Established ideas that need to change - 2: Timeline of sukashi tsuba production

[GRC]

9 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

I am trying to understand which "sukashi" tsuba are being considered:

Complex asymmetric designs?

Or the ones which have at least central, possibly greater symmetry (rays, wheel, whatevver the name one wants to assign)? They appear in Kofun?? So is the statement they disappeared and then reappeared? 

 

ji-sukashi which means "ground openwork", where a large amount of the plate has been cut away to leave an openwork pattern

as opposed to ko-sukashi which literally means "small openwork", where there may be one or or a few small sukashi elements and the majority of the plate is still intact.

 

I always assume an "evolutionary approach" for the development of ji-sukashi.

I assume there must have been a progression of some kind, from "simple" (like the kiku pattern you showed that are found in great numbers from the invasion of Korea in the late 16th century, Azuchi-Momoyama period) to "more complex" openwork that would have moved beyond simple geometric patterns to represent specific objects or ideas, like the Owari, Kanayama, and Yamakichibei tsuba, and moving on to more elaborate "sukashi scenes" like in many Kyo-sukashi, Higo and Akasaka tsuba. 

 

@Rivkin Kirill, are you referring to these Kofun period tsuba?

 

Yes they disappeared entirely once the straight bladed swords were replaced by the tachi with its very particular type of fittings:

  

 

It appears that the kiku chrysanthemum design (and "Saotome" rays tsuba) didn't appear until the late Muromachi period.

Guruma wheels didn't appear until the Owari type tsuba were being produced.

I would argue that those kofun tsuba were not "pictorial representations" like these later sukashi tsuba. Similar in appearance but significantly different in what they represent.  

[GRC]

1 hour ago, FlorianB said:

The illustrations of Tsuba on paintings (scrolls and screens) and woodblock prints are not a reliable source.
In most cases plain round or mokko-shaped swordguards WITHOUT ANY decoration (neither sukashi nor kinko - and by the way without hitsu-ana!) are shown. Does it means that samurai didn’t use decorated Tsuba?
Certainly not, but the depiction of small details was apparently technical difficult or the artist wasn’t interested in an exact depiction and a simplified, standardized type was sufficient for him.

 

 

Florian

@FlorianB Hi Florian, I could see a potential lack of detail in some woodblock prints like the one you posted (especially the first one on the left that looks like it's of a lesser quality).

However, detail was clearly not an issue for the painters, as there are plenty of areas that show significant detail in all the paintings presented in this thread. So it begs the question why they would show so much detail everywhere else but not on the tsuba... 

[sabiji]

It is mentioned that there are no contemporary depictions in Japanese painting (late Muromachi/Momoyama period) that show Ji-Sukashi Tsuba (apart from a few Kikka and Kurumagata).

Are there corresponding depictions in Japanese painting from the same period that show the elaborately pierced vessels of European swords, which, as is speculated here, had an enormous influence on the time of origin of ji-sukashi tsuba?
I often only see the normal rapier hilts of the period.

 

[FlorianB]

Glen,

the shots are just a random selection (just a fast search) of woodcut prints found in the web, but endless others could be added.

I choose especially prints of the Edo-times and also scenes of this time, so decorated Tsuba must have been common. Thus it is peculiar artists don’t depict them (the suggested reason I gave above).

 

Florian

 

[OceanoNox]

To give more precision, the terms 陰透かし (or 影) and 陽透かし are also used: the former means the design is cut out of the plate (most of the plate remains), and the latter is removing the metal around the design (only the design and whatever metal is needed for structure remain).

[Rivkin]

12 hours ago, GRC said:

 

ji-sukashi which means "ground openwork", where a large amount of the plate has been cut away to leave an openwork pattern

as opposed to ko-sukashi which literally means "small openwork", where there may be one or or a few small sukashi elements and the majority of the plate is still intact.

 

I always assume an "evolutionary approach" for the development of ji-sukashi.

I assume there must have been a progression of some kind, from "simple" (like the kiku pattern you showed that are found in great numbers from the invasion of Korea in the late 16th century, Azuchi-Momoyama period) to "more complex" openwork that would have moved beyond simple geometric patterns to represent specific objects or ideas, like the Owari, Kanayama, and Yamakichibei tsuba, and moving on to more elaborate "sukashi scenes" like in many Kyo-sukashi, Higo and Akasaka tsuba. 

