A Study of Early Chinese ArmorAuthor(s): Albert E. DienSource: Artibus Asiae, Vol. 43, No. 1/2 (1981), pp. 5-66Published by: Artibus Asiae PublishersStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3249826Accessed: 09/02/2010 19:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=artibus.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Artibus Asiae Publishers is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Artibus Asiae.

http://www.jstor.org

ALBERT E. DIEN

A STUDY OF EARLY CHINESE ARMOR

Stanford University

Introduction

For many years Berthold Laufer's pioneering study, Chinese Clay Figures, Part I, Prolegomena on the History of Defensive Armor, was the Armor, was the chief source of information on the subject of

Chinese defensive armor.I The pottery figurines on which research about this topic was pri- marily based were limited to pieces found in museums or private collections scattered about the world; rarely was there any information as to provenance or date. Other works touched on the subject in a peripheral though sometimes enlightening way. As it was the only major study on the subject, Laufer's work was generally accepted and his conclusions repeated, perhaps too uncritically. All this has changed over the last decade or two as a remarkable record of archaeological work has opened many vistas and provided a great wealth of carefully excavated and fully-annotated materials. Also, a number of important articles, notably by Liu Han and Yang Hung, provide a new basis for approaching the subject.

Liu Han's article, "Northern Dynasties Tomb Figures of Armored Horse and Rider," z made the point that the intensification of warfare from the Wei-Chin period on, coupled with ad- vances in metallurgy and higher levels of production, provided the basis for further develop- ments in weaponry and armor. He traced the emergence of metal plate armor to the Western Chin and fully armored cavalry to the Northern Wei. The invention of the stirrup, which he credited to the nomad invaders of Northern China, enabled the cavalry to become more effective, and this also led to heavier armor for both rider and horse. Of course, he added, infantry and light cavalry still remained necessary. Yang Hung, in his "Concerning the Questions of Iron Armor, Horse Armor and the Stirrup,"3 in general accepted Liu's developmental scheme but emended some statements, maintaining, for example, that iron armor certainly existed by the Han and may have originated as early as the Warring States Period, and that defensive armor for the horse had its origins in the Han. He did concur, however, that there was a phenomenal increase in the use of armor from the fourth century on. Yang also made trenchant remarks on early Japanese armor and the early evidence for the stirrup. Finally, he wrote a detailed and systematic two-part article that treated armor from its first appearance in the Shang down to

I Field Museum of Natural History, Publication I77: Anthropological Series, vol. 13:2, Chicago, I9I4. E.T.C. Werner, Chinese Weapons (Shanghai, I932) is a pastiche of translations, without analysis or organization.

2 K'ao-ku (hereafter KK) I 9 5 9. 2, pp. 97-Ioo.00 3 KK I 96 . I2, pp. 693-6.

5

Sung. This is a most important study of the subject and is written with great erudition and insight.4

The present study is based very much on the work of these two scholars and is intended as a survey in greater detail of defensive armor of the early imperial period, from Ch'in to T'ang, offering a typology and nomenclature of armorial development. I shall conclude with some speculative remarks about the possible social and political consequences of these developments in defensive armor and military techniques.

i. EARLIEST EVIDENCE

It will be useful to survey the development of armor in China at the earliest stages as an introduction to the topic under study. The first evidence of armor in China is from Shang tomb I004 at An-yang where an elaborate design, in black, red, white and yellow remained visible in the earth although the leather itself had rotted away.5 The largest of two pieces appears to have been a kind of one-piece breastplate. The next recoverable examples are from the area of Ch'u, from the Ch'un-ch'iu and Warring States periods, almost a millenium later. These are of lacquered leather plates, joined by leather thongs. One may gain an idea of the overall appearance of such armor from wooden figures recovered from the same area (Fig. I).6 A tomb at Sui-hsien, Hupei, just north of ancient Ch'u, and to be dated 433 B.C. or shortly after, has revealed twelve suits of lacquered leather armor, many with helmets, of a more sophisti- cated construction, one which obviously is a forerunner of the Ch'in armor to be described below (Fig. 2).7 Thus, as Yang Hung concludes, leather armor was the chief body armor from the Shang through the Warring States Period, and such armor was an effective defense against the bronze weapons of that period.8

4 "Studies on the Ancient Chinese Armour," K'ao-ku hsueh-pao (hereafter KKHP) I976.I, pp. I9-46 (hereafter Yang, "Studies," I) and KKHP 1976.2, pp. 5 9-96 (hereafter Yang, "Studies," II). A brief summary with some critical comments by this writer appeared in Early China 3 (Fall, I977), pp. I05-I07. Yang's two articles have been reprinted, in revised and expanded form, in his Chung-kuo kuping-ch'i lun-ts'ung (Peking, 1980), pp. I-78.

5 Hayashi Minao, Cbugoku In-Shujidai no buki (Kyoto, I1972), p. 404 and Fig. 472; and Liang Ssu-yung and Kao Ch'ii-hsiiun Hou-chia-chuang (An-yang Hou-chia-chuang Yin-tai mu-ti), No. 5: Tomb 1004 (Taipei, I970), p. 3I and p. 32, Fig. 16. Cheng Te-k'un, Archaeology in China, vol. II: Shang China, p. I 68, in a list of the bronzesmith's repertory, has k'uei "armour plate," but the graph means helmet.

6 There have been at least four examples found thus far. I) Tomb I, Liu-ch'eng-ch'iao, Ch'ang-sha, late Ch'un-ch'iu, KKHP 1972.1, pp.66-67, Fig.II.2 (not available to writer); 2) Tomb I, T'eng-tien, Chiang-ling, perhaps dating after 334 B.C., Wen-wu (hereafter WW) 1973.9, p.9, and Fig.4, p. Io; 3) P'ai-ma-shan, Chiang-ling, perhaps after 337 B.C., KK 1973.3, p. 160; and 4) Tomb I5, Tso-chia-kung-shan, Ch'ang-sha, late Warring States, KKHP 1957.1, p. 96, P1.2.7. There is no description or photo of the P'ai-ma-shan suit; that from Tso-chia-kung-shan is too wrinkled to make an examination possible; the plates from T'eng-tien are said to be rectangular of two layers with some of the original thongs remaining in the holes. There is more detail known only about the Liu-ch'eng-ch'iao example, for which see Yang, "Studies," I, p. 2I, and P1.I.3. For the wooden figures, see Mizuno Seiichi, "Chosha shatsudo no mokugu ni tsuite", Tohogakubho (Kyoto) 8 (I937) 226-241; Hayashi, p.4I0, Fig.46. Another example is in the Cleveland Museum of Art; see David Jenkins, Masterwvorks in Wood: China and Japan (Portland, I976), pp. 24-25.

7 KK I979.6, pp. 542- 5 3. The site is at Lei-ku-tun, about 3 km northwest of Sui-hsien, and is to be associated with the ancient state of Tseng; cf. IDW 1979.7, p. I. In addition to the human armor, two chanfron and assorted plates of horse armor were also recovered.

8 Yang, "Studies," I, p. 45. There is some evidence for the use of bronze armor during the late Warring States period and early Han in Yunnan, both of sheet and plate, and some plate of a later date in Inner Mongolia, but there is as yet

6

While defensive armor for the body was made of leather, bronze helmets were used from the earliest times. Those of the Shang are particularly interesting, decorated with elaborate animal head motifs.9 Helmets become much simpler, one might even say more functional, in Chou. The boss at the top, for attaching some sort of plume, was retained but in a different shape.lo There are textual references to the use of iron in pre-Han texts,l, but the only complete piece of armor made of iron thus far discovered is a helmet found at I-hsien, Hopei, of the Late Warring States period (ca. fourth century B.C.). It is composed of 89 plates of iron, the average size being 5 cm x 4 cm, laced together through pairs of holes placed at the edges of the plates (Fig. 3).I2 The use of metal for helmets may have been based on the considerations of cost- effectiveness, that is, the more critical need to protect the head and the smaller area to be en- cased, and perhaps current metallurgical technology could only produce body armor too bulky and heavy to be effective. The appearance, however, of iron and steel weaponry in the Warring States period, which led to the iron helmet just mentioned, also in time produced significant changes in defensive body armor.

2. CH'IN ARMOR

Until recently, nothing was known of the armor of Ch'in which made all the more astonishing the discoveries near the tomb of Ch'in Shih-huang-ti of pits filled with life-sized pottery repre- sentations of warriors (5' II" - 6') and horses, wooden chariots, and real weapons, including crossbows, swords, and spears. One estimate is that the total number of warriors and horses in just one of these pits will come to about six thousand (P1.I).I3 All figures of men, with or with- out armor, wear a long-sleeved robe that reaches to the knees. The men have a thick roll of cloth at the neck; for those wearing armor this kerchief protects the neck from abrasion. Under the robes appear short trousers and a variety of footwear. None of the figures wears a helmet, but some small caps and a number of hair styles are shown.I4 Armor, where depicted, is worn over the robe. The Ch'in armor as shown in these pottery figures, can be divided into eight styles, only the first three of which appear in the first pit. Style III is described first for conven- ience.

no evidence for central China. See Yang, "Studies," I, p. 26. Yang Hung, in a more recent publication, "The Chariot in China," China Reconstructs, Dec., 1978, p. 52, mentions the discovery of bronze armor used by a Western Chou charioteer at Hsi-an in Shantung, but I have not been able to identify this excavation in the more specialized literature.

9 Hayashi, pp.406-407, Fig.473, and Yang, "Studies," I, p. 24, Fig. 5. 10 Yang, "Studies," I, p. 25, Figs. 7-8. I Yang, "Studies,"I, p. 27, gives references to Chan-kuo ts'e 25.525 (Shih-hsieh ts'ung-sbu ed.) and Shih-chi 69.9a (citations to

the standard histories are from the Yi-wen yin-shu-kuan ed.), both of which mention t'ieh mu; and to Han-fei-tzu 9.Is5b (Pai-tzu ch'iian-shu ed.) where mention is made of 'ieh shih, which may refer to metal armor. More clearly to the point, there is a citation to Lii-shih ch'un-ch'iu 2.I6b (Pai-t.u ch'iian-shu ed.) that tells of a mighty warrior (or warriors) who dressed in iron armor (t'ieh-chia) and fought with an iron bar to resist an invasion.

