Jamdhar katari - a theory

[Mercenary]

This is ridiculous, but I cannot find in European languages ​​how to translate the Greek term "θηριομαχία" (θηριομαχίᾱͅ) and the cultural phenomenon that stands behind it in traditional societies of the East.

[fernando]

Θηριομαχία η transliterates to Thereumachi, meaning (sort of) a combat with wild beasts .


.

[Mercenary]

fernando, good search ))

But this is not only gladiatorial performances in the arena. In the East, teriomachia was a way of confirmation of the royal power, the status of a hero and leader. Like in story about Akela's hunting in The Jungle Book.

[Jim McDougall]

Wow! guys!!
That was cryptic, Mercenary ,on the East and West thing!!!

"..but there is neither east nor west, border nor breed, nor birth;
when two string men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth".
-Kipling (1889)


But Greek ?!!!! you guys are amazing. Well done and fascinating!

[ariel]

Mercenary,

West and East did not differ that much in olden times. Only in the middle ages and later teriomachia in Europe became a spectator sport, like corridas in Spain and rodeos in Texas.


Of the 12 Labors of Hercules 6 consisted of killing animals.
Samson and the Lion?
Etc, etc, etc....


And let's not forget western royal hunts: wild boars, bears. Alexander III ( Russia) was famous for big game hunting at the very end of 19 century. And what about African safaris by Ted Roosevelt? That had nothing to do with " confirmation of royal power". This was pure testosterone.

West just became less aggressive as it matured, while the East still retained its wild streak. Still, there were multiple Western personalities who loved to test their mettle against big and dangerous beasts. Mostly, this adrenaline-seeking behavior sublimated into rock climbing, car racing, Fight Clubs etc. The East was just lagging behind in its " civilized behavior".

[fernando]

Originally Posted by ariel

... West and East did not differ that much in olden times...

Naturally !

Originally Posted by ariel

... And let's not forget western royal hunts: wild boars, bears. Alexander III ( Russia) was famous for big game hunting at the very end of 19 century...

We also have our local share. Portuguese King Dom Dinis (1278-1325) broke his ascuma (hunting spear) in a bear whom immediately charged back, having the King killed the beast in a body fight. His bastard son was killed by a wild boar after breaking his ascuma when charging on the animal. Other similar historic events are recorded.

Originally Posted by ariel

...That had nothing to do with " confirmation of royal power"...

The only way it had is because when peasants went through such episodes were not covered by the period press as royals did !

Originally Posted by ariel

... West just became less aggressive as it matured, while the East still retained its wild streak...

Indeed !

[Mercenary]

While the wild eastern countries were thinking about the royal power and the royal hunts, highly cultured western countries began to hunt the eastern countries themselves.

[Mercenary]

Returning to the royal hunt in India in the light of Teriomachia. When the first person who as a rule considered himself "a great warrior" and "a fearless hunter", fired at a predator and only wounded him, in most cases the predator attacked in response. And then on its way there were alwais specially trained assistants in most cases with katars. Because these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

... When the first person who as a rule considered himself "a great warrior" and "a fearless hunter", fired at a predator and only wounded him, in most cases the predator attacked in response. And then on its way there were always specially trained assistants in most cases with katars. Because these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s.

A rather plausible approach.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

Returning to the royal hunt in India in the light of Teriomachia.

..... these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s.

What is left, of course, is providing evidence that "their origin and old main purpose" was specifically tiger hunting:-)


Images of brave Indian personalities despatching tigers with katars are ( IMHO) likely to be of mainly glorifying or "advertising" value: bravery of a person fighting supremely dangerous animal one-on-one in close quarters. Multiple Indian miniatures show Rajahs or their close associates on a warpath, in the middle of the battle or just relaxing in the palace and... wearing katars under the belt. These are not hunting scenes and there are no tigers in the vicinity.

The allusion to katars as " tiger hunters" is of dubious value: khanjarli was often referred to as " elephant dagger". But it was not used for hunting elephants: most of them simply had elephant ivory handles ( Orissa was implicated as their origin). A subtype of khanjar with trilobate pommel is routinely called " tiger tooth". Because of the blade reminiscent of tiger's incisor or because of the pommel reminiscent of a molar? Or was it the true "tiger hunter"? A European " boar spear" ( with a horizontal metal "stop") was not necessarily used for boars only. My point is that many weapons had " honorific" monikers.


In general, weapons were developed initially for mixed purpose : both as man-fighting and utilitarian ( hunting included). Subsequently, these functions were largely separated by militarily-developed societies, with only a minority retaining their utilitarian/martial status in less organised societies ( machete in peaceful times, weapon during the war). Purely utilitarian implements are easily recognizable: fishing spear, whaling harpoon, eel catcher, pellet bow etc.

