Mekugi-Ana Chiseled Vs. Other

[Blazeaglory]

OK Please forgive me. I know this is a "known" topic but for the life of me I cannot find the darned answer.

 

Generally, what year or Era did the nakago of the blade, specifically the Mekugi Ana, go from "chiselled" to "drilled/lathed". Im guessing the chiselling ended during or after the Kanbun era? Prior?

[Guest Rayhan]

In ancient times i think they did the punch and drift but i am not a blacksmith so could be completely wrong, in which case I apologise in advance bro

[Blazeaglory]

I'm thinking more along the lines of, for instance when a member says, "nakago looks chiseled, so probably Koto". And we can usually see chisel marks. Then, for Shinto swords, the "chiseling" turned into something else... I dont really know what though. Maybe some kind of lathe or drill driven by water or wind, mule?

 

I think the period is at end of Muromachi or early Edo?

[Ken-Hawaii]

An educated guess would be the end of Muromachi/Sengoku Jidai when smiths had a bit more time to spend on the details.

[Blazeaglory]

Ok, that's what I was thinking as well, or I that seems to be the general consensus?

 

I would assume that during the transition period from end of Muriomachi, through Momoyama and into the early Edo, we would see blades that have both chisel and "new style", eventually as time went by, less chisel mekugi-ana, correct?

After that, any chiseled mekugi-ana were usually a sign of a smith trying to make a blade look older than it truly was? Or maybe they just continued the chiseling technique?

 

Im just thinking out loud and trying to figure out if it went out of fashion due to the time and effort involved, with the new methods being faster and easier. Or if any smiths continued the chiseling throughout  Shinto and Shinshinto.

[Alex A]

Mekugi-ana can be confusing sometimes when judging age.

 

If appears punched, then obviously it backs up a good age, but its never straight forward. Look at your books and online, you will find even very old papered UBU swords with just one neat round hole, how can this be?

 

One reason maybe that drilling started earlier than we think it did, in some areas

 

One reason is that if a smith wanted a neat round hole, then it could have a neat round hole, look at sukashi on Koto Tosho tsuba just as an example of metal work at that time.

 

One reason maybe that existing punched holes where eventually drilled to accommodate new fittings.

 

I was only looking at a Nanbokucho sword on Aoi the other day, 2 holes, both appeared to be drilled, always gets me a wondering.

[ROKUJURO]

I am not sure if these different ways could be separated by a given date or even period. I think that they existed side by side for a while. In addition to that, punching a hole (not 'chiselling') into the warm steel with a pointed TAGANE and then drifting it open to the desired width often gives better and 'cleaner' results than a hole that was drilled (cold) with an early drilling device where we see that drilling from both sides often resulted in not perfectly matching holes. 

Later blades may indeed show holes with sharp edges (and this may indeed allow an assessment of the age), and badly/recently made MEKUGI-ANA may even show some remaining burrs.

In my opinion we have to think about the increasing habit of chiselling a MEI into the NAKAGO by the beginning of EDO JIDAI. This was done cold, while in KOTO times, punching a MEKUGI ANA was perhaps closer to the forging process and done hot while the blade was still near the anvil.

From an aesthetic point of view, I like the 'old' punched and drifted MEKUGI-ANA much more, the edges of which are a bit smoothed and rounded by slight corrosion and a lot of use.   

Just my two YEN.

[Ken-Hawaii]

 

if a smith wanted a neat round hole, then it could have a neat round hole

 

I agree with Alex & Jean. I have a late-Kamakura blade with one ana so smooth, that I needed a 10X loupe to see the chisel marks. And I have a Shinto blade with an ana so sloppy, that it well could have been chiseled.

 

But I've found that checking out whether ana are chiseled, & specifically how they are chiseled, is generally a pretty good indication of jidai, pre-Shinto.

[Blazeaglory]

I agree with Alex & Jean. I have a late-Kamakura blade with one ana so smooth, that I needed a 10X loupe to see the chisel marks. And I have a Shinto blade with an ana so sloppy, that it well could have been chiseled.