12 KK I975.4, pp. 228-40 and Yang, "Studies," I, pp. 27-28. 13 For the first pit, see WW 1975.1 1, pp. 1-18. This writer's English translation is in Chinese Sociology and Anthropology IO:2

(Winter, I977-78), PP. 3-50. Other early reports were Chinese Literature I975.II, pp. I02-3; New York Times, Nov. 30, 1975; and Archaeology 28.4 (1975), pp. 267-69, the latter by R.C.Rudolph and based on two brief reports in Chinese and Japanese. For the second pit, see W7 1978.5, pp. I-19. A translation of this article appears in Clinese Studies in Archae- ology, i (Summer, I979), pp. 8-5 5. A report on a third pit, WF I979.I2, pp. I-I2, adds to our information concerning Ch'in armor.

14 WV I975.1T, pp.6 and I6, Figs. 5, 23, 24, and PI.IV and V.

7

Style III (Fig.4):5s This was the most common in the first pit. It is a short mail jacket or habergeon of lamellar construction16 covering the upper body, with shoulder and upper arm guards, or "epaulires," attached. The armor is made up of rectangular plates, some 7.5 cm X 8.5 cm, some 10.5 cm X 7.8 cm, which overlap so that the four highest rows overlap downward and the four lowest ones overlap upward, the fourth row from the bottom being covered at top and bottom edges. This gives the habergeon a slightly bulging effect. The plates also overlap laterally toward the sides, both front and back. The plates are connected by some sort of thong, the number of points of attachment being indicated by the appearance of a knot of the thong as it emerges from the underside and re-enters. The number of knots in each plate differs according to the position of the plate. The two sides of the habergeon are almost symmetrical. The top edge is bound by double thongs on the outside. It is clear that the armor opens in the front, to the right; the thongs along the top edge do not cross that opening, and there is some sort of fastener at the top just beyond the overlapping edge. The epaulieres, attached to the shoulders, are made of four rows of plates overlapping upward; these are held by the same knots used for horizontal linkages in the rest of the armor, but vertical linkages are made by thongs on the outside to support and hold down the plates-that is to say, the vertical linkages of the epauliNres show us what the undersurface of the armor elsewhere would be. In some cases, all of the upper- most row of the epauliere is attached to the shoulder, in other cases the outer plates are not. The bottom rows of the body of the habergeon also have the outside vertical thongs, for these plates also overlap upward, as mentioned before.17 The bottom of the habergeon is rounded, climbing over the hips on both sides. The material from which the armor was made may have been of metal, but no metal plates of this size from this or later periods have been found. More likely, the armor was made of lacquered leather.

Style II (Fig. 5): This armor seems to be made up of a foundation with plates of a smaller size than in Style III attached so as to allow the foundation to frame the plates. It is possible, of course, that what appears to be a foundation is an overlay of some sort, but only examination of an actual example can determine that. The opening of the armor at the top right is very clear here. Unfortunately, the size of the plates is not given.I8

Style I (Fig. 6): This is the simplest sort of armor, protecting only the front and giving the appearance of a baseball catcher's chest protector. The plates are apparently of a size similar to those in Style III. In some manner not easy to determine from the available drawings, a border of some material frames the armor. Crossed straps and a belt at the back hold the equipment in

15 W I975.11, p. 10I (p.34 of the translation); Yang, "Studies," I, p.3 1 (the numbering is based on Yang). The descrip- tions of the armor are based in part on first-hand examination of figures seen at an exhibition in Kyoto, at the Historical Museum and Ku-kung in Peking, and the Provincial Historical Museum, Sian.

I6 Lamellar or plate armor is composed of rectangular pieces, of whatever material, joined together horizontally into rows, the rows then being joined vertically to form the armor. This differs from scale armor in that the scales are attached at one end to a backing, and the individual scales are not mutually joined; cf. Laufer, p. 2 5 8, notes I and 2. See also Bengt Thordeman, Armour from the Battle of Wisby i36I (Stockholm, I939), Chap.VII: "History of Lamellar Armour," and H.Russell Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome (New York, I975), pp. I62-63.

I7 Yang, "Studies," I, p. 3 I, contrasts a stiffer linkage of plates on the upper torso with the plates connected by the outside thongs to make the articulation more flexible, but see discussion below.

I8 WW 197 5. I, p. I (p. 34 of the translation); Yang, "Studies," I, p. 3 I.

8

place.9Is Styles I and II are known only from the drawings, and some details of their construction are not clear.

In the second pit, only some twenty meters from the first, was found a military formation of even greater complexity than that of the first. It is estimated to contain eighty-nine wooden chariots, 261 charioteers, 356 chariot horses, 562 infantrymen, and a category not found in the first, 116 cavalrymen with their mounts. Only the pottery figures from a small portion of the site have actually been uncovered, but among these are four styles of armor not found in the first pit.

Style IV (Fig. 7): This was worn by the drivers of chariots and covered more of the body than any other type. The bottom edge is curved in front but straight in the back; it possesses a kind of collar or neck guard, 7.5 cm high, and most distinctive of all, articulated, lamellar armor for the arms extending to the wrists, with attached plates to protect the hands as they hold the reins. There are 323 plates in these suits, those on the upper body being 7 cmX 6 cm while the lower ones are 9 cm X 6.5 cm. Those for the arms are 4-7.5 cm in length and 4 cm high. Except for the protection of the arms, the greater length, and the collar, the construction of this armor is the same as that of Style III, especially in terms of direction of overlap of the plates and the use of thongs on the outside to provide vertical linkage of plates imbricated upward.20

Style V (Fig. 8): One officer was found clad in this sort of armor, which has a distinctive appearance lent by a tasseled cape worn over the upper part of the armor. From the published drawings, it would appear to resemble armor of Style II, that is, a foundation garment with plates attached only to the lower torso, but first-hand viewing of the figure reveals that the upper portion overlays the armor plate, which must cover the entire torso. This style of armor also differs from that of Style II in that it lacks epatliures, possesses a long, pointed apron in front (I08 cm), and is shorter in back (62 cm). There are 250 plates (I92 in front and 58 in back), in seventeen rows in front and seven in back. The rows imbricating upward with outside linkages number ten in front and two in back. The plates are smaller than heretofore, being only 4.2-4.8 cm X 3.5 cm vertically and horizontally respectively. The method of linking the plates on the upper body is different from the previously described armor in that in addition to two knots (called "nails" in the reports, see below) at the upper and lower corners on the sides which overlap the plate to the side and which ought to represent horizontal linkage, there is a "V"-shaped design where thongs emerge on the outer surface. These thongs ought to be the vertical linkage, elsewhere simply represented on the upper plates by a single knot on the middle of the lower edge of each plate. What these "V" shapes may indicate is that vertical linkages are actually diagonal in direction, or as is more likely, zigzag, and one sees in effect a stitching effect running diagonally between the rows. This would also explain the fact that in the lower plates there are two vertical thongs, that is, these are the continuations of the two diagonals or zigzags that converge on each plate in the last row of upper body plates. It would not be surprising if in fact the actual linkages were even more complicated than these traces on the outer surface would indicate.21

19 WW I975 *I I, p- I0 (pp. 34-3 5 of the translation); Yang, "Studies," I, pp. 30-3 I . 20 W I1978.5, p. 10 (p. 3 3 of the translation). This style shows most clearly the derivation from the Lei-ku-tun armor of the

preceding period, especially in the protection for the arms and the high collar. For this reason, it may indicate that the Sui-hsien armor was also reserved for use by charioteers. The drawing reproduced in Fig. 2, showing the warrior holding a spear or other long-handled weapon, may thus be misleading.

21 WV I978.5, pp. I 0-I I (pp. 3 3-3 5 of the translation).

9

Style VI (Fig. 9): This was the style of armor worn by the cavalry, its design being especially suited to the activity of mounting and riding. It is short, only 5 5 cm in front and 49 cm in back, reaching to the belt, with eight rows (as compared to the fourteen/eleven of style IV above), and lacks shoulder guards. Each suit contains I25 plates, which are generally rectangular and 8 cm X 5.7 cm in size. The robes worn under the armor are also a bit different, being shorter, having the overlap to the front, perhaps to facilitate sitting astride the horse, and with tighter sleeves. Finally, cavalrymen wore boots and a small cap with a strap under the chin. The total effect was one of trimness and fighting efficiency. It is believed that these men were armed with bows.22

Style VII (Fig. I0): This suit, found depicted on another officer, is very similar to Style V above, except that the upper cape includes shoulder covers, perhaps over epaulires, and the suit is a bit shorter, 97 cm in front and 5 5 cm in back. There are 1 60 plates (i I I in front and forty- nine in back), in seventeen rows in front and six in back. Of those, nine in front and five in back cover the upper torso. The plates are small, 4 cm square, as in Style V above. One finds the same sort of "V" linkage on the upper plates and double vertical thongs below, also as in Style V.23

Style VIII (Fig. 11): This style is found on one (no. 46) of the group of four figures which were placed behind the chariot in the third pit. From the position of the arms, this figure may have represented the driver of the vehicle. Two of the others in this group (nos. 43 and 44) wear similar armor but with epaulieres, and each differs from the other in minor details; thus one might number these as VIIIA, VIIIB and VIIIC. The armor is 66 cm long, and made up of 14 rows of plate in front and I in back, 178 in all, excluding epaulire plates, which means the plates were much smaller than usual, being close in size to those of style IV.24

The descriptions by the Chinese authorities still speak of nails or rivets as joining the plates. Since one sees these "nails" only on the upper torso plates, these plates are calledfixed. The plates of the lower part of the armor have a combination of "nails" and vertical thongs and are called flexible.24 This opinion was confirmed by the discovery of one knob with a shank which fitted into a hole of one of the plates.25 Such a manner of joining plates seems most unlikely since fixed plates would have hindered bodily movement, and further it would not explain the perfect correlation between upward imbrication of the plates and the outside vertical thongs. It seems clear to this writer that all plates are joined by some sort of cord or thong and that the "nails" are actually where these connections emerge as they pass in and out of closely spaced pairs of holes. The lower plates, those lapping upward, have the vertical thongs on the outside surface. The direction of imbrication may well have facilitated movement of the body, that is, the direction the plates were to flex both at the lower torso and on the upper arm was

22 WV 1978.5, pp. 8 and I I (p. 3 5 of the translation). 23 WW 1978.5, P. II (p. 35 of the translation). 24 The very brief description, with no mention even of number of rows, is found in WW I979.I2, p.9. Sketches of the

three pottery figures wearing armor VIII A, B, and C, that is, nos. 43, 45 and 46, are to be found on pp. 6-7 of that report, Figs. 7 and 8. A depiction of the same armor, with epauliere, apparently appears in Yang, Chung-kuo ku ping-ch'i lun- ts'ung, p. 17, Fig. I3.I (as Style 2.2 in his new arrangement). Of the other styles found in the third pit, the first (WW I979.I2, p. 9, Fig. 13) is the same as our III, the second (Fig. I4) is a variant (the sides differ a bit) of III, and the third (Fig. 15) is largely the same as our I.

