Katar dagger, Rajput (?) late 18th c (?)
 

This 'katar' seems to correspond to an example shown in an interesting article in OBJET.art (linked) and I would appreciate comments.
The article example shown as of this 'punch' type is compared to one taken from the Thanjavur armory in 1855 with East India Company confiscating and dispersing many weapons either sold, or scrapped.
It would seem most South Indian katars are notably of the hooded type, but many weapons from the siege at Adoni in 1689 were taken to the armory at BIKANER by Anup Singh, ruler of Bikaner at that time in Rajasthan. Enormous numbers of arms and armor were taken from Adoni to Bikaner, and these are ubiquitously identified with entry numbers (in 1691) which are in script which are stippled dots .
The example in the article comparing to this one is noted as in the holdings of the Danish Royal Kunsthammer museum (inv. # EDb38) and apparently first recorded there in 1674.

So could this be an example of the type even earlier (17th c.) which was in use by Rajputs in Bikaner etc. as early as 17th c. into and through 18th?
It does not seem to correspond to the hooded or other South Indian forms of katar.

Jim,

You raise some interesting questions. There is a similarity to the example in the Danish museum, so a 17th C piece seems possible. BTW, I note that the two narrow fullers run through the tip of the blade. Is it possible this was a longer blade on a sword that was broken or cut down to create this katar?

Regards, Ian

Thanks Ian! I was surprised at the similarity, and have always thought of this as optimistically 18th c. Rajput, as it seems to correspond with other such examples.
I think it was indeed a full length blade cut down from a full size arming blade of 17th c. but hard to tell. Many European blades were coming into western India through Maratha traders as described by Elgood (2004). These of course diffused notably especially into the Rajasthan regions north.

I attached the katar from Danish museum photo for comparison (from OBJET article), noted as c.1674.

Best regards,
Jim

Thanks Jim. I see that the one in the Danish Museum has an extra hole below its present mounting at "forte," which suggests to me that it was mounted differently at one time. Perhaps the blade came from a sword that was damaged and converted into a katar also. Both blades could be foreign (firangi), as you suggest.

I remember Jens was trying to date when the katar appeared. IIRC correctly, he concluded it was sometime around the 16-17th C, so yours could be an early example.

Hi Ian,
I recall the discussions of 10 years ago, and Jens was indeed trying to establish the origins of the katar, or the transverse grip weapon form dagger. I think the presumption that the use by Rajputs was sometime in 16th c. but the rest of the origins are unclear. It was of course well established in South India likely some time much earlier, but iconographic resources do not seem to present reliable assessment as the friezes and architectures evolved over centuries.

From what I understand, my katar is classified loosely as Deccani, but the Rajput association I think still stands in degree. I recall you presented pretty compelling evidence of the 16th c. Rajput status.

I agree on the hole, and likely the blade was remounted from another hilt form.

Jim, thanks for sharing this beautiful dagger!

Rajput culture largely followed Mughal culture. Your dagger is closer to Deccan culture.

P.S. Lumping the Deccan sultanates and the Vijayanagara Empire into a single category called "South India" is a strategic mistake. It will haunt us for many years to come.

Thank you so much Mercenary, it is very gratifying to see one of my weapons acquired many years ago when my knowledge of Indian arms was so elementary noted with such recognition. It is a most complex field, and I still feel relatively a novice as I return to these studies of years ago.

What I have come to understand is that in the study of India, and its arms, there are separate denominators in approach, whether geographic, cultural, linguistic or religious to consider the broader spectrums.

I agree that the Rajput culture largely was aligned with that of the Mughals, although they were in degree often either aligned or at odds with them. As often the case naturally this would vary depending on the clans and varied groups in the Rajput spectrum and in different periods.

With the Deccan, again, it is a matter of perspective in determining exactly what parameters comprised the Deccan, but your point is well made that the 'Southern India' description is far too broad and ill defined to accurately depict these complex regions and the peoples and cultures within.

To describe the Vijayanagara kingdom as in any way connected to the Sultanates of Deccan under the heading 'South India' is as ludicrous as lumping Texas into the rest of the states in the U.S. culturally. :)

As you note, many of these faux pas in the years of literature on Indian arms and studies do remain a haunting element in circulating resources.

