Full text of "Chinese clay figures"

LIBRARY

■»<i a j. > «iii>iiii w gi£aMBifcif^ > j¥y? s w*? jq3£E3i

Class

\V^ ■ \ ^ " V^ ^T

Field Museum of Natural History

Publication 177

Anthropological Series Vol. XIII, No. 2

CHINESE CLAY FIGURES

PART I

PROLEGOMENA ON THE HISTORY OF
DEFENSIVE ARMOR

Berthold Laufer

Associate Curator of Asiatic Ethnology

64 Plates and 55 Text-figures

The Mrs. T. B. Blackstone Expedition

Chicago
1914

CONTENTS

PAGE

I. History of the Rhinoceros 73

II. Defensive Armor of the Archaic Period . . i?4

III. Defensive Armor of the Han Period 201

IV. History of Chain Mail and Ring Mail 237

V. The Problem of Plate Armor 258

VI. Defensive Armor of the T'ang Period 292

VII. Horse Armor and Clay Figures of Horses .... 306

CHINESE CLAY FIGURES

PART I

PROLEGOMENA ON THE HISTORY OF
DEFENSIVE ARMOR

I. HISTORY OF THE RHINOCEROS.

An extensive collection of ancient clay figures gathered in the
provinces of Shen-si and Ho-nan during the period from 1908 to 19 10
is the basis of the present investigation. As the character of this
material gives rise to research of manifold kinds, it has been thought
advisable to publish it in two separate parts. Many of the clay statu-
ettes which form the nucleus of our study are characterized by the wear
of defensive armor, hence this first part is devoted to an inquiry into the
history of defensive armor, — a task of great interest, and one which here-
tofore has not been attempted. It will be recognized that this subject
sheds new light on the ancient culture of China and her relations to
other culture zones of Asia. The second part of this publication will
deal in detail with the history of clay figures, the practice of interring
them, the religious significance underlying the various types, and the
culture phase of the nation from which they have emanated.

Before embarking on our subject proper, a preliminary question
must be decided. It is the tradition of the Chou period that the
cuirasses l employed at that time were manufactured from the hides of
two animals designated by the words se (No. 10,298) and si (No.
4218). 2 It is imperative to have a clear understanding of what these
two animals were in the early antiquity of China. As this problem is
still pending, and as a close and coherent investigation of the matter has
never been made, I have decided to treat it from the very beginning by
means of all accessible methods, with the possible hope of a final solution.

The present state of the problem is as follows: Edouard Biot, 3

1 "Cuirass" or "cuirbouilly" is the right term for this kind of armor, as these
words (like French cuirasse, Italian corazza) go back to Latin coratium ("a breast-
plate of leather"), derived from the word corium ("leather").

2 These figures refer to the numbers of the Chinese characters in the Chinese-
English Dictionary of H. A. Giles.

3 Le Tcheou-li, ou Rites des Tcheou, Vol. II, p. 507 (Paris, 1851).

74 Chinese Clay Figures

the ingenious translator of the Chou li, has expressed his opinion in these
words: "I translate by buffalo the character si, and by rhinoceros the
character se. These two characters x denote in the Shi king a rhinoceros
or a wild buffalo, without the possibility of distinguishing between them.
The skin of the rhinoceros being very thick, it seems difficult to believe
that it could have been sliced, and that the pieces were sewed together,
in order to make cuirasses. In this case the two characters of the text 2
would designate here two species of buffalo." 3 Palladius, in his
Chinese-Russian Dictionary, treats the matter in the opposite way, and
renders se by (i) "an animal resembling a wild ox," (2) "Malayan rhi-
noceros," and si by "rhinoceros." Couvreur credits the word se first
with the latter meaning, secondly with that of bceuf sauvage. 4,

Chavannes 6 has clearly and sensibly expressed the opinion that

1 It should properly read, "words."

2 Referring to the passage of the Chou li where the hide cuirasses are mentioned.

3 In his essay on the Manners of the Ancient Chinese (in Legge, Chinese Classics,
Vol. IV, Prolegomena, p. 148), Biot says that "they hunted also herds of deer, of
boars, of wild oxen," on which Legge annotates, "These wild oxen would seem to be
rhinoceroses." But in his original article {Journal asiatique, 1843, p. 321), Biot has
added the following comment: "Le caractere si est traduit ordinairement par rhino-
ceros, et c'est, en effet, son sens actuel. Lacharme a traduit, tantdt bos sylvestris,
tant6t rhinoceros. II me semble que les grandes chasses devaient Stre dirig£es surtout
contre des troupeaux de bceufs sauvages ou buffles." The objections raised by Biot
in the above passage are not valid; it is certainly possible to slice rhinoceros-hide, and
to sew the pieces together. Cuirasses and shields have been made from it, as may be
seen from many specimens in the collections of our museums. A shield of rhinoceros-
hide is illustrated in Plate XXVII. In accordance with the above definition, Biot,
likewise in his translation of the Annals of the Bamboo Books (Extrait du Journal
asiatique 1841 and 1842, pp. 41, 46), rendered se by "rhinoceros" and si by "bceuf-
si (rhinoceros)," while Legge (Chinese Classics, Vol. Ill, Prolegomena, pp. 149, 153)
in both cases has "rhinoceros." It will be seen in the course of this investigation
how Biot's error was caused, and that his opinion is untenable. W. R. Gingell (The
Ceremonial Usages of the Chinese, p. 81, London, 1852) treated the two words in
a way opposite to that of Biot, translating in the passage of Chou li the term si kia
by "rhinoceros-hide armor" and se kia by "wild buffalo 's-hide armor." No one of
those who from purely philological points of view proposed the rendering "wild
buffalo" has ever taken the trouble to raise the question whether anything like wild
buffalo exists in China, anciently or in modern times. Bushell (The Stone Drums
of the Chou Dynasty, Journal China Branch R. As. Soc, Vol. VIII, 1874, P- l 5A) was
of the opinion that the ancient Chinese hunted the rhinoceros in the low swamps.

4 The passage in Lun yu (xvi, 7) is translated by Couvreur (Les quatre livres,
p. 250), "Si un tigre ou un bceuf sauvage s'^chappe de sa cage." Nevertheless in the
glossary (p. 664) the;,word se is rendered by "rhinoceros." Legge (Chinese Classics,
Vol. I, p. 307) translates here "rhinoceros," despite Chu Hi's (undoubtedly wrong)
interpretation of se being a ye niu (" wild bull ") . In his first edition of Lun yu (which
is not accessible to me, but this may be gleaned from Plath, Die Beschaftigungen der
alten Chinesen, p. 56), Legge translated se by "wild ox." In the text of Ming-tse
(III, 2, ix, 6), Legge (Classics, Vol. II, p. 281) and Couvreur (/. c, p. 452) are in
mutual accord in translating the word si by "rhinoceros," and this is likewise the case
with reference to the word se in Li ki, II, 1, in, 40 (Legge in Sacred Books of the
East, Vol. XXVII, p. 158; Couvreur, Li ki, Vol. I, p. 181). In Tso chuan,\n, 2,
Legge (Classics, Vol. V, p. 289) renders si se by "rhinoceroses and wild bulls."

6 Les M6moires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. Ill, p. 502.

History of the Rhinoceros 75

se niu and si appear to be two different species of rhinoceros. Also
G. Deveria 1 has translated se and si by "rhinoceros."

Bretschneider, both a naturalist and an eminent sinologue, upheld
the opinion that the rhinoceros, and goblets made from rhinoceros-horn,
are repeatedly mentioned in the Chinese classics, and that the latter has
been reputed from time immemorial for its antipoisonous virtues. He
refers the saying that rhinoceros-horn cures all poisons, to the Shen-nung
pen ts'ao king, attributed by tradition to the mythical Emperor Shen-nung,
at all events the most ancient Chinese materia medica in existence. 2

In the first edition of his Chinese-English Dictionary, Professor
Giles, the eminent sinologue at the University of Cambridge, Eng-
land, attributed to both se and si the meaning of "rhinoceros," with-
out establishing a distinction between the two. In the second edition,
however, we read under se (No. 10,298), "A bovine animal, figured as a
buffalo with one horn, known as the se niu. Another name for the si
4128; see 8346 for its confusion with the rhinoceros." Under the last-
named heading it is said that the term si niu is "a bovine animal,
figured as a buffalo with a single horn;" with the addition that the
traditional "rhinoceros" of foreigners seems to be wholly wrong.
Further, the reader is requested to correct No. 4128 si, where the
meanings "tapir" and "rhinoceros" had been given. In his "Adver-
saria Sinica" (p. 394), Mr. Giles has expounded more in detail the
reasons which induced him to make these alterations. The arguments
advanced by him are briefly three: 1. The rhinoceros is known to the
Chinese as pi kio, "nose-horn." 2. In two passages of Chao Ju-kua
(translation of Hirth and Rockhill, pp. 118, 233), rhinoceroses are
spoken of as being shot with arrows, while Giles finds it stated in the
T'u shu tsi ch'eng that arrows cannot pierce the hide of the rhinoceros.
3. The si and the se are figured in the latter work as slightly differing

1 Histoire des relations de la Chine avec l'Annam, p. 88 (Paris, 1880).

2 Chinese Recorder, Vol. VI, 1875, p. 19, and Mediaeval Researches, Vol. I, p. 153.
Regarding the materia medica current under the name of Shen-nung see Bret-
schneider (Botanicon Sinicum.pt. 1, pp. 27-32). Bretschneider, though believing
that in India the people from time immemorial attribute the same antipoisonous vir-
tues to the rhinoceros-horn as the Chinese do, says he cannot believe that the Chinese
have borrowed this practice from the Hindu or vice versa. The Hindu conception is
not attested by any passage in Sanskrit literature, but only by Ctesias and Aelian
who state that drinking-vessels made from the horn of the unicorn safeguard from
poison and various diseases. The belief is likewise absent among the Greeks and Ro-
mans, in whose records the number of references to rhinoceros-horn is exceedingly
small (H. Blumner, Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Kunste,
Vol. II, p. 358). There is no evidence that the Chinese notions are due to any stimulus
received from outside; they appear, on the contrary, as legitimate offshoots grown on
Taoist soil. The Chinese likewise conceived the idea of carving rhinoceros-horn into
cups, girdle-plaques, and fanciful ornaments. We shall come back to these various
points in detail. Compare p. 154, note.

7 6

Chinese Clay Figures

•if.

:*c

»H

£§

?**

ffi

ft®

4ifi

#}ifj

J64

-®

i«a

-*>»

&XI

£k

g£

£1

*»

Fig. 1.

Monoceros of European Armorial Style, introduced into China by the Jesuit Father Ferdinand

Verbiest (from T'u shu tsi ch'ing).

History of the Rhinoceros

m w m
*n en !
m i /?£ ! £&

m\m\
m m i

T- ^ !

« &

^ I 3i* !

^- j
JS. i

rrif

SBE

Fig. 2.

Rhinoceros, Design of European Origin, introduced into China by the Jesuit Father Ferdinand

Verbiest (from T'u shu tsi ch'ing).

78 Chinese Clay Figures

bovine animals, 1 with a single horn on the head. Says Mr. Giles,
"The Erh ya says: the latter is like an ox, and the former like a pig,
while the Shan hai king speaks of both as occurring in many parts of
China. There is thus hopeless confusion, of which perhaps the explana-
tion is that a term which originally meant a bovine animal was later on
wrongly applied to the rhinoceros."

The first argument advanced by Mr. Giles is not admissible as good
evidence in the case. "The rhinoceros is known to the Chinese as
pi kio, 'nose-horn,' and is approximately figured in the T'u shu." By
referring to the Chinese cyclopaedia we find, however, that this name
with the illustration is extracted from the K'un yii Vu shuo. The latter
is not the production of a Chinese author, but of the Jesuit Ferdinand
Verbiest, born in 1623, and who arrived in China in 1659 and died in
1688. 2 This section of the T K u shu tsi ch'eng alluded to by Mr. Giles
and devoted to "strange animals" contains quite a number of illustra-
tions and texts derived from the work of Verbiest; and neither his
zoological nomenclature nor his descriptions and illustrations, which are
based on European lore, can be laid at the door of the Chinese. The
evidence is here produced in Figs. 1 and 2. In Fig. 1, Verbiest pictures
a "single-horned animal" (tu kio shou), saying, "India, situated on the
continent of Asia, is the habitat of the single-horned animal which is as
big as a horse, very light and swift, and yellow in color. On its head
it has a horn, four to five feet long, of bright color. It is made into
drinking-vessels which are capable of neutralizing poison. As the
horn is pointed, the animal can charge a big lion. The lion, while
struggling with it, takes refuge behind a tree; and when missing its
aim, it butts the tree, while the lion bites it at this moment." In Fig. 2,
the pi kio shou referred to by Mr. Giles is pictured. Verbiest com-
ments, "The locality Kang-pa-ya 3 in India, situated on the continent of
Asia, is the habitat of an animal called 'nose-horn' [rendering of 'rhi-
noceros']. Its body is as powerful as that of the elephant, but its feet
are somewhat shorter. Its trunk is covered all over with red and
yellow spots, and is overlaid with scales. Arrows cannot pierce it. On
its nose there is a single horn as strong as steel. It prepares for its
battles with the elephant by whetting its horn on the rocks; and hitting

1 This is a debatable point. The two illustrations do not resemble bovine animals,
but deer (see Figs. 9 and 10 on pp. 102 and 103). The "bovine animal with
one horn" first appears in Lionel Giles, An Alphabetical Index to the Chinese
Encyclopaedia, p. 5 (London, 191 1).

2 Wylie, Notes on Chinese Literature, p. 58; M. Courant, Catalogue des livres
chinois, p. 95; H. Cordier, L'imprimerie sino-europ6enne en Chine, p. 59; P. Pelliot
Bulletin de I' Ecole franqaise d' Extreme-Orient, Vol. Ill, 1903, pp. 109, 115.

3 That is, Khambayat or Cambay, in the western part of the province of Gujarat.

History of the Rhinoceros 79

the elephant's paunch, it kills it." The alleged combats of the rhinoceros
with the lion and elephant are classical reminiscences (see p. 84) which
are absent from Chinese folk-lore. Verbiest repeats the popular tradi-
tions current at his time in Europe, and like Cosmas Indicopleustes,
still discriminates between the monoceros or unicornis (tu kid) and the
rhinoceros (pi kio) , illustrating the former by the unicorn of European
heraldry. Consequently the terms employed by Verbiest are literal
translations of European nomenclature into Chinese, made by Verbiest
for his purpose; and the word pi kio cannot be claimed, as has been done
by Mr. Giles, as a genuine term of the Chinese language. It is a foreign
term not employed by the Chinese. Indeed, in a long series of Chinese
texts dealing with the rhinoceros, and given below, not any use of this
name is made. Only a single case is known to me: the Manchu-
Chinese dictionary Ts'ing wen pu hui of 1786 (Ch. 4, p. 23) explains the
Manchu word sufen by the said pi kio, adding the definition, "a strange
animal bred in Cambaya in India, like an elephant, with short feet, " etc.,
the same as given by Verbiest. This, accordingly, is a mere repetition
of the latter's statement, and is not conclusive. Curiously enough, that
expression which Mr. Giles credits as the only authentic word for
"rhinoceros" is given a quite different meaning in the Polyglot Dictionary
of K'ien-lung (Appendix, Ch. 4, p. 75), where we find the series Chin.
pi kio shou, Manchu sufen, Tibetan ba-men, Mongol bamin. The Tibet-
an word ba-men, reflected in Marco Polo's beyamini, 1 denotes the gayal
wild ox (Bos gavaeus). Whether this equation, as a matter of fact, is
correct, is certainly a debatable question; but this point does not concern
us here. The point to be brought out is that pi kio in the sense of
"rhinoceros" is a term coined by Verbiest, and that it has not yet been
pointed out in any Chinese text prior to his time. 2 Simultaneously
Mr. Giles's argument directed against Hirth — "the T K u shu expressly

1 See the writer's Chinese Pottery, p. 260, note 4.

2 The general Chinese expression for rhinoceros-horn which is even now traded
to Canton and there made into carvings is still si kio; hence it follows that at the
present day the designation of the animal itself, as it has been for several millenniums,
is the word si. The English and Chinese Standard Dictionary of the Commercial
Press, issued by a commission of Chinese scholars, who must know their language,
renders the word "rhinoceros"' into se niu and se (Vol. II, p. 1919). Couvreur (Diet,
frangais-chinois, 2d ed.) has likewise se niu. Doolittle (Hand-Book of the Chinese
Language, Vol. I, p. 411) gives under "rhinoceros" si, se niu, and si niu. Schlegel
(Nederlandsch-chineesch Woordenboek, Vol. Ill, p. 622) renders the word by se, si,
and si niu. True it is that in recent times the words se and si have been transferred
to bovine animals, and the Chinese themselves are well aware of this fact. Thus
Li Shi-chen, in his Pin ts'ao kang mu, remarks that the term "hairy rhinoceros" is at
present referred to the yak (see p. 1 50). This, however, as will be established by abun-
dant evidence, was not the case in former times. In fact, these recent adjustments
prove nothing for conditions which obtained in earlier periods. The question as to
how the word se became transferred to the buffalo is discussed on p. 161, note 5.

80 Chinese Clay Figures

says that arrows cannot pierce the hide of the rhinoceros" — falls to the
ground. This is a verdict of Verbiest, and not to be encountered in any
Chinese report regarding the rhinoceros. It is, moreover, an argument
of no meaning and no value; it is simply a popular notion of fabulous
character.

The numerous stories formerly current anent the rhinoceros chiefly
culminated in three points, — its ferocity, the use of its horn as a weapon
of attack, and its invulnerability. These notions have been refuted by
close observation. We quote an authority, R. Lydekker : 1 "Fortunate-
ly, in spite of stories to the contrary, the creature in its wild state appears
to be of a mild and harmless disposition, 2 seeking rather to escape from

1 The Game Animals of India, Burma, Malaya, and Tibet, p. 31 (London, 1907).

2 Certainly; it is easily kept in confinement and tamed, and has often been trans-
ported over vast tracts of water and land. A good example of the overland trans-
portation of a tamed rhinoceros or several animals is furnished by Se-ma Ts'ien, in the
chapter on the Imperial Sacrifices to Heaven and Earth, when this animal together
with an elephant was conducted as far as the foot of Mount T'ai in Shan-tung with
a possible view to their being sacrificed; but the Emperor spared their lives, and the
animals were allowed to return (see Chavannes, Les M6moires historiques de Se-ma
Ts'ien, Vol. Ill, p. 502). The following tributes of living rhinoceroses are on record.
In the year 2 A.D. the country Huang-chi (south of Tonking, 30,000 li from the capital
of China) sent a living rhinoceros as tribute to the Court of China, as mentioned
three times in the Ts'ien Han shu (Ch. 27 B, p. 17b). These texts have recently
been studied by Paul Pelliot (T'oung Pao, 1912, pp. 457-460), who has revealed
their fundamental importance for the history of Chinese relations with the countries
of the Indian Ocean in the first century of our era. On the basis of Pelliot's transla-
tions, the country Huang-chi has recently been made the object of an interesting
geographical study on the part of A. Herrmann (Ein alter Seeverkehr zwischen
Abessinien und Siid-China bis zum Beginn unserer Zeitrechnung, Zeitschrift der
Gesellschaft fur Erdkunde zu Berlin, 1913, pp. 553-561). This author identifies
Huang-chi with Abyssinia mainly on the ground that the rhinoceros occurs there.
This argument is not cogent, since the home of the animal is in all parts of both In-
dias, Borneo, Java, and Sumatra as well. Also for other reasons this identification is
unfortunate. The transportation of a live rhinoceros from Abyssinia to China over
a maritime route would have been a feat impossible in those days, in view of the im-
perfect state of navigation, while it could easily have been accomplished, if Huang-chi,
as assumed by me, was located on the Malayan Peninsula ; and as shown by the Chinese
records, the live rhinoceroses all hailed from Indo-China or Java. The name Huang-
chi, moreover, cannot be derived from Aghazl, as Herrmann thinks. His decisive
argument in support of this theory is, of course, the statement in the Chinese text
that Huang-chi is 30,000 li distant from Ch'ang-ngan, the then capital of China. Mr.
Herrmann unreservedly accepts this as a fact, and is in this manner carried away to
eastern Africa. We have known for a long time (in fact, the Jesuits of the eigh-
teenth century knew it) that the Chinese definitions of distances over maritime routes
must not be taken at their surface value. Nor have we any reason to be more Chinese
in this respect than the Chinese themselves. The following is expressly stated in the
Sung shu, the History of the Liu Sung Dynasty (420-478 a.d.; Ch. 91): "The
southern and south-western barbarians, generally speaking, live to the south and
south-west of Kiao-chi (northern Annam), and also inhabit the islands in the great
ocean; the distance is about three to five thousand li for those that are nearer, and
twenty to thirty thousand li for those that are farther away. When sailing in a
vessel it is difficult to compute the length of the road, and therefore we must recollect
that the number of li, given with respect to the barbarians of the outer countries,
must not be taken as exact" (see Groeneveldt, in Miscellaneous Papers relating to
Indo-China, Vol. I, p. 127). It is plainly indicated in this passage that the distances

History of the Rhinoceros 8i

its enemies by flight than to rout them by attack. When badly wound-
ed, or so hustled about by elephants and beaters as to become be-
wildered, a rhinoceros will, however, occasionally charge home. In
such onslaughts it is the common belief that the animal, like its African
cousins, uses its horn as its weapon of offence; but this is an error, the
real weapons being the triangular, sharp-pointed low tusks." The
same author states in another work 1 on the skin of the animal, "From
the immense thickness and apparent toughness of its enormous folds,
it was long considered that the hide of the Indian rhinoceros was bullet-
proof, and that the only places where the animal was vulnerable were
the joints of the armor. ... As a matter of fact, the skin of the
living animal is quite soft, and can readily be penetrated in any place
by a bullet, or easily pierced by a hunting knife. When dried it becomes,
however, exceedingly hard; and it was formerly employed by the
Indian princes in the manufacture of shields for their soldiery."

given for the routes in the southern ocean are not exact, and that a description of
twenty to thirty thousand li is nothing but a convention to denote the very remote
barbarians of the south. Compare, on Chinese calculations of sea-routes, particularly
G. Schlegel (T'oung Pao, Vol. Ill, 1892, pp. 161-5). In Hou Han shu (Ch. 116,
p. 3 a) the location of Huang-chi is positively indicated as being south of Ji-nan (Ton-
king), which means that it was situated on the Malayan Peninsula. In 84 a.d. the
Man I beyond the boundary of Ji-nan offered to the Court a living rhinoceros and
a white pheasant (Hou Han shu, Ch. 1 16, p. 3 b). In 94 a.d. the tribes in the south-
west of Sze-ch'uan sent an envoy and interpreter presenting a rhinoceros and a big
elephant {ibid., Ch. 116, p. 8 b). At the time of the Emperor Ling (168-188 a.d.)
of the Later Han dynasty, Kiu-chenin Tonking despatched a living rhinoceros to the
Chinese Court (Huan yii ki, and Ta Ming i Vung chi, ed. of 1461, Ch. 90, fol. 5, where
it is said also that at the time of the Yuan dynasty [1 260-1 367] Annam presented a
rhinoceros). In 539 Fu-nan sent a live rhinoceros (Liang shu, Ch. 54, p. 4). A similar
report in regard to the country of Ho-ling (Java) occurs in 819 A.D. at the time of the
T'ang dynasty (Kiu T'ang shu, Ch. 197, p. 2 b). Finally the poets Yuan Chen
(779-831; Giles, Biographical Dictionary, p. 964) and Po Ku-i have celebrated in
verse a tame rhinoceros which had been sent as tribute in the year 796; it was housed
in the Shang-lin palace, and an official was appointed to care for it; but in the winter
of the following year when great cold set in, the poor creature died. In 1009 Kiao-chi
(Annam) presented a tame rhinoceros to the Court (Sung shi, Ch. 489), and there
are other similar reports by the essayists of the Sung period. — Tavernier (Travels
in India, ed. V. Ball, Vol. I, p. 1 14) saw a rhinoceros eating stalks of millet presented
to it by -a small boy; encouraged by this sight, the traveller seized some stalks, and
the rhinoceros at once approached him, opening its mouth four or five times; he
placed some stalks in it, and when the animal had eaten them, it continued to open
its mouth to receive some more. Tame rhinoceroses, to which a good deal of freedom
was allowed, were formerly not uncommonly kept by the Rajas of India. Surely, not
only men, but also animals, are usually better than their reputation among men. One
of the most notable facts about the behavior of the rhinoceros in captivity, as al-
ready observed by Darwin (The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestica-
tion, Vol. II, p. 165, Murray's edition, 1905), is that under this condition it breeds in
India far more readily than the elephant. The captive elephants, in contrast to the
rhinoceros, as pointed out by Darwin and confirmed by others (E. Hahn, Kultur-
geschichte der Haustiere, p. 37), but very rarely breed; as a rule, they do not even
copulate. There is no doubt that the rhinoceros possesses the qualities fitting it for
domestication, and that only the lack of promising advantages has prevented man
from embarking on such a plan.

1 The New Natural History, Vol. II, pp. 1055-1056.

82 Chinese Clay Figures

Naturally the skin of the animal is as soft and sensitive as that of any
other living creature, and arrows are certainly painful to it. Only
when properly prepared and dried does the skin assume that iron-like
hardness which has achieved its reputation and probably caused the
fable of its being impenetrable in the live beast. The account of the
Arab envoy given in 993 to the Chinese Emperor, that "to capture a
rhinoceros, a man with a bow and arrow climbs a big tree, where he
watches for the animal until he can shoot and kill it," as narrated by
Chao Ju-kua, is entirely trustworthy. 1 The fable lies entirely in the
" arrows cannot pierce the hide," to which Mr. Giles gives credence.
When it is said, "he rips up a man with his horn," Chao Ju-kua simply
accepts the belief of all his contemporaries, eastern and western; and the
remark certainly proves that he speaks of the rhinoceros, while it is no
argument in favor of Mr. Giles's opinion that the animal in question is
not the rhinoceros.

While the general result at which Mr. Giles has arrived is not
novel, being partly anticipated, as we have seen, by Biot, Palladius, and
Couvreur, his arguments, as summed up above under No. 3, are original,
and deserve serious consideration and discussion. What appears to
Mr. Giles as the most weighty evidence in favor of his view are the
queer Chinese illustrations of the two animals. Queer they are, but
we must make an attempt at understanding and explaining them. For
this reason, we shall first enter on a somewhat lengthy digression into the
iconography of the rhinoceros; and it will be seen that this, as every-

1 The effect of arrows on the rhinoceros is well illustrated in the following story of
Gaspar Correa, who went to India in 1512, and wrote a detailed chronicle of the
Portuguese possessions there. He describes a battle of King Cacandar, who availed
himself of elephants fighting with swords upon their tusks, and in front of them were
arrayed eighty rhinoceroses (gandas) "carrying on their horns three-pronged iron
weapons with which they fought very stoutly . . . and the Mogors with their
arrows made a great discharge, wounding many of the elephants and the gandas,
which as they felt the arrows, turned and fled, breaking up the battles " . . . (quoted
by Yule and Burnell, Hobson-Jobson, p. 363). In India rhinoceroses were hunted
with sabre, lance, and arrows. Timur killed on the frontier of Kashmir several rhi-
noceroses with sabre and lances, although this animal has such a hard skin that it can
be pierced only by extraordinary efforts (Petis de la Croix, Histoire de Timur Bee,
Vol. Ill, p. 159, quoted by Yule and Burnell, Hobson-Jobson, p. 762). In Baber's
Memoirs (quoted ibid.) a rhinoceros-hunt is described in these words: "A she
rhinoceros, that had whelps, came out, and fled along the plain; many arrows were
shot at her, but . . . she gained cover." The hunters of Java hide sickle-shaped
knives under the moss on steep mountain-paths; the animal, dragging its paunch
almost close to the ground, rips up itself, and is then easily mastered (P. J. Veth,
Java, Vol. Ill, p. 289, Haarlem, 1903). Hose and McDougall (The Pagan Tribes
of Borneo, Vol. I, p. 145, London, 1912) have this observation to report: "Punans,
who hunt without dogs (which in fact they do not possess), will lie in wait for the
rhinoceros beside the track, along which he comes to his daily mud-bath, and drive
a spear into his flank or shoulder; then, after hastily retiring, they track him through
the jungle, until they come upon him again, and find an opportunity of driving in
another spear or a poisoned dart through some weak spot of his armor."

History of the Rhinoceros 83

thing else connected with the animal, is an attractive subject of great
culture-historical interest. It should be stated at the outset that the
Chinese sketches pointed out by Mr. Giles, and other Chinese illustra-
tions as well, can never have been intended for any bovines, whatever
the alleged bovine character in the animal may be; for there is in this
world no bovine animal with a single horn and three toes which, as will
be shown, appear in the early Chinese definition, and are plainly out-
lined in the sketch of the rhinoceros said in the Erh ya to be of hog-like
appearance (Fig. 6). 1 The single horn and the three toes, however,
are thoroughly characteristic of the rhinoceros, and of this animal
exclusively. But we are first going to study the psychology of the case.
On the first day of May of the year 151 5 the first live rhinoceros was
brought to modern Europe from India by Portuguese, and presented to
King Emanuel of Portugal. 2 In commemoration of this event, Albrecht
Durer, who took a deep interest in exotic animals and people, sketched
in the same year a likeness of this rhinoceros, published as a wood-
engraving, with a somewhat lengthy description in German. Diirer's
original drawing is still preserved in the British Museum (Plate IX). 3 It
is so weak that, as already pointed out by Dr. Parsons, 4 the first serious

1 See likewise Fig. 9, p. 102.

2 The history of this event is narrated in the Decadas de Asia of J. de Barros
(quoted by Yule and Burnell, Hobson-Jobson, p. 363): "And in return for many
rich presents which this Diogo Fernandez carried to the King, and besides others
which the King sent to Affonso Alboquerque, there was an animal, the biggest which
Nature has created after the elephant, and the great enemy of the latter . . . which
the natives of the land of Cambaya, whence this one came, call Ganda, and the Greeks
and Latins Rhinoceros. And Affonso d'Alboquerque sent this to the King Don Man-
uel, and it came to this Kingdom, and it was afterwards lost on its way to Rome, when
the King sent it as a present to the Pope."

3 1 am indebted to Mr. Laurence Binyon of the British Museum for his courtesy
in favoring me with a copy of this wood-engraving, from which our reproduction is
made. The particulars of the history of this engraving are discussed by C. Dodgson
(Catalogue of Early German and Flemish Woodcuts in the British Museum, Vol. I,
p. 307, Lorldon, 1903).

4 Die natiirliche Historie des Nashorns, welche von Doctor Parsons in einem
Schreiben an Martin Folkes, Rittern und Prasidenten der Koniglich-Englischen
Societat abgefasset, mit zuverlassigen Abbildungen versehen, und aus dem Englischen
in das Deutsche ubersezet worden von Doctor Georg Leonhart Huth, Niirnberg,
bey Stein und Raspe, 1747. The English original of this interesting pamphlet of 16
pages in quarto is not known to me. It is accompanied by three plates engraved on
copper representing the first fairly exact figures of the rhinoceros in various views,
its horn and other organs of its body. An anonymous copper-engraving was pub-
lished in 1748 under the title, "Vera effigies Rhinocerotis qui in Asia, et quidem in
terris Mogolis Magni in regione Assam captus et anno 1741 tertio aetatis anno a
capitano Douvemont van der Meer ex Bengala in Belgium translatus est." This
rhinoceros, a three years old animal, was exhibited in Holland in 1741, and styled on
the placards the behemoth of the Bible (Job, 40) and the unicorn of mediaeval times.
It proved an overwhelming sensation. In 1747 it made its appearance at Leipzig
where Gellert set it a literary monument in the poem with the beginning, "In
order to behold the rhinoceros, I was told by my friend, I resolved to stroll out." In

8 4

Chinese Clay Figures

student of the anatomy of the rhinoceros, it is impossible to assume that
he had ever seen the animal. This fact is quite certain, for it is known
that the King of Portugal despatched the animal to the Pope, and that it
was drowned off Genova when the vessel on board which it was being
carried was foundered. The only supposition that remains, therefore, is
that some one of Lisbon near King Emanuel must have sent on to Diirer
a rough outline-sketch of the novel and curious creature, which was im-
proved and somewhat adorned by the great artist. But to what sources
did he turn for information on the subject? Naturally to that fountain-
head from which all knowledge was drawn during that period, the au-
thors of classical antiquity.
The fact that Diirer really
followed this procedure is
evidenced by the very de-
scription of the animal,
which he added to his
sketch, and in which he
reiterates the story of the
ancients regarding the eter-
nal enmity and struggle of
rhinoceros and elephant. x
The most curious feature
about Diirer's rhinoceros is

Marble Relief of Two-Horned Rhinoceros in Pompeii .

(from O. Keller, Antike Tierwelt). that, besides the hom On

1748 it reached Augsburg where Johann Ridinger made a drawing and etching of it
with the title as stated (L. Reinhardt, Kulturgeschichte der Nutztiere, p. 751,
Miinchen, 1912). The rhinoceros is a subject which for obvious reasons has seldom
tempted an artist. It should be emphasized that no artist has ever made even a
tolerably good sketch of it, and that only photography has done it full justice.

1 According to the tales of the ancients, the feuds between the two animals were
fought for the sake of watering-places and pastures; and the rhinoceros prepared it-
self for the combat by sharpening its horn on the rocks in order to better rip the arch-
enemy's paunch which it knows to be its softest part (compare Diodor, 1, 36; Aelian,
Nat. animalium, xvn, 44; Pausanias, ix, 21; and Pliny, Nat. hist., vin, 20: alter
hie genitus hostis elephanto cornu ad saxa limato praeparat se pugnae, in dimicatione
alvum maxime petens, quam scit esse molliorem). The same story is still repeated by
Johan Neuhof (Die Gesantschaft der Ost-Indischen Gesellschaft [1655-57], P- 349.
Amsterdam, 1669) in his description of the Chinese rhinoceros, which is based on
classical, not Chinese reports: "It makes permanent war on the elephant, and when
read}' to fight, it whets its horn on stones. In the struggle with the elephant it always
hits toward its paunch where it is softest, and when it has opened' a hole there, it
desists, and allows it to bleed to death. It grunts like a hog; its flesh eaten by the
Moors is so tough that only teeth of steel could bite it." The Brahmans allowed the
flesh of the rhinoceros to be eaten as a medicine (M. Chakravarti, Animals in the
Inscriptions of Piyadasi, Memoirs As. Soc. of Bengal, Vol. I, p. 371, Calcutta, 1906);
according to al-Berunl (Sachau, Alberuni's India, Vol. I, p. 204), they had the
privilege of eating its flesh. Ctesias stated wrongly that the flesh is so bitter that it
is not eaten.

History of the Rhinoceros 85

its nose, it is provided with another smaller horn on its neck. This
proves that he must have read about a two-horned rhinoceros, for the
specimen shipped to Portugal was the single-horned species of India.
Martial, in one of his epigrams (Sped. Ep. XXII), has the verse,
"namque gravem gemino cornu sic extulit ursum." As long as the fact
of a two-horned rhinoceros was not yet scientifically established, —
and Dr. Parsons was one of the first to point it out, — the critics of
Martial felt greatly embarrassed over the statement that a rhinoceros
with double horn 1 should have lifted a bear, and arbitrarily changed
the verse in various ways to get around the double horn. Durer no
doubt had this passage in mind, and accepted it as a fact. Nobody at
that time, however, knew the location of the second horn: thus it found
its place on the neck. 2 This case is very instructive, for the Chinese

1 The two-horned African rhinoceros is figured on the bronze coins of Emperor
Domitian and on Alexandrian coins of the same emperor (Imhoof-Blumer and Kel-
ler, Tier- und Pflanzenbilder auf Monzen und Gemmen, Plate IV, 8), and unmis-
takably referred to by Pausanias (/. c), who describes it as having the one horn on
the extremity of its nose, the other, not very large, above the latter. The struggle
between bear and rhinoceros is represented on a pottery lamp from Labicum, which is
reproduced in Fig. 7 after O. Keller (Tiere des classischen Altertums, p. 118,
Innsbruck, 1887), in order to illustrate the affinity of this creature with the "hog-like "
rhinoceros of the Chinese (Fig. 6). Durer 's picture formerly led astray many a
student of classical antiquity by giving the impression that a horn was really growing
up from the animal's back. Thus S. Bochart, in his Hierozoicon (p. 931, Lugduni
Batavorum, 1692), a learned treatise on the animals mentioned in the Bible, makes
the following observation with reference to the verse of Martial above quoted:
"Frustra etiam id observatur, Rhinocerotem geminum habere cornu. Alterum enim
est in dorso, quo ursum extulisse dici non potest. Itaque ad illud cornu non pertinent
haec poetae: gemino cornu sic extulit ursum." It was Bochart who proposed several
conjectures tending to ameliorate Martial's text. Johannes Beckmann (De historia
naturali veterum libellus primus, p. 129, Petropoli et Goettingae, 1766) was the first
to point out emphatically the actual truth in the matter, in these words: "Sed non
soli philologi, verum etiam physici duo cornua neglectis illis veterum locis [i.e., the
passages of Martial and Pausanias] negarunt Rhinoceroti; uti Scheuchzerus, Peyerus.
Consultius fuisset nee affirmare nee negare. Hodie enim auctoritatibus gravissi-
morum virorum satis probatum est, esse Rhinocerotes etiam bicornes, qui cornu
alterum non in fronte, non in dorso, sed etiam in nare habent." In view of our sub-
ject, it is of especial interest to us to note that this truth was generally recognized in
Europe as late as the latter part of the eighteenth century, while Chinese authors were
well informed on the subject from the beginning of our era.

2 It has recently been asserted (compare the notice of S. Reinach, Retoue archeo-
logique, 19 13, p. 105) that the rhinoceros on a marble relief of Pompeii (Fig. 3; repro-
duced also by Reinach, Repertoire de reliefs, Vol. Ill, p. 93; and O. Keller, Die
antike Tierwelt, Vol. I, p. 388) is an exact copy of the wood-engraving by Durer and
accordingly the work of a forger. This point of view seems to me inadmissible, and I
concur with Reinach in the view that a common antique model may have been handed
down by the illustrators of the bestiaries. The most striking coincidence between
the rhinoceros of Pompeii and that of Durer is the location of the second horn on the
neck. This argument, however, is not cogent in establishing a close interdependence
of the two; for also in China, on a picture of Yen Li-pen of the T'ang period (Fig. 11),
the rhinoceros appears with a horn on its neck, and with scales on its body. As the
artists all over the world were so much puzzled as to where to place the horn or horns,
it is perfectly conceivable that Durer, solely guided by his reading of ancient writers,
even without having recourse to an antique pictorial representation, worked out his

86 Chinese Clay Figures

draughtsmen who had set before them the task of portraying a rhinoceros
saw themselves in the same predicament as Dtirer, in that they were
lacking all personal experience of the animal, and for this reason were
actuated by the same psychological factors. They, on their part,
resorted to the classical definitions of the animal, as laid down in the
ancient dictionaries Erh ya and Shuo wen; they did not intend to picture
a rhinoceros true to nature and directly from nature, simply because they
were deprived of this opportunity, but they composed and pieced to-
gether the creature from certain notions which they formed from bits
of information gathered from their literary records. Whatever carica-
tures their achievements may be, however, there cannot be the slightest
doubt that they intended to represent a rhinoceros, not some other
animal. Durer's work, from a scientific viewpoint, is in details highly
inaccurate and untrue; the modern naturalist may even pronounce
the verdict that what he represented is far from resembling a rhinoceros
at all ; but the bare fact remains — and this is the essential point —
that the artist, as expressly stated in the legend by his own hand, had
the intention of representing in this work a rhinoceros. As in most
cases, the artist does not reproduce an object as it appears in the world
of reality, but conveys to us his own notions of things as they are pro-
jected in his mind. Exactly as it happened in China, so Durer's model
found many adherents and followers, even among the naturalists who
copied him again and again, and who surpassed him in fanciful additions
of scales, wrinkles, and other decorations. Even Bontius, 1 who pre-
tends that he saw the animal in exotic forests and stables, and boasts of
furnishing a figure of it free from Durer's defects, represents it, instead of
with hoofs, with a paw very similar to that of a dog, only that it is
somewhat larger.

own theory in regard to the second horn. But it is desirable that, as suggested by
Reinach, the iconographic question should be studied in detail. Neither should the
differences between the two be overlooked. Durer's posterior horn is directly behind
the ears; in the Pompeiian picture it is far behind the ears, above the front legs; in
the same spot Diirer has a small triangular point, the significance of which is not clear.
It is certainly astonishing that the artists of Pompeii could commit this error, as the
two-horned African rhinoceros was perfectly known in the Roman circus, and is
correctly represented on the coins of Domitian mentioned above. — Ulysses Aldro-
vandus (Quadrupedum omnium bisulcorum historia, p. 354, Francofurti, 1647) has
the figure of a rhinoceros, with an additional horn in the shape of a corkscrew placed
on the shoulders.

1 Jacobi Bontii, Historiae naturalis et medicae Indiae Orieft talis libri sex, p. 51
(Amsterdam, 1658). The horn is correctly drawn. Bontius avails himself of the word
abada, which was used by old Spanish and Portuguese writers for a rhinoceros, and
adopted by some of the older English narrators. The word is probably connected
with Malayan badak, "rhinoceros" (see Yule and Burnell, Hobson-Jobson, p. 1).
In G. de Mendoza (Dell' historia del gran regno della China, 1586, p. 437) the word
abada is identified with the rhinoceros.

History of the Rhinoceros

Archaeologists are agreed that the rhinoceros (Fig. 4) 1 is represented
on the black obelisk of Salmanassar (b.c. 860—824) in company with an
elephant, human-looking apes, and long-tailed monkeys. This tribute-
picture suggests to I. Kennedy 2 the first certain evidence of Baby-
lonian intercourse with India. The
animals formed part of the tribute
of the Muzri, an Armenian tribe
living in the mountains to the
north-east of Nineveh. 3 The
rhinoceros is called in the inscrip-
tion an "ox of the river Sakeya,"
and Kennedy criticises its repre-
sentation as "very ugly and ill-
drawn." Indeed, it is no more and
no less than a bull, and, as far as
natural truth is concerned, much in-
ferior to the Chinese sketches. It
even has cloven bull-feet, while
one of the Chinese drawings has
correctly three toes, 4 and the single FlG ' 4 '

. . . . , , Rhinoceros from Obelisk of Salmanassar

clumsy horn rises on its forehead (from . Kel]eri Antike T ierweit,.

1 After O. Keller, Die antike Tierwelt, Vol. I, p. 386 (Leipzig, 1909).

2 The Early Commerce of Babylon with India (Journal R. As. Soc, 1898, p. 259).

3 According to J. Marquart (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran, II,
p. ioi, Leipzig, 1905), who discusses the same passage in the inscription of Salmanas-
sar II, Muzri is the name of a country and mountain-range (Muzur Mountains) west
of the Euphrates, and comprising also a part of the mountainous region south of the
river. Marquart translates "cattle of the river Irkea." Others, like Schrader,
Hommel, and W. Max Muller (see B. Meissner, Assyrische Jagden, p. 20, Leipzig,
191 1 ) identify Muzri with Egypt. Kennedy does not explain how the rhinoceros
could have gotten into that region from India; and it may have been, after all, an
African species, although the single horn would rather point to India; the elephant,
however, in bis opinion, came over the passes of the Hindu Kush. There is, of course,
the possibility that the lower Euphrates region may have harbored the rhinoceros,
if we can depend upon the report of the Hou Han shu regarding the country of T'iao-
chi (Hirth, China and the Roman Orient, p. 38); and I am in full accord with what
Hirth remarks on this point in the preface (pp. x-xn). However this may be,
I agree with Kennedy, F. Hommel (Die Namen der Saugetiere bei den siidsemiti-
schen Volkern, p. 324), Meissner, and Keller that the animal figured on the black
obelisk of Salmanassar is intended for a rhinoceros, and not merely for an ox, for there
is no ox with single horn as here represented. The Assyrian name for the rhinoceros
is kur-ki-za-an-nu = kurkizannu (F. Delitzsch, Assyrische Tiernamen, p. 56, Leipzig,
1874), which, according to Hommel (/. c, p. 328), is a loan-word received from
Ethiopic karkand (compare Arabic karkadan, Persian kerk). The trade-relations of
India with Babylon are well established (see particularly G. Buhler, Indian Studies
III, p. 84).

4 The ancients did not notice this fact, nor did the Hindu, who classified the rhi-
noceros, owing to a confusion with the elephant, among the five-toed animals (M.
Chakravarti, Animals in the Inscriptions of Piyadasi, Memoirs As. Soc. Bengal,

88 Chinese Clay Figures

between the eyes, as it occurs in the armorial unicorns. It is very-
instructive to compare this Babylonian representation with those of the
Chinese; and whoever will view them together will certainly grant
attenuating circumstances to the latter. The Babylonian production
is the more surprising, as the supposition is granted that the live animal
was sent as tribute; and the "artist," we should think, had occasion to
actually see it. The outcome is such a caricature, however, that this point
of view seems impossible; the "artist" simply acted on hearsay, or had
been instructed to represent a queer foreign animal of the appearance of
an ox, but with only a single horn on its forehead. And here we are again
landing right at the threshold of the psychology of the Chinese draughts-
man who, most assuredly, had never throughout his life viewed any
living specimen of a rhinoceros, but merely reconstructed it in a vision
of his mind from what he had heard or read. Nevertheless his product
is not what it may seem to us on the surface, but it is and remains what
it is intended for, — the rhinoceros.

Another instructive example for the iconography of the rhinoceros
is furnished by Cosmas Indicopleustes, the Egyptian monk and traveller
of the sixth century a.d. Cosmas 1 discriminates between the unicorn
(monokeros) and the "nose-horn" (rhinokeros) , and has handed down to
us sketches of both. In regard to the former, he remarks that he has
not seen it, but that he had had occasion to notice four brazen figures
of it set up in the four-towered palace of the King of Ethiopia, from
which he was able to draw it. His figure 2 looks somewhat like a missing
link between a horse and a giraffe, carrying on its head a straight, long
horn. "In Ethiopia," Cosmas assures us, "I once saw a living rhi-
noceros from a great distance and saw also the skin of a dead one stuffed
with chaff, standing in the royal palace, and thus I was able to draw it
accurately." The result of this "accurate" drawing is the figure of a
maned horse with bushy tail, with two horns planted upright on its
nose. 3 Nobody, as far as I know, has as yet inferred from this figure
that the Greek word rhinokeros relates to an equine animal and should
be translated by "horse."

