Defensive Armor of the T'ang Period 301 



described that could freely be recognized in it. Sheet armor, indeed, 

 was never peculiar to China, but is plainly of western origin. Above 

 all, this type of armor, even if it should have sparsely existed here and 

 there in China during the T'ang, has left no trace in any later period; 

 it does not survive in any harness of the Ming and Manchu periods; and 

 this is a signal fact, as otherwise the T'ang tradition in regard to armor 

 was still alive in that recent age. l 



Buddhism, however, may have influenced Chinese armature to a 

 certain degree. A peculiar kind of armor styled " lion-armor " (ni k'ai) 

 is attributed to the T'ang period. 2 The helmet and the coat are roughly 

 figured in T'u shu tsi ch'eng (Fig. 48) ; but only the former is explained 

 by a note to the effect that for each single piece five or six catties 3 of 



1 In Japan, however, specimens of such armor, though very rare, do occur. 

 Bashford Dean (Catalogue of Japanese Armor, p. 52) has figured one exactly corre- 

 sponding to the sheet armor of our clay statuettes. It is said to date about 1500, 

 and "this form simulates the naked body and is known as the Hotoke-do (saint's 

 breastplate), an Indian saint being often represented with the body naked." This 

 term means "Buddha's breastplate (Hotoke= Chinese Fu, "Buddha"), and clearly 

 indicates that this armor was made in imitation of that represented on Buddhist 

 statues. Among modern Indian armor, a very similar type is still found (W. Eger- 

 ton, Illustrated Handbook of Indian Arms, Plate XII, No. 587, and p. 124). A 

 somewhat different type of iron sheet armor is figured by W. Gowland (The Dol- 

 mens and Burial Mounds in Japan, p. 48, Westminster, 1897; the same also in 

 Yagi Shozaburo, Nihon Kokogaku, 11, p. 153, Tokyo, 1898; and N. G. Munro, 

 Prehistoric Japan, pp. 396, 417, Yokohama, 1908). It is likewise a harness composed 

 of plastron and dossiere which are formed of horizontal plates of iron skilfully forged 

 and clinched together with iron rivets. Gowland makes the interesting and correct 

 observation that both body armor and helmet are entirely different in form and con- 

 struction from those of historical times, but that they agree very closely with the 

 armor represented on the terra-cotta figures called haniwa. It is very interesting 

 that the two Torii, in the publication previously mentioned (Etudes arch^ologiques, 

 Journal College of Science, 1914, p. 73), figure such a haniwa with the description 

 "cuirasse de style europden trouv6e en Musashi, Japon." The Japanese authors, 

 accordingly, are struck by the "European" character of this armor. It is now 

 obvious that it has reached the East by way of Turkistan: consequently the haniwa 

 adorned with this style of armor cannot be older than the age of the T'ang dynasty. 

 Again we see in this example that the chronology of Japanese antiquities is in need of 

 revision. 



2 Amiot (Suppl6ment a l'art militaire des Chinois, Memoires concemant les Chinois, 

 Vol. VIII, p. 373, Paris, 1782) was the first to describe this armor, but from a different 

 source. Amiot styles it "cuirass in imitation of the skin of the animal called ni 

 (resembling, it is said, the lion)." 



3 The T'u shu tsi ch'eng, deviating from its ordinary practice, does not state the 

 source of this passage, which is evidently not extracted from a contemporaneous 

 record of the T'ang period, which, however, seems to go back to a tradition of that 

 time. The catty {kin) of the T'ang period is not identical with the present one. 

 In the Museum collection there is a spherical bronze weight of the T'ang period (Cat. 

 No. 1 16,892) inlaid with gold speckles and engraved with an inscription (the grooves 

 of the characters being laid out with gold foil) yielding the date 672. The weight is 

 stated in this inscription as being 1 pound (catty) 8 ounces, while it is 2 pounds in 

 our weight. According to the present Chinese standard, it weighs 1 pound 11.32 

 ounces, or 27.32 ounces. Consequently 1 ounce of the T'ang period is equal to 1.138 

 modern Chinese ounce, and 1 pound of the T'ang period is equal to 18.24 ounces 

 modern. 