 

@Rivkin Kirill, are you referring to these Kofun period tsuba?  

 

Thank you for the clarification. 

My take would be:

1. There are transitional tsuba types having Kofun qualities but dating to Muromachi - I attached one example. They are rare, but their existence convinces me the "sukashi" pattern lived on, and even though continental-tachi type tsuba were popular, it was also a more "official" and "high class" type, while others were more associated with "ordinary work". Quite a few known examples are not in Japanese books because unfortunately Japanese society is centered around dealers, and dealers have little interest in archeology - therefore everything knowledge-wise is skewed towards what can be traded and not towards proof-of-concept singular pieces with verifiable date or history.
I can upload photographs of what I believe to be Nanbokucho/early Muromachi sukashi, but all are highly symmetric "ray-like" designs. Can I prove the date? Is an interesting and long question, certainly pre-late-Muromachi there is always a conjecture at some point and some manner of unreliable interpretation, but on the other hand they do form for me a straight line all the way to Kofun (?).

2. There is an interesting disconnect between what was exported/left in 16th century Korea versus what is available today in Japanese market as late Muromachi works;

Indeed nothing complicated can be found in overseas gifts or finds with verifiable dates. Lots of sukashi with central symmetry. However, its also possible that early ko-sukashi was limited to high grade items, in which case quality can become a distinguishing factor.

 

[FlorianB]

I want to clarify my objection concerning the demand for historical illustrations.

 

Edo-period illustrations (excluding pattern books of course) depict hardly any individual Tsuba-Design although we know many different models were in use. But this obviously means nothing.

llustrations from Muromachi-times depict also no individual Tsuba-Design - but this shall proof their non-existence.

 

I can only speculate why Tsuba patterns have been omitted by the artists through the times, but at least the illustrations cannot (or only in some cases) consulted to back up the development of Tsuba.

 

Florian

 

[Iaido dude]

One of the implications of the hypothesis that ji-sukashi tsuba arose no earlier than late Muromachi period is that much of the date attributions of Sasano sensei and other influential scholars is wrong for Kyo-sukashi, Ko-Shoami, Owari, and Kanayama tsuba. We touched on how some sellers are hawking their tsuba as being among the earliest of these styles dating back to mid-Muromachi. The vast majority of these are Momoyama period and more recent. Again, there is no evidence for Muromachi period Kanayama tsuba. None. 

 

Case in point: https://www.jauce.com/auction/b1089471872

I can't tell if the hakogaki indicates Muromachi. If this is Kanayama, I actually don't think it is Momoyama either. The relative stiffness of the composition suggests Early Edo during a transition period to confirmatory Takagawa culture. There are no tekkotsu that I can discern on images.

[Steve Waszak]

From the images provided by the seller in the auction, this certainly looks Edo Period to me.  There is none of the characteristic dynamism infusing Momoyama Period Kanayama tsuba here.  

 

The best evidence -- based on cultural consideration rather than material analysis --  is that Kanayama tsuba emerged in the Momoyama Period, probably in the 1580s or early 1590s.  There certainly is zero evidence that they were made before Momoyama.  

[FlorianB]

Concerning the timeline I waited for this Tsuba with controversial dating to pop up but now I yield it by myself:

 

 

It is owned by the Museum of Fine Art in Boston and according to Okabe Kakuya who wrote the first museum catalog in 1908 it is a Momoyama piece. Okabe interpreted the combination of gourd and kiri as a hint to Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the background pattern of snowflakes is said to have been a popular fabric design at this time, too. I think even today the museum refers to this dating (see also „Lethal Elegance“ by Joe Earle).

 

The very same Tsuba is depicted in Sasano’s TOSOGU NO KIGEN (1979). He focused on the peculiar form of the hitsu-ana. In the named book he sums up the development of Kogai and Kozuka pointing out that the early ones have a flat design while later with the Goto-lineage more and more relief-like decoration appeared. This makes it necessary to change the form of the hitsu-ana to larger, rounded ones.
In correspondence with other examples showing similar primary hitsu-ana he dates it back to the Nambokucho period.

 

About 200 years difference! There are others who dated it in between those periods and I don’t think there will be ever an ultimate answer.

 

But why I mentioned this Tsuba is that the age estimation is based on one hand on the design, on the other hand on a technical background.

