264 Chinese Clay Figures 



tribute armor was like. 1 The point here at issue, then, is the fact that 

 the entry of the Chinese annalist, under the year 262, regarding the 

 presentation of bone armor on the part of the Su-shen, is the earliest 

 recorded reference to bone armor in history, capable of throwing a 

 flashlight on events in the North-Pacific culture area, so glaringly devoid 

 of any records. 



The date 262 is of far-reaching consequence. Certainly, like all 

 dates where inventions or culture ideas are involved, it is a mere symbol, 

 that requires a certain latitude in its translation. The tribute of 262 

 indicates that bone armor had been made prior to that date by the 

 Su-sMn, or generally within the culture-zone to which they belonged; 

 and since complex inventions of such character require time to mature, 

 and the laborious efforts of several generations, it is justifiable and 

 reasonable to conclude that the beginnings of the invention go back to a 

 far earlier period. Plate armor of bone must therefore be infinitely 

 older than could heretofore be supposed from the mere circumstantial 

 evidence of present geographical distribution; and it follows also that 

 the geographic area of bone armor must have been much more extended 

 in ancient times, and reached farther south along the shores of Asia. In 

 other words, the culture area under consideration, as it now presents 

 itself to our eyes, must have occupied a larger territory in the times of 

 which we speak, — a conclusion confirmed to me also by other reasons; 

 and the Su-shen must have either ranged among the representatives of 

 North-Pacific culture, or have been strongly influenced by it. If as 

 early as 262 the Su-shen were in possession of bone plate armor, this 

 type of harness cannot be explained as having been made in imitation 

 of Japanese plate armor — for the plain reason that Japanese plate 

 armor was at that time not in existence. Metal armor in Japan cannot 

 be pointed out before the close of the eighth century. Fragments of 

 armor consisting of scales of bronze incrusted with gold, and preserved 

 in the Museum of Tokyo, are assigned to about the year 800 a.d. by 

 Bashford Dean, 2 our great authority on Japanese armor; while frag- 

 ments of iron plate armor are not older than about 1050 and 11 00; that 



1 The number of perforations in the plates is not always six, as in the specimen 

 illustrated. A large number of detached Eskimo ivory plates in the Field Museum 

 (Cat. No. 34,154) exhibits on an average twelve perforations, two and two being close 

 together. Sometimes a third perforation is added to the two in the corners, and some- 

 times an additional perforation is drilled through the centre of the upper or lower side. 

 A very interesting specimen in our collection (Cat. No. 34,153) is a pair of Eskimo 

 cuisses (leg-guards) of mastodon ivory, 16.5 cm long, with rows of perforations 

 along the top and bottom edges. These objects were obtained by A. M. Baber from 

 the Asiatic Eskimo on the Tchukotsk Peninsula. 



2 Catalogue of the Loan Collection of Japanese Armor, pp. 20, 28 (New York, 

 1903)- 