An interesting example of a Persian conception of the rhinoceros
is depicted in the Burlington Magazine. 4 This is derived from an

Vol. I, p. 371, Calcutta, 1906). In the commentary of Kuo P'o to the dictionary Erh
ya (see below, p. 94) and in the Kiao chou ki of the fifth century a.d. it is clearly stated
that the rhinoceros has three toes. Compare p. 95, note 6.

1 Ed. Migne (Patrologia, Vol. 88), p. 442.

2 Christian Topography, translated by MacCrindle, Plate IV, No. 28 (Hakluyt
Society, 1897).

3 Ibid., No. 23.

4 Vol. XXIII, July, 1913, Plate III.

History of the Rhinoceros 89

illustrated "Description of Animals," the Manafi-i-heiwan, translated
from Arabic into Persian and completed between 1295 and 1300.
Here we have the interesting case that the author of this article, C.
Anet, who evidently does not read Persian, mistakes the rhinoceros
for "a horned gnu." But the picture is entitled in Persian kerkeden
(or kargadan), "the rhinoceros," and it is therefore superfluous to dis-
cuss the point that it cannot represent a gnu. 1 Although the creature
has the shape of an ox, exactly as on the Assyrian obelisk and in the
Chinese woodcut (Fig. 5), with the additional hump of a zebu 2 and
black antelope-like stripes on its body, it is unmistakably characterized
by a single horn in the form of a crescent. 3

In order to understand how the early Chinese illustrations of the
rhinoceros alluded to by Mr. Giles were made, it is imperative to study
the ancient definitions of the two words se and si. These definitions
are sufficiently clear to place us on the right track in nicely dis-
criminating between the two words, which plainly refer to two distinct
species of rhinoceros. The weak point in Mr. Giles's definition of
"bovine animal" 4 is that it is somewhat generalized, and leaves us
entirely in the dark as to the difference between the two words se and si.
They are physically differentiated words, and are expressed by different
symbols in writing.

Se-ma Ts'ien 5 mentions the two species of rhinoceros and elephant
as inhabitants of the country of Shu (Sze-ch'uan). 6 The commentator

1 A species of antelope restricted to Africa, which could hardly be expected in
Persian art.

2 This hints at the square-mouthed or white rhinoceros of Africa. One of the
peculiarities of this species is the prominent, rounded, fleshy hump on the nape
of the neck, just forward of the withers (E. Heller, The White Rhinoceros, p. 20,
Washington, 1913).

3 A representation of the rhinoceros in sculpture is spoken of in a Persian descrip-
tion of the province of Fars from the beginning of the twelfth century; in Istakhr
the portrait-statue of King Jamshid was erected in stone, with his left hand grasping
the neck of a lion, or else seizing a wild ass by the head, or again he is taking a unicorn
(or rhinoceros) by the horn, while in his right hand he holds a hunting-knife, which
he has plunged into the belly of the lion or unicorn (G. Le Strange, Journal R. As.
Soc.,^ 1912, p. 27). In the Annals of the T'ang Dynasty it is on record that in 746 a.d.
Persia offered a rhinoceros and an elephant (Chavannes, T'oung Pao, 1904, p. 76).

4 What wild bovine animal should be understood has never been indicated.
6 Shi ki, Ch. 117, pp. 3 b, 7 b.

6 Our historians of Japan have been greatly puzzled by the fact that the Japanese
Buddhist monk Tiao-jan (Japanese Chonen), who came to China in 984, stated in his
report embodied in Sung shi (Ch. 494, p. 4 b) that there were in his native country
water-buffalo, donkeys, sheep, and plenty of — thus it has been translated —
rhinoceroses and elephants (for example, by P. A. Tschepe, Japans Beziehungen zu
China, p. 89, Yen-chou fu, 1907). O. Nachod (Geschichte von Japan, Vol. I, p. 22)
went so far as to appeal to a misunderstanding on the part of the Japanese informant,
which he believes cannot be surprising, as Tiao-jan, though well versed in the written
characters of the Chinese, did not understand their spoken language. This argu-

90 Chinese Clay Figures

states, "The animal se is built like the water-buffalo. The elephant is a
large animal with long trunk and tusks ten feet long; it is popularly-
styled 'river ape' {kiang yiian, No. 13,741). The animal si has a head
resembling that of the ape yiian and a single horn on its forehead." 1

mentation is entirely inadmissible. It is certain that neither rhinoceros nor elephant
exists in Japan: consequently Tiao-jan, in using the expression si siang (Japanese
sai-zo) cannot be understood to convey to it its literal meaning, but he is sure to em-
ploy it in a different sense. Chinese expressions (and Japanese are largely based
on them) do not always mean what they seem to imply on the surface, but are often
literary allusions or reminiscences of a metaphorical significance. The Japanese monk
indeed avails himself of a Chinese phrase of classical origin traceable to MSng-tse
(Legge, Classics, Vol. II, p. 281), and in my opinion, simply means to say that Japan
produces "extraordinary wild animals." Yen Shi-ku, defining the word shou ("wild
animals") in the Annals of the Han (Ts'ien Han shu, Ch. 28 A, p. 4 b), explains it as
embracing such kinds as rhinoceros and elephants, whence it follows that this com-
pound si siang is capable of rendering the general notion of wild animals. Si siang
has thus become a stereotyped term occurring in many authors, although the literal
meaning usually remains, as, for example, in Ts'ien Han shu (Ch. 28 B, p. 17), Erh ya
(see p. 94, note 3), Nan shi (Ch. 78, p. 7), T'ang shu (Chs. 43 A, p. 1, and 221 A,
p. 10 b), and in the History of Shu (Shukien) written by Kuo Yun-t'ao in 1 236 (Ch. 10,
p. 1, ed. of Shou shan ko ts'ung shu, Vol. 23). Hirth and Rockhill (Chau Ju-kua,
p. 174) have taken a different view of the matter and suppose that the document utilized
in the Sung Annals, and partially copied by Chao Ju-kua (inclusive of the statement
that Japan produces si siang), contained a number of clerical errors; they are convinced
that Tiao-jan's statement really was to the effect that there are neither rhinoceroses
nor elephants in Japan. There is certainly no direct objection to be raised to such a
point of view, but I am inclined to believe that with the indication as given there is
no necessity of resorting to such a conjecture.

1 This universal notion could have emanated only from the two-horned species
with reference to the rear horn, which anatomically is indeed placed over the frontal
bone, while the front horn is situated over the conjoined nasal bones (Flower and
Lydekker, Introduction to the Study of Mammals, p. 403). The posterior horn
immediately follows the anterior one, and is somewhat beneath the eyes. Curiously
enough, this idea of the position of the horn on the forehead was transferred also to
the single-horned species, and became a well-established tradition, which one author
copied from another. It is found in the classical world as well as among the Arabic
authors. Ctesias (ed. Baehr, p. 254) seems to be the most ancient writer in whom
this tradition has crystallized: he describes the wild white asses of India as "having
on the forehead a horn a cubit and a half in length." The fact that he speaks of the
rhinoceros, above all, is evidenced by his reference to the horn being made into
drinking-cups which were a preventive of poisoning (compare also Lassen, Indische
Altertumskunde, Vol. II, p. 646). The monoceros of India, in the description of
Pliny (Nat. hist., vin, 21), had a single black horn projecting from its forehead,
two cubits in length (uno cornu nigro media fronte cubitorum duum eminente) . The
horn of the rhinoceros sculptured in Assyria, as we have seen, is planted on its fore-
head. Of course, when describing a rhinoceros which he saw at the games in the cir-
cus, Pliny (viii, 20) states correctly that it has a single horn on its nose (unius in
nare cornus) ; so does Aelian (xvii, 44), and so does likewise Kuo P'o. The Arabic
merchant Soleiman, writing in 851 (M. Reinaud, Relation des voyages faits par les
Arabes, Vol. I, p. 28), attributes to the rhinoceros of India a single horn in the middle
of its forehead, and is duly seconded by his copyist Mas'udi (Ruska, Der Islam,
Vol. IV, p. 164). Ibn al-Faqih, describing the two-horned species of Africa, states
that it has on its forehead a horn, by means of which it inflicts mortal wounds; and
another minor one is beneath the former and placed between its eyes (E. Wiede-
mann, Zur Mineralogie im Islam, p. 250). Even al-Berunl (E. Sachau, Alberuni's
India, Vol. I, p. 204), who imparts a sensible account of the Indian rhinoceros, asserts
from hearsay that the African species has a conical horn on the skull, and a second
and longer horn on the front. Early European observers also believed that the
horn of the rhinoceros was growing on its forehead. Barker, as quoted by Yule

History of the Rhinoceros gr

In the other passage, the definition of Kuo P'o (276—324), the editor of
the dictionary Erh ya, is quoted.

The following definitions of the words se and si are given in the an-
cient dictionary Shuo wen (about 100 a.d.), and are here reproduced
from an edition of this work printed in 1598, which is an exact facsimile
reproduction of the Sung edition of the year 986. In all probability,
this one faithfully mirrors the text of the original issue. The definition
of se consists of only five words : " It is like a wild ox and dark-colored." 1
The character is then explained as a pictorial symbol (compare the re-
production of the Chinese text on p. 92).

It is doubtless on this enigmatic and incomplete definition that the
explanations of Palladius and Couvreur (above, p. 74) are based. In
order to reach a satisfactory result, however, it is always necessary to
consult all records relating to a case; and it will always be unsafe to rely
upon a single statement, which, after all, may have been curtailed, or in-
correctly handed down. Let us note at the outset that the Shuo wen by
no means says that the animal in question is a wild ox, but only that it is
like one; a comparison with a wild ox is not yet proof of identity with it.
Hing Ping (932—1010), the commentator of Shuo wen, annotates on the
above passage as follows, — " Its skin is so strong and thick that armor can
be made from it," — and quotes the Kiao chou ki 2 to the effect that " the
horn is over three feet long and shaped like the handle of a horse- whip." 3
The fact that this author means to speak of a single horn becomes
evident from the statement of Kuo P'o to be cited presently. 4 The

and Burnell (Hobson-Jobson, p. 1), wrote in 1592, "Now this Abath [abada, bada
= rhinoceros] is a beast that hath one home only in her forehead, and is thought to
be the female Unicorne, and is highly esteemed of all the Moores in those parts as a
most soveraigne remedie against poyson."

1 K'ang-hi's Dictionary quotes the Shuo win as saying that "the animal se has
the shape or body of a wild ox and is dark-colored."

2 Records of Annam, of the fourth or fifth century, by Liu Hin-k'i (Bretschnei-
der, Bot. Sin., pt. 1, p. 159).

3 In a somewhat different way, the Shuo win is cited in Yen kien lei han (Ch. 430,
p. 16 b), where original text and commentary are blended together: "The animal se
resembles a wild ox and has a dark-colored skin which is so strong and thick that it
can be worked up into armor. Among the animals on the mountain Po-chung, there
is a large number of se." The latter name, according to Palladius, is an ancient
designation for a mountain in the west of Shan-si. The fact that the rhinoceros should
have occurred there in ancient times is not at all surprising (see the notes below on
the distribution of the animal in ancient times). It is noteworthy that we meet here
the reading, "it resembles a wild ox," in agreement with the wording of the Erh ya,
whence it follows that the se was not straightway looked upon as a wild ox, but as
something else; it was merely likened to it — a phraseology which is echoed in Baby-
lonia and in the classical authors. This simile seems to account for the erroneous at-
tempt of later commentators, like Chu Hi, to interpret se as identical with a wild ox.

4 The Kiao chou ki is credited in the Yen kien lei han with the words, "The se
has a single horn which is over two feet long and shaped like the handle of a horse-
whip."

Chinese Clay Figures

ft^

>£>

fL"&P

History of the Rhinoceros

animal si is denned in the Shuo wen as "an ox occurring beyond the
southern frontier. It has a horn on its nose and another one on the
crown of its head; it resembles a pig." 1 This definition fits no other
animal than the two-horned species of rhinoceros, and has great his-
torical value as a piece of evidence in determining the former geograph-
ical distribution of the species. The passage shows us that in the first
century a.d. it no longer existed in northern China, where its habitat
had been prior to that time, and that it was then driven back beyond the
southern border, speaking roughly, south of the Yangtse. It was then
naturalized in Yiin-nan, in the country of the Ai-lao, 2 and in Tonking. 3

To the author of Kiao chou ki we owe the following interesting de-
scription of the Annamese rhinoceros: 4 "The rhinoceros (si) has its
habitat in the district of Kiu-te (in Tonking). It has hair like swine,
three toes, and a head like a horse. It is provided with two horns, —
the horn on the nose being long, the horn on the forehead short." It is
clearly manifest that this description comes from an eye-witness, or
one well informed by the native hunters, and that it perfectly fits the
two-horned so-called Sumatran rhinoceros (Rhinoceros sumatrensis) ,
the only living Asiatic species with two horns, and also the most hairy
one. 5 Its essential characteristics are well observed and briefly set
forth in this definition.

The dictionary Erhya, edited by Kuo P'o (276-324) , defines the animal
se as resembling the ox, and the animal si as resembling swine. The
commentary by Kuo P'o explains that the se has a single horn, is dark
in color, and weighs a thousand catties; 6 and "the si resembles in form

1 Marco Polo (edition of Yule and Cordier, Vol. II, p. 285) says regarding
the rhinoceros of Java that its head resembles that of a boar.

2 Hon Han shu, Ch. 1 16, p. 8 b.

3 The question of the former geographical distribution of the rhinoceros in China
is studied in detail below, pp. 159-166.

4 Yen kien lei han, Ch. 340, p. 1. In Annamese the rhinoceros is called hut
(written with the Chinese character for se) and tdy or te (written with the character
for si).

6 Hair grows sparsely all over the head and body, but attains its maximum de-
velopment on the ears and the tail, its color varying from brown to black. The long-
est known specimen of the front horn is in the British Museum, and has a length of
32K inches, with a basal girth of 17H inches; a second specimen in the same collec-
tion measures 2y^i inches in length, and 17J4 in circumference (R. Lydekker, The
Game Animals of India, p. 38). The statement of the Kiao chou ki that the horn is
two or three feet long is therefore no exaggeration. Concerning the two horns in the
si, there is consensus of opinion between that work and the Shuo wen.

6 This may not be an exaggeration, though merely based on a rough estimate.
The average weight of the rhinoceros, for reasons easy to comprehend, has never been
ascertained. But if the weight of the skin alone may come to three hundred pounds
(E. Heller, The White Rhinoceros, p. 10), the complete animal may easily total a
thousand and more. K'ang-hi and the modern editions of the Erh ya write "thousand

94 Chinese Clay Figures

the water-buffalo, 1 but has the head of a pig, a big paunch, short legs,
and three toes on its feet; it is black in color and has three horns, one on
the head, another on the forehead, and the third on the nose. The horn
on the nose is the one by means of which it feeds [that is, uproots shrubs
and trees]; 2 it is small and not long; it likes to eat thorny brambles;
there is also a kind with but a single horn." Kuo P'o, accordingly,
is fully acquainted with the single-horned rhinoceros (his three-horned
species is discussed farther on) , and renders it plain enough that in his
opinion neither the se nor the si is a bovine animal, as he treats them in a
different section; while in his section on bovines, with twelve illustrations
of such, no hint is made at se or si. 3 The last doubt which might still
exist as to the acquaintance with the single-horned rhinoceros on the
part of Kuo P'o and Hu Shen, the author of Shuo wen, will be banished
by another word, tuan 4 (or kio tuan), of which Shuo wen (Ch. n, p. 2)
says that it is an animal of the shape of swine, with a horn which is
good for making bows, and which is produced in the country Hu-siu. 5

catties." Yen kien lei han (I. c.) has the erroneous reading "ten," which is impossible.
Also Chang Yu-si, the author of the Pu chu pin ts'ao of the year 1057, as may be seen
from the Ching lei pin ts'ao, quotes the Erh ya as saying that "the se resembles an
ox and has a single horn." Kuo P'o, accordingly, concurs with Liu Hin-k'i in the
view that se is the single-horned rhinoceros.

1 Yen kien lei han (Ch. 430, p. 1) offers the variant, "The si resembles swine, but
is in shape like an ox;" then the same text as above is given, but the clause in regard
to the three horns is wanting.

2 While feeding, the point of the horn of the animal may come in contact with the
ground, so that the point is sometimes worn flat on its outer face (E. Heller, The
White Rhinoceros, p. 31). According to Ibn al-Faq!h, the African rhinoceros tears
herbage out with the anterior horn, and kills the lion with the posterior one (E.
Wiedemann, Zur Mineralogie im Islam, p. 250).

3 The rhinoceros is incidentally mentioned in another passage of Erh ya (Ch. B,
fol. 29), where nine mountains with their famed productions are enumerated: "The
finest productions of the southern region are the rhinoceros (si) and elephant of Mount
Liang" (Liang shan, in Chung chou, Sze-ch'uan; Playfair, 2d ed., No. 3790, 2;
Bretschneider, Bot. Sin., pt. 3, p. 575, No. 187). Kuo P'o adds, "The rhinoceros
furnishes hide and horn, the elephant ivory and bones." It follows therefrom, as
is also confirmed by other sources, that in the third century a.d., the lifetime of
Kuo P'o, the rhinoceros still existed in Sze-ch'uan, as seen above; its existence was
attested there by Se-ma Ts'ien several centuries earlier.

4 Composed of the classifier kio ('horn') and the phonetic element tuan (No.
12,136). Not in Giles; see Palladius, Vol. I, p. 189. A unicorn is represented on
the Han bas-reliefs (Chavannes, Mission archlologique, Vol. I, p. 60, Paris, 1913).

B Nos. 4930 and 4651. Other editions write Hu-lin. A horn bow is not a bow
exclusively made from horn, which is technically impossible; but horn is only one of
the substances entering into its manufacture. Technically the Chinese bow belongs
to the class of composite bows, the production of which is a complicated process and
requires a large amount of toil and dexterity. The foundation of the bow is formed
of flexible wood connected with a bamboo staff. Along the back a thick layer of
carefully soaked and prepared animal sinew is pressed, which, after drying, stiffens
into a hard elastic substance. The inner side of the bow is then covered with two
long horn sticks joining each other in the centre. The opposite of the horn bow is the
wooden (or simple) bow (mu kung), as it is mentioned, for instance, as being used by

History of the Rhinoceros 95

Kuo P'o states in regard to the same animal, "The horn is on the
nose and capable of being made into bows. Li Ling presented ten such
bows to Su Wu. 1 The animal mentioned in the Life of Se-ma Siang-ju
in the Shi ki (Ch. 117) is the kH-lin 2 kio tuan."

The animal with a horn on its nose is the single-horned rhinoceros;
and the term tuan or kio tuan is a counterpart of the word monoceros of
the ancients, as alluded to by Ctesias, Aristotle, Pliny, Aelian, and others,
and which, according to the general consensus of opinion, relates to the
one-horned rhinoceros of India. Bows manufactured from the horn are
mentioned also in the Annals of the Kin Dynasty. 3 The allusion to
armor by Hing Ping is additional proof for se being a rhinoceros, for,
as we shall see, armor was not made in ancient China from the hides of
bovine animals. 4

It is beyond any doubt that in those various definitions there is
plainly the question of a rhinoceros. We cannot get over the single
horn, whether placed on the nose, the head, or the forehead; 5 we can-
not get over the fact, either, that a conspicuous distinction between the
single-horned (se) and two-horned (si) species is made, — a fact which will
be discussed in full farther on when we have learned everything that
Chinese authors have to report anent the two animals; nor can we get
over the three toes which form a prominent characteristic of the rhi-
noceros, 6 but assuredly not of any bovine species. In fact, the Chinese
definitions, without pretension to scientific accuracy, which could not be

the populace of Tonking {Ts'ien Han shu, Ch. 28 B, p. 17), which in connection with
it availed itself of flint, bamboo, and sometimes bone arrowheads.

1 See Giles, Biographical Dictionary, pp. 450, 684.

2 Regarding the k'i-lin see below, p. 113.

3 Kin shi, Ch. 120, p. 3. Fossil rhinoceros-horn (from Rhinoceros tichorrhinus)
is still employed by the Yakut in the manufacture of bows (B. Adler, Int. Archiv
fur Ethnographie, Vol. XIV, 1901, p. 11).

4 Regarding other Chinese notions of monoceroses see p. 1 14. Of later descriptions
of the rhinoceros, the one contained in Ying yai sh&ng Ian of 141 6 by Ma Kuan is the
most interesting. It is the most concise and correct definition ever given of the
animal outside of our modern zoology. "The products of Champa are rhinoceros-
horn and ivory of which there is a large quantity. The rhinoceros is like the water-
buffalo. Animals of full growth weigh eight hundred catties. The body is hairless,
black in color, and covered by a thick skin in the manner of a scale armor. The hoofs
are provided with three toes. A single horn is placed on the extremity of the nose,
the longest reaching almost fifteen inches. It subsists only on brambles, tree leaves
and branches, and dried wood."

8 As already remarked by Cuvier, the only real animal with a single horn is the
rhinoceros.

6 This statement reflects much credit on the observational power of the Chinese,
especially as it is not pointed out by any classical author in describing the rhinoceros
or unicorn. Al-Beruni (Sachau, Alberuni's India, Vol. I, p. 203) is the only early
author outside of China to make the same observation. Al-Beruni gives two different
and contradictory descriptions of the rhinoceros, apparently emanating from two
different sources. First, the animal is sensibly described from personal observation

96 Chinese Clay Figures

expected, are perfectly sound and to the point in stating what a primitive
observer could testify in regard to an animal so difficult of access and so
difficult to describe. Surely, the Chinese definitions are not worse, and
in several points perhaps better, than anything said about the animal in
classical antiquity, among the Arabs, or in Europe up to the eighteenth
century. And we shall soon recognize that until the very recent dawn
of our scientific era the Chinese were the nation of the world which
was best informed on the subject. 1 The Chinese likened the rhinoceros
to the ox, the water-buffalo, the pig, 2 and its head to that of an ape.

as follows: "The ganda exists in large numbers in India, more particularly about the
Ganges. It is of the build of the buffalo [analogous to the Chinese definition], has a
black scaly skin, and dewlaps hanging down under the chin. It has three yellow
hoofs on each foot, the biggest one forward, the others on both sides. The tail is not
long; the eyes lie low, farther down the cheek than is the case with all other animals.
On the top of the nose there is a single horn which is bent upwards. The Brahmins
have the privilege of eating the flesh of the ganda. I have myself witnessed how an
elephant coming across a young ganda was attacked by it. The ganda wounded with
its horn a forefoot of the elephant, and threw it down on its face." The other account
of al-Berunl, which refers to the double-horned African species, is composed of the
narrative of a man who had visited Sufala in Africa, and of classical reminiscences
freely intermingled with it; to the latter belong the beliefs in the mobility of the
horn and in the sharpening of the horn against rocks, and here appears also the wrong
notion that it has hoofs. — Pliny (Nat. hist., viii, 21, §76) asserts that the single-
horned oxen of India have solid hoofs (in India et boves solidis ungulis unicornes),
a tradition which savors of the description of a unicorn after a sculpture (on the As-
syrian obelisk the animal has bovine hoofs). Even Aristotle (Hist, an., 11, 18;
ed. of Aubert and Wimmer, Vol. I, pp. 74, 254), who evidently speaks after Ctesias,
characterizes the single-horned "Indian ass" as solid-hoofed (nuvvxa) . This lacune
in the descriptions of the ancients was aptly pointed out by Belin de Ballu (La
chasse, poeme d'Oppien, p. 174, Strasbourg, 1787), who, in speaking of the familiarity
of the ancients with the animal, concludes by saying, "Mais ce qui doit nous 6tonner
c'est qu' aucun n'ait parle" d'un caractere particulier de cet animal, dont les pieds sont
partag£s en trois parties, revetue chacune d'une sole semblable a celle du bceuf."

1 The only reproach that can be made to the Chinese authors is that they never
point to the peculiar skin-folds of the animal (with the only exception, perhaps, of
Fan Chen of the Sung period, who describes the rhinoceros of Annam as "clad with
a fleshy armor;" see p. 113), and that, despite the live specimens procured for the
Imperial Court (p. 80), no attempt has ever been made at a more precise description
based on actual observation. But we may address the same charge of omission to
the authors of India, the Greek writers on India, and to Pliny and Aelian. Pliny is
content with stating that he saw the animal in the Roman circus, but does not de-
scribe what he saw, while he is eager to reproduce all the fables regarding the monoce-
ros, emanating from India or from former sources relative to India. Aelian (Nat.
an., xvii, 44) thinks it superfluous to describe the form of the rhinoceros, since a
great many Greeks and Romans have seen and clearly know it. In matters of descrip-
tion the animal presents as difficult a subject as in matters of art. Exact descriptions
of it are due only to competent zoologists of recent times.

2 How very natural this comparison is, maybe gleaned from the account contained
in Nan Ytie chi (quoted in T'u shu tsi ch'eng, chapter on rhinoceros), that at the time
of the Han a rhinoceros once stampeded from Kiao chi (Annam) into Kao-liang (the
ancient name for Kao-chou f u in Kuang-tung Province) , and that it was mistaken by
the people for a black ox, while those acquainted with the animal asserted that it
was a black rhinoceros. The resemblance of the rhinoceros to an ox or buffalo has
indeed obtruded itself on the observers of all times ; and this notion is so far from being
restricted to the Chinese, that it may almost be called universal. As seen above
(p. 87), the Assyrians called the animal "ox of the river Sakeya." Pliny (Nat. hist..

History of the Rhinoceros 97

This is all exceedingly good: it is simply the result of that mental
process which classifies a novel experience under a well-known category,

viii, 21, §72, 76) speaks of the unicorn oxen of India. Festus calls the African
rhinoceros the Egyptian ox, and Pausanias tells of "Ethiopic bulls styled rhino-
ceroses" which he saw himself in Rome (O. Keller, Die antike Tierwelt, Vol. I,
p. 385). The Indian physician Caraka, who lived at the Court of King Kanishka in
Kashmir, placed the rhinoceros in the class of buffalo (anupa, Mem. As. Soc. Bengal,
Vol. I, 1906, p. 371). The Arabic merchant Soleiman, who wrote in 851, compared
the Indian rhinoceros with the buffalo (M. Reinaud, Relation des voyages, Vol. I,
p. 29) ; and so did, as seen above, al-Berunl. Ibn al-Faqih says regarding the African
rhinoceros that it resembles a calf (E. Wiedemann, Zur Mineralogie im Islam,
p. 250). The Talmud, in three passages, mentions the one-horned ox as an animal sacri-
ficed by Adam (L. Lewysohn, Die Zoologie des Talmuds, p. 151, Frankfurt, 1858).
The "sea-ox" mentioned by Leo Africanus (Hirth and Rockhill, Chau Ju-kua,
p. 145) certainly is the rhinoceros. The Malays designate the two-horned species
badak-karbau, "the buffalo-rhinoceros," and the single-horned species badak-gdjah,
"the elephant-rhinoceros." It is difficult to understand, however, why some of the
classical authors allude to the rhinoceros under the designation "the Indian ass"
(Aristotle, Hist, an., 11, 18, ed. of Aubert and Wimmer, Vol. I, pp. 74, 254).
Aristotle's definition is traceable to Ctesias (ed. Baehr, p. 254), who states that
there were in India wild white asses celebrated for their swiftness of foot, having on
the forehead a horn a cubit and a half in length, and that they are colored white,
red, and black; from the horn were made drinking-cups which were a pr ventive of
poisoning (compare also Lassen, Indische Altertumskunde, Vol. II, p. 646). The
mention of these antipoisonous cups is good evidence for the fact that Ctesias hints
at the Indian rhinoceros (Herodotus, iv, 191, speaks of horned asses of Libya,
but they are not one-horned). Ctesias is an author difficult to judge. His account
of India, said to have been written in B.C. 389, it should be borne in mind, was de-
rived second-hand, while he resided in Persia as court-physician of King Artaxerxes
Mnemon, so that his data may partially be based on Persian accounts of India, and
misunderstandings of his informants may have crept in; moreover ,_his report is handed
down in a bad and fragmentary condition, and may have been disfigured by Photias
of Byzance of the ninth century, to whom the preservation of his work is due. The
definition of Ctesias in the present case cannot be regarded as correct, as we do not
find in India, or anywhere else in the East, a comparison of the rhinoceros with an ass,
nor any tradition to this effect, — a tradition which is not likely ever to have existed.
If the ass really was contained in his original text, it must go back, in my estimation,
to a misunderstanding on his part of the word imparted to him by the authorities
whom he questioned. With the exception of the horn, Ctesias does not seem to have
entertained any clear notion of the animal; and his description of the skin as white,
red, and black, is baffling. V. Ball (Proceedings Royal Irish Academy, Vol. II, 1885,
and in his edition of Tavernier's Travels in India, Vol. I, p. 114) tried to show that
the colors seen by Ctesias were artificial pigments applied to the hide, as they are on
elephants at the present day; rhinoceroses kept by the Rajas for fighting-purposes
were, according to him, commonly painted with diverse bright colors. This forced
explanation, shifting quite recent affairs to the days of early antiquity, is hardly
plausible. It seems to me that we are bound to assume that the text of this passage
is not correctly handed down. The colors white, red, and black would seem rather to
have originally adhered to the horn. The Eastern lore of the rhinoceros, as shown by
the reports of the Chinese and Arabs, essentially clusters around the horn. —
Marco Polo (ed. of Yule and Cordier, Vol. II, p. 285) says in regard to the
Javanese rhinoceros that its head resembles that of a wild boar; and this characteriza-
tion is quite to the point, as is that of Kuo P'o when he compares the two-horned si
to swine. A glance at Fig. 8, representing the specimen of a Sumatran two-horned
rhinoceros in the Field Museum, will convince every one of the appropriateness of
this simile. The pig shape of the rhinoceros is apparent also in a Roman representa-
tion on a clay lamp from Labicum illustrating the struggle between that animal and
a bear (Fig. 7), so that even the most skeptic critic of Chinese animal sketches will be
compelled to grant a certain foundation of fact to the hog-like rhinoceros of the Erh
ya (Fig. 6).

9 8

Chinese Clay Figures

s$s*a-

History of the Rhinoceros

and the comparisons could not be any better. We should halt a moment
to reflect by what class of people these observations had been made.
Most certainly by the
hardy hunters who chased
the wild beasts. We must
distinguish between the
original observer and story-
teller, and the scholar
closeted in his study who
draughted the definitions
for the consumption of the
learned. It was not the
Chinese philologist who
went out into the jungle
to study the rhinoceros; he,
indeed, never had occasion

to see it, but he derived his knowledge from reports made to him by the
sportsman. The latter probably was plain and matter-of-fact; the

Fig. 7.

Struggle of Bear and Rhinoceros, represented on a Clay

Lamp from Labicutn (after 0. Keller, Tiere des

classischen Altertums).

Fig. 8.
Sumatran Rhinoceros, Sketch from Museum Specimen (compare Elliot, Catalogue of the Collection

of Mammals, Zo61. Series, Vol. VIII, p. 105).

former added a bit of romance and exaggeration. Have we any right to
ridicule the Chinese over their embarrassment as to where to locate the
horn or the horns, when we observe that this was still a matter of wild
speculation amidst Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? 1

1 Dr. Parsons, in the pamphlet quoted, justly remarks, "Nothing could serve as
a better proof of how easily men may fall into uncertainty through preconceived
conclusions than this very topic of the horn of the rhinoceros."

ioo Chinese Clay Figures

Have we any right to look down upon their artists in their naive at-
tempts to sketch the rhinoceros in the shape of an ox with a horn on the
forehead (Fig. 5), when we observe that the so-called "civilization" of
Assyria and the painting of Persia committed the same error, or when we
glance at the puerile drawings of Cosmas and recall Diirer's work with
the horn on the animal's neck?

In the above definitions we recognize the elements and tools with
which the subsequent Chinese illustrators worked. They set out to il-
lustrate, not the rhinoceros, but the descriptions given of it in the
ancient dictionaries. They studied, not the animal, but the ready-
made definitions of it encountered in book-knowledge. They read,
and their reading guided the strokes of their brush. "The se resembles
in body a water-buffalo, the si a pig:" consequently such bodies
were outlined by the illustrator of Erh ya; and long, curved, and pointed
single horns were placed on the heads (Figs. 5 and 6). 1 He apparently
shunned the three horns, as the matter was difficult to draw; and no-
body knew how to arrange them. He carefully outlined the three toes

1 Our illustrations are derived from a folio edition of the Erh ya printed in 1801
(3 vols.), which is designated as "a reproduction of the illustrated Erh ya of the Sung
period" (Ying Sung ch'ao hut t'u Erh ya). The ancient illustrations of the Erh ya
by Kuo P'o and Kiang Kuan are lost (see Bretschneider, Bot. Sin., pt. 1, p. 34),
and were renewed in the age of the Sung, presumably without any tradition connect-
ing the latter with the former. This fact may account for the purely reconstructive
work of some illustrations, and we may well assume that the earlier sketches were far
better. Many other illustrations of the Erh ya have been brought about in the same
manner as those of the rhinoceros. Compare, for instance, the picture of the fabulous
horse po (No. 9393) surrounded by flamed fluttering bands and about to lacerate a
tiger seized by its carnivora-like, sharp claws; while a panther is swiftly making for
safety to escape a similar fate. Of course, the craftsman has never observed this
scene, but faithfully depicts the definition of the book, "The animal po is like a horse
with powerful teeth, devouring tigers and panthers." This notion, as indicated by
Kuo P'o, goes back to the Shan hai king, which says, "There is a wild animal styled
po, like a white horse with black tail and powerful teeth, emitting sounds like a
drum and devouring tigers and panthers." (Here we have a parallel to, and pre-
sumably an echo of, the flesh-eating horses of Diomed and the man-devouring
Bucephalus of the Alexander legend; see J. v. Negelein, Das Pferd im arischen Al-
tertum, pp. 43, 75, Konigsberg, 1903.) Otherwise the horses pictured in the Erh ya,
aside from their technical drawbacks, are quite realistic; and so are the oxen and
other animals which came under the every-day observation of the Chinese. It is
still a mystery, and a problem worth while investigating, why the Chinese were rather
good at drawing some animals and completely failed in others. It may be pointed
out that the tapir of the Erh ya, aside from the exaggerated trunk and wrong tail, is
rather correctly outlined with its white saddle, and corresponds to a well-known
species (Tapirus indicus). In view of the retrospective and reconstructive sketches
of this work, we have the same state of affairs as in the illustrations accompanying
the Shan hai king, and as formerly shown by me in Jade, in the San li t'u, and to
a certain extent in the Ku yii t'u p'u. The illustrators of the ancient Rituals did
not directly picture the actual, ancient ceremonial objects, most of which were lost
past hope in their time, but reconstructed them from the descriptions supplied by
the commentators of the ancient texts, and for better or worse, based their illus-
trations on these artificial reconstructions, which to a large extent are erroneous or
imaginary.

History of the Rhinoceros ioi

in the animal si; and this feature, combined with the single horns, is
sufficient flavor of the rhinoceros to guard from any rash conclusion
even one who has not considered the psychological foundation of these
sketches.

From the fact that the animal se is drawn in the shape of an ox,
Mr. Giles infers that the word se does not denote the rhinoceros,
but "a bovine animal." Then, how about the word si? The animal
si (Fig. 6) is undeniably represented in the Erh ya Vu with the body of a
hog, — why not, to be consistent, also translate the word si by "swine"?
If a child who was invited to make a sketch of a whale should delineate
it in the shape of a fish, should we conclude for this reason that the whale
is a fish? To make use of an illustration for a far-reaching philological
and zoological conclusion, it is indispensable to ascertain the real value
of such an illustration, and to make a somewhat critical study of its
origin and basis. Mr. Giles is right in stating that there are illustra-
tions of the animal se that are purely those of an ox. The ill-reputed
San li Vu, for instance, stooped to this wisdom when the difficult task
arose of illustrating in the shape of a rhinoceros the target used by the
lords and ministers in the practice of archery, and spoken of in the
Chou li and I li. But what wonder ! Those illustrators who employed
the pure-ox design simply stood on the platform of the sober and incom-
plete definition of the Shuo wen, "The animal se is like a wild ox."
Nothing could be more convenient to the unthinking and mechanical
craftsman; this plain recipe freed him from the responsibility for the
horn. Anybody could outline an ox with two regular horns; and by
inscribing it se, the satisfaction at this achievement was naturally the
greater.

It is incorrect, however, to say that the animal se, as outlined in T'u
shu isi ch'eng (Fig. 9), is the picture of an ox. In its general features it
resembles a kind of deer, as does likewise the animal si (Fig. 10). A
lengthy discussion of the "deer-like" rhinoceros follows below (p. 109).
Again, in Fig. 9, the draughtsman has taken particular pains to set off
distinctly three toes in the left front foot; and where is the bovine
animal with three toes? And where is the bovine animal with a single
horn, and with this peculiar shape of horn? As to Fig. 10, it presents
itself as an illustration of the legend that, while the rhinoceros is gazing
at the moon, the peculiar designs within its horn are formed (p. 147).
This notion exclusively refers to rhinoceros-horn, so that the animal here
intended can be no other than the rhinoceros. 1

1 The two illustrations of T'u shu tsi ch'eng are derived, with a few slight altera-
tions, from San ts'ai t'u hui (section on Animals, Ch. 3, p. 7; Ch. 4, p. 12), where, curi-

102

Chinese Clay Figures

Fig. 9.
The Animal se (from T'u shu tsi ch'eng).

History of the Rhinoceros

103

Fig. 10.
The Animal si gazing at the Moon (from Tu shu tsi ch'ing).

104 Chinese Clay Figures

The three-horned rhinoceros described by Kuo P'o is perhaps not so
fabulous as it may appear at first sight; for it is known to naturalists
that the animal has also the tendency of developing three horns. E.
Heller 1 states in regard to the black rhinoceros covering the whole of
Africa with the exception of the Congo Basin that, although the species is
almost invariably two-horned, occasional variations of one and three-
homed specimens are met with. In the light of this observation,
Pliny's (Nat. hist., VIII, 21) notice of oxen of India, some with one
horn, and others with three (Indicos boves unicornes tricornesque), is
apt to lose much of the legendary character with which it was formerly
charged. As far as I know, a three-horned specimen has not yet been
pointed out among the species of the Indo-Malayan region; notwith-
standing, the possibility remains that such may have occurred in
times of antiquity. However this may be, whether we assume that the
notion of a three-horned species was founded on a natural observation
or not, the fact of the coincidence between Kuo P'o and Pliny remains,
and hints at the existence of a tradition anent a three-horned variety in
the beginning of our era. 2 At any rate, whether real or imaginary, the
latter is but a variation of the two-horned species; and by omitting
Kuo P'o's illusory "horn on the head," we arrive at a fairly accurate
description of it, and then Kuo P'o exactly agrees with Hii Shen's
definition of the word si. And there can be no doubt of the point that

ously enough, they are separated and dispersed in two different chapters. In the latter
work, the horn of the se is decorated with different designs, which are white on black,
while they are black on white in T'u shu. The si of San ts'ai is adorned with flamed
and fluttering bands, and the crescent of the moon is absent.

1 The White Rhinoceros, p. 35 (Washington, 1913). Again on p. 17: "The num-
ber of dermal horns on the snout is of less importance. These have been found to
show some individual variation in the African species varying from one to three in
number in the same species. The front horn, however, is nearly always the better
developed and is never wanting."

2 The case could certainly be argued also from a purely philological point of view.
Kuo P'o's creation might be explained as an ill-advised combination of the single-
horned and two-horned species, or even regarded as a subsequent interpolation in
his text, due to a scribe who meant to be sure of his definition being as complete as
possible. Pliny's tricornis might be rationally interpreted as the result of an arithmet-
ical process, providing the rhinoceros as a species of ox with two bovine horns, and
adding the nose-horn as the third. In this manner Damirl's three-horned rhinoceros
must have arisen (Ruska, Der Islam, Vol. IV, 1913, p. 164), for it has one horn
between the eyes and two above the ears. The natural explanation based on zoologi-
cal observation appeals to me to a much higher degree, for we must not be forgetful
of the fact that it is impossible for the human mind to invent spontaneously such an
observation; a feature of this kind, in order to be observed by man, must have some-
how pre-existed in nature. It means nothing, of course, to say that the three horns are
a fable; if fable it is, then how did the fable come into existence? It is not the
question of a mythological conception, or of a mythical monster, but plainly of a
really existing animal described in sober words. I feel confident that the three-horned
variation in a living or extinct species will be found some day also in Eastern Asia.

History of the Rhinoceros 105

what Kuo P'o intends to describe is the two-horned species of rhinoceros,
not any other animal: his statement in regard to "the horn on the
nose" excludes any other idea, and the bovine animal with such a horn
remains as yet to be discovered. Li Shi-chen of the sixteenth century,
as will be seen below (p. 150), rejects the definition of Kuo P'o as erro-
neous; that is to say, he did not know of any three-horned variety, and
recognized in it the two-horned species. An illustration of this three-
horned creature may be viewed in the Wa-Kan San-sai-zu-e, the Japa-
nese edition of the Chinese cyclopaedia San ts'ai fu hui. 1 The defini-
tion runs thus: "The rhinoceros has the hair of swine and three toes on
each foot; it has the head of a horse and three horns, on the nose, the
forehead, and on the skull, respectively." The three toes and three
horns are exactly drawn in accordance with this prescription; curiously
enough, however, the head is not that of a horse, but of a bull. The
old tradition of the draughtsmen is retained in spite of the definition.

Kuo P'o, in all probability, is not the first or the only author to
speak of a three-horned variety. A work Kiao Kuang chi, 2 Account of
Kiao chou (northern part of what is now Annam) and Kuang-tung,
reports, "In the territory of the Barbarians of the South-west occurs a
strange rhinoceros with three horns emitting light at night like big
torches at a distance of a thousand paces. When it sheds its horns, it
hides them in a remote and dense jungle to prevent men from seeing
them. The sovereigns hold this strange product in high esteem, and
make it into hair-pins. These are capable of checking evil and rebel-
lion.' ' Here we have the testimony of an eye-witness or one reproducing
a hearsay account; and, quite correctly, he points out this variety as a
freak of nature. The exact date of the work in question is unfortunately
not known to me; but as the quotation is placed between one from
Kuang-cki by Ku Yi-kung, who according to Bretschneider 3 belonged
to the Liang dynasty (502—556), and one from Kuang chou ki, a work of
the Tsin period (265—419), the inference may be justifiable that Kiao
Kuang chi likewise is a production of the Leu-ch'ao period. However
remote from truth all these Chinese illustrations may be, most of them
are fairly correct as to the outlines of the horn, naturally because

1 The illustration is easily accessible in L. Serrurier, Encyclopedic japonaise,
le chapitre des quadrupedes, Plate VIII (Leiden, 1875). This cut is not contained in
a recent edition of this Japanese work (Tokyo, 1906), but is replaced by a rhinoceros
with two horns, the one on the forehead, the other on top of the skull. These attempts
clearly prove that Japanese as well as Chinese illustrators did not draw the animal
from life, but from the definitions of the books. In the Chinese San ts'ai t'u hui
(Ch. 4, p. 32) only a three-horned animal (san kio shou) is depicted.

2 Quoted in the chapter on Rhinoceros in T'u shu tsi ch'ing.

3 Bot. Sin., pt. 1, p. 164.

106 Chinese Clay Figures

the horn as an article of trade was always known, but not the animal
itself. 1

The rdle played by the rhinoceros in Chinese art is limited. As
shown by the symbol illustrated in the Po ku fu lu (Fig. 18), it was
pictured in early antiquity; and other representations of that period
mentioned in Chinese records are discussed on p. 160. The animal lacks
those aesthetic qualities of form which tempt the brush of the painter;
and this may be the reason why despite the living rhinoceroses sent up as
tribute to the capital (see p. 80) it has never been immortalized on any
Chinese scroll known to us. 2 There is, however, one case on record.
Chang Shi-nan, who wrote the book Yu huan ki win early in the thir-
teenth century, 3 narrates that he once saw in Sze-ch'uan (Shu) the
painting of an unknown artist showing the outlines of a rhinoceros with
a horn on its nose. 4 The inhabitants of Sze-ch'uan, accordingly, were
familiar with the animal, and for this reason represented it correctly.
On some Buddhist pictures it may owe its existence to a mere lucky
chance; that is, to the fact that it was so copied from an Indian-
Buddhist model. On Yen Li-p&n's picture showing Samantabhadra's
elephant, 8 the rhinoceros is unmistakably contrasted with the elephant
as the smaller animal with scaly body, and head surmounted by a single
horn. Another illustration of the same subject is reproduced in Fig. 1 1
from Ch'eng shi mo yuan (Ch. 6 b, p. 16) published in the Wan-
li period, after 1605. Possibly it occurs also on the later typical paint-
ings of Buddha's Nirvana in the group of wailing animals. 6 On the
sculptures of Angkor- Vat the rhinoceros is represented as the vehicle of
the god Karttikeya. 7

The Mongol emperors made practical use of the typical, conventional
designs of the rhinoceros on the standards of the army: there was a
standard with the picture of the animal se, "resembling an ox, with a
single horn, and of dark color," and another with a picture of the

1 A modern Chinese school-book published at Shanghai in 1901, and illustrated by
Wu Tse-ch'eng of Su-chou, illustrates the word si with the cut of a rhinoceros of
European origin, and the word se with a jovial ox of his own invention; while the text
accompanying it, imbued with the spirit of the Shuo win and Erh ya, speaks of one
horn on the nose and three toes.

2 It is likewise absent from classical Greek art. The marble relief of Pompeii,
the lamp from Labicum, and the coins of Domitian referred to, are the only known ex-
amples of its representation in late Roman art.

3 Wylie, Notes, p. 165.

4 The text is reprinted in T'u shu tsi ch'Sng, chapter on rhinoceros, hui k'ao, p. 5.
6 Reproduced in the writer's Jade, p. 342.

6 See for example A. Grunwedel, Buddhistische Kunst in Indien, p. 1 14, or Bud-
dhist Art in India, p. 124 (in the right lower corner).