Without delving into documentary evidence and local semantics we are on very shaky grounds.

[kai]

Ok, back to blades:

Returning to the royal hunt in India in the light of Teriomachia. When the first person who as a rule considered himself "a great warrior" and "a fearless hunter", fired at a predator and only wounded him, in most cases the predator attacked in response. And then on its way there were alwais specially trained assistants in most cases with katars.

Seems like "heroic" deeds where mainly for the younger generation to prove themselves worthy (and/or chosen by god) - also a fairly global feature of human societies. I am in no way belittleing the courage as well as determination of hunters and warriors of old (and of many if not most cultures globally).

Because these daggers, by their origin and old main purpose, were "tiger daggers". Of course before 1840s.

So, aside from the probably inconclusive issue of semantics, you base this hypothesis on the possible predominance in paintings (obvious usage in hunting vs. warfare 10:1) only? Does carrying a blade count or does it have to be shown in action? While already having acknowledged that hunts may have been more numerous than battles? For which area on the Indian subcontinent and during which period?

What about early examples from southern India? If only limited to northern India, how do the proportion of blades with thickened tips relate to your hypothesis?


Mind you, I have no stake in this discussion of traditional usage - just trying to understand your reasoning and playing devil's advocate...

Regards,
Kai

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

While the wild eastern countries were thinking about the royal power and the royal hunts, highly cultured western countries began to hunt the eastern countries themselves.

Better not take that road, don't you agree ? .

[kai]

Better not take that road, don't you agree ? .

Ok, Fernando, you beat me to it...

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by fernando

Better not take that road, don't you agree ? .

That is just history. Europeans misunderstanding of Eastern culture always led to mistakes. As in the case of wars and in the case of ... katars.

A rather plausible approach.

Thank you. But this is not an approach. This is a conclusion.

This certainly is not a West vs. East thing: Some of the most extensive political entities build upon imperialist approaches were decidedly "East" by whatever definition: Ottomans, Egypt, Persia, Mongols, China, Japan just to name a very few of the obvious contenders. Like European kingdoms, the kingdoms on the Indian subcontinent where also not exactly peaceful nor abstinent from colonial aspirations. Heck, show me any culture that has a proven track record of not preying upon neighboring ethnic groups and, if given a decent chance, possibly more distant peoples - and you'll have found a very rare and possibly short-lived exception to the rule...

Could you check the difference between Colonization and Colonialism?

[kai]

While the wild eastern countries were thinking about the royal power and the royal hunts, highly cultured western countries began to hunt the eastern countries themselves.

Well, man has always been man's worst enemy. Period.

This certainly is not a West vs. East thing: Some of the most extensive political entities build upon imperialist approaches were decidedly "East" by whatever definition: Ottomans, Egypt, Persia, Mongols, China, Japan just to name a very few of the obvious contenders. Like European kingdoms, the kingdoms on the Indian subcontinent where also not exactly peaceful nor abstinent from colonial aspirations. Heck, show me any culture that has a proven track record of not preying upon neighboring ethnic groups and, if given a decent chance, possibly more distant peoples - and you'll have found a very rare and possibly short-lived exception to the rule...

Regards,
Kai

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

While the wild eastern countries were thinking about the royal power and the royal hunts, highly cultured western countries began to hunt the eastern countries themselves.

Civilization and progress do not imply spinelesness.
On the contrary, they are the engines of technological and military progress.

“Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun and they have not”

However, the Maxim gun took a distant second in accomplishing Western victories over Eastern militaries from times immemorial. Strongly advise a book by Victor Davis Hanson “Carnage and Culture”, an account of West-East military confrontations beginning with ancient Greeks.

As a quick example you might also ponder on the battle of Assaye, where Wellington’s 9,500 soldiers with 17 cannons utterly destroyed Maratha force of 60,000 - 70,000 with > 100 guns.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ariel

Civilization and progress do not imply spinelesness.
On the contrary, they are the engines of technological and military progress.

“Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun and they have not”

However, the Maxim gun took a distant second in accomplishing Western victories over Eastern militaries from times immemorial. Strongly advise a book by Victor Davis Hanson “Carnage and Culture”, an account of West-East military confrontations beginning with ancient Greeks.

As a quick example you might also ponder on the battle of Assaye, where Wellington’s 9,500 soldiers with 17 cannons utterly destroyed Maratha force of 60,000 - 70,000 with > 100 guns.

The West have not been distinguish the technical progress from the culture. Hence the lack of understanding of the phenomenon of traditional weapons in general.