Jamdhar katari - a theory

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

..., Whether on khanda or pata, these blades were strictly prestige oriented as there were no provisions for European fencing techniques in indian swordsmanship.

May i fully disagree, Jim. On the contrary, patas were mainly used in the field, despite requiring exclusively oriented training on their own, the reason why these formidable Mahrata swords were not adopted by other nations. Prestige orientation was not the issue.
The deliberate flexibility of the blade, with a length varying from 120 to a 150 centimeters, was an added advantage, because if it hit across a hard or resistant object, it merely bent over and thus prevented the rider from being unhorsed. You are surely aware of Egerton quoting Capt. Mundys journal, recounting a demonstration of the pata: The gauntlet sword whose blade fully 5 feet long in the hands of a practiced swordsman appears a terrible weapon, though to those unaccustomed to its use, it is but an awkward instrument ... the performer describing a variety of revolutions, not unlike an exaggerated waltz.
These assumptions are not distant from those of Rainer Daehnhardt, who also emphasizes the need for special training of these ideal (SIC) swords.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

May i fully disagree, Jim. On the contrary, patas were mainly used in the field, despite requiring exclusively oriented training on their own, the reason why these formidable Mahrata swords were not adopted by other nations. Prestige orientation was not the issue.
The deliberate flexibility of the blade, with a length varying from 120 to a 150 centimeters, was an added advantage, because if it hit across a hard or resistant object, it merely bent over and thus prevented the rider from being unhorsed. You are surely aware of Egerton quoting Capt. Mundys journal, recounting a demonstration of the pata: The gauntlet sword whose blade fully 5 feet long in the hands of a practiced swordsman appears a terrible weapon, though to those unaccustomed to its use, it is but an awkward instrument ... the performer describing a variety of revolutions, not unlike an exaggerated waltz.
These assumptions are not distant from those of Rainer Daehnhardt, who also emphasizes the need for special training of these ideal (SIC) swords.

Are we still talking about European 'rapier blades'??? These thin blades for civilian combat/dueling/fencing were entirely inadequate on the battlefield, which was why swords with similar hilts/guards began having 'arming' blades. These were heavier blades, wider and still flexible.

I have no problem with the actual viability and skills of Indian swordsmen with pata and khanda, but with narrow, thin rapier blades (as in cup hilt rapiers)? I have seen and had many 'firangi' pata and khanda with good size blades, and have always been impressed with the way they were used as such. From what I have understood, the Marathas had great disdain for the thrust, which of course was the primary function of the rapier blades I was referring to.

[Bob A]

Jim, neither of the two katars in the post responding to a request for pics of my katar are jamdhal kataris, nor did either of them come through Artzi.

I thought I might as well illustrate both of the katars I have at present, since the scalloped one is unusual and attractive, and I bethought myself that it would be of some interest to folk here.

My jamdhal katari came from Artzi recently, and is illustrated in my earlier post on the topic.

I understand the confusion which currently reigns supreme on the topic, and the emotions which sometimes are inspired by the Name Game; this is of little interest to me just now. My interest is driven by the nature of the jamhhal katari and its reason for being.

My current understanding is that it hails from Kafiristan, or Nuristan, or whatever the region might be called, which refuted my earlier speculation regarding a more southerly origin, which appears to be erroneous.

I took the liberty of mentioning chillanum, due to the nature of the hilts having passing similarity. Again, following the lead of the OP in indulging in speculation which might strike a spark, perhaps leading to some insight. Or it might just be a passing derailment of our trains of thought.

I'm further interested, viewing examples early and late, in the gradual evolution of the hilt design, and questioning whether these changes represent evolution or devolution of design as a function of utility. Seem to me, based merely on appearance of later examples, that the earlier ones would be more utilitarian, while still being more elegantly rendered than the later examples.

If there is interest, I'd gladly post up more pics of my jamdhal katari (so called) to illustrate the nature of the hilt. While photos are available on Artzi's site, I continue to be charmed by the various treatments seen in the hilt - which seems to be hollow, which contributes to its remarkable (lack of) mass.

If I have contributed more than my share of confusion to the subject, I either apologise or accept credit for extending the breadth of the dialogue, whichever might be found appropriate.

[Jim McDougall]

Bob, thank you for the thoughtful and well expressed explanation, and now I can see we are pretty much on the same page.
There has always been a degree of confusion on these pages, mostly simple misunderstandings or that often people post without reading what has previously been said. With threads of this size and duration it is understandable as few care to read back through sometimes years of dialogue.

While I have reread this thread I overlooked the jamadhar katari that you mention and your well placed observation on the similar holds of this and the katar. Actually that was what I had I mind when I posted the image of the Kafir man holding one of these.

As I had described earlier, my research on the Kafirs began nearly 20 years ago with a colleague in Germany researching their axes. I became even more intrigued by watching the movie "Man Who Would be King" based on Kipling's writing and focused on Kafiristan.

