Multiple mekugi-ana theory

[John C]

Fellow enthusiasts:

In an effort to find out as much as possible about my wakizashi, I started to research the reasons for two mekugi-ana, one of which was drilled/punched through the mei. After reading multiple threads on NMB, I came across an article by Tanner and Coutinho that I thought presented an interesting theory on the topic. I was hoping to get your collective input as to the validity of the theory they present. 

 

In reference to the placement and number of mekugi-ana, Tanner and Coutinho (2019) contend there were factors related to fashion and style, rather than suriage or tsuka length, that precipitated adding another mekugi-ana. They note that: 

 

“In the kanagu of the latter part of the Muromachi and Momoyama periods, short fuchi with low koshi are conspicuous and thin tsuba are more prevalent. On the other hand, in the beginning of the Edo era, the koshi of the fuchi became long and the thickness of the tsuba increased. Therefore, the position of the mekugi ana was moved away from the imaginary line connecting the ha-machi to the mune-machi.” 

 

At least some of their conclusions were drawn because of the consistency in distance between the original mekugi-ana and the later addition in the swords they sampled. Specifically, they found the two mekugi-ana were 1cm apart on tanto and 2cm apart on wakizashi and katana. Additionally, Tanner and Coutinho (2019) suggest the ana added at a later date is most often the one incidentally put through the mei. I suspect most of you have read this article before, however I have included the address below for those who haven’t and would like to. 

https://to-ken.uk/onewebmedia/Article%20about%20the%20position%20of%20the%20mekugi%20%2016%2005%202019.pdf

 

Thank you for your input.

Regards, John C.

[b.hennick]

For those of us who use dark mode, it is very difficult to read this font color. If I want to read your post I have to change the theme to the default and then when finished I have to change back. 

[Fuuten]

That's a pretty good read. Thank you for sharing. I'll have to read up on mekugi-ana to add anything of value.

 

And I had the same difficulty as Barry (though to to read I always select the text to make it more visible - avoiding having to change themes or addon). On the subject though, opening the file was so bright! I haven't found a good way to darkmode pdfs in a way that it doesn't cause issues.

[John C]

Sorry everyone. The font color and style look fine on my end (I use a Mac pro) so I was unaware of the problem. I will figure it out for future posts. Thank you for letting me know.

 

John C. 

[Alex A]

One thing i learned not so long ago. Had to drill holes through 6mm steel to make some brackets and bought some cheap "steel" drill bits off Ebay. With a modern drill started drilling away and low and behold got to 3mm and they started smoking, had to buy cobalt bits.

 

Got me thinking about ana, thought to myself, wouldn't want to be drilling them unless really needed to. Dont know anything about the old Japanese drills but would find that interesting.

 

Anyways, as mentioned elsewhere. Scavenging on a battlefield after a battle, no doubt if you came across something better and it fit, you might put it in your pocket so to speak. Only if you were using the family heirloom sword, otherwise you would just swap swords. Whether or not you could get a smith to drill you a new ana there and then i dont know. See them being really busy turning broken katana into waks and what not. You would just drill a new hole near the existing hole.

 

Some folk mention that a new ana is needed when a new koshirae is fitted. No doubt that happened but you could use the existing ana could you not ?, simply mark the hole and drill.  Sometimes you see really large round ana, maybe an adjustment.

 

Anyways, just some early morn thoughts.

 

 

 

[John C]

Alex:

As a woodworker, I agree that it would be far easier to drill through wood than through steel, in essence making a new hole in a new handle. The difficulty is lining up the existing hole in the nakago. I guess the real question is whether or not we find two mekugi-ana on gendaito and showa-era swords. If so, the argument about fashion in the Edo period seems less salient.

 

John C. 

[Alex A]

Hi John,

 

Sometimes you see larger drilled holes. No evidence but sometimes i think they may have been drilled through existing holes as adjustments for fit.

 

Also, got seppa thickness and if necessary could file the habaki for miner adjustments when swapping tsuba/tsuka

[DoTanuki yokai]

And how you switch back when you file away something.

Everday they carried their Daisho set but when they visit the shogun they had to wear a Tachi Koshirae.
Also working in Edo castle only black Saya and Shakudo Tsuba with gold Mon and Horn F/K were the rule. 
 

And their are far more celebrations with rules that say how your blade should be mounted for this occasions. 
 

Having some Koshirae to switch is much cheaper then a blade and they don’t want Mekugi under Tsukaito and stuff like this. Every Koshirae should look right so they make Mekugiana. 
 

 

[Jacques D.]

8 hours ago, John C said:

Fellow enthusiasts:

In an effort to find out as much as possible about my wakizashi, I started to research the reasons for two mekugi-ana, one of which was drilled/punched through the mei. After reading multiple threads on NMB, I came across an article by Tanner and Coutinho that I thought presented an interesting theory on the topic. I was hoping to get your collective input as to the validity of the theory they present. 

 

In reference to the placement and number of mekugi-ana, Tanner and Coutinho (2019) contend there were factors related to fashion and style, rather than suriage or tsuka length, that precipitated adding another mekugi-ana. They note that: 

 

“In the kanagu of the latter part of the Muromachi and Momoyama periods, short fuchi with low koshi are conspicuous and thin tsuba are more prevalent. On the other hand, in the beginning of the Edo era, the koshi of the fuchi became long and the thickness of the tsuba increased. Therefore, the position of the mekugi ana was moved away from the imaginary line connecting the ha-machi to the mune-machi.” 