 

But I've found that checking out whether ana are chiseled, & specifically how they are chiseled, is generally a pretty good indication of jidai, pre-Shinto.

That is partially the reason Im asking.

 

I was looking at a nakago that I think is Shinto but close enough to being Koto that its in that "window" I was mentioning. But now that I have read all of the responses above, I can see its not so straight forward.

 

The Mekugi-ana on the blade I was looking at, at first glance, has a really smooth, perfect "hole" but upon closer inspection, there are MANY tiny chisel marks throughout the entire thing, with matching rust.

 

It just adds to the confusion. Its a possible Hizen blade, mumei.

[Gakusee]

Too much preoccupation with ana, gentlemen. Old blades were shortened all the time. In fact, most Koto swords have been shortened one way or another. Therefore, the process of shortening (usually in Edo period) contaminates your analysis because by that point indeed drilling seems to have been prevalent. So, it is not surprising at all that you could have a Koto blade with a drilled mekugiana.

[Blazeaglory]

Too much preoccupation with ana, gentlemen. Old blades were shortened all the time. In fact, most Koto swords have been shortened one way or another. Therefore, the process of shortening (usually in Edo period) contaminates your analysis because by that point indeed drilling seems to have been prevalent. So, it is not surprising at all that you could have a Koto blade with a drilled mekugiana.

 

 

I agree but I tend to look at which era the blade was forged and compare to contemporary conflict.

 

For instance, a blade forged in the Sengoku period that isnt a standard length, is O-suriage and has chiseled ana would likely be broken and remade from being broken in battle.

 

Whereas a Koto blade that has been cut down to a specific size and has a smooth ana, would lean towards a later Suriage.

 

I know the possibilities are many but I feel the era and length play a big part, then moving on to the ana. 

 

Does that make sense? lol

[Gakusee]

No, as one cannot predict when and how the blade was shortened and for what reason. Some were shortened for aesthetic reasons or due to regulations (sword length was postulated in Edo Japan) and others due to damage. The damage could have been a war/battle (eg Sengoku) or a duel later one etc. So you cannot extrapolate easily.

[Blazeaglory]

No, as one cannot predict when and how the blade was shortened and for what reason. Some were shortened for aesthetic reasons or due to regulations (sword length was postulated in Edo Japan) and others due to damage. The damage could have been a war/battle (eg Sengoku) or a duel later one etc. So you cannot extrapolate easily.

True but we can gather that a shortened sword that is regulation length would be more likely shortened edo/late edo under forced regulations. Not all, maybe some happened to be shortened with that "regulated" length prior but how many? Few Im guessing and coincidence.

 

Whereas a Koto blade shortened and not meeting regulated length could be either, shortened during Koto times, pre-regulation from war or any other mishap or shortened during peacetime, after regulation and the owner just failed to follow the law? Im just throwing out theories of averages, not quoting any factual info or making dedicated predictions. Of course shortened blades have multiple possibilities for being shortened but following the regulated length only occurred at specific times throughout Japans history, therefore narrowing down a time and with other factors, a possible reason. True tho, nothing in this field is for certain! I just like to play out scenarios in my head 

 

Koto blades, forged prior or during Wartime, would lend to a higher amount of broken, Suriage/Osuriage and non regulation length swords IMO. I've read writings of multiple families gathering bits and pieces of swords from Koto battlefields afterwards. Some families finding dozens of their families blades broken.

 

Using the above logic(or ill-logic haha) I then look at the ana with a new light. Although knowing blades during Koto time have smooth ana, it kinda adds a variant. But the usual method of "quick judging" ana would be, Koto=chiseled and Shinto/Shinshinto=smooth, with individual cases varying but the majority holding true to that theory right?

[Alex A]

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

[Stephen]

I didn't read all above... it is commonly thought to be when the Portuguese arrived with lathe and bits.

