Dear Jim,
Thank you for your valuable comments and clarifications and in particular the reference vis-ŕ-vis my skills in persuasion.
In fact, that is only the initial approach in my usual repertoire failing which the Zaghnal in question may have been brought into the fray.
I have delayed in responding since I have been agonizing over the source of the comment regarding the hamstringing. I have also been looking at the question of Hoolurge and Zaghnal.
The distinction is not clear in Egerton who illustrates three arms of this type. The first called a Zaghnol is from the Ain-I-Akbari.
The second is item 471 called Crow-bill or “Buckie”.
The third is item 716 called a Crow-bill or Hoolurge and has many features in common with the one under discussion.
Stone on the other hand makes a distinction between the two. He refers to Hoolurge as an axe with a thin, curved knifelike blade, of Northern and Central India. He does not illustrate it but refers to Egerton 472 and 716. Egerton item 472 is not illustrated.
Under Zaghnal; Stone states that it is an axe with one or two heavy curved knifelike blades of India and refers to Kaemmerer XXXIX. I wonder if anyone has access to Kaemmerer and could provide this information?
So as far as Stone is concerned the distinction appears to be that the Hoolurge has a single, thin blade while the Zaghnal has one or two heavy blades.
The question is does the word ‘thin’ refer to the width or the thickness of the blade? If the distinction lies in the blade being thin as in reduced thickness of the blade; that would be difficult to observe in the illustrations which are in profile.
There has indeed been much variation in these arms as Stone (Figure 874) illustrates. Note that item 5 there is referred to as one with a thin blade but still called a Hoolurge.
I do not have the Nicolle reference.
Hope this is useful.
Best Regards.