Indian Katar

[Lew]

Newbie

Most of these katars are from the 1700s and early 1800s people in general were smaller than we are today therefore smaller people smaller hands. My grandparents who first arrived from Europe in the late 1800s were small grandpa was 5'4" and grandmother was 4'10" I am 5'11" tall so go figure?


Lew

[CollectingNewbie]

I figured after the frist few katars Ive owned and the articles Ive seen that it was the case that they were just generaly smaller, Ive noticed it in other daggers and even swords I have that the handles were for smaller hands. And generaly speaking from my knoledge on the era wasnt it standard for younger people to be made up of most of the armies, maybe Im mistaken, but it seems as though it would make sense that more young people were used as people didnt live as long especially in times of war.

[Lew]

I would say 18 yrs would have been the starting point for most and you would be at almost full height by that age. So if you mean young 16 might be the limit I am sure there were no 12yr olds running around the battle field swinging swords. Average height back then was around 5ft 2inches-5ft 7 inches and 125 lbs-150lbs for men.

[Jens Nordlunde]

People living several hundred years ago were no doubt, like Lew says, smaller than people living to day. If we accept Lew’s theory, that their hands were slimmer than the hands of people living to day, and to this add a finer bone structure, then the hands of the Indians living one or two hundred years ago, would no doubt have fitted a katar or tulwar hilt. There is however one thing, which bothers me with the theory, that tall people, has big hands but people being not so tall have small hands. I am rather tall, but I know people a head smaller than I am, with hands as big, or almost as big, as mine. However, the Chinese, Thai and Indians I have met, all have a finer bone structure than I have, and therefore slimmer hands. It could, of course, also be that Lew’s theory holds, so it would be a combination of smaller size and finer bone structure.

[Tim Simmons]

It is a difficult question as there are a great many Indian weapons with what you think of as a normal hand grip. In some environments males may come of age and enter the adult world at 14/15. Add to that a poor diet and all the stuff about bone structure. You would need a smaller grip.

[Lew]

Jens

We are bigger boned due to our Viking genes I actually have an old tulwar with a larger hilt that my hand fits into so maybe some swords were fitted with larger hilts to accommodate taller larger warriors.

Lew

[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