 

At least some of their conclusions were drawn because of the consistency in distance between the original mekugi-ana and the later addition in the swords they sampled. Specifically, they found the two mekugi-ana were 1cm apart on tanto and 2cm apart on wakizashi and katana. Additionally, Tanner and Coutinho (2019) suggest the ana added at a later date is most often the one incidentally put through the mei. I suspect most of you have read this article before, however I have included the address below for those who haven’t and would like to. 

https://to-ken.uk/onewebmedia/Article%20about%20the%20position%20of%20the%20mekugi%20%2016%2005%202019.pdf

 

Thank you for your input.

Regards, John C.

 

[Jacques D.]

I am not going to enter again in this debate, I already gave explanations but I am very skeptical about this "study" which seems to me far-fetched and without solid references.

[Alex A]

If you have not already read this John, worth a read as mentions quite a few combinations you may come across.

https://markussesko.com/2013/09/14/the-secret-world-of-mekugi-ana/

 

You know what, i think a sword would crack at the hamachi area before a well fitting mekugi peg broke. There is a lot of force when hitting a target in that particular part of the blade. Mentioned it in another thread recently regarding hamon. Just look at the many wakizashi that are out there made from shortened katana.

 

I get what they are saying in the article regarding koshirae. From a thin tsuba and low fuchi to thick tsuba and higher fuchi in Edo times. The thing is though, its trying to fit everything everything into boxes. It dont work like that, there are too many variables.

 

Anyways, another reason you may find another ana in an Ubu nakago. Read recently, and here is one such variable. One particular Edo sword school liked the mekugi peg dead centre of the nakago, dont ask me why as it did not say. So if for instance they came across a sword they liked the look of then no doubt they would change the sword to their preference.

 

Be other reasons but for the most part i would assume the main reason for 2  or more ana on swords that are Ubu is simply a tsuka update, whether new or cobbled together. There must have been places where you could go and look through bucket loads of tsuka and get lucky with one that fits ok, for the poor Ronin. May be of interest to us these peg holes, but back in the day another hole under the tsuka was maybe not such a big deal (for the majority), more interested in just getting the job done.

 

Could do with someone finding a good old write up on this subject.

 

Forgot say, how long do we think a tsuka would last?, with weathering and wear and tear, im guessing not too long. Samurai had an habit of walking about and gripping the tsuka with the thumb over the top of the kashira. Ever wondered why you see see the odd sword now and again in old koshirae with the kashira hanging on for dear life or worn.

 

 

 

[John C]

Thank you all for the responses. Thank you Alex for the link to the article. It was interesting. I was hoping the positioning or number of mekugi-ana could give me some indication as to the era my wak was made. I believe it is probably showa; possibly Taisho. It seems, however, there are too many variables for mekugi-ana to be used as a reliable age indicator. 

Back to the drawing board...

John C.

[SteveM]

Hi John, are you talking about the wakizashi in your thread below?

 

If so, I'm almost certain its older than the 1900s. Or, conversely, I don't see anything in that sword that screams Shōwa (or Taishō or Meiji for that matter). The patina on the tang, the hada, the hamon, the inscription, etc., these all look like vintage Edo era things to me. Number of mekugi-ana isn't much of an indicator of anything. The marks on the spine of the tang are a red-herring, I believe. If they were arsenal marks, they would be recognizable, even if they are poorly struck. 

 

 

[John C]

Steve:

Yes - the very same. I am new to collecting swords and not very well versed on determining age, smith, etc. In reference to the mekugi-ana, the second ana obscures part of the mei. And unfortunately, the registration card and the mei seem to contradict without being able to know what the kanji should look like. I was therefore attempting to look at style, shape, the nakago, etc., to determine at least the age.

 

John C.

[Tensho]

I got lost when they talked about European swords being pinned on either side of the hilt aside from small swords which are threaded and peened to the pommel  I guess all my historical replica longswords that are peened to the pommel are wrong..haha

 

Anyways, I don't understand their reasoning at all as far as new koshirae. And I am confused why "some" swords have more than one mekugi-ana, while others only have one. Surely, the tsuka and fittings have all been replaced at least once. I have never drilled through an old nakago, but have on modern made and I can assure you, you need a great quality bit. 

 

There is NO reason a tsuka maker cannot make a new tsuka to match the original nakago/mekugi-ana if you have all the fittings(tsuba, seppa, habaki and fuchi) I'm sure some of us all have a few seppa that are all different sizes. Same can be applied here. A thicker tsuba or fuchi means thinner seppa etc..

 

You think they would've asked some Japanese swordsmiths about the mekugi-ana and the spacing. 

[John C]

I think the authors' arguments are based on a single observation - the spacing of the mekugi-ana seems to be consistent - though without much empirical evidence. They also admit that NBTHK had a "heated argument" over the same issue. I agree that issues brought up by everyone here help to explain the placement of tsuka, beyond simply fashion (adding tsuba to aikuchi fittings). They also barely mentioned the notion that, for a time period, tsuka were standardized, which could explain multiple holes spaced a certain distance apart. I suspect their "imaginary line" theory for the placement of the first mekugi-ana has merit in terms of standardization. But that would also explain additional holes!

For this issue at least, I believe researching original texts on sword production rather than anecdotal evidence based on personal observation would have brought the authors to a more varied conclusion.

 

John C.