Robert has more eloquently expressed the point I was trying to make earlier. The obvious possibility of this twisting in the hand when being thrust forward suggests to me it was meant to be placed in position and then pushed, rather than trying to stab a moving target.
This is why, in my opinion, i think it is more likely to be a tool than a weapon.
Regards
Richard

Hello,
the snake biting its tail,
let's begin again :)
If it's not a weapon, as someone an idea about what it could be use for ?
I don't think they made it with his heavy diamond blade just for plant seeds or cut ropes / kill a mouse in the soil...

Let's face it. Robert's suggestion for a dibble is a rather strong argument :shrug:.

Kubur,
Fact is something supported by an irrefutable evidence.
May I see it, please?

Hi Ariel, of course

Pics post #1, #52, #57
52=57 short katars
post 1 is something else

Unless you are looking at our forum with the help of your labrador, it is easy to see.
:)
I have a question for the philosophers on the forum, how many opinions we need to have a truth?
:confused:

Moderator's comment
 

Guys,

I think this topic is close to exhaustion and we are approaching a struggle of wills without much data to back up whether the original subject of this thread is an ancient katar or something else. The blade certainly looks old and perhaps in excavated condition, although it is not too difficult to artificially age metal and create the appearance seen here. The only really remarkable feature is the U-shaped guard with a cross-piece at the end that might serve as a handle. Absent the protrusions beyond the hilt seen on usual katar, the subject of discussion does not resemble that weapon very closely in construction, nor (as some have pointed out) in its ability to be used easily as a "punch dagger."

It is clear, however, that not all symmetrically pointed blades are linked to the history of the katar -- a point that seems self-evident but has been labored somewhat in this discussion. Katar have been said to be made from broken blades, foreign swords and knives, and various other sources. That seems plausible to me.

I have no firm opinion one way or another whether this is actually a primitive "early" katar. Based on the weight of evidence, I think it probably is not a katar, but I don't know what else it might be. Every now and then we come across a mystery item and nobody knows what it is. This may be one of those times. Sometimes threads are resurrected months or years later with new information coming to light that solves the riddle.

At this point, let's wait for more data. I don't want to shut this thread down over petty disputes and have to spank the naughty boys responsible!

Ian.

I vote for:

Though the shape of the blade is not an exact match to the original subject of this thread it is close enough to show what it was possibly originally intended to be used for. :shrug: This was listed as an "18TH CENTURY LG SIZE PRIMITIVE GARDEN DIBBLE W HAND FORGED BLADE & WOOD HANDLE". Like quite a few items I have saved over the years I wish I could locate the one that belonged to my Great Grandmother to post as another example. Unfortunately like too many other items I have owned, after moving from one place to another it has been misplaced hopefully to be found sometime in the future. :o

Best,
Robert

Robert, only not BINGO because you have it already nailed in your post #53.

Hello,
yes it really look like ! I think you nailed it !
Do you know what's the size of this old dibble ?

If mine is an old 17th-18th dibble it's ok for me,
( first as I wrote , I hesitate to post it in the miscelania forum)

not so glorious as a katar :) but many weapons in martial arts come from peasant tools at first ...



For the ''poor maniability'' argument about ''no'' EARLY form of katar possibility

I just wanted to show you this old pata sword coming from the MET, 17th century with no side bars at all...

Wonderful but really difficult to handle no !?

Kind regards

and here comes another one with a similar blade
corrado26

I disagree my friend.
Easy to handle as it looks like a bichwa handle.
Its more a bichwa / katar than a pata...

Francantolin,
I believe that the blade of this piece was listed at being 14-1/8 inches with the handle being another 4-1/8 inches. Here is another example showing the blade being split in a similar manner to form the handle as seen on your piece. It is more of the size and style of my now missing example.

Corrado26,
A beautiful example still in wonderful condition. What was the description used when identifying this piece? Any idea of its actual dimensions as it appears to be of a smaller size?

Best,
Robert

The name pata comes from the MET museum,
you have to write them a message ;)

For the bichwa handling ergonomy, there is a geometrical difference:
Parralel is not perpendicular :)