7 According to M. G. Coedes, Les bas-reliefs d'Angkor-Vat, p. 12 (Paris, 191 1).

History of the Rhinoceros

107

Fig. 11.
• 'Brushing the Elephant." Rhinoceros with Scaly Armor in Front. Wood-engraving from

Ch'ing-shi mo yuan.

io8

Chinese Clay Figures

rhinoceros si niu, which is not described. They had also standards
with designs of a three-horned animal (san kio shou) and the unicorn
(kio tuan), which was outlined "like a sheep, with a small tail and a
single horn on its crest." :

In plastic art, 2 the rhinoceros has been carved from jade either as
the handle of a paper-weight or as the knob of a seal. 3 An example of
either kind is illustrated in Ku yii Vu p*u (Ch. 74, p. 1, reproduced in

Fig. 12.
Ancient Paper- Weight of Jade surmounted by Figure of Rhinoceros (from Ku yU t'u P'u).

Fig. 12; and Ch. 37, p. 11). The traditional reconstructions of the
animal are here faithfully preserved; the three toes (the third, of course,
is not visible) and the shape of the horn, though it is wrongly placed,
come somewhat near the truth. The manufacturers of ink-cakes
availed themselves of the same design for printing on the surfacejof
their products. The Ch'eng ski mo yuan (Ch. 13, p. 30) illustrates
"a spiritual rhinoceros" (ling si) with body of an ox, hump of a zebu,
cloven feet, snout of a pig, and horn on the front.

1 Yuan shi, Ch. 79, p. 10 (K'ien-lung edition).

2 Bushell (Chinese Art, Vol. I, p. 91) figures a bronze vessel of the type styled
hi ts'un, and describes it as being "shaped in the form of a rhinoceros standing with
ears erect and a collar round the neck." But this explanation conflicts with Chinese
tradition, according to which the animal hi is a sacrificial ox; and an ox is apparently
represented in this bronze. Neither is there a single or double horn, which would be
necessary to establish such a case.

3 Seals surmounted by the full figure of a rhinoceros seem to make their first
appearance in the Han period (see Hou Han shu, Ch. 40, p. 5).

History of the Rhinoceros

109

The most curious item in the history of the iconography of the
rhinoceros is the illustration of the animal in the Cheng lei pen ts'ao
published in 1208 by the physician T'ang Shen-wei 1 (reproduced in
Fig. 13). Here we see the animal represented as a hairy and spotted
deer, its head being surmounted by a single curved horn, peacefully
chewing a bunch of leaves with a most innocent expression on its face.
The legend is si kio ("rhinoceros-horn"), all illustrations of animals

'-*. ' - •_*-- 't, •- --J '■" * 9

Fig. 13.

Deer with Single Horn, labelled Rhinoceros-Horn, being an Echo of the Indian Legend of Ekacriiiga

(from Cheng lei pen ts'ao, edition of 1523).

in this work being named for the product yielded by them; and the il-
lustration is immediately followed by the description of the two animals
se and si, so that there can be no doubt that this figure, in the mind
of the author, is intended for the rhinoceros. It will certainly not
induce us to propose for the word si the new translation "cervine an-
imal;" but a rhinoceros of cervine character has really existed in the
imagination of the ancient world. The idea started from India, has
taken a footing in the classical authors, and long survived even down to
our middle ages. It is a fascinating story, deserving full discussion,
the more so as it has never been clearly and correctly set forth. Two
classical texts may first be quoted which fit well as an explanation to
our Chinese woodcut. Pliny (Nat. hist., VIII, 21) tells regarding the
Orsaean Indians that "they hunt the indomitable, fierce monoceros
(unicorn) which has the head of a stag, the feet of the elephant, the

1 Regarding this work and its history see T'oung Pao, 1913, p. 351.
tion of 1523 from which our illustration is taken it is in Ch. 17, fol. 20 b.

In the edi-

no Chinese Clay Figures

tail of a boar, while the rest of the body is like that of the horse; it
emits a deep roar, and has on the middle of its forehead a single black
horn two cubits in length. This beast, it is asserted, cannot be captured
alive." 1 In the Cyranides, a curious Greek work written between 227
and 400 a.d., 2 it is said, "The rhinoceros is a quadruped resembling the
stag, having a very large horn on its nose. It can be captured only by
means of the perfume and the beauty of well dressed women; it is indeed
much inclined toward love." 3 The importance of this passage, first
of all, rests on the fact that the single-horned cervine animal is here
clearly identified with the rhinoceros, an identification not yet made by
Pliny, who speaks of rhinoceros and monoceros as two distinct species;
and we remember that Cosmas Indicopleustes makes the same distinc-
tion in regard to India. In his introduction, F. de Mely 4 observes
that the Cyranides is the first work to reveal to us the starting-point of
the legend of the chase of the unicorn which is nothing but the rhino-
ceros. This, however, is very inexact. The first Occidental source
relating this legend is the Physiologus which is older than the Cyranides.
The Physiologus 5 tells of the monoceros that it is a small animal re-
sembling a buck, but very cunning; the hunter cannot approach it, as
it possesses great strength; the horn grows in the centre of its head; it
can be captured only by a pure virgin who suckles it; then she seizes it,
and carries it into the palace of the king ; or according to another version,
the unicorn falls asleep while in the lap of the virgin, whereupon the
hunters gradually approach and fetter it. The monoceros is located by
Pliny in India; and the western legend of the unicorn ensnared by
a virgin was first traced by S. Beal 6 to the ancient Indian legend of
Ekacrihga, the hermit Single Horn. H. Luders, 7 who has traced with
great ingenuity the development of the legend in the sources of Indian

1 Orsaei Indi . . . venantur asperrimam autem feram monocerotem, reliquo
corpore equo similem, capite cervo, pedibus elephanto, cauda apro, mugitu gravi, uno
cornu nigro media fronte cubitorum duum eminente. hanc feram vivam negant capi.
(Ed. of C. Mayhoff, Vol. II, p. 104.)

2 F. de Mely, Les lapidaires grecs, p. lxxi; de Mely is the first editor and
translator of this work.

3 L. c, p. 90.

4 L. c, p. LXV.

5 F. Lauchert, Geschichte des Physiologus, pp. 22, 254 (Strassburg, 1889); F.
Hommel, Die aethiopische tJbersetzung des Physiologus, p. 68 (Leipzig, 1877); E.
Peters, Der griechische Physiologus und seine orientalischen Ubersetzungen, p. 34
(Berlin, 1898); K. Ahrens, Das "Buch der Naturgegenstande," p. 43 (Kiel, 1892).

6 The Romantic Legend of Cskyamuni Buddha, p. 125; see also his Buddhist
Records of the Western World, Vol. I, p. 113.

7 Die Sage von Rsyasringa (Nachrichten d. k. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Gottingen, 1897,
pp. 1-49), p. 29; an additional study from his pen on the same subject ibid., 1901,
pp. 1-29.

History of the Rhinoceros hi

literature, justly points out that all our mediaeval versions of the story, 1
as a last resort, go back to the Greek Physiologus, and that the last
clause of the Greek text contains a visible trace of the old Indian legend
of the king's daughter who carries away the penitent into the palace
of her father. Luders rises also against the view of Lauchert, who inter-
prets the story in Physiologus from a misunderstood passage of Aelian
(XVI, 20) ; and I am in full accord with the criticism of Luders, to which
the argument should be added that this alleged influence of Aelian on the
Physiologus is out of the question, as Aelian is in time posterior to the
latter. 2 F. W. K. Muller studied the same question in connection
with a Japanese No play, the plot of which is the legend of Ekacrihga. 3
Muller likewise thinks Lauchert's explanation to be hardly plausible,
and admits, with excellent arguments, the dependence of the Physiologus
story on the tradition of India. There is but one point in which my
opinion differs from the one expressed by Muller. Muller, at the close
of his highly interesting study, advances the theory that the real unicorn,
as already recognized by Marco Polo, may always have been the

1 Of the mediaeval versions, that of John Tzetzes, the Byzantine poet and gram-
marian, who flourished during the twelfth century, in his Chiliades (v, 398), deserves
special mention: "The monoceros carries a horn on the middle of its forehead. This
animal is passionately fond of perfumes. It is hunted in this manner. A young man
disguised as a woman exhaling the odor of the most exquisite perfumes takes his
position in the places frequented by this quadruped. The hunters lie in ambush at a
short distance. The odor of the perfumes soon attracts the monoceros toward the
young man; it caresses him, and he covers its eyes with perfumed woman's gloves.
The hunters hasten to the spot, seize the animal which does not offer resistance, cut
off its horn, which is an excellent antidote to poison, and send it back, without in-
flicting on it further harm."

2 Claudius Aelianus flourished under Septimius Severus, and probably outlived
Elagabalus (218-222 a.d.). His writings come down from the beginning of the third
century (Baumgarten, Poland, and Wagner, Die hellenistisch-romische Kultur,
p. 615, Leipzig, 1913), while the Physiologus was written in Alexandria as early as the
second century (ibid., p. 622). Little is known about Aelian's life; only Philostratus
and Suidas have some brief notes regarding him. He availed himself of the writings
of Athenaeus, who wrote at the time of Elagabalus, or in the first years of Alexander
SeverusK222-235) ; Philostratus mentions his death in his Lives of Sophists composed
between 222 and 244. As regards the Physiologus, it is necessary to discriminate
between the final Greek recension clothed in a Christian-theological garb, as we have
it now, and the primeval source or sources of animal stories without the allegories,
from which the former was extracted. Lauchert (/. c, p. 42) certainly is quite right
in rejecting the hypothesis of an " Ur physiologus" in the sense that it was a literary
production serving as model to our Physiologus; but a primeval Physiologus must be
presupposed for about the beginning of the first century, in the sense that it simply
was an assemblage of verbal stories current in Alexandria, and some of which were
imported from India (compare T'oung Pao, 1913, pp. 361-4).

8 Ikkaku sennin, eine mittelalterliche japanische Oper (Bastian Festschrift,
PP- 5 I 3~538, Berlin, 1896). Luders, whose work appeared in 1897, did not take note
of M tiller's investigation; it seems that the treatises of both scholars originated about
the same time, and independently of each other. Compare also J. Takakusu, The
Story of the Rsi Ekasrhga (Hansei Zasshi, Vol. XIII, 1898, pp. 10-18); and K.
Wadagaki, Monoceros, The Rishi (ibid., pp. 19-24).

ii2 Chinese Clay Figures

rhinoceros. Also 0. Keller 1 has arrived at the same result, and
reduced all ancient traditions and representations of the unicorn to the
Indian rhinoceros. This opinion seems to me fundamentally wrong.
Not one of the numerous variants of the ancient Indian tradition re-
garding the Hermit Single-Horn alludes in this connection to the
rhinoceros; he is miraculously born from a gazelle, and has received his
horn from the latter. 2 Single-Horn is not even his original name, but
this one was Antelope-Horn (Rishya-crihga) ; and according to Luders, 3
the name Single-Horn has arisen from the latter, owing to popular
etymological re-interpretation caused by the tradition, already appearing
in the Mahabharata that the penitent had a single horn on his head. In
other texts, the Padmapurana, Skandapurana, and Kanjur, he is even
equipped with two horns, while the versions of the Ramayana and the
Pali Jataka make no statement with regard to the horn. The Greek
Physiologus, in the story alluded to, avails itself of the word monokeros
(" unicorn"), which literally corresponds in meaning to Sanskrit Eka-
crihga, and describes the creature as a small animal resembling a buck,
without any qualities inherent in the rhinoceros; and this is plainly
corroborated by the illustration accompanying the Physiologus, in

1 Die antike Tierwelt, Vol. I, pp. 415-420; this is presumably the weakest chapter
of an otherwise intelligent and excellent book. I do not understand how Keller arrives
at the opinion that the ancients in general treat monoceros, unicornis, and rhinoceros
as identical notions, and in most cases conceive them as the African rhinoceros. The
historical connection of the unicorn legend with Ekacringa has escaped Keller en-
tirely.

2 The iconography of Ekacringa in Indian art has been traced by Luders and
Muller. It is notable that any suggestion of a rhinoceros is absent. As proved by
the masks of the hermit used in the dramatic plays of Japan and Tibet (Plate X),
he was conceived as a human being with a single, short, forked horn, or with
a very long, curved horn. The illustration of the Japanese mask is derived from
the work Nogaku dai-jiten (Dictionary of No Plays) by Masada Shojiro and Amaya
Kangichi (Tokyo, 1908; compare Bulletin de I'Ecole franqaise d' Extreme-Orient,
Vol. IX, 1909, p. 607). The Tibetan mask, much worn off by long use, was obtained
by me from a monastery of Bagme, in the western part of the province of Sze-ch'uan.
It is very striking that the rhinoceros hardly plays any r61e in the culture-life, folk-
lore, or mythology of India. The allusions to it in literary records are exceedingly
sparse. The word khadga appears but a few times in Vedic literature, a rhinoceros-
hide being mentioned in one passage as the covering of a chariot (Macdonell and
Keith, Vedic Index, Vol. I, p. 213, London, 1912). The animal is mentioned in the
inscriptions of King Acoka (third century B.C.); and the consumption of its flesh,
blood, and urine plays a certain r&le in Indian pharmacology (see Chakravarti,
Mem. As. Soc. Beng., Vol. I, p. 370, Calcutta, 1906; and Hooper, J. As. Soc. Beng.,
Vol. VI, 1910, p. 518). It is very curious that no Indian record regarding rhinoceros-
horn cups and their antipoisonous virtues has as yet been pointed out; our information
on this point rests on Ctesias, Aelian (see below, p. 115), some Arabic authors, and
more recent observers like Linschoten and Garcia Ab Horto (Aromatum et simplici-
um aliquot medicamentorum apud Indos nascentium historia, p. 66, Antverpiae,
I 567), who says, " IUud tamen scio Bengala incolas eius cornu adversus venena usur-
pare, unicornu esse existimantes, tametsi non sit, ut ii referunt qui se probe scire autu-
mant." It remains to be pointed out also that the literatures of India contain no
accounts of unicorns.

3 L. c, p. 28.

History of the Rhinoceros 113

which the animal is outlined as a long-tailed antelope with a large
single horn curved like that of a gazelle. 1 Pliny, as we saw, credits the
monoceros of India with the head of a stag and a single horn on its fore-
head (that is, the gazelle-horned Ekagrihga), but does not identify it
with the rhinoceros, which was well known to him from the circus. For
the first time, as far as the West is concerned, the identification of the
single-horned cervine animal with the rhinoceros is made in the Cy-
ranides. 2 In the East, the first intimation of it leaks out in our Chinese
illustration from Cheng lei pen ts'ao, which depicts the rhinoceros in the
form of a deer with one horn on its forehead, and which, without any
doubt, is an offshoot of the Indian conception of Ekagrihga. Now, we
encounter the curious fact that at a much older date also the Chinese
mention a single-horned deer under the name p'ao (No. 9104), described
in the Erh ya as an animal "with the tail of an ox and one horn." Pal-
ladius 3 straightway translated the word by "rhinoceros," but this
venture is not justified by Chinese tradition; the Chinese, in this
case, make no reference whatever to the rhinoceros. On the contrary,
Kuo P'o, the editor and interpreter of Erh ya, states that the animal
p'ao is identical with the deer called chang (No. 407) ; and Yen Shi-ku
(579-645), as quoted in K'ang-hi's Dictionary, maintains that it re-
sembles in shape the deer chang. The very definition shows that the
animal p'ao is a near cousin of the k'i-lin* which has likewise "the tail

1 Figured by Strzygowski, Der Bilderkreis des griechischen Physiologus, Plate
XII (Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Erganzungsheft 1, 1899), and Keller (/. c, p. 419).
Regarding the illuminated editions of the Physiologus see also O. M. Dalton, Byzan-
tine Art, p. 482 (Oxford, 191 1 ).

2 Neither Luders nor Muller has consulted these two important passages of
Pliny and the Cyranides.

3 Chinese-Russian Dictionary, Vol. I, p. 58.

4 At times a temptation was felt to identify the animal lin with the rhinoceros.
Shen Kua, the versatile author of the Meng k'i pi fan of the twelfth century, narrates
that in the period Chi-ho (1054-56) the country Kiao-chi (Annam) offered a lin like
an ox, having the entire body covered with large scales and a single horn on its head.
There is no question that this animal was a rhinoceros; this follows also from the
further observation of the author that it did not resemble the lin, as described in
ancient records, and that there were people designating it as a mountain-rhinoceros
(shan si, a variety recognized also by Li Shi-chen). But as Shen Kua could not trace
any report in which scales are attributed to the rhinoceros (for explanation see p. 149),
he formed the erroneous theory that the animal in question was identical with the
T'ien-lu cast in bronze by the Emperor Ling in 186 a.d., a specimen of which he had
beheld at Nan-yang in Teng chou in Ho-nan. In a similar manner, Fan Chen of the
Sung period, in his work Tung chai ki shi (Ch. i, p. 8; in Shou shan ko ts'ung shu,
Vol. 84), tells the story of two K'i-lin sent as tribute from Kiao-chi in the period Kia-
yu (1056-63), which he had occasion to see in the imperial palace. He describes them
as having the shape of water-buffalo clad with a fleshy armor, and equipped with a
single horn on the extremity of the nose; they subsisted on grass, fruit, and melon,
and every time before feeding had to be beaten on their horns with a stick. This
writer likewise concludes with a discussion, in which serious doubts of the identifica-
tion of these animals with the lin are expressed.

ii4 Chinese Clay Figures

of an ox and a single horn." * Indeed in the Erh yu Vu, both creatures
are figured almost alike, and agree in their essential characteristics.
It is obvious that, as iconographic types, these creatures are not derived
from any rhinoceros, but point in the direction of the fabulous one-
horned monsters (known in archaeology as "Oriental animals") de-
veloped in the art of Mesopotamia. 2 In regard to the type of k'i-lin,
this has been aptly pointed out by A. Grunwedel; 3 and as the same
West-Asiatic forms found their way into the art of India, we here have
the basis for the origin of the single-horned gazelle (deer or antelope)
transferred to, or personified in, the person of Ekacrihga. In Baby-
lonia, these types of unicorn are very ancient, going back to the third
millennium B.C., 4 and could not have been developed there from a
rhinoceros. The conclusion therefore presents itself that the notion of
a unicorn cervine animal which was developed in Western Asia from
remote times spread together with artistic motives into India and
China, 5 while the identification of this fabulous creature with the

1 Regarding the k'i-lin see Yen Shi-ku (in Ts'ien Han shu, Ch. 6, p. 5 b) ; Mayers
(Chinese Reader's Manual, p. 127); F. W. K. Muller (in Feestbundel aan P. J. Veth,
p. 222, Leiden, 1894); De Groot (The Religious System of China, Vol. II, pp. 822-
4); and H. Dore (Recherches sur les superstitions en Chine, pt. 1, Vol. II, pp. 446-8).
I do not subscribe to everything that the last two authors say about the subject. The
Chinese illustrations are reproduced in C. Gould (Mythical Monsters, pp. 350, 353,
354, London, 1886).

2 A distinction must be made between iconographic or archaeological type or
artistic representation, and traditions or speculations regarding such a type. The
lin, as early mentioned in Shi king and Li ki, may very well be an indigenous Chinese
thought. Nevertheless its subsequent portrayal in art rests on a borrowed type,
which has again fertilized native ideas as to form and behavior of the creature. An
interesting example of the fact that iconography and literary tradition may move
along lines widely different and emanating from diverse sources is afforded by the
unicorn of Europe. The unicorn tradition of the Physiologus is traceable to India;
the iconography of the creature, however, has no connection with Indian art, but
leans in the beginning toward the ancient West-Asiatic types. Throughout the
middle ages, there is not a trace of the rhinoceros in the representations of the unicorn
(compare Marco Polo's astonishment when he saw the ugly beast on Java, "not in
the least like that which our stories tell of as being caught in the lap of a virgin, in
fact, altogether different from what we fancied"); now it is an antelope, now an ox,
now a narwhal, now a hybrid formation composed of various creatures. My opinion
in this respect deviates from the one expressed by Strzygowski (I. c.) that there may
be interaction between the animal types of the earliest Buddhist art in India and those
of the Physiologus. It is not there the question of interaction, but of affinity, solely
caused by West-Asiatic productions which both have in common as their source.

3 Bemerkungen uber das Kilin (Feestbundel aan P. J. Veth, pp. 223-5, Leiden,
1894), an d Buddhist Art in India, p. 19.

4 E. Schrader, Die Vorstellung vom monokeros und ihr Ursprung (Abhandlungen
der preussischen Akademie, 1892, pp. 573-581).

6 In order to dispel the doubts of those who may not feel inclined in this case to
link China with the West, another striking analogy may be indicated, which will show
that Chinese ideas regarding unicorns coincide with those entertained in the West,
and which crop up in the classical authors. In the Erh ya is defined an animal called
chui (written with the classifier 'horse' and the phonetic complement sui, No. 10,388),
' 'like a horse with a single horn; those without horn are spotted." Kuo P'o comments,

History of the Rhinoceros 115

rhinoceros — owing to the single horn — is the product of a much later
period; this is not the starting-point, but the final result of the matter.
It is, of course, necessary to assume that this result was brought about
in India itself; 1 otherwise it would be unintelligible why it appears on
the surface in the Cyranides and in China. 2 In my opinion, we are even

"In the eighth year of the period Yiian-k'ang (298 a.d.) it was in the territory of
Kiu-chen (in Tonking) that hunters captured a wild animal of the size of a horse with
one horn, the horn being soft as the core of the young antlers of the deer (lujung).
This is identical with the animal chui. At present men sometimes meet it in the dense
mountainous jungles, and there are among them also those without horn." Kiu-chen
is situated in>Tonking; and on p. 81 mention has been made of the tribute of a live rhi-
noceros sent from there to the Emperor Ling (168-188 a.d.); indeed, that region was
always famed for this animal, which is apparently intended in the text of Kuo P'o.
The same conception of the rhinoceros as a horse or horse-like animal with a single
horn is met likewise in the West. The ancients enumerate altogether five animals as
having single horns, the Indian ass first traceable to Ctesias, the single-horned ox,
the monoceros, the single-horned horse, and the oryx of Africa. Strabo (xv, 56)
quotes from Megasthenes' remarks upon Indian animals that there are horses in
India with one horn. Aelian (Nat. anitn., in, 41) says, "India, it is reported, pro-
duces horses with a single horn, likewise single-homed asses. Cups are made from
these horns; and if a mortal poison is poured into them, it will do no harm to him who
drinks it, for the horn of both animals seems to be an antidote against poison." In
another chapter (xvi, 20) Aelian describes the unicorn of the Indians, "called by
them kartazonos [a word apparently connected with Assyrian kurkizannu, mentioned
above, p. 87], said to equal in size a full-grown horse." Horace (Serm., 1, 5, 58-60)
speaks of a wild horse having a single horn in the midst of its forehead. As a matter
of fact, the rhinoceros has no similarity to a horse; and it is difficult to see how the
simile could ever arise. The bare fact remains, however, that it did; but it is incon-
ceivable that this notion, not founded on a natural observation, could spontaneously
spring up in the West and East alike. There is no other way out of this puzzle than
to presume that India, to which the account of Megasthenes reproduced by Strabo
and Aelian refers, is responsible for this idea, and disseminated it to the West and to
China.

1 It may be pointed out in this connection, though it is not wholly conclusive for
the present case, that the Sanskrit word vdrdhranasa means a rhinoceros and an old
white goat-buck.

2 We meet also in ancient China a unicorn conceived of as a wild goat. This is
the animal termed chai (No. 245) and hiai (No. 4423) chai. The fundamental passage
relating to it is in the Annals of the Later Han Dynasty (Hou Han shu, Ch. 40, p. 3),
where a judicial cap in the shape of this animal, and worn by the censors, is mentioned.
The definition given of the animal in the text of the Annals is, "A divine goat (shin
yang) which is able to discriminate between right and wrong, and which the king
of Ch'u used to capture." Huai-nan-tse is quoted in K'ang-hi (under hiai) as saying
that King Wen of Ch'u was fond of wearing hiai caps; the un-Chinese word hiai chai,
therefore, will probably be a word of the language of Ch'u (T. de Lacouperie, Les
langues de la Chine avant les Chinois, p. 17, Paris, 1888), as above all proved by the
vacillating modes of writing (Forke, Lun-heng, pt. II, p. 321). The comment added
to the text of Hou Han shu is extracted from / wu chi, which may be read in Schle-
gel's Uranographie chinoise, p. 587 (it is, of course, impossible, as proposed by Schle-
gel, to identify the animal with the Tibetan chiru; see below, p. 120). It is not stated
in Hou Han shu nor in / wu chi (nor in K'ang-hi) that "it eats fire in its ravenous fury,
even to its own destruction " (Giles). This is a subsequent addition which arose un-
der the influence of Buddhist art. F. W. K. Muller (Feestbundel aan P. J. Veth,
p. 222, Leiden, 1894) has recognized correctly that this explanation is derived from
the iconography of the animal, which is represented as being surrounded by flames.
Muller, however, omits to state that this is a secondary development, which has
nothing to do with the previous pre-Buddhistic conception of the creature on Chinese
soil, when it was not equipped with flames, nor set in relation with a lion. The

n6 Chinese Clay Figures

forced to admit that the counterpart to the illustration of the Cheng
lei pen ts'ao has already pre-existed in India, and was transmitted from
there to China; for neither the author of that work, nor any other
Chinese source, as far as I know, furnishes any explanation for this
picture. An unexpected confirmation of this opinion comes to us from
another quarter, — Tibet.

In the Tibetan language we meet the word bse-ru which at present
denotes two animals, — first, the rhinoceros, and second, a kind of
antelope. The former is the original and older significance, the latter is
secondary. The second element of the compound, ru, means "horn,"
and may be dropped; the proper word is bse (pronounced se). The
stem is se, the prefixed labial b- not being part of the word-stem, and
like most prefixes in Tibetan nouns, representing the survival of an
ancient numerative. This is corroborated by the corresponding Lepcha
word sa. and the Chinese word se, all three referring to the rhinoceros.
This linguistic coincidence leads to the conclusion that the Chinese and
Tibetans as stocks of the large Indo-Chinese family of peoples were
acquainted with the rhinoceros in prehistoric times, for otherwise they
could not have the word for it in common; and this conclusion will be
fully upheld by our historical inquiry into the subject. This fact of
comparative philology is also apt to refute the supposition of Mr.
Giles that "a term which originally meant a bovine animal was later on
wrongly applied to the rhinoceros." As proved by comparison with the
Tibetan and Lepcha words, the Chinese term originally must have
designated the rhinoceros. 1 Above all it is incumbent upon me to
demonstrate that the Tibetan word bse really designates the rhinoceros,
and that the Tibetans were familiar with this animal. The ancient

translation "lion-unicorn" adopted by Muller is not to the point, as far as the time
of Chinese antiquity is concerned. The hiai chai is not explained as a lion (nor could
this be expected, as the lion was unknown in ancient China), but as a divine wild
goat (shSn yang). The fact that the conception of the animal existed among the
Chinese in times prior to the contact with India is clearly proved by the occurrence of
the word in Huai-nan-tse, in Tso chuan (Suan Wang 17th year: Legge, Chinese
Classics, Vol. V, p. 332), Se-ma Ts'ien's Shi ki (Ch. 117), Lun hSng, Hou Han shu,
Erh ya, and Shuo wen. Only in such late compilations as the Japanese version of the
San ts'ai Vu hui do we meet the statement that the animal resembles a lion, merely
because it is sketched like a lion crowned with a single horn (see L. Seerurier,
Encycl. japonaise, le chapitre des quadrupedes, Plate III; or E. Kaempfer, The
History of Japan, Vol. I, p. 195, Glasgow, 1906). The connection of this creature
with the rhinoceros, and its transformation into a goat, will be discussed below (p. I7 1 )-

1 The hypothesis of such "confusions, " which are usually assumed to suit one's
own convenience, is untenable also for other reasons obvious to every ethnologist:
people in the primitive stages of culture, being nearer to nature than we, are surely
the keenest observers of animal life and habits, and will most assuredly never con-
found a bovine animal with a rhinoceros; they may, by way of explanation, compare
the one with the other, but from comparison to confusion is a wide step.

History of the Rhinoceros 117

Sanskrit-Tibetan dictionary Mahavyutpatti 1 renders the Tibetan
word bse by the Sanskrit word ganda which refers to the rhinoceros. 2
Wherever this word appears in the works of Sanskrit Buddhist litera-
ture, it is faithfully reproduced in the Tibetan translations by the word
bse. An interesting example of its application appears in a Tibetan
work from the first part of the ninth century. 3 It is well known that in
India the Pratyeka-Buddha was styled Single-Horn Hermit and com-
pared with the solitary rhinoceros; 4 and this simile is explained in that
Tibetan book in the words that the Pratyeka-Buddha, who in the
course of a hundred eons (kalpa), through the accumulation of merit, is
no longer like ordinary beings, resembles the rhinoceros in his habit of
living in the same solitary abode. It is interesting to note that in this
early Tibetan text the word bse-ru is used for the designation of the
rhinoceros. This comparison has passed into Tibetan poetry, and is
frequently employed by the mystic and poet Milaraspa, who speaks of
himself as being "lonely like a rhinoceros." 5 This meaning of bse is
confirmed by two Chinese lexicographical sources, — the Hua i yi yii,
which in its Tibetan-Chinese vocabulary 6 renders bse-ru by Chinese
si niu; and the Polyglot Dictionary of the Emperor K'ien-lung (Ch. 31,
p. 4 a), where bse is explained by Chinese si ("rhinoceros"). The
national Tibetan word bse, akin to Lepcha sa and Chinese se, naturally
bears out the fact that the ancient Tibetans were familiar with the

1 Tanjur (Palace edition), Sutra, Vol. 123, fol. 265 a. This work was written in
the first part of the ninth century.

2 Al-Beruni (Sachau, Alberuni's India, Vol. I, p. 203) knew this word, and cor-
rectly described under it the rhinoceros of India (p. 95). It is likewise mentioned by
Garcia Ab Horto (/: c.) and other early European travellers enumerated by Yule
and Burnell (Hobson-Jobson, p. 363). The rhinoceros brought to Portugal in 1515
(mentioned above, p. 83) was labelled "rhinocero, called in Indian gomda."

3 Entitled Sgra sbyor bam-po gnis-pa (Tanjur, Sutra, Vol. 124, fol. 14 a, 4), cor-
rectly dated by G. Huth {Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akade.mie, 1895, P- 2 77)
in the first part of the ninth century. Compare also the application of the word in
Taranatha (Schiefner's translation, p. 245) : the sorcerer Ri-ri-pa summoned the
fierce beasts of the forest, the rhinoceros and others, and mounted on their backs.

i Eitel, Hand-book of Chinese Buddhism (pp. 76, 123, 197); F. W. K. Muller,
Ikkaku sennin (/. c, p. 530); and H. Kern, Manual of Indian Buddhism (pp. 61 and
62, note 1).

5 G. Sandberg (Tibet and the Tibetans, p. 297), who is ignorant of the fact that
bse or bse-ru means "rhinoceros," and who merely carries the modern popular meaning
of the word, "antelope," into the sphere of literature, makes Milaraspa say that he is
"lonely as a seru" (antelope). The antelope, however, is not a lonely, but a highly
social animal living in herds. Nowhere in Buddhist literature has bse-ru the signifi-
cance of ' 'antelope," but only that of "rhinoceros." The Tibetan poet, who in every line
is imbued with the language and spirit of India, most obviously intends with this
simile a literary allusion to the Buddhist comparison of the Pratyeka-Buddha with
the rhinoceros.

6 Copied by me from the manuscript deposited by Hirth in the Royal Library of
Berlin. Regarding the work see Hirth (J. China Branch R. As. Soc, Vol. XXII,
1888, pp. 207 et seq.), and Bull. Ecole francaise, iqi2, p. 199.

u8 Chinese Clay Figures

animal. We know that the primeval habitat of the Tibetan stock was
located along the upper course of the Huang-ho (where Ptolemy knows
them as Bautai, derived from the native name Bod, "Tibetans;" the
Yellow River is styled by him Bautisos) , as well as along the upper Yang-
tse. There they lived in close proximity to the ancient Chinese; and
in that locality, as will be established from Chinese records, the rhi-
noceros was their contemporary. Large parts of the present Chinese
provinces of Kan-su and Sze-ch'uan are still settled by Tibetan tribes;
and we shall see that the rhinoceros occurred there in the times of
antiquity, and long survived, even down to the middle ages. The Pai-
lan — a tribe belonging to the Tibetan group of the K'iang, and border-
ing in the north-east on the Tu-yu-hun — in 561 a.d. sent an embassy
to China to present a cuirass of rhinoceros-hide (si kid) and iron armor. *
Whether they had made this cuirass themselves, or had received it
from an outside source (this fact is not indicated), this tribute, at any
rate, shows that they were acquainted with this material and its manu-
factures. 2 The Pen ts'ao yen i of 11 16 extols the horns of the Tibetan
breed of rhinoceros for the fine quality of the natural designs displayed
in them (see p. 148). Li Shi-chen, in his Pen ts'ao kang mu (see p. 149),
expressly names as habitats of the rhinoceros the regions of the Si Fan
and Nan Fan; that is, the western and southern Tibetans, — the former
scattered over Sze-ch'uan and Yun-nan with their borderlands, the
latter peopling the valley of the Tsang-po (Brahmaputra) and the
Himalayan tracts adjoining India. Indeed, down to the middle of the
nineteenth century, or even later, the rhinoceros was to be met with
along the foot of the Himalaya as far west as Rohilkund and Nepal; and
it survived longer still in the Terai of Sikkim. 4 J. Ch. White 4 notes the

1 Chou shu, Ch. 49, p. 5 b.

2 In the year 824 the Tibetans offered to the Chinese Court silver-cast figures of
a rhinoceros and a stag (T'ang shu, Ch. 216 B, p. 6 b). Bushell (The Early History of
Tibet, p. 88) translates the word si in this passage by "yak," but this point of view
is not admissible. True it is that some modern Chinese writers on Tibet call the yak
si niu, but this usage of the word is not earlier than the eighteenth century. The
T'ang Annals, however, persistently designate the Tibetan yak by the word li niu
(No. 6938); and in the very passage alluded to, the gift of the rhinoceros and stag
silver figures is immediately followed by the words, "and they brought as tribute a
yak" (kung li niu), which Bushell correctly interprets likewise as yak. The words
si and It niu in the same sentence cannot possibly refer to the same animal; and it
becomes evident from a consideration of all Chinese sources concerned that down to
the end of the Ming dynasty the Chinese word si with reference to Tibet and Tibetan
tribes invariably denotes the rhinoceros, and nothing else. Rhinoceros-horn was
formerly included among the tribute gifts which the Dalai Lamas of Tibet were
obliged to send to China; it took its place between coral, genuine pearls, precious
stones, amber, etc. (Wei Tsang t'u chi, 1792, Ch. A, p. 17).

3 R. Lydekker, The Game Animals of India, p. 30.
* Sikhim and Bhutan, p. 322 (London, 1909).

History of the Rhinoceros 119

rhinoceros in a few of the lower valleys of Bhutan, though not common.
In Tibet proper, the animal does not occur at present, but fossil remains
of it were discovered at high elevations by Sir R. Strachey near the source
of the Tsang-po. 1 The early Tibetan translators, when they correctly
rendered the Sanskrit word ganda by bse, must have entertained an exact
notion or reminiscence of the rhinoceros; but the animal, as every-
where, became rapidly exterminated in those territories where Tibetans
had occasion to behold and to hunt it, while the inhabitants of Central
Tibet seldom or never had this opportunity. For this reason, also in
Tibet, the rhinoceros underwent the process of fabulous "unicorniza-
tion." Reports of a Tibetan unicorn greatly stirred the imagination of
European explorers, and gave rise to wild speculations. Captain S.
Turner, 2 I believe, was the first to circulate such a report, being in-
formed by the Raja of Bhutan that he was in possession of a unicorn,
a sort of horse, with a horn growing from the middle of its forehead;
it was kept at some distance from Tassisudon, the capital, and the
people paid it religious respect, but Turner had no occasion to see it.
The Lazarist fathers Hue and Gabet, who reached Lhasa in 1846, are
said to have even claimed the discovery in Tibet of the unicorn of
Scripture. Major Latter, in the first part of the nineteenth century,
was very sanguine of being able to find a veritable unicorn in the interior
of Tibet: he was advised by a native that he had often seen these an-
imals, which "were fierce and exceedingly wild and seldom taken alive,
but frequently shot;" and that they are commonly met with on the
borders of the great desert, about a mile from Lhasa. From a drawing
which accompanied Major Latter's communication, the presumed
unicorn was something like a horse, but with cloven hoofs, a long,
curved horn growing out of the forehead, and a boar-shaped tail. Un-
der the heading "Unicorns in Asia," 3 a writer revived the opinion of
the existence of veritable unicorns, such as were reported to Major
Latter : the animal in question was of the deer kind, having a single horn
at the top of the head; it was known by the name of the Seru. 4 Then

1 A. R. Wallace (The Geographical Distribution of Animals, Vol. II, p. 214;
also Vol. I, p. 122) refers to this in the words that more than twenty species of extinct
rhinoceroses are known, and that one has even been found at an altitude of 16,000
feet in Tibet. Mr. L. A. Waddell (Lhasa and its Mysteries, p. 315) has this sugges-
tive remark: "The dense rank growth of wildflowers and weeds along the borders of
the fields was such as to make this part of the Tsang-po oasis a quite suitable habitat
for the rhinoceros, and to bring the discovery of the fossil remains of that animal by
Sir R. Strachey near the source of this river into harmony with present-day facts."

2 An Account of an Embassy to the Court of the Teshoo Lama, p. 157 (London,
1800).

3 Asiatic Journal, Vol. II, 1830.

4 Compare W. Haughton, On the Unicorn of the Ancients {Annals and Magazine
of Nat. Hist., Vol. IX, 1862, pp. 368, 369).

120 Chinese Clay Figures

the famous J. D. Hooker 1 took the matter in hand, and published a
sketch of the Chiru Antelope with the addition "unicorn of Tibet," a
name which he thought was suggested by the animal when viewed in
profile. It is identified as Antilope or Paniholops Hodgsoni, having been
described by Hodgson. 2 It remains a mysterious creature, and little
is known about it. 3 P. Landon 4 denies that this antelope, as pointed
out by Hooker, occurs near the Cholamu Lake at the present day.
L. A. Waddell 5 reports under Chiru, "None were seen and the people
did not appear to know of any."

In Anglo-Indian nomenclature we now find two words in use, chiru
and seru, the latter also Anglicized as serow, on which Yule, in his
" Hobson- Jobson, " unfortunately has not commented. Serow has be-
come a household stock-word of the Anglo-Indian sportsman to denote
a large variety of different Indian, Burmese, and Tibetan antelopes. 6
G. Sandberg 7 recognizes in it the Tibetan word bse-ru, and identifies
the latter with the species Nemorhaedus bubalinus. Jaschke 8 says
under bse or bse-ru, "Unicorn, 'tchiru,' an antelope, probably the same
as gtsod," with reference to Hooker. Chandra Das, 9 who has fully

1 Himalayan Journals, 2d ed., p. 401 (London, 1893).

2 Journal As. Soc. Bengal, 1846, p. 338.

3 N. Kuehner, Description of Tibet, in Russian (Vol. I, pt. 2, p. 157; and notes
P- 77).

4 Lhasa, Vol. I, p. 393.

5 Lhasa and its Mysteries, p. 483.

6 R. Lydekker, The Game Animals of India, pp. 139 et seq. M. Dauvergne
(Bull. Musee d'hist. nat. de Paris, Vol. IV, 1898, p. 219) describes the animal as
follows: "Serow; Ramu de Kashmir, ou chevre-antilope, Nemorhaedus bubalinus
Hodgs. Habite les rochers escarped et broussailleux des montagnes, a une hauteur
de 3,000 metres, dans l'Himalaya et Kashmir. Tres difficile a chasser, il tient tSte
aux chiens, qu'il fait rouler dans les precipices. C'est g£ne>alement l'hiver qu'on
le chasse, car alors il se d£tache sur la neige, grace a la teinte noire de sa robe, et
comme il est tres lourd, il s'effondre et se fait prendre par les chiens."

7 Tibet and the Tibetans, p. 297. On p. 298 he points out that the word chiru
should be written gcig ru ( " one horn " ) . This derivation is impossible, as ' ' one horn "
can be in Tibetan only ru (or rva) gcig, or ru zig. The name Ekagringa is rendered in-
to Tibetan Rva gcig-pa. (Compare also Hor c'os byun, ed. Huth, p. 16, 1. 14.) Chiru
is simply a local or dialectic variation of se-ru. Strange words exert a singular fascina-
tion upon the human mind. The Anglo-Indian chiru has had several good fortunes.
Thanks to the imaginative powers of G. Schlegel (Uranographie chinoise, p. 587),
it has found cheerful hospitality in Chinese astronomy, the Chinese animal hiai
being wrongly identified with it. A few years ago the chiru was deemed worthy of
the honor of being admitted into the sanctum of classical philology. O. Keller
(Die antike Tierwelt, Vol. I, p. 293) identifies the Indian Oryx mentioned by Aelian,
and the Oryx on the Hydaspes mentioned by Timotheus, with the Tibetan chiru, — a
venture which has no foundation; in fact, the oryx of Aelian is located in India, and
corresponds to the Indian black-buck.

8 Tibetan-English Dictionary, p. 593. Skr. khadga rendered by Jaschke "a cer-
tain animal" is the rhinoceros.

9 Tibetan-English Dictionary, p. 1319.

History of the Rhinoceros 121

recognized the original meaning of bse-ru as "rhinoceros," proceeds to
state that in Tibet the word is applied to the clumsy-looking deer known
to sportsmen as the "serow." Both lexicographers, in this respect,
rely on the statements of the European sportsmen, but leave us in the
dark as to the opinion of the Tibetans on the point. The question arises,
— Do those European speculations on a Tibetan unicorn identified
with an antelope styled se-ru have any foundation in a Tibetan tradi-
tion? The French Missionaries, in their Tibetan Dictionary (p. 1056),
give a slight intimation of the existence of such a tradition by remarking
that the animal bse-ru is believed in Tibet to belong to the genus of
goats {ex genere caprarum) , but that nobody has ever seen it; the latter
clause doubtless means that nobody has encountered this wild goat in
the shape of a unicorn which it is fabled to be. I. J. Schmidt 1 had a
certain presentiment of the matter when he annotated a passage in his
translation of the Geser Saga, that the Tibetan and Mongol name of
the unicorn is seru, that the existence of this animal in the wild moun-
tains of Tibet is asserted in Tibetan books, but that the description
given of it does not at all fit the rhinoceros. The unicorn which stopped
Chinggis Khan on his expedition to Tibet and induced him to return, 2
judging from the description given by the Tibetan historian, 3 is identical
with the Chinese k'i-lin, as already recognized by G. Schlegel. 4
Another association of the unicorn with Tibet appears on the tribute
painting ascribed to Li Kung-lin (Li Lung-mien), where Bonin 5 has
pointed it out among the envoys from the Kingdom of Women. In the
Polyglot Dictionary of the Emperor K'ien-lung 6 we find the Tibetan

1 Die Thaten Bogda Gesser Chan's, p. 56 (St. Petersburg, 1839). Compare also
p. 125.

2 G. Huth, Geschichte des Buddhismus in der Mongolei, Vol. II, p. 25.

3 "An animal of green color with the body of a stag, the tail of a horse, and a
single horn on its head."

4 T'oung Pao, Vol. VI, 1896, p. 433. According to Chinese tradition, however
(see the texts of Kui sin tsa chi and Ch'o keng lu, in T'u shu tsi ch'eng, Chapter kio
tuan, ki shi, p. 1 b), the marvellous animal opposing the conqueror belonged to the
class of unicorns (kio tuan), and is described as a hundred feet high, with a single
horn like that of the rhinoceros, and able to speak a human language.

6 Le royaume des neiges, pp. 40, 299 (Paris, 191 1). M. Bonin's description of
this painting is based on a copy of it in the Musee Guimet, which is certainly not the
original from the hand of Li Kung-lin; it is a much later and somewhat weak copy, as
stated also by Tchang Yi-Tchou and Hackin (La peinture chinoise au Mus6e Gui-
met, p. 59). On Plate V of the latter publication, the portion of the picture illustrat-
ing the envoys of the Kingdom of Women is reproduced; the unicorn is a wretched
production. Mr. Freer of Detroit owns two copies of the same painting, both far
superior to the one in the Musee Guimet. One of these offers guch high qualities as
come very near to an original. The other is a copy of the Yuan period, executed in
1364.

6 Appendix, Ch. 4, p. 53.

122

Chinese Clay Figures

Fig. 14.
Se-ru as Emblem of Long Life (from Tibetan Wood-engraving).

word bse-ru rendered by Chinese shen yang ("divine goat"); 1 and this
is thus far the only literary indication which I am able to trace in
regard to a Tibetan unicorn of goat-like character. 2

Such a bse-ru is represented on a Tibetan woodcut as an emblem of
long life {bse-ru ts'e rih; Fig. 14). The picture, of which it forms a

1 The Manchu has the artificial formation Sengkitu, and three other words
besides, — Sacintu, tontu, and tubitu (see Sacharov, Manchu-Russian Dictionary,
P- 734). — f° r tne designation of this unicorn. It will be remembered that the term
shin yang occurs in Hou Han shu in defining the unicorn hiai chai (p. 115, note 2).

2 The Mongols have adopted seru as a loan-word from Tibetan in the sense of
"rhinoceros," as stated by Kovalevski and Golstunski in their Mongol dictionaries;
but they take the word also in the sense of a "deer," as shown by the Mongol transla-
tion of the Tibetan medical work translated into Russian by A. Pozdnayev (Vol. I,
p. 288). The Mongol equivalent of Tibetan bse-ru and Chinese si kio is here bodi
gilrugasun ("the animal of the bodhi," Sanskrit bodhimriga) ; that is, the gazelle.
Besides, the Mongols have a seemingly indigenous word for "rhinoceros," — kiris,
keris, or kers-un &bar.

