Indian Katar

Jens Nordlunde · 7th November 2006, 11:08 PM

Tim,

You are wrong, and living in England where you have so many people from India/Pakistan living, I don’t understand that you can’t see, that the arguments from Brian, Lew and myself are right – it is beyond me, but I don’t think your arguments hold water – sorry. There are however, a lot of other questions to e discussed about the hilts, and I hope we can discus them at another time.

Lew, could you show the dot marking, and tell from where you have the translation – please.

Fernando, please realise that the way of fighting in Europe and in India was very different, and this makes the different hilts interesting – have a look at post #8.

Lew · 7th November 2006, 11:24 PM

[QUOTE=Jens Nordlunde]

Lew, could you show the dot marking, and tell from where you have the translation – please.

Jens

Dot markings on what the katar?

Lew

B.I · 8th November 2006, 04:41 AM

it seems everyone is getting at tim....so i may as well join in

if you pop down to southall, after spending 2 hours trying to park, you'll easily notice mine and jens' point. i am not saying we are right, but you will see whare we are coming from.
i have a group of cousins from my mothers side - 3 guys, aged between 30 and 40, all of whome can hold my swords that i could hardly fit 4 fingers into. if you go to india, this becomes really apparant as the size difference is very noticeable. the mughal left their mark in more than the architecture, but there are still enough pure hindus to keep me happy in my theory.

a side note, the 16thC 'madrasi' sword that elgood illustrates all have even smaller hilts than a standard tulwar. these are absolutely tiny and date from the 16thC (and before). all of the examples i have seen, and i have seen enough to make a comparison, are of the same small size.
so, i believe both theories work. jens and i believe the hindu 'throwbacks' still exist in small stature, and their ancestors were probably even smaller if you compare these early swords of pure hindu form ot the still-small tulwars of the 19thC.

Tim Simmons · 8th November 2006, 07:47 AM

My shoulders are broad enough

If ever you need a people to pick on it is us Brits. We are tough but most of all enjoy laughing at ourselves

. I am sure you are all correct but I shall still mantain that as in other current conflicts an element of combatants were and are teenagers.

B.I · 8th November 2006, 08:19 AM

hi tim,
i think there is a crossing of points, no doubt instigated by me bowling in without looking!
i agree that weapons in india were also made for the young, but these were exceptionally small. i was referring to the hilts in general being smaller than a european hand could manage, which is an on-going point of discussion (the dreaded fingered ricasso!!).
there are plenty of victorian photos of youths armed, although these are normally children of royalty (only because they were the only ones the photographer was interested in).
all types of arms were made in various sizes (down to daggers for the very young in almost miniature size).
i have also seen full armour made for children.

Jeff D · 8th November 2006, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.I

hi tim,
i think there is a crossing of points, no doubt instigated by me bowling in without looking!
i agree that weapons in india were also made for the young, but these were exceptionally small. i was referring to the hilts in general being smaller than a european hand could manage, which is an on-going point of discussion (the dreaded fingered ricasso!!).
there are plenty of victorian photos of youths armed, although these are normally children of royalty (only because they were the only ones the photographer was interested in).
all types of arms were made in various sizes (down to daggers for the very young in almost miniature size).
i have also seen full armour made for children.

Did someone say ricasso?

,

I am not sure if anyone has mentioned this before, on Pg 21 of P.S. Rawson's
The Indian Sword, Rawson in discussion on the ricasso states this "The reason for its existance may be to have safeguard the index finger, which art shows to have been sometimes hooked round the front quillion of the hilt in India." Although examples are not given he has some credibility in this satement because, as we all know Rawson's main area of interest was art and the history of art.

All the best.
Jeff

Jeff D · 8th November 2006, 05:48 PM

Oops! i should have used the search function prior to posting above. It seems Jim (of course!) mentions this in this excellent thread http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...rawson+ricasso

so what is the controversy?