 

Best,

Florian

[Jussi Ekholm]

It is really fun trying to dig info on old koshirae as I have wonderful references in general (even though they are really focused on swords). I was looking into Fukushi Shigeos Tōsōgu Classroom and I am bit puzzled about what I read but it seems there are several theories on many Muromachi fitting making schools as there is just so little historical information and old theories are gradually being improved.

 

Here is a Nanbokuchō period tachi koshirae of Kasuga Taisha that is designated as Jūyō Bunkazai. Photo credits go to Sankei Shimbun (I just saved the picture): https://www.sankei.c...H35JUHNNY7ZFUJGZTBA/

I am hoping to visit Kasuga Taisha in 2025 as I have not yet been there. Nor do I have a book focused on solely on their sword collection. Unfortunately in my references I only have a tiny side view on this koshirae.

 

 

Here is also a link to the famous Uesugi Tachi that currently resides in Tokyo National Museum. I believe it it thought that both blade and koshirae are made at the same time during Kamakura period. While the tsuba is a single plate the ō-seppa on this have openings in the bird carvings.

https://www.gov-onli...24/june_2024-12.html

 

I think there would be one interesting followup question. If the sukashi tsuba timeline is pushed back to the end of Muromachi period, what kind of tsuba was used in 1400's and 1500's?

[OceanoNox]

1 hour ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

what kind of tsuba was used in 1400's and 1500's?

I have seen the words 板鍔 (I assume meaning a plain plate) and 錬皮鍔 used for older periods. The leather one is usually soaked, hammered, dried, and lacquered, and then reinforced with a metal rim and large seppa (or so I understand).

 

Mr. Ogawasara in his book 鍔 wrote that the simple and naive designs on tosho/kachushi tsuba are an evolution of the plain plate tsuba worn by lower ranking warriors (Mr. Katsuya calls it the development of "folk art"). And there was also some development from the richly decorated tachi tsuba worn by more wealthy warriors as they started to wear uchigatana.

[Jussi Ekholm]

Thanks Arnaud! I do believe these tsuba types were quite common for old battlefield ōdachi and tachi as there are several surviving koshirae from Nanbokuchō and early Muromachi period that feature these at various shrines in Japan.

 

I think I am just bit puzzled about the developments in tsuba as there seems to be few conflicting theories. And there can be lots of difference in dating for some tsuba as has been already evidenced in this thread.

[Steve Waszak]

I think the emergence of ko-tosho and ko-katchushi tsuba out of a plain-plate foundation can certainly be seen to have occurred as early as the 15th century.  It isn't much of a stretch to imagine a smith deciding to perforate a simple motif into a plain plate, or even for the owner of a sword himself to do so (perhaps quite crudely).  Once others saw the motif of a crescent moon, or snowflakes, or a butterfly, it is fairly easy to see how it could catch on and become "trendy."  And once the concept took hold, it could kind of explode into more ambitious ko-sukashi expressions, such as that seen in Florian's example above (which I think is clearly Muromachi).  

 

But I think Glen's (OP's) thread here was begun with the focus on ji-sukashi tsuba in mind, especially.  And perhaps even more so, those that are not the "usual" kuruma-sukashi or kiku-sukashi designs, i.e., those produced out of the traditions now called Kyo-sukashi, Owari sukashi, and Kanayama.  Such ji-sukashi designs, I believe, did not come into existence until -- at the earliest -- the very end of the Muromachi Period, and perhaps more likely, the early Momoyama Period.  

 

