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

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[Ian]

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

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Ian

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

[Ian]

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.

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[Mercenary]

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.

[RobT]

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

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by RobT

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.