260 Chinese Clay Figures 



Walter Hough, in his intensely interesting and valuable study 

 "Primitive American Armor," 1 arrives, after a careful survey of the 

 subject, at the conclusion that "plate armor in America is a clear case 

 of the migration of invention, its congeners having been traced from 

 Japan northeastward through the Ainu, Gilyak, 2 and Chukchi, across 

 Bering Strait by the intervening islands to the western Eskimo. Here 

 the armor spread southward from the narrowest part of the strait, 

 passing into the slat armor of the North-west Coast, which is possibly 

 a development of the plate idea. The plate armor also may have spread 

 to the eastern coast of North America. Hence, it appears to be con- 



1 Report of the U. S. National Museum for i8qj, pp. 625-651 (Washington, 1895; 

 22 plates). 



2 This is a debatable point. J. Batchelor (The Ainu of Japan, p. 287, London, 

 1892) says, "The Ainu also wore armor in their wars; but it was of a very light kind, 

 consisting entirely of leather. Some of them, however, wore Japanese armor which 

 they took from the dead in warfare. This is also one way in which they came by 

 their swords and spears." It seems quite certain that the Ainu have never made any 

 plate armor; and what is found among them of this class is plainly derived from the 

 Japanese. Nor can the Gilyak be credited with plate armor. The only specimen 

 of iron plate armor ever discovered in this tribe, and figured and described by L. v. 

 Schrenck (Reisen und Forschungen im Amur-Lande, Vol. Ill, p. 573). is, as 

 Schrenck says, of Manchu origin ; and he adds expressly that the iron armors, according 

 to the unanimous statement of the Gilyak, originate from the Manchu. Dr. Hough, 

 who has reproduced Schrenck's drawing of the helmet and of a piece of the armor, 

 seems to have overlooked the description in Schrenck's text, though also on the 

 plate the attribute "old Manchu" is added to both specimens, in contradistinction 

 to the indigenous real Gilyak armor coat plaited from fibre. The Gilyak, therefore, 

 cannot be cited, as Dr. Hough has done, as a stepping-stone in the migration of 

 plate armor from Japan to the Eskimo. Also Mr. Bogoras (The Chukchee, Jesup 

 North Pacific Expedition, Vol. VII, p. 164), whose exactness and carefulness is other- 

 wise deserving of the highest praise, has fallen into the same error by reproducing 

 and describing Schrenck's drawing as "Gilyak armor," without paying attention to 

 Schrenck's text. If, therefore, the statement of Bogoras should be correct, — that the 

 shape of the plates, and the manner of connecting them, in an iron armor of the 

 Chukchi, are quite similar to those observed on the remnants of this "Gilyak armor," — 

 this would seem to say that the Chukchi armor in question would have to be con- 

 nected with Chinese, and not with Japanese culture, as Mr. Bogoras is tempted to 

 believe; it will be seen on the following pages that other weighty reasons militate 

 strongly against this Japanese theory. Schrenck, beyond any doubt, is correct in 

 his statement; and his result agrees with my own inquiries among the Gilyak for 

 armor, and also with my study of Chinese armor. Only Schrenck's definition of 

 "Manchu" must be modified into "Chinese." This error is excusable, as any in- 

 vestigation of Chinese armor had not been made in his time. The Manchu can- 

 not be credited with any original invention in the matter of armor: they adopted it, 

 like so many other things, from the Chinese; and it can be shown step by step, 

 substantiated by official documents, that the Manchu, as in numerous other matters, 

 have also faithfully copied the military equipment established by tfhe Ming dynasty. 

 There is no Manchu type of armor which has not yet existed in, and could not be 

 derived from, the Ming period. Schrenck's Gilyak armor, accordingly, is plainly 

 a modern Chinese specimen, that must forfeit any claim to the historical utilization, 

 to which it has been submitted; it cannot be brought into relation with Japan, nor 

 with the Chukchi, nor with the Eskimo. This ethnographical continuity asserted 

 by Hough cannot be proved, nor does it in fact exist. Ratzel (/. c, p. 214) had just- 

 ly emphasized the entire lack of plate armor among the peoples of Yezo, Saghalin, 

 and the adjacent mainland. Thus the Japanese theories of Ratzel and Hough, 

 though reaching the same end, materially differ in point of construction. 



