Hindu Armour and the Katar?

B.I · 28th April 2006, 08:24 AM

not sure how much interest this will be to others, but it was a track i have been looking into for quite a long time. i have had an ongoing arguement/debate/discussion with a published islamic academic, about whether the hindus wore armour before the advent of islam (ie was armour introduced to the hindus by the muslims). iconography has always gone against me, as hindu sculpture represents a mythological mix of religion and history, and most warriors are represented in a semi-naked (pure) form.
however, i have found this useful piece of information.
i read through a translation of 2 12th century hindu texts (written in 1880), which, amongst other things, touches on army and weapons. it says this -

armour consists of scales, the breath of a grain of wheat, is of metal and firm, and is ornamented on the upper part of the body.

this is important to me, as it not only shows a complex armour srtucture (lamelar metal scales) but it also shows that it wasnt crude, but ornamented.
i know that my islamic friend will find a good way to twist this around, but it is still an important piece of information about early hindu armour.
also, for jens, it says this -

the maustika (fist sword, dagger) - has a good hilt, is a span long and ornamented. its end is sharp, it has a high neck, is broad in the midst and dark coloured. it can make all sorts of movements, as it is a small and handy weapon.

i know this is very loose, and purely speculative, but this could refer to an early version of the katar. a fist dagger points out it was held in a different way, and pointing out it can make all sorts of movements distinguishes it away from normally held daggers.
whether it is what i speculate it to be, its still intriguing enough to look into further.

Jens Nordlunde · 28th April 2006, 05:07 PM

You have found some most interesting pieces of information – and early ones as well. In India, Nepal and Tibet they have Guardians, on for each corner of the world. These are shown with arms and armour, so if it would be possible to find early bronzes of these figures, it should be possible to see their armour.

The information on the Maustika is of course far the most interesting, at least to me, but have a look here http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000653.html it is now up to Jim to tell us where he found the word and description.

It sounds very much as if the description of the Maustika is something quite different from an ordinary dagger, so it could well be an early description of a katar, and if it is, it is about 200 years older than the one Ibn Batutta describes.

B.I · 28th April 2006, 06:25 PM

@!!%&?//!!!!

it seems like my earth-shattering piece of information is old news!
where the kfc did jim find this??
oh well, i should have guessed that our mr McD would be a few steps ahead of me

i think i will stick to playing with arms, and leave acedemia to academics

Jens Nordlunde · 28th April 2006, 09:33 PM

It seems as if Jim was tipped of by Mabagani about a thread – but which thread?

Brian, you did well in mentioning the Maustika, as I did not know the word/dagger, and the only link I got from a Google search gave the link in my other mail. So all we have to di is to wait for Jim or Mabagani to show up.

Jim McDougall · 28th April 2006, 11:36 PM

Hi Brian and Jens,
I cant seem to display the link posted, and cant recall the specific discussion you reference, however, the data on the 'maushtika' was actually information found long ago in the venerable backbone of my library, Sir Richard Burton's "Book of the Sword" (1884, on p.215).
In this single sentenced reference, Burton notes, "...the maushtika (fist sword,stiletto) is only a span long, and thus very handy for all kinds of movements".
Ironically Brian, Burton's reference appears to be that of Professor Gustav Oppert, who published his "On the Weapons etc.of the Ancient Hindus" in London in 1880. It seems that Burton cited the same reference to the maushtika that you note. In checking other resources to find supporting or collaborating references to a weapon with this term, they all cite the Burton reference, without further notation or data.
Since Opperts work was not illustrated and we have simply a narrative description of the 'maushtika' , it does not offer more than suggestion that implies a possible proto-katar by the note terming it a 'fist' weapon. However it does certainly present strong plausibility.
It would be interesting to find this term or weapon described alternatively to its appearance in various references all borrowing from the same original source.
In Burton the text suggests that Oppert may have derived the material from Book III of the Nitiprakashika (op.cit. p.214).

Brian, your 'playing' with arms is where the real knowledge comes from !!!
The 'academic' references are simply support when correctly applied ...
so keep your observations comin'....puuullleeeze!!!