Later I became connected with a Kalash man here in the US but intent on preserving the culture and language of his people now in Chitral.

The chilanum comparison is a fair one, and these jamadhar katari have some resemblance, but as you note, the chilanum is it seems farther south.

The jamadhar katari, though I regret having to defer to the maddening name game, I think we need to clear up.

These are actually 'katarah' (jamadhar thing is totally Egerton)….and the katar (transverse grips) is a jamadhar. With katar, the term has become too 'died in the wool' to change, so we keep calling them that.

With the KATARAH, these are little known and unlikely to cause great disturbance in the collectors lexicon by using this simpler term instead of the compound.

These have been around for some time, and I have even seen examples with the Afghan state seal etc. As with most traditional weapons, earlier ones were of course more utilitarian, becoming less so and more decorative in recent times.

The Hindu Kush regions of Afghanistan to the east are where the lands of these people historically were termed Kafiristan, but after subjugation by Abdur Rahman in 1890s, were named Nuristan.
The Kalash people primarily in Chitral are deemed loosely aligned with the Kafirs, but more research needed there. Diffusion in these regions is of course complex.

Hopefully what I have noted may help in some degree, and clearly I need to retrace these details myself again..its been too many years.

[ariel]

I am with Fernando.
Mahratta irregular cavalry was a very disorganized bunch: none of the British Light Brigade iron discipline or Mongolian tightly coordinated feint attacks. They just rode full gallop without any order, clashed with the opposing force , slashed two or three times , and turned back full speed. Their mass-produced Patas ( Portuguese “paws”? Fernando, how am I doing?) were very flexible , designed to slash and bounce, distantly reminiscent of South Indian/ Sri Lankan Urumi.
My Pata is so flexible, that if an opponent tries to parry the cut with his sword, my blade will just bend around it and hit him behind the block.

These attacks must have left behind very few dead , but multiple wounded and disabled men and horses.

[ariel]

This particular name game ( jamadhar vs. katar) is not very productive unless based on extremely thorough knowledge of Great Indian linguistics.
Currently, Indian government accepts 22 official languages and 6 special ones. Overall, there are 122 major languages, and 1599 “other” languages.
Thirty languages are spoken by more than a million “native speakers”, and 122 by more than 10,000. How many simply vanished over the past 1000 years is a scary thought.

Different weapons might have been given similarly sounding names and same weapons - differently sounding ones. Mysore/ Haiderabadi Bich’hwa, Baku from Kannada and Marathi Vinchu - are the same weapon. So is Jamdhar and Katar, but in different locations. Add to it transliterations by the British: Seilawa in Afghanistan and sailaba in Deccan, - almost identical weapons, but the former one became known as Khyber knife, and the latter is so esoteric, that only devoted readers of Elgood’s Glossary know what it means.

These questions must be left to professional linguists who, on top of their deep knowledge of languages, are thoroughly familiar with long and complicated history of India, population migrations, conquests, subjugations etc., as well as with weapons themselves. This is a tall order, but anything less than that will only lead to embarrassing “ discoveries” . We have had some of those published here and that’s enough already.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

Their mass-produced Patas ( Portuguese “paws”? Fernando, how am I doing?) were very flexible , designed to slash and bounce, distantly reminiscent of South Indian/ Sri Lankan Urumi...

Well said Ariel ... the translation, but not the attribution, i am afraid.
I would rather tend to the version in which the patá (पट) comes from the "Pathans, a subdivision of the Kchatrya cast, or Indian warriors, devoted to military life, in his fatherland as in other nations" (Friar Sebastião Manrique 1590 -1669). But i wouldn't put my hand on the chopping block for that ... even my (already) chopped off one .

[Jens Nordlunde]

Are we now discussing patas, should they not be discussed on another thread?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Are we still talking about European 'rapier blades'??? These thin blades for civilian combat/dueling/fencing were entirely inadequate on the battlefield, which was why swords with similar hilts/guards began having 'arming' blades. These were heavier blades, wider and still flexible.

I have no problem with the actual viability and skills of Indian swordsmen with pata and khanda, but with narrow, thin rapier blades (as in cup hilt rapiers)? I have seen and had many 'firangi' pata and khanda with good size blades, and have always been impressed with the way they were used as such. From what I have understood, the Marathas had great disdain for the thrust, which of course was the primary function of the rapier blades I was referring to.

Perhaps the best is to call off the 'rapier' concept from the conversation, due to the amplitude within which the term may navigate. In the extreme, rapier (ropera) blades can be extremely thin, even diamond section and tense like spikes, with points like tooth picks ... but also non troppo.
Patas could (should) be relatively flat narrow... flexible and long, with lengths even greater than regular European blades of the period. Commissioned for the purpose to Venetian and Portuguese traders, exception (possibly) made for those of swords captured in earlier times (end XV beg. XVI Centuries), as then these were not lengthier than the ones used in Europe ... pass the off mark examples.
Blades occasionally made locally were more to the junk side.

.