25 Yang, "Studies," I, p. 31, and WW 1978.5, p.II and Fig. 20.

IO

from the bottom up. It is interesting to note that the same direction of imbrication appears at the same places in European sheet armor of a later date. The placing of the vertical cords on the outside would avoid the need of the cords to stretch as the plates flexed. The outside cords over plates imbricated upward might also act to prevent any gaps caused by gravity.

The material out of which the armor was made is of course a matter of conjecture. The Chinese authorities say that the foundations in Styles I, II, V, and VII may have been of leather (the epaulihres of Style VII specifically are said to have been of leather) but the plates themselves in all these styles of armor are believed to be of iron. Thus the term k'ai is used in reference to the armor, and reference is made to the passage in Lii-shih ch'un-chiu that speaks of iron armor in the late Warring States period.26 The only trace of actual iron armor in the pre-Ch'in period, however, is the helmet mentioned above. The suits of iron armor from the Han period, described below, are made of plates that are smaller than those of most of the armor of the Ch'in (except Styles V and VII). Thethe plates of those styles of Ch'in armor not worn by officers is intermediate between the earlier Warring States leather armor plates and the later iron ones. Nothing is said in the published archaeological reports about the thickness of any of these examples. As of now there is no reason to assume that the armor of the ordinary soldier of the Ch'in was of iron. Most likely the armor was made of lacquered leather but the question must be left open. However, the small size of the plates in the suits worn by the officers (Styles V and VII) may indicate that iron was employed, and this may be a precursor to the use of the metal for such purposes in the Han period which followed.

3. HAN ARMOR

To judge from the stone reliefs found in Han tombs, it might be assumed that armor was largely dispensed with. Whether as guards at the tomb doors, in processions, or even engaged in combat, the warriors are depicted as wearing long, foinng robes; except for occasional bucklers -and perhaps hard helmets, rather than caps-there is no sign of defensive armor.27 The typical tomb figure of the Han is not that of a warrior; usually civilians and animals are por- trayed. In the past the rare occurrence of an armed figure, whether from Lo-yang or from Szechwan, proved to be no more enlightening than the wall reliefs.28

That the use of armor was carried on into the Han is shown by a find in I965 at Yang-chia- wan near Sian.29 In a series of thirteen pits situated before a burial mound was found a very large number of figurines of warriors, approximately 44.5-48.5 cm in height, in such excellent state of preservation that the details of their armor are still discernible (Fig. 1 2). The foot soldiers, 26 WV 1978.5, p. I4 (p.44 of the translation); for the Luii-shih ch'un-ch'iu passage, see note I I above. 27 See for example KKHP I964.2, pp. 107-I26, Wen-wu ching-hua, no. 3, p. 5, and Chiang-sut Hsi-chou Han-hua hsiang-shih

(Peking, I959), p]. 34. Useful for surveying the Han material is Kate Finsterbusch, VTerzeichnis und Motivindex der Han- Darstellunzgen, 2 vols. (Wiesbaden, 1966 and I97I). Laufer, p. zo20I, spoke of the failure of Han sculpture (that is, stone reliefs) to provide adequate information about defensive armor. There is of course textual evidence for the use of armor; for example, Tung-kuan Han-chi tells of the surrender in 27 A. D. of 200,000 "Red Eyebrow" rebels whose arms and armor (ping-chia), piled up, equaled a mountain in height; T'ai-p'ingyu-lan 3 5 5 .7b.

28 KK I957.3, PI. 6, Fig. 3 (this piece also appears in Shen Chung-hsiieh et al., Ssu-ch'uan Han-tai t'ao-yung (Peking, I963), P1. 27); WW I973.2, p. 54, figS,I5-i6. These are Eastern Han.

29 VW' I96I.3, pp.I-5 and plates; WW I977.1I0, pp.io0-I6 and pp.22-26.

II

altogether numbering approximately 2,000, wear a number of sorts of plate armor.30 One is a kind of lamellar armor which resembles that of the Ch'in, but it is tied around the body with cords. These foot soldiers also have epaulieres and once carried miniature weapons and shields, some of which were also found on the site. Another is a simpler type, giving less protection to the upper body, and is supported by cords over the shoulders. In all cases, the armor is black with details rendered in white. One figure, depicted in scale-like armor, the lamellae of which however were laced together, seems to represent an officer (Fig. 1 3 A). Mounted riders, 5 83 in number, were also included. A few of the cavalrymen are said to be depicted wearing armor but neither the number nor the style is clear (Fig. i4).31

There has been no satisfactory detailed description of this find. Of the seventy-two figures placed in exhibit in the History Museum in Peking in 1978, thirty-six have armor, seven of which are the simplest kind. As in the Ch'in case all the figures have heavy collars and robes, but the robes of the Han are of a wrap-around type, colored red, white or pink, and belted. None of the horsemen displayed in the Peking Museum wear armor, but some carry quivers. The figures wear caps but no helmets. The lamellar armor, as distinguished from the scale, is lapped upward with two knots placed at the upper end of each plate. Red lines drawn across the body represent cords that support small quivers on the backs. All figures which have an open fist held in the air were once equipped with miniature crossbows and have quivers. There seems to be no correlation between armor and weapon. The shields, about one-third of body height, possess the same intricate shape but are painted with different designs in black and red.

From the Yang-chia-wan find we are informed somewhat about the appearance of Han armor, but it remains to determine the material used. An important development during the Han was the appearance of metal armor. This innovation is signalled by a series of entries in the Shuo-wen chieh-t,u the dictionary of Ioo00 A.D. The traditional words for armor were chia and chieh, which probably referred primarily to armor made of leather,32 but in Shuo-wen one finds a series of graphs relating to armor that have the "metal" radical. The first, k'ai, is defined as chia "armor". It does not appear in the classical texts. Han commentators began to use k'ai to gloss or to define other words for armor. The other two in Shbuo-wven are ban "brassart" andya-hsia "nape protector" or "gorget" (it is not clear which).33

30 The exact number is I965 but is said to include figures of dancers, musicians and civil officers as well, WV 1977.10, p. o, which have never been shown. Interestingly enough, there is an account in Han shu 40.28a, about a man from this same area in which the tomb was found being accused of planning a rebellion on the basis of a report that he was buying up a large amount of arms; he responded to the charge that the arms were of the sort used in burials and were meant for his father's tomb. The anecdote is cited by Laufer, p. 206, note 2, from Wieger, Textes historiques, p. 448. It is found on pp. 372-373 of the second edition, (Paris, I922-23).

31 IFIV 196I.3, p. 5, and WW I977.I0, p. I0, p. 25 and p. 28. The cavalry makes up 2i% of the force but only eight percent wear armor; (WW I977. I, p. 28); is the percentage that of the cavalry or of the whole force? The only depiction, Fig. i, p. 29, does not so much resemble the description in the text (p. 29), which claims this style to be a prototype of liang-tang, to be described below, but rather is close to a type worn by the infantry.

32 Laufer, pp. 174-i 83. 33 Shuo-wen chieh-tgu ku-lin, pp.6327b, 6328a and 6328b (Kuo-min ch'u-pan-she ed., I960). Another graph used to indicate

metal armor by using the metal radical was chia*, which occurs in Chin rhu I I6.3a, in reference to an incident of the mid- fourth century.

12

The use of metal armor is substantiated by a number of references in the Edsen-gol slips34 and by the excavation of actual armor. One such example is the burial of a man in iron-scale armor discovered near Lo-yang and dated as late Former Han. Some 328 complete pieces of plate were recovered; despite the rusted condition of the find one can still trace the method of connecting the pieces with hemp string. At the waist was a copper belt hook and by his side an iron sword.35 A second find of iron plate was made at Erh-shih-chia-tzu, near Huhehot, in Inner Mongolia.36 One complete suit, one damaged suit, and some 303 miscellaneous plates have been found thus far. The complete suit consisted of a row of plates designed to protect the neck, four or five rows of plates for the chest and back, joined along the sides, short sleeves to protect the shoulders, and finally, three rows at front and back forming a kind of tasset or thigh guard. The plates at the shoulders and thighs were smaller and lapped upward (Fig. I 5). The suit was composed of some 5 00oo lamellae and estimated to have weighed twenty-two Ibs.37 A suit of armor depicted in the reliefs of I-nan is similar in construction but differs somewhat in the shoulder guards and tassets (Fig. I6).38

Yang Hung has classified the Han armor into two types, primarily on the basis of the size of the lamellae (Fig. I7).39 That of the officer (Fig. 17, Type II.2 and Fig. I3A) appears for the most part to resemble scale rather than plate armor, although its manner of construction is not by scales. If so, then it may reflect influences received from the northern nomads for the Scyth- ians were using bronze and iron scale armor from at least the fifth century B.C.40 The Chinese describe the Hsiung-nu warriors to have been armored, but there is no exact information as to the type of armor used.4I Laufer is probably correct that chia in the description refers to what

34 Cited by Yang, "Concerning," p. 693. Note the use of t'ieh-k'ai. The Edsen-gol area now is part of Inner Mongolia. 35 KKHP I963.2, pp. 34-35. The English resume speaks of "iron armor sheets," which is misleading. 36 KK I975.4, PP. 249-5 8. Earlier references were WW 1959.59, pp. 7 and 20-25, WW 1961.9, p. 23, and Yang, "Concerning,"

p. 69 3. Huhehot, or Koke Khota, the capital of Inner Mongolia, is the former Kwei-hua, capital of Sui-yuan province. 37 The full suit of armor, especially that worn by a general, must have weighed more, otherwise there would be little point

to the anecdote about Ma Yuiian who in 48 A.D., at the age of sixty-two (sui) demonstrated to the emperor that he could still sit on a horse fully accoutered and so was able to lead a proposed campaign; see Hou Han shu 24. IIb. Other finds of Han iron armor plate have included: I) near Ch'ung-an-ch'eng, Fukien, mid-Western Han, thirty-six iron plates (KK I960o.o, p. 7). 2) at the Pu-lung-cho site, Inner Mongolia, several tens of plates (KK 1973.2, p. 98). 3) at the Pao-erh-hao-t'e (or T'u-ch'eng-tzu) site, Inner Mongolia, (Yuii-hiin of the Han) a large number of lamellae,

of some ten or so sizes, similar to those of Erh-shih-chia-tzu (oral report of an excavator). 4) at Man-ch'eng, Hopei, in the well-known tomb of the Western Han Prince Liu Sheng, along with many weapons,

a suit of iron armor, rolled up and rusted together, and a helmet were found (KK I972.I, P. 13), and Cbung-kuo ku ping-ch'i lun-ts'ung, p. 22, fig. I6. The very small lamellae were bound like plate (Fig. 1 3B).