All best regards,
Jim

B.I · 29th April 2006, 08:27 AM

hi jim,
ok, so it was burton that beat me to it

it was oppert's book that i read, and the book is the translation of parts of 2 hindu manuscripts (the weapons/army references), the Nitiprakashika and the Sukraniti. the former was unknown prior to his involvement and it seems it was quite a find of the day.
to be honest, jim, i actually enjoy both reading and playing, and find myself researching more than collecting these days. i dont call myself academic due to a short memory span and low boredom threshold. also, most academics dont go out much, are antisocial, exceedingly dull and look like their mothers still dress them

Jens Nordlunde · 29th April 2006, 05:03 PM

A reprint of Gustav Oppert’s book can be had very cheaply on the net – should anyone be interested.

BTW 1 span is = 12 angulas = 1 vatasti = 9 inches. Funny are angulas not what they call the eels in Spain – or is it baby eels? I was once served a dish in Barcelona, it was baby eels boiled in oil, and I think it was called angulas.

I have seen different ways of spelling the ‘knife’ in question. Maustika and Maushtika, but I have also seen another spelling, Maush Tika which is supposed to be a weighted glove with spike on the knuckles. As the dagger mentioned, is a dagger, and as Maush Tika is supposed to be a spiked glove, meant for hitting like a boxer do – meaning holding the closed hand pointing towards your opponent, this could mean that the dagger had a hilt, where the hand would have been held in the same way.

What I mean is, that maybe part of the word means the way you hold it, and the other part means a pointed thing or a blade. Any comments to this postulate?

Jim McDougall · 30th April 2006, 07:45 PM

Hi Brian,
It seems that the appellation 'scholar' and 'academic' became the topic of a number of altercations on the forums a number of years ago, leading to a lot of 'ouchy' feelings (very academic term

I would think modesty prevents any of us from proclaiming ourselves as being such, even though we do aspire to learn as much as we can, regardless of attention spans etc. huh? what span?

Designations blah! Don't ever change pal!!!

Jens,
Got any links for the Oppert book? I think it would be excellent to know this source as forerunner of Robert Elgood's magnificent work.
Uh, on your gourmet note.....eeeccchhh! Somehow I have never found myself craving a nice 'eelburger'

Interesting study on the terminology though.
I think you are right on the term maushtika or whatever referring mostly to the use of the weapon. It seems I recall you talking about the term referring to a spiked gauntlet ...need to find this reference. Goes back to the 'gauntlet' sword/dagger term applying to transversely gripped edged weapons.

Best regards

Jens Nordlunde · 30th April 2006, 09:13 PM

Jim, try ABEBooks and write Gustav Oppert, it will be no 9, 13 or 15 you will be interested in, depending on if you want the cheap or expensive edition – all seems to be the same and all new

.
Does angula mean eel in Spanish???

B.I · 30th April 2006, 11:03 PM

hi jens,
there is a fantastic stone sculpture of durga in its classic pose of slaying the buffulo demon in the british museum. it is dated to the 13thC and hails from orissa. durga holds an array of weapons (many hands did these old hindu dieties have) including a strange spike attached to a rectangular shield. the shield is held by a clear fist, and the spike (definately not a blade) projects down quite far, and into the demons chest.
this statue has not been published (as far as i know) and i have always thought this 'weapon' to be a possible forerunner of the pata. i wonder if instead, it can be classed as a fist dagger, although the fact that it is attached to a shield is a major factor (not mentioned by oppert in his classification of a maustika).
another unknown hindu weapon then?
hi jim,
robert does mention the maustika in his glossary, but only a very brief description, in which he cites his reference as burton.

Jim McDougall · 1st May 2006, 01:10 AM

Thanks very much Jens, I'll check Abe!! Not sure about 'angular' or what the eel word is, Spanish is a bit rusty without my handy dictionary.

