Jamdhar katari - a theory

[Jim McDougall]

I don't think there can be any doubt that many cognate words diffused widely through cultures as languages and dialects evolved from the root languages over time.
The use of the term katar, regardless of spelling, is not really in question but it seems that Egerton who wrote his book in over 10 years prior to first publication in 1880 (republished 1896) transposed the term from the jamdhar -kitari to the transverse grip jamdhar (we now call katar).

As we cannot say for sure when, in the years compiling his data Egerton made this error, we can presume it was well prior to 1880.

Prior to this time, in India, these transverse grip daggers were known as jamdhar (= tooth of god of death, or to that effect). I was unaware of the use of the term 'kuttar' in Russia in 1860 in cataloging of the holdings of the Tsarskye Selo arsenal, and would be interested to know what the weapon described looked like.
If this was indeed the transverse grip 'jamdhar' type, then we may establish the error(?) to precede Egerton, and question whether Pant (1980) had sound evidence of the jamdhar term being correct for these in the first place.


We know, from the extensive research Jens has done over many years, that the term katar has been in use since about 13th century and of course for a dagger, but what type we do not know as no illustrations exist until much later.


We know that the "Ain I Akbari" , Abu'l Fazi , written in years 1551-1602, had a 'fist dagger' called 'maustika' looking of course like a rudimentary katar.

The term katar seems well represented in a number of Indian languages , where the Tamil 'kattari' became the Sanskrit 'katara' (the a dropped later).

With the 'katar' term this deeply embedded in various other languages specifically referring to the transverse grip daggers, I cannot help but question if the term jamdhar evolved as an alternate term at some point.

In this case Egerton was right all along, and the combining of the two terms jamdar-kitari to describe these curious daggers was perhaps Egerton trying to use both terms due to the character of the hilts.

While the katar has an 'H' shaped hilt it is vertically oriented and meant to be held transversely.

The jamdhar-kitari has an 'H' shaped hilt which is horizontal, that is meant to be gripped in the traditional dagger manner.


So possibly the 'katar' term has been correctly describing these transverse grip daggers all along...….and the conundrum brought up by Pant in 1980 setting off a red herring that has persisted since.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Prior to this time, in India, these transverse grip daggers were known as jamdhar (= tooth of god of death, or to that effect). I was unaware of the use of the term 'kuttar' in Russia in 1860 in cataloging of the holdings of the Tsarskye Selo arsenal, and would be interested to know what the weapon described looked like.
If this was indeed the transverse grip 'jamdhar' type, then we may establish the error(?) to precede Egerton, and question whether Pant (1980) had sound evidence of the jamdhar term being correct for these in the first place.

Jim, in my opinion in the picture that I attached to the subject, it is clearly seen that in the catalog of weapons from Tsarskoye Selo is described the transverse grip 'jamdhar' type... Post № 180

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Jim, in my opinion in the picture that I attached to the subject, it is clearly seen that in the catalog of weapons from Tsarskoye Selo is described the transverse grip 'jamdhar' type... Post № 180

Thank you for redirecting that, I overlooked it. So there we have the transverse grip c. 1860 which would likely precede Egerton's notes even if as early as 1860s-70s. It seems unlikely that Egerton would have had access to Russian notes or materials given the climate of relations in these times with Crimean War and its aftermath.


Again, I question Pant's declaration of the proper term for the transverse grip dagger being jamdhar, and suggest perhaps it was an alternative term. This of course completely overturns the notion I have long held that Pant was correct, and now compels rethinking.


That is the thing with research and assertions which have long stood sacrosanct in venerable volumes and long held views in the arms community, they are always subject to revision. Most authors not only expect this, but implore it, as the search for truth and accuracy needs to be relentless.
'

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Thank you for redirecting that, I overlooked it. So there we have the transverse grip c. 1860 which would likely precede Egerton's notes even if as early as 1860s-70s. It seems unlikely that Egerton would have had access to Russian notes or materials given the climate of relations in these times with Crimean War and its aftermath.
'

Dear Jim, you will be surprised, but Egerton saw items of weapons with descriptions from Tsarskoe Selo. This information is in his book:
A Description of Indian and Oriental Armour: Illustrated from the Collection Formerly in the India Office, Now Exhibited at South Kensington, and the Author's Private Collection

