Zaghnal

[VANDOO]

I THINK MOST OF US ARE NOT CONCERENED WITH OTHERS USING THE INFORMATION OR PICTURES WE POST OPENLY HERE AS THEY SORT OF BECOME PUBLIC DOMAIN WHEN POSTED. BUT AS JIM MENTIONED WE WOULD NOT LIKE OUR INFORMATION OR NAME USED ON SOME LESS THAN HONEST SALE OR DEAL.
FORUM MEMBERS SEEM TO BE INTERESTED IN GAINING AND SHAREING KNOWLEGE NOT IN CAUSING OFFENSE AND WE WOULD ALL SOUND SILLY IF WHEN WE STATED SOMETHING WE HAD LEARNED HERE WE HAD TO ALSO SAY QUOTE AND THE PERSONS NAME AND DATE HE SAID IT.
I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON A REFRENCE STOCKPILE BORROWING PICTURES FOR SOME TIME AND ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS HAVE NEEDED TO USE A PICTURE FROM SOMEONE ELSE TO SHOW WHAT KIND OF SWORD I WAS TALKING ABOUT AND SIMULARITYS OR WHY I REASONED AS I DID. OFTEN IT MAY BE A MEMBERS PICTURE OF A SWORD AND AS I ONLY LABEL THE PICTURE AS TO WHAT IT IS NOT WHERE I GOT IT OR WHO IT BELONGED TO I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT BELONGS TO. SO FAR NO ONE HAS BEEN OPENLY OFFENDED BY THIS AND I HOPE NO ONE HAS BEEN AS NO OFFENSE WAS INTENDED AND I DON'T KNOW WHO TO GIVE CREDIT TO.
ANOTHER GOOD THING ABOUT HAVING THESE PICTURES IS IF THEY GO MISSING FROM OLD POSTS THEY COULD BE REPLACED. WHEN THE PICTURES DISSAPEAR FROM OLD POSTS IT OFTEN MAKES THE POST WAY LESS IMFORMATIVE AS WE CAN NO LONGER SEE THE ITEMS BEING DISCUSSED.
IN THE PAST MANY DEALERS FIX IT SO YOU CAN'T GET THEIR PICTURES AND THEN WHEN THE SALE IS DONE THE PICTURES GO IN THE DELETE TRASH AND ARE LOST FOREVER. IT IS A WASTE BUT THERE IS NO PROBLEM THERE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PUT THEM IN YOUR COMPUTER AND IT IS THE PERSONS CHOICE WHAT HE DOES WITH HIS PICTURES.
LATELY THERE IS SOME OTHER PROGRAM BEING USED THAT ALLOWS YOU TO TAKE THE FILE BUT IT CAN'T BE OPENED, MOVED OR DELETED SO YOU JUST HAVE A DEAD CHUNK OF MEMORY TAKEING UP SPACE IN YOUR COMPUTER FOREVER. IF THIS BECOMES MORE COMMON I WILL HAVE TO STOP BUILDING A REFRENCE AS I WILL SOON HAVE TOO MUCH JUNK THAT I CAN'T PUT IN THE APPROPRIATE FOLDER OR DO ANYTHING WITH AT ALL. SOME OF THESE HAVE HAVE COME FROM FORUM POSTED PICTURES AND IT IS A FAIRLY RECENT THING IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO. ITS KIND OF LIKE GETTING REVENGE ON ANY WHO TRY TO TAKE YOUR PICTURE INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING NO THIS IS MINE (COPYWRITE)
I PERSONALLY DON'T MIND IF SOME ONE USES ANYTHING HE LEARNED FROM ME OR IF A SELLER USES INFORMATION I GAVE TO SELL SOMETHING. IF I WAS LIKE SOME I WOULD SAY KNOWLEGE IS POWER AND HOARD WHAT LITTLE I KNOW AND NEVER SHARE AND GLOAT THAT I KNEW SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T AND TAKE IT TO MY GRAVE WITH ME.
FORTUNATELY THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO COLLECT THIS KNOWLEGE AND LEAVE BOOKS OR PAPERS OR COLLECTIONS WITH CATALOGED INFORMATION FOR THE REST OF US OR WE WOULD KNOW EVEN LESS OF THE HISTORY OF WEAPONS THAN WE DO.
THIS FORUM IS AND WILL BE A VERY VALUABLE RESOURCE IN THE FUTURE.