Interesting notes on this shield Brian. It seems someplace in our earlier research, there was some Russian shield with dagger in the center but cannot recall location of that reference. It would seem that arming a defensive implement such as a shield with a dagger has been known in numerous instances, including the Indian 'madu' used allegedly by mendicants. Possibly the concept of transverse grip, as typically found in shields, and the thrusting dagger incorporated in a shield led to the concept of this feature in katar and pata? As always, we get to the million dollar question of where and when this innovation occurred.

Then we get to the puzzle of the so called 'manople'...the Moorish (?) thrusting, gauntlet boarding dagger seen under that heading in Stone (also found in Calvert, "Spanish Arms & Armour"). If this weapon indeed came from Spain, or anywhere in the Islamic sphere, might it have been the source for the Indian gauntlet weapons?

All the best,
Jim

B.I · 1st May 2006, 10:33 AM

hi jim,
i have always had a thing for patas (my passion for armour is as strong as it is for arms, and the pata crosses between the two). i have been meaning to go to madrid to see this weapon for some time, and will definately try this year. i cant have an opinion from stones image, so would love to see it properly.
the spiked shield i mentioned is used in the same way, as the spike protrudes downwards (and not out the middle, or the sides). so, with the fist clenched, the weapon is not dissimilar to a short pata or long katar. i have images somewhere which i will try and dig out.

fernando · 1st May 2006, 12:04 PM

Angulas are baby eels; theyr catching is controversial and somehow ilegal, but they are served in the finest restaurants.
I saw the way they catch them here, its quite a scene.
The word comes from the latin anguilla.
fernando

fernando · 1st May 2006, 01:29 PM

There is this book written by Rainer Daehnardt, someone assumedly within this Indian weaponry and armor subject, from which i would like to interpreter a little part:
The Pata, like the Katar, are weapons of Hindu invention.
Its named after the Pathans, a subdivision of the Xatrias, a warrior cast. It was much used in the Marathas Kingdoms, and by Sikhs and Rajputs. Patas must have appeared by the first quarter of the XVI century, with a major use of european blades ... a small percentage captured from the discoverers, but mainly the introduction of "ilegal length" european blades brought by Venetians and Portuguese. This way a well handled Pata could keep a standard lenght rapier out of reach. For the same reason it also used by cavalry.
The Pata can be considered a Katar turned into a sword. The handle system is precisely the same. There is no doubt it was the ideal type of sword, it just didn't become more popular, as its handling needed some school.
Among several pictures, we can see ( so he aledges ) the oldest existing Pata, one of the beg. XVI century, with a XV-XVI cent. Navigators blade, and an example used by Hindus that served as auxiliary Portuguese troops, with a blade inscription devoted to the Portuguese King, XVIII century.
I thought this could help enlightning the provenance of both these weapons.
fernando

B.I · 1st May 2006, 02:13 PM

hi fernando,
what you say is right, except i would not try to put a beginning date on this weapon. the jury is not out on its origins and i have hope of someone finding more information at some point during our lifetimes.
examples do exist from the 16thC, but i have never seen one that i would consider to be early 16thC. would it be possible to show the image here, or to provide the reference so i can find the book myself.
many thanks.

Jens Nordlunde · 1st May 2006, 03:13 PM

Hi Fernando,
Thank you for solving the angulas question

. Now, if 12 angulas is the same as 9 inches, that would make 1 angula about 1.95 cm - I remember them bigger. Anyway, it is strange to use the same word for a measure in one country and for a fish in another country - unless of course they have something to do with each other. What do you think?
Interesting translation you made - thank you.

Goddess Durga Mahisasuramardini. C.10th century.
In her principal right hand she holds a trident (trisula) which pierces the conquered demon in human form as he tries to leave the body of the buffalo. The principal left hand clutches the hair of the demon. In the uppermost pair of hands Durga holds a sword (khadga) and a shield (khetaga). The second pair holds a bowl (patra) or a scull-cup (kapala), and a bell (ghanta)(?), and the third pair an arrow (sara) and a bow (capa).
There is one thing, which keeps coming back to me, when we discuss the bronzes.
Let us say that a bronze made in the 10th c. showed the weapons used at the time – in this case a sword. For some reason or other they, at the same place, wanted to make a bronze representing the same deity three hundred years later. The form of the sword had changed somehow in the past period. Would they copy the sword from the old bronze, or would they use the type used at the time? I think they would copy the old one. Did you ever see a bronze with a shamshir, or a khanda for that matter, no you have not, they are wearing straight double-edged swords, possibly with a broader tip, or a leaf shaped blade, with a very old type of hilt. They were not even so modern as to use a hand guard.
I can’t say they did not make changes, but I think changes must have been very moderate, if any was made, so I think, when using bronzes in our search, we are looking for very old weapon types.