One consideration as regards how early the kuruma-sukashi designs may have emerged:  the earliest tsubako who regularly signed their works were Nobuiye, Yamasaka Kichibei, and Kawaguchi Hoan, all of whom lived and worked in the castle town of Kiyosu, Owari, at least for a time, in the 1570s - 1580s (and maybe as early as the 1560s).  Each of them made kuruma-sukashi tsuba, and two of them -- Yamasaka Kichibei and Kawaguchi Hoan -- made them as a relatively large proportion of their output.  The question here is whether these smiths more or less "invented" or reinvigorated the design themselves, or if they instead were simply following trends in that direction that had already been established by others.  There is no evidence that I am aware of that the kuruma-sukashi design was already present and popular at the time of the emergence of these three smiths (instead, I believe plain-plate tsuba, as well as some ko-tosho and ko-katchushi guards were prevalent).  Moreover, according traditional Japanese practices, artisans of a kind, such as potters and lacquerware craftsmen, often/usually lived in the same parts of town, even on the same street, and so it is quite possible that Nobuiye, Yamasaka Kichibei, and Kawaguchi Hoan were neighbors who saw one another's works and perhaps even had some conversations about it.  Even if this were the case, though, there is something of a conceptual jump from the regular patterns we seen in kuruma-sukashi (and kiku-sukashi) sword guards to the more sophisticated expression seen in ji-sukashi designs representing a variety of motifs, as in Kyo-sukashi, Owari-sukashi, and Kanayama works.  Perhaps these can be seen as something of a marriage between the motif expression found in ko-tosho/ko-katchushi -- which presented definite subjects, such as dragonflies -- and the more openwork kuruma-sukashi designs of the Kiyosu masters.  The presence of European swords in Japan by the mid-16th century, too, may have exerted considerable influence toward the development of the much more open ji-sukashi designs.  

 

All of this suggests a dynamic time in the expressive potential of sword guards in the latest Muromachi and early Momoyama years.  Add in the factor of the advent of some tsuba being regularly signed meant that tsubako had gained enough cultural gravitas to put significantly more consideration and effort into the refining of their works than may have usually been the case in the relatively simplistic ko-tosho and ko-katshushi forms.  

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Those are very good points Steve. I must admit I have been surprised how difficult it is to find original uchigatana koshirae even from late Muromachi era that are intact. There are so many tachi koshirae even from Kamakura and Nanbokuchō periods that have remained in original form. The Tokyo National Museum Uchigatana-goshirae book would agree with you guys that the style of sukashi tsuba that is the topic of this discussion would emerge at the end of Muromachi period.

 

I think the oldest intact koshirae with sukashi tsuba that I have found so far are following famous koshirae

 

Akechi-goshirae (by old tradition was worn by Akechi Mitsuhide or Akechi Mitsuharu who both perished in 1582, however in Tokyo National Museum book it is written that there is no 100% evidence of the historical ownership). The tsuba is identified as Owari-sukashi.

 

This famous daishō that was owned by Toyotomi Hideyoshi has extremely rare very decorated early sukashi tsuba.

 

While again maybe going a bit off again with my love for ōdachi, Tsurugaoka Hachimangū has 2 ōdachi and 1 tachi that were all dedicated to the shrine in 1538 by Hōjō Ujitsuna, and all in their original koshirae. I visited the Hachimangū in 2023 but unfortunately none of these swords were on display then (but I was lucky to see their largest ōdachi). I have 2 books of the swords of Tsurugaoka Hachimangū but unfortunately neither of the books have a side view of the tsuba. However trying to look at the pictures closely on the second book I would assume at least the one with only wood remaining on tsuka has a sukashi tsuba.

 

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Jussi,

 

Thanks for these references and images.  

 

The tsuba described as "Owari sukashi" belonging to the koshirae supposedly used by one of the Akechi certainly does not appear to be Owari to me; it looks, rather, to be an Edo Period design.  Even if it were Momoyama, however, I don't see it being an Owari Province work.

 

As to the last photo you include here of the Odachi, it looks to be a kiku-sukashi work.  This lends credence to the understanding that kiku-sukashi and kuruma-sukashi tsuba may have seen somewhat sustained use through the Muromachi Period.  If so, it would seem, then, that the big innovation would have been ji-sukashi designs that departed from these two forms, an emergence that, again, would not have occurred before the latest years of the Muromachi Period, and probably more likely, the early Momoyama. 

[Iekatsu]

4 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

The tsuba described as "Owari sukashi" belonging to the koshirae supposedly used by one of the Akechi certainly does not appear to be Owari to me; it looks, rather, to be an Edo Period design.  Even if it were Momoyama, however, I don't see it being an Owari Province work.

 

I think Momoyama period is plausible, but yeah definitely not Owari work.

Here is an image of the Tsurugaoka Hachimangū Koshirae with the Tsuba visible, that Jussi was discussing above. It can be reliably be dated to late Muromachi.




 

[Iekatsu]

I have held off on responding to this thread while I have been gathering my thoughts. My focus is on Pre-edo soft metal fittings, I need to know where we draw the line with Sukashi, because some Tachi Tsuba have simple Sukashi, not including Inome.

