Munehisa 62 plate Kabuto acquisition. Period Repairs. Opinions please.

[Chishiki]

Hi everyone.

I recently acquired this 62 plate kabuto. I was very interested to see it had been repaired and reinforced with plates rivited inside. There were obvious condition issues to the lacquer. The photos were the only information provided other that the weight of 2.5kg.

 

On receiving the helmet I found it was signed to the front plate with a three character mei ‘Munehisa Saku’. Amazingly the seller didn’t know it was signed so luck went my way.

 

What you cannot really see in the pics is that the top front next to the tehen had been hit heavily and plates damaged. Clearly it was repaired and relacquered, but some plate damage is still visible unless it was damaged again after the first repair. The ring at the back of the helmet is also pushed in as a result is a heavy hit.

 

When I first bought the helmet I thought it may be a project in the future to have the hachi relacquered but on receiving, finding the mei and seeing the period repairs I have decided to leave it ‘as is’, maybe relacing only.

 

On another thread I have found some information on a Munehisa working 1532 to 1555. Does this kabuto fit with the known work of this man? Do you agree I should leave it as is and unrestored?

 

Regards

 

Mark

[uwe]

Hi Mark,

 

well done!

 

The Meikan counts at least 5 Munehisa. I’m in a rush, so if nobody chime in, I’ll come back to you this evening....

(Yes, please leave it alone for the moment!)

[uwe]

Well,

 

I think we can exclude the Ichiguchi-Myôchin, the Kojima-Myôchin, also the Kunitomo smith and the Iwai guy....(all Munehisa´s "宗久"  ).

Whats left, from the recorded smiths, is a Munehisa from Kôzuke (or Jôshû 上州) province, dated to the late Muromachi period (although, the Meikan is not clear in this regard....but this is another story). This assumption is also supported by the fact, that the signature seems very similar.

 

Any other opinions?

 

Interestingly, the hishinui seems to be made of leather.....

[Chishiki]

Hi. Thanks Uwe. Here is the previous thread on a Munehisa. I believe my kabuto is probably the same man. I have also compared it to the kabuto referred to at Yamabushi.com and my kabuto looks very much alike in features.

 

Here is the link. I should have provided this at the beginning.

 

http://nihon-no-katchu.proboards.com/thread/576/munehisa-kabuto

 

Mark

[IanB]

This is a very interesting helmet on several scores, the fact that it is signed on the front plate for one - most being signed on the backplate. Similarly the presence of the extra plates are again unusual yet were added for a definite reason. Unlike swordsmiths, the makers of armour are only now beginning to be studied and an awful lot were never recorded for the simple fact that the largely Buddhist population regarded them as unclean because they handled skins and leather. An additional complication is that the Myochin, a major group many of whom used names starting with Mune.... They produced a genealogy claiming everybody and their brother as members, a goodly number of whom never existed. Despite this they state quite clearly that before Seki ga Hara they were the makers of horse bit and were called Masuda.  I agree with Uwe that a date of around the late Muromachi would seem about right, recognising that the very first signatures do not appear until an armourer called Yoshimichi began to sign his work during the 16th century. Traditionally he has been regarded as working around the earlier decades of that century but I have an 8 plate helmet by him that is clearly a response to the increased use of guns - his earlier work being the more usual 32 and 62 plate helmets. I had mine checked by a metallurgist and the plates are definitely much harder on the outside suggesting they are steel faced iron. The general belief is that after the introduction of guns in 1543 they began to be used in numbers whereas in reality it was almost towards the end of the century that guns became significant.

 

So to Mark's helmet. Is it by a Myochin smith? It could be, but the probable date is rather too early in my opinion. Sasama's Shin Katchushi Meikan isn't much help quoting mainly from the Myochin genealogy. The shape is rather tall and slightly pointed for it to be from the Yoshimichi tradition and it could well be the work of an un-recorded armourer. My first thoughts on the plates - which surround the tehen were there because the helmet had taken a bashing and the rivets had sprung a bit. However, if that were the case the plates would have been riveted to each helmet plate. - they are probably nothing more that re-enforces to make the helmet more robust. Whatever, a nice and very interesting helmet.