fernando · 1st May 2006, 04:14 PM

Hi B.I.
The book is called " Homens Espadas e Tomates " ISBN 972-8408-30-7, i think later translated to english with same alusive title " Men Swords and Balls". The author, a weapons historian and imense collector, is known to Paulo Cejunior, by the way.
The text quotes this Pata to be the oldest and also most primitive known. It must be from the 1st quarter XVI century. Guard made of turned and carved wood, reinforced with some iron strips. Blade of european origin, probably from a Navigator's sword, from the transiction XV-XVI century.
If further detail needed, just tell
fernando

B.I · 1st May 2006, 06:23 PM

hi fernando,
very interesting. our andy (davis) bought a similar piece recently -

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...highlight=pata

if you look at the overall form, the long guantlet and the bulbous end, and most especially the way the blade is held, the similarities are definately there.
i didnt contribute to andys post (sorry) but i had meant to (i do rememer giving an opinion, so must have done by email). the shape of his guard is early without a doubt. although some dismissed it, i found it extremely appealling and would rather have it than most i have seen for sale.
as for the date, i agree they are both early but i would be cautious at dating them into the early parts of the 16thC.
the form is relatively unknown, and the crudeness of both unfortunately makes it even harder to date (no decorative patterns to compare to).
the one you show does seem earlier than andy's, but i cant overlook the overall similarity and so would be inclined to say the come from the same family (and possibly the same date).
so, you got me! i cant agree with the date at all, but i have no substantial reason to disagree with it. if i held it my opinions may be more accurate. maybe i will take andy up on his offer to visit as i find them both intriguing. i have two late 16thC patas, both very decorative and so dating them is more comfortable. these, however, are indeed a mystery.

28th April 2006, 08:24 AM	#1
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	Hindu Armour and the Katar? not sure how much interest this will be to others, but it was a track i have been looking into for quite a long time. i have had an ongoing arguement/debate/discussion with a published islamic academic, about whether the hindus wore armour before the advent of islam (ie was armour introduced to the hindus by the muslims). iconography has always gone against me, as hindu sculpture represents a mythological mix of religion and history, and most warriors are represented in a semi-naked (pure) form. however, i have found this useful piece of information. i read through a translation of 2 12th century hindu texts (written in 1880), which, amongst other things, touches on army and weapons. it says this - armour consists of scales, the breath of a grain of wheat, is of metal and firm, and is ornamented on the upper part of the body. this is important to me, as it not only shows a complex armour srtucture (lamelar metal scales) but it also shows that it wasnt crude, but ornamented. i know that my islamic friend will find a good way to twist this around, but it is still an important piece of information about early hindu armour. also, for jens, it says this - the maustika (fist sword, dagger) - has a good hilt, is a span long and ornamented. its end is sharp, it has a high neck, is broad in the midst and dark coloured. it can make all sorts of movements, as it is a small and handy weapon. i know this is very loose, and purely speculative, but this could refer to an early version of the katar. a fist dagger points out it was held in a different way, and pointing out it can make all sorts of movements distinguishes it away from normally held daggers. whether it is what i speculate it to be, its still intriguing enough to look into further.

30th April 2006, 09:13 PM	#9
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Jim, try ABEBooks and write Gustav Oppert, it will be no 9, 13 or 15 you will be interested in, depending on if you want the cheap or expensive edition – all seems to be the same and all new. Does angula mean eel in Spanish???

