The Problem of Plate Armor 271 



are that the Japanese never have penetrated much beyond Saghalin 

 Island, where the southern portion inhabited by the Ainu was their main 

 field of exploitation, while the northern part remained a terra incognita 

 to them. The Japanese have exerted no influence on the culture of the 

 Gilyak settled there, 1 nor is there any Japanese trace on the mainland 

 in the region of the Amur. Even without such considerations, how- 

 ever, the point of view taken by Bogoras in this matter can no longer be 

 upheld. The fact that the Su-shen possessed knowledge of iron armor 

 in 262 goes to prove that iron armor around that time was within the 

 boundaries of the North-Pacific culture-zone. 2 Again, it must be called 

 to mind that the Su-shen iron armor cannot have been of Japanese 

 origin, as iron armor was not then in existence in Japan; neither can 

 it be set in relation with Chinese iron armor, as it would be absurd to 

 suppose that the Su-shen should have sent Chinese iron armor as 

 tribute to the Chinese Court. Their tribute certainly consisted of 

 curious and valuable objects which were new and impressive to the 

 Chinese. As the Su-shen were not able to make iron armor, not being 

 acquainted with the technique of smelting and forging iron, they con- 

 sequently must have received it in the channel of trade from an iron- 

 producing region, such as we find in ancient times in the interior 

 of Siberia, in Central Asia, 3 and in the beginning of our era also in 



(p. 195, Paris, 1832). The Italmen, the ancient Kamchadal, knew the Japanese 

 chiefly as importers of iron needles, and styled these sis (plural sisin: I. Radlinski, 

 Slownik narzecza Kamczadal6w, p. 72, Cracow, 1892) after Sisam, the Ainu designa- 

 tion of the Japanese. But it is altogether the simple question of a superficial trading 

 relation along the coast by way of the Kuriles; and there is no trace of Japanese 

 influence whatever on the culture of the Kamchadal. 



1 Likewise L. v. Schrenck (Reisen und Forschungen im Amur-Lande, Vol. Ill, 

 P- 570). 



2 This chapter, as it now stands, was in substance written in the autumn of 1912, 

 an abstract of it having been read at the meeting of the American Anthropological 

 Association held in Cleveland, December, 1912 (see Science, 1913, p. 342, or Am. 

 Anthr., 1913, p. 960). A confirmation of the above conclusion is now furnished by the 

 highly interesting study of R. and K. Torii (/. c, p. 72), who found in eastern Mon- 

 golia a metal (seemingly iron) plate of an armor (4 X 2.5 cm) with four apertures in 

 the long sides. It is correctly diagnosed by the two Japanese authors, who remark 

 that such plates are now dispersed among the ruins left by the Tung Hu ["Eastern 

 Hu," a general Chinese designation for the populace of eastern Siberia], especially in 

 the region of the Shira Muren. This archaeological discovery bears out the fact 

 that iron armor anciently did exist in eastern Siberia, and that it was of the type of 

 plate armor. Thus the supposition is gaining ground that the iron harness in the 

 possession of the Su-shen was iron plate armor, and existed in that region side by 

 side with bone plate armor. Messrs. Torii, in this connection, remind us of the fact 

 that the Wu-huan, according to the Annals of the Later Han Dynasty, are capable of 

 making their bows and arrows, also saddlery, and turn out their own arms from 

 forged iron. 



3 It is known that L. v. Schrenck (/. c, Vol. Ill, p. 569) attributes to Japanese 

 influence the knowledge of iron-forging among the Ainu and Gilyak. This being an 

 affair of recent origin is certainly not a serious case; these tribes purchase Japanese 

 pig-iron, and work it up into blades for knives. Schrenck's point of view that iron- 