[Iekatsu]

Another Tachi, known as the Hanya Tachi, said to have been owned by Uesugi Kenshin (part of the Uesugi family collection) has a Sukashi Tsuba and likely dates to late Muromachi - early Momoyama.

 

[Steve Waszak]

Thanks for these images, Thomas.  They help to reinforce the idea that sukashi tsuba in these two forms -- kuruma sukashi and kiku sukashi -- were used in the mid- to latter part of the 16th century, if not earlier.  As Glen has said, though, they don't really prove, I don't think, that such forms were used before the latest decades of the Muromachi Period.

[ROKUJURO]

There is still a lot of error, lack of knowledge and information, and necessary doubt involved in the subject of TSUBA age.

Here is one offered as "pre MUROMACHI":

https://www.samuraim...MCV76k8AwSswt0JaIXQG

and I bought this little KO-KINKO TSUBA with KUCHINASHI design as "pre-EDO" which I would love to have confirmed:
 

[GRC]

On 12/4/2024 at 3:54 PM, Rivkin said:

1. There are transitional tsuba types having Kofun qualities but dating to Muromachi - I attached one example. They are rare, but their existence convinces me the "sukashi" pattern lived on

...
I can upload photographs of what I believe to be Nanbokucho/early Muromachi sukashi, but all are highly symmetric "ray-like" designs. Can I prove the date? Is an interesting and long question, certainly pre-late-Muromachi there is always a conjecture at some point and some manner of unreliable interpretation, but on the other hand they do form for me a straight line all the way to Kofun (?).

 

 

It's an interesting theory Kirill @Rivkin

I can see a few issues with the theory, and this tsuba example in particular.

 

First, the theory that there was a continuous production of sukashi tsuba dating all the way back to the Kofun period. (300 to 538 CE).

These Guruma (wagon wheel) type sukashi were stylistically a dominant form during the Momoyama period after the long period of use of the so-called Katchushi and Tosho that have flat thin plates (WITHOUT any form of Guruma sukashi).

So if they were in production since the Kofun period, as your theory proposes, it begs the question why this style was "lost" at some point and then suddenly "revived" again en masse, in bulk quantities in the Momoyama period.

From the existing multitude of both published and available tsuba, it's clear that the Guruma form was "new" and "popular/in demand" and being "played around with" during the Momoyama.

So, if the theory of continuous production of Guruma type sukashi was correct, then we would expected tens of thousands of examples of these type of tsuba, given an additional 1000 years of production between the Kofun and the Momoyama... so we certainly wouldn't only have literally just a handful of examples. With the current number of examples of the type you are showing, we would have to presume that the tens of thousands of examples that were produced, must have been selectively rounded up and destroyed at some point, which just doesn't make any sense...

 

Secondly, about the tsuba itself...

It looks to me like a fairly typical "Katchushi" armorer style tsuba with the added "dote mimi" (rounded thick rim), although more "pointed" rather than perfectly round.

The sukashi rays are extremely crude and have irregular widths... and even the Kofun examples I posted were cleaner and more regular than this one.

These type of irregular features don't seem to fit well with the stylings of even the early versions of this type of tsuba that we know were being produced in the late Muromachi. They start off with clean straight edges with regular spacing in the late Muromachi (like the "Saotome" and "kiku" flower types), and graduate to a more irregular interpretation during the period of artistic expressionism of the Momoyama period, that could even have slightly "cloud-like, undulating" guruma sukashi outlines and oblique chiseling (rather than vertical). So there were no tsuba with this sort of "look" until the Momoyama period, and even then, they weren't so crudely done.

The crudeness and amateurishness of the sukashi in the example you posted makes me think that these sukashi "rays" were indeed added by an amateur at some point after the tsuba was actually produced, almost as an attempt to make it fit in with the trends of the late Muromachi (...or worse, with the intention to deceive by creating their "impression" of an early version?).

It also has a very "continental look" to me... that raised narrow, angular seppa-dai is not at all a "Japanese" tsuba feature... 

So I might suggest that this may have been a tsuba that was modified around the time of the Japanese invasion of Korea in the late Momoyama then lost in battle and subsequently got buried in the ground... hence the severe corrosion damage which of course gives it the illusion of great age.

That's just my take on it 

 

So although, the theory is interesting, I would suggest that it has needs mountains more evidence to support it and would have to have supported explanations to account for the very apparent absence of these tsuba.