1st May 2006, 03:13 PM	#16
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Fernando, Thank you for solving the angulas question. Now, if 12 angulas is the same as 9 inches, that would make 1 angula about 1.95 cm - I remember them bigger. Anyway, it is strange to use the same word for a measure in one country and for a fish in another country - unless of course they have something to do with each other. What do you think? Interesting translation you made - thank you. Goddess Durga Mahisasuramardini. C.10th century. In her principal right hand she holds a trident (trisula) which pierces the conquered demon in human form as he tries to leave the body of the buffalo. The principal left hand clutches the hair of the demon. In the uppermost pair of hands Durga holds a sword (khadga) and a shield (khetaga). The second pair holds a bowl (patra) or a scull-cup (kapala), and a bell (ghanta)(?), and the third pair an arrow (sara) and a bow (capa). There is one thing, which keeps coming back to me, when we discuss the bronzes. Let us say that a bronze made in the 10th c. showed the weapons used at the time – in this case a sword. For some reason or other they, at the same place, wanted to make a bronze representing the same deity three hundred years later. The form of the sword had changed somehow in the past period. Would they copy the sword from the old bronze, or would they use the type used at the time? I think they would copy the old one. Did you ever see a bronze with a shamshir, or a khanda for that matter, no you have not, they are wearing straight double-edged swords, possibly with a broader tip, or a leaf shaped blade, with a very old type of hilt. They were not even so modern as to use a hand guard. I can’t say they did not make changes, but I think changes must have been very moderate, if any was made, so I think, when using bronzes in our search, we are looking for very old weapon types.

1st May 2006, 04:14 PM	#17
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi B.I. The book is called " Homens Espadas e Tomates " ISBN 972-8408-30-7, i think later translated to english with same alusive title " Men Swords and Balls". The author, a weapons historian and imense collector, is known to Paulo Cejunior, by the way. The text quotes this Pata to be the oldest and also most primitive known. It must be from the 1st quarter XVI century. Guard made of turned and carved wood, reinforced with some iron strips. Blade of european origin, probably from a Navigator's sword, from the transiction XV-XVI century. If further detail needed, just tell fernando Attached Images Last edited by fernando; 1st May 2006 at 05:09 PM.

28th April 2006, 05:07 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	You have found some most interesting pieces of information – and early ones as well. In India, Nepal and Tibet they have Guardians, on for each corner of the world. These are shown with arms and armour, so if it would be possible to find early bronzes of these figures, it should be possible to see their armour. The information on the Maustika is of course far the most interesting, at least to me, but have a look here http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000653.html it is now up to Jim to tell us where he found the word and description. It sounds very much as if the description of the Maustika is something quite different from an ordinary dagger, so it could well be an early description of a katar, and if it is, it is about 200 years older than the one Ibn Batutta describes.

28th April 2006, 06:25 PM	#3
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	@!!%&?//!!!! it seems like my earth-shattering piece of information is old news! where the kfc did jim find this?? oh well, i should have guessed that our mr McD would be a few steps ahead of me i think i will stick to playing with arms, and leave acedemia to academics

28th April 2006, 09:33 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	It seems as if Jim was tipped of by Mabagani about a thread – but which thread? Brian, you did well in mentioning the Maustika, as I did not know the word/dagger, and the only link I got from a Google search gave the link in my other mail. So all we have to di is to wait for Jim or Mabagani to show up.

28th April 2006, 11:36 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	Hi Brian and Jens, I cant seem to display the link posted, and cant recall the specific discussion you reference, however, the data on the 'maushtika' was actually information found long ago in the venerable backbone of my library, Sir Richard Burton's "Book of the Sword" (1884, on p.215). In this single sentenced reference, Burton notes, "...the maushtika (fist sword,stiletto) is only a span long, and thus very handy for all kinds of movements". Ironically Brian, Burton's reference appears to be that of Professor Gustav Oppert, who published his "On the Weapons etc.of the Ancient Hindus" in London in 1880. It seems that Burton cited the same reference to the maushtika that you note. In checking other resources to find supporting or collaborating references to a weapon with this term, they all cite the Burton reference, without further notation or data. Since Opperts work was not illustrated and we have simply a narrative description of the 'maushtika' , it does not offer more than suggestion that implies a possible proto-katar by the note terming it a 'fist' weapon. However it does certainly present strong plausibility. It would be interesting to find this term or weapon described alternatively to its appearance in various references all borrowing from the same original source. In Burton the text suggests that Oppert may have derived the material from Book III of the Nitiprakashika (op.cit. p.214). Brian, your 'playing' with arms is where the real knowledge comes from !!! The 'academic' references are simply support when correctly applied ... so keep your observations comin'....puuullleeeze!!! All best regards, Jim

