Help please with Kabuto mei

[Matsunoki]

Please can someone help with this Mei purportedly on a Muromachi Kabuto? I’m trying to learn about armour!

Many thanks.

All the best. Colin. 
 

EDIT….is it a date? Manji? 1658? I can see the kanji for day and month…..I think

 

[uwe]

It’s a date as you already mentioned, Colin! “元治二乙丑五月吉日” (5. month second year Genji = 1865). 

[Matsunoki]

@uwe

Many thanks Uwe…..I was hoping it was older but as I know virtually nothing yet I’m not surprised to be hundreds of years out!

Purely for interest here is the Bachi…..anything special about it?

Appreciate your time and help!

 

[uwe]

Good hachi, solid workmanship from what I can see 👍

Do you have a top view?

[Matsunoki]

Just now, uwe said:

Do you have a top view?

Thanks again Uwe.

Top view….

 

[uwe]

Maybe of Myōchin origin…?

[Matsunoki]

18 minutes ago, uwe said:

Maybe of Myōchin origin…?

Thanks again Uwe

Why would this be dated but not signed? 

Whilst my knowledge is minimal, this looks a well made hachi worthy of a Mei?

[uwe]

I can’t tell, Colin.
The manufacturing date is quite late. Maybe it never had a customer, so no need to sign the work. The patina is very evenly no wear, no signs of a once mounted shikoro or tehen no kanamono…however, I don’t know. 
 

BTW, it’s not that uncommon that helmets, although of good quality, weren’t signed by the maker. Mumei, so to say, for what reason ever. Occasionally you also find merely dates or/ and invocations are inscribed…

[Bugyotsuji]

Well, it depends also on how you read that poorly-inscribed date.

Is Genji 2 really possible, as it only lasted a year from 1864 to 1865... (?)

Manji does not seem to fit the kanji.

Another possibility is Koji, 1555-1558. 弘治 

[Matsunoki]

@uwe

That has all been extremely helpful. Thank you. It  has explained a lot in a short few words. 
It’s nice to start a new journey, armour seems quite challenging!

[Bugyotsuji]

As a suji kabuto, everything is there. It has four shiten-no-byo and four hibiki-ana.You have some of the rivet heads showing. No hachimanza, but some people prefer it in the raw state, and quite well finished even without the tehen kanamono. The haraidate-dai has two holes in vertical alignment and iri-hasso in the top edge. The shikoro would have been.. manju shikoro? The mabisashi is fairly steep and has a good shape.

[Matsunoki]

4 minutes ago, Bugyotsuji said:

Manji does not seem to fit the kanji.

Hi Piers……seems Manji has more than one Kanji for “Man”???

From this Forum…

Now I’m confused again!🙂

 

[Bugyotsuji]

Yes, that is the one that does not fit, imho, Colin.

[Matsunoki]

Just now, Bugyotsuji said:

As a suji kabuto, everything is there. It has four shiten-no-byo and four hibiki-ana.You have some of the rivet heads showing. No hachimanza, but some people prefer it in the raw state, and quite well finished even without the tehen kanamono. The haraidate-dai has two holes in vertical alignment and iri-hasso in the top edge. The shikoro would have been.. manju shikoro? The mabisashi is fairly steep and has a good shape.

Thanks Piers, I’ll sit down and translate all this later🙂

……whole new vocabulary for my old brain to attempt

[Shogun8]

My first impression of this hachi is that it has some age (the excellent condition not withstanding). The shape, koshimaki meant to fit a manju shikoro, the robust haraidate with fairly deep irihasso and the mabezashi connected by iron sanko no byo would not point to a late Edo dating for me. Do you have pictures of the interior of the hachi?

[Matsunoki]

2 hours ago, Shogun8 said:

Do you have pictures of the interior of the hachi?

Herewith…….all further views most welcome. 

Thanks for looking 

 

[uwe]

As mentioned above, a well made kabuto!

The view inside and the overall appearance might support the date and I stick with my assumption that it was probably never been “completed”.

 

Open for other opinions and comments…

[Iekatsu]

An Edo period Hachi for sure, I think you can rule out Koji.

[Bugyotsuji]

9 hours ago, Iekatsu said:

An Edo period Hachi for sure, I think you can rule out Koji.

What fixes it to Edo for you, Thomas?

[Iekatsu]

For me it is how clean the plates, construction and the finishing of the rivets are, both inside and out.

I agree with Uwe on the translation and also agree that it has likely never been mounted or perhaps only mounted once.

It is possible that the date is Gimei, but I would still place it on the later side of the Edo period, even without the date. 

It is a really nice looking Hachi by the way, good shape and form, and being dated is rarer than being signed.

[Bugyotsuji]

Thank you Thomas for the clear and understandable reply. This does advance the story.

 

My thoughts around the Mei were that the most important kanji is badly hit, badly incised. This causes confusion and uncertainty, giving several possibilities. The question is why. Was it a mistake that was going to compromise the whole kabuto, i.e. did the poor chiselling of the date mean that there was no longer any point in adding the maker's name? Or was it deliberate to help make the unsigned hachi bowl saleable? 

 

There is a theory that Mei were inserted before the plates were assembled (comments from any armourers here?) because there is no room inside a completed hachi to swing a hammer onto tagane chisels. 

 

Did someone attempt to do just that with the Mei, giving up after a poor attempt at the date?

 

Nothing definitive, but innocent questions that have been bubbling up since first looking at that date. (A mental process I frequently go through in other fields.)