[Emanuel]

I seem to recall this has happened before, with ebay sellers using the forum as a trust-worthy/formal/definitive source.

Jim, I am merely mining what I read on this very forum from folks like yourself. As for qualifications, few are as qualified as your are, my friend, to talk about arms.

About the zaghnal, is it safe to say that this is indeed a late 19th century piece assembled from miscelaneous other weapons?

Best regards
Emanuel

[Jim McDougall]

When I was a very young collector, I learned very quickly that the most important thing in collecting, weapons in this case, was to absorb every bit of knowledge possible. After many extremely unfortunate instances where I was very much taken advantage of, I started acquiring books. I always wished there was someone I could learn from, but I had no close access to museums, other collectors and the few resources I had were dealers, who were often less than straighforward in many cases (not always, and certainly not all of them, but the key was knowing the difference).

I began a quest for knowledge on weapons that became a lifelong obsession, and always dreamed of establishing a center for the study of the history and development of arms, a place where collectors could seek and share knowledge, and advance this study to preserve this valuable history.

The arrival of the computer brought amazing possibilities, and when I found the forums it was beyond belief! Of the forums I experienced, ours was the most friendly and the members and staff were the most dedicated to the ideals I believed in, and proudly I have been here for over ten years.

I can honestly say, that not only have I learned along with members and staff here, but from them. I have always passionately studied all I could, and in responding, my admittedly epic length posts often seem more like Michener novels (...and then the earth cooled...etc. or Tolstoy........but I have always wanted to find and share all that I could. It is how I learn.

Our forums are virtually my dream, online....and here we all share and learn together. As Vandoo has noted, these forums will be a valuable resource in the future, much as it is now. The research we all spend countless hours on is something that in essence belongs to all of us, and I think that while we are the authors and copyright holders......our words verbatim are in that perview. Our work can be paraphrased or used for information freely, but again .....for commercial purposes....permission for quoted material is best.

I know that I always try to acknowledge the observations or comments of others in my text as I do not want to take credit for thier ideas or thoughts. I do so as I have the highest respect for the knowledge of members here, just as I value thier friendship . I feel very fortunate to be among some of the finest arms scholars in the world here.

With regard to the question on the zaghnal Emanuel (I knew I'd get to that eventually ) I think your views are well placed, and agree with the 19th c. date. It is really hard to tell much from the photos, but I am inclined to think that many weapons in India especially toward latter 19th c. were indeed put together. I suppose the good news would be that the components were often from other damaged or contemporary weapons, so although composite, in many cases they were returned to servicability for use. In this case, your thoughts about the incongruence are well placed as noted.

Thank you Emanuel for the very kind words!!

All the best,
Jim

[Anandalal N.]

Dear Jim,

Your sentiments on the hazards of collecting and regarding what a wonderful and stimulating place this forum is; I shall not dwell on other than to express my wholehearted approval of same.

I am on the following part of the post where we are all trying to make sense of these interesting and miscellaneous pieces that appear from time to time.

With regard to the question on the zaghnal Emanuel (I knew I'd get to that eventually ) I think your views are well placed, and agree with the 19th c. date. It is really hard to tell much from the photos, but I am inclined to think that many weapons in India especially toward latter 19th c. were indeed put together. I suppose the good news would be that the components were often from other damaged or contemporary weapons, so although composite, in many cases they were returned to servicability for use. In this case, your thoughts about the incongruence are well placed as noted.

I wonder if I would be able to pursuade you otherwise in you conclusion that this Zaghnal is a composite made up of components of other weapons by posting images of what is surely the twin of the zaghnal under discussion. In the handling of the piece; to me it appears quite serviceable. Its weight which is well forward only requires you to arm and aim and it moves of its own volition -- almost.

