Is the chakma redundant?

[bdgackle]

I have been thinking a lot about the traditional karda and chakma combo, and there is something bothering me. It seems like both edges of the chakma are pretty much the same thing as the spine of the karda. Can the back of the karda not do the chakma's job just as effectively as the chakma itself?

On the other hand, steel is historically very expensive, so a redundant tool would not have been included. I tend to trust that this is a well thought out tool system, so perhaps there is something I am missing.

It seems possible you would need a chakma to maintain the karda. Perhaps the back of a khuk is too soft to serve this purpose? Any other ideas?

I am tempted to replace the chakma with a ferrocerium rod embedded in the same handle, based on the reasoning above. I hesitate, though, because tradition usually has a good reason - figuring those reasons out often makes a tool more useful.

 

[Karda]

Normally the chakmak is hardened to be able to burnish the blade, not something you would really want to do with the backside of your khukuri or karda on a regular basis.
Back when these things were designed there were no ferro rods.
You would probably be hard pressed to find one even today in Nepal besides in the bigger cities such as Kathmandu.
Traditionally made khukuri come with the traditional accoutrements, but you may replace them with whatever you like.

 

[Howard Wallace]

As I recall the YCS was designed with 2 kardas and an awl, following the logic in your post.

 

[bdgackle]

Normally the chakmak is hardened to be able to burnish the blade, not something you would really want to do with the backside of your khukuri or karda on a regular basis.
Back when these things were designed there were no ferro rods.
You would probably be hard pressed to find one even today in Nepal besides in the bigger cities such as Kathmandu.
Traditionally made khukuri come with the traditional accoutrements, but you may replace them with whatever you like.

Karda, do you mean by this that the optimal hardness for a burnishing tool is higher than the optimal harndess for the karda - ie that the chakma would have been the hardest piece of metal in the kit, and that a karda hard enough to burnish would be too hard to make a good knife?

 

[Steely_Gunz]

Karda, do you mean by this that the optimal hardness for a burnishing tool is higher than the optimal harndess for the karda - ie that the chakma would have been the hardest piece of metal in the kit, and that a karda hard enough to burnish would be too hard to make a good knife?

Traditionally speaking, yes. I would imagine that you would have your khuk with its zoned hardened sweet spot, and you would have your karda left pretty soft so that it could be easily honed to a razor's edge for fine work. The chakma would be made very hard as to be able to work out dings and rolling edges of the khuk and chakma. Obviously, you can make a very good knife with a harder edge. However, the karda was more of a fine work knife that did not require a super hard long lasting edge. It was made to do some very fine work and be easily touched up in the field like the khuk. The Chakma would be hard enough to steel the edge and strike a fire.

That said, most khuks these days come with the traditional tools just for that reason...tradition. While most chakmas will do a decent job burnishing, I have only had a handful that would strike a spark. For me, I generally make a flatter sheath for my khuk to keep the bulk down and rely on the tools I have on my person on a daily basis to fill in the blanks.

 

[Karda]

I will go with Jakes explanation.
Thanks Buddy!