The Problem of Plate Armor 261 



elusive that plate armor in America had Asiatic origin." On p. 633 

 Dr. Hough states as follows: "The hoop or band armor mentioned as 

 type 4 is found only on the Siberian side of this area and, as well as the 

 plate armor, recalls well-known forms in Japan. This hoop armor is 

 interesting as showing the reproduction of plate armor types in skin, 

 being made of horizontal bands of sealskin instead of rows of ivory plates, 

 the rings telescoping together when the armor is not in use." In 

 describing Eskimo armor made of five imbricating rows of plates of 

 walrus ivory, Dr. Hough observes that in the form, lashing, and ad- 

 justment of the plates it is identical with certain types of Japanese 

 armor. 1 His conclusions are the more remarkable, as the previous 

 investigation of Ratzel was unknown to him, and his result has apparent- 

 ly been attained independently. We are here confronted with the 

 interesting case that two ethnographers of high standing have made a 

 notable and praiseworthy attempt to apply an historical point of view 

 to a purely ethnographical situation, with a result so tempting and 

 seemingly convincing that some of the best representatives of our 

 science have readily accepted it. 2 But in the light of a plain historical 

 fact, the position taken by Ratzel and Hough in this question becomes 

 untenable. 3 



1 Compare also Hough (American Anthropologist, Vol. XIV, 1912, p. 40). 



2 Bogoras (/. c, p. 162), for instance, seems to accept Hough's results; the 

 Chukchi hoop armor is, to him, "evidently an imitation in skin of plate armor" 

 (repeated after Hough, p. 633). R. AndreE (Globus, Vol. 69, 1896, p. 82) acceded 

 to the theory of Hough. 



3 This case well illustrates the difficulty of historical reconstructions built ex- 

 clusively on the basis of observed data of purely geographical and ethnographical 

 character. As soon as the light of authenticated historical facts is obtained, our 

 preconceived assumptions and conclusions will always be subject to considerable 

 modifications. In my opinion it is therefore impossible to elaborate with assured 

 results historical reconstructions founded on purely ethnological data. Our mind, 

 owing to our scientific training, can evolve only a logical sequence of thoughts, and 

 interpret given data in a highly logical manner only ; but history itself is not logical ; 

 on the contrary, it is irrational and erratic, moving in zigzag lines, like lightning; it 

 is a labyrinth of dark passages running in all directions; and, above all, it is more 

 imaginative than the boldest flight of our fancy could possibly be. The unexpected, 

 the unforeseen, has always happened; and this is what cannot be supplied or supple- 

 mented by the logic of our rational mind. Reconstructions certainly are justifiable 

 and should be attempted, but must never be taken as a substitute for history, or 

 even as real history; they will always remain more or less subjective and problemat- 

 ical, and may be of value as a working hypothesis. It should never be forgotten, 

 however, that the subjective criterion of conceivableness or plausibility, or of an 

 appeal to our common sense, will but seldom prove before historical facts. The 

 rule may even be laid down that whatever may appear to our conception as quite 

 natural, self-evident, or logical, may hardly ever have happened that way, or need not 

 have happened that way, but otherwise. Our knowledge of most subjects is still too 

 meagre to allow at the present time of culture-historical reconstructions embracing a 

 wide area of the globe. To these belongs also the theme of plate armor, the specific 

 history of which must first be traced in the single culture zones where it occurs, 

 before its general history can be built up with any encouraging result. Plate armor 



