lump:-)

Thus, IMHO, we may be seeing here not just old, but archaic Katar.

18th January 2020, 09:36 AM	#1
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,906	Definitely not a katar as it would be impossible to use, thus useless. This contraption simply cannot be held firmly in the hand.

18th January 2020, 11:15 AM	#2
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	That this is or not a katar, i wouldn't presume to have the luggage to judge on it but, i wouldn't easily reject that its sole bar doesn't allow for a firm grip, without pondering on its (missing) handle. Think of such being of a (wooden) square cross section ... or ovoid, like the naginata, for one .

18th January 2020, 02:02 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I also would not dismiss the idea of it being a fighting weapon simply on the basis of a “single bar” argument. Jens was kind enough to provide a link to his paper. Go there and look at the pics. #205 has a single crossbar and no side bars at all. Naturally, all old original examples of whatever mechanical creations had engineering imperfections and those were tweaked during subsequent development. Compare nomadic sabers with their barely effectual handguards with the later examples from a multitude of cultures. Pata has retained a single bar but introduced other solutions of the “infirm grip” problem. A similar problem of round Persian Shamshir grips was solved in Georgia by gradual widening of the grip toward the quillon block. Just making the bar flat instead of round would have improved the firmness of the grip. As they say in Russian, the first blin ( thin pancake) always comes out as a lump:-) Thus, IMHO, we may be seeing here not just old, but archaic Katar.