Returning to katars for example, the 'name game' as we have called it here in the many years of contentious debate, as Pant (1980) revealed.....these transverse grip daggers were actually 'jamdhar' NOT katar, which was more the traditional dagger/knife form. The transposing of the terms in Egerton (if I recall) forever made the dagger....the katar...as every arms writer following simply perpetuated the improper term.

I dont think we ever reached a consensus on the origins of the katar, and just how far into antiquity these distinctly configured daggers existed. What can be agreed on is that they were likely known to the Rajputs by late 16th c. and that they were well known in this open hilt form in the Deccan as well.

The 'South Indian' (just kidding)..Vijayanagara form was in variation with a 'hood'which was a gauntlet type hand guard. These of course appear to have been the prototypes for the gauntlet sword, pata.

All best regards
Jim

Thank you, Jim, for publishing this wonderful piece. Katars are such a fascinating topic! Your example is quite classic, with deep chiseling and probably a European blade.
I immediately found a number of very similar examples and selected three pieces from different world museums to show the variations — giving you a range of dates and origins from the 17th to 19th centuries. 😄

https://objet.art/as/subscriptions/6...cb69001f99b0ce

https://objet.art/as/subscriptions/6...cb69001f99b0ce

https://objet.art/as/subscriptions/6...cb69001f99b0ce

And yes, Arthur Bijl is doing a great job keeping everything clear and focused on verified facts. There was also a wonderful recent article on South Indian so-called “Hooded Katars” from private collections — it honestly felt like browsing through a beautifully illustrated album from the old days. What did you think of it? https://objet.art/as/articles/68de54ba95a5c4789ff22de5

Probably much earlier:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...06&postcount=6

Thank you Turkoman! especially for providing these links to these examples.
It is extremely hard to date examples of Indian arms as the elemental conventions remained essentially the same overall structurally for centuries, and only certain nuances can determine the period of a weapon in degree.

It is always safe to estimate 19th century in the assessment of most examples as a prudent measure, while some writers have have been somewhat boldly optimistic in their captioning. As can be seen, with my example there are striking similarities with it compared to the two examples with 19th c. date and the one from the Danish collection, all virtually the same rather austere straight form.
The blades on these all appear of course of foreign origin, and as previously noted, the numerous times these blades have been used in various hilts is uncertain.

For many years of course, the standard reference was the 1885 work by Egerton, which derived mostly from cataloging the collections in British museum holdings from some decades prior to publishing his work. With this of course, most supposed provenance and classifications were second hand at best from items collected in the British Raj in India. Even with this being the case, most of his entries are surprisingly accurate, with minor qualifications.

I am very much enjoying the numerous articles being presented at OBJET, and Arthur Bijl is doing a great job at approaching these Indian arms topics.
We have had wonderful discussions here on Indian arms over the past decades, and OBJET as new venue publishing articles on these esoteric fields presents new resources to augment our studies and discussions here.

I hope that we can further our discussions here, as this new resource presents material and examples from international sources that can help us better understand and evaluate these often very esoteric arms. I know I am learning a great deal on weapons I've owned for decades, and now I see them in entirely new light!

Agreed, the Rajputs moved eastward as far as Orissa regions, and as far north as Nepal of course over centuries. It would be hard to imagine the diffusion of the transverse grip punch dagger did not diffuse widely regardless of point and time of origin. If the Rajputs already had this weapon in their armories by the late 16th c. it seems likely they were exposed to the form far earlier from these sources where it was already extant. As always, its hard to relate reliably in what period this could have taken place, but the plausibility is there.

It seems that Jens was trying to find the actual weapon presented in Holstein, but cannot recall whether he had located it or not. He did have access to the Holstein collection which was stored away in the Swiss museum. In my opinion this mysterious weapon had to have been for slashing and not thrusting, which was the manner of use for the Vijayanagara katars and the pata.

The weapon shown appears in "The Antiquities of Orissa" Mitra Rajendralala, Govt. of India, Reprint Indian States, 1875, Calcutta, 1961, item #205
Stated drawn from Gauri Temple frieze, construction 10th-11th c.

Hanging Hole?
 

The hole in the blade may well have been from a different hilt mounting but isn't equally plausible that it was made as a mounting hole to display the dagger on a wall or plaque?

Sincerely,
RobT

Good note Rob, and that has been the case with numbers of swords we have seen through the years. It seems a travesty, but years ago many old weapons were seen simply as displays rather than valuable pieces of history.