Indian Katar

[Jens Nordlunde]

Lew,

So far nothing has been said more concrete, but as we are discussing a katar, I guess we are discussing a katar and possible a tulwar hilt. It is true that both katar and tulwar hilts can be found in different sizes, but it is also true, that the bigger part of the hilts are small for Western hands. If we move to khanda/firangi hilts, they are bigger, and I more than doubt, that they were only meant for the ones with beefy hands. One thing could be, the different ways of fighting with the different swords; fighting with some types needed more movement than fighting with another type. Now, let us make it a bit more complicated, have a look at a typical South Indian hilt – it is even smaller than the katar/tulwar hilts. This suggests to me, that the way the swords were held could be different – or they must have had even smaller hands – but I doubt that very much.

Another thing is, if you look at the bronze deities armed with swords, some of the swords have a flat half circle pommel and a short grip. If the proportions are correct, this would suggest that you did not grip it with all fingers, but that the little finger and the hand palm rested on the half disc – but that is another story.


Jens

[Lew]

Jens

Here are a few shots of my 14 year old son holding a katar and tulwar. Notice his hand fits nicely into both. Well he stands 5ft 5 inches tall and weighs 100lbs which helps show that the warriors of 200 years ago were as smalled boned as a modern 14-15 year old teenager.


Lew

[Jens Nordlunde]

Lew,

That is exactly what I mean, thank you for showing. But I mean more than that, I think that you even to day will be able to find many Indians who can easily hold a tulwar or a katar, and I believe it is due to a finer bone structure, than the one most from the western part of the World have.

Nice katar. No decoration, but maybe a dot marking – am I right? If I am right, it maybe could come from the Bikaner armoury.

[B.I]

the hilt size has been an on-going discussion/debate and, as it is all speculation, people tend to stick to their camps and believe what in their own different theories. all are valid, but i fear it cant really go past guesswork.
my theory runs along the same lines as jens. if you go to any 'indian' area, you will see a wide spectrum of cultures, all roped within that continent. however, it is apparant that a large body of indians are small in size (even today). their bone structure is noticibly lighter than normal, and their hands are small. my theory is that these people originate from the early hindus, pre-islamic 'invasion'.
persians, turks, ottomans etc tend to be of a bulkier frame (much like the western form) and i think that with a 1000 or so years of infiltration, the indian body has, in general, incorporated these genes within. so, you have rajputs that are bigger in size but i think that ancestrally, they were much smaller. there are many full grown indians that can easily hold a 'normal' size tulwar and katar.
i have seen/owned many indian pieces of various sizes. in general, they are smaller, but i have pieces that i can easily wield.

[Lew]

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

Lew,



Nice katar. No decoration, but maybe a dot marking – am I right? If I am right, it maybe could come from the Bikaner armoury.

Jens

I am pretty sure this katar is from Bikaner it also has a W11 engraved on the side bar which I was told came from a famous British arms collection the Rotunda at Woolwich that was on display for many years until it was broken up in the middle of the 20th century.

http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/green...ich/rotunda.htm
http://www.oldtowns.co.uk/Kent/woolwich.htm
http://viewfinder.english-heritage....76285&=&JS=True



Lew

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hi Brian, very well described - thank you very much.

Hi Lew, I can't say, 'if you have seen one, you have seen them all', but have a look.

[Lew]

Almost twins! Definately from the same amoury.

Lew

[fernando]

This might be nonsense but, wthin the relative narrowness of the grip between the sword ( tulwar ... ) and the katar, i would adventure that katars may have even got narrower handles than swords as, in the sword you have to be able to swing your wrist, whereas in katars both your hand and forearm are completely aligned inside the long bars ... even sometimes tyed with bandages. So you wouldn't need a "tolerance factor".
I am posting pictures of a ( poor condition ) katar which, in my unitiated eyes, is similar to the one shown by Aurangzeb in this thread opening. The blade is 10 inches long but, in the contrary, the grip section in this one hardly measures a critical 6 cms. I have being reluctant to abandon the boy's katar version as, the shop owner whom i bought it from, is a relatively known weapons historian-writer and has an imense collection. Whereas he didn't ponder all this time on the ( some ) Indian peoples actually slim hands, and just decided to call this piece an adolescent specimen for comercial purposes, is something i find bitter to digest. But as we say over here, even the best cloth gets stained.
Kind regards
fernando