Defensive Armor of the Han Period 217 



with massive iron hilts, but with lozenge-shaped guards of bronze 

 coated with a dark and polished patina. 



We are now confronted with the fact that the Han period has run 

 through the same phase of development with regard to offensive and 

 defensive armor. It is therefore inevitable to conclude that a correlation 

 exists between these two developments, and that the production of 

 defensive iron armor under the Posterior Han is prompted by the coeval 

 coming into existence of iron weapons. The two phenomena are in 

 mutual proportions. In the same manner, the perfection of bronze 

 arms under the Anterior Han must have resulted in the machination 

 of bronze protective armor. The same causes bring about the same 

 effects; and if the agencies of the cause, the weapons, are suspected 

 with good evidence of foreign origin, the same suspicion is equally ripe 

 for the effects — defensive armor. The one is inconceivable without 

 the other. In the ancient Siberian swords we meet the same process of 

 development from bronze to iron as in ancient China, and this paral- 

 lelism plainly reveals the historical interrelation of the two culture 

 groups. This being the case, the further supposition is justifiable that 

 also the progress made under the Han in body armor might be due to 

 an impetus received from the same quarter. At this point due attention 

 must be paid to the great historical connections linking all Asia in mat- 

 ters of military art. No human invention or activity can be properly 

 understood if viewed merely as an isolated phenomenon, with utter 

 disregard of the causal factors to which it is inextricably chained. 

 Every cultural idea bears its distinct relation to a series of others, and 

 this reciprocity and interdependence of phenomena must be visualized 

 in determining its historical position. The development of harness 

 must be viewed in close connection with the mode of military tactics, 

 the science of warfare: every progressive step advanced in the latter 

 draws a natural reaction on the form of armament, and a transformation 

 of the latter is a sure sign of the fact that a considerable change in tactical 

 conduct has preceded it. It is therefore from the history of tactics 

 that we must derive our understanding of the technique of armor. 

 The problem now set before us is, — What great movement in military 

 tactics caused the radical transformation of arms experienced by the 

 peoples of China, Central Asia, and Siberia around the centuries of our 

 era? This movement, in my opinion, proceeded from ancient Iran. 

 I shall endeavor to demonstrate that far-reaching tactical reforms were 

 launched in Iran and deeply affected the entire ancient world, and that 

 these innovations spread from Iran to the Turkish tribes of Central 

 Asia, and were handed on by the latter to the Chinese. Developments of 

 tactics and armature moved along very similar lines in the three groups. 