History of the Rhinoceros 123

part, is known as "the six subjects of long life" (ts'e rih drug skor).
These are, — the Buddha Amitayus (the Buddha of Endless Life), the
long-lived wishing-tree idpag bsam Sin ts'e rih) figured as a peach-tree
in Chinese style, the long-lived rocks {brag ts'e rih), the Chinese God
of Longevity Shou-sing (in Tibetan Mi ts'e rin) seated on a mat and
holding a rosary, a pair of cranes (kruh kruh ts'e rih) pecking at some
peaches (k'am-bu) that are planted in a jar, and a pair of bse-ru. Though
apparently inspired by the deer, which is the emblem of the Chinese
God of Longevity, their outlines considerably differ from the latter, and
approach the Tibetan notion of the appearance of a'bse-ru; l but, curiously
enough, they are without any horns. There can be little doubt, ac-
cordingly, that in recent times, when the rhinoceros had almost vanished
from the memory of the Tibetan people, the word bse-ru was transferred
to a species of deer or antelope ; and, as the ancient tradition of the bse-ru
being a single-horned animal had persisted through the centuries, the
single horn, in popular imagination, was fixed on the antelope. When
we inquire why it was just the antelope, and not any other animal on
which the idea of a unicorn was projected, the story of Ekacrihga pre-
sents itself again as the happiest solution. We know that this legend, in a
Tibetan translation, has been incorporated in the Kanjur; and A.
Schiefner 2 has translated it from this version. It is likewise extant
in Kshemendra's Avadanakalpalata, of which a literal versified rendering,
and an abridged prose edition made for children by order of the Fifth
Dalai Lama, exist in the Tibetan language. This plain version has ren-
dered the story immensely popular among Tibetans; and, as pointed out,
it is current also in a dramatized form. The Tibetan mask of Ekacrihga
(Plate X) is equipped with an unmistakable antelope-horn. 3 The
psychological process is therefore quite clear. The rhinoceros was grad-

1 My explanation is based on the interpretation of this woodcut given me by an
intelligent Lama. A. Grunwedel, in his Russian Description of the Lamaist Collec-
tion of Prince Uchtomski (Bibl. Buddhica, No. 6, p. 26), has figured a similar woodcut,
but without explanation. The God of Longevity bears the Mongol legend Tsaghan
Abughan ("The White Old Man"), who is certainly, as stated on p. 117, a national
Mongol deity; but from an iconographic point of view, as he appears in Grunwedel's
drawing, he is nothing but a copy of the well-known Chinese God of Longevity.

2 In Ralston, Tibetan Tales, p. 253.

3 On the lid of a Tibetan censer in the Field Museum (Cat. No. 122,522) are
represented the full figures of two gazelles opposite and turned away from each other
(the wheel of the law being placed between them), the well-known Buddhist motive
symbolizing Buddha's first sermon in the Deer-Park (Grunwedel, Buddhist Art in
India, p. 143). One of these is provided with a single horn on its forehead; the other,
apparently conceived as the doe, is hornless. The former seems suggested again by
a reminiscence of Ekacringa, but it is not known to me whether the Tibetans would
name it bse-ru. Other Tibetan censers are surmounted by a monster of Chinese
style, showing a horn on its nose and another on its forehead, — manifestly derived
from the two-horned rhinoceros.

124 Chinese Clay Figures

ually forgotten by the people, the word bse or bse-ru of this meaning
continued in literature; the people retained the recollection of its being
a single-horned animal, and in their attempts at finding this creature,
the legend of Hermit Single-Horn, the son of an antelope or gazelle,
flashed into their minds ; so that the unicorn bse-ru was finally identified
with a species of antelope named for this reason bse-ru. This unicorn
bse-ru we now recognize also in the Chinese drawing of Ching lei pen
ts'ao (Fig. 13). Since the proof is now established that the interaction
and intermingling of deer and rhinoceros have taken place in China, in
Tibet, and in the West with the first conspicuous allusion in the Cy-
ranides, 1 and that this process of adjustment and affiliation has radiated
from the Indian legend of Single-Horn born from a gazelle, we are justi-
fied in concluding that the foundation, or at least the commencement, of
this transformation, must have arisen in India. The development of the

matter in Tibet shows sufficiently that Ekacrihga is disguised also
under our Chinese illustration. So much about the latter.

A most interesting psychological parallel to the representations of
the rhinoceros in China is formed by the ostrich. We now know from
the reproductions of Chavannes 2 that in the T'ang period the ostrich
was chiselled in stone in a very naturalistic manner on the imperial
burial-places (Fig. 15). 3

1 A counterpart of the rhinoceros of cervine character occurs also among the
Arabs. In Ethiopic, the word charish corresponds to the monokeros of the Septuaginta
(Job, xxxix, 9), and in all probability signifies the "rhinoceros." According to Qazwinl,
charish is an animal of the size of a ram, of great strength and swiftness, with a single
horn on its forehead like the horn of the rhinoceros (karkadan). Some Arabic lexicog-
raphers even take it for a marine animal, others identify it directly with the rhinoce-
ros. Hommel (Die Namen der Saugetiere bei den sudsemitischen Volkern, p. 333,
Leipzig, 1879), to whom this information is due, regards the Arabic word as a loan
from Ethiopic. Damlri, in his Lexicon of Animals, avails himself of this word in trans-
lating the text of the Physiologus regarding the unicorn (K. Ahrens, Das Buch der
Naturgegenstande, p. 43). What escaped Hommel is the fact that Cosmas Indico-
pleustes (McCrindle, Ancient India as described in Class. Lit., p. 157) states that the
Ethiopians, in their language, call the rhinoceros arou or harisi. G. Jacob (Studien
in arabischen Geographen IV, p. 166, Berlin, 1892) holds that Qazwini is the only
Arabic author to discriminate between charish and the rhinoceros, and identifies the
former with the Saiga-antelope of southern Russia. The rendering "unicorn" by
the Seventy and the English Bible is erroneous. The Hebrew word, thus translated,
is reem, corresponding to Assyrian rlmu. It is now generally interpreted as a wild
buffalo, and on the basis of Assyrian monuments is ingeniously identified with Bos
primigenius by J. U. Durst (Die Rinder von Babylonien, pp. 8-1 1, Berlin, 1899).
The animal, called in Hebrew behemoth (Job, xl, 15-24), and formerly taken for the
rhinoceros (p. 83), is the hippopotamus of the Nile. The Bible does not mention the
rhinoceros or the unicorn.

2 Mission archeologique, Nos. 458, 459, 472, 481.

3 These ostriches belong to the very best ever executed in the history of art. They
are much superior to any representations of the bird by the Egyptians (O. Keller,
Die antike Tierwelt, Vol. II, p. 170), the Assyrians (P. S. P. Handcock, Mesopotami-
an Archaeology, p. 307), and the classical nations (Imhoof-Blumer and O. Keller,
Tier- und Pflanzenbilder auf Munzen und Gemmen, Plates V, 52; XXII, 33-36).

History of the Rhinoceros

125

It was the great general and explorer Chang K'ien, the first modern
Chinese, who during his peregrinations to the west, among many other
novel things, discovered also the ostrich for his compatriots. After he
had negotiated his treaties with the countries of the west, the King of
Parthia (An-si) sent an embassy to the Chinese Court and presented
large bird's eggs, 1 which most probably were ostrich eggs. A live

Fig. 15.
Ostrich sculptured in Stone, T'ang Period (Sketch after Chavannes, Mission, No. 472).

specimen (or specimens) of the "large bird of T'iao-chi" was despatched
as tribute from the same country in 101 a.d., and termed in China
"Parthian bird." 2

They are not made after any western artistic models, but constitute invincible proof
for the fact that the Chinese artists in the T'ang era observed and studied nature, and
worked after natural models. This case may be recommended for due considera-
tion to the adherents of the preconceived dogma that all Chinese art is copied from
that of the west, and that no art is possible outside of the sanctum of classical art.

1 Shi ki, Ch. 123, p. 6; Hirth, China and the Roman Orient, p. 169. Forke
(Mitteilungen des Seminars, Vol. VII, 1904, p. 139) wrongly says that the Shi ki
mentions "large birds (ostriches) with eggs as large as earthen pots as a peculiar
feature of T'iao-chi;" this is not in the text of the Shi ki, which speaks only of large
bird's eggs, but it is found in Ts'ien Han shu (Ch. 96 A, p. 6 a). The trade in ostrich
eggs in the west is of very ancient date (O. Keller, /. c, p. 168).

2 Hou Han shu, Ch. 118, p. 9; Chavannes, T'oung Pao, 1907, p. 178. M. Cha-
vannes advances the theory that the Chinese erroneously applied to the ostrich the

126 Chinese Clay Figures

It was styled also "great horse bird." 1 Its resemblance to the
camel was emphasized, and hence the name "camel-bird" was formed.
Living ostriches were sent to China again in the T'ang period. In
650 Tokhara offered large birds seven feet high, of black color, with feet
resembling those of the camel, marching with outspread wings, able to
run three hundred li a day, and to swallow iron; they were styled camel-
birds. 2 The T'ang artists, accordingly, were in a position to witness
and to study live specimens of the bird; and the fact that they really
did so leaks out in the realistic high-relief carvings referred to above.
But what do we find among the latter-day draughtsmen who en-
deavored to illustrate the creature for books?

Fig. 16 shows the woodcut with which the Pin ts l ao hang mu of
Li Shi-chen is adorned. Bretschneider (/. c.) , in a somewhat generous
spirit, designated it as "a rude, but tolerably exact drawing of the
camel-bird." Forke 3 holds that this ostrich is pictured like a big goose,
but with the feet of a mammal; and he comes far nearer to the truth.
Li Shi-chen, born in K'i chou in the province of Hu-pei, spent his life-

name "bird of Parthia" (An-si, Arsak), but that in fact these birds originated from
T'iao-chi, that is, Desht Misan or Mesene, where ruled Arabic princes who had all
facilities for obtaining ostriches from Arabia. This theory does not seem necessary
to me. As already observed by Bretschneider (Notes and Queries, Vol. IV, p. 53;
and Mediaeval Researches, Vol. I, pp. 144-145), the ostrich is described in Wei shu
as a bird indigenous to Persia (compare also Sui shu, Ch. 83, p. 7 b; Pet shi, Ch. 97,
p. 8), and is again mentioned in the T'ang Annals as a Persian bird; there is, on the
other hand, the testimony of the Persian authors and of Xenophon (Anabasis, 1, 5),
who saw the bird on the banks of the Euphrates; and up to the present time, ostriches
are met with, though not frequently, in western Asia. Handcock (/. c, p. 25) ob-
serves that the ostrich appears in Mesopotamian art at a late period, though in Elam
rows of ostriches are found depicted on early pottery, closely and inexplicably re-
sembling the familiar ostriches on the pre-'dynastic pottery of ancient Egypt; it
sometimes, however, assumes a conspicuous position in the embroidery of an Assyrian
king's robe, and is found also on a chalcedony seal in Paris. Further references to
Assyrian representations are given by O. Keller (/. c, pp. 172, 594). In ancient
Syria, the ostrich is well attested by the interesting description in Job (xxxix, 13-18),
— Moses prohibited the flesh of the bird as unclean food, — and by reliefs at Hiera-
polis of Roman times. It further occurs in the Syrian version of the Physiologus.
Brehm (Tierleben, Vol. Ill, p. 692) sums up, "In Asia, the area of the habitat of
the ostrich may formerly have been much more extended than at present; but even
now, as established by Hartlaub with as much diligence as erudition, it occurs in the
deserts of the Euphrates region, especially the Bassida and Dekhena, in all suitable
localities of Arabia, and finally in some parts of southern Persia. Vamb6ry even learned
that it is still sometimes found on the lower course of the Oxus, in the region of
Kungrad (?), and is named there camel or coffer bird." Also in the Encyclopaedia
Britannica (Vol. XX, p. 362) it is said, "It is probable that it still lingers in the
wastes of Kirwan in eastern Persia, whence examples may occasionally stray north-
ward to those of Turkestan, even near the lower Oxus."

1 Ts'ien Han shu, Ch. 96 a, p. 6 b. In this passage the bird is noticed as a native
of Parthia, and commented on by Yen Shi-ku.

2 Chavannes, Documents, p. 156. In the period K'ai-yuan (713-741) ostrich
eggs were sent from Sogdiana (ibid., p. 136).

» L. c, p. 138.

History of the Rhinoceros

127

time as magistrate of the district of P'eng-k'i in the prefecture of T'ung-
ch'uan, province of Sze-ch'uan. The chances are that he had never
seen the sculptures of ostriches in the mausolea of the T'ang emperors
near Li-ts'uan, Shen-si Province; but, be this as it may, his woodcut
proves that the T'ang tradition of the representation of the ostrich was
wholly unknown to him, and moreover, that he himself had never be-
held an ostrich. We have no records to the effect that ostriches were
transported to China during the Ming period; and they were then
probably known merely by name. Li Shi-chen's
production is simply a reconstruction based on
the definitions of the texts ("marching with
outspread wings, feet of a camel," etc.); the
only exact feature is the two toes, which are
mentioned also in the older descriptions of the
bird; everything else, notably the crane's head,
is absurd, and a naturalist of the type of
Bretschneider should have noticed this.

In the great cyclopaedia T'u shu tsi ch'eng,
published in 1726, we find a singular illustration
of the ostrich, which is reproduced in Fig. 17 as
an object-lesson in Chinese psychology. This
accomplishment must open every one's eyes:
here we plainly see that the illustrator had not
the slightest idea of the appearance of an ostrich,
but merely endeavored, with appalling result, to
outline a sketch of what he imagined the "camel-bird" should
look like. He created a combination of a camel and a bird by
illustrating the bare words, as they struck his ears, without any
recourse to facts and logic; he committed the logical blunder (so
common among the Chinese from the days of the Sung period) of
confounding a descriptive point of similarity with a feature of reality.
All Chinese texts are agreed on the point that the bird is just like a
camel, or conveys that impression. This case is most instructive in
disclosing the working of the minds of the recent Chinese illustrators,
and in exhibiting the value due to their productions. It would not do in
the present case to deny that this figure is intended for an ostrich, to
define it as a new animal species, a "bird-shaped biped camel " (something
like an Avi-camelus bipes), and to conclude that the Chinese term Vo
niao does not denote the ostrich. On the contrary, we have to con-
clude that illustrations of this character are out and out valueless for
our scientific purposes, that definitions of an animal cannot be deduced
from them, but that all reasoning on the nature of the respective animal

Fig. 16.

Ostrich (from Pin ts'ao

kang mu).

128

Chinese Clay Figures

Fig. 17.
Alleged Ostrich (from T'u shu tsi ch'eng).

History of the Rhinoceros 129

can be based solely on the texts. 1 The illustrations are posterior in
time and mere accessories, and, even if fairly sensible, of sheer secondary
importance; in each and every case, however, if utilized as the basis
for any far-reaching conclusion, their history, sources, and psychological
foundation must be carefully examined. Another impressive lesson to
be derived from the case of the ostrich is that China, which by virtue
of a widely accepted school opinion appears to us as the classical soil
of ultra-conservative perseverance of traditions, is very liable also to
lose traditions, and even rather good ones. The excellent ostrich
representations of the T'ang have not been perpetuated, but have re-
mained as isolated instances. Indeed, they seem to have remained
unknown to Chinese artists, archaeologists, and naturalists, and hidden
away in seclusion and oblivion until discovered by M. Chavannes.
It is this very China unknown to the Chinese, which, as research ad-
vances, will become our most attractive subject of study.

We referred above (p. 100) to the fact that the ancient illustrations to
the Erh ya are lost, and that Kuo-P'o's sketches of the rhinoceros may
have been nearer to the truth. In now raising the question whether
any representations of the animal are handed down in the ancient
monuments of China, we naturally remember the primeval form of
writing that mirrors the stage of her primitive culture. The celebrated
Catalogue of Bronzes, the Po ku t'u lu, published by Wang Fu in the
period Ta-kuan (1107-1111), has preserved to us (Ch. 9, p. 23) two an-
cient symbols which are veritable representations of the single-horned
rhinoceros se (Fig. 18). They are placed on the ends of a handle of a
bronze wine-kettle attributed to the Shang dynasty (b.c. 1766-1154).
The explanatory text runs as follows : "The two lateral ears of the vessel
are connected by a handle, on which are chased two characters in the
shape of a rhinoceros (se) . When it is said in the Lun yii that ' a tiger
and rhinoceros escape from their cage,' 2 it follows that the rhinoceros is

1 And these must certainly be handled with a critical mind, as, for instance, a
glance at the chapter " Ostrich " in the T'u shu tsi ch'eng will convince one. The first
extract there given from the Ying yai shtng Ian of 141 6 deals with the "fire-bird"
of Sumatra, which is the cassowary (see Groeneveldt, in Miscell. Papers relating to
Indo-China, Vol. I, pp. 198, 262). Mo k'o hui si, a work written by P'eng Ch'Sng in the
first half of the eleventh century (Bretschneider, Bot. Sin., pt. I, p. 174), is quoted
as making a contribution to the subject in question, because a bird able to eat iron
and stone is mentioned there; this bird, however, called ku-t'o, occurs in Ho-chou,
the present Lan-chou fu in Kan-su, is built like an eagle, and over three feet high!
Accordingly we here have a wrong association of ideas, and the subject has nothing
to do with the ostrich. The editors of the cyclopaedia blindly follow the uncritical
example of Li Shi-chen, who embodied the same in his notes on the ostrich. Finally,
Verbiest's K'un yii t'u shuo is laid under contribution, as he describes the "camel-
bird" of South America. This is the Rhea belonging to the Ratite family, but
distinguished from the true ostrich by its possession of three toes.

2 Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. I, p. 306; and above, p. 74, note 4.

13°

Chinese Clay Figures

Fig. 18.

Single-Horned Rhinoceros on a Bronze Kettle attributed to Shang Period (from

Po ku t'u lu, edition of 1603).

Fig. 19.

Bushman Sketches of Rhinoceros (from E. Cartailhac and H. Breuil,
La caverne d'Altamira, pp. 180, 189).

Fig. 20.
Red Drawing of a Two-Horned Rhinoceros, from Font-de-Gaume (after Capitan and Breuil).

History of the Rhinoceros

131

not a tame animal. Indeed, it inflicts injury on
man; and for this reason the ancients availed
themselves of it to fine a person a cup of wine,
which is expressed by the phrase 'to raise the
goblet of rhinoceros-horn.' l This goblet receives
its name from the rhinoceros, and so it is proper
also that there should be wine-kettles with the
emblem of the rhinoceros. On the two ends of
the handle of this vessel is pictured a rhinoceros
with head and body complete, the latter having
the shape of a glutton (fao t'ie). This certainly
indicates that it symbolizes a warning. In this
manner all vessels were decorated during the
Shang dynasty, and it is by such symbolic forms
that they are distinguished from those of the
Chou." Whatever the rough character of these
two sketches transmitted by the Po ku t'u lu
may be, 2 the single-horned rhinoceros is here
clearly outlined with a naive and refreshing
realism, such as could be spontaneously produced
only by the hand of primitive man, who with a
few forceful outlines recorded his actual ex-
perience of the animal. Here we do not face
the narrow-breasted academic and philological
construction of the scholars of the Sung period,
but the direct and vigorous impression of the
strong-minded hunter of past ages, who was
formed of the same stuff as the Bushman of
southern Africa and palaeolithic man living in
the caves of Spain and France. No bridge
spans the chasm yawning between the Shang
and Sung productions. The Shang rhinoceros
breathes the same spirit as its companions on
the rock paintings of the Bushman (Fig. 19),
and in the palaeolithic cave of Font-de-Gaume
in France (Fig. 20). The general form of the

Fig. 21.
Inscription on Bronze Kettle
attributed to Shang Period,
showing Pictorial Form of
Sacrificial Bull (from Po ku
t'u lu).

1 Quotation from Shi king (see Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. IV, p. 233). The
rhinoceros-horn goblets are discussed below, p. 167.

2 Another cruder and more conventionalized symbol of the rhinoceros se, in which,
however, the single horn is duly accentuated, is figured in the same work (Ch. 1,
p. 25 b), as occurring in the inscription on a round tripod vessel (ting) attributed
to the Shang period.

132

Chinese Clay Figures

animal is well grasped in the Chinese sketch, and the shape of
the horn is correctly outlined. For the sake of comparison, and in
order to show that the primitive Chinese man knew very well how to
discriminate between a rhinoceros and an ox, the contemporaneous
symbol for the sacrificial bull (hi niu) , and designs of recumbent oxen
(explained as such in the Po ku t'u lu) on the lid of a bronze vessel, are
here added (Figs. 21 and 22). We arrive at the result, which will

be corroborated by
other evidence, that
in the earliest stage
of Chinese culture
the animal se was
the single-horned
rhinoceros. 1

Before plunging
into the Chinese
sources relative to
the rhinoceros, it
will be well to re-
member that all
living species of
rhinoceros are by
most naturalists referred to a single genus, which is found living in
Africa and south-eastern Asia, while formerly it was widely distributed
over the entire Old World (with the exception of Australasia) , ranging
as far north as Siberia. 2 Three species exist in Asia, — Rhinoceros
unicornis, the great one-horned rhinoceros, at the present day almost
entirely restricted to the Assam plain, but formerly extensively dis-
tributed over India; 3 Rhinoceros sundaicus, called also the Javan rhino-
ceros, the smaller one-horned rhinoceros, found in parts of eastern
Bengal (the Bengal Sunderbans near Calcutta), in Assam, throughout
Burma, the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Java, and Borneo; and Rhino-
ceros (or Dicer orhinus) sumatrensis, the Asiatic two-horned rhinoceros,
rare in Assam, ranging from there to Burma, Siam,the Malay Peninsula,

1 The later developments of the early forms of the symbol se may be viewed by
those who are debarred from Chinese sources in F. H. Chalfant, Early Chinese
Writing, Plate II, No. 17 (Memoirs Carnegie Museum, Vol. IV, No. 1, Pittsburgh,
1906). According to a communication of the late Mr. Chalfant (Dec. 18, 1913),
the ancient bone inscriptions twice reveal a character which may be identified with
the word se, while the character for si has not yet been traced in them.

2 Hornless species formerly occurred in North America, where the group has
existed since the latter part of the Eocene period.

3 Chiefly after W. T. Blanford, The Fauna of British India; Mammalia,
pp. 471-477-

Fig. 22.

Lid of Bronze Kettle attributed to Shang Period, with Designs of
Recumbent Oxen (from Po ku t'u lu).

History or the Rhinoceros 133

Sumatra, and Borneo. 1 Judging from this remarkable case of dis-
continuous distribution 2 and from historical records, there is every
reason to believe that in ancient times this animal, like all the large
mammals now facing extinction, was distributed over a much larger
geographical area; and this fact is fully confirmed by palaeontological
research, as well as by the records of the Chinese.

For the purpose of our inquiry it should be particularly borne in
mind that it is in the territory of Assam where we meet the three species
together. "The Imperial Gazetteer of India " 3 states, in the chapter on
Assam, "Rhinoceros are of three kinds: the large variety (unicornis),
which lives in the swamps that fringe the Brahmaputra; the smaller
variety (sondaicus) , which is occasionally met with in the same locality;
and the small two-horned rhinoceros (sumatrensis) , which is now and
again seen in the hills south of the Surma Valley, though its ordinary
habitat is Sumatra, Borneo, and the Malay Peninsula." Assam is
inhabited by numerous tribes, a large portion of which ranges among the
Indo-Chinese family. What now holds good for Assam, as will be
recognized from a survey of Chinese sources, two millenniums and more
ago was valid for the south-western and southern parts of China, the
Tibeto-Chinese borderlands, and Indo-China in its total range; in short,
the historical fact will be established that in the past the rhinoceros in its
two main varieties, the single-horned and two-horned, had occupied
the whole territory of south-eastern Asia.

The greater part of the knowledge possessed by the Chinese in re-
gard to the rhinoceros has been digested by Li Shi-chen in his materia
medica Pen ts'ao kang mu (Ch. 51 a, p. 5) completed in 1578 after twenty-
six years' labor. He first quotes a number of authors beginning from
the fifth century, and then sums up the argument in his own words.
This discourse is also of value for zoogeography, in that it contributes
materially to the possibility of reconstructing the early habitats of the
rhinoceros in China. The text of this work is here translated in extenso,
but rectified and supplemented from the materia medica of the Sung
period, the Cheng lei pen ts'ao, first printed in 1108. 4

1 Al-BerunI (973-1048) states that the rhinoceros existed in large numbers in
India, more particularly about the Ganges (Sachau, /. c, Vol. I, p. 203). In the
sixteenth century it occurred in the western Himalaya and also in the forests near
Peshawar (Yule and Burnell, Hobson-Jobson, p. 762). Linschoten found it in
great numbers in Bengal (ibid., p. 1); so also Garcia Ab Horto (/. c, p. 66): multos
in Cambaya Bengala finitima, et Patane inveniri tradunt. Abul Fazl Allami
(1551-1602), in his Ain I Akbari written in 1597 (translation of H. S. Jarrett,
Vol. II, p. 281, Calcutta, 1891), mentions the occurrence of the rhinoceros among the
game in the Sarkar of Sambal (near Delhi).

2 Compare E. Heller, The White Rhinoceros, p. 39.

3 Vol. VI, p. 20 (Oxford, 1908).

4 See T'oung Pao, 1913, p. 351.

134

Chinese Clay Figures

m
m

i
pi
m
I

i§

38 #JJ
Am mm

Is
31

»
^

$
#
*

ittt
7*

History of the Rhinoceros 135

Other texts of importance apt to throw light on the matter have been
added from the T'u shu tsi ch'eng and several other works, so that the
result is a fairly complete digest of what Chinese authors of the post-
Christian era have to say about the rhinoceros and its horn. After this
survey, we shall turn to the times of early antiquity, and discuss the
subject in the light of such information as has been handed down to
us from those days.

Li Shi-chen opens his discourse on the rhinoceros with the explana-
tion of the name. "The symbol for the word si still has in the seal
character chuan wen the form of a pictograph, 1 and is the name for the
female rhinoceros. The se is styled also 'sand rhinoceros' (sha si). The
Erh ya i 2 says that the words se and tse (female) approach each other in
sound like the two words ku ('ram,' No. 6226) and ku ('male'). In
general, si and se are one and the same. The ancients were fond of
saying se, the people of subsequent times inclined toward the word si.
In the northern dialects the word se prevails, in the southern dialects
the predilection is for si. This is the difference between the two. In
Sanskrit literature the rhinoceros is called khadga." 3

Li Shi-chen then proceeds to quote the ancient work Pie lu, 4 which
makes the following important statement in regard to the former
localities where the rhinoceros occurred: "The habitat of the rhinoceros

1 This is indeed the case in the Shuo wen (see p. 92). The names of the rhinoceros
and the various kinds of its horn are here reproduced from T'u shu tsi ch'ing (p. 134).

2 An appendix to the Erh ya by Lo Yuan of the twelfth century (Bretschneider ,
Bot. Sin., pt. 1, p. 37).

3 Written with Nos. 1456 and 1558 (k'et-ga); compare Eitel, Hand-book of
Chinese Buddhism, p. 76. (Other Sanskrit words for "rhinoceros" are ganda, gandaka,
gandanga.) The work Sheng shut yen fan lu, written by Wang P'i-chi about the end
of the eleventh century (Wylie, Notes, p. 195), seems to be the first to impart this
Sanskrit name (see the Chinese text opposite) ; it further gives a Sanskrit word for
the horn in the Chinese transcription pi-sha-na corresponding to Sanskrit vishdna
("horn"). The latter and the word khadga were among the first Sanskrit words in
Chinese recognized by Abel R£musat (see S. Julien, M6thode, p. 3).

4 The Pie lu is not identical with the Ming i pie lu, as first stated by Bret-
schneider (Bot. Sin., pt. 1, p. 42), but later rectified by him (in pt. 3, p. 2). It is an
independent work, which must have existed before the time of T'ao Hung-king, and
which was known to the latter and commented on by him. This is quite clear in the
present case, as Li Shi-chen first introduces the Pie lu, and then proceeds, "T'ao Hung-
king says." And since the latter starts with the phrase "at present," it is apparent
that he had the words of the Pie lu before his eyes, and gave his definition in distinc-
tion from the older work. This is also proved by the text of the Ching lei ptn ts'ao
published in 1108 by the physician T'ang Shen-wei (edition of 1523, Ch. 17, fol. 21),
where the two quotations are separated and marked by type of different size. As in
Bretschneider's opinion nearly all the geographical names occurring in the Pie lu
refer to the Ts'in (third century B.C.) or Han periods, although some of them can
be traced to the Chou dynasty (b.c. 1122-249), the above passage surely relates to
a time antedating our era by several centuries; and it goes without saying, that as a
matter of fact, in the age of the Chou and at a far earlier date, the two-horned
rhinoceros must have been a live citizen in the south-western parts of China.

136 Chinese Clay Figures

(si) is in the mountains and valleys of Yung-ch'ang and in Yi-chou; 1
Yung-ch'ang is the southern part of the present country of Tien (Yun-
nan)." 2

The next author invoked by Li Shi-chen is T'ao Hung-king (452-
536), a celebrated adept of Taoism and a distinguished physician,
author of the Ming i pie lu, a treatise on materia medica. 3 He states,
"At present the rhinoceros (si) inhabits the distant mountains of
Wu-ling, 4 Kiao-chou, 5 and Ning-chou. 6 It has two horns; the horn on
the forehead is the one used in fighting. 7 There is a kind of rhinoceros
styled 'communicating with the sky' (t'ung t'ien), whose horn is in-
tersected by a white vein running clear through from the base to the
tip; the night dew does not moisten it. It is employed as a remedy,
whereby its wonderful properties are tested. In the opinion of some,
this is the horn of the water-rhinoceros, which is produced in the water. 8
The Annals of the Han Dynasty speak of the horn of 'the rhinoceros
frightening fowl ' (hiai ki si) : when it was placed in the rice that served as
food for the chickens, they were all scared and did not dare to peck;

1 Playfair, The Cities and Towns of China, No. 8596 (2d ed., No. 7527, 1). In
the Han period, Yi-chou was the name of a province occupying the territory of the
present province of Sze-ch\ian, a part of Kuei-chou and Yun-nan (Bretschneider,
Bot. Sin., pt. 3, p. 565), while the southern part of Yun-nan is understood by the
designation Yung-ch'ang. The Pie lu, accordingly, locates in south-western China
the rhinoceros si, which, as follows from the comment of T'ao Hung-king, is the
two-horned species.

2 This last clause is not contained in the text of the Ching lei pen ts'ao, and is
doubtless a later comment, presumably derived from T'ao Hung-king's edition of the
Pen ts'ao king, which is listed in the Catalogue of the Sui Dynasty, and according to
Bretschneider's supposition, embraced likewise the text of the Pie lu.

3 His biography is in Nan shi (Ch. 76, p. 4 b) and Liang shu (Ch. 51, p. 12).

4 Playfair, No. 81 12 (2d ed., No. 7080): district forming the prefectural city
of Ch'ang-te, Hu-nan Province.

5 Northern part of the present Tonking (see Hirth and Rockhill, Chau Ju-kua,
p. 46).

6 Playfair, No. 5239, 2 (4672, 2): in Lin-an fu, Yun-nan Province. Under
the Tsin it was a province comprising Yun-nan and part of Kuei-chou (compare
Hua yang kuo chi, Ch. 4, p. I, ed. of Han Wei ts'ung shu).

7 Thus the two-horned (so-called Sumatran) rhinoceros is here clearly mentioned.

8 The rhinoceros is fond of spending the hot hours of the day immersed in water,
and thence the Chinese designation "water-rhinoceros" may take its origin. In this
position particularly, the animal calls to mind the water-buffalo. In ancient times
it was therefore dreaded as being able to overturn boats, which is quite believable;
and soldiers crossing a river were encouraged to prompt action by their commander
shouting the name of the animal (Chavannes, Les M6moires historiques de Se-ma
Ts'ien, Vol. I, p. 225, Vol. IV, p. 37; Forke, Lun-Heng, pt. II, p. 322; according to
Forke, the reading of the text is ts'ang kuang, but as quoted in T'u shu tsi ch'hig
and P'ei win yiln fu it is ts'ang se, as in Se-ma Ts'ien). The water-rhinoceros (shui
si) is mentioned in Kuang chou ki (see Bretschneider, Bot. Sin., pt. 1, No. 377) as
occurring in the open sea off the district of P'ing-ting, resembling an ox, emitting
light when coming out of, or descending into, the water, and breaking a way through
the water (quoted in T'u shu tsi ch'ing).

History of the Rhinoceros 137

when it was placed on the roof of a house, the birds did not dare to
assemble there. 1 There is also the horn of the female rhinoceros, which
is very long, with patterns resembling those of the male, but it is not
fit to enter the pharmacopoeia." 2

1 The allusion to the hiai ki si occurs in Ch. 108 of Hou Han shu (compare Cha-
vannes, Les pays d'Occident d'apres le Heou Han Chou, T'oung Pao, 1907, p. 182;
and Hirth, China and the Roman Orient, p. 79), where this kind of horn is ascribed
to the country of Ta Ts'in (the Roman Orient). The legend given in explanation as
above is derived from the famous Taoist writer Ko Hung, who died about 330 a.d.;
and it is not accidental that the Taoist T'ao Hung-king here copies his older colleague,
for the legend is plainly Taoistic in character. It is quoted in the commentary to
Hou Han shu, but not in the text of the Annals. The view of Hirth, that it has arisen
in consequence of a false etymology based on the Chinese characters transcribing a
foreign word, seems to me unfounded. First, as Chavannes remarks, the foreign
word supposed to be hidden in hiai-ki has not yet been discovered, and in all probabil-
ity does not exist. Second, as will be seen from P'ei wen yiin fu (Ch. 8, p. 87 b), the
term hiai ki si does not occur in Hou Han shu for the first time, but is noted as early
as the Chan kuo ts'e at the time of Chang I, who died in B.C. 310, when the King of
Ch'u despatched a hundred chariots to present to the King of Ts'in fowl-scaring
rhinoceros-horns and jade disks resplendent at night (ye kuang pi). It is certainly
somewhat striking to meet here these two names, which are identical with those in
Hou Han shu, and occur there close together; and it cannot be denied that the passage
of Chan kuo ts'e might be an interpolation. Huai-nan-tse, who died in B.C. 122,
alludes to a rhinoceros-horn frightening foxes (si kio hiai hu, quoted in P'ei win yiin
fu, I. c, p. 89 a, "when placed in the lair of a fox, the fox does not dare return"),
which is a case analogous in word and matter to the fowl-frightening horn. These
notions must be taken in connection with the other legends regarding the rhinoceros,
which all seem to spring from indigenous Taoist lore. The text of Ko Hung, as quoted
in P'ei wen yiin fu and translated by Hirth and Chavannes, is fuller than cited
above in the Phi ts'ao, while the final clause in regard to placing the horn on the
roof does not occur in Ko Hung. The latter links the hiai ki si with the t'ung t'ien,
which Hirth and Chavannes translate "communicating with Heaven." This is cer-
tainly all right; but I prefer to avoid this term, because it may give rise to mis-
understandings, as we are wont to think of Heaven as the great cosmic deity. A com-
parative study of all passages concerned renders it clear that the rhinoceros is not
associated with spiritual, but with material heaven; that is, the sky. It is the stars
of the sky which are supposed to be reflected in the veins of the horn. This means
that the designs of the horn gave the impetus to the conception of connecting the
rhinoceros with the phenomena of the sky, — again a thoroughly Taoistic idea, in
which no trace of an outside influence can be discovered. Father Zottoli (Cursus
litteraturae sinicae, new ed., Vol. I, p. 301 ) renders the term t'ung t'ien si tai by " pene-
trantis coelum rhinocerotis cingulum." — Chao Ju-kua (Hirth's and Rockhill's
translation, p. 103) attributes hiai ki si or t'ung t'ien si also to Baghdad (but I see
no reason why these words should denote there a precious stone, instead of rhinoceros-
horn). On p. 108 (note 10) the twoauthors represent the matter as though this refer-
ence might occur in Ling-wai tai ta, but in fact it is not there (Ch. 3, p. 1 b); it must
therefore be due to Chao Ju-kua, who seems to indulge in a literary reminiscence taken
from Hou Han shu. The passage, accordingly, affords no evidence for a trade in rhino-
ceros-horns from Baghdad to China, which per se is not very likely. — In the illustra-
tions to the Fing shen yen i (ed. of Tsi ch'eng t'u shu, p. 9, Shanghai, 1908), T'ung
t'ien kiao chu (see W. Grube, Die Metamorphosen der Gotter, p. 652) is seated
astride a rhinoceros (outlined as a bull with a single striped horn), apparently because
his name T'ung t'ien has been identified with t'ung t'ien si.

2 There are several additions to this text as edited in the Ching lei pen ts'ao, the
most interesting of which is that "only the living horns are excellent." This means
the horn of a live animal slain in the chase, which was believed to be superior in qual-
ity to a horn cast off and accidentally found (compare Hirth and Rockhill, Chau
Ju-kua, p. 233). Similar beliefs prevailed in regard to ivory. That coming from the
tusk of an elephant killed by means of a pike was considered the best; next in quality

138 Chinese Clay Figures

Li Shi-chen does not refer to Ko Hung, the famous Taoist adept of
the fourth century, 1 who is the first author to impart a fantastic account
in regard to rhinoceros-horn. He is likewise the first to set forth its
quality of detecting poison. His text is here translated, as given in
T'u shu tsi ch'eng. 2

"Mr. Cheng 3 once obtained a genuine rhinoceros-horn of the kind
'communicating with the sky,' three inches long, the upper portion being
carved into the form of a fish. When a man carries such a piece in
his mouth and descends into the water, the water will give way for him
and leave a vacant space three feet square, so that he has a chance to
breathe in the water. 4 The horn 'communicating with the sky' has a
single red vein like a silk string running from the base to the tip. When
a horn filled with rice is placed among a flock of chickens, the chickens
want to peck the grains. Scarcely have they approached the horn to
within an inch when they are taken aback and withdraw. Hence the
people of the south designate the horn 'communicating with the sky'
by the name 'fowl-frightening horn.' When such a horn is placed on a
heap of grain, the birds do not dare assemble there. Enveloped by a
thick fog or exposed to the night dew, when placed in a courtyard, the
horn does not contract humidity. The rhinoceros (si) is a wild animal
living in the deep mountain-forests. During dark nights its horn emits
a brilliant light like torch-fire. The horn is a safe guide to tell the
presence of poison : when poisonous medicines of liquid form are stirred
with a horn, a white foam will bubble up, and no other test is necessary;
when non-poisonous substances are stirred with it, no foam will rise.
In this manner the presence of poison can be ascertained. When on a
journey in foreign countries, or in places where contagion from ku

was the ivory of an animal which was found shortly after it had died a natural death;
least esteemed was that discovered in mountains many years after the animal's
death (Pelliot, Bulletin de V Ecole francaise d' Extreme-Orient, Vol. II, 1902, p. 166).
In Siam, the rhinoceros is still killed with bamboo pikes hardened in the fire and
thrust into its jaws and down the throat, as described by Bishop Pallegoix (Descrip-
tion du royaume Thai ou Siam, Vol. I, p. 75, Paris, 1854).

1 He died in 330 a.d. at the age of eighty-one; see Giles (Biographical Dic-
tionary, p. 372); Mayers (Chinese Reader's Manual, p. 86); Bretschneider (Bot.
Sin., pt. 1, p. 42); and Pelliot {Journal asiatique, 1912, Juillet-Aout, p. 145).

* Chapter on Rhinoceros (hui k'ao, p. 3), introduced by the author's literary
name Pao-p'u-tse, and the title of his work Teng sht p'ien, which is not included
in the Taoist Canon.

3 Presumably Ch§ng Se-yuan, a relative and spiritual predecessor of Ko Hung
(L. Wieger, Taoisme, Vol. I, Le canon, p. 16; Pelliot, /. c, p. 146).

4 It is interesting to note that this belief is still upheld in the modern folk-lore of
Annam: "Celui qui peut se procurer une come de rhinoceros et la sculpte en forme
de poisson, s'il la met entre ses dents, peut descendre sans danger, comme le rhi-
noceros ou le poisson, tout au fond de l'eau" (P. Giran, Magie et Religion Annamites,
p. 104, Paris, 1912).

History of the Rhinoceros 139

poison l threatens, a man takes his meals in other people's houses, he
first ought to stir his food with a rhinoceros-horn. When a man hit by
a poisonous arrow is on the verge of dying, and his wound is slightly
touched with a rhinoceros-horn, foam will come forth from his wound,
and he will feel relief. 2 This property of the horn 'communicating
with the sky' of neutralizing poison is accounted for by the fact that
the animal, while alive, particularly feeds on poisonous plants and
trees provided with thorns and brambles, 3 while it shuns all soft and
smooth vegetal matter. Annually one shedding of its horn takes place
in the mountains, and people find horns scattered about among the
rocks; 4 in this case, however, they must deposit there, in the place of the
real one, another horn carved from wood, identical with that one in color,
veins, and shape. Then the rhinoceros remains unaware of the theft.
In the following year it moves to another place to shed its horn. 5 Other
kinds of rhinoceros-horn also are capable of neutralizing poison, without
having, however, the wonderful power of the t'ung-t'ien variety."

Su Kung, the editor of the T'ang sin pen ts'ao (the revised edition
of the materia medica of the T'ang dynasty) states as follows: "The
tse (No. 12,325) is the female rhinoceros. The patterns on its horn are
smooth, spotted, white, and clearly differentiated. It is ordinarily
called the 'spotted rhinoceros' (pan si). It is highly esteemed in pre-

1 See T'oung Pao, 1913, p. 322.

2 The belief that the horn will check the effects of poisoned arrows is repeated in
the Pel hu lu, written by Tuan Kung-lu around 875 in the T'ang period (Pelliot, Bul-
letin de VEcolefrancaise, Vol. IX, 1909, p. 223). The notes of this book regarding the
horn are all based on the text of Ko Hung; instead of t'ung t'ien si, the term t'ung si
is employed.

3 The animal feeds, indeed, on herbage, shrubs, and leaves of trees.

4 The supposition of the rhinoceros shedding its horn regularly has not been ascer-
tained by our zoologists; but it is not very probable that it does so, nor have the Chi-
nese made the actual observation. It is clear that their conclusion is merely based
on the circumstantial evidence of detached horns occasionally found and picked up
in the wilderness, which suggested to them the notion of a natural process similar
to the shedding of cervine antlers.

6 A similar story is told in regard to the elephant by Chen Kuan, who wrote two
treatises on the medical virtues of drugs, and who died in the first part of the seventh
century (Bretschneider, Bot. Sin., pt. 1, p. 44): "The elephant, whenever it sheds
its tusks, itself buries them. The people of K'un-lun make wooden tusks, stealthily
exchange them, and take the real ones away." K'un-lun is the Chinese designation
for the Malayan tribes of Malacca, and was extended to Negrito, Papua, and the
negroes of Africa (see Hirth and Rockhill, Chau Ju-kua, p. 32). In this connec-
tion we should remember also the words of Pliny (Nat. hist., vni, 3, §7), that the
elephants, when their tusks have fallen out either accidentally or from old age, bury
them in the ground (quam ob rem deciduos casu aliquo vel senecta defodiunt). It
is not impossible that the great quantity of fossil ivory mentioned as early as by
Theophrast (De lapidibus 37, Opera ed. F. Wimmer, p. 345; compare the interesting
notes of L. de Launay, Mineralogie des anciens, Vol. I, pp. 387-390, Bruxelles, 1803)
may have given rise to this notion.

140 Chinese Clay Figures

scriptions, but is not such an efficient remedy as the horn of the male
rhinoceros." 1

Ch'£n Ts'ang-k'i, who lived in the first half of the eighth century,
states in his work Pen ts'ao ski i ("Omissions in Previous Works on
Materia Medica") as follows: "There are not two kinds of the rhinoce-
ros, called the land and water animal. This distinction merely refers
to finer and coarser qualities of horns. 2 As to the rhinoceros 'com-
municating with the sky,' the horn on its skull elongates into a point
after a thousand years. It is then adorned, from one end to the other,
with white stars, and can exhale a vapor penetrating the sky; in this
manner it can communicate with the spirits, 3 break the water, and
frighten fowl. Hence the epithet 'communicating with the sky' is
bestowed on it. Pao-p'u-tse 4 says, 'When such a rhinoceros-horn is
carved into the shape of a fish, and one holding this in his mouth de-
scends into water, a passage three feet wide will open in the water.' " 8

Su Sung, author of the T'u king pen ts'ao, published by imperial
order in the age of the Sung dynasty, has the following: "Of rhinoceros-
horn, that coming from the regions of the Southern Sea (Nan hai) takes
the first place; that from K'ien and Shu 6 ranks next. The rhinoceros
resembles the water-buffalo, has the head of a pig, a big paunch, short
legs, the feet being similar to those of the elephant and having three
toes. It is black in color, and has prickles on its tongue. It is fond of
eating thorny brambles. 7 Three hairs grow from each pore in its skin,

1 Li Shi-chen's text exactly agrees with that given in the Cheng lei pen ts'ao. It
is an interesting coincidence that the horn of the female rhinoceros (tse si kio) is men-
tioned in the Annals of the T'ang Dynasty {T'ang shu, Ch. 40, p. 6 b) as the tribute
sent from the district of Si-p'ing in Shen chou, the present territory of Si-ning in
Kan-su. The Annals therefore confirm the statement of the contemporaneous Pen
ts'ao.

2 It will be seen below that Li Shi-chen does not share this opinion.

3 The same paragraph is found in Li Shi, the author of the Sti po wu chi (Ch. 10,
p. 8 b; ed. of Pai hai), ascribed by tradition to the T'ang period, but in fact coming
down from the Sung. He interprets the expression t'ung t'ien by the words, "It is
capable of communicating with the spirits" (ning t'ung shin). According to him,
"the horn communicating with the sky" is a thousand years old, long and pointed,
overstrewn with white stars, the tip emitting a vapor.

4 Surname of Ko Hung, a famous Taoist writer, who died at the age of eighty-one
about 330 a.d. (see p. 138).

6 The text in the Cheng lei pin ts'ao is somewhat fuller. It opens by saying that
the flesh of the rhinoceros cures all poisons, especially poisoning caused by the bites
of snakes and mammals. On Java bits of the horn are considered as an infallible
antidote against snake-bites (P. J. Veth, Java, Vol. Ill, p. 289). At the close of
Ch'en Ts'ang-k'i's text it is added that the horn is called also nu kio (literally, "slave
horn ') and shi kio ("the horn, with which the animal feeds"); the word nu seems to
be the transcription of a word from a non-Chinese language.