[Blazeaglory]

Thanks again for all the info!

[Ken-Hawaii]

 

 

No, as one cannot predict when and how the blade was shortened and for what reason.

Actually, that's not at all correct. I wrote this summary of mandated suriage (& worse) several years ago, but it's a good reminder:

 

    In the second year of Kencho (1250), Hojo Tokiyori prohibited ordinary people from carrying long swords.  This regulation was enforced by Akashi Kanetsuna, since then, common people and all priests carried long Kogatana called Wakizashi no Tachi.

 

    In Tensho XVI (1588), Hideyoshi made a proclamation to obtain from common people the surrender of their swords.  Being a cunning man, he announced that it was his intention to build a Daibutsu Temple in Kyoto, and that he required thousands of nails, and he wished people to hand over their swords so that they might acquire merit towards a future life by stopping their earthly fights and contributing towards a religious cause.  But people were less interested in a problematic paradise than in actually protecting themselves, and they did not rise to his bait.

 

    In Genna VIII, the Shogun Tokugawa Iyetada prohibited common people from wearing swords to avoid brawls; the Tachi was called then O Wakizashi.

 

    In Kwanyei XVII (1640), Tokugawa Iyemitsu prohibited the attendants of Bujin from carrying tachi.

 

    In Kwambun X (1670), Tokugawa Iyetsuna issued a regulation making the length of tachi 2'8"-9", and o-wakizashi 1'8", and anyone carrying a longer sword was liable to punishment.

 

    In Tenna III (1683), Tokugawa Tsunayoshi reiterated the prohibition to common people to wear the long sword, but allowed them to carry a tanto; musicians and painters, even when of the Samurai class, were debarred from carrying a big sword.

 

    In Kwansei X (1798), it was decided that any sword exceeding 1'8" should be termed Naga Wakizashi, and anyone carrying such a sword was liable to punishment.  Later, the length was reduced to 1'5".

 

    Finally, in Meiji IX (1877), the Haitorei was issued prohibiting the wearing of swords, except the one sword belonging to soldiers and police when in uniform.

 

[Gakusee]

Ken, thanks and that is very informative, but you are actually supporting my point about regulation-induced shortening?!

 

The broader point I was trying to make and clearly failed was that a given blade could have been shortened for regulatory reason but also due to damage. We cannot know why and how a specific blade was shortened. Some were cut because of the stature of the owner (Oda Nobunaga), others due to damage (occasionally visible in habaki or nakago area - see Darcy B’s TJ Hasebe) and yet others - due to regulations and possibly some - for a combination of these reasons.

[Ken-Hawaii]

Just wanted to clarify, Michael, so others wouldn't be confused.

[Blazeaglory]

Ken, thanks and that is very informative, but you are actually supporting my point about regulation-induced shortening?!

 

The broader point I was trying to make and clearly failed was that a given blade could have been shortened for regulatory reason but also due to damage. We cannot know why and how a specific blade was shortened. Some were cut because of the stature of the owner (Oda Nobunaga), others due to damage (occasionally visible in habaki or nakago area - see Darcy B’s TJ Hasebe) and yet others - due to regulations and possibly some - for a combination of these reasons.

 

 

Which is exactly what I said in post #11 but with an additional theory on forged date during, or close to, era's of war, using exact Suriage length as an additional indicator of possibility and finally chiseled vs. drilled ana could give a good indicator, imho, when and possibly how, the sword was broken.

 

Basically, you have higher % of swords being broke in a fight against an enemy samurai/enemy sword during periods of ongoing conflict/war, than being broke by random accident or unforeseen events during that same period... More so, IMO, if the sword isnt close to a "standard decreed official length". For what its worth, It wasnt a blanket statement in regards to every shortened/Suriage Nihonto.

 

Were saying the same thing more or less but I'm adding a controversial idea/theory for conversation    Maybe its trash, maybe not. But it does make for a good debate! Its all in good spirit!