Ian Bottomley

[Chishiki]

Thanks for your input Ian.

 

Sorry to gravitate back to an old thread on another forum (link above) but I see my kabuto being very similar to the one discussed there, and indeed the one Yamabushi had previously, even down to the placement and look of the mei. To my eyes it seems the same man. I will try to get a copy if the mei on Yamabushi Antiques kabuto. Fair enough to say though that it seems very speculative when trying to verify a time of manufacture other than late Muromachi period.

 

The repair to the crown of the kabuto fascinates me and as you say could have been done at the time of manufacure but I ask why? It is a very sturdy helmet at 2.5kg, not sure why it would need to be reinforced. Unfortunately the riveted plate is covering whatever repairs is/was there.

 

I might take it for shinsa this year... some may say why? i know it is not a beautiful helmet and condition is down but it sure has a story to tell. All in the name of research.

[uwe]

Yes Ian!

In fact, the Meikan is at present almost the only resource, western collectors can fall back to. Unfortunately, this compilation of armorers is incomplete (I have a bunch of smiths in my archive, not listed there). Anyway, from what we have, the positioning of the mei and the style it was chiseled, matches the smith in question......and (at least) the mabisashi tells Myōchin :-)

As far as this odd reinforcement is concerned, I guess it’s a later addition. Otherwise, it would be riveted together with the hagi-no-byō.

If you look closely, you can notice faint remnants of gold lacquer on the hagi-ita inside. Not a cheap helmet back in the days.

Interesting, like Ian said!

[Iekatsu]

This is the example that was published in the "Shin Kachu shi Meikan" and also in "Nihon Mei Kabuto".

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[uwe]

Indeed!

[Luc T]

It is a typical Munehisa! No doubt about this. He worked at the end of the muromachi period in Soshu.

The quality of his work is inferior to the Joshu Myochin, but it is a war product. Also the shape is very typical for Munehisa, as is the signature and the date. The reinfordement on the inside is also not that strange. His work was very thin around the tehen no ana.

Thanks for sharing this old boy.

[Luc T]

Munehisa’s roots are in Joshu. As a member of the so called nobu ryu. He signs the same way as Nobuie too. His helmets are made with 4 rows of rivets. It is very good possible that there was war damage on the top before they repaired it. About restoration: Since we are dealing with a muromachi item, I would recommend to leave it as it is.

[Chishiki]

Thanks everyone for your help, it is very much appreciated. Mark

[IanB]

Something niggling in my mind prompted me to return to this thread and I was struck by the fact that the helmet illustrated on the now sadly defunct 'Samurai Armour Forum' also had a reinforcing plate riveted to the top of the front plate just in front of the tehen to stop the top of the plate springing upwards. Perhaps this was necessitated because the bowl was assembled with only four rows of rivets rather than five. I also decided to consult this smith in Robert Burawoy's work 'Etude du Meikan Zukan' where it states that in the Myochin genealogy Munehisa is described as being a pupil of Yoshimichi yet differs from Yoshimichi's work in signing on the front plate and using only four rows of rivets. He never seems to have used  the name Myochin and it states he worked in Shimotsuke. In the Zukan is shown a helmet with this signature dated to Tenbun 5 (1536) and the suggestion that he was contemporary with Myochin Nobuie but was probably not a Myochin smith nor a pupil Yoshimichi but in all probability was an independent armourer. 

Ian Bottomley

[Luc T]

A grey zone ... Myochin stories and fabrications. But an interesting Genuine muromachi technical kabuto.

The style ressembles a bit the work of Nobuie 2, but the crafmanship is inferior.

I think that this guy was born before Yoshimichi.

BUT nothing is sure.

[IanB]

Nothing ever is in this field.

Suriage Bottomley

[Luc T]

Suriage Bottomley

Dear Ian, i like British humor! :-)

But for a person of your standing, we should say O suriage.