6 Ancient designations for the present territory of the provinces of Kuei-chou and
Sze-ch'uan.

7 The entire definition, except the "prickles on the tongue," is derived from Kuo
P'o (see p. 93). Marco Polo (ed. of Yule and Cordier, Vol. II, p. 285), speaking of

History of the Rhinoceros 141

as in swine. There are one-horned, two-horned, and three-horned
ones." 1

the rhinoceros on Java, says, "They do no mischief, however, with the horn, but with
the tongue alone; for this is covered all over with long and strong prickles [and when
savage with any one they crush him under their knees and then rasp him with their
tongue]." Yule comments that the belief in the formidable nature of the tongue of
the rhinoceros is very old and widespread, though he can find no foundation for it
other than the rough appearance of the organ. Dr. Parsons (p. 9 in the pamphlet
quoted above, p. 83) observes, "As to the tongue of the rhinoceros, the scribes assure
us that it is so rugged that it can lick off with it the flesh from the bones of a man,
but the tongue of the live animal examined by me is as soft and mild as that of a calf;
whether it will grow rougher with the advancing age of the animal, I am unable to
say." It is easy to see how the fable of the prickly tongue arose. The animal mainly
feeds on herbage, and the alleged or real observation of its inclination for brambles
led to the conclusion that its tongue must be thorn-proof and prickly. A similar
belief seems to obtain in Siam: "On dit que ce monstrueux quadrupede fait ses
delices des opines de bambou" (Mgr. Pallegoix, Description du royaume Thai ou
Siam, Vol. I, p. 156, Paris, 1854).

1 Now follows in the Pen ts'ao the quotation from the Erh ya translated above
(P- 93) • The text then following in the Pen ts'ao is purported to be a quotation from Ling
piao lu i; but it is in fact abridged, and intermingled with extracts from Yu yang tsa
tsu. For this reason I have abandoned at this point the text of the Pen ts'ao, and
given separately translations of the two documents, as they are published in T'u shu
tsi ch'eng (Chapter on Rhinoceros, hui k'ao, p. 4). In evidence of my statement,
the text of the Pen ts'ao here follows; the main share in the confusion will probably
be due to Su Sung, not to Li Shi-chen. "The Ling piao lu i by Liu Sun (of the T'ang
period) says, 'The rhinoceros has two horns: the one on the forehead is called se si,
the other, on the nose, is called hu mao si. The male rhinoceros also has two horns
both of which are comprised under the name mao si (' hairy rhinoceros '). At present
people uphold the opinion that it has but a single horn. These two kinds of horn are
provided with grain patterns, and their price largely depends upon the finer or coarser
qualities of these desr.,,3. The most expensive is the horn with floral designs of the
rhinoceros ' communi airing with the sky.' The animals with such horns dislike their
own shadow, and constantly drink muddy water in order to avoid beholding their
reflection. High-grade horns bear likenesses of all things. Some attribute the
qualities of the t'ung t'ien horn to a pathological cause, but the natural reason cannot
be ascertained. The term tao ch'a means that one half of the lines pass through in
the direction downward; the term cheng ch'a means that one half of the lines pass
through in the direction upward; the term yao ku ch'a means that the lines are inter-
rupted in the middle, and do not pass through. Such-like are a great many. The
Po-se designate ivory as po-ngan, and rhinoceros-horn as hei-ngan, — words difficult to
distinguish. The largest rhinoceros-horn is that of the to-lo-si, a single horn of which
weighs from seven to eight catties. This is identified with the horn on the forehead of
the male rhinoceros. It has numerous decorations conveying the impression of scattered
beans. If the specks are deep in color, the horn is suitable to be made into plaques
for girdle-ornaments; if the specks are scattered here and there, and light in color,
the horn can be made only into bowls and dishes. In the opinion of some, the animal
called se is the female of the si. [It resembles the water-buffalo, and is of dark
color. Its hide is so hard and thick that it can be worked into armor.] I do not know
whether this is the case or not." (There is here a confusion in Li Shi-chen's text.
The passage enclosed in brackets does not occur in the text of the Ching lei pen ts'ao,
where it runs, "In the opinion of some, the animal called se is the female of the si;
I do not know whether this is the case or not." The rest is evidently interpolated,
and is derived from the Shuo wen and its commentaries; at all events, it cannot be
ascribed to Su Sung.) "Wu Shi-kao, a physician of the T'ang period, tells the fol-
lowing story: 'The people near the sea, intent on capturing a rhinoceros, proceed by
erecting on a mountain-path many structures of decayed timber, something like a
stable for swine or sheep. As the front legs of the rhinoceros are straight, without
joints, it is in the habit of sleeping by leaning against the trunk of a tree. The rotten

142 Chinese Clay Figures

The Ling piao lu i ki l says, " The rhinoceros, in general, resembles an
ox in form. Its hoofs and feet are like those of the elephant. It has
a double armor and two horns. The one on the forehead is styled se si;
the other, on the nose, which is comparatively smaller, is termed hu mao
si. 2 The designs and spots in the anterior horn are small; many have
extraordinary patterns. The male rhinoceros likewise has two horns,
both of which are designated mao si ('hairy rhinoceros'), and are
provided with grain patterns. 3 They are capable of being worked into
plaques for girdles. 4 Among a large number of rhinoceros-horns there

timber will suddenly break down, and the animal will topple in front without being
able for a long time to rise. Then they attack and kill it.' " The conclusion is
translated above in the text.

1 In the Ptn ts'ao, and otherwise, usually styled Ling piao lu i. According to Bret-
schneider (Bot. Sin., pt. i, p. 170), it is an account of the natural productions of
China by Liu Sun of the T'ang dynasty.

2 Hirth and Rockhill (Chau Ju-kua, p. 233), briefly alluding to this text, under-
stand the terms se si and hu mao si as two different varieties of the rhinoceros. This
point of view seems to me inadmissible, as Liu Sun distinctly speaks of the two-horned
variety only, and then goes on to specify the two horns in the same animal, which
differing in size and shape are, from a commercial and industrial standpoint, of dif-
ferent value. The term Hu mao (' cap of the Hu ' ; the Hu in general designate peoples
of Central Asia, Turks and Iranians) is a very appropriate designation for the anterior
horn of this species, which is a low, flat, roundish knob, and indeed resembles a small
skull-cap. In the Ming kung shi (Ch. 4, p. 8; new edition in movable types, 1910, in
8 chs.), a most interesting description of the life at the Court of the Ming dynasty
(compare Hirth, T'oung Pao, Vol. VI, 1895, p. 440), this cap is explained as coming
down from the T'ang dynasty, and as having been used by the heir-apparent of the
Ming; it was made from sable and ermine skins, and worn in the winter on hunting-
expeditions to keep the ears warm. It is mentioned in T'ang shu, Ch. 24, p. 8 (and
presumably in other passages).

3 Li Shi-chen (p. 150) expands this theme. Fang I-chi, who graduated in 1640, in
his Wu li siao shi (Ch. 8, p. 20 b), states that only the rhinoceros-horn of Siam has
grain patterns, while they are absent in the hairy (that is, the double-horned) rhi-
noceros of Annam, which has flower-like and spotted designs.

4 In the Treasure-House of Nara in Japan are preserved objects carved from
rhinoceros-horn coming down from the T'ang period, as leather belts with horn
plaques, drinking-cups, Ju-i, and back-scratchers. The girdles studded with plaques
carved from the horn seem to make their appearance in China under the T'ang
dynasty; the assertion of Bushell (Chinese Art, Vol. I, p. 119) that they were the
"official" girdles of the dynasty does not seem to be justified: at least, they are
not enumerated in the class of official girdles, but seem to have been restricted to
the use of princesses (compare the account of Tu yang tsa pien, translated below,
p. 152). Interesting texts bearing on rhinoceros-horn girdles are communicated in T'u
shu tsi ch'ing (Chapter on Girdles, tai p'ei, ki shi, p. 9 b). Such girdles were made
also in Champa: the Sung Annals (Sung shi, Ch. 489, p. 2) relate a tribute sent from
there in the period Hien-tg (954-962) of the Hou Chou dynasty; it was local products
including rhinoceros-horn girdles with plaques carved in the form of cloud-dragons.
A rhinoceros-horn girdle sent from the Court of the Sung to that of the Khitan is men-
tioned in Liao shi (Ch. 10, p. 1). Under the Kin dynasty (1 1 15-1234) the materials
employed for official costume were ranked in the order jade, gold, rhinoceros-horn,
ivory {Kin shi, Ch. 34, § 3, p. 7). The emperor wore a hat-pin of rhinoceros-horn,
and a girdle of black horn (wu si tai) ; the imperial saddle was decorated with gold,
silver, rhinoceros-horn, and ivory. Officials of the second rank and higher were en-
titled to a girdle of the t'ung si horn; those of the third rank, to a girdle of the hua si
horn; the rest, to plain rhinoceros-horn girdles (ibid., Ch. 43). They were in vogue also

History of the Rhinoceros 143

are few in which the lines pass through from one end to the other.
These are pointed, and their designs are large and numerous. Those
with small designs are styled tao ch'a t'ung. 1 These two kinds are called
also 'bottomless jade cups.' 2 If there is not sufficient space for the
lines to pass through, and the white and black designs are equally
distributed, then the price is considerably increased, and the horn will
become the treasure of numberless generations. When I lived at
P'an-yii, 3 I made a thorough examination of what is current there con-
cerning rhinoceros-horn. There is, further, the to-lo-si, the largest
among the rhinoceros-horns, which may reach seven catties in weight. 4
This is the horn on the forehead of the male rhinoceros, which has
numerous designs in the interior conveying the impression of scattered
beans. If the stripes are deep in color, the horn is capable of being made
into girdle-plaques and implements ; if the stripes are dispersed and light
in color, the horn may be employed to advantage for the making of cups,

at the Court of the Ming emperors (Ta Ming hut tien, Ch. 5, p. 30), and were allowed
to alternate with tortoise-shell girdles (Ming kung shi by Liu Jo-yu, Ch. 4, p. 3 b,
new ed. of 1910). Under the Yuan dynasty a bureau for works in rhinoceros-horn
and ivory was established. This was a sort of court-atelier, in which couches, tables,
implements, and girdle-ornaments inlaid with these materials were turned_ out for
the use of the imperial household. An official was placed in charge of it in 1263,
and he received an assistant in 1268; the force consisted of a hundred and fifty work-
ing-men (Yuan shi, Ch. 90, p. 5, K'ien-lung edition). According to Qazwlnl (1203-
83), the inhabitants of Sandabil (Kan-chou in Kan-su Province) were clad in silk
and adorned with ivory and rhinoceros-horn (J. Marquart, Osteuropaische und
ostasiatische Streifzuge, p. 87, Leipzig, 1903). De Goeje is inclined to think in
this connection of rhinoceros-horn set with gold and worn as amulet; but an instance
of such a mode of use is not known in China, and it rather seems that it is in this case
likewise the question of girdles decorated with plaques of ivory and rhinoceros-horn.
The Mohammedan authors were well aware of the fondness of the Chinese for this
material and its employment for girdles, and during the middle ages became the
most active importers of the horn into China. The Arabic merchant Soleiman writ-
ing in 851 relates that the inhabitants of China make from the horn girdles reaching
in price to two and three thousand dinars and more, according to the beauty of the
figure found in the design of the horn (M. Reinaud, Relation des voyages faits par
les Arabes, Vol. I, p. 29). Hafiz el Gharb, who wrote at the end of the eleventh
century, observed, "The most highly esteemed ornaments among the Chinese are
made from the horn of the rhinoceros, which, when cut, presents to the eye singular
and varied figures" (Ch. Schefer, Relations des Musulmans avec les Chinois, p. 10,
in Centenaire de I'Ecole des langues orientates, Paris, 1895).

1 Tao, "to reverse;" ch'a, "to insert;" t'ung, "to pass through."

2 Thus this phrase is explained in Giles's Dictionary, p. 1326 b (tenth entry).

3 Playfair (2d ed.), No. 4927: one of the two districts forming the city of
Kuang-chou (Canton).

4 Hirth and Rockhill (Chau Ju-kua, p. 233), relying onGerini, identify the coun-
try To-lo or To-ho-lo, as written in T'ang shu, with a country situated on the Gulf of
Martaban. The journey from Kuang-chou to that country takes five months. An
embassy with tribute came from there to China in the period Cheng-kuan (627-
650) , and emphasis is laid on the great number of fine rhinoceroses. See also Schlegel
(T'oung Pao, Vol. IX, 1898, p. 282) and Pelliot (Bull, de I'Ecole francaise, Vol. IV,
1904, p. 360).

144 Chinese Clay Figures

dishes, utensils, platters, and the like. 1 Then there is the horn ' frighten-
ing fowl ' with a white, silk-like thread ; placed in the rice, it scares the
fowl away. The ' dust-dispelling horn ' is utilized to make hairpins and
combs for women; it keeps dust out of the hair. As to the 'water-
dispelling horn,' when brought into the water of a river or the sea, it
has the power of breaking a way across it. Exposed to a fog, and in the
evening, it does not contract moisture. As to the 'resplendent horn,'
this one, when put in a dark house, emits its own light. 2 Of all these
various horns, I know only from hearsay, for I have not been able to
procure and see them."

The Yu yang tsa tsu by Tuan Ch'eng-shi of the ninth century 3
makes the following comments on the rhinoceros: "The variety of
rhinoceros styled ' communicating with the sky ' dislikes its own shadow,
and is in the habit of drinking muddy water. 4 When the animal is im-
mersed in the water, men avail themselves of this opportunity to cap-
ture it, as it is impossible for it to pull its feet out of the mud. The natu-
ral structure of the horn is such that it is filled with figures resembling
objects of nature. It is asserted by others that the designs penetrat-
ing the rhinoceros-horn are pathological. 5 There are three varieties
of design, styled tao ch'a ('lines inverted and inserted'), cheng ch'a
('straight and inserted'), and yao ku ch'a ('inserted like a barrel-shaped
drum'). 6 They are styled 'inverted,' if one half of the lines pass

1 The colors indicated by the Chinese writers altogether answer the facts. In its
exterior, the color of rhinoceros-horn is usually black or dark brown. A cross-section
reveals various colors. A specimen kindly presented to the Museum by Mr. F. W
Kaldenberg of New York exhibits in the interior a large black zone running through
the centre and extending from the base to the tip, and filling the entire space of the
extremity. In the lower, broad portion it is surrounded on the one side by a gold-
brown section, about 3.5 cm wide and 21 cm long, and on the other side by a mottled
light-yellow and greenish zone almost soap-like in appearance. This horn was
found in the woods, and is in places eaten through by insects. The surface of the
base exhibits the tips of the bristles, and appears like a coarse brush. The fibres
running longitudinally, owing to the effect of weathering, can be easily detached.

2 As shown above (p. 138), optic properties are attributed to the horn as early as
the time of Ko Hung. The subject is discussed in detail below (p. 151).

3 As now established by P. Pelliot (T'oung Pao, 1912, pp. 373-375), this work
was published about 860.

4 The Ptn ts'ao adds, " In order to avoid beholding its reflection." This notion is
doubtless derived from the animal's predilection for a mud-bath; its favorite haunts
are generally in the neighborhood of swamps (Lydekker, /. c, p. 31).

6 The P£n ts'ao adds, "But the natural reason cannot be ascertained." This is
a comment of Su Sung.

6 The meaning of these technical terms is not quite easy to grasp. The word tao
(No. 10,793) is "to invert," ch'a (No. 205) means "to insert:" tao ch'a, accordingly,
may mean "lines inserted in the horn in an inverted position;" and cheng ch'a, "lines
inserted straight." Yao ('loins') ku (No. 6421; in Pen ts'ao erroneously No. 6227) is
the former name for a barrel-shaped drum (hua ku, see A. C. Moule, Chinese Musical
Instruments, p. 57, where an example from a verse of Su Tung-p'o is quoted). Yao
K'uan, the author of the Si k'i ts'ung yii, written about the middle of the twelfth

History of the Rhinoceros 145

through in the direction downward. They are styled 'straight,' if one
half of the lines pass through in the direction upward. They are
styled 'drum-shaped,' if the lines are interrupted in the middle, without
passing through. The Pose designate ivory as po-ngan, and rhinoceros-
horn as hei-ngan. 1 Wu Shi-kao, a physician from Ch'eng shi m£n,

century (Wylie, Notes, p. 160), makes the following remark: "The fundamental
color of rhinoceros-horn is black. Is the color simultaneously black and yellow, the
horn is styled 'standard throughout' (ching t'ou). Is the horn yellow with black
borders, it is styled 'inverted throughout' (tao t'ou). The horns of standard color
are highly esteemed by our contemporaries. If the shape of the horn is round, it is
designated as 'horn communicating with the sky' {rung t'ien si). In the south, there
are counterfeits which may be recognized from gradually getting warm when rubbed.
In view of the fact that rhinoceros-horn by nature is cold, it does not become warm
when rubbed."

1 Su Sung makes the addition, "words difficult to distinguish." Po-ngan means
literally "white ngan" (No. 57), and hei-ngan "black ngan," — evidently transcrip-
tions of Pose words. Palladius, in his Chinese-Russian Dictionary (Vol. I, p. 7),
has indicated po-ngan ("ivory") and hei-ngan ("rhinoceros-horn") as Persian loan-
words. Ivory, however, is called in Persian shirmahl; and rhinoceros, as well as the
horn of it, kerkeden. It is true that Pose is the Chinese name for Persia, which first
appears in the Wei shu; but Persia is not meant in the above passage. P'ei wen yiin
fu (Ch. 8, p. 89 b) gives three quotations under the heading hei-ngan si. One from a
book Sheng shui yen Can says that the Pose call rhinoceros-horn hei-ngan; the refer-
ence to the name of ivory is omitted, so that the clause " it is difficult to discriminate "
makes no sense. The second is derived from the Leng chat ye hua of the monk Hui-
hung, written toward the close of the eleventh century (Wylie, Notes on Chinese
Literature, p. 164), and says that "the men of the south (nan j en) designate ivory as
po-ngan, rhinoceros-horn as hei-ngan." The third reference is taken from a poem of
Tu Fu (712-770), who remarks that hei-ngan is a general article of trade of the Alan.
These texts render it probable that the country of Pose here referred to is not Persia,
but identical with the Malayan region Pose mentioned by Chou K'u-fei in his
Ling-wai tai la, written in 11 78 (Ch. 3, p. 6 b; edition of Chi pu tsu chai ts'ung shu),
and then after him in the Chu fan chi, written in 1225 by Chao Ju-kua (translation
of Hirth and Rockhill, p. 125). The two authors seek it in or near the Malay
Peninsula, though Negritos are not necessarily to be understood: the mere state-
ment that the inhabitants have a dark complexion and curly hair is not sufficient to
warrant this conclusion. Gerini identifies the name Po-se with Lambesi below
Atjeh on the west coast of Sumatra, which seems somewhat hypothetical. Mr. C.
O. Blagden (Journal Royal As. Soc, 1913, p. 168) is inclined to regard Po-se as
identical with Pase (or Pasai) in north-eastern Sumatra, but adds that there is no
evidence that the place existed as early as 1 178. The above text shows that the Po-se
of the Chinese mediaeval writers were a Malayan tribe speaking a Malayan language,
for the two transcriptions po-ngan and hei-ngan can be interpreted through Malayan.
In the Hakka dialect, hei-ngan is het-am; and hltam is the Malayan word for "black"
(Javanese Ngoko hireng). Pei-ngan is in the Hakka dialect p'ak-am (compare Dic-
tionnaire chinois-francais dialecte Hac-ka by Ch. Rey), in Cantonese pak-om, in
Yang-chou puk-ya. In Javanese Krama "white" is petak, in Javanese Ngoko putih,
likewise in Batak, in common Malayan puteh. We should expect that the two
Malayan words, judging from the Chinese transcriptions, would terminate in the same
syllable, which caused misunderstandings on the part of Chinese dealers. There is
(or was) perhaps a certain Malayan dialect, in which the word for "white" ended in
-am, or in which the words for "white" and "black" terminated in -i or -ih (compare
Madagassy intim, inti, "black;" and puti, "white;" G. Ferrand, Essai de pho-
netique comp. du malais et des dialectes malgaches, pp. 24, 54, Paris, 1909). It is
evident that neither the Malayan words for "ivory" (gading, Javanese gading) and "rhi-
noceros-horn" (chula bddak or simply chula), nor the words for "elephant" (gdjah, Java-
nese gajah) and "rhinoceros" (badak, Javanese warak), are intended here, but only the
color names ' ' white ' ' and ' ' black, ' ' with which the traders distinguished ivory and rhi-

146 Chinese Clay Figures

while he served in the district of Nan-hai (in Kuang-tung) , had occasion
to meet there a captain who told him this story: 'The people of ray
country, intent on capturing a rhinoceros, proceed to erect on a mountain-
path many wooden structures like watch-houses or posts for tethering
animals. 1 As the front legs of the animal are straight, without joints,
it is in the habit of sleeping by leaning against a tree. The rotten timber
will suddenly break down, and the animal is unable to rise. 2 Another

noceros-horn. The Malayan word badak seems to cover the entire Malayan area where
the rhinoceros is found; it occurs on Borneo in the language of the Dayak (A. Harde-
land, Dajacksch-deutsches Worterbuch, p. 24, Amsterdam, 1859), and on Sumatra
(M. Joustra, Karo-Bataksch Woordenboek, p. 59, Leiden, 1907). Among the
Malayans, the rhinoceros-horn (chula) is supposed to be a powerful aphrodisiac; and
there is a belief in a species of "fiery" rhinoceros (badak api) which is excessively
dangerous when attacked (W. W. Skeat, Malay Magic, p. 150, London, 1900). The
horn is carefully preserved, as it is believed to be possessed of medicinal properties,
and is highly prized by the Malays, to whom the Semang generally barter it for to-
bacco and similar commodities (Skeat and Blagden, Pagan Races of the Malay
Peninsula, Vol. I, p. 203, London, 1906). There is nothing in these Malayan beliefs
showing that complex series of ideas, met with in China. They may be a weak echo
of Chinese notions conveyed by Chinese traders bartering among them for the horn.

1 Chti yi (Nos. 2974 and 13,205). I do not know but this may have to be taken as a
compound with a more specific technical meaning. The two Pin ts'ao have changed
this unusual term into "stables for swine or sheep." There is no doubt of what is
meant, — posts of rotten timber, which will easily break to pieces under the burden
of the animal leaning toward it.

2 This story has passed also into the Arabic account of the merchant-traveller
Soleiman, written in 851 a.d. (M. Reinaud, Relation des voyages faits par les Arabes
et les Persans dans l'lnde et a la Chine, Vol. I, p. 29, Paris, 1845): "The kerkeden
(rhinoceros) has no articulation in the knee, nor in the hand; from the foot up to the
armpit it is but one piece of flesh." In T'oung Pao (1913, pp. 361-4) the historical
importance of this tradition is pointed out by me inasmuch as this originally In-
dian story has migrated also to the West, where it leaks out in the Greek Physiologus
(only the rhinoceros is replaced by the elephant) , and in Caesar's and Pliny's stories
of the elk. I wish to make two additions to these remarks. Aelian (Nat. an., xvi,
20), describing the rhinoceros of India, called by him Kaprdfcows, asserts that its
feet have no joints and are grown together like the feet of the elephant (tovs iikv ir68as
h.5iap&pwTrovs re nal kfi<f>epels i\k<pavTi <Tv/j.ire<pvKkvai: ed. of F. JACOBS). This
passage, therefore, confirms my former conclusion that it was the rhinoceros which
was credited in India with jointless legs; but we see that the same notion was like-
wise attached to the elephant. It may be the case, accordingly, that the elephant
with jointless legs was borrowed by the Physiologus straight from India. Mr. W. W.
Rockhill (Diplomatic Audiences at the Court of China, p. 32, London, 1905) quotes
a statement made to him by T. Waiters on the kotow question with reference to
Lord Macartney's embassy, as follows: "It was an opinion universal, and was told
among the Chinese, that the Kuei-tse or foreigner was not built up like the jen [that
is, man] or Chinaman, and particularly that he had no joints in his legs. So that, if
the Kuei-tse was knocked down or otherwise put on the ground, he could not rise
again. It was because the Emperor did not want to have possibly a death or at any
rate an unseemly spectacle that he waived the kotow." Compare also Rubruck's
story of "the creatures who have in all respects human forms, except that their
knees do not bend, so that they get along by some kind of jumping motion " (W. W.
Rockhill, The Journey of William of Rubruck, p. 199, London, 1900). The fabulous
notion of the jointless legs of the rhinoceros may have arisen from the observation
that the animal is indeed in the habit of sleeping in a standing position. Says E.
Heller (The White Rhinoceros, p. 41), "The hot hours of the day are spent by the
white rhinoceros sleeping in the shade of the scattered clumps of trees or bushes which
dot the grassy veldt. They seem to rest indifferently, either lying down or standing

History of the Rhinoceros 147

name for the rhinoceros is nu kio. There is also the chen ch'u, which is
presumably a rhinoceros. The rhinoceros has three hairs growing out of
each pore. 1 Liu Hiao-Piao asserts that the rhinoceros sheds its horn
and buries it, and that people exchange it for a counterfeit horn."

The story alluded to in the latter clause is better worded in the
Pen ts'ao, which says, "It is told also that the rhinoceros sheds its horn
every year, and itself buries it in the mountains. The people near the
sea, with all secrecy, make wooden horns, and exchange these for the
real ones, and so they go ahead continually. If they would go to work
openly, the animal would conceal its horns in another place and defy
any search." 2

Li Sim, who wrote an account of the drugs of southern countries
(Hai yao pen ts'ao) in the second half of the eighth century, expresses
himself in these words : "The rhinoceros ' communicating with the sky,'
during the time of pregnancy, beholds the forms of things 3 passing
across the sky, and these are reproduced in the horn of the embryo:
hence the designation ' communicating with the sky.' 4 When the horn,
placed in a water-basin during a moonlight night, reflects the brilliancy
of the moon, it is manifest that it is a genuine horn 'communicating
with the sky.' The Wu k'i ki 5 says, 'The mountain-rhinoceros lives
on bamboo and trees. Its urinating is not completed in the course of a
day. The I Liao 6 get hold of it by means of bow and arrow. This is

up with lowered head. When at rest they stand with their noses almost touching the
ground, their heads being elevated to a horizontal position only when alarmed."

1 The same is said in the Pen ts'ao in regard to the seal (compare G. Schlegel,
T'oung Pao, Vol. Ill, 1892, p. 508). Compare p. 140.

2 In the text of the Cheng lei pen ts'ao, Su Sung terminates, " I do not know wheth-
er at present they take horns in this manner or not." Compare the account of Ko
Hung, p. 139.

3 The Cheng lei pen ts'ao reads "the destiny of things" (wu ming) instead of
"forms of things" (wu king).

4 In the notes embodied in the Pin ts'ao regarding the elephant (Ch. 51 a, p. 4)
it is said that the patterns in the horn are formed while the rhinoceros gazes at the
moon, and that the designs spring forth in the tusks of the elephant while the animal
hears the thunder. A work Wu teng hui yuan, as quoted in P'ei wen yilnju (Ch. 21,
p. 113 b), similarly says that the rhinoceros, while enjoying the moonlight, produces
the designs in its horn, and that the floral decorations enter the tusks of the elephant
when it has been frightened by thunder. These passages prove that it is material
heaven to whose influence the formation of the natural veins in horn and tusk is
ascribed. The rhinoceros gazing at the moon is represented in T'u shu tsi ch'eng
(Fig. 10).

6 A work listed in the T'ai p'ing yii Ian as being published in 983; but, as it is
quoted here by Li Sun, it must have existed in or before the eighth century.

6 An aboriginal tribe belonging to the stock of the Man, according to T'ang shu
(Ch. 43 A, p. 6 b) settled in Ku chou (Playfair, No. 3256) in the province of Kuei-
chou. Compare p. 82 in regard to the possibility of killing a rhinoceros with arrows.

148 Chinese Clay Figures

the so-called rhinoceros of K'ien.' l The / to chi 2 says, 'In the sea-
water of Shan-tung there is a bull that delights in the sounds of string and
wind instruments. When the people make music, this bull leaves the
water to listen to it, and at that moment they capture it.' 3 The rhino-
ceros has a horn on its nose, and another on the crown of its head. The
nose-horn is the one best esteemed. The natural histories (pen ts'ao)
are acquainted only with the mountain -rhinoceros. I have not yet seen
the water-rhinoceros." 4

K'ou Tsung-shi, a celebrated physician of the Sung period, reports in
his Pen ts'ao yen i (completed in 1 1 16) 5 thus: "The designs in the horns
of the river-rhinoceros and the southern rhinoceros are fine. The
black rhinoceros-horn has designs clearly displayed, while the yellow
rhinoceros-horn has very sparse designs. None equals the patterns in
the horn of the Tibetan breed, which are high, and come out clearly at
both ends. 6 If the forms of objects pictured in the horn are yellow, while
the rest is black, the horn is 'standard color throughout' (cheng t'ou).
If the forms of objects are black, while the rest is yellow, the horn is
'inverted throughout' (tao fou). If the black color is taken as stand-
ard, and the forms of the design are imitative of real objects, the horn is
a treasure; this horn is styled t'ung si ('penetrating rhinoceros'). It
is an indispensable condition that the patterns come out clearly, and
that the yellow and black be sharply differentiated. If both ends are
moist and smooth, the horn is of the first quality." 7

1 The territory of the province of Kuei-chou, where the rhinoceros formerly
occurred, as already attested by Su Sung (above, p. 140).

2 Several works of this title were in existence (see Bretschneider, Bot. Sin.,
pt. 1, p. 154).

3 The animal in question is certainly not a rhinoceros, and has crept in here by
way of wrong analogy. In his notes on cattle, Li Shi-chen mentions a variety "ma-
rine ox" (hai niu, Ch. 51 A, p. 7 a). This creature is described after the Ts'i ti ki by
Fu Ch'en of the fifth century or earlier (Bretschneider, Bot. Sin., pt. 1, p. 201) as
follows: "Its habitat is around the islands in the sea near Teng-chou fu (in Shan-
tung); in shape it resembles an ox, it has the feet of an alligator (t'o No. 11,397, not
iguana, as Giles still translates, despite the correction of E. v. Zach, China Review,
Vol. XXIV, 1900, p. 197), and the hair of a bull-head fish. Its skin is soft, and can
be turned to manifold purposes; its blubber is good to burn in lamps." The marine
ox, accordingly, must be an aquatic mammal of the suborder of Pinnipedia (seals).
There may be a grain of truth in the above story : the intelligence of seals is remark-
able, they are easily tamed and susceptible to music. There is an interesting chapter
on tamed seals in the classical treatise of K. E. v. Baer, Anatomische und zoologische
Untersuchungen uber das Wallross {Memoir es de I' Acad. imp. des sciences de St.
Peter sbourg, 6th series, Vol. IV, 1838, pp. 150-159).

4 The last clause is not in the text of Chhig lei pin ts'ao.

6 Pelliot (Bulletin de I' Ecole francaise d' Extreme-Orient, Vol. IX, 1909, p. 217).

6 The rhinoceros of Tibet has been discussed above, p. 116.

7 The Arabic authors assert that the interior of the Indian rhinoceros-horn fre-
quently presents designs of a human figure, a peacock, or fish, and that the price paid
in China is raised according to the beauty of these designs (M. Reinaud, Relation

History of the Rhinoceros 149

Li Shi-chen himself, the author of the Pen ts'ao kang mu, sums up as
follows: "The habitat of the rhinoceros is in the regions of the Si Fan, 1
the southern Tibetan tribes (Nan Fan), the southern portions of Yun-
nan, and in Kiao-chou, and occurs there everywhere. There are three
species, — the mountain-rhinoceros, the water-rhinoceros, and the se si.
There is, further, a hairy rhinoceros resembling the mountain-rhinoceros,
and living in hilly forests; great numbers of it are captured by men.
The water-rhinoceros makes its permanent abode in water, and is there-
fore very difficult to capture. It has, in all, two horns. The horn
on its nose is long, that on its forehead is short. The skin of the water-
rhinoceros has a pearl-like armor, 2 but not so the mountain-rhinoceros.

des voyages faits par les Arabes, Vol. I, p. 29). Reinaud (Vol. II, pp. 68, 69) com-
ments on this point that the Chinese are satisfied to compare the designs with flowers
and millet-seeds, and do not discover in them half of the things which the Arabs saw
in them. It seems to me that the Arabs, in this case, merely reproduce the ideas of the
Chinese. The philosophy of these designs was fully developed in the T'ang period.
K'ou Tsung-shi speaks of real objects visible in the horn; and Wang P'i-chi, in his
Sheng shui yen Van lu (p. 135), offers an elaborate contribution to this question. Ac-
cording to him, "the designs in the horn from Kiao-chi are like hemp-seeds, the horn
being dry, a bit warm, and glossy; the horn imported on ships and coming from the
Arabs has patterns like chu yii flowers [this name applies to three different plants:
Bretschneider, Bot. Sin., pt. 2, No. 498], is glossy and brilliant with colors, some
resembling dog-noses, as if they were glossed with fat; others with floral designs
and strange objects, these horns being styled t'ung t'ien si; some like sun and stars,
others like clouds and moon; some like the corolla of a flower, some like scenery;
some have birds and mammals, others dragons and fishes; some have deities, others
palaces; and there are even costume and cap, eyes and eyebrows, staff and footgear
[conveying the illusion of the picture of a wanderer], beasts, birds, and fishes. When
the horn is completed into a carving, as if it were a veritable picture, it is highly
esteemed by the people. The prices are fluctuating, and it is unknown how they
are conditioned." There is assuredly an inward relation between the statements of
this account and the Arabic texts of Damiri quoted by Reinaud (Vol. II, p. 69).
It is hardly necessary to insist on the chronological point that Damiri (1344-1405)
wrote his zoological dictionary Haydt el-haiwdn (C. Huart, Literature arabe,
p. 365, Paris, 1902) several centuries after Wang P'i-chi (end of eleventh century).
From a psychological point of view, the dependence of the Arabs in this matter on the
philosophy of the Chinese is self-evident. Neither the classical world nor ancient
India has developed any similar thoughts; and this subject is decidedly Chinese, with
a strong Taoist flavor of nature sentiment. It must not be overlooked, either, that
al-Beru.ni (Sachau, Alberuni's India, Vol. I, p. 204) merely states that "the shaft of
the horn is black inside, and white everywhere else," and that he is entirely reticent
about figures in the horn. The Arabs interested in the trade of the horn to China
imbibed this lesson, and propagated it themselves in catering to the taste of their
customers. The question is whether, in the interest of the business, they did not help
nature by art, and may have produced several of the more fanciful designs artificially.
This, however, is no matter of great concern; and the fact remains that bristly fibres
of various tinges compose the horn, and result in a natural play of design anH color
which is apt to arouse the imaginative power of a susceptible mind.

1 Western Tibetan tribes; from our standpoint, eastern Tibetans.

2 I take this to be identical with what our zoologists say in regard to the skin of
the Asiatic species, which "has the appearance of a rigid armor studded with tuber-
cles." The whole skin of the Javan species, as already remarked by B. Cuvier
(The Animal Kingdom, Vol. I, p. 157, London, 1834), is covered with small compact
angular tubercles. Joannes Raius (Synopsis methodica animalium quadrupedum,
p. 122, Londini, 1693) describes the skin of the rhinoceros thus: "Auriculae porcinae,

150 Chinese Clay Figures

The se si is the female of the rhinoceros which is termed also 'sand-
rhinoceros.' It has but a single horn on the crown of the head. The
natural designs of the horn are smooth, white, and clearly differentiated,
but it is useless as medicine, for the patterns on the horn of the male are
big, those on the horn of the female too fine. In the beginning of the
period Hung-wu (1368-1398) Kiu-chen 1 sent one as tribute, which was
called one-horned (monoceros) rhinoceros. The view of Ch'en Ts'ang-
k'i that there are not the two kinds of land and water animals, the view
of Kuo P'o that the rhinoceros has three horns, and the view of Su Sung
that the hairy rhinoceros is the male rhinoceros, are all erroneous.
The term 'hairy rhinoceros' is at present applied to the yak. 2 The
designs of the rhinoceros-horn are like fish -roe. On account of their
shape they are styled 'grain patterns.' 3 Inside of the latter there are
eyes, styled 'grain eyes.' If yellow decorations rise from a black back-
ground, the horn is 'standard throughout.' If black decorations rise
from a yellow background, the horn is 'inverted throughout.' If
within the decorations there are again other decorations, the horn is
'double throughout.' The general designation for these is Vung si,
and they are of the highest grade. If the decorations are spotted, as it
were, with pepper and beans, the horns are middle grade. The horn of
the black rhinoceros, which is of a uniform black color and devoid of
decorations, is the lowest grade. 4 If the horn of the rhinoceros 'com-
municating with the sky ' emits light, so that it can be seen at night, it is

molli et tenui cute vestitae; reliquum corpus dura admodum et crassa, velut squamis
quibusdam crustaceis rotundis aspera." This is the reason why in some Chinese and
early European sketches the animal is covered with scales (see Figs. 3 and 11, and
Plate IX).

1 Playfair, No. 1295 (1278): in Annam (compare above, p. 81).

2 Li Shi-chen refers to the notes on this subject contained in the same chapter.
This remark renders it plain that it was the notion of "rhinoceros" which was trans-
ferred in recent times to the yak, and that the development was not in the reverse
order, as assumed by Professor Giles.

3 This and the following sentences, commenting on the natural designs of the
horn, have been translated by S. Julien (in M. Reinaud, Relation des voyages faits
par les Arabes, Vol. II, p. 68).

4 In the Memoirs on the Customs of Cambodja by Chou Ta-kuan of the Yuan
period, translated by P. Pelliot {Bulletin de I'Ecole francaise d' Extreme-Orient, Vol. II,
1902, p. 167), it is said that the white and veined rhinoceros-horn is the most es-
teemed kind, and that the inferior quality is black. The List of Medicines exported
from Hankow, published by the Imperial Maritime Customs (p. 15, Shanghai, 1888),
is therefore wrong in stating that the black and pointed horns are considered the best.
A valuation for the horn is not given there. According to a report of Consul-General
G. E. Anderson of Hongkong {Daily Consular and Trade Reports, 1913, p. 1356),
rhinoceros-horns are imported into Hongkong to some extent, the price ranging from
$360 to $460 per picul, or from about $1.30 to $1.65 gold per pound; they are largely
of African production, and imported from Bombay. According to L. de Reinach
(Le Laos, Paris, no date, p. 271), rhinoceros-horns have in the territory of the Laos
a market- value of 1 1 1-137 fr. the kilo, and rhinoceros-skins 60-70 fr. a hundred kilo.

History of the Rhinoceros 151

called 'horn shining at night' (ye ming si): 1 hence it can communicate
with the spirits, and open a way through the water. Birds and mammals
are frightened at seeing it. The Shan hai king speaks of white rhino-
ceroses. 2

1 This idea may have been borrowed from the precious stones believed to shine
at night (Hirth, China and the Roman Orient, pp. 242-244; Chavannes, Les pays
d'occident d'apres le Heou Han Chou, T'oung Pao, 1907, p. 181). Jade disks shining
at night (ye kuang pi) are mentioned in Shi ki (Ch. 87, p. 2 b). The note of Li Shi-
chen is doubtless suggested by the following passage of the Tu yang tsa pien, written
by Su Ngo in the latter part of the ninth century (Wylie, Notes on Chin. Lit.,
p. 194; ed. of Pai hai, Ch. B, p. 9, or P'eiwin yiinfu, Ch. 8, p. 87b): "In the first year
of the period Pao-li (825 a.d.) of the Emperor King-tsung of the T'ang dynasty, the
country of Nan-ch'ang [in Kiang-si; Playfair, No. 4562] offered to the Court a rhi-
noceros-horn shining at night (ye ming si). In shape it was like the 'horn com-
municating with the sky.' At night it emitted light, so that a space of a hundred
paces was illuminated. Manifold silk wrappers laid around it could not hide its
luminous power. The Emperor ordered it to be cut into slices, and worked up into
a girdle; and whenever he went out on a hunting-expedition, he saved candle-light
at night." We even hear of a luminous pillow (ye ming chin) lighting an entire room
at night ( Yiin sien tsa shi, Ch. 6, p. 3 b, in T'ang Sung ts'ung shu, which quotes from
K'ai-yuan T'ien-pao i shi). The story of Tu yang tsa pien may be connected with the
curious tradition regarding Wen K'iao (Tsin shu, Ch. 67, p. 5), who by the alleged
light emitted from a rhinoceros-horn beheld the supernatural monsters in the water
(see Petillon, Allusions littgraires, p. 227; S. Lockhart, A Manual of Chinese
Quotations, p. 280; and Giles, Dictionary, p. 794 b, — who translate 'to light a rhi-
noceros-horn, ' which is not possible, as in this case the horn would burn down ; the horn
was shining through its alleged own light). An illustration of this scene by Ting Yun-
p'eng is published in Ch'eng shi mo yuan and Fang shi mo p'u. The notion that the
rhinoceros-horn is luminous at night, and is therefore styled "shining or bright horn"
(ming si, or kuang ming si), and also "shadow horn" (ying si), is found in Tung ming ki
(Wu-ch'ang print, Ch. 2, p. 2), embodied in a fabulous report on a country Fei-lo, said
to be nine thousand li from Ch'ang-ngan in Indo-China (Ji-nan). This work relating
to the time of the Han Emperor Wu, though purported to have been written by Kuo
Hien of the Han, is one of the many spurious productions of the Leu-ch'ao period
(fourth or fifth century), and teeming with anachronisms and gross inventions; some
accounts in it are interesting, but devoid of historical value (see Wylie, Notes,
p. 191). The assertion there'made,that the inhabitants of Fei-lo drive in carriages drawn
by rhinoceros and elephant, is very suspicious ; but the report that the horns sent from
there were plaited into a mat, the designs of which had the appearance of reticulated
silk brocade, is probably not fictitious; for this is confirmed by a passage of the
T'ang Annals (Chapter wu king chi, quoted in T'u shu tsi ch'Sng), according to which
a certain Chang Yi-chi had a mat made for his mother from rhinoceros-horn. Since
the latter (the designation "horn," from a scientific standpoint, is a misnomer) is
composed of agglutinated hair or bristles, it is possible to dissolve a horn into thread-
like fibres; and the possibility of a technique employing these for the plaiting of mats
must be admitted.

2 According to the more precise wording of the passage, as quoted in P'ei win
yiin fu (Ch. 8, p. 88 a), the white rhinoceros occurs in the mountains of Kin-ku,
inhabited by large numbers of other wild animals, also hogs and deer. The Shan hai
king is an apocryphal work teeming with fables, and has little value for scientific
purposes. The P'ei win yiin fu, further, quotes the Tung kuan Han ki (completed
about 170 a.d.; Bretschneider, Bot. Sin., pt. 1, No. 990) to the effect that in the
first year of the period Yiian-ho (84 a.d.) of the Emperor Chang of the Han dynasty
the country Ji-nan (Tonking) offered to the Court a white pheasant and a white rhi-
noceros. But this text, unreservedly accepted by Hirth (Das weisse Rhinoceros, T'oung
Pao, Vol. V, 1894, p. 392), must be taken with some caution, as it is identical with,
and apparently derived from, the passage in Hou Han shu (Ch. 1 16, p. 3 b), according
to which, in the first year of the period Yiian-ho (84 a.d.), the Man I beyond the
boundary of Ji-nan offered to the Court a live rhinoceros and a white pheasant. The

152 Chinese Clay Figures

"The work K'ai-yiian i shi l mentions the ' cold-dispelling' rhinoceros-
horn {pi han si), whose color is golden, and which was sent as tribute by
Tonking {Kiao-chi) } During the winter months it spreads warmth,
which imparts a genial feeling to man. The Po k'ung leu Vie 3 speaks
of the 'heat-dispelling' rhinoceros-horn {pi shu si) obtained by the
Emperor Wen-tsung (827-840 a.d.) of the T'ang dynasty. 4 During
the summer months it can cool off the hot temperature. The Ling
piao lu i b records the horn of the 'dust-dispelling' rhinoceros {pi ch'en
si), from which hairpins, combs, and girdle-plaques are made, with the
effect that dust keeps aloof from the body. The Tu yang tsa pien 6

text of the official Annals is decisive, and it is easy to see that the word "live" could
have been altered into ' ' white ' ' by the suggestion of the white pheasant. The T'ang
leu tien, a description of the administrative organization of the period K'ai-yuan
(713-741) of the T'ang dynasty, ascribed to the Emperor Yuan-tsung (compare
Pelliot, Bulletin de I'Ecole francaise d' Extreme-Orient, Vol. Ill, 1903, p. 668), says
that "the white rhinoceros {pai se) is an auspicious omen of the first order" {shang
jui; quoted in Yen kien lei han, Ch. 410, p. 17 b). But as most of the creatures
appearing in the category of such "auspicious omens" are imaginary, it is more than
probable that this white rhinoceros owes its existence to pure fancy. The white
rhinoceros, therefore, does not rest on good evidence; and I am not convinced that
the Chinese were ever acquainted with such a variety. Moreover, the so-called White
or Square-nosed Rhinoceros {Rhinoceros simus cottoni) has not yet been traced in
Asia, but is restricted to Africa. It is described and illustrated by A. Newton
{Proceedings of the Zoological Soc. of London, Vol. I, 1903, pp. 222-224; see ibid.,
Vol. II, 1903, p. 194), R. Lydekker (The Game Animals of Africa, p. 38, London, 1908),
and E. L. Trouessart (Le Rhinoceros blanc du Soudan, Proceedings etc., 1909,
pp. 198-200, 3 plates). A fine monograph is devoted to it by E. Heller, The White
Rhinoceros {Smithsonian Misc. Collections, Vol. 61, No. 1, Washington, 1913, 31
plates), embodying the results of Colonel Roosevelt's African expedition. As to the
"white" color, Mr. Heller observes, "The skins cannot under the most lenient cir-
cumstances be classed as white. They are, however, distinctly lighter than those of
the black species, and may on this account be allowed to retain their popular designa-
tion of white. Their true color is smoke gray of Ridgway, a color conspicuously lighter
than the dark clove-brown of their geographical ally, Dicer os bicornis."

1 Matters omitted in the Annals of the Reign of K'ai-yiian (713-742) by Wang
Jen-yu, written during the Wu-tai period (907-960); see Bretschneider, Bot. Sin.,
pt. 1, p. 156.

2 The text is quoted in P'ei whi yiinfu (Ch. 8, p. 87 b) as follows: "The country
of Tonking sent a rhinoceros-horn of golden color, which was placed in a golden pan
in a hall of the palace; the warmth caused by it was felt by every one; the envoy said
that it was the cold-dispelling rhinoceros-horn."

