178 Chinese Clay Figures 



made in seven, the second in six, and the third in five pieces; moreover, 

 they double these figures, and conjecture that the upper portion 

 (shang lii) and the lower portion {hia lii) each consisted of this number 

 of pieces. But how can such an affair be realized? It is perfectly- 

 conceivable that a coat is composed of six pieces (two in front, two in 

 the back, and two on the sides) ; any other even number — as four, eight, 

 ten, or more — likewise is imaginable. It is not easily conceivable, 

 however, as being incompatible with a normal state of affairs, that a 

 cuirass should have consisted of seven or five pieces (or any larger odd 

 number of pieces), as the Chinese commentators and Biot would have 

 us believe. This supposition is not very reasonable. The symmetry of 

 the human body inevitably results in principle in a strictly symmetrical 

 style and technique of costume, and of armor especially: asymmetric 

 armor nowhere exists. 1 Normal harness of the primitive stages of culture 

 is usually composed of an even number of pieces; and for this reason, the 

 Chinese interpretation is improbable. Even granted that another 

 point of view is possible in theory, — that, for example, the harness 

 of seven pieces may have had four in the back and three in front, or 

 three in the back, two on the sides, and two in front, etc., 2 — we still face 

 the mystery of the threefold classification graduated according to age: 

 what should be the reason that the cuirass of seven pieces is supposed 

 to last a hundred years, that of six pieces two hundred years, and that 

 of five pieces three hundred years? This is the salient point, to which 

 no Chinese commentator has paid due attention; but it is obvious that 

 this belief is associated with the two animals si and se furnishing the hide 

 for the cuirasses, and that the supposed differentiation of the age of the 

 two creatures is transferred to their products. Certain it is that the 

 philological interpretation of the Chinese literati must be at fault. Their 

 fundamental error lies in the misunderstanding of the word shu; 3 and in 



1 I am, of course, aware of the fact that in European armor, which is more or 

 less artificial, a studied asymmetry is sometimes displayed (see, for instance, 

 Bashford Dean, Catalogue of European Arms and Armor, p. 64). The above re- 

 mark refers only to the spontaneous productions of primitive cultures. 



2 Such an arrangement, moreover, I must confess, would appear to me as too 

 sophisticated, and technically too complex for such a simple and primitive age as 

 that of the Chou. In order to grasp the character of its culture-objects, we should 

 collect experience from the life of primitive peoples as we actually observe it (com- 

 pare Plate XI). 



3 The text unfortunately is very succinct, and merely contains the terms ts'i shu, 

 leu shu, and wu shu. The Chinese commentators, accordingly, take the word shu 

 (No. 10,061) in the sense of "hide pieces laid out side by side and then joined to- 

 gether," but this is a point which I venture to contest. In my opinion, the question 

 can be satisfactorily decided, not only from a technological, but from a philological 

 point of view as well, if we interpret the word shu in the sense of "strata, or layers 

 of hide pressed together." The word shu is capable of assuming many significations; 

 its original meaning is, "to adhere, to place one thing on another, to tie together, 