Another issue that arises at least with this type of Zaghnal is that in view of the fact that these Zaghnals have a point and no actual cutting edge they were probably helmet and armour piercing weapons rather than hamstringing.

Regards.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Anandalal N.

Dear Jim,

Your sentiments on the hazards of collecting and regarding what a wonderful and stimulating place this forum is; I shall not dwell on other than to express my wholehearted approval of same.

I am on the following part of the post where we are all trying to make sense of these interesting and miscellaneous pieces that appear from time to time.



I wonder if I would be able to pursuade you otherwise in you conclusion that this Zaghnal is a composite made up of components of other weapons by posting images of what is surely the twin of the zaghnal under discussion. In the handling of the piece; to me it appears quite serviceable. Its weight which is well forward only requires you to arm and aim and it moves of its own volition -- almost.

Another issue that arises at least with this type of Zaghnal is that in view of the fact that these Zaghnals have a point and no actual cutting edge they were probably helmet and armour piercing weapons rather than hamstringing.

Regards.

Hello Anandalal,
I think perhaps you should teach a class in friendly persuasion !! and coupled with a most convincing example to support your case, it would be difficult to resist.
Actually I intended my comments on many Indian weapons often being composites was intended in a broad sense. My comments on this piece noted that Emanuels comments were well placed, based on the seemingly fragile attachment of the blade to the knob on the head block, and its variance from most of the examples shown not having the spike atop.
In reviewing several sources, it does seem that there were extremely wide variants of these, and that the spike atop did appear on some. Also,many of the examples shown had similar knob bases for the blade attachment.

With that, I would note that this example does well correspond to the one you have posted, as well as in degree to others shown in various resources.
It is noted in the brief entries that these were indeed intended for piercing armor (mail) and helmets (probably well turbanned heads as well), so would not have had cutting edges, as you have noted. I have not found the hamstringing reference but suspect that particular use might not be necessarily well supported ( I cannot as yet find the reference and I do not have the Nicolle reference handy).

All the very best,
Jim

[Anandalal N.]

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your valuable comments and clarifications and in particular the reference vis-à-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.

[Jim McDougall]

Hello Anandalal,
Excellent summary of the entries in these resources!
Over many years in discussions here we have discovered that the semantics and transliterations of many descriptive terms for many weapons have resulted in considerable confusion in properly identifying them. In most cases we have resorted to using the commonly used terms found in most of the references used by collectors.
While that brings some relief in carrying out discussions on these forms, I think it is still important to catalog and note these various terms, as often these variations in terminology can reveal important details concerning the development and use of the weapon form.
It seems that 'zaghnal' is more the typically applied term collectively for these dagger axes (while crows bill or beak is more a colloquial term used in various local parlance). It is unclear on the term 'hoolurge' as to whether that refers to the zaghnal or a variation of the weapon (possibly as to whether another blade or hammer type poll, or with/without spike).
The interesting term 'buckie' seems another colloquially applied local reference, as far as I know only seen in Egerton.

These 'zaghnal' seem to have very ancient history, and I personally believe they developed from the Chinese dagger axe.

In discussions here we have also discussed the small version of these in the form of the 'pickaxe' type weapons of certain tribes in Khyber regions known as the 'lohar' (also found in Stone). These are similar in concept and it seems that hamstringing was mentioned in discussions of use of these, although there was a great deal of concern over whether these somewhat diminutive dagger axe type weapons were viable as weapons at all.
While uncertain on the hamstring use, these would seem effective at penetrating turbans, and I think these did have a sharpened edge so the hamstring idea may have some degree of application.

Actually I think the hamstring use of these weapons had never seemed of gret issue previously, as there was more focus on the armor and helmet piercing use, and it is maddening to have included that comment without having referenced it, which I deeply regret.

I do not have access to the Nicolle reference either....frustrating! It is among the many references I do not have with me presently in the bookmobile (RV we are travelling in, 2 years now, and presently in Ozark Mountains with lousy computer signal!).

We'll keep looking,
All the best,
Jim