5) at the site of some Han beacon-towers on the Ko-chi-na River, Inner Mongolia, one plate was found (B. Sommer- strom, "Archaeological Researches in the Edsen-gol Region, Inner Mongolia," 1956-57, passim). These citations are from Yang, "Studies," I, pp. 3 3-34.

6) Finally at Site No. I of the Han armory at Sian, plates which made up several fragments of iron armor were of three sizes: I) I I cm x 2 cm, with holes on two sides; 2) S cm x 2-3 cm, rectangular, with rounded corners, holes on all four sides, and 3) 2 cm X I.5 cm, with six holes on the top edge only, resembling scale armor (KK 1978.4, PP. 264-5).

38 I-nan ku-hua-hsiang shih-mufa-cbihueh pao-kao, (Peking, 1956), p. I5, PI. 31. There is some question whether these reliefs are late Han or early Chin; Hsio-yen Shih, "I-nan and Related Tombs," Artibus Asiae 22 (1959), P. 3 10, proposes 280-3 IO AD.. and more recently, A. Soper, Artibus Asiae 36 (I1974), p. 265, concurs.

39 From Yang, "Studies," I, pp. 36-39. 40 B. N. Grakov, Skify, p. I 3 7; M.V. Gorelik, "Rekonstruktsiya dospexov skifskogo voina iz kurgana y g. Ordshonikidze,"

in Skify i Sarmaty (Kiev, I977), PP. I46-1 5 I. The representations of Sarmatians and their horses completely covered by suits of scale on Trajan's Column date from the early second century A. D.

41 Shih chi I Io. 2a; Burton Watson, Records of the Grand Historian of China (New York, 1961), II. I 5.

I3

he terms a leather cuirass.42 However a most unusual piece in the History Museum, Taipei, points to possible awareness of foreign scale armor. The figure, said to be of the Han period, is obviously of a non-Chinese in helmet and suit of scale holding a shield reversed before him (P. II).43 Laufer's statement that the Han armor "bedecked with copper and iron laminae received their impetus from the West, more specifically from the metal scale and plate armors worn by the Iranian and Scythian cataphracti" (p. 232) is too extreme but that is not to say that there was no interaction and possibly some adaptation.

Laufer proposed a sequence of leather scale armor being replaced by bronze in the third and second centuries B.C. and that by iron in the first and second centuries A.D.44 Bronze does not seem to have been used generally for this purpose,4s and the transition to iron, as we have seen, must be given an earlier date. It is also clear that leather continued to be used together with metal. A badly damaged suit of lacquered leather, to be dated no later than the end of the Former Han, has been found at Ch'ang-sha.46 In the Later Han starving troops under siege at Kucha are said to have cooked and eaten their leather corselets and strings from their cross- bows.47 Later, in the second half of the third century, a Chin military force prevailed in ravines of the far north-west because it was equipped with rhinocerous or leather armor (the sources differ), while lodestones hampered the movement of the enemy, who wore iron armor (t'ieh- k'ai).48 Armor laminae of lacquered leather of the third and fourth centuries have also been found along the southern Silk Road in modern Singkiang at Miran and Niya.49 Thus depictions of armor cannot always be assumed to represent metal armor. Leather must have continued to be used, in lamellar form and perhaps in other ways.

42 Laufer, p. 223 -4. 43 Sylvia Fraser, "Tomb Pottery in the National Museum of History, Taipei," Arts of Asia Jan-Feb, 1978, p. 5 6, describes

the armor as being lamellar, but I do not agree. The basis for the dating seems to be stylistic. There is a door guardian incised into stone of a tomb of 582 which depicts a foreigner in almost the same armor; WW 1966.1, Fig. 44, and Yang, "Studies," I, p. 71, Fig. 3 1:2. Mr. Liu P'ing-heng of the History Museum provided the photograph of the Han piece and informs me that it will soon be published by the Museum.

44 Laufer, p.2I3. Laufer, p.209, also cites Cheng Hsiian (127-200 A.D.) as saying that the ancients had used leather for armor but that metal was used in his time. The source of this citation, according to Shuo-wen chieh-tZu ku-lin, p. 6327b, is Hsuii Hao (I810-I879), Shuo-wen chieh-.zu chu-chien, which in turn cited a passage from Cheng Hsuiian's commentary to Chou-li: "chia is the present day k'ai." The T'ang exegesis by Chia Kung-yen then expanded the statement to explain the transition from leather to metal. The source of Hsuii's quotation is not clear since the Chou-li passage, in the Ssu-chia section, with its commentary, is missing from the present text; cf. Chou-li 32.4b (the classics are cited from the Shih-san- ching chu-su printed by Yi-wen yin-shu kuan). K'ung Jung (I S53-208) also made the comment that the sages had used leather armor (ko k'ai) but that now iron armor (t'ieh k'ai) was used, which far surpassed that of antiquity: cf. San-kuo chih: Wei I2.4a, in P'ei Sung-chih's commentary and T'ai-p'ingyii-lan 356.3b. Yang, "Studies," I, p. 32, took the phrase chuiieh ku shenyiian to mean that the present, on the contrary, was far behind the past. Kwang-chih Chang, The Archaeology of Ancient China (New Haven, rev. ed., 1977), p. 2, cites a developmental scheme of stone to bronze to iron for the manufacture of weapons, ascribed to the late Ch'un-ch'iu period by Yuiian K'ang (fl. 40 A.D.) in his Yiueh chueh shu II.4b-5a (Ssu-pu ts'ung-k'an ed.).

45 Bronze lamellae of Western Han date have been found at Li-chia-shan, 80 km. south of Kunming, but the site is identified as belonging to the Tien culture; KKHP I975.2, pp. 147, I52, and I55-6. Laufer, p.2i4, Fig. 34, has drawings of bronze scale of the Han but gives no source; I have not seen other examples cited in the more recent archaeological literature. See also note 8 above.

46 WV9 I6956. I 0, p. 38-9, and Fig. I 6, p. 4I. 47 Hou Han shu I9.I 5a; cited by Laufer, p. 189, note i. 48 Chin shu 57.5sa. This anecdote is cited from Chin shu in T'ai-p'ingyiu-lan 355.8a and from the Chin shu of Wang Yin at

355.8b. 49 Aurel Stein, Serindia (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921), vol.4, P1.L. This was kindly pointed out to me by Prof.Edward

Schafer.

I4

There is little archaeological evidence for armor in the Later Han period. Yang cites such items as tiny figures on a pottery watch tower,50 a brick relief from Chang-lou-ts'un, Honan,sl and a stone lintel from Shih-li-pu, Kiangsu,52 but these give unsatisfactory evidence for ar- morial style and material. One should note the guards depicted with pointed, plumed helmets in the Holingol mural from a late Eastern Han tomb; this is the same casque-type of helmet which will be seen later in the Chin, but the figures are clothed in long, nondescript robes (Fig. I 8).53

4. LATE HAN TO CHIN

In the late Han and early post-Han period, that is, third and early fourth centuries, the level of warfare was high and armor was obviously an important consideration. As one might expect, a number of references to quantity and quality appear in the literary sources. The written material is too scanty to make possible a coherent or detailed account, but the following items are cited for the general impression they present. Around I50 A.D., Ts'ui T'i said that the Chinese control of the northern nomads was due to armor and the crossbow, and yet, as he bitterly complained, the avariciousness of officials was resulting in the manufacture of inferior weaponry--iron was being tempered so as to cause it to be brittle or easily bent, and the suits made too small to be worn.54 Ts'ao Ts'ao, (I 5 5-220) founder of the Wei kingdom, spoke of having a mere twenty suits of armor to match the 0,000ooo of his rival Yan Shao and but ten suits of horse armor to match his enemies' 300oo, yet he won victory exactly because Yuan Shao underestimated him.s5 Yuiian Shang, Shao's son, believed that his defeat by Ts'ao Ts'ao was due to the inferior armor of his own forces56 and Ts'ao Ts'ao's report on that victory records the capture of 19,620 helmets and innumerable weapons, but no armor, however, is mentioned.57 A report of A.D. 23 speaks of the capture of ,ooo000 suits of "dark armor" (hsiian-k'ai) and 3,I00 crossbows.58 The numbers are not necessarily reliable; rather they are repeated here to indicate the numbers claimed at the time.

50 Liu-chia-ch'uii, near Shan-hsien, Honan, KKHP I965.I, pp. I35-36; p. 138, Fig. 27; p. I39, Fig.28; and Pi. V1.2. 51 KK I964.2, p. 9I, Fig. .2 and p. go. 52 KK I966.I, p.69 and p.7o, Fig.4.I. 53 IW Ix974. I, p.5 and p. 6, Fig. 8. 54 The passage appears in his Cheng-lun "Discussion of Government"; see Yen K'o-chiin, Ch'iian Hou Han wen 46.6b, in his

Ch'iian shang-ku san-tai Ch'in Han san-kuo liu-ch'ao wen, as cited from Chiin-shu chih-yao. T'ai-p'ingyii-lan 3 5 6. 3a has a slightly abbreviated version; the passage does not occur in the Cheng-lun included in his biography in Hou Han shu 52.I4ff. For the process of tempering by quenching, see Joseph Needham, The Development of Iron and Steel Technology in China (Cam- bridge, I 964), p. 2 5.