29th April 2006, 08:27 AM	#6
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi jim, ok, so it was burton that beat me to it it was oppert's book that i read, and the book is the translation of parts of 2 hindu manuscripts (the weapons/army references), the Nitiprakashika and the Sukraniti. the former was unknown prior to his involvement and it seems it was quite a find of the day. to be honest, jim, i actually enjoy both reading and playing, and find myself researching more than collecting these days. i dont call myself academic due to a short memory span and low boredom threshold. also, most academics dont go out much, are antisocial, exceedingly dull and look like their mothers still dress them

29th April 2006, 05:03 PM	#7
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	A reprint of Gustav Oppert’s book can be had very cheaply on the net – should anyone be interested. BTW 1 span is = 12 angulas = 1 vatasti = 9 inches. Funny are angulas not what they call the eels in Spain – or is it baby eels? I was once served a dish in Barcelona, it was baby eels boiled in oil, and I think it was called angulas. I have seen different ways of spelling the ‘knife’ in question. Maustika and Maushtika, but I have also seen another spelling, Maush Tika which is supposed to be a weighted glove with spike on the knuckles. As the dagger mentioned, is a dagger, and as Maush Tika is supposed to be a spiked glove, meant for hitting like a boxer do – meaning holding the closed hand pointing towards your opponent, this could mean that the dagger had a hilt, where the hand would have been held in the same way. What I mean is, that maybe part of the word means the way you hold it, and the other part means a pointed thing or a blade. Any comments to this postulate?

30th April 2006, 07:45 PM	#8
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	Hi Brian, It seems that the appellation 'scholar' and 'academic' became the topic of a number of altercations on the forums a number of years ago, leading to a lot of 'ouchy' feelings (very academic term I would think modesty prevents any of us from proclaiming ourselves as being such, even though we do aspire to learn as much as we can, regardless of attention spans etc. huh? what span? Designations blah! Don't ever change pal!!! Jens, Got any links for the Oppert book? I think it would be excellent to know this source as forerunner of Robert Elgood's magnificent work. Uh, on your gourmet note.....eeeccchhh! Somehow I have never found myself craving a nice 'eelburger' Interesting study on the terminology though. I think you are right on the term maushtika or whatever referring mostly to the use of the weapon. It seems I recall you talking about the term referring to a spiked gauntlet ...need to find this reference. Goes back to the 'gauntlet' sword/dagger term applying to transversely gripped edged weapons. Best regards

30th April 2006, 11:03 PM	#10
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi jens, there is a fantastic stone sculpture of durga in its classic pose of slaying the buffulo demon in the british museum. it is dated to the 13thC and hails from orissa. durga holds an array of weapons (many hands did these old hindu dieties have) including a strange spike attached to a rectangular shield. the shield is held by a clear fist, and the spike (definately not a blade) projects down quite far, and into the demons chest. this statue has not been published (as far as i know) and i have always thought this 'weapon' to be a possible forerunner of the pata. i wonder if instead, it can be classed as a fist dagger, although the fact that it is attached to a shield is a major factor (not mentioned by oppert in his classification of a maustika). another unknown hindu weapon then? hi jim, robert does mention the maustika in his glossary, but only a very brief description, in which he cites his reference as burton.