3 The complete title runs T'ang Sung Po k'ung leu t'ie; it is a cyclopaedia in 100
chapters arranged according to subject-matters dealing with affairs of the T'ang and
Sung periods (Ming edition in John Crerar Library, No. 786, in 96 vols.).

4 The exact text is given in P'ei wen yiln fu. A sceptre of auspicious augury
{Ju i), made from a "heat-dispelling horn" in the possession of the same emperor, is
mentioned in Tu yang tsa pien (Ch. B, p. 12; see note 6). Another Ju i of ordinary
rhinoceros-horn is spoken of in Yiin sien tsa shi (Ch. 3, p. 5 b; ed. of T'ang Sung
ts'ung shu).

5 See p. 142.

6 An account of rare and curious objects brought to China from foreign countries
from 763 to 872, by Su Ngo in the latter part of the ninth century (Bretschneider,
/. c, p. 204; Wylie, Notes on Chin. Lit., p. 194). According to the passage in the
original text (ed. of Pai hai, Ch. c, p. 9 b), this girdle was in the possession of the

History of the Rhinoceros 153

refers to the 'wrath-removing' rhinoceros-horn (kuan, No. 3141,/ew si),
from which girdles are made, causing men to abandon their anger;
these are scarce and veritable treasures."

These extracts, ranging from the fifth to the sixteenth century, leave
no doubt that during this interval the two words se and si invariably
referred to the rhinoceros, that the two species of the single-horned and
two-horned animal were recognized, that their geographical distribution
was perfectly and correctly known, 1 and that the main characteristics
of the animal were seized upon. Among these, the horn naturally
attracted widest attention, and in most cases was the only part of the
animal that came within the experience of the writers. The wondrous
lore surrounding the horn, the supernatural qualities attributed to it,
led also to fabulous stories regarding the animal itself, which in the midst
of impenetrable forests was seldom exposed to the eye of an observer.
A lengthy dissertation on the healing properties of the horn, and on its
utilization in prescriptions, is added in the Pen ts'ao hang mu; but this
matter has no direct relation to our subject. 2

Princess T'ung-ch'ang, and consisted of small balls turned from horn, as shown by
the description that they were round like the clay pellets used in shooting with the
bow tan (No. 10,603). These bows, a combination of a sling with a bow, are still
turned out in Peking, and used in slaying birds, to prevent the plumage from being
damaged. In India they are known as goolail (Yule and Burnell, Hobson-Jobson,
p. 386), and are chiefly employed for exterminating crows, being capable of inflicting
severe injuries. Every ethnologist is familiar with these sling-bows or pellet-bows,
as they are called, and with the difficult problem presented by their geographical dis-
tribution over India, south-eastern Asia, and in the valley of the Amazon in South
America (compare G. Antze, in Jahrbuch des Museums ftir Volkerkunde zu Leipzig,
Vol. Ill, 1908, pp. 79-95; and W. Hough, Am. Anthr., 1912, p. 42). It is further
added in the Tu yang, that this horn, when placed in the ground, does not rot, — a
notion presumably originated by occasional finds of fossil horns or those acciden-
tally shed by the animal.

1 The case is certainly such that the zoologist, as in so many other cases, is obliged
to learn from the historian in regard to the distribution of animals in former periods
of history. Our zoogeographers trace the area of the two-horned rhinoceros to Suma-
tra, Borneo, Siam, and the Malay Peninsula, and from there extending northward
through Burma and Tenasserim to Chittagong and Assam. Our investigation has
taught us that it covered in ancient times a much wider geographical zone, including
Cambodja, Annam, and southern China, in particular Kuei-chou, Hu-nan, Yun-nan,
and Sze-ch'uan.

2 The theory of Ko Hung or Pao-p'u-tse of the fourth century, as shown above
(p. 139), is that the horn can neutralize poison, because the animal devours all sorts
of vegetable poisons with its food. Li Shi-chen states that the horn is non-poisonous,
and is forestalled in this opinion by T'ang Shen-wei. Shavings of the horn, the decoc-
tion of which is taken in fever, small-pox, ophthalmia, etc., are still to be had in all
Chinese drug-stores. A specimen obtained by me at Hankow was said to come from
Tibet. According to S. W. Williams (The Chinese Commercial Guide, p. 95, Hong-
kong, 1863), a decoction of the horn shavings is given to women just before parturi-
tion and also to frightened children. As stated by the same author, the skin of
the animal is likewise employed in medicine. It is made into a jelly which is highly
esteemed, and the same is done with the feet (Soubeiran and Thiersant, La ma-
tiere m£dicale chez les Chinois, p. 47, Paris, 1874). This practice presumably
originated in Siam. Monseigneur Pallegoix (Description du royaume Thai ou

154 Chinese Clay Figures

The word se is presumably the older of the two, as the ancient
Chinese seem to have been first acquainted with this species, while it
was still alive in their country; at a somewhat later time, which, how-
ever, still ranged in a prehistoric period, they became familiar with the
two-horned si. This theory would account for the statement of Li
Shi-chen that the ancients were fond of saying se, while later on people
inclined toward the word si; and that in the north (the ancient habitat
of the se) the word se prevailed, in the south the word si. This came about

Siam, Vol. I, p. 156) reports the following: "On attribue beaucoup de vertus a sa
come, et (chose singuliere!) sa peau, quelque 6paisse et coriace qu' elle soit, est re-
garded comme un mets delicat et fortifiant pour les personnes faibles. On grille
d'abord la peau, on la ratisse, on la coupe en morceaux et on la fait bouillir avec des
Apices assez longtemps pour la convertir en matiere gelatineuse et transparente.
J'en ai mange 1 plusieurs fois avec plaisir, et je pense qu'on pourrait appliquer avec
succes le meme proc^de" aux peaux de quelques autres animaux." The skin, as well
as the horn, the blood, and the teeth, were medicinally employed in Cambodja,
notably against heart-diseases (A. Cabaton, Breve et veridique relation des 6v6ne-
ments du Cambodge par Gabriel Quiroga de San Antonio, p. 94, Paris, 1914). In
Japan rhinoceros-horn is powdered and used as a specific in fever cases of all kinds
(E. W. Clement, Japanese Medical Folk-lore, Transactions As. Soc. of Japan,
Vol. XXXV, 1907, p. 20). Ko Hung of the fourth century, as we observed, is the very
first Chinese author to develop the theory of the horn as to its ability to detect poison,
and as an efficient antidote against poison. He also reasons his theory out, and sup-
ports it with arguments of natural philosophy breathing a decidedly Taoist spirit.
Nothing appears in his account that would necessitate a cogent conclusion as to his
dependence on Indian thought. Indian-Buddhist influence on the Taoism of that
period certainly is within the reach of possibility, but like everything else, remains
to be proved; and for the time being I can only side with Pelliot (Journal asiatique,
1912, Juillet-Aout, p. 149) when he remarks to L. Wieger, " Ici non plus, je ne nie pas
la possibility de semblable influence, mais j'estime qu'il faut etre tres prudent." If a
Buddhist text translated from Sanskrit into Chinese in or before the age of Ko Hung,
and containing a distinct reference to this matter, can be pointed out, I am willing to
concede that Ko Hung is indebted to an Indian source; if such evidence should fail to
be forthcoming, it will be perfectly sound to adhere to the opinion that Ko Hung's
idea is spontaneous, and the expression of general popular lore obtaining at his time;
and there is no valid reason why it should not be. No ancient Sanskrit text containing
similar or any other notions concerning this subject has as yet come to the fore; and
the evidence in favor of Indian priority is restricted to the slender thread of Ctesias'
account (p. 97), which is insufficient and inconclusive. The light-minded manner
with which Bushell (Chinese Art, Vol. I, p. 119) dealt in the matter (as if the lore
of the horn and the horn itself had only been a foreign import in China!) must be posi-
tively rejected. Bretschneider (above, p. 75) no doubt was a saner judge. Neither
in ancient India nor in the classical world do we find any trace of such beliefs as those
expounded by Ko Hung and his successors, nor a particle of all that Chinese natural
philosophy of the horn. Aelian merely reiterates Ctesias; Juvenal (vii, 130)
mentions an oil-bottle carved from the horn; the Periplus Maris Erythraei (ed. Fabri-
Cius, pp. 40, 44, 56) refers to the export of the horn from African ports only, not from
India. The Cyranides (F. de Mely, Les lapidaires grecs, p. 90) are ignorant of the
poison-revealing character of the horn. But for Ctesias, we should be compelled to
admit that this belief originated in China and spread thence to India. At any rate,
the report of Ctesias stands isolated in the ancient world ; the untrustworthy charac-
ter of this author is too well known to be insisted upon, and it would be preposterous
to build a far-reaching conclusion on any of his statements which cannot be checked
by other sources. His text is handed down in poor condition, and as late as by
Photius, patriarch of Byzance (820-891), so that I am rather inclined to regard the
incriminated passage as an interpolation of uncertain date. The belief in rhinoceros-
horn being an efficient antidote against poison prevailed in Europe until recent times.

History of the Rhinoceros 155

naturally, as the south bordered on Indo-China, where the two-horned
species abounded, and a lively trade in its horn was carried on at all
times. Hence in the primeval period represented by the songs of the
Shi king the rhinoceros is styled se.

The philological students of China will certainly feel somewhat un-
easy at the thought that an animal like the rhinoceros should have been
within the vision of the early Chinese. We are all wont to look at

It seems to have received a fresh impetus from India in the sixteenth century. The
Portuguese physician Garcia Ab Horto (Aromatum et Simplicium aliquot, p. 66,
Antverpiae, 1567; or Due libri dell' historia dei semplici, aromati, et altre cose che
vengono portate dall' Indie Orientali pertinenti all' uso della medicina, p. 58, Venetia,
1582) first reports from personal experience that rhinoceros-horn is employed in
Bengal as an antipoisonous remedy, and goes on to tell that this is a fact established
by experiments ; his story is that of two poisoned dogs — the one who had swallowed
double the dose was cured after taking in water a powder prepared from the horn,
while the other dog, who had been given but a small quantity of poison and did not
receive the remedy of the horn, was doomed to death. Doctor Nicolo Monardes,
physician in Sevilla (Delle cose che vengono portate dall' Indie occidentali pertinenti
all' uso della medicina, p. 72, Venetia, 1582), has the following account: "L' Unicorno
vero e cosa di maggiore effetto, che habbiamo veduto, e nella quale si trova maggiore
esperienza; del quale poco si scrive. Solo Philostrato nella vita di Apollonio dice,
essere contra il veneno; il que ampliarono molto i Moderni. Bisogna, che sia del vero;
perche ne sono molti di falsi, e finti. Io vidi in questa citta un Vinitiano, che ne port6
un pezzo molto grande, e ne dimandava cinquecento scudi ; delquale f ece in mia pre-
senza la esperienza. Prese un filo, e lo unse molto bene con Elleboro, e lo passo per le
creste di due polli; all' uno de'quali diede un poco di Unicorno raso in un poco di
acqua comune; e all' altro non diede cosa alcuna. Questo mori tra un quarto di hora;
l'altro che prese l'Unicorno duro due giorni, senza voler mangiare, e alia fine di due
giorni moii, secco come un legno. Credo io, che se si desse ad huomo, che non mor-
rebbe; perche tiene le vie piu aperte da potere scacciare da se il veneno; e gli si pub
ancho fare de gli altri rimedij, col mezzo de' quali, e coll' Unicorno potrebbe liberarsi.
Di tutte queste Medicine compongo io una polvere, che cosi per qualita manifeste,
come per proprietadi occulte ha gran virtu, e e di grande efficacia contra tutti i veneni,
e contra le febbri Pestilentiali, 6 che habbiano mala qualita; 6 cagione venenosa."
Then he describes the composition of this remedy. This European doctor was a
contemporary of Li Shi-chen. Who, after reading the confession of his firm belief
in the virtues of rhinoceros-horn, will blame the Chinese physicist? In the court
ceremonial of France as late as 1789, instruments of unicorn-horn are said to have
been employed for testing the royal food for poison. — Chinese lore of the rhinoceros
is based on actual observation and speculation built thereon. Not only, as previously
pointed out, are the observations of the Chinese in this line more complete, but even
more accurate, than those of the classical peoples. In fact, the Chinese adopted noth-
ing from the latter as to their notions of the animal. It is of especial interest that the
fantastic belief of the ancients in the mobility of the horn is entirely absent in China.
Pliny (Nat. hist., vm, 21, §73; ed. Mayhoff, Vol. II, p. 103) observes in regard to
the an:mal eale, which has been regarded by some authors as the two-horned rhi-
noceros, " It has movable horns several cubits long, which it can alternately raise in a
combat and turn straightforward or obliquely, according to opportunity" (maiora
cubitalibus cornua habens mobilia, quae alterna in pugna sistit variatque infesta aut
obliqua, utcumque ratio monstravit). The mobility of the horn is insisted on by
Cosmas: "When it is wandering about, the horns are mobile; but when it sees any-
thing which excites its rage, it stiffens them, and they become so rigid that they are
strong enough to tear up even trees with the roots — those especially which come
in the way of the front horn" (McCrindle, Ancient India, p. 156). In a similar
manner al-Beruni (Sachau, Alberuni's India, Vol. I, p. 204) says about the African
rhinoceros that its second and longer horn becomes erect as soon as the animal wants
to ram with it.

156 Chinese Clay Figures

things in the dim candle-light of school traditions, and to think of the
rhinoceros as an exclusively southern, tropical animal; but the fact
remains that it is not, any more than the tiger, whose original home
doubtless was on the Amur, and who is a comparatively recent intruder
into Bengal. Climatic conditions and natural surroundings were dif-
ferent in ancient China from what they are at present ; and the hills were
still crowned by dense forests which were haunted by colossal pachy-
derms, like the elephant, the tapir, and the rhinoceros. 1

The historical fact that the rhinoceros was a living contemporary of
the ancient Chinese is fully confirmed by the investigations and results
of palaeontology. As early as 1871, F. Porter Smith 2 stated, "The
teeth of the extinct rhinoceros of China, met with in the caves of Sze-
ch'uan, are sold as dragon's teeth." Specimens of teeth in the posses-
sion of the naturalist D. Hanbury, obtained in Shen-si or Shan-si, were
examined by Waterhouse of the British Museum, and referred to
Rhinoceros tichorhinus Cuv., Mastodon, Elephas, Equus, and two Hip-
pother ia. 3

Armand David discovered at Siian-hua fu, north-west of Peking,
Chili Province, bones from the extremities of a mammal and a nasal
bone fragment, which were sent to Paris and determined by Gaudry 4
as belonging to Rhinoceros antiquitatis ; and in 1903 M. Schlosser 6
was able to show that this species had once been distributed as far south
as the Yang-tse.

The famous naturalist A. R. Wallace 6 wrote in 1876 that in northern

1 The alligator is now extinct in the Yang-tse, but has risen to life again in the
ancient bone carvings of Ho-nan, and is represented in several excellent specimens
in the Field Museum obtained with many others from the late F. H. Chalfant.

2 Contributions towards the Mat. Med. of China, p. 185. Not all "dragon-teeth"
(lung ch'i), however, originate from the rhinoceros. A number of these gathered by
me in a drug-store of Hankow and now in the American Museum of New York (Cat.
No. 13,847) were examined by the palaeontologist Mr. B. Brown, and contained five
teeth of Rhinoceros, one tooth of Mastodon, two teeth of Hipparion (1 m 2 ), and one
tooth (P 3 ) of an undescribed Hipparion. The palaeontologist M. Schlosser of Munich
(see below) has devoted a careful study to these teeth with remarkable results.
Rhinoceros-teeth were employed for medicinal purposes as early as the middle ages.
In the Annals of the Sung Dynasty (Sung shi), Biography of Ts'ien Shu (929-988;
Giles, Biographical Dictionary, p. 144), there is a record that in the year 963 this
prince, ruler of Wu and Yue, sent as tribute ten thousand ounces of silver, one
thousand single rhinoceros- teeth (si ya), fifteen thousand catties of perfume and drugs,
and a hundred wrought objects of gold, silver, genuine pearls, and tortoise-shell (P'ei
wen yiin fu, Ch. 21, p. 114 b). For the year 983, a tribute of rhinoceros-teeth is re-
corded in the same Annals as having been sent from San-fo-ts'i (Palembang on the
north-east coast of Sumatra).

3 China Review, Vol. V, 1876, p. 69.

4 Bulletin de la societe geologique de France, Vol. XXIX, 1871-72, p. 178.
6 Die fossilen Saugetiere Chinas (see below), p. 56.

6 The Geographical Distribution of Animals, Vol. I, p. 123.

History of the Rhinoceros 157

China remains of Hycena, Tapir, Rhinoceros, Chalicotherium, and
Elephas, had recently been found, closely resembling those from the
Miocene or Pliocene deposits of Europe and India, and showing that the
Palacarctic region had then the same great extent from west to east that
it has now. Of two species, — complete carcasses with the skin, — the two
horns, hair, and well-preserved interior organs, were discovered in frozen
soil between the Yenisei and Lena Rivers in Siberia. 1 They lived during
the ice age, and were covered with a coarse hairy and finely curled coat,
the skin being smooth and without the characteristic folds of the now
living species. K. A. ZrTTEL 2 defines the zone of these two species
(Rhinoceros mercki and antiquitatis) as extending over the whole of
northern and central Asia, inclusive of China, and over northern and
middle Europe. 3 The best study of this subject, thus far, has been
made by M. Schlosser. 4 He records a new species from China (Rhi-
noceros habereri) 5 in two different types, and two others belonging to the
forest fauna, one of which is referred to the two-horned Sumatran type,

1 This first find was made in 1 771 on the bank of the river Wilui near 64 N. lat.
It was first described by the prominent naturalist P. S. Pallas, in his treatise De
reliquiis animalium exoticorum per Asiam borealem repertis complementum (in
Novi Commentarii Acad. Scient. Petropolitanae, Vol. XVII, 1772, p. 576), and in his
Reise durch verschiedene Provinzen des russischen Reichs (Vol. Ill, p. 97, St. Peters-
burg, 1 776). Head and feet of this animal are still preserved in St. Petersburg. A fun-
damental investigation still remains that of J. F. Brandt, De rhinocerotis antiquitatis
seu tichorhini seu pallasii structura externa etc. (Memoires de I' Acad, de St. Peter s-
bourg, series 6, Vol. V, 1849, pp. 161-416). A rich collection of rhinoceros-bones
made in the western part of Transbaikalia is in the Museum at Troitskosavsk (com-
pare Molleson, in Papers of the Troitskosavsk-Kiachta Section of the Russian Geogr.
Soc, in Russian, Vol. I, 1898, p. 71 ; and the detailed descriptions of Mme. M. Pavlov,
ibid., Vol. XIII, 1910, pp. 37-44).

2 Palaeozoologie, Vol. IV, p. 296. For a restoration of the woolly rhinoceros found
in Siberia see N. N. Hutchinson, Extinct Monsters, Plate XXI.

3 We know that fossil rhinoceros-horn had attracted the attention of Siberian
natives long before it came to the notice of European scientists. It was employed
to strengthen their bows, and the belief was entertained that it exerted a beneficial
influence on the arrow hitting its mark. (Compare A. E. v. Nordenskiold, Die
Umsegelung Asiens und Europas auf der Vega, Vol. I, p. 367, Leipzig, 1882.) Now
we read in the Annals of the Kin Dynasty (Kin shi, Ch. 120, p. 3 a) that the Niuchi,
a Tungusic tribe, availed themselves of rhinoceros-horn for the same purpose; and
it may therefore be presumed that they obtained it through the medium of trade
from inner Siberia (compare above, p. 95). Fossil rhinoceros-horns have also been
found in the valley of the Kolyma River. K. v. Ditmar (Reisen und Aufenthalt in
Kamtschatka, Vol. I, p. 37, St. Petersburg, 1890) saw one from that region nearly
three feet long, and emphasizes the co-existence there of numerous remains of rhi-
noceros, mammoth, and narwhal.

4 Die fossilen Saugetiere Chinas (Abhandlicngen der bayer. Akademie, CI. II,
Vol. XXII, 1903, pp. 1-221, 14 plates). This work is conveniently summed up by
H. F. Osborn (The Age of Mammals, pp. 332-335), where an interesting map
(p- 5°5) is added, showing the former and recent distribution of the rhinoceros. The
material described by Schlosser is derived from Chinese drug-stores, and was collected
by K. Haberer. The author gives also a valuable summary of the localities in China
where fossil remains of mammals have been found (pp. 9-19).

6 L. c, pp. 58-63.

158 Chinese Clay Figures

and the other (Rhinoceros brancoi) possibly to the single-horned Indian
species. This fact is in striking agreement with the result of our his-
torical investigation, according to which these two species were known
to the ancient Chinese and distinguished by the two names si and se.
In view of the acquaintance of the Chinese with these two species, the
question as to the age of the fossil remains is, of course, important.
According to the researches of Schlosser, the number of species of
fossil rhinoceroses traceable in China amounts to at least seven, three
of which originate from the Pleistocene, four from the Pliocene; and
Schlosser was able to prove that Rhinoceros sinensis Owen does not rep-
resent a species from the Tertiary, as presumed heretofore, but should
be rather one from the Pleistocene. 1 There is, accordingly, from a
geological viewpoint, good reason to believe that several species of
rhinoceros could have survived on Chinese soil down to the historic
period when man made his first appearance there; 2 and it is in the rec-
ords of the Chinese that this fact has been preserved to us. It even
seems to me (but this is the mere personal impression of a layman, which
may not be acceptable to a specialist in this field) that the Chinese rec-
ords, in a highly logical manner, fill a gap between the palasontological
facts of Siberia and the present-day existence of the hairy two-horned
rhinoceros in south-eastern Asia. If it is admissible to identify the
Siberian tichorhinus with the latter species, or to consider the former
as the primeval ancestor of the latter, it is conceivable that the Siberian
animal, pressed by the advance of the ice, started on a migration south-
ward, and first halted in northern China, where it became the si of the
Chinese, and whence it finally proceeded south-east. Whatever this
fancy may be worth, there can be no doubt of two points, — first,
that the ancient Chinese, from the very beginning of their history,
were acquainted with two species of rhinoceros, the single-homed and
the two-horned ones, distinguished as se and si; and, second, that the

1 L. c, p. 52-

2 We owe to M. Schlosser an interesting discovery in regard to the age of man
on Chinese soil. He describes (pp. 20-21) and figures a tooth, a molar (m 3 ) of the
left upper jaw, which originates either from man or from a new anthropoid. This
tooth is perfectly fossilized, wholly untransparent, and shows between the roots a
reddish clay, such as is found only in teeth really coming from the Tertiary, and not
from the loess; so that the author is inclined to ascribe to it a tertiary origin, or at
all events, a very great age, going back at least to old Pleistocene. A definite solution
of the problem cannot be reached at present. "The purpose of this notice is," con-
cludes Schlosser, "to call the attention of subsequent investigators, who may have
an opportunity of undertaking excavations in China, to the possibility that either
a new fossil anthropoid or tertiary man, or yet an old-Pleistocene man, might be found. ' '
I agree with Schlosser on this point, and regard his discovery, which certainly so far
remains entirely hypothetical, as highly suggestive, and pointing in the direction of
a future possibility of a new Pithecanthropus being discovered in Chinese soil.

History of the Rhinoceros 159

former is identical with the present Rhinoceros indicus unicornis (as
proved above all by the linguistic relationship of the word se with
Tibetan bse and Lepcha sa), and the latter with the present Rhinoceros
sumatrensis}

We may now attempt something like a reconstructive history of the
rhinoceros in the historical era. At the time of the Shi king, the rhinoce-
ros was known to the Chinese as a game-animal. In a song celebrating
a hunting-expedition by King Siian, it is said, "We have bent our bows:
we have our arrows on the string. Here is a small boar transfixed;
there is a large rhinoceros (se) killed." 2 As a metaphor, the name of the
animal is employed in another song, in which soldiers constantly occupied
on the war-path complain of cruel treatment, and say, "We are not
rhinoceroses, we are not tigers, to be kept in these desolate wilds." 3
Also cups carved from rhinoceros-horn (se kung) 4 make their debut in
the Shi king; and from the passages where it is mentioned, an apparent
symbolism is connected with it. In the region of Pin it was customary
for the people in the tenth month to visit the palace of their prince with
offerings of wine, and "to raise the cup of rhinoceros-horn with wishes
for numberless years without end." 5 In another song, a woman yearn-
ing for her absent husband takes a cup of wine poured out of a rhinoce-
ros-horn, in the hope that her grief will not last forever. 6 The idea of
the healing property of the horn is possibly here involved.

In the Shu king, embodying the most ancient historical records of
the nation, the rhinoceros is not directly mentioned, but one of the two
principal products yielded by it is alluded to. At least, this is the opin-
ion of the Chinese commentators. In the chapter entitled Tribute of
Yu (Yil kung), "teeth" and "hide" are stated to have been the produce
of the two provinces Yang-chou and King-chou, — the former covering the
littoral territories south and north of the Yang-tse delta; the latter, the
present area of Hu-nan and Hu-pei. The term "teeth" is interpreted

1 It would now be appropriate to introduce for the two extinct Chinese species
the names Rhinoceros unicornis var. sinensis (Chinese se), and Rhinoceros bicornis
var. sinensis (Chinese si).

2 Shi king, ed. Legge, p. 292.

3 Ibid., p. 424.

4 Nos. 6393 and 6398. The two characters are read kung (according to T'atig
yiin) and kuang (according to Shuo win).

5 Ibid., p. 233. The rhinoceros belongs to the long-lived animals. "Individuals
have lived for over twenty years in the London Zoological Gardens, and it is stated
that others have been kept in confinement for fully fifty years. Consequently there
is no doubt that the animal is long-lived, and it has been suggested that its term of
life may reach as much as a century" (R. Lydekker, The Game Animals of India,
P- 3i).

6 Ibid., p. 9.

160 Chinese Clay Figures

as ivory; the term "hide," as rhinoceros-hide. 1 This inference is very
reasonable, for the tributes or taxes of those territories cannot have been
any ordinary animal teeth or hides of any kind, but they certainly were
those teeth and hides most highly prized in the Chou period, — and these
were ivory, and rhinoceros-hide desirable for body armor. 2 The sov-
ereigns of the Chou dynasty hunted the rhinoceros. In B.C. 965, as
recorded in the Annals of the Bamboo Books, Chao Wang invaded the
country of Ch'u, and crossing the Han River, met with a large single-
horned rhinoceros (or rhinoceroses). Yi Wang, in b.c. 855, captured,
when hunting in the forest of She, a two-horned rhinoceros, and had it
carried home. 3

The rhinoceros was also pictured at an early date. When the em-
peror mounted his chariot, they posted on both sides of it the lords,
whose chariots had red wheels, two crouching rhinoceroses being repre-
sented on each wheel ; and they posted in front the lords, whose chariots
had red wheels with a single tiger represented on each wheel. 4 This

1 Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. Ill, pp. Ill, 115; Couvreur, Chou King, pp. 71,
73 (see also Hirth, The Ancient History of China, p. 121). Legge remarks, "This
view is generally acquiesced in. Are we to suppose then that the rhinoceros and
elephant were found in Yang-chou in Yu's time? They may very well have been so.
Hu Wei observes that from the mention or supposed mention of these animals some
argue for the extension of the limits of the province beyond the southern mountain-
range to Kuang-tung, Kuang-si, and Annam, and replies that the princes might be
required to send articles of value and use purchased from their neighbors, as well as
what they could procure in their own territories." This conclusion of Hu Wei is
quite unnecessary. It is merely elicited by the school opinion that the geographical
distribution of animals must have been the same anciently as at present. There can
certainly be no more erroneous view. Nothing in nature remains unchangeable. All
the large mammals formerly had a far wider range, gradually narrowed by natural
events and human depredations. We are simply forced to admit that the rhinoceros,
as well as the elephant, existed in Yang-chou and King-chou in the times of antiquity.
This logically results from the Chinese records, and is a logical inference from a zoo-
geographic point of view. No jugglery or sophistry, like extension of geographic
provinces, misunderstanding of words, or introduction of bovines, is necessary to
explain and to understand a fact of such simplicity as this one.

2 The skin of the rhinoceros was utilized in the Chou period also for the manu-
facture of a yellow glue employed for the purpose of combining the wooden and horn
parts of a bow (Chou li, xliv, Biot's translation, Vol. II, p. 586). The commentator
Wang Chao-yii of the twelfth century justly adds that either skin or horn can be made
into glue, but that, as far as the rhinoceros is concerned, only the skin is laid under
contribution to this end. Naturally, since the horn is too valuable. Cheng K'ang-
ch'eng assures us that in his time (second century a.d.) the stag-glue was exclusively
made from the antlers. It is hardly conceivable that Yang-chou and King-chou
should have sent as tribute bovine hides which could be obtained everywhere: the
specification of these territories implies a specific material peculiar to them ; of wild
bovines there, nothing is known.

3 Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. Ill, Prolegomena, pp. 149, 153; Biot's translation
of Chu shu ki nien, pp. 41, 46 (Paris, 1842). Note that the idea of the monoceros
hiai-chai originated in the country of Ch'u (above, p. 115, note 2). In the Ch'un-
ts'iu period, as it appears from a passage of Tso chuan (Legge, Chinese Classics,
Vol. V, p. 289), both se and si were still plenty.

4 Chavannes, Les M<§moires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. Ill, p. 214.

History of the Rhinoceros 161

juxtaposition of rhinoceros and tiger is noteworthy, for it turns up
again in Chuang-tse: "To travel by water and not avoid sea-serpents
and dragons, — this is the courage of a fisherman. To travel by land
and not avoid the rhinoceros and the tiger, — this is the courage of
hunters." l And in Lao-tse's Tao te king (Ch. 50) : " He who knows how
to take care of his life, when travelling by road, never meets rhinoceros
or tiger; when entering the army, he does not require defensive or
offensive armor. The rhinoceros, therefore, finds no place where to
insert its horn, the tiger where to lay its claws, the soldier where to
pierce him with his sword." 2 Finally in the passage of Lun yil 3 already
referred to.

The extermination of wild animals made rapid progress; the grad-
ually advancing Chinese agriculturist cleared the hills and deforested
the plains in order to till the ground and to yield the means of subsist-
ence for the steadily increasing populace. The famous passage in
Meng-tse* is of primary importance: Chou-kung, the organizer of the
government of the Chou dynasty, broke the rebellions and established
peace throughout the empire; "he drove far away also the tigers, leop-
ards, rhinoceroses, and elephants, — and all the people was greatly
delighted." Toward the end of the Chou period (middle of the third
century B.C.) the one-horned rhinoceros was, in all likelihood, extinct
in northern China ; and the two-horned species had gradually withdrawn,
and taken refuge in the high mountain-fastnesses of the south-west.
The strong desire prevailing in the epoch of the Chou for the horn of the
animal, which was carved into ornamental cups, and for its valuable
skin, which was worked up into armor, had no doubt contributed to its
final destruction in the north. So there is no reason to wonder that
to the later authors the extinct animal se was a blank, and offered a
convenient field for fanciful speculations. 5

1 Giles, Chuang Tzu, p. 214.

2 Compare S. Julien, Le livre de la voie et de la vertu, p. 183. It is noticeable
that the word kia, which in Lao-tse's time designated a cuirass of rhinoceros-hide,
appears here in close connection with the rhinoceros.

3 Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. I, p. 307.

4 Legge, The Chinese Classics, Vol. II, p. 281.

6 It is a well-known phenomenon in all languages that newly-discovered animals
are named for those already known, for example, that sea-mammals are named for
land-mammals to which they bear some outward resemblance, or insects for larger
animals. Thus we know a rhinoceros-beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros) with horns or pro-
cesses on its head (see Science, 1913, p. 883), and a rhinoceros-bird or hornbill (Buceros
rhinoceros) noted for the extraordinary horny protuberance on the crest of its bill.
These examples certainly do not mean that our word "rhinoceros" originally referred to
an insect or a bird ; but in our effort to coin a name for this beetle and bird, we happened
to hit upon the rhinoceros, because certain characteristics of it were, by way of
comparison, seen in the former. It is exactly the same when the Chinese, in literary

1 62 Chinese Clay Figures

Se-ma Ts'ien, the father of Chinese history, who was born in B.C.
145, and died between b.c. 86 and 74, and who in his Historical Memoirs
repeatedly mentions the two species, doubtless was personally familiar
with them; for he locates them in Sze-ch'uan, 1 and we know that he, a
great traveller and observer, accompanied the military expedition of the
Emperor Wu sent in B.C. 11 1 into Sze-ch'uan and Yun-nan. 2 Again
and again, Chinese authors in the beginning of our era point to that ter-
ritory as the stronghold of the rhinoceros. We noticed that Kuo P'o
of the third century alludes to Mount Liang in Sze-ch'uan as its habitat
(p. 94) ; and we may add to this the weighty testimony of Ch'ang K'ii

style, sometimes designate the buffalo "the water-rhinoceros" (shut se). In the pre-
Christian era the word se invariably applied to the single-horned rhinoceros, — a fact
confirmed by the concordance of the word with Tibetan (b)se (p. 116). In times
following the ultimate extermination of this species on Chinese soil, this word natu-
rally fell into disuse and became open to other functions ; while si is still retained as
the general word for rhinoceros, whether single or two horned. The word se was
transferred to the buffalo, because to a naive and primitive mind the two animals,
as has been demonstrated by the world-wide propagation of this notion, bear a
striking similarity to each other. The attribute "water" fits both with their fond-
ness for lying embedded for hours in mud and water. A sequel of this transfer in
meaning, then, was the impression of recent Chinese authors that the word se had
denoted also the wild buffalo or ox in the times of antiquity. This, of course, is a
phantom. The most instructive passage where the words si and shut se are used to-
gether in close succession occurs in Sung shi (Ch. 489, p. 1), where it is said, in the
chapter on Champa (Chan-ch'eng), that "the country abounds in peacocks and rhi-
noceros (si niu), that the people keep yellow oxen and buffalo (shui niu), and that
those engaged in the capture of rhinoceros and elephant (si siang) pay a tax on them
to the king; they eat the flesh of wild goats and buffalo (shui se)." In Siam, permis-
sion to capture wild elephants must still be obtained from the Government, and for
each animal caught a royalty of $150 is paid (C. C. Hansen, Daily Consular and
Trade Reports, 191 1, p. 751). In mediasval times when the rhinoceros became grad-
ually scarcer on Chinese soil, and the supply of its skin no longer satisfied the de-
mand for it, buffalo-hide was substituted for it. Chinese authors, with fair accuracy,
indicate the time when this change went into effect. A book Ts'e lin hai ts'o, quoted
in the cyclopaedia Yen kien lei han (Ch. 228, p. 4), states in substance that what is
designated rhinoceros-hide armor in the T'ang History is at present made from buffalo
hide, but continues under the general name "rhinoceros" (si). The Chinese, accord-
ingly, were perfectly aware of the fact that the ancient cuirasses were wrought from
rhinoceros-hide, and that buffalo-hide was a later substitute. Ch'eng Ta-ch'ang, who
wrote in the latter part of the twelfth century, says in a discourse on defensive armor
(inserted in Wu pei chi, published in 1621 by Mao Yuan-i, Ch. 105, p. 4) that the
skin of a domesticated animal like the ox is always handy, while the two rhinoceroses
si and se cannot be reared, and their skins are not always obtainable; and that in his
time armor was produced from buffalo-hide. In T'ang shu (Ch. 41, p. 1) the tribute
sent by the district of Kuang-ling in Yang-chou (circuit of Huai-nan) is stated to
have consisted of armor made from buffalo-hide (shui se kia). The rhinoceros is
here out of the question, as it did not occur in that region; and the geographical
chapters of the T'ang Annals give us the best clew to the tracing of the geographical
distribution of the rhinoceros in the China of that period. It is worthy of note that
the term shui si(" water rhinoceros") is still employed with reference to the rhinoceros
only, not the buffalo. Chung Kia-fu writing in 1845 (Ch'un ts'ao t'ang chi, Ch. 30,
p. 13) makes the remark that "the cups and dishes carved from rhinoceros-horn
(si kio) in his time are not from the genuine rhinoceros (shui si), but from the horn
of a wild ox (ye niu) in the countries of the foreign barbarians. ' '

1 Shi ki, Ch. 117, p. 3 b.

* Chavannes, Les M6moires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. I, p. xxxi.

History of the Rhinoceros 163

of the period of the Tsin dynasty (265-419), who in his interesting work
Hua yang kuo chi ascribes colossal rhinoceroses to the country of Pa,
the ancient designation for the eastern part of Sze-ch'uan, and further
places the animal in the district of Hui-wu, the present Hui-li in the
prefecture of Ning-yiian, province of Sze-ch'uan. 1 However doubtful
the exact date of the work Pie lu may be, the fact remains that it plainly
indicates south-western China in its whole range as the geographical
area of the rhinoceros (p. 135).

With their victorious advance toward the south-east in the third and
second centuries B.C., the horizon of the Chinese people widened; and
they encountered the two-horned rhinoceros also in Tonking. 2 The
tributes of live rhinoceroses sent to the Chinese Court from that region
have been mentioned (p. 80). Liu Hin-k'i, author of the Records of
Kiao-chou, of the fourth or fifth century, gives a perfectly correct
description of the two-horned Annamese rhinoceros (p. 93). T'ao
Hung-king, the universal genius of the fifth and sixth centuries, logically
combines the ancient information relative to the south-west with the
additional experience coming from the conquered south-east: Hu-nan,
Yun-nan, and Kiao-chou in Tonking, according to him, represent the
home of the rhinoceros (p. 136). This alliance of the two geographical
zones is a fact of the greatest interest, for this observation of T'ao Hung-
king incontrovertibly proves that the word si can but signify the
rhinoceros, and particularly the two-horned species. When the Chinese
first struck the rhinoceros of Annam, the matter is not reported as a
novel experience; but they merely renewed an old experience which they
had long before made in their own country, and applied the same familiar
word to it. If the si of Tonking is the rhinoceros (and there is not an
atom of doubt about it) , 3 the si formerly recorded in Sze-ch'uan, Yun-nan,

1 Playfair, No. 2480 (2d ed., No. 2341). The passages referred to are in Hua
yang kuo chi, Ch. 1, p. 2 b; Ch. 3, p. 23 (ed. of Han Wei ts'ung shu).

2 Ts'ien Han shu, Ch. 28 b, p. 17. Thus the pseudo-embassy of the Emperor
Marc Aurel, presenting in 166 a.d. the Annamese products ivory, rhinoceros-horn
and tortoise-shell, and mentioned in the Annals of the Later Han Dynasty (Hirth,
China and the Roman Orient, pp. 42, 176), was not the first to make the rhinoceros-
horn of Annam known to the Chinese, who were acquainted with it at least two cen-
turies earlier.

3 The fact is still evidenced by present-day conditions and the continuous trade
carried on at all times in rhinoceros-horn from Annam to China. Compare G.
Deveria, Histoire des relations de la Chine avec l'Annam, pp. 41, 88 (Paris, 1880);
S. W. Williams (The Chinese Commercial Guide, p. 94) states that the best sort of
rhinoceros-horn comes from Siam and Cochinchina, selling at times for $300 apiece,
while that from India, Sumatra, and southern Africa, represents an inferior sort, and
sells for $30 and upwards apiece. For the middle ages we have the testimony of
Chao Ju-kua (Hirth's and Rockhill's translation, p. 46). As has been pointed
out, the word se gradually sank into oblivion in the post-Christian era, and was
superseded by the exclusive use of the word si, which was then applied also to the

164 Chinese Clay Figures

etc., must likewise be the rhinoceros; andT'ao Hung-king is our witness
in establishing the identity of the animal as occurring in the Chinese
and Indo-Chinese zones. This fact is borne out also by the coincidence
of the definitions contributed by Kuo P'o and Liu Hin-k'i.

In the T'ang period (618-906) the animal must have been plentiful
in many parts of China. The geographical section in the Annals of
that dynasty carefully enumerates the various articles sent up to the
capital as taxes from every district; and it is the local products which
come into question. Besides, rhinoceros-horn, as far as I know, was
not imported at that time from beyond the sea. The present terri-
tory of the province of Hu-nan in central China seems to have then
abounded in the animal, 1 for no less than eight localities within its
boundaries are on record which furnished rhinoceros-horn to the Court :
viz., Li-yang in Li chou, circuit of Shan-nan; Wu-ling in Lang-chou;
K'ien-chung in K'ien-chou; Lu-k'i in Ch'en-chou; Lu-yang in Kin-
chou; Ling-k'i in K'i chou (modern Yung-shun fu); Kiang-hua in Tao-
chou, circuit of Kiang-nan; and Shao-yang in Shao-chou. Rhinoceros-
horn was further supplied from Lung-k'i in Tsiang-chou, from T'an-
yang in Su-chou, Sze-ch'uan; from Ts'ing-hua in Shi-chou (now Shi-
nan fu) in Hu-pei Province; from Yi-ts'uan 2 in Yi-chou, province of
Kuei-chou; from Annam; and elephants and rhinoceroses were sent
from Ling-nan (Kuang-tung) , forming the southern part of Yang-chou. 3
Is it conceivable that the tribute of those regions should have con-
sisted of bovine horns which have hardly any commercial value?
From mediaeval times onward, as the geographical knowledge of the
Chinese more and more advanced, and their intercourse and trade with
the nations of the southern ocean increased, they became cognizant of
the existence of the rhinoceros in India, 4 Java, 5 and Sumatra, and even

single-horned rhinoceros. The rhinoceros of India is indeed designated si (Hou Han
shu, Ch. 118, p. 5 b; Nan shi, Ch. 78, p. 7; T'ang shu, Ch. 221 A, p. 10 b). This proves
again that the word si refers to the rhinoceros, and to this animal only.

1 Hu-nan, as said before, is mentioned also by T'ao Hung-king. In this province
formerly occurred both the rhinoceros and the elephant, furnishing hide and ivory,
respectively, at the time of the Chou dynasty (Hirth, The Ancient History of
China, p. 121, and above, p. 159). In Hu-nan fang wu chi, "Records of the Local
Products of Hu-nan" (Ch. 3, p. 14; edition of 1846), it is stated that there was rhi-
noceros-horn among the local products sent as tribute from Heng-chou; the text is
quoted from Kiu yii chi, a geographical description of China, which, according to
Bretschneider (Bot. Sin., pt. 1, p. 162), was published in 1080 a.d.

2 Playfair, Nos. 6381, 6713 (2d ed., No. 5701).

' Playfair, No. 8350 (2ded. No. 3939). Compare T'ang shu, Chs. 40, pp. 1 b, 6 b;
41, pp. 9 a, 9 b, 10 a; 43, p. 1 a.

4 See note 3 on p. 163.

5 As regards Java, rhinoceros-horn is listed among its products in T'ang shu
(Ch. 222 c, p. 3; and Groeneveldt, Miscell. Papers relating to Indo-China, Vol. I,
p. 139). The Sung shi (Ch.. 489; Groeneveldt, ibid., p. 144) reports a tribute from Java

History of the Rhinoceros 165

Africa. The interesting notes of Chao Ju-kua written in 1225, 1 em-
inently translated and interpreted by Hirth and Rockhill, afford an
excellent view of all the localities from which rhinoceros-horn was
traded to China, during the middle ages; 2 he refers to the Berbera coast
as producing big horns (p. 128), and records them also for the island of
Pemba (p. 149). 3

Returning to China, we find trustworthy accounts, according to
which the rhinoceros has persisted there in some localities at least
down to the thirteenth century. Kuo Yiin-tao, who composed an elabo-
rate history of Sze-ch'uan in the thirteenth century, 4 states that the
region of the aboriginal tribes of the south-west (Si-nan I) harbors a
great number of rhinoceroses and elephants; and this agrees with the
above statement of Su Sung (p. 140) that rhinoceros-horns came from
Sze-ch'uan at the same period. As the author includes also the prov-
ince of Kuei-chou, we are allowed to presume that the two-horned
rhinoceros still inhabited the forests of Sze-ch'uan and Kuei-chou during
the age of the Sung dynasty (960-1278). 5 In the year 987, as narrated
in the Annals of the Sung Dynasty, 6 a rhinoceros penetrated from the
southern part of K'ien into Wan-chou 7 where people seized and slew it,

of short swords with hilts of rhinoceros-horn or gold, and records the word ti-mi as
the native name of the rhinoceros. This word is not Javanese, in which the animal
is called warak, but is presumably traceable to the Kawi language (compare the
discussions of this word by G. Schlegel, T'oung Pao, Vol. X, 1899, p. 272; and P.
Pelliot, Bull, de I'Ecolefrancaise, Vol. IV, 1904, p. 310).

1 Pelliot, T'oung Pao, 19 12, p. 449.

2 At least as early as the fifth century, carved objects of rhinoceros-horn were
traded to China from the Roman Orient and India (Hirth, China and the Roman
Orient, p. 46). In the year 730 a tribute of rhinoceros-horn from Persia is mentioned
(Chavannes, T'oung Pao, 1904, p. 51).

3 The Geography of the Ming Dynasty (Ta Ming i t'ung chi, ed. of 1461, Ch. 91,
fol. 20) lists rhinoceros-horn also among the products of Arabia (T'ien-fang). Un-
der the Ming, rhinoceros-horn was imported to China from Champa, Cambodja,
Malacca, Borneo, Siam, Bengal, and rhinoceros-flesh from Java. These data are
derived from the Si yang ch'ao kung lien lu by Huang Sheng-tseng, published in 1520
(reprinted in Pie hia chai ts'ung shu) ; this is the most convenient work on the coun-
tries of the Indian Ocean and on Chinese knowledge of them during the Ming, and
gives more information than the Ming Annals.

4 Shu kien (Ch. 10, p. 1), reprinted in Shou shan ko ts'ung shu, Vol. 23. The pref-
ace of Li W£n-tse is dated 1236.

5 It might seem that the rhinoceros was extinct in China proper at the time of
the Yuan period (1271-1367), judging from a remark made by Chou Ta-kuan, in
his Memoirs on the Customs of Cambodja, to the effect that the latter country har-
bors the rhinoceros, elephant, the wild buffalo, and the mountain-horse, which do not
occur in China (Pelliot, Bulletin de I'Ecole franqaise, Vol. II, 1902, p. 169); but the
passage is by no means conclusive, and may simply be interpreted in the sense that
the author had never seen or heard of a rhinoceros in China.