55 T'ai-p'ingyii-lan 356.3b. Yen, Ch'iian San-kuo wen 3.4a, gives this as the only source. 56 T'ai-p'ingyii-lan 355.7b. 57 T'ai-p'ingyii-lan 3 56.8a-b; cited by Yen, Ch'iian San-kuo wen I.gb-Ioa, and by Hui Tung in his commentary to Hou Han

shu 74.B.6a. 58 San-kuo chih: Shu 5.I4a, in a passage quoted from the Han Chin ch'un-chiu. This term hsiian-k'ai or hsiian-chia is found in the

Han sources also. Yang, "Studies," I, p. 32 cites Shih-chi I I I.I4b which tells of a troop clad in hsiian-chia that accompanied Ho Ch'ii-ping's body to his tomb; for Eastern Han, T'ai-p'ingyii-lan 3 5 6.5 a cites Tung-kuan Han-chi which reports another honor guard of 400 men in hsiian-chia; a variant is given in T'ai-pingyii-lan, 355.7b. For references in literature, Yang mentions Pan Ku's "Feng Yen-jan shan ming" which has the rays of the sun flash off hsiian-chia (Wen hsuian 56.5a);

I 5

Various types of armor are also mentioned. Ts'ao Chih (I92-232) catalogs them in an often cited petition:

The Previous Emperor presented your vassal with armor (k'ai), to wit, a suit of "black-brilliant" (hei-kuang) and one of "bright-brilliant" (ming-kuang) and a suit of "double-faced" (liang-tang) armor, but now that the present age is peaceful and the weapons and armor (ping ko) are not of use, I request leave to turn them all over to the Armor Board (k'ai-ts'ao) to be taken care of.59

The kinds of armor mentioned by Ts'ao Chih recur in the texts. Troops wearing "double armor" (liang-k'ai rather than his liang-tang k'ai) are reported for the same period.60 The terms hei-kuang and ming-kuang seem to denote especially fine armor61 and may have reference to the steel from which they were made, since decarburized steel is said to be pure and gleaming, and when polished it becomes intensely blue-black.62 Finally, Ch'en Lin (d. 217) one of the chief literati at Ts'ao Ts'ao's court, perhaps having in mind a scene similar to that in the I-nan relief, described the armor in the Imperial Armory as follows :63

extending into the post-Han period, Ts'ao P'ei used basically the same phrase in a poem inspired by a review of troops in 22 5 A.D. (San-kuo chih: Wei 2.25 b, commentary of P'ei Sung-chih). As Yang says, hsfan-chia is defined as "iron armor" by Chang Shou-chieh (T'ang) in his commentary to Shih-chi, II I .I4b, because of the dark color of iron. Yang then cites the black color of the figures of Yang-chia-wen as indicative that the armor was meant to be represented as being made of iron ("Studies," I, pp. 32-33). The Ch'in pottery figures were clad in armor colored either black or dark brown (WF 1975. I, p. 6); since it is doubtful that their armor was made of iron, the color alone is not adequate indication of the material.

59 For Ts'ao Chih and his legend, see Hans H.Frankel, "Fifteen Poems by Ts'ao Chih: An Attempt at a New Approach," Journal of the American Oriental Society 84: I (I964), pp. I-I4. The petition was addressed either to his brother Ts'ao P'ei (reigned 220-26) and referred to a gift from Ts'ao Ts'ao, their father, or as is more likely was addressed to his nephew Ts'ao Jui (reigned 226-239), and the gift was from Ts'ao P'ei. The passage is cited from Ch'en Ssu-wang chi I.5 Ia in Han Wei liu-ch'ao pai-san ming-chia chi (Tien-nan, I877 ed.). Ch'u-hsiieh chi (Chung-hua shu-chu, I962 ed.) 22.536-7 has slight textual variants. T'ai-p'ingyui-lan 3 56.3b adds to the list a set of horse armor and one of chain mail (huan-so k'ai). As Laufer, p. I74, n. , observes, the latter is obviously an anachronism since chain mail is not employed before the T'ang, but Laufer errs in saying there are no textual references before the T'ang. There is a description of chain mail as specifically a Central Asian or Iranian type of armor in the account of a campaign in Central Asia in 384; Chin shu i22.3a. See also R.Mather, Biography of Lu Kuang, Chinese Dynastic Histories Translations, No.7 (Berkeley, I959), p. 33 and note 74. Certain terms in Ts'ao Chih's passage were misunderstood by Laufer, p. 174, n. I, and Werner, p. 36. Yang, "Studies," I, p. 43 does not mention the problem of textual variants and seems to accept the list as it occurs in the T'ai-p'ingyii-lan.

60 For I94 A.D., San-kuo chih: Vei I8.I3a (cf. Tu-chih t'ung-chien [Ku-chi ch'u-pan-she ed.] 53.I955), and for 208 A.D., San-kuo chih: Wu Io.9b.

61 For example, in 222 Ts'ao P'ei presented Sun Ch'iian with a set of ming-kuang k'ai; see San-kuo chih: Wu 2.1 Ia and T'ai- p'ingyii-lan 355.8b.

62 Needham, p. 34. The fact that hsiian-chia was said to reflect the sun's rays (see above) may indicate that the Han armor had some of these qualities too. I do not agree with Yang that the term refers to the type of armor which I prefer to call plaque armor (see below) because: I) his identification does not explain the term bei-kuang; and 2) there is no evidence of plaque armor until two or more centuries after Ts'ao Chih's statement was made. Unfortunately the term ming-kuang is now being used in site reports to refer to plaque armor; see KK I979.3, p. 236. Prof. Oba Osamu of Kansai University and Dr. Miyazaki Takashi of the Nara Museum have recently kindly referred me to a discussion of hei-kuang and ming-kuang by the late Komai Kazuchika in his Chugoku kokogaku ronso (Tokyo, I974), pp. 59-6o, in which ming-kuang is said to refer to metal lamellae armor and hei-kuang to lacquer lamellar armor. I am inclined to agree with Prof. Komai, but if both varieties of armor prove to be metallic, then my suggestion above may provide an explanation for the terms.

63 T'ai-p'ingyi-lan 356.3b, citing Ch'en's "Prose-poem on the Armory (Wu-k'u fu)".

i6

As for the armor (k'ai) then like that of Ch'iieh-kung64 of the Eastern Barbarians, It is made of the finest steel refined a hundred times; 65 The armorer66 has plied his hammer, The leather-worker67 has made the stitching; [Adorned with] dark feathers the flashing armor (chia) Gleams and shines, throwing off light.

After reading such references in the texts of the period, one might expect that the archaeological evidence would provide additional evidence to round out the picture, but such is not the case thus far. There are no finds of actual armor of this period, and the funerary figurines do not contribute a great deal to a study of this topic.

In the transition from Han to early Chin, just as was true for most of the Han period, there are few funerary figures that clearly represent warriors, but a new type of figure appears, a rather fierce one, which calls to mind the exorcist described in the Chou-li. In that work, the exorcist is said to wear a bear-skin mask with four golden eyes, black trousers, and a red jacket. Armed with a spear and shield, he accompanies the coffin to the tomb where he enters first to strike the four corners with the spear to chase away the evil spirits.68 The association with this fearsome character probably explains why these figures in museums are often labeled as shamans, but it should be remembered that at least several centuries separate the Chou-li description and the figures themselves. Although many of these figures do not exhibit armor, they are described below because they obviously depict a martial figure, and further, they provide a context for those which do wear armor.

A. Early Tomb Guardians and Spear Brandishers What appears to be the earliest type unfortunately has not yet been authenticated by scientific excavation. This type is characterized by a small shield, perhaps made of wicker, a large head with high cheek-bones, and some sort of flat headgear (P1.III and Fig. IgA). Aside from the shield, there is no further indication of arms or armor.69 The pose is static, but a related sort, also wearing the flat cap, introduces movement by raising the arm as if holding a spear-none

64 Ch'uiieh-kung (anc. k'wt-k'iwong) is the country said to have produced the armor worn by King Wu when he conquered the Shang; Tso-chuan, Duke Chao 15 (576 B.C.), 47.Iia; James Legge, The Ch'un Ts'ew with the Tso Chuen (Hongkong 1872), p.66o. The commentary gives no further information about its location but Ch'en here places it among the Eastern Barbarians. This touches on the possible foreign influences in the development of Chinese armor. Ch'en's identi- fication of Ch'uiieh-kung with the Eastern Barbarians may indicate that quality armor was being produced at this time in Korea; there is evidence, cited below, of an advanced state of the art in the fourth century A.D.

65 Needham, p. 3I, where the same terminology (pai-lien) is used to describe the direct decarburization of steel. See also pp. 3 3-34 for Sung discussions of the process. Yang, "Studies," I, p. 42-3 cites some archaeological evidence that sub- stantiates the process here mentioned by Ch'en Lin.

66 Chou-li 4o.igb has han-jen for han-shih. 67 Chou-li 40.24b has the heading wei-shih but the text is missing. 68 Chou-li 3i.I2a-b; Laufer, pp. I98-99. 69 In addition to the Waseda piece in PI.III (Fig.IgA) see also that in Sato Masahiko, Chugoku no dogu (Tokyo, I965),

PI. 9 and pp. 6 8-69; it is also to be seen in his Kan-rikucho no dogu, P1. I: "Han, warrior, grey pottery, 30 cm, Kyoto, private collection." Musee Cernuschi has two examples, one very similar to the Waseda piece (Fig. IgB) but unglazed and with a mask on the back of the head; the other has a black glaze over the head and torso and a white slip over the legs, through which the red pottery may be seen.

I7

has been found with the spear intact-and in some cases with the appropriate bodily position for throwing the weapon (Fig. zo20A-B).70 There are also a few who wear a helmet7i rather than a flat cap and whose faces seem more benign (Fig. 20 C). Other brandishers of spears, while related in period and pose, clearly fall into another two categories: those clad in a tunic and having a cone or corkscrew headdress (Fig. 20D); and those wearing a spiked helmet and scale corselet (Fig. 20E). One of the figures of the first type, with the peculiar cone-shaped object on the head, was found in a Chin tomb near Lo-yang, the only armed figure mentioned in a group of eight graves. Its position in the tomb and its stance convince one of its role as guardian, if not of the Chou-li exorcist.72 Similar figures are found in a number of collections73 (PI. IV) and in other Western Chin tombs near Lo-yang.74 Descriptions of these finds emphasize the high- cheeked face and large, protruding eyes, provoking the comment that these may be hu or non- Chinese soldiers. Figures of the same facial type and adorned with either the same spiraled hair or a smooth conical cap occur in four jolly, kneeling bronze figures in the Brundage collection, said to be late Chou or early Han and to come from Ch'ang-sha, but believed to represent northern "barbarians".7s There is some difference of opinion about the nature of the cone on the head of the later figures, variously described as a "snail-like, high tuft of hair held by a hoop."76 a "cone-shaped hu cap,"77 and "screw-shaped hair" or "segmented cone helmet".78

There is some question whether the spear-wielders wear armor. One piece in the Tenri Museum in Japan is said to be wearing armor, but another description of the same piece speaks

70 There are a number of examples that might be considered as being of this sort; that is, they wear flat headgear and arc lofting or throwing a spear. These include: I) an excavated piece from an early Western Chin grave near Lo-yang, KKHP I957.1, P1.III.4, grave 19, no. 5; 2) a similar example in the Cernuschi but with the right hand not raised (there is another in that collection more clearly hoisting a spear and placed on horseback); 3) Chugoku no dogu, P1. IO, and Kan- rikucho no dogu, Fig.8, from the Waseda University collection; 4) one in the Brundage collection (see B.Smith and W.Weng, China: A History in Art, New York, 1972, p.7I); 5) Sekai kokogaku taikei (Tokyo, 2nd ed., I966), vol.7, p. 72, Fig. 208. The latter three are kneeling on one knee. The University of Oregon Museum of Art has an example that holds what appears to be a jade tablet in the left hand rather than the more usual shield.