All the best
Jeff

Jens Nordlunde · 8th November 2006, 06:04 PM

Hi Jeff,

There are three editions of Rawson’s book. The English and the American are most likely alike, but the Danish one have pictures from Danish collections, so referring to a page does not give much point, unless you also say which edition you have. I doubt that you have the Danish edition, so I will have to go looking on which page it is in my edition – as I have the Danish one.

I will not say that I think Rawson’s theory is wrong, only that I doubt it, as there are quite a number of tulwars without ricasso, and these poor chaps without ricasso – what would they do? Had it been like Rawson suggests, I am sure a ricasso would have been made on the blades without.

Jens

7th November 2006, 11:08 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Tim, You are wrong, and living in England where you have so many people from India/Pakistan living, I don’t understand that you can’t see, that the arguments from Brian, Lew and myself are right – it is beyond me, but I don’t think your arguments hold water – sorry. There are however, a lot of other questions to e discussed about the hilts, and I hope we can discus them at another time. Lew, could you show the dot marking, and tell from where you have the translation – please. Fernando, please realise that the way of fighting in Europe and in India was very different, and this makes the different hilts interesting – have a look at post #8.

7th November 2006, 11:24 PM	#2
Lew (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 3,191	[QUOTE=Jens Nordlunde] Lew, could you show the dot marking, and tell from where you have the translation – please. Jens Dot markings on what the katar? Lew

8th November 2006, 04:41 AM	#3
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	it seems everyone is getting at tim....so i may as well join in if you pop down to southall, after spending 2 hours trying to park, you'll easily notice mine and jens' point. i am not saying we are right, but you will see whare we are coming from. i have a group of cousins from my mothers side - 3 guys, aged between 30 and 40, all of whome can hold my swords that i could hardly fit 4 fingers into. if you go to india, this becomes really apparant as the size difference is very noticeable. the mughal left their mark in more than the architecture, but there are still enough pure hindus to keep me happy in my theory. a side note, the 16thC 'madrasi' sword that elgood illustrates all have even smaller hilts than a standard tulwar. these are absolutely tiny and date from the 16thC (and before). all of the examples i have seen, and i have seen enough to make a comparison, are of the same small size. so, i believe both theories work. jens and i believe the hindu 'throwbacks' still exist in small stature, and their ancestors were probably even smaller if you compare these early swords of pure hindu form ot the still-small tulwars of the 19thC.

8th November 2006, 07:47 AM	#4
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,807	My shoulders are broad enough If ever you need a people to pick on it is us Brits. We are tough but most of all enjoy laughing at ourselves . I am sure you are all correct but I shall still mantain that as in other current conflicts an element of combatants were and are teenagers.

8th November 2006, 08:19 AM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi tim, i think there is a crossing of points, no doubt instigated by me bowling in without looking! i agree that weapons in india were also made for the young, but these were exceptionally small. i was referring to the hilts in general being smaller than a european hand could manage, which is an on-going point of discussion (the dreaded fingered ricasso!!). there are plenty of victorian photos of youths armed, although these are normally children of royalty (only because they were the only ones the photographer was interested in). all types of arms were made in various sizes (down to daggers for the very young in almost miniature size). i have also seen full armour made for children.

8th November 2006, 05:48 PM	#7
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Oops! i should have used the search function prior to posting above. It seems Jim (of course!) mentions this in this excellent thread http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...rawson+ricasso so what is the controversy? All the best Jeff

8th November 2006, 06:04 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Jeff, There are three editions of Rawson’s book. The English and the American are most likely alike, but the Danish one have pictures from Danish collections, so referring to a page does not give much point, unless you also say which edition you have. I doubt that you have the Danish edition, so I will have to go looking on which page it is in my edition – as I have the Danish one. I will not say that I think Rawson’s theory is wrong, only that I doubt it, as there are quite a number of tulwars without ricasso, and these poor chaps without ricasso – what would they do? Had it been like Rawson suggests, I am sure a ricasso would have been made on the blades without. Jens