6 Sung shi, Chapter Wu king chi, quoted in T'u shu tsi ch'hig (Chapter on Rhi-
noceros).

7 Now the district of Wan in K'uei-chou fu, Sze-ch'uan Province.

166 Chinese Clay Figures

keeping its skin and horn. It should be remembered that Li Shi-chen,
who lived in the sixteenth century, still assigned to the rhinoceros the
southern portion of Yiin-nan and the adjoining Tibetan regions. Even
at the present time the rhinoceros may still exist in isolated spots on
Chinese territory.

Johan Neuhof 1 locates it in the province of Sze-ch'uan, particularly
near the small town of Po (P'a is presumably meant).

O. Dapper 2 appropriates to the rhinoceros Sze-ch'uan and Chucheu-
fu (?) in Kuang-si. Du Halde 3 ascribes the rhinoceros to the prefecture
of Wu-chou in Kuang-si. L. Richard 4 states, "On account of the
devastation prevailing in Kuang-si, a great number of wild animals are
found there: the tiger, rhinoceros, panther, tapir, wolf, bear, and fox."
The zoologist W. Marshall, 5 in a general summary of the Chinese
fauna, observes that the south, and particularly the south-west, of China,
harbor decidedly Indian types of mammals, among these the Indian
tapir and the single-horned rhinoceros.

The products yielded by an animal, and the manner of their utiliza-
tion, allow also conclusive evidence in regard to the nature of the animal
itself. That rhinoceros-horn was worked in ancient times and well
differentiated from other ordinary horn, is evidenced by the curious
fact that three distinct verbs pertaining to the treatment of ivory,
ordinary horn, and rhinoceros-horn, are listed in the dictionary Erh ya.
The carving of ivory is designated by the word ku (No. 6248) ; the treat-
ing of ordinary horn (kio) , by the word hio ; 6 the carving of rhinoceros-
horn (si), by the word ts'o or ts'uo (No. 11,766). In the latter case
Mr. Giles, in the second edition of his Dictionary, has justly retained
the meaning "to make rhinoceros-horn into cups; to carve." The
word is apparently identical with ts'o (No. 11,778), meaning "to file,
trim, cut, plane, polish," etc., including all the various manipulations of
the carver.

At this point it may not be amiss to call to mind the fact that a

1 Die Gesantschaft der ostindischen Geselschaft, p. 348 (Amsterdam, 1669).

2 Beschryving des Keizerryks van Taising of Sina, p. 230 (Amsterdam, 1670).

3 A Description of the Empire of China, Vol. I, p. 121 (London, 1738).

* Comprehensive Geography of the Chinese Empire, p. 198 (Shanghai, 1908).

6 Die Tierwelt Chinas (Zeitschrift fur Naturwissenschaften, Vol. 73, 1900, p. 73).

8 Composed of the classifier kio ('horn') at the foot, and the phonetic comple-
ment hio ('to learn'). The character is not contained in our current Chinese dic-
tionaries (not even in Palladius) ; students of Chinese will easily find it in K'ang-hi's
Dictionary under classifier 148 (13 strokes, first character). The definition of the
word hio given by the Shuo win — chi kio ("to treat horn") — calls for attention,
any word like cutting or carving being avoided. The ancient Chinese were familiar
with all processes of horn- work (soaking, slicing, welding, etc.), which are described
in the Chou li.

History of the Rhinoceros 167

rhinoceros-horn is capable of being carved, but that the horn of a bovine
animal cannot be carved. These horns, biologically, are entirely dif-
ferent in origin and structure. The Chinese were quite right in re-
garding the rhinoceros-horn as a marvel of nature, for it is a unique
phenomenon of creation. It is composed of a solid mass of agglutinated
hairs or bristles, and has no firm attachment to the bones of the skull,
which are merely roughened and somewhat elevated so as to fit into the
concave base of the solid horn. Ox, sheep, or antelope, however, have
hollow horns; deer and giraffe, bony antlers. None of these is fit to be
worked into a cup ; and a cup carved from a horn can mean nothing but
one carved from rhinoceros-horn. Horns of bovine animals, as we all
know, may be utilized as drinking-vessels, or, as among primitive tribes,
as powder-flasks, or, as among the Tibetans, even as snuff -bottles, or, as
in India, to pour out holy water; but they are by nature made ready for
use, and do not require any carving. The se kung of antiquity are
certainly cups carved from rhinoceros-horn, 1 not cups of buffalo-
horn, as Mr. Giles (No. 10,298) has it in the second edition of his
Dictionary.

Naturally, none of those ancient drinking-horns has survived, but at
a later time they were imitated in bronze. There are, at least, some
bronze drinking-cups preserved, which are connected by Chinese
archaeologists with the drinking-horns of antiquity. In the Po ku fu
lu (Ch. 16, p. 16) an illustration (Fig. 23) is given under the title Han
hi shou pei ("cup with the head of a sacrificial bull, of the Han period").
A similar bronze (Fig. 24) is figured in the Kin shi so, with the legend
Chou se kung ("rhinoceros-horn cup of the Chou period"). 2 The text
of the Po ku fu lu quotes the passage of the Shi king in which the se
kung are spoken of (above, p. 159), and says that this bronze cup comes
very near to them. The bull-head is certainly a feature which originated
only subsequently in bronze-casting, when the accepted forms of the
horn cups were imitated in bronze. It is noticeable that the cup, as
figured in the Sung Catalogue of Bronzes, corresponds in a measure to
the form of a rhinoceros-horn inverted and hollowed out from the base.

1 Likewise Palladius (Vol. I, p. 136) and Couvreur (p. 451).

2 The authenticity of the specimen of the Kin shi so seems somewhat contestable.
The head is that of a stag, but is equipped with ox-horns. The dating in the Chou
period is arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. It is remarked in the explanatory-
text that it is not known whether the piece is a rhinoceros-horn cup (se kung). The
similarity of the two specimens (Figs. 23, 24) with the rhyton of the Greeks is appar-
ent, but there is no necessity of assuming an historical interrelation of the two types.
Both were independently developed from natural horns used as drinking-cups,
which were subsequently imitated in more durable materials, like clay and metal.
Moreover, the Greek rhyton has a feature lacking in the Chinese specimens, — a
single oblong loop-handle.

1 68

Chinese Clay Figures

As stated by a great number of commentaries, 1 the se kung were carved
from wood if rhinoceros-horn were lacking. Certainly, there could have
never been any want of bovine horns; and it is inconceivable that an
ox-horn should have been ever reproduced in wood. Fan Ch'eng-ta,
in his Kui hai yii heng chi, 2 has a note to the effect that "the people on
the seacoast make cups from ox -horn (niu kio pei) by splitting the horn

va>

Fig. 23.
Bronze Rhyton attributed to Han Period (from Po ku t'u lu).

in two and smoothing the edges to enable them to drink wine from them,
which appears as a survival of the ancient rhinoceros-horn goblets."
They did not carve their cups from ox-horn, however: they merely
split the latter, as the author advisedly says. 3

1 See T'u shu tsi ch'eng, K'ao kung tien, sect. 197, kung pu.

"- Edition of Chi pu tsu chat ts'ung shu, p. 14 b.

3 It may be stated positively that a confusion of rhinoceros and ox horns (or
any other horns) is absolutely impossible, the two being entirely distinct organic
substances of different origin and structure; and we are quite willing to believe Chang
Shi-nan, the author of Yu huan ki wtn early in the thirteenth century, that an artisan
of Shuang-liu hien in Ch'eng-tu fu, who chanced upon the idea of making ox-horn into
rhinoceros-horn, was not very successful in passing off his ware, because it did not
exhibit any of the properties of rhinoceros-horn. The latter is indeed a unique product

History of the Rhinoceros

169

The Chou li has a report on the office of the horn-collectors {kio
jen) whose task it was to collect teeth, horns, and bones in mountains
and marshy places. 1 Cheng K'ang-ch'eng of the second century a.d.
comments that the big ones among these objects came from the ele-
phant and rhinoceros, those of small dimensions came from Cer-
vidae. They did not pick up ox-horns. The word kio ("horn") is

Fig. 24.
Bronze Rhyton attributed to Chou Period (from Kin shi so).

used also in the sense of a vessel carved from horn; and there are
several types of ancient bronze vessels, the names of which are written
with characters combined with the classifier kio ("horn"). This
would hardly be the case if these various bronze forms did not go
back to older vessels carved from horn. He who will study the
illustrations of these cups in the Po ku fu hi, or in the T'u shu tsi
ch'eng, where they are reproduced after the former work, will be struck
by the fact that they do not exhibit the slightest resemblance to ox-

of nature and has no substitute. A very interesting piece of ancient Japanese pot-
tery in the Imperial Museum of Tokyo (figured by N. G. Munro, Prehistoric Japan,
p. 483) is made in imitation of an animal's horn, bearing a striking resemblance to
a rhinoceros-horn.

1 Biot, Chou li, Vol. I, p. 378.
(Vol. II, p. 586).

The Chou li describes the rhinoceros-horn as yellow

170 Chinese Clay Figures

horns, but display most elegant shapes of soft, rounded outlines, such as
could have been carved only from rhinoceros-horn. Moreover, these
horn vessels were differentiated according to their capacities: the vessel
kio (No. 2218) containing one pint (sheng); the vessel ku (No. 6221),
two pints ; the vessel chi (No. 1925), three pints ; l the vessel kio (' ' horn ' ') ,
four pints; 2 the vessel kung or kuang (No. 6393), seven pints. All of
these served the same purpose, — they were filled with wine; and the
ancient tradition is that the bad or tardy disciple, or whoever had
violated a rule or lost a game, was forced to empty the horn at a draught
by way of punishment. 3 Now, there could be no greater absurdity than
to suppose that these drinking-horns were veritable ox-horns, whether
from a wild or domesticated ox, and were emptied at a draught by those
wretched fellows. Every former German student knows from experi-
ence that an ox-horn contains such a volume of liquor, that even the
strongest drinker in the world could not empty it at a draught; and every
one who has lived among the Chinese is acquainted with those tiny bits
of porcelain cups from which they enjoy their hot rice-wine during
meals, and knows how limited their abilities in Baccho are. The
punishment of forcing a negligent student to do away with a quantity
of wine contained in a buffalo-horn would certainly have been most
efficient in killing him instantly and saving further trouble about him;
that, however, was not the intention of the law-giver. Naturally,
these drinking-cups of early antiquity were nothing but miniature cups
carved from rhinoceros-horn. Indeed, it is the very horn of the rhino-
ceros, which renders this cup eligible as a fit means of correction, for " the
horn of the rhinoceros is terrible to its enemies ; and for this reason the
holy emperors of old, in condemning a man to empty a cup by way of
punishment, wanted it to be made from rhinoceros-horn." 4 The
terror which the animal was able to inspire in man should be brought
home to the mind of the culprit, and this was the essential point of his
punishment. Similar was the idea when the rhinoceros-horn cup was
emptied on the occasion of a vow; as in the case of the three lords who
pledged fidelity to the King of Tsin, with imprecations of calamities to

1 According to Shuo win (Ch. 1 1 , p. 4) , four pints ; while the vessel shang (No. 9744)
held three pints.

2 Compare the dictionary Kuang ya by Chang I, written in the first part of the
third century (Ch. 8, p. 5 b; edition of Han Wei ts'ung shu).

3 Compare Biot, Chou li, Vol. I, p. 259; Vol. II, p. 17. In one passage of the Li ki
(ed. Couvreur, Vol. II, p. 618), horns (together with kia) appear as sacrificial cups,
from which to pour out libations to the ancestors.

4 According to Yiin hui, as quoted by A. Tschepe (Histoire du royaume de Tsin,
p. 308, Shanghai, 1910).

History of the Rhinoceros 171

themselves should they break their word. 1 As Wang Fu says in the
Po ku Vu lu (quoted above, p. 131), the rhinoceros represented on the
bronze wine-kettles of the Shang period was a fit emblem to serve as a
warning to the drinker, and to inculcate in him moderation: as the
rhinoceros is capable of doing injury to man, so excessive indulgence
in spirits might harm him. 2

We now recognize that the rhinoceros, looked upon as a moral and
educational factor, moves on the same line as the monoceros hiai-chai
discussed above (p. 115), which is able to decide judicial proceedings. 3
This inward affinity proves that this monoceros is a legitimate offshoot
of the rhinoceros. We have seen that the single-horned rhinoceros se
existed in the country of Ch'u in the beginning of the Chou dynasty
(p. 160), and it was among the people of Ch'u that the notion and word
hiai chai originated (p. 115). The transformation into a goat of what
originally was the rhinoceros was developed by the notion of "butting"
under the influence of a legend emanating from Ch'u, which unfortunate-
ly is lost.

In past times the rhinoceros was so plentiful in the home of the
Chinese, that carvings from its horn belonged to the common household
objects, especially at the period before the utilization of metals, when
wood, bone, horn, antler, and stone furnished the material for the making
of implements.

There are other objects stated to have been made of rhinoceros-
horn, where the supposition that ox-horn might be involved is again
out of the question. In the biography of Li Se, who died in B.C. 208, 4
objects carved from rhinoceros-horn and ivory {si siang k'i) are men-
tioned, and classed among objets de vertu. b Implements of ox-horn
would certainly not rank in this category. According to Hou Han shu, 6
seals were cut out of rhinoceros-horn and ivory. Everybody knows the

1 Tschepe, /. c. The warlike character of the rhinoceros is still indicated by the lit-
erary designation Si pu for the Board of War (Ping pu) and the rhinoceros forming
the badge of the ninth grade of the military officials.

2 The rhinoceros as a means of punishment appears also in the case of Wan of
Sung, who paid the penalty of his crimes by being bound up in a rhinoceros-hide ( Tso
chuan, Chuang kung, twelfth year: Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. V, p. 89).

3 In the time of the philosopher Wang Ch*ung, who wrote his work Lun king in
82 or 83 A.D., Kao Yao and this creature were painted in the courtyards of public
buildings; the latter, in agreement with the ancient definitions, apparently as a goat
with a single horn, for it instinctively knew the guilty. When Kao Yao administered
justice and entertained doubts of a man's guilt, he ordered this goat to disentangle
the case: it butted the guilty party, but spared the innocent (Forke, Lun-heng,
pt. 11, p. 321).

4 Giles, Biographical Dictionary, p. 464.

5 Shi ki, Ch. 87, p. 2 b.

6 Ch. 40, p. 5 a.

172 Chinese Clay Figures

square and rectangular cubes in which Chinese seals are shaped, and
to cut such a seal out of ox-horn is impossible.

Finally, the memorable passage in the Chou li from which we started,
and that is discussed in the following chapter, regarding the manufacture
of hide armor, is sufficient evidence in itself that the hide in question
is only that of the rhinoceros. Mr. Giles renders the words se and si
indiscriminately by "bovine animal;" it is manifest, however, from the
text in question, that se and si are two distinct animals, but can by no
means be two distinct bovine animals. It will be seen that the Chou li
speaks of three kinds of cuirasses, — those made from the hide of the
two-horned rhinoceros (si), which consist of seven layers, and will last a
hundred years; those made from the hide of the single-horned rhinoceros
(se) , which consist of six layers, and will last two hundred years ; and those
made from a combination of both hides, which consist of five layers, and
will last three hundred years. The skin of the rhinoceros was utilized
for the manufacture of hide armor, because it was the thickest and
strongest known in the animal kingdom, 1 and because the rhinoceros
was justly considered a strong, warlike, and long-lived creature (see
p. 159); and the qualities of the animal were believed to be transfused
into the body of the wearer of the cuirass. The single-horned rhinoceros
was the bigger and stronger of the two species known ; and for this reason
armor from its hide was believed to last twice as long as that of the
two-horned kind. We notice that there is a close interrelation between
the number of layers of the hide and the number of years that the
armor is supposed to endure. All this becomes intelligible only if we
interpret the two words se and si in the manner that has been proposed. 2
But what would the interpretation be if the armor of the Chou had been
made from the hide of wild bovine animals? The passage, in this case,
could receive no intelligent and convincing interpretation. That bovine
hide can be utilized in the making of armor, nobody denies. It is
utterly inconceivable, however, that the ancient Chinese should have
taken the trouble to hunt wild bovine animals, in order to secure their
skins for cuirasses, since they were in possession of plenty of domestic
cattle from which leather was obtainable ; and this one certainly could

1 The toughness and durability of rhinoceros-hide are indicated also by its utiliza-
tion in the coffin of the Son of Heaven, which was fourfold. The innermost coffin was
formed by hide of water-buffalo and rhinoceros, each three inches thick. This leather
case was enclosed in a coffin of white poplar timber; and this one, in two others of
catalpa-wood (Couvreur, Li ki, Vol. I, p. 184; Legge's translation in Sacred Books
of the East, Vol. XXVII, p. 158).

2 The fact that the general notion of leather and hide (p'i ko) was closely associ-
ated with rhinoceros-skin is evidenced by Yen Shi-ku denning that term by the words
si se (Ts'ien Han shu, Ch. 28 B, p. 16 b).

History of the Rhinoceros 173

have been employed with greater facility and the same result for the
purpose of defence. And if they had really employed cowhide to this
end, why should the Chou li not simply state that cuirasses were made of
this material (niu p'i)? Why should it introduce the story of two won-
derful animals se and si, interwoven with religious beliefs of longevity,
if nothing but a mere every-day cowhide was at issue? On the other
hand, there is every reason to believe that the skin of ox or cow was never,
for religious reasons, employed in ancient China in the making of armor.
The ox was a sacred, and in a measure inviolable animal, looked upon as
the helpmate in gaining man's daily bread. He was the animal sacrificed
to the deities Heaven and Earth. There is no account to the effect
that neat-leather was ever employed for cuirasses; while the tradition
that rhinoceros-skin is a fit material for this purpose, as we saw, has
been maintained even by later authors.

II. DEFENSIVE ARMOR OF THE ARCHAIC PERIOD

"Your subject has heard that the army of the Son of
Heaven is rather maintained for the assurance of peace
than for the purpose of aggressive war. The Empire and
all its inhabitants being your own, is it worth while wast-
ing a day's business on the land of the Barbarians, or driv-
ing a single horse to exhaustion on their behalf?"

Memorial of Huai-nan-tse to the Emperor Wu.

Defensive armor, as employed in the epoch of antiquity, is char-
acterized by the absence of any metal. 1 During the Chou period
(b.c. 1122-255) harness was exclusively made of hide {lorica of the
Romans) . Ts'ai Ch'en, in his commentary to the Shu king (published
in 1 210), makes this correct general observation on the subject: "In
ancient canonical literature it is a question only of cuirasses (kia,
No. 1 167) and leather helmets (chou, No. 2463). Prior to the time of the
Ts'in, metal armor (k'ai, No. 5798) and metal helmets (tou mou, Nos.
11,424, 8041) were not in existence. The ancients availed them-
selves of hide for the making of armor (kia). From the time of the

1 It is not the object of the present investigation to give a detailed history of
Chinese defensive armor of all periods, or to describe each and every type of armor
mentioned in Chinese records. Such a task would require dwelling at great length on
the military organization and activities of every dynasty, and would swell into several
volumes of questionable practical value. It is merely my intention to outline the
principal and conspicuous features of the general development of the matter, and to
emphasize those types of armor which are of particular interest to the archaeologist
and ethnologist. Only those Chinese records which have a real value for an historical
consideration of this subject are here exhibited. The theories of the philosophers
and the later legendary inventions are historically worthless, and only interesting
for what they are worth, — in their quality as philosophy, poetry, or folk-lore. A
pure fable it is, for example, when the philosopher Kuan-tse makes Ch'i Yu (alleged
B.C. 2698) the first inventor of metal armor (k'ai), and when as late a work as the
T'ai po yin king by Li Tsuan of the middle of the eighth century (Wylie, Notes on
Chinese Literature, p. 90) is gracious enough to ascribe to the same also the honor of
having first cut hide into armor, and goes on to construct the evolutionary scheme
that Shen-nung made weapons of stone, Huang-ti of jade, and Ch'i Yu of bright met-
al. The famous Ts'ao Chi (192-232) is credited with the statement that the former
emperors bestowed on officials an armor (k'ai) called "brilliant like ink" (mo kuang)
and another called "brilliant like light" (ming kuang), one suit of armor with a
double seat in the trousers (Hang tang [No. 10,727] k'ai), one suit of ring and chain
armor (huan so k'ai), and one suit of horse mail. This text is not well authenticat-
ed, and is hardly deserving of historical credence. The ring and chain armor is
an anachronism in view of Ts'ao Chi's time; and any armor of the designation k'ai
did not exist under the ancient emperors. The expression huan so k'ai occurring
in this passage is explained in the dictionary Cheng tse t'ung as identical with so
kia ("chain armor"). T'u shu tsi ch'eng, in reproducing this passage, writes mo
kuang, as above; P'ei wen yun fu has in its place hei kuang ("of black brilliancy");
and Ko chi king yiian has li (No. 6870) kuang, which seems to be a misprint. The
two latter works write the character tang in the phrase Hang tang k'ai without the
classifier 145.

174

Defensive Armor of the Archaic Period 175

Ts'in and Han, iron armor and helmets {Vie k'ai mou) gradually came into
use. These two characters {k'ai mou) are formed with the classifier
'metal' {kin), for these objects were made from iron." This chronologi-
cal division of words and matters, indeed, corresponds to the facts as
expressed in the documents of literature. The comment of Ts'ai Ch'en
relates to the speech of the Prince of Lu, Po K'in, son of Chou Kung
{Shu king, IV, 19), in which he admonished his soldiers to see that their
cuirasses and helmets were well sewed together (that is, were in good
order), and that the laces of their shields were well secured. In this
passage the three means for making the complete defensive armor of the
primeval epoch are named; and these are followed by the three principal
representatives of offensive armor, — the bow, the long and the short
spears.

We meet in the early period essentially two varieties of hide armor,
distinguished by two different words, kia (No. 1 167) and kiai (No. 1518).
The latter, as will be seen (p. 195), was scale armor, composed of im-
bricated leather pieces which were cut out in the shape of scales (com-
pare Plate XIV). The former was a cuirass made in imitation of a
coat. Our knowledge of this device is mainly founded on the State
Handbook containing the ritual and institutes of the Chou dynasty,
the Chou li. A special office of armorers was instituted at the Court of
the Chou dynasty; they were called han jen, "men who envelop {han,
No. 3809) the body with a protective contrivance." The manufacture
of these military leathern costumes is minutely described in the Chou li. 1

"The armorers make the cuirasses {kia). Those made from the
hide of the two-horned rhinoceros {si) consist of seven layers of hide;
those made from the hide of the single-horned rhinoceros {se) consist of
six layers; those made from a combination of both hides consist of five
layers. The first endure a hundred years; the second, two hundred
years; the third, three hundred years. In order to accomplish a cuirass,
first, a form (dummy) is made, 2 and then the hide is cut in accordance
with it. The hide pieces are weighed; and two piles equal in weight
are apportioned, the one for the upper, the other for the lower part
of the cuirass. The long strips, into which the hide has been cut up,

1 Biot, Vol. II, p. 506. The work of Biot is here, as in other instances, quoted
for easy reference, as by referring to Biot the Chinese text may readily be looked up;
but my rendering is based on the original text, and on several points deviates from
that of Biot, and fundamentally, in this passage descriptive of armor.

2 The dummy was patterned according to the figure of the individual for whom
the cuirass was intended, and the hide was tailored and adjusted in correspondence
with the dummy. It was left on the latter for some time, until it was thoroughly
hardened and had assumed the required shape. The process was the same as that still
practised on a smaller scale by the Chinese hatters, who fashion their caps over wooden
models.

176 Chinese Clay Figures

are laid around horizontally. In general when the hide has not been
properly cured, the cuirass is not strong; l when the hide is worn out, it
will wrinkle. The method of inspecting cuirasses is as follows: the
stitches, when examined, must be fine and close; the inner side of the
hide must be smooth ; the seams are required to be straight ; the cuirass
must perfectly fit into the case in which it is to be enclosed. 2 Then it is
taken up, 3 and when examined, it must allow of ample space. When it
is donned, it must not wrinkle. When the stitches are examined, and
found to be fine and close, it is a sign that the hide is strong. When
the inner side is examined, and found to be smooth, the material is well
prepared and durable. When the seams are examined, and found to be
straight, the cutting is perfect. When it is rolled up and placed in its
case, it should fold closely. When, however, it is taken out, it should
offer ample space to the wearer, and it is then beautiful. 4 When it is
donned without wrinkling, it will gradually adjust itself to the form of
the trunk."

We gather from this account that the ancient hide corselets were not
downright primitive affairs, but testify to an advanced stage of culture.
Armor, as early as that archaic period, was individual, and carefully
adapted to the shape of the body. Its weight was equally balanced
between the upper and lower portions, the former reaching from the
shoulders to the loins, the latter from the loins to the knees. Ap-
parently it was but one uniform coat, without sleeves, and without any
separate parts for protection, as nape-guards, greaves, knee-covers, or

1 Biot translates, "En general, si la fagon n'est point parfaite, la cuirasse n'est
pas solide." And Couvreur (Dictionnaire chinois-francais, p. 799), "Toute cuirasse
d'un travail imparfait n'est pas solide." My rendering is based on the comment of
Cheng Ngo.

2 The cuirass was rolled up and encased in a covering, presumably of hide. This
case wasstyled kao (No. 5949), a wordnowused in thesense of "quiver." Hide bags in
which to preserve armor are still used in Tibet, and there is one in the Museum's
collection. The Chinese now avail themselves of trunks with a special compartment
in the lid for the helmet (compare Plate XLIII).

3 The first test that the cuirass is exposed to refers to its fitting into the case ; the
second, to its fitting on the wearer; for this purpose it is taken out of the case.

4 As will be seen from Biot's comment, the K'ien-lung editors hold that the last
two qualities are difficult to reconcile, as, on the one hand, the cuirass must fit like
a coat without throwing folds, and, on the other hand, must have ample space and
splendor. I do not believe that this objection is very serious. The conditions stipu-
lated in the text could all, indeed, be fulfilled. The essential requisite was elasticity
to grant full freedom of motion; the cuirass must be tight-fitting, but if the hide is
sufficiently elastic, "ample space" is secured to the wearer. Owing to its flexible
character it could be readily rolled up, and, when taken out of its case, immediately
reverted to its original shape, so that it could be donned without loss of time. The
word ming ("brilliant") translated by Biot "alors elle a del'£clat," I believe, means
something like "it is then in evidence, it fulfils its purpose."

Defensive Armor of the Archaic Period 177

buskins. l The hide was well cured, and the inner side cleaned from all
adhering impurities.

My conception of the technicalities in the construction of this armor
is widely different from that of Biot based on the opinions of the Chinese
commentators. These interpret that the cuirass made from the hide of
the two-horned rhinoceros consisted of seven pieces sewed together;
that from the hide of the one-horned rhinoceros, of six; and that made
from a combination of both, of five pieces. There is no sense in this
point of view of the matter. The commentators of the Han and later
ages were unable to form a clear idea of the cuirass peculiar to the Chou
period, because it was lost in their time ; and they merely applied to the
latter the notions which they had gained from a consideration of contem-
poraneous armor. The armor terminology of the Han was read into
Chou armor, and a purely philological reconstruction was reached,
which hardly corresponds to a living reality. The armor, as interpreted
by the Chinese scholars, in my opinion, is technically impossible, and
beyond our experience: armor-suits of such requirements have been
made nowhere in this world, and in all likelihood never could have been
made. 2

There is no raison d'etre in assuming that the first should have been

1 Red knee-covers and buskins are mentioned in the Shi king, but they were
outfits belonging to the costume of ceremony, not of war (Legge, Chinese Classics,
Vol. IV, Prolegomena, p. 157, and p. 402).

2 For technical reasons it is highly improbable that the hide armor of the Chou
was sewed together from different pieces, because such a process would considerably
diminish its strength and capability of resistance, and a blow struck at the seams
would have had dangerous consequences. On the contrary, wherever hide armor
was made, the principle was quite naturally developed to make it, as far as possible,
in one piece; and this is exactly the point where the chief purpose of defensive armor
comes in. If the Chou cuirass had been patched together from odd pieces, as the
later Chinese philologists would make us believe, it could not have been a defensive
armor proper, but simply a skin garment. W. Hough (Primitive American Armor,
Report U. S. National Museum, 1893, p. 641) informs us that "American skin armor
was always made in one piece folded over, sewed above the shoulders, leaving an
orifice for the head and with a hole cut out of the left side for the left arm, the right
side of the garment remaining open; the skin was often doubled, but more frequently
the coat was reinforced with pieces of thick hide." Indeed, our Chou armor, cum
grano salts, can have been no other in type and appearance than the hide armor of
the American Indians, as figured on our Plate XI and by Hough on Plates XVI-XIX,
although it may have been somewhat more elegant in its fit to the individual
wearer. Hough (pp. 645, 646) furnishes several examples of the fact that hide armor
in America was worked in several layers; thus, two, three, or more folds of the
strongest hides were employed by the Nass Indians of the Tsimshian stock; a great
many folds of dressed antelope-skins by the Shoshoni; and the Navajo singer chants
of suits of armor made of several layers of buckskin. Likewise A. P. Niblack (The
Coast Indians of Southern Alaska, Report U. S. National Museum, 1888, p. 268)
states that the leather jerkins formerly made in Alaska were of one, two, or three
thicknesses of hide, and in itself offered considerable resistance to arrows, spears, or
dagger thrusts. Armor of rhinoceros-hide, according to Nachtigall, is still made and
employed by the Arabs of the Sudan (H. Schurtz, Grundzuge einer Philosophie
der Tracht, p. 114).

178 Chinese Clay Figures

made in seven, the second in six, and the third in five pieces; moreover,
they double these figures, and conjecture that the upper portion
(shang lii) and the lower portion {hia lii) each consisted of this number
of pieces. But how can such an affair be realized? It is perfectly-
conceivable that a coat is composed of six pieces (two in front, two in
the back, and two on the sides) ; any other even number — as four, eight,
ten, or more — likewise is imaginable. It is not easily conceivable,
however, as being incompatible with a normal state of affairs, that a
cuirass should have consisted of seven or five pieces (or any larger odd
number of pieces), as the Chinese commentators and Biot would have
us believe. This supposition is not very reasonable. The symmetry of
the human body inevitably results in principle in a strictly symmetrical
style and technique of costume, and of armor especially: asymmetric
armor nowhere exists. 1 Normal harness of the primitive stages of culture
is usually composed of an even number of pieces; and for this reason, the
Chinese interpretation is improbable. Even granted that another
point of view is possible in theory, — that, for example, the harness
of seven pieces may have had four in the back and three in front, or
three in the back, two on the sides, and two in front, etc., 2 — we still face
the mystery of the threefold classification graduated according to age:
what should be the reason that the cuirass of seven pieces is supposed
to last a hundred years, that of six pieces two hundred years, and that
of five pieces three hundred years? This is the salient point, to which
no Chinese commentator has paid due attention; but it is obvious that
this belief is associated with the two animals si and se furnishing the hide
for the cuirasses, and that the supposed differentiation of the age of the
two creatures is transferred to their products. Certain it is that the
philological interpretation of the Chinese literati must be at fault. Their
fundamental error lies in the misunderstanding of the word shu; 3 and in

1 I am, of course, aware of the fact that in European armor, which is more or
less artificial, a studied asymmetry is sometimes displayed (see, for instance,
Bashford Dean, Catalogue of European Arms and Armor, p. 64). The above re-
mark refers only to the spontaneous productions of primitive cultures.

2 Such an arrangement, moreover, I must confess, would appear to me as too
sophisticated, and technically too complex for such a simple and primitive age as
that of the Chou. In order to grasp the character of its culture-objects, we should
collect experience from the life of primitive peoples as we actually observe it (com-
pare Plate XI).

3 The text unfortunately is very succinct, and merely contains the terms ts'i shu,
leu shu, and wu shu. The Chinese commentators, accordingly, take the word shu
(No. 10,061) in the sense of "hide pieces laid out side by side and then joined to-
gether," but this is a point which I venture to contest. In my opinion, the question
can be satisfactorily decided, not only from a technological, but from a philological
point of view as well, if we interpret the word shu in the sense of "strata, or layers
of hide pressed together." The word shu is capable of assuming many significations;
its original meaning is, "to adhere, to place one thing on another, to tie together,

Defensive Armor of the Archaic Period 179

the venture of dragging in the terms cha (No. 127) and ye ("leaf "),
which are peculiar to the Han period, but which did not exist with this
meaning and with reference to armor in the age of the Chou. These
two terms refer to laminae or plates of hide or metal reinforcing armor
(see pp. 196, 210), and it will be seen that this type of armor springs
up only from under the Han. It certainly had not come into existence
under the Chou, as proved by the description of the armor given above
after the Chou li, in which those terms are absent. Again, it is an ab-
surdity to speak of an armor consisting of seven, six, or five laminae or
plates, as these are of small dimensions, and a very large number of
them is required to make a suit of armor. l The verdict of the Chinese
scholars must therefore be repealed. It is solely to the very text of the
Chou li, which is sound and sane, that we must appeal for a correct
understanding of the structure of this cuirass.

We can understand, in my estimation, only that the suits were com-
posed of seven, six, and five superposed layers or thicknesses of hide,
respectively, as in fact hide armor has been produced. Then the whole
passage becomes intelligible. There is a sensible gradation of three
coats, regulated according to the quality believed to inhere in the hide.
That of the two-horned rhinoceros ranks lowest in strength, therefore
requiring seven layers, 2 and lasts only a hundred years. That of the
single-horned rhinoceros, which is the stronger animal, is superior,
therefore requiring only six layers, and yet it will last two hundred
years. That of both kinds combined is the best and strongest of all,
therefore demanding only five layers, and will last three hundred years
(see also p. 172). The hide, accordingly, was cut up in horizontal see-
to unite, combine, to assemble," whence the significance "layer, stratum " is doubtless
derived; whereas there is no evidence that it was ever understood in the sense of
"piece." Couvreur explains it as a numerative of the pieces of an armor, and cites
from Ts'ien Han shu, "an armor composed of three pieces" (san shu chi kia). It
is inconceivable that such a device ever existed. It certainly was a hide armor
consisting of three layers of skin. A. Conrady (Eine indochinesische Causativ-
Denominativ-Bildung, p. 165) has succeeded well in tracing the etymology of the
word shu. The ancient pronunciation, according to him, was zuk (Japanese suk);
the primeval form to be supposed is grog, identical with the Tibetan root grog in
s-grog-pa ("to tie"), s-grog ("rope, strap"), and grogs ("fellow, friend"). This
derivation also sheds light on the Chinese word shu assuming the significance "strip
or layer of hide or leather."

1 It is therefore an anachronism when the passage in the text of the Chou li
(Giles, No. 4437) is translated, "In coats of mail, it is desirable for the plates to fit
evenly." Anything like plates is then out of the question. What is meant in this
passage is (and it is so understood by the Chinese commentators) that the hide used
in the cuirasses should not wrinkle. Biot very aptly translates, "On la revet, et
on demande qu'il n'y ait pas d'in£galit£s dans les coutures (qu'elles ne grimacent
pas)."

2 A cuirass of seven thicknesses is mentioned in the biography of I Shen (T'ang
shu, Ch. 170, p. 2).

i8o Chinese Clay Figures

tions into large and thin sheets, such as could be weighed and divided
into equal parts. It would be unreasonable to infer that a rhinoceros-
skin in its natural state of thickness could be properly cured, and then
utilized for the making of an armor: the skin was split into strata evenly
thick, which were cured, probably boiled, and according to the number
required were tightly pressed together. The fact that the harness was
not composed of seven, six, and five pieces becomes sufficiently evident
also from the rule that the long hide strips were laid around the trunk
horizontally; * naturally, for this was the most rational and efficient use
that could have been made of them. In all probability, the entire
affair consisted of only two main parts, — the corselet enveloping the
trunk, and the skirt protecting the thighs, — both being closely joined
together. Either part could have been made from a single piece of
hide. The sewing, of course, refers to the various layers of hide and
the seams. How the garment was put on is not indicated in the text;
but it seems plausible to infer that it was open in the middle of the front.
By a very similar process, cuirasses were still turned out in northern
China and Mongolia in recent times. The American Consul Bedloe 2
reported on this subject as follows: "The original armor of the north
(Manchuria and Mongolia) seems to have been leather, and in shape
was more like a blouse than a jerkin. In the course of years the skin
was doubled, trebled, and quadrupled, and a Chinese lower garment
that might be called leather greaves and cuirasses combined was added
to the upper one. The Mongolian nomads learned at an early age that
a coat or cuirass made of sheepskin in several thicknesses makes a very
warm garment and would turn a spear, arrow, or sword. Apparel of
this class is in use to-day and may be bought very cheaply in Shan-
tung." In the same manner the cuirasses of the Mongols invading
Europe were wrought. Thomas of Spalato, an historian of the thir-
teenth century, describes their defensive armor as made of ox-hide,
several layers of it being so tightly pressed together that the armor is
quite impermeable, and affords considerable protection. 3 This is
confirmed by Marco Polo, 4 who relates that the Mongols wear on their
backs armor of cuirbouly, prepared from buffalo and other hides, which

1 Biot translates with perfect correctness, "On prend leur longueur totale pour
faire le contour de la cuirasse."

2 Consular Reports on Commerce, Manufactures, etc., No. 147, p. 494 (Washing-
ton, 1892).

3 G. Strakosch-Grossmann, Der Einfall der Mongolen in Mitteleuropa, p. 28
(Innsbruck, 1893). The Tlingit cuirass on Plate XI consists of two superposed layers
of elk-hide.

4 Ed. of Yule and Cordier, Vol. I, p. 260.

Defensive Armor of the Archaic Period 181

is very strong. 1 Japanese accounts of the Mongol attempt to invade
Japan allude likewise to the cuirasses of the Mongols. 2

The leather corselets kia seem to have been in general use, even at an
early date, among the people of the state of Ts'in, who were prepared to
don them in case of war, as mentioned in a song of the Shi king. 3 Meng-
tse 4 speaks of the strong armor and the sharp weapons of Ts'in and
Ch'u. Siiin K'ing, a philosopher of the third century B.C., ascribes
armor of sharkskin and rhinoceros-hide to the people of Ch'u; both were
hard like metal and stone. 5 This is the more remarkable, as the author
goes on to say that the people of Ch'u possessed the iron and steel of
Yuan, a place corresponding to the modern Nan-yang in Ho-nan Prov-
ince, and that their lance and arrow heads, apparently of iron or steel,
were sharp like the stings of wasps and scorpions. We may therefore
infer that the people of Ch'u, despite their acquaintance with iron, had
not yet advanced to the stage of iron armor. Their hide armor must
have been light in weight; for they are reported to be "light and agile,
fiery and swift, and rapid like a hurricane." In general, however, or in
other states, these cuirasses seem to have been heavy and uncomfortable;
for we hear that they were donned only during battle, but rolled up and
carried by the soldiers during the march. 6 They did not allow the
wearer to run; and when driven to flight, the soldiers threw them off,
trailing their arms behind. 7

From a text in Tso ckuan 8 it appears that rhinoceros cuirasses were

1 Buffalo-hide came up as a substitute for rhinoceros-hide in the making of armor
during the T'ang period (p. 162).

2 A. Pfizmaier, Die Geschichte der Mongolen-Angriffe auf Japan (Sitzungs-
berichte Wiener Akademie, 1874, p. 151).

3 Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. IV, p. 202.
* Ibid., Vol. II, p. 135.

5 This passage is quoted also by Se-ma Ts'ien (Chavannes, Les Memoires histo-
riques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. Ill, p. 217). The Wu pel chi, an extensive work on mili-
tary science written under the Ming dynasty by Mao Yuan-i, and published in
162 1, comments on this statement of Siun K'ing that sharkskin armor equals rhino-
ceros-hide armor in hardness, and is therefore styled shui si ("water-rhinoceros"),
because the shark is produced in the water. Another instance of sharkskin armor
occurs in the T'ung kien kang mu (quoted in T'u shu tsi ch'eng), where it is ascribed
to the Mongols. Shagreen seems to have been utilized by the Chinese in olden times,
especially in saddlery. The imperial ' ' caparisons made of shagreen ' ' (Chavannes, /. c. ,
p. 214), I believe, are identical with the modern saddles mounted with shagreen. It
is used also for mounting the sheaths and handles of knives and swords, even for the
decoration of snuff-bottles. A detailed investigation of the subject is contained in
H. L. Joly and I. Hogitaro (The Sword Book, pp. 3 et seq. of the appendix).

6 As attested by Sun-tse (see L. Giles, Sun Tzu on the Art of War, p. 58, London,
1 9 10). The case in which the rolled-up cuirass was enclosed was styled kao (No. 5949).

7 As is evident from a passage of Meng-tse (Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. II,
p. 130).

8 Legge. Chinese Classics, Vol. V, p. 290.

1 82 Chinese Clay Figures

also varnished with a red lacquer. They are frequently alluded to in
that work, 1 and were doubtless the usual means of body protection
during the whole Ch'un-ts'iu period (b.c. 722-481). The states drew
up schedules of their weapons and defensive armor. In one passage, 2 a
distinction is made between soldiers wearing armor lashed with cords
(tsu kia, No. 11,828) and those who had donned an armor of silken fab-
rics (p x i lien, Nos. 8769, 7151). It is clear only that two kinds of
armor are here discriminated, and that their diversity of technique and
quality of material brought about a different effect : of the soldiers clad
with the former armor, there were three hundred, of whom eighty es-
caped; of soldiers with the latter armor, there was a force of three thou-
sand, of whom only three hundred escaped. We do not exactly know,
however, what these armors really were. Legge interprets tsu kia as
"buff -coats lacquered as if made of strings" (then again translating
"the men whose buff -coats looked as if made of strings"), and pH lien
as "whose coats were covered with silk." Neither is intelligible. S.
Couvreur 3 has proposed to explain the term tsu lien as "cuirasse faite
de cordons de soie, et tunique ouatee faite de grosse soie cuite," 4 and
the term tsu kia as "cuirasse faite de cordon de soie et enduite de
vernis." These definitions are helpful, yet they leave us in the dark as
to the contrast between the armor tsu and the armor lien. The latter,
which proved so disastrous to their wearers, may have been made
entirely from a coarse silken material ; the former, however, as attested
by the word kia, seem to have consisted essentially of hide, with the
addition of silk cords (styled tsu) , which I am inclined to think refer to
the lashings of the hide armor.

A special protective contrivance employed by the archers was an
arm-guard, called han (No. 3799), a leather cuff wrapped around the
left arm, the bow being supported against it. 8 From the Han period
these objects were made of iron.

The utilization of rhinoceros-hide for armor persisted down to the
T'ang period. Li Wang of the Han makes mention of this material
(si se) for that purpose. A helmet of rhinoceros-hide is mentioned under
the year 30 a.d. in the Tung kuan Han ki, completed about 170 a.d.
In the biography of General Ma Lung, 6 who died in 300 a.d., 7 we hear

1 Ibid., pp. 289, 397, 419, 517.

2 Duke Siang, third year (Legge, p. 419).

3 Dictionnaire chinois-francais, pp. 494, 982.

* In Li ki, garments of coarse boiled silk worn after the first year of mourning are
mentioned.

6 Couvreur, Li ki, Vol. I, p. 621.

6 Inserted in the Annals of the Tsin Dynasty (Tsin shu, Ch. 57, p. 2 b).

7 Giles, Biographical Dictionary, p. 568.

Defensive Armor of the Archaic Period 183

of a singular stratagem, in which iron mail (Vie k'ai) versus rhinoceros-
hide cuirasses (si kia) was at stake. Ma Lung defeated a hostile
army by covering the sides of a narrow pass with loadstone, 1 so that the
iron-clad enemies were unable to move, whereas his cuirassed men got
the better of them. Whatever the basis of this anecdote may be, we
recognize that hide armor still held its ground in the age of iron armor,
and insured mobility of troops to such a degree that hide-clad soldiers
could carry a victory over a heavy-mailed force struggling along under
the burden of metal. In some other passages of Tsin shu and Sung shu
we meet the term si p'i k'ai ("rhinoceros-hide metal armor"), which
must have been a suit with a hide foundation reinforced by metal
laminee. We shall hear more of cuirasses in later periods, and likewise
of metal armor.

The hide armor of the Chou is irretrievably lost, and there is little or
no chance that any will ever come to light. To a certain degree, hide
armor, as still manufactured not so long ago by native tribes of America,
may serve as an object-lesson and substitute, and assist us in reconstruct-
ing in our minds the appearance of the ancient Chinese warriors. As
the course of our investigation renders it necessary to touch also the
subject of American defensive armor, these illustrations of American
specimens not easily accessible will be welcome to many students.
Plate XI illustrates an armor, in the form of a vest, made from extremely
hard, heavy, tanned moose-skin of two thicknesses, the two layers being
tightly pressed together. It is proof, against musket-balls fired at a
reasonable distance. It opens in front, and is closed by means of three
iron buckles of foreign make. The specimen comes from the Tlingit,
Alaska. 2

The armor figured in Plate XII is the work of Asiatic Eskimo
from East Cape on the Chukotsk Peninsula. It is of particular interest
in this connection as exhibiting the tendency toward making a cuirass
of a single large piece of hide, as far as possible, thus avoiding the cutting
of it. Extending in its total width to fully 1.55 m, two complete skins
of seals are utilized in this specimen, the one forming the exterior, the
other the interior, of the suit. They are sewed together along the edges

1 Regarding the loadstone in China see J. Klaproth (Lettre sur l'invention de la
boussole, pp. 66 et seq., Paris, 1834), and F. de Mely (Les lapidaires chinois, p. 106).

2 Similar coats of hardened hide were turned out by the Haida, Chinuk, Hupa,
Shoshoni, Navajo, Pawni, Mohawk, and others. There are in the Field Museum sev-
eral other Tlingit cuirasses painted with the totemic emblems of the clans to which
the chiefs wearing them belonged. The shields of the Plains Indians were made
from buffalo-hide, with one or two covers of soft dressed buffalo, elk, or deer skin; the
hide used for the purpose was taken from the neck of the buffalo bull, and was made
exceptionally thick and tough by shrinking it, while wet, over a fire built in a hole
in the ground (J. Mooney, in Handbook of American Indians, Vol. II, p. 547).

184 Chinese Clay Figures

with bands of seal-thongs, and enclose between them wooden slats.
The central piece protecting the chest has incased in it a board of the
same shape and size, while the gradually narrowing flaps have each
four slats inserted to secure greater elasticity of movement.