71 KKHP 1957.I, P1.II.7, grave 12, no. 3. The Musee Cernuschi has a standing figure in similar garb. In neither of these examples are the details very clear.

72 KK 1959.1 I, P1.4, no. I and no. 5. The tombs, on the western outskirts of Lo-yang, are not dated. 73 Tenri has two pieces: I) Exhibition of Burial Clay Figures of Ancient China in Tenri University Museum (Tokyo, 1963),

Fig. 5; Kodai Ajia bijitsuten, a catalogue of an exhibition of Tenri material held in Tokyo in 1966 under the sponsorship of the Nihon keizai shimbun, Fig. 84 (in both cases it is identified as a Han figure); Tenri sankokan Zuroku: Chugoku hen (Tokyo, I967), Fig. ii9, text, p.4I, which says it is of the Wei-Chin period; and 2) Kodai Ajia bijutsuten, Fig. 8 ; Tenri sankokan zuroku: Chugoku hen, fig. I I 8, text, p. 41; Chugoku no dogu, p. 69, Fig. I I *. The pose of this figure, with legs bent at the knees and wide stance, may indicate it was originally placed on a horse. The piece is said to be from the Eastern Wu area of Chiang-nan; cf. Tenri sankokan Zuroku: Chugoku hen, p. 41. Other examples are Laufer, P1. XVII and p. 199; ChugokuZ no dogu, P1. 12; and the Philadelphia Museum, no. 23-21-208.

74 I) Chung-kuo ku-wven-wu (Peking, I962), pp. 163-64 (also in KKHP 195 7.I, Pl.III.S5, grave 54, no. 24); 2) KKHP I95 7.I, P1.III.6, grave 7, no. I; and 3) KKHP I957.1, P1.II.7, grave 26, no. 7, and text on p. 177.

75 China: A History in Art, pp. 62-63. The statement that the "triangular caps and bare shoulders are typical of the northern tribes" is not supported by documentation. This identification may have something to do with the "pestle-type hair-do" (ch'ui-chieh) ascribed to a number of foreign peoples in the Han: southern-most China and northern Vietnam, Han shu 43.5 b; the Western Jung, Shuo-yiian I I.5 a (Pai-tzu ch'iian-shu ed.); and the Hsiung-nu, Han shu 54. I 5 b. Fu Wen, a second century commentator, said that soldiers of his time used this hair-style; cf. Han shu 43.5b and 54.I 5b. The term is probably vague enough to include any clumping of the hair. See also Chugoku no dogu, p. 2 5, for another example and discussion.

76 Laufer, p. I99. 77 Sato, in Chugoku no dogui, p. 70. 78 Mizuno, in Tenri sankokan zuroku: Chugoku hen, p.4I.

I8

only of a jacket.79 Another Tenri example is said to be wearing armor perhaps made of leather.80 Most of these pieces wear a belted jacket with the left lapel over the right and no apparent indication of armor. The example in the Field Museum wears a one-piece garment with scales indicated by black lines.81 In this regard, it resembles more closely the garb of the second group of spear wielders.

B. Scale Jerkins and Plumed Helmets As for the second group, while the pose and fierce demeanor resemble those just described above, they are clearly differentiated by their helmet and garb (Fig. zo20E). They wear a tight- fitting, almost sleeveless corselet that is covered with scales rather than plate, and is belted. There is no obvious opening, and so it may have been drawn on over the head. Laufer believed the material to be leather, but there is no proof of this.82 The helmet, made of strips, has a grooved appearance that is met later in another group of figures, but the knob or spike is distinc- tive. A fragment of this kind of figure was found near Lo-yang in a grave dated 287 A.D.83 Others, undated, but of this same period, have been excavated from Lo-yang and the Chengchow area.84

Yang Hung traces this type of scale armor back to the late Han, to the armor worn by the crossbowmen on a model tower excavated near Shan-hsien in Honan.85 The semi-lunar scallops on those figures may indicate scale armor, and there seem to be half sleeves as well (Fig. 2iA). The helmets are very different from the spiked ones of the Chin. He also finds this armor depicted in a wall painting from Yunnan of the Eastern Chin period (Fig. 2IB).86 Here too is shown a pointed helmet with plume and a short-sleeved corselet; the cross-hatching represents some sort of armor, and may be scale. One can see similar figures in other Chin scenes. The 'Wei-Chin tombs at Chia-yu-kuan, Kansu, contained painted bricks, one of which depicts parading cavalry. The armored cavalrymen again wear the plumed helmet and scale corselets we have seen before (Pl.V).87 The foot soldiers portrayed on another brick have plumed helmets and carry shields and weapons but one is not clear about their armor (P1. VI). The same is true of the two guards at the tent of the commander in the scene of a night encampment shown on still another brick.88 Finally, some of the foot soldiers in the procession from the mural in the 79 Tenri sankokan Zuroku: Chugoku hen, p. 4I and PI. II8; Sato Masahiko, in Chugoku no dogu, pp. 69-70, speaks only of short

jacket and trousers. 80 Tenri sankokan zuroku: Chugoku hen, p. 4I and P1. II9. In some Tenri publications these two pieces are said to be from

the Han, which is unlikely. 81 Laufer, P1. XVII and p. I 99. 82 Laufer, p. 199. 83 KKHP 1957. , Pl1.III.7, grave I, no. I5. 84 From Lo-yang, KKHP I 9 5 7. I, PI. III.6, grave 34, no. 6; from Chengchow, KK I95 7.1, p. 3 9 and P1. I 4.3. Other examples

of this type are to be found in the Field Museum, cf. Laufer, P1. XV-XVI; at Waseda University, Kan-rikucho no dogu, p. i0, Fig. 8 and Chugoku no dogi, P1. 72 and pp. 93-94; still others are shown in The Horizon Book of the Arts of China, p. 92 and in Sekai kokogaku taikei, vol. 7, P1. 54 (both labelled as Han). Those unpublished include one in the Mus6e Cernuschi, Paris, the British Museum (no. I91 2-I2-33I 54), and the History Museum, Taipei (no. 9.206). Edmund Capon comments on this type in his review of Ezekiel Schloss, Ancient Chinese Ceramic Sculpture: from Han through T'ang (Stamford, I977), in Oriental Art 24 (1978) Spring, p. 89.

8s KKHP I965.1, p.I39, Fig. z28; Yang, "Studies," I, p.4I, Fig. i6. 86 WW 1963.12, P1.IV.2; Yang, "Studies" II, p. 59, Fig. 19.2. The figures from this site which are depicted as riding armored horses, WW i963.I2, 11.2, will be discussed later.

87 Jan Fontein and Wu Tung, Han and Tang Murals Discovered in Tombs in the People's Republic of China and Copied by Con- temporary Chinese Painters (Boston, 1976), no. 93, p. 72, and p. 66. 88 Ibid., no. 95 and no. 96, p. 63 and comments, p. 6o.

I9

tomb of Tung Shou at Anak in Northern Korea, to be dated 3 5 7, wear a similar garb (Fig. 22). Foot soldiers carry shields and hold swords over their shoulders, wear helmets with a small plume and a sleeveless corselet, and lack leg armor. The armor is indicated by stripes which does not allow the specific kind of lamellae to be determined. Some infantrymen, without shield or body armor, seem to carry an axe over their shoulders; others carry a reflex bow and quiver. The procession gives one a splendid conception of the military equipage of this period.89

One needs also mention here the excavation of some graves near Ch'ang-sha, one of which was dated 302. Among the figures found were a number resenting warriors; those from the dated tomb hold small shields and wear a pointed helmet, but the details of their body armor are not clear. One can only make out the high collar of some sort of jacket and markings that perhaps indicate that they were barefooted (PI.VII).9o An undated grave of the same group contained similar figures but with even fewer discernible details.91 There is also one piece shown holding a sword but wearing formal court headdress.92 Unfortunately, the modeling resembles figures made of playdough and only the casque helmets are clearly discernible.

One may therefore agree with Yang that the sleeveless, or shortsleeved, corselet had become by the Western Chin an important piece of armament,93 but whether this was always covered by scales or whether plate was also used is not clear. Further, I am not able to follow Yang's suggestion for the contemporary name of this type of armor,94 nor can I identify it with the armor of the tomb of Ssu-ma Chin-lung at Ta-t'ung or that at Ts'ao-ch'ang-p'o-ts'un at Sian, both to be described below. The descriarmor was gradually abandoned below. The armor was gradually abandoned and replaced by other styles, but the scale corselet surprisingly r peppears some centuries later, in the tomb of Li Ho who died in 582, shown to be worn by one of a pair of tomb guardians incised on the stone doors (Fig.23).95 The face is that of a foreigner, recalling to mind the strange Han piece from the Historical Museum in Taipei, mentioned above. The relationship of the scale armor worn by these two foreigners to the scale armor of the Chin needs further study in the light of the use of scale armor in Inner Asia.

89 Tung Shou was a north Chinese military figure who had fled from Mu-jung Huang, the ruler of Former Yen (298-349), to Koguryo in 336, where he served until his death although he continued to hold Eastern Chin titles; he is mentioned in TZu-chih t'ung-chien 95 .3005-6 and in Cbin shu Io9. a, where his surname is given as T'ung, but the inscription in his tomb has Tung. For a discussion of the attribution of the tomb, see Hung Ch'ing-yi, in KK 19 5 9.I, pp. 27-3 5. Other literature concerning the tomb is in Wen-wu fs'an-k'ao ftu-liao, hereafter WWTKTL, 195 2.I, pp. 9I-IOI (translation of a Korean article) and pp. I01-I04, and VWI 957.1, pp. 5 3-5 5. A more recent publication ofthis tomb is KonghwagukSahoe, published under the auspices of the Choson Minjujuui Inmin, P'yongyang, I966. There is an admirable discussion in K.H.J. Gardiner, The Early History of Korea (Canberra, I969), pp. 5 2-5 9. The other armor and that for the horses will be dis- cussed below. Note the unarmed bearers of insignia which are the same as in the Yuiinnan murals, WW I963.I2, PI. II.2.