1st May 2006, 01:10 AM	#11
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	Thanks very much Jens, I'll check Abe!! Not sure about 'angular' or what the eel word is, Spanish is a bit rusty without my handy dictionary. Interesting notes on this shield Brian. It seems someplace in our earlier research, there was some Russian shield with dagger in the center but cannot recall location of that reference. It would seem that arming a defensive implement such as a shield with a dagger has been known in numerous instances, including the Indian 'madu' used allegedly by mendicants. Possibly the concept of transverse grip, as typically found in shields, and the thrusting dagger incorporated in a shield led to the concept of this feature in katar and pata? As always, we get to the million dollar question of where and when this innovation occurred. Then we get to the puzzle of the so called 'manople'...the Moorish (?) thrusting, gauntlet boarding dagger seen under that heading in Stone (also found in Calvert, "Spanish Arms & Armour"). If this weapon indeed came from Spain, or anywhere in the Islamic sphere, might it have been the source for the Indian gauntlet weapons? All the best, Jim

1st May 2006, 10:33 AM	#12
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi jim, i have always had a thing for patas (my passion for armour is as strong as it is for arms, and the pata crosses between the two). i have been meaning to go to madrid to see this weapon for some time, and will definately try this year. i cant have an opinion from stones image, so would love to see it properly. the spiked shield i mentioned is used in the same way, as the spike protrudes downwards (and not out the middle, or the sides). so, with the fist clenched, the weapon is not dissimilar to a short pata or long katar. i have images somewhere which i will try and dig out.

1st May 2006, 12:04 PM	#13
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Angulas are baby eels; theyr catching is controversial and somehow ilegal, but they are served in the finest restaurants. I saw the way they catch them here, its quite a scene. The word comes from the latin anguilla. fernando

1st May 2006, 01:29 PM	#14
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	There is this book written by Rainer Daehnardt, someone assumedly within this Indian weaponry and armor subject, from which i would like to interpreter a little part: The Pata, like the Katar, are weapons of Hindu invention. Its named after the Pathans, a subdivision of the Xatrias, a warrior cast. It was much used in the Marathas Kingdoms, and by Sikhs and Rajputs. Patas must have appeared by the first quarter of the XVI century, with a major use of european blades ... a small percentage captured from the discoverers, but mainly the introduction of "ilegal length" european blades brought by Venetians and Portuguese. This way a well handled Pata could keep a standard lenght rapier out of reach. For the same reason it also used by cavalry. The Pata can be considered a Katar turned into a sword. The handle system is precisely the same. There is no doubt it was the ideal type of sword, it just didn't become more popular, as its handling needed some school. Among several pictures, we can see ( so he aledges ) the oldest existing Pata, one of the beg. XVI century, with a XV-XVI cent. Navigators blade, and an example used by Hindus that served as auxiliary Portuguese troops, with a blade inscription devoted to the Portuguese King, XVIII century. I thought this could help enlightning the provenance of both these weapons. fernando

1st May 2006, 02:13 PM	#15
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi fernando, what you say is right, except i would not try to put a beginning date on this weapon. the jury is not out on its origins and i have hope of someone finding more information at some point during our lifetimes. examples do exist from the 16thC, but i have never seen one that i would consider to be early 16thC. would it be possible to show the image here, or to provide the reference so i can find the book myself. many thanks.

1st May 2006, 06:23 PM	#18
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi fernando, very interesting. our andy (davis) bought a similar piece recently - http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...highlight=pata if you look at the overall form, the long guantlet and the bulbous end, and most especially the way the blade is held, the similarities are definately there. i didnt contribute to andys post (sorry) but i had meant to (i do rememer giving an opinion, so must have done by email). the shape of his guard is early without a doubt. although some dismissed it, i found it extremely appealling and would rather have it than most i have seen for sale. as for the date, i agree they are both early but i would be cautious at dating them into the early parts of the 16thC. the form is relatively unknown, and the crudeness of both unfortunately makes it even harder to date (no decorative patterns to compare to). the one you show does seem earlier than andy's, but i cant overlook the overall similarity and so would be inclined to say the come from the same family (and possibly the same date). so, you got me! i cant agree with the date at all, but i have no substantial reason to disagree with it. if i held it my opinions may be more accurate. maybe i will take andy up on his offer to visit as i find them both intriguing. i have two late 16thC patas, both very decorative and so dating them is more comfortable. these, however, are indeed a mystery.