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mahratt

Dear Jim, you will be surprised, but Egerton saw items of weapons with descriptions from Tsarskoe Selo. This information is in his book:
A Description of Indian and Oriental Armour: Illustrated from the Collection Formerly in the India Office, Now Exhibited at South Kensington, and the Author's Private Collection

Mahratt and Gustav, thank you so much guys!!! This is what discussion is all about......sharing info which someone is unaware of and which very much alters comments and observations. Excellent!!!!
I do not know the Tsarskoe Selo collection and totally missed these details in Egerton.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Thank you for redirecting that, I overlooked it. So there we have the transverse grip c. 1860 which would likely precede Egerton's notes even if as early as 1860s-70s. It seems unlikely that Egerton would have had access to Russian notes or materials given the climate of relations in these times with Crimean War and its aftermath.

Jim, in Egerton's book there is a short chapter about Malayan and Indonesian arms. Plate VIII in it contains some quite detailed drawings of a Keris in the collection of Czar of Russia. So there is at least a possibility he has access to some materials from Russia.

[ariel]

Yes, and the frontispiece shows sabers from the Tsarskoye Selo collection.
How Kaffirs themselves called their daggers? Since in the past they were at least in part Hinduists and the language of Hinduism was Sanskrit, they likely called any knife/dagger Ch'hura.
When they became Muslims, the Turkish influence ( if there was one) would advocate for Chaqu.

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

We know that the "Ain I Akbari" , Abu'l Fazi , written in years 1551-1602, had a 'fist dagger' called 'maustika' looking of course like a rudimentary katar.

Jim, excuse me, I do not know very well the whole text of "Ain I Akbari", but in the chapter on weapons there is definitely no such dagger.

[Mercenary]

In the 19th, 20th, 21th and even in 31th centuries, we can call these daggers as we please. But it is perfect for sure that in the 16th century the wide dagger with transverse grip was called "jamdhar", and the narrow dagger with ordinary handle - katar. This is documented facts.

Jim, you are absolutely right that the word "katara" was widespread in India. This word was used for all type of weapons that could cut (before the catalog of Lord Egerton became known in India through the work of Dr. Pant). Like all swords were "tulwars".

Very interesting how Kafirs themself called their daggers? I strongly suspect that "chura" or so. Didn't they?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

In the 19th, 20th, 21th and even in 31th centuries, we can call these daggers as we please. But it is perfect for sure that in the 16th century the wide dagger with transverse grip was called "jamdhar", and the narrow dagger with ordinary handle - katar. This is documented facts.

Jim, you are absolutely right that the word "katara" was widespread in India. This word was used for all type of weapons that could cut (before the catalog of Lord Egerton became known in India through the work of Dr. Pant). Like all swords were "tulwars".

Very interesting how Kafirs themself called their daggers? I strongly suspect that "chura" or so. Didn't they?

I surely don't know the text of these volumes either of the Ain I Akbari, the corpus of the the "Akbarnama" of Mughal culture. I only know the plates I have seen with the transverse grip which I believe was called 'moustika', and this term is another puzzling type of gauntlet type weapon seen in Stone and Calvert ("Spanish Arms and Armor". 1907).

It is great to know that the term jamdhar was documented as for the transverse grip in 16th c. and I do know that katar was used for the regular hilt dagger as shown in Burton and Stone et al.
What I was trying to determine was at what point the terms became switched.
While it seems moot, it does make a difference in reading early contemporary accounts where we cannot visually know the weapon they refer to.

The term chura, if I recall correctly and understand, was a colloquial term used in Northwest Frontier regions for small knives of the pesh kabz variety. I do not think the Kalash (Kafirs) people would have that term in their lexicon, but who knows, dialects diffuse through these regions. That would be a good thing to look into further.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

The term chura, if I recall correctly and understand, was a colloquial term used in Northwest Frontier regions for small knives of the pesh kabz variety. I do not think the Kalash (Kafirs) people would have that term in their lexicon, but who knows, dialects diffuse through these regions. That would be a good thing to look into further.

In the opinion of Trail Ronald L. and Cooper Gregory R. The "knife" in Kalash sounds: "katar" (Kalasha Dictionary)