90 KKHP I959.3, PI.VII.I and 2. 91 Ibid., PI. VI.2. 92 Ibid., PI. VI. . The mounted figures are shown with an elaborate helmet but the details are not clear. These will be men-

tioned again below in the discussion of horse armor. 93 Yang, "Studies," II, p.60. 94 Yang, "Studies," II, p.60 has identified this scale armor with the "pipesleeve armor" t'ung-hsiu k'ai mentioned in the

histories. Sung shu 76.8a and 86.2b record the imperial presentation of "Chu-ko Liang's pipe-sleeved armor" in the 46o's. However, the term t'ung in reference to clothing seems to indicate long rather than short sleeves; see Daikanwajiten 26062.2. For this reason I do not adopt Yang's terminology. The presentation armor, entitled "Chu-ko Liang's pipe- sleeve armor," and said to be able to withstand the dart of a crossbow of twenty-five "stones" must have been special armor of some antiquity; in fact, it may have been the same suit in both cases.

95 WW 966. , p.42, Fig. 44.

20

5. THE EARLY SIX DYNASTIES PERIOD

Widespread warfare continued in China as the north fell to the foreign invaders and the Chinese states in the south resisted or counter-attacked as circumstances allowed. Huan I, one of the Chin generals who served at the Fei River battle in 383, bequeathed his property of Ioo suits of horse armor and 5 00oo of foot armor to the emperor, explaining in his testament that he had acquired this equipment by having damaged armor discarded by the enemy at the battlefield gathered up and repaired.96 Earlier, the barbarian leader Shih Hu was said to be guarded by a myriad of warriors clad in fine five-colored armor (wu-se hsi-k'ai), which was so dazzling as to blind the eye.97 This calls to mind the mning-kuang armor mentioned in the earlier period, which continued to be used. In 543 a suit of ming-kuang iron armor (t'ieh-k'ai) marked Ts'ai Yu, the Western Wei general, in battle, and his foe declared him to be an "iron tiger".98 Earlier, when an Avar chief entered the Northern Wei court in 5 I 8, he was presented a set of "fine" ming- kuang armor and six sets of iron armor (t'ieh-k'ai), both sorts for rider and horse.99 Yin Chung- k'an (d. 399) expressed his gratitude for a gift of horse armor (ma-V'ai).100 Reference to capari- soned horses by the phrase "iron horses" occurs in the poetry of Lu Ch'ui (470-526) Io and Yii Hsin (5 I3-5 8 ).1oz This at least had some semblance of reality, but Yen Chih-t'ui (5 3I-59I ?) chose to use an archaism in referring to armor as a "rhinocerous envelope" (hsi-han).1o3

The ability of vigorous but elderly warriors to wear their armor lightly continued to be cited. Yuiian Huai in 504, Liang T'ai (fl. 57-65) and Ho-jo I, who died during the Sui, are all mentioned.I04 In the case of Liang it was said that he could even vault onto his horse without use of the stirrup. The e armor which Yuan Huai carried so well was a suit of "fine armor" (hsi-k'ai) given him by the emperor. An emperor might also make a bestowal of his own armor as a special mark of favor on the battlefield; the southern Liu Yu gave his to Liu Huai-shen,Ios while the northern Yi-wen T'ai gave his to T'ien Hung in 5 34106 and that of a fallen enemy general to Li Pi in 5 37.I07

Finally, it was recognized that if one were to be effective in battle, one needed to pierce the armor of the enemy. Yen Chih-t'ui, in discussing the inadequacies of the elite of his day, said

96 Chin shu 8I.I b and T'ai-p'ingyii-lan 3 5.8a. For Huan I, see M.Rogers, The Chronicle of Fu Chien: A Case of Exemplar History, Chinese Dynastic Histories Translations, No. IO (Berkeley, I968), p. 576, note 65 I, and passim. Note that the armor when first gathered up was described as "broken and split, not adequate to be strung together".

97 Ch'u hsiieb chi 22.5 36 and P'ei-wenyiin-fu I794.I, both citing the Yeh-chung chi by Lu Hui of the Chin. 98 Chou shu 27.6b and Pei shih 6 5 .I Ia. The term meng-c'in in the Chou shu text was a euphemism for the T'ang taboo on hu

"tiger." 99 Wei shbu Io3.I3a-b and Pei shih 98.I3a. This was mentioned by Laufer, p. 307 and note 2.

IOO T'ai-p'ingyii-lan 356.3b and Ch'iian Chin-wen I29.6b. IOI Wen-hsiian 5 6. 2a. I02 Yii TZu-shan chi I 3.29b. 103 Pei Ch'i shu 45.I9b. 104 Wei shu 41.gb; Chou shu 27.1 5sa; and Sui shu 39. 15b. This is also the point to the anecdote about Yao I-chung (280-3 5 2)

who responded to a gift of a barded horse from Shih Hu by saying, "See whether or not this old Ch'iang can defeat the enemy," donned his armor (chia*, mentioned earlier), and without leave, rode his horse out of the court to lead an attack on the enemy; cf. Chin shu II6.3a.

os0 Sung shu 45.I3a and Nan shih I7.7a. xo6 Chou shu 27.IIa and Yii TZu-shan chi 14.2a. This was called t'ieh-chia. 107 Chou shu 15.4a.

21

that some could not pierce armor plate (ha) when they shot an arrow.Io8 In a passage important for the history of steel making in China, reference is made at this period to a blade able to cut through thirty plates.os0

This by no means exhausts the material concerning armor but is merely a selection of re- ferences contained in various dictionaries and florilegia, as well as instances encountered in reading the sources. While not complete, they serve adequately to indicate the kind of occur- rences one finds in the literature of the time. As can be seen, no clear picture emerges of the armor in actual use, and for that, one must turn to representational arts and archaeological finds.

As one may infer from the passages just cited, the retreat of the Chin from the north (317) led to a period of much warfare as the various northern powers carved out ephemeral states and struggled among themselves for supremacy. Perhaps due to the disorders of the time, there is a hiatus of over a hundred years before the tomb figures reappear. When they do, it is with a new vigor, variety and realism not achieved before. It is convenient to continue to separate the large number of military figures into types based on the sort of armor they exhibit, their pose, and so on, but no developmental scheme is implied here by the order in which they are taken up, unless specifically so stated.

A. The Unarmored Infantry When we turn to the military figures among the tomb figurines of the post-Chin period, we find a group that perhaps should be excluded in a discussion of armor since these figures display little armor beyond a shield and an occasional helmet. Yet these must have been the infantry of the time, making up the bulk of the troops. They wear a tunic, with lapels usually turned back, a belt or cord at the waist, baggy trousers tied just below the knee, and what often appears to be some sort of leather shin guards which might provide some protection below the shield (Fig. 24).I?1 In some cases there seems to be a kind of cloth around the shoulders; this may be long enough to have the ends tucked under the belt. Those without helmets may wear the hair in two horns, although at times the arrangement appears to be a cap rather than hair.III In one case a cap associated with court wear occurs. The helmet appears in a variety of shapes: the shell-type, which is close-fitting and fastened under the chin; a more substantial kind with straight ear-flaps; and a grooved one, which reminds us somewhat of the Chin spiked helmet seen earlier.,I2 In some cases the figure holds a shield, either a small or medium-sized one for

108 S.Y.Teng, transl., Family Instructionsfor the Yen Clan, Monographies du T'oung Pao, vol.IV, (Leiden, I968), p. 52. 109 Pei Ch'i shu 49.7b; translated in Needham, p. 26. 1 10 Grave of Yuiian Shao *, dated 5 28, in KK I 9 7 3.4, P1. VIII. 5. Other examples are in the Royal Ontario Museum; see China:

A History in Art, pp. 90-9I (those of this type can be distinguished by the hair-do); Harada Yoshito and Komai Kazu- chika, Shina koki Zuk6: Heikihen, (Tokyo, I932), vol. I, P1. 30.3; Hamada Kosaku, Shina ko meiki deizo Zusetsu (Tokyo, 1927, 2 vols.), Pl. I3; tomb of Fan Tsui, dated 575, WW I97z.I, p. 53, Fig. I 3.

I I Tenri sankokan zuroku: Chugoku hen, P1. 180 and I82; see also the pair in Chugoku no dogu, Fig. 96, p. I04. Sato believes the fierce faces and jutting beards mark them as hu or northern nomads.

112 Helmut Nickel, Warriors and WForthies: Arms and Armor through the Ages (New York, I969), p.43; this piece is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. For the three types of helmets, see Chugoku no dogu, PI. 86 (or the very similar piece in the British Museum, ace. no. 1 973-7-26-1 80); China: A History in Art, p. I0 o8 (Brundage Collection); and finally, Chinese Tomb Pottery Figures (Chinese title: Ming-ch'i t'u-lu; Hong Kong, 195 3), D. 4.

22

those without helmets or an almost full-length one for the helmeted soldier.113 Usually there is a clenched fist with a hole for the lance or other weapon which has disappeared. In some cases the soldier wears a quiver at his back.114 There are a number of pieces which closely resemble these soldiers in dress and style whose role seems to be ensign bearer, groom, or attendant. It is impossible to draw an absolute line unless one leaves out all those which at present bear no evidence of arms or armor, but such a course would exclude examples that obviously are too fierce-appearing to be anything but warriors.

B. Early Cavalrymen-The Chin Continuation

Our knowledge of what appears to be the earliest of the post-Chin figurines with armor suffers from rather inadequate publication. A tomb at Ts'ao-ch'ang-p'o-ts'un, near Sian, apparently of the very early Northern Wei period, that is, late fourth or early fifth century, contained a number of military figurines of especially great interest because of their apparent realism.IIs Here there is no question of any possible shamanistic element. The warrior wears a close-fitting helmet, fastened under the chin, and a habergeon or jacket of heavy material with a high collar and flared bottom (P1.VIII).II6 From one example on exhibition at the Historical Museum, Peking, it would seem that there are shoulder guards of lamellae, a kind of narrow chest-protector worn over the jacket, and a full skirt, all of lamellae (Fig.2 5). Some figures are depicted as wearing chaps with a circular cut; such chaps would give adequate protection when mounted and so there was no need to cover the inner surfaces of the legs. The chaps are clearly marked to indicate a lamellar construction.