On Plate XIII is illustrated an armor of hard tanned caribou-skin,
of especial interest to students of China because it is covered all over
with Chinese coins. It is of the same type of cuirass as the one in Plate
XI and comes from the Tlingit, Tarku Tribe, on the Tarku River, Alaska.
It was obtained by Lieutenant G. T. Emmons, who says that "the
Chinese money was procured in trade from the early Russians, whose
ships, exchanging the furs of the North Pacific with the Chinese for tea,
plied constantly between the two countries, by which means many
Chinese articles found their way to this coast." The coins (about a
thousand in number) are arranged in regular vertical rows, and are
fastened to the surface of the skin coat by means of leather strips,
which pass through their square perforations. The coins are all care-
fully selected, and only well preserved specimens have been used. The
obverse, containing the Chinese legend, is usually on the outside; only
in a few cases does the reverse with the Manchu legend stand out.
The bulk of these coins date from the beginning of the Manchu dynasty,
and are those inscribed with the periods Shun-chi (1 644-1 661), K'ang-hi
(1662-1722), and Yung-cheng (1723-1735). There are several coins of
the period K'ien-lung (1 736-1 795) in this lot, but they form the minority,
while the K'ang-hi coins outnumber all others. There is no coin later
than the K'ien-lung period, so that it may well be supposed that this
collection of coins was traded off in Alaska during or shortly after
that period, say roughly at the end of the eighteenth century. We
know, of course, that until a few years ago coins of the said description
were still circulating in many parts of the interior of China, particularly
in the country, though I understand that they have now been with-
drawn from currency owing to the financial and monetary reform; it is
not likely, however, that such a large number of those older coins would
have arrived in Alaska in recent times without any additional modern
coins. The conspicuous absence of any coins of the nineteenth century
in a lot of a thousand speaks in favor of the assumption that they had
been traded at the termination of the eighteenth century. A closer
attempt at dating could be made, if it were possible to take off all the
K'ien-lung coins, in order to read their reverses, which usually impart the
place of the mint, and in some cases would allow of the establishment
of a fixed year for the coinage. The last year thus determined would
yield the terminus a quo; that is, the approximate date, after which this
money may have left China en route to the north-east. It is not feasible

Defensive Armor of the Archaic Period 185

to detach the coins from the armor, nor to lift them sufficiently to enable
one to read the reverse, as they are fastened very tightly. Certainly, I
do not mean to say that the armor itself originated at the end of the
eighteenth century, though of course this might be possible; while it is
conceivable also that the coins, on arrival in Alaska, were kept in a family ;
or bequeathed to some member of it, and were attached to the cuirass
at a much later date. x

It is curious that in the Chou li no mention is made of helmets. A
reference to them was presumably contained in the lost chapter Se kia,
"the Superintendents of Armor," an office dealing with the business of
defensive and offensive armor. In the Shi king, in one of the songs of
the country of Lu, helmets adorned with shells (pei chou) are mentioned.
The shells, as is explained by the commentaries, were connected, and
attached to the helmets by means of strings of vermilion color. 2 The
helmets were nothing but round leather caps, corresponding to the
galea of the Romans.

Armor and helmet were designed to create the impression of strength
and bravery, and to inspire such fear that the enemy did not dare to
attack the wearer. 3 They were considered valuable objects and were
presented as gifts. 4

The regular force which a great state could at the utmost bring into
the field consisted of a thousand chariots. 6 Each chariot contained

1 F. Ratzel (Uber die Stabchenpanzer, Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Akademie,
1886, p. 191), who mentions such coin armor among the Tlingit, derives it from the
idea of armor-scales, and remarks that motives of protection and decoration here
come into close contact with each other. The idea of a scale armor, however, is ex-
cluded in such specimens as the one figured by Hough (Primitive American Armor,
Plate XXI, Fig. 1) where the coins are strung loosely and at some distance from one
another, so that protection from them, if any at all, could only amount to a minimum.
Further, the conspicuous absence of scale armor on the entire continent of America
conflicts with the view that the comparatively recent coin armor might be the imita-
tion of scale armor. The coins have a merely ornamental purpose, and possibly also
the function of amulets or magic protection; as such, these two ideas being com-
bined, we find Chinese coins sewed on to every-day garments among the Gold and
the Gilyak on the Amur; and as the common Chinese people are themselves in the
habit of wearing old coins as charms, it seems very plausible that the example of the
Chinese may have served as an incentive to the Amur tribes, and that Russian trad-
ers, familiar with the customs of Siberian peoples, may have suggested the same prac-
tice to the tribes of Alaska.

2 Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. IV, p. 626.

3 Li ki, ed. Couvreur, Vol. I, p. 52; Vol. II, p. 492.

4 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 41; Vol. II, pp. 17, 18.

5 The war-chariot is generally believed to have arisen in Babylonia, and to have
spread from this centre to Egypt, Greece, Iran, and India. But the great antiquity
which the war-chariot may claim in China prevents us from accepting the conclusion
that it was plainly derived there from Babylonia in historical times. Like many other
basic factors of ancient Chinese culture, it ranges in the class of those acquisitions
which ancient China has in common with western Asia, and which go back to a re-
mote prehistoric age. To these belong the mode of agriculture, the cultivation of

186 Chinese Clay Figures

three armored men, — the charioteer in the middle, with a spearman on
his right, and an archer on his left. There were attached to it seventy-
two foot-soldiers and twenty-five other followers, one hundred men in all;
so that the whole force would amount to a hundred thousand men.
But in actual service, the force of a great state was restricted to three
armies, or three hundred and seventy-five chariots, attended, inclusive
of their armored occupants, by thirty-seven thousand five hundred men,
of whom twenty-seven thousand five hundred were foot-soldiers. l It
seems that body armor was restricted to those fighting from the chariots.
Another safeguard of the warriors was formed by shields decorated
with figures of dragons, or perhaps adorned with feathers. 2 The latter
affair presents a point of controversy among the commentators: the
one understanding that the feathers were fixed to the shield; the others,
that they were painted on it. Legge adopts the latter view, and trans-
lates, "the beautiful feather-figured shield." Also Couvreur is
inclined to think that feathers of different kinds were represented on
the shield. This opinion, however, is not very convincing. Whereas
it is perfectly plausible that designs of dragons, or, as in recent times, of
tigers were painted on the shields, and doubtless intended to guard the
wearer and to terrify the enemy, it is difficult to see what reasons could
induce man to decorate his shield with a pictorial pattern of feathers.
We are all familiar with the shields of primitive man adorned with real
feathers, particularly among the American Indians; and the primitive
man of the Shi king period, in all likelihood, may have done the same. 3
A document of the Han period brought to light by M. Chavannes
(see p. 189), in which pigeon tail-feathers are mentioned in connection
with a buckler, is very apt to corroborate this conclusion.

The shield was combined with the spear, 4 while later in the Han pe-

wheat and barley, tilling of the field by means of the plough drawn by an ox, methods
of artificial irrigation, cattle-breeding, employment of cattle as draught- animals,
the composite bow, the cart based on the principle of the wheel, and the potter's
wheel.

1 Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. IV, p. 626; Couvreur, Cheu King, p. 137. _ I
have abandoned Legge's inexact word "mailed" and substituted "armored" for it;
anything like "mail" was unknown in China during the archaic period (compare
Chapter IV).

2 Legge, I. c, p. 194; Couvreur, /. c, pp. 135, 136.

s The Tibetans had bucklers ornamented with feathers (seep. 256). An unsophisti-
cated mind may certainly be entitled to raise the question how the Chinese com-
mentators get at the "feathers" in the passage of the Shi king, as no direct word to
this effect is employed. The word meng (No. 7763), into which this meaning is read,
means "to cover, to envelop;" and the term mlng fa, after all, may simply mean
' ' wooden shields covered with hide. " In this sense , the term m Sng tun ( ' ' hide-covered
buckler") is indeed utilized in later literature.

4 For instance, Biot, Chou li, Vol II, p. 223. In the inscriptions on ancient
bronzes, as reproduced and explained in the Po ku t'u lu, the word sun ("grand-

Defensive Armor of the Archaic Period 187

riod it was handled together with the sword. The term kan ko ("shield
and spear") in the Shi king 1 is a collective notion comprising defensive
and offensive armor, or war-implements. In the administration of the
Chou dynasty, there was a special official presiding over the various
kinds of spears and bucklers, and commissioned with their distribution. 2
But no contemporaneous description of shields is handed down, from
which an exact conception as to their material and form might be
gained.

The shields protecting the soldiers in the war-chariots were presum-
ably roof-shaped, as we glean from a text in Tso chuan 3 when, in the
battle of Ch'ui-pi, fought between the armies of the principalities of
Lu and Ts'i, Tse-yuan Tsi of Ts'i pursued Sheng-tse, and shot an arrow
at him, hitting the ridge of his shield. In this passage the ridge is
designated "roofing-tile" (wa), explained by the commentary as the
ridge of the shield. This is also the earliest document in which the word
shun (No. 10,154) appears as a designation for the shield, and, owing to
its composition with the classifier 'wood,' leaves no doubt that the
shields were wooden. 4 It is worthy of note that during the early
period, in the same manner as in armor, no metal was employed for the
bucklers; and it is remarkable also that in all later periods of culture
when the working of metals was in full swing, none were ever turned to
that purpose; wood, rattan, and hide holding their place. The buckler,
accordingly, never assumed a vast importance in Chinese warfare. 5

A fundamental text relating to ancient shields, though dating from
the time of the Later Han dynasty, is contained in the dictionary Shi
ming by Liu Hi. He defines the word tun ("shield") as tung ("to

son") is represented in writing by the rough figure of a youth holding spear and
shield, and performing a war-dance.

1 Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. IV, pp. 484, 578. Likewise in Li ki (ed. Cou-
vreur, Vol. I, pp. 233, 468).

2 Biot, Chou li, Vol. II, p. 238; J. H. Plath, Das Kriegswesen der alten Chinesen
(Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Akademie, 1873, p. 33).

3 Duke Chao, 26th year, B.C. 516 (compare Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. V,
p. 716).

4 Shi king, Chou li, and Shi ki use the word tun (No. 12,223), which is doubtless
derived from the verb tun (No. 12,225), "to hide away, to conceal one's self." The
word kan (No. 5814) appears twice in Shu king. The commentaries do not interpret
the differences between the three words, but explain one by another. The shield, as
elsewhere, was occasionally applied also as an offensive weapon. Thus, Fan K'uai,
girt with a sword and bearing the buckler on his arm, penetrated into the camp of
Hiang Yu, and used the buckler in pushing the guards down, who thus fell to the
ground (Chavannes, Les Mdmoires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. II, p. 279).

6 Copper shields are mentioned by the Chinese, but refer to foreign tribes; for
instance, in the Annals of the Yuan Dynasty under the year 1286, when they were
sent from a foreign country called Ma-pa; they are ascribed also to the Shan of Yun-
nan (see p. 193).

188 Chinese Clay Figures

conceal one's self," No. 12,241), and as the object behind which a man
hides himself in a kneeling position in order to evade an attack. Liu
Hi enumerates two kinds of foreign shields adopted by the ancient
Chinese, — a large and flat one, which originally was indigenous to the
country of Wu 1 and peculiar to the generals there, hence styled Wu
k'uei (No. 6499), "general of Wu;" and a high one, termed sti tun, 2
coming from the country of Shu (Sze-ch'uan), but termed by others
"shield of the K'iang (Tibetans)" because they asserted that it origi-
nated from the K'iang. Here we notice the ever-recurring Chinese
tendency toward imitating and appropriating the armaments of the
neighboring tribes. Liu Hi mentions also the long and narrow shields
used by the infantry soldiers in combination with the sword, — styled
"foot shields" (pu [No. 9485] tun); 3 and the short and narrow shields
employed on the war-chariots, — styled "small shields" (kie [No.
1505] 4 tun). As to the materials chosen for their manufacture, he
emphasizes boards and, what is of especial interest, rhinoceros-hide
(si p'i). The latter were termed "rhinoceros shields" (si tun); the
former, "wooden shields" (mu tun). The specimen of a circular buck-
ler of rhinoceros-hide, of Indian manufacture (secured by the writer in
Tibet), is illustrated in Plate XXVII.

Culture-objects when once acquired survive through the ages with
persistent force, even after the introduction of innovations which seem to
be apt to supersede entirely the old material. We have already referred
to the fact that cuirasses have not yet wholly disappeared in modern
China. Indeed, we meet them in all periods of Chinese history, despite
new inventions of superior quality.

From the wooden documents found in Turkistan, and recently
deciphered with admirable ingenuity by E. Chavannes 5 it becomes
apparent that hide corselets formed the defensive armor of the Chinese
soldiers serving in eastern Turkistan during the Han period. The
contemporaneous texts written out on wooden slips employ either the

1 No. 12,748. Wu is an ancient kingdom comprising the present province of
Kiang-su, the southern part of An-hui, and the northern portions of Che-kiang and
Kiang-si (see Chinese Pottery in the Philippines, p. 42, note 10).

2 Sti (No. 4716) is explained as a war-implement in K'ang-hi's Dictionary, which
quotes the passage in question. This interpretation is not quite satisfactory; for
the word sti must have a more specific meaning, as shown by the parallelism of the
preceding sentence and the following clause, in which it is said that these shields were
handled by the Sti of the country of Shu. The word, accordingly, parallel to the
preceding generals of Wu, must refer to a military charge or rank in Shu; and it is
doubtless derived from a language spoken in Shu, or from a language of the K'iang.

s These were actually used in the Han period, as will be noticed in Chapter III.

4 The word is explained by him in the sense of "small."

5 Les documents chinois d£couverts par Aurel Stein dans les sables du Turkestan
oriental, p. xvi (Oxford, 1913).

Defensive Armor of the Archaic Period 189

plain word kia (No. 187), or the compound ko kia (Nos. 393, 569),
"hide armor;" and we hear also of an official having charge of armor
(No. 758). 1 Simultaneously, another word for body armor, k'ai, is
twice used in these documents (Nos. 758, 794), and translated by
M. Chavannes likewise " cuirasse." This seems to be correct only in so
far as leather was applied also to this kind of armor, as expressly attested
by document No. 794; but it will be seen in the following chapter that
the new word k'ai, which springs up in the Han period, denotes a new
type of armor presenting a combination of hide with metal, and that the
rendering by "cuirass" is therefore inadequate. The defensive armor of
the Han soldiers was completed by a helmet (No. 794) and a buckler
(tun), the latter being described as red in the wooden documents (Nos.
75, 77), from which it may be inferred that they were made of wood
covered with a red varnish 2 protecting the wood from moisture, red
being believed to terrify the enemy; it was the main function of the
buckler to ward off the shots of arrows (No. 682). In one case a
buckler is especially mentioned as having been made in B.C. 63 by the
official Armory of Nan-yang in Ho-nan Province (No. 39) ; in another
case a buckler is on record as having been worked in B.C. 61 by the ar-
tisans of the administration (No. 40). Bucklers were decorated with
pigeon tail-feathers attached to them (No. 75). 3

Despite the fact that metal armor, as will be seen in the next chapter,
gradually made its way during the period of the two Han dynasties,
and was firmly established in the age of the T'ang, mention is still made
in the Statutes of the T'ang Dynasty 4 of hide cuirasses (p'i kia) ; rhino-

1 In Ch. 49 of Hou Han shu the story is told of how in 75 a.d. General Keng
Kung and his troops, being at war with Kucha, were at the point of starvation, and
cooked cuirasses and crossbows so as to feed on the leather and sinews contained
in them (Chavannes, T'oung Pao, 1907, p. 228), — a case sufficiently convincing
as to the material of which they were made.

2 In the same manner as the cuirasses (p. 182).

3 M. Chavannes (/. c, p. 30) thinks that the expression "pigeon-tail" must be
a technical term which designates perhaps the leather or hemp handle of the buckler.
There is in my opinion no necessity for such a conjecture. " Pigeon-tail," I venture to
suggest, is to be understood literally, inasmuch as the buckler, as perhaps in the period
of the Shi king, was adorned along its edges with feathers; in the document in question
the report is made that the soldier so and so has received "a red buckler, the pigeon
tail-feathers of which had rotted away." The " rotting-away " sounds plausible
with regard to the latter, but much less so if a leather or hemp strap were intended.
As to offensive armor, M. Chavannes correctly emphasizes the fact that the Chinese
soldiers of the Han time availed themselves of crossbows, not of bows; this is con-
firmed by his documents as well as by the Han sculptures, on which men are usually
represented as shooting with crossbows, not, as has been said by some observers,
with bows. As to swords, it seems preferable to study them from actual specimens
of cast bronze and iron, such as are in our collections, instead of from the bas-reliefs,
as M. Chavannes recommends us to do (compare Plates XX and XXI).

4 P'ei wen yiin fu (Ch. 106, p. 73), and Ko chi king yuan (Ch. 41, p. 3). The
T'ang leu lien ("Six Statutes of the T'ang Dynasty") gives a description of the

190 Chinese Clay Figures

ceros-hide (si se) being employed for them, and sometimes being sup-
planted by buffalo-hide.

In the History of the Liao Dynasty x rhinoceros-hide armor is still
recorded for the year 952 as a tribute of the Nan Tang dynasty to the
Court of the Liao. The captains in the army of the kingdom of Nan-
chao are reported to have used cuirasses made from rhinoceros-hide. 2
During the middle ages, when the rhinoceros grew scarcer, other hides
began to take its place. It has been demonstrated above (p. 162) that
under the T'ang the district of Kuang-ling sent to the Court tribute of
buffalo-hide armor. 3 Marco Polo 4 says regarding the Mongols that
on their backs they wear armor of cuirbouly (boiled leather) , prepared
from buffalo and other hides, which is very strong; and all contemporary
western writers speak of the leather armor used by the Mongols.
This fact is confirmed by the Annals of the Yuan Dynasty. 6

The type of cuirass styled "hoop armor" has possibly at one time
existed in China, though there is no description of it. At the Court
of the emperors of the Kin dynasty (11 15-1234) in Peking, the guards
were all clad with armor. On the left were stationed those with a
banded cuirass colored blue (tsHng t'ao kid), holding in their hands a
flag on which was represented a yellow dragon. On the right were
stationed those with a banded cuirass colored red (hung t'ao kid), holding
a flag with a red dragon represented on it. 7 The word kia used in this
connection indicates that it is the question of hide cuirass; and the word
t'ao (" band ") defines the peculiar character of this armor in that it was
banded or hooped, the bands being cut out of leather, perhaps in a

administrative organization of the period K'ai-yuan (7I3-74 1 ) of the T'ang dynasty,
the authorship being ascribed to the Emperor Yuan-tsung (713-755)1 and Li Lin-fu
and others contributing to the interpretation of the work (Wylie, Notes on Chinese
Literature, p. 67; Pelliot, Bulletin de l' Ecole francaise d'Extrime-Orient, Vol. Ill,
1903, p. 668).

1 Liao shi, Ch. 6, p. 1.

2 C. Sainson, Histoire particuliere du Nan-Tchao, p. 19 (Paris, 1904).

3 In Yen kien lei han (Ch. 228, p. 14) a book Ts'e lin hai ts'o is quoted to the
effect that what is designated "rhinoceros-hide armor" in the T'ang History is at present
made from buffalo-hide, but is generally styled si ("rhinoceros").

4 Ed. of Yule and Cordier, Vol. I, p. 260.

5 W. W. Rockhill, The Journey of William of Rubruck, p. 261 (London, Hak-
luyt Society, 1900), and p. 180.

6 For instance, Yuan shi, Ch. 78, p. 12 (K'ien-lung edition).

7 This information is contained in the Pei yuan lu, the narrative of a journey in
1 177 a.d. from Hang chou to Peking, described by Chou Shan and translated by
Chavannes (T'oung Pao, 1904, pp. 163-192; the passage indicated is on p. 189). It
is quoted, though incompletely, in P'ei wen yiinfu (Ch. 106, p. 74). Chavannes'
translation "cuirasses avec des cordons bleus" certainly is all right, as far as the
translation is concerned; but I am inclined to think that this term is capable of the
interpretation as given above. The word t'ao ("band") is in Giles, No. 10,817.

Defensive Armor of the Archaic Period 191

manner similar to that of the corresponding Chukchi armor figured and
described by Walter Hough 1 and W. Bogoras. 2

Another singular kind of armor is alluded to in the Lan p'ei lu 3 under
the name jung kia. The word jung (No. 5736) refers to the soft core
of the young antlers of the deer (considered by the Chinese an efficient
aphrodisiac); and I am inclined to interpret the term jung kia as a
cuirass strengthened by horn shavings fastened to the surface, for which
there are interesting analogies in other culture areas. 4 In the passage

1 Primitive American Armor (Report of the U. S. National Museum for 1893,
Plate IV and p. 634). An excellent specimen of this type is in the Field Museum (Cat.
No. 34.150-

2 Publications du MusSe d'Ethnographie et d' Anthropologic de St. Peter sbourg, II,
Plate XII, Fig. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1901). The Chukchi hoop armor, however, is not
related to the so-called banded mail of the European middle ages, as asserted by
Hough (/. c, p. 633) and repeated by Bogoras (The Chukchee, Jesup North Pacific
Expedition, Vol. VII, p. 162). In the European types it has been shown that the
banded appearance, as it occurs in mediaeval illustrations, was produced by thongs of
leather which were strung through adjacent rows of chain-links (Bashford Dean,
Catalogue of European Arms and Armor, p. 22, New York, 1905), — a feature entirely
lacking in the Chukchi armor.

3 Quoted in P'ei win yiin fu, Ch. 106, p. 74. This is a brief work containing
likewise the narrative of a mission to the Court of the Kin emperors in 11 70 by Fan
Ch'eng-ta (1 126-1 193), and reprinted in Chi pu tsu chai ts'ung shu. In the text of this
work it is added that the guards had spears with handles inlaid with gold leaf, and
flags painted with blue dragons; those in the east had yellow flags, and those in the
west white ones.

4 Ammianus Marcellinus (xvii, 12) narrates that the armor of the Quadians
and Sarmatians consisted of small scales of polished horn arranged on a linen coat
like the plumage of a bird (loricae ex cornibus rasis et levigatis, plumarum specie
linteis indumentis innexae); and Pausanias (i, 21, 5) relates that a Sarmatian scale
armor made of horses' hoofs was preserved as a curiosity in the Temple of Aesculapius
at Athens. Ratzel (Uber die Stabchenpanzer und ihre Verbreitung im nordpazifi-
schen Gebiet, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerlschen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1886,
p. 191) mentions, after a letter received from William H. Dall, an armor made by the
Tlingit from slices of deer-hoof fastened to a foundation of elk-skin in the manner
of scale armor. In the Philippine collection of the Field Museum (Cat. No. 34,493,
gift of Mr. E. E. Ayer), there is a suit of armor composed of rectangular laminas of
buffalo (carabao) horn, mutually connected by means of rows of brass rings. This
armor was made by the Moro on Basilan Island. It is identical with the specimen figured
by L. Scherman (Berichte des K. Ethnographischen Museums in Miinchen IV, 191 1,
Miinchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 1912, p. 96, Fig. 18), which is stated to hail
from the Sulu Archipelago, and to be characteristic of this region. In the Field
Museum, however, there is also a suit of armor of exactly the same type, in which
the laminae are entirely wrought from brass, and likewise joined by means of brass
rings. This metal suit, according to the traditions of the natives, was captured in
1 63 1 when a Spanish expedition was massacred at Lake Lanao; they assure us also
that the suits of carabao horn were turned out in imitation of this Spanish model.
It is therefore obvious that the metal harness in question, as moreover attested by
the evidence of the object itself, is of Spanish make, and served as model for the
Philippine as well as the Sulu horn armors. Suits of armor have always been highly
prized articles and carried away to remote corners by barter or capture in war; and
it is always necessary to be on one's guard in making correct attributions. We may
even go so far as to say that it would be impossible for the natives of the Philippines
to construct such a complicated affair from their own inventiveness. Their purely
native armor is unpretentious, being made from woven hemp stuffed with matted
hemp fibre. This is the national North- Malayan type of body armor, the same as

192 Chinese Clay Figures

referred to it is said that in the east and west galleries of the imperial
palace the guards were clothed with armor, and that those posted east wore
armor of horn dyed red (hung jung kid) , those posted west wore armor
of horn dyed green and blue (pi [No. 9009] jung kid). It thus seems that
the Kin or Niiichi had a predilection for curious armor.

Reference to the cuirass of the Mongols has already been made
above (pp. 180, 190).

"They ride long like Frenchmen, and wear armor of boiled leather,
and shields and arblasts, and all their quarrels are poisoned," — thus
Marco Polo 1 describes the equipment of the inhabitants of the kingdom
of Nan-chao in Yiin-nan called by him Carajan. Yule is inclined to
prefer the reading "cuir de bufal" offered by another text, as some of
the Miao-tse of Kuei-chou are described as wearing armor of buffalo-
leather 2 overlaid with iron plates.

Hide was indeed the chief material utilized for body armor by the
aboriginal tribes inhabiting southern China. In this respect we are
well informed by several reliable and observant authors of the Sung
period. The famous Fan Ch'eng-ta (1126-1193), 3 official, poet, florist,
traveller, and ethnographer, has the following description in his valuable
account of the regions of southern China, 4 "As regards the armor of
the Man tribes, harness and helmets are wrought to a large extent only
in the kingdom of Ta-li. 6 Elephant-skin is used for this purpose in such

we find on Formosa. The aborigines of Formosa, at the time when the Chinese made
their first acquaintance in the beginning of the seventh century, were in a transitional
stage of life, iron being only sparsely used, while bone and horn took its place; and
a hoe with stone blade was employed in tilling the fields. The interesting account
given in the Annals of the Sui Dynasty (Sui shu, Ch. 81, p. 5) ascribes to them
knives, spears, bows and arrows, swords and daggers; and adds that owing to the
scarcity of iron in the country the blades are thin and small, being replaced to a great
extent by bone and horn, and that "of plaited hemp they make armor, or avail
themselves of bear and leopard skins."

1 Ed. of Yule and Cordier, Vol. II, p. 78.

2 According to the Nan-chao ye shi, as previously shown, it was rhinoceros-hide ;
while the text of Fan Ch'eng-ta which follows above speaks of elephant-skin. In all
likelihood these three materials, buffalo, rhinoceros, and elephant, were used side by
side.

3 Giles, Biographical Dictionary, p. 242.

4 The general title of the work is Kui hai yti heng chi (Wylie, Notes on Chinese
Literature, p. 56; Bretschneider, Botanicon Sinicum, pt. 1, p. 165). The single
chapters have separate headings; the one from which the above extract is given is
entitled Kui hai k'i chi ("Records of Implements in Southern China"). My quota-
tion refers to the reprint of the text in T'ang Sung ts'ung shu.

5 Name of the country and the capital of the Shan in the present province of
Yun-nan, who ruled as the Nan-chao dynasty, and whose kingdom was destroyed
by the Mongols in 1252. It still was independent at the time to which our above
account refers. The fact that the armor of the Man is traced to the kingdom of Ta-li,
then inhabited by the T'ai or Shan, is of some significance. The T'ai were a warlike
and chivalrous nation like the Tibetans, and had developed a highly advanced culture

Defensive Armor of the Archaic Period 193

a manner that one large piece covers the breast and another the back,
looking like the carapace of a turtle, and being as solid and massive as
iron. l Then small strips of leather are so combined as to form brassards
and nape-guards, made like the iron armor-plates of the Chinese, 2 and
all colored vermilion. Helmet and harness, both on the interior and
exterior side, are all colored vermilion. By means of yellow and black
mineral dye-stuffs they paint designs of flowers, small and large animals,
such as are now found on girdle-buckles, 3 — of admirable workmanship.
They string also small white shells 4 in connected rows, sew them on to
the harness, and decorate the helmets with them. Presumably they
are survivals of those ancient helmets adorned with shells on vermilion
strings mentioned in the Shi king." 5

betraying, in opposition to the Chinese, a keynote of striking individualism. Every
adult was a soldier; and it is a surprising fact that there was compulsory military
service in the kingdom of Nan-chao, and that the army was highly organized. The
History of Nan-chao compiled in 1550 by Yang Shen (1488-1559) narrates that the
army captains used to wear cuisses, red helmets, and cuirasses of rhinoceros-hide,
and carried bucklers of copper; but they marched bare-footed (C. Sainson, Histoire
parti culiere du Nan-Tchao, p. 19, Paris, 1904). As to its historical relations, the pro-
tective armor of the Man must therefore be connected with that of the Shan; and the
Man apparently derived it from the superior culture of their neighbors.

1 Virudhaka, one of the four guardians of the world {lokapdla) in Hindu mythol-
ogy, wears a helmet from the skin of an elephant's head (Grunwedel, Buddhist Art
in India, p. 138, and Mythologie des Buddhismus, p. 181). An armor of elephant-
skin overlaid with gold in the possession of a Mongol prince in 1573 is mentioned by
Sanang Setsen (I. J. Schmidt, Geschichte der Ost-Mongolen, p. 217). The Jesuit
Francisco Combes, in his Historia de Mindanao of 1667 (Blair and Robertson, The
Philippine Islands, Vol. XL, p. 179), reports that the Joloans on Mindanao in the
Philippines are armed from top to toe with helmet, bracelets, coat-of-mail, greaves,
with linings of elephant-hide armor so proof that nothing can make a dint on it except
fire-arms, for the best sword or cutlass is turned. As the elephant does not occur in
the Philippines (its presence on Borneo is presumably due to human agency), these
armors, in all likelihood, must have been importations from the Asiatic mainland.

2 See Chapter V.

3 The word employed here is si-pi (No. 9050), which in this mode of writing, for
the first time, appears in Se-ma Ts'ien's Shi ki (Ch. no, p. 6 b) in the sense of a
buckle to fasten a girdle. E. H. Parker {China Review, Vol. XX, p. 15), in his
translation of this passage, explains si-pi as a word of the Sien-pi language. See now
R. and H. Torii, Etudes arch£ologiques {Journal of the College of Science, Vol. 36,
Tokyo, 1914, p. 82, and Plate XII). The same word is used again by our author in
the description of the swords made in Ta-li; the sheaths are colored vermilion, and
painted in their upper part with a design like those occurring on buckles {si pi hua
wen). Similarly it is employed in the Ling-wai tai ta (published by Chou K'u-fei in
1 178) in the description of the saddles of the Man (Ch. 6, p. 5), which are varnished
red and black like the designs on buckles {ju si pi wen). This term is not registered
in the P'ei wen ytin fu.

4 The Ling-wai tai ta (Ch. 7, p. 9), composed by Chou K'u-fei in 1 178, informs us
that the shells utilized in the kingdom of Ta-li for the decoration of armor and
helmets came from the island of Hainan; they are called "large shells" {ta pei), in
the works on natural history "purple shells" {ts'e pei). They are described as being
round on the back, with purple flecks, and with deep cracks on the surface.

6 See above, p. 185. Such combinations are suggested to the learned Chinese
authors by their literary education, but certainly are no evidence for the shell decora-
tions of the Man being really due to a stimulus received from ancient China. The

194 Chinese Clay Figures

As to the Li, the inhabitants of the island of Hainan, the same author
states that they make helmets of plaited rattan.

A cuirass of the Lolo is figured and described by F. Starr. 1 It is
composed of heavy, moulded plates of thick leather, varnished black
and decorated in red and yellow, the shoulders being protected by two
projecting wings. From this plastron is suspended an apron of seven
horizontal rows of scales, each row overlapping the one above it, and
the scales in each row overlapping. The mode of wear of this armor
may be seen in the portrait of the Lolo chief Ma-tu figured by Ch.
Francois, 2 who states that these cuirasses are made of buffalo-skin
painted with various colors, somewhat similar in shape to the ancient
Japanese armor. 3

Two specimens of Lolo armor are described by Herbert Mueller, 4
which are of the same type as the one figured by Starr, only that those
have the central breastplate, which is apparently lost in the latter speci-
men. Neither Starr nor Mueller has recognized what type of armor is
here represented. It is not armor of a uniform structure, but one
in which two principles are combined, that of sheets, and that of plates
or laminae. The sheets form the body armor proper, ten in number,

employment of shells for decorative purposes, on the contrary, is a general charac-
teristic of all cultures in south-eastern Asia and Tibet, where they are employed in
a manner foreign to the Chinese. The Tibetan women use large shells as bracelets,
and wear girdles, to which rows of shells are attached. It is surprising to find these
in the high mountainous regions of Sze-ch'uan (for instance, in Romi-Drango), in
isolated spots remote from the sea, whither these shells must have been brought
from India via Tibet, or from Burma by way of Yun-nan. The women of the P'u-
jen, a tribe of the T'ai or Shan stock formerly inhabiting Yun-nan, used to wear a
short skirt, to which ten rows of marine shells were fastened all round (C. Sainson,
Histoire particuliere du Nan-Tchao, p. 164). The women of the White Kuo-lo or
Lo-lo covered their heads with black cloth adorned with shells {ibid., p. 167) ; compare
also pp. 170, 175, 179, 185, in regard to other tribes who observed the same practice.
An interesting study of the Indian shell industry was recently published by J.
Hornell (The Chank Bangle Industry, Memoirs As. Soc. Bengal, Vol. Ill, pp. 407-
448, Calcutta, 1913).

1 Lolo Objects in the Public Museum, Milwaukee (Bulletin of the Public Museum
of the City of Milwaukee, Vol. I, 191 1, p. 216 and Plate III, 8).

2 Notes sur les Lo-lo du Kien-tchang {Bulletin de la Societe d' Anthropologic, 1904,
p. 640).

3 The correctness of this comparison seems to me doubtful. Playfair (China
Review, Vol. V, p. 93) has drawn from a modern Chinese source the following notes
on armor among the Kiu-ku Miao: "The crown of the head is protected by an iron
helmet which leaves the back of the head exposed. On the shoulders they wear two
pieces of hammered iron armor, of considerable weight, which act as a face-guard.
Their body armor covers the whole of the back and the chest. In addition they wear
iron chain mail covering the entire body and weighing about thirty catties; they
have the appearance of being enclosed in a cage. Their legs are cased in iron greaves
of great strength. They carry in their left hand a wooden shield, in their right a
sharp-edged spear." Chain mail is discussed in Chapter IV.

* Baessler-Archiv, Vol. Ill, 1912, p. 59 and Plate III.

Defensive Armor of the Archaic Period 195

a breast and a back sheet, 1 and eight below these for the protection of the
abdomen and loins. Combined with this leather sheet armor are
tasses consisting of six or seven horizontal rows, each composed of
small rectangular leather laminae, arranged in vertical position. The
leather sheets and plates are varnished red on the outside 2 and yellow
on the lower side. Mr. Mueller remarks that parallels to this armor are
hardly known, but that, as far as can be judged from the pictures
preserved, a certain relationship, however distant, with ancient Chinese
armor seems to exist. Unfortunately he does not state to what kind of
pictures he refers, nor in what the supposed resemblance should con-
sist. There is hardly any solid foundation for this opinion. This
type of armor, on the contrary, although it agrees in some features
with one represented on certain Chinese clay figures of the T'ang period
(Plate XXXI), does not meet with any exact counterpart among
Chinese specimens known to us; nor is such a connection at the outset
very probable, since the affinities of Man armor, as has been pointed
out, go with that of the Shan, and are accordingly focussed on another
culture-zone.

Besides the word kia, another word for armor occurs in the Shi
king, and this is the word kiai (No. 1 5 1 8) . It is once used with reference
to great armor donned by a king; 3 and on another occasion it refers to
a team of four horses in a war-chariot, clad with armor. 4 Legge,
following the Chinese comment, is of the opinion that the meaning of
kiai is identical with that of kia; but they are two different words
written with two different symbols, and it is therefore justifiable to
presume that they denote two different types of armor. As the word
kiai is used to designate the scales of fishes, turtles, lobsters, and other
aquatic scaly animals, it is most likely that it was this notion of the word
transferred to a type of body armor, and that it related to scale armor
(lorica squamata) , the scales being cut out of hide or leather. 5 There

1 Plastron and dossiere.

2 In accordance with the ancient Chinese cuirasses, as mentioned in Tso chuan
(see above, p. 181).

3 Legge, Chinese Classics, Vol. IV, p. 606.

4 Ibid., p. 131.

6 Legge (/. c, p. 194) states that the armor (not mail) for the horses was made
of thin plates of metal, scale-like. It is most improbable that the scales were of metal
at the time of the Shi king. See Chapter VII. The same semasiological develop-
ment as in Chinese kiai is illustrated in the Tibetan word k'rab and the Burmese word
k'yap, that in the first instance denote scale (scale of a fish), and secondly a body
armor, which is now the usual meaning; and it is further interesting that Tibetan
k'rab has also the meaning of "shield, buckler" (see Jaschke, Tibetan-English Die-

196 Chinese Clay Figures

is unfortunately no description of this armor in any ancient text. In
the Li ki the word occurs several times, the rules of politeness excusing
the warrior clad with akiai from making a bow; * but nothing is brought
forward to add to the knowledge of the subject. 2 I have never seen in
China any suit of armor made of scales of leather; and they are not like-
ly to have been made at later ages when metal was available. In
Japan, such specimens have fortunately survived; and the one figured
by Bashford Dean 3 may give us an excellent idea of the appearance of
the ancient Chinese scaly leather coats. It is attributed to the Fuji-
wara period (around 1000 a.d.), and described as a primitive type of
Japanese harness, the single laminae being of boiled leather, cut and
beaten into pieces shaped like fish-scales. A suit of copper scale
armor obtained in Sze-ch'uan (Plate XIV) may be regarded as the
natural continuation of the ancient leather armor of the same type.
The scales are fastened by means of brass wire to a foundation of sack-
cloth, and overlap one another. This specimen, weighing 38^ pounds,
as evidenced by the effects of many blows and bullet-holes visible in the
metal, has actually been employed in warfare. 4

Scale armor is distinctly mentioned in the Wan hua ku, a work
written at the end of the twelfth century; but this passage is taken from
the T'ang leu tien, and therefore refers to the T'ang dynasty. 8 The

tionary, p. 49). In all probability, the Chinese and Tibetan words kiai (or kai) and
k'rab are anciently related, in the same way as Tib. k'rag ("blood") and Chinese
hiuet, Tibetan skrag-pa ("to be afraid of") and Chinese kiii (W. Grube, Die sprach-
geschichtliche Stellung des Chinesischen, p. 16), Tib. sgrog-pa ("to tie") and Chin.
kiao (Conrady, Eine indochinesische Causativ-Denominativ-Bildung, p. vn). Also
the Chinese word kia, "armor" (ancient pronunciation kiap, rhyme hiap), may be
allied to Tibetan k'rab. It will be seen below (Chapter IV) that scale armor repre-
sents the earliest type of armor in Tibet, Persia, and India.

1 Couvreur, Li ki, Vol. I, p. 65; Vol. II, p. 13.

2 The scales of hide armor were called kia cha (No. 127). This may be inferred
from a passage in the Chan kuo ts'e (quoted in P'ei wen yiinfu, Ch. 97, p. 5 b), where
Su Tai (third and fourth century B.C.; Giles, Biographical Dictionary, p. 682)
addresses Yen Wang, and says, "You cut the scales of the buff-coat yourself, and
your wife fastens them together by means of cords." The word siao (No. 4309),
which is here utilized and means "to scrape, pare, trim," indicates that leather is in
question, and that the leather strips were trimmed into a certain shape called cha.
Regarding the technical meaning of this word see p. 210, note 3.

3 Catalogue of the Loan Collection of Japanese Armor, p. 39 {The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, Hand-Book No. 14, New York, 1903).

4 Consul Bedloe {Consular Reports on Commerce, Manufactures, etc., No. 147,
p. 494, Washington, 1892) states, "Scale mail, at an early period, was carried to a
high perfection. The scales were applied to cloth or leather at first, as spangles are
to gauze, and later as tiles or slates are to the boards of a roof. They were composed
of iron, pewter, silver, gold, or of various oriental alloys. In making a suit, scales of
one kind were usually employed, but combinations were frequent, in which metals
of contrasting colors were used. A good suit of armor can be bought at prices rang-
ing from $10 to $150."

6 Bretschneider, Botanicon Sinicum, pt. 1, p. 160, No. 330. The above text
will be found in the Chapter on Armor {kia chou pu) in T'u shu tsi ch'ing. Ko chi

Defensive Armor of the Archaic Period 197

third kind of armor known at that time is termed in that book si lin
kia ("armor of thin scales"), and is classified among iron armor. The
very name implies that it is a question of scale armor. The fourth
variety of armor is styled shan wen kia ("armor with a mountain
pattern") ; a zigzag design or a continuous row of triangles being under-
stood by the latter name. Also this, likewise made of iron, was
perhaps scale armor; 1 as presumably also the fifth, designated "black
hammer armor" (wu chui kia), likewise of iron. No descriptions of
these pieces are furnished in the book mentioned.

Leather scale armor was still used by the Mongols, as attested by
Friar William of Rubruck (i 2*53) , who states, "I saw two who had come
to present themselves before Mangu, armed with jackets of convex pieces
of hard leather, which were most unfit and unwieldy." 2

In the Ming period the technical term for armor-scales is "wil-
low-leaf" (liu ye). We read in the Statutes of the Ming Dynasty
(Ta Ming hui tien) that in 1393 six thousand sets of "willow-leaf armor "
and helmets of chain mail were ordered for the soldiers of the body-
guard serving in the Imperial City.

The great antiquity of hide scale armor is an important fact to us, as
there are certain ancient clay figures on which this type of armor is
represented. These belong to the earliest that we have, and range in the
archaic period ; 3 and it will be seen from the notes devoted to their dis-

king yiian (Ch. 41, p. 3) and P'ei wen yiin fu (Ch. 106, p. 73) give exactly the same
quotation extracted from the T'angleu tien (the "Six Statutes of theT'ang Dynasty"),
drawn up by the Emperor Yuan-tsung in the early part of the eighth century (Wy-
lie, Notes on Chinese Literature, p. 67; and above, p. 189). The only additional
matter prefixed to the latter text is that the thirteen kinds of armor enumerated were
ordered to be made by the Imperial Armory (wu k'u).

1 P'ei wen yiin fu (Ch. 106, p. 74) quotes the T'ang shi lu to the effect that the
armors called shan win kia were made by the Emperor T'ai-tsung from iron (black
metal) dyed in five colors, so that the "mountain pattern" may have been brought
out by the color-work. Five-colored armor (wu ts'ai kia) is mentioned in T'ang shu
(Ch. li yo chiy ibid., p. 73). The Pek-tsi, a Korean tribe, brought "varnished armor
of metal" (kin hiu k'ai) to the Chinese General Li Tsi (Giles, Biographical Dic-
tionary, p. 421), who subjugated Korea between 644 and 658; on these armors, which
were used by the Chinese cavalry, five mountain patterns (shan ngu wen) were repre-
sented by means of iron, which may be understood in the sense that five iron scales
were arranged in such a manner as to suggest the design of a mountain. This passage
is contained likewise in T'ang shu (Ch. 220, p. 3 b).

2 W. W. Rockhill, The Journey of William of Rubruck, p. 261 (London, Hak-
luyt Society, 1900). In the Mongol period, designs of a tiger or lion skin, and the
design of metal-armor scales, were also painted on hide armor ( Yiian shi, Ch. 78,
p. 12, K'ien-lung edition).

3 The clay figures in our collection come down from different periods. A rigid
classification coinciding with dynastic periods cannot be established: two large
groups may be distinguished, — archaic and mediaeval. The two merge into each
other. The former may be said to comprise roughly the Chou and Han periods, and
to go down perhaps with some types into the fourth and fifth centuries; the latter
occupy an epoch from the sixth to the eighth century. The term "archaic" is merely

198 Chinese Clay Figures

cussion in the second part of this publication that, according to my
interpretation, they are intended for the figure of the ancient shaman 1
(to, or fang siang shi).

Among the exorcists of the Chou period, the Fang siang shi 2 occupies
a prominent place. According to the Chou li, 3 he donned a bear-skin
decorated with four golden eyes, 4 black trousers, and a red jacket.
Armed with a spear and a shield, accompanied by a suite of a hundred
attendants, he performed the purifications of every season, searching
through the houses and driving out disease. At a great funeral service
he strided in front of the coffin, and accompanied it to the grave.

intended to convey a chronological notion, but is not applied here with reference
to technique or style. The age of the T'ang dynasty may safely be regarded as the
terminus ad quern for the industry of burial clay figures, for we know surely enough
that under the Sung and Ming dynasties the paraphernalia for the grave were carved
from wood, but not modelled in clay. This question will be treated fully in Part II.

1 Our word "shaman" is derived from the Tungusian languages (Manchu saman,
Gold Sama). The Mirror of the Manchu Language {Manju hergen-i buleku bithe)
explains the word saman by means of the Chinese phrase chu shenjen ("a man who
invokes or conjures the spirits"); and it is defined, enduri weceku-de jalbarime baire
nialma ("a man who prays to and conjures spirits by sacrificing"). It is said in the
same Dictionary that the saman acts near the sick-bed, and that there are male and
female samasa (plural of saman). The Tungusian word has no connection whatever
with Chinese sha-men (from Sanskrit cramana, Pali samana) denoting a Buddhist
ascetic (Yule and Burnell, Hobson-Jobson, p. 820) ; a Buddhist monk and a Siberian
shaman will always remain two distinct affairs. Pelliot {Journal asiatique, Mars-
Avril, 19 1 3, p. 468) has traced the word Saman in the language of the Niuchi to a Chi-
nese document of the twelfth century. The identity of the notion conveyed by the
Chinese word wu ("sorcerer") with the word "shaman" becomes evident from T'ang
shu, where in the description of the Kirghiz it is remarked, "They call their sorcerers
kan (hu wu wei kan)." The latter word (formerly articulated kam) is identical with
Turkish kam, the general designation for the shaman in all Turkish dialects (compare
W. Schott, Uber die echten Kirgisen, Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie, 1865,
p. 440). While reading the proofs, I receive No. 3 of the Revue orientale (Vol. XIV,
19 1 4), in which J. Nemeth devotes a special investigation to the origin of the word
saman: by applying methods of comparative philology, he arrives at the result that
the word is an ancient property of the Turkish-Mongol languages.

2 Ch£ng K'ang-ch'eng, in his commentary to the Chou li (Biot, Vol. II, p. 150),
explains the word fang siang shi as "expellers of formidable things," by substituting
two other words for fang siang yielding this sense; but this conjecture is not adopted
by the editors of the Chou li under K'ien-lung. Biot translates the term, much too
literally, by inspecteurs