[GRC]

3 hours ago, ROKUJURO said:

There is still a lot of error, lack of knowledge and information, and necessary doubt involved in the subject of TSUBA age.
Here is one offered as "pre MUROMACHI":
https://www.samuraim...MCV76k8AwSswt0JaIXQG

Absolutely no way, no chance, straight up fantasy date on that one...

Just a seller trying to sell... 

[GRC]

3 hours ago, ROKUJURO said:

and I bought this little KO-KINKO TSUBA with KUCHINASHI design as "pre-EDO" which I would love to have confirmed:

 

Hi Jean @ROKUJURO,

it's hard to say for sure (as usual for an old looking unsigned piece ), but it could be anywhere from the late Muromachi (which we have evidence of), up to the early Edo period (which we have evidence of from the brass casting molds excavation discovery, which means they were still being produced at least until that time).

 

Again there simply isn't any concrete evidence to place it any further back in time, other than the theorizing of a select group of writers, who had the greatest influence on our current system of looking at and appraising tsuba.

 

So I'd suggest we might be able to put it "safely" in the window of mid-1500s to mid 1600s 

 

and unfortunately, brass doesn't corrode like iron and can perhaps be more easily coloured to look old, so there's always the unfortunate (but less likely) chance that it was made later as an attempt to deceive. I say less likely a forgery because it sure seems like there were a fair number of these kiku type tsuba made in that 100 year window.

 

Again, that's just my "evidence based" take on it 

[Iekatsu]

6 hours ago, ROKUJURO said:

I bought this little KO-KINKO TSUBA with KUCHINASHI design as "pre-EDO" which I would love to have confirmed:

Definitely a Ko-kinko Tsuba, late Muromachi-Momoyama period. The one in the link is later, Momoyama-early Edo id say.

[Iekatsu]

I think the biggest problem we are going to encounter is the lack of reliably dateable complete Koshirae in between Nanbokucho and the Late Muromachi period, it is a bit of black hole, a sign of the turbulent times I guess. For the investigation to continue, I think it will be important to source Koshirae examples from this period, even if they do not include Sukashi Tsuba, so that we can form a base line of what was in use. 

 

[ROKUJURO]

5 hours ago, GRC said:

....and unfortunately, brass doesn't corrode like iron and can perhaps be more easily coloured to look old, so there's always the unfortunate (but less likely) chance that it was made later as an attempt to deceive......

Thank you Glen,

my little TSUBA is made of YAMAGANE, and it was obviously not pre-cast in a mold. 

There are several brass alloys having been used for TOSOGU, and they are quite difficult to patinate. Old brass TSUBA can have wonderful colours and surfaces (look at UMETADA MYÔJU samples), while old copper TSUBA will mostly turn to a blackish brown if not chemically treated to look otherwise.  

This is one of the many moments I miss Ford and his expertise!

[Iekatsu]

Yeah it is clearly Yamagane, there is actually quite a bit of variation in colour depending on the composition, browns of various shades all the way through to greens like the example in my avatar.

[GRC]

Hi Jean, I wasn't implying yours was made in a mold. I was just pointing out that this style of sukashi tsuba was still being made in the Early Edo period. 

I was just trying to frame a most likely window of time, since to the best of our knowledge, these type of sukashi began being made in the late Muromachi (mid 1500s). 

 

The fact that it is made of yamagane doesn't help date it any way either since there wasn't a single narrow window of time in which yamagane tsuba were produced.

But that does set yours apart from the majority of the brass ones.

 

It falls squarely in the "old but not iron" ko-kinko category... which further exemplifies the "great body of knowledge" (i.e. utter lack of information regarding pre-Edo tsuba) that our current system is built upon 

[Rivkin]

On 12/7/2024 at 9:49 PM, GRC said:

So although, the theory is interesting, I would suggest that it has needs mountains more evidence to support it and would have to have supported explanations to account for the very apparent absence of these tsuba.

 

This got me motivated to go through my archive and set aside items where the dating is not secured, though has been theorized and leave only the items for which it has been established. Good thing about continental finds they often come with a sword, which in turn is dataable... so far to my surprise I see solid plates as early continental tsubas, though on the other hand wheel is not such a big symbol on the continent. But still, the flood of sukashi appears to coincide with late Muromachi...