Similar armor for cavalrymen appears in the wall painting of the procession in Tung Shou's tomb (Fig. 22) at Anak. We can see the same helmet, but the painting indicates that a plume was set into the knob on top. The jacket with its high collar corresponds to that of the figurines, and we can understand better the armor for the lower part of the body from the figurines. Each is armed with a lance. Archers with the same bow and quivers but with a rounded headdress rather than the casque-helmets of the painting were also found in the Ts'ao-ch'ang-p'o tomb.117

113 There is such a piece in the Royal Ontario Museum (Croft's 1422) clearly showing leather shin-guards. Other pieces very similar to this are in the Musee Cernuschi, Paris, cf. The Horizon Book of the Arts of China (New York, I969), p. 86, and in the British Museum (acc.no. I925-I9-I5-1). Other shield-bearing pieces are KK I977.6. p. 393, Fig. 3:3 and PI.VIII (547); WW I972: I, p. 53, Fig. I3 (575). A kneeling soldier with shield appears in Schloss, Ancient Chinese Ceramic Sculp- ture, P1. 3 30. Note that here the leggings are clearly tied above the knee. The same type also appears in Kobayashi Taii- chiro, Kan-To koZoku to meiki dogdi (Kyoto, I947), Plates I9-20. One shield bearer dispenses with protective covering to the extent of having a bare right shoulder; KK I 977.6, p. 38 5; Fig. 5: 6 (576?). Such an outfit is also seen, though without shields, in the figures shown in T'ai-yiian Kuang-p'o Pei Ch'i Chang Su mu wen-wu t'u-lu (Peking, I958), p. 15, in a report on a tomb dated 55 9.

114 WW 1972.I, P. 53, Figs. Io-I2 (575); KK I977.6, p. 392 and Fig. 3.6 (547). II5 KK I959.6, PP. 285-87 and WWTKTL I954.I0, Ps. 49-5 i. The tomb, which had been robbed, was discovered in I953.

Of the 124 figurines, half were of warriors: twenty-four were armored men, fourteen cavalrymen and twenty-seven archers.

I16 Arts of China: Recent Discoveries (Tokyo and Palo Alto, 968)),Figs. 3 34-3 3 5 ; these are clearer than the photographs in the original publications. Such auxiliaries as musicians wear a headdress with a higher crown, perhaps of a softer material, and do not wear chaps; cf. Arts of China: Recent Discoveries, Figs. 340-34i and W7TKTL I954.I0, P1.6o.

I7 KK 1959.6, Pl.III:3-4.

23

C. Korean Variants

The Tung Shou tomb fortunately can be dated but other Koguryo tombs with interesting ma- terials are not provided with such useful inscriptions; nevertheless they are thought to be of the fifth century. Most noteworthy are the dismounted warriors from Tomb No. 12 of T'ung- kou (Fig. 26: I) and the Three-Chambered Tomb (Fig. 26: 2), both just west of the middle Yalu River, which display lamellar armor-in the first case fully sleeved and in the second, sleeveless, but in both instances with the legs encased in trousers of some sort of lamellar armor rather than protected by chaps as in the Ts'ao-ch'ang-p'o case. The other warriors in the paintings are mounted (Fig.26:3-4) and do not add any information about this feature.,18. For this trouser-style of armor, there is no archaeological evidence yet in China.

D. Later Developments-The Lamellar Corselet The Northern Wei tomb of Ssu-ma Chin-lung, dated 484, produced a large number of military figures (22 on foot and eighty-eight mounted out of 367), but again the ds of the details of the armor as published are not clear. The men wear a pointed helmet, a long, narrow long-sleeved robe reaching below the knees, with tight collar, and boots beneath the hem of the robe (P1.IX). The bodies of of the caparisoned horses as well) are painted in stripes of white and olive green, which the report claims represents (plate?) armor (k'ai-chia). The armor ap- parently is worn over the robe, extends to the waist and covers the upper arm as well.IIs The striped coloring contrasts with the solid one of civilian figures and so probably does represent some sort of mail, but its exact nature is not clear from the photographs.

We may see a resemblance to these figures in a fragment dating a hundred years later, from the tomb of Li Ho of 5 82.I120 Here the archaeologists have provided us with a detailed drawing of the armor, not at all obvious from the photography. Notable are a helmet with a boss, coifed in back and furnished with ear flaps, and lamellar armor covering the upper body, with epaulires extending almost to the elbows (Fig. 27). It is this armor that appears to be widely used by cavalrymen in the sixth century. The construction of the lamellar corselet can be seen more clearly in pieces dating from a tomb of 567, that of Han I (P1.X).I2I Here, too, the lamellae overlap upward and not, as would seem more natural for that part of the body, downward. Unfortunately, overall construction of the armor is obscured by a cape or hood thrown over the shoulders.

E. Capes and Hoods

The lamellar corselet appears also on a figure that is depicted wearing a long cloak draped over the shoulders, a large roll about the back, and the sleeves hanging empty at the sides. He wears

1I8 For Tomb no. 12, T'ung-kou, see KK 1i964.2, p. 72; Tomb no. i, Ma-hsien-kou, KK I964.10o, p. 528; Three-chambered Tomb, Yang Hung, "Kao-chii-li pi-hua shih-mu," WW 195 8.4, pp. I 2-x6. The armor in Fig. 26: I is described as being fish-scale (KK I964.2, p. 71) but seems rather to be lamellar.

119 WW I972.3, p. 32, Fig. 18 and p. 33, Fig.23, and p. 23. I20 WI7 I966.I, p. 30, Fig.6.i. I2I' VW 1975.4, PP. 64-70.

24

a helmet, of a curious "hot-cross bun" shape, and holds a long sword before him (Fig. 28).I22 Two similar pieces from the tomb of Yuiian Shao * of 5 28 are said to be wearing armor in addi- tion to the cloak or mantle, but the illustrations are not clear enough to confirm the statement in any great detail; what does stand out is that one of the figures wears chaps similar to those mentioned earlier.123 The Sackler collections contain a piece almost identical to it (P1. XI).124 In other cases, only the helmet and sword identify the figure as a warrior,I25 or even, in one instance, it is only the helmet which reveals a military aspect.I26 The fierce face, with splayed beard, and the smoothly rounded appearance make these some of the most impressive of the Six Dynasty figures.

Figures with cloaks are generally shown wearing a helmet, albeit at least five styles of headgear are represented. The empty-sleeved mantle also occurs with a hood, frequently with a curious bulbous appearance, and no armor, evidently representing attendants or servants. This is a common garment of the north and found in tombs dating from the fifth century into the T'ang.127 The identification of this garment as being of Persian origin and the same as the mu-li, a riding cloak of the T'ang, is not yet well demonstrated.128

6. THE LIANG-TANG (DOUBLE-FACED) ARMOR OR CUIRASS

The armor most closely associated with the Six Dynasties and probably most frequently seen in the tomb figurines of this period is called the liang-tang. Yang appropriately cites a poem that mentions the armor:129

The men wish to be stalwart soldiers Uniting with comrades they need not be many. When the sparrow-hawk flies through the air, The flocked sparrows break to either side. Letting loose the horses in the great marsh,

122 Fig. 44 in Ezekiel Schloss, Foreigners in Ancient Chinese Art (New York, I 969), which is ascribed to Northern Wei. The description refers to chain mail, but it is obviously lamellar plate.

I23 KK I973.4, Fig. 3: I, P1. VIII.4, and p. 220, where it says the armor of the two has slight differences. 124 This has been published in Annette L.Juliano, Art of the Six Dynasties: Centuries of Change and Innovation (New York,

[I975]), no. 3o, P. 5 5. Except for a slight difference in the helmets, the two seem identical. 125 The Victoria and Albert Museum has a magnificent example; no hands appear but the sword is clearly held in front.

Musee Cernuschi, the British Museum, the Nelson Galleries, and the Shanghai Museum (Chung-kuo ku-wen-wu, p. I I9), also have examples of this type. A livelier example, which has wildly flying sleeves, appears in Kan-rikucho no dogfi, no. 5 Ia, and Chutgoku no dogu, Fig. 89 and p. Ioi.

126 Tenri sankokan guroku: Chutgoku hen, PI. I98 and p. 62. I27 484: IFI 1972.3, p. 23 and 32, Fig. i6; 566: WW 1973.II, P. 34, Figs. 7-8; 575: WW I972.1, p. 52, Figs. 6-7; 576(?):

KK I977.6, p.385; 576: KK I964.9, pp.482-4, and Pl.io.6; 584: KK 1973.4, p.233, Fig.3a; 608: KK I959.9, p.47I; for pieces from disturbed graves of the late sixth century, see KK I957.3, P1. I2.5; the latter two also figure in Arts of China: Recent Discoveries, pp. 236-7; for T'ang, see KKHP I955.9, P1.IX.3 and KK I955.4, p. 56.

128 J.G.Mahler, The Westerners among the Figurines of the T'ang Dynasty of China (Rome, I959), Pp.48-49 and p. o8. The identification of the figure wearing such a cloak, and seemingly identical to the piece from the Feng tombs, KK 1957.3, P1. X.6 and Arts of China: Recent Discoveries, Fig. 344, as being a Tocharian is not supported by any evidence.

129 Yang, "Studies," II, p. 60; Yiieh-fu shih-chi 25.2b (Ssu-pu ts'ung-k'an ed.). As Yang says, this is a northern nomadic tune adopted by the Liang as martial music; cf. 25.ia-2b and Hsin T'ang shu 22.6b-7a. I take u* to be an error for chii "steel", see Morohashi, Daikanwa-jiten 40286, and moul to be used for its homonym mou2.

25

The foraging is good, the horses have grown fat. They bear shields and iron liang-tang armor, With helmets and pheasant tail plumes. From the front ranks one looks to the rear ranks. All wear iron liang-tang [armor]. From the foremost ones one looks to those in the rear, All wear iron helmets.

An early reference to liang-tang armor by Ts'ao Chih was cited above.130 It was basically of a "jumper" construction, that is, one piece in front and one in back, which we will call breastplate and backplate, orplastron and dossiere, joined by straps over the shoulders, and a skirt attached below. The back plate is often higher than the front one, affording protection to the shoulders. Sometimes a few lamellae jut upward at the top edge of the back plate to shield the back of the neck. There are a number of variations on this style of armor.131

A. Pug-nosed Archers

One group that immediately attracts notice is that of archers who possess a characteristic facial type and helmet (P1.XII and Fig.29).1I32 The face is pug-nosed, with frowning brows coming down low to meet the nasal bridge, while the mouth has a peculiar snarling effect. The helmet is made of vertical slats and shaped like a crown, with the largest and longest slats at the center, decreasing in size as they come around to the rear of the head. The types of liang-tang armor worn by such figures differ somewhat, the Toronto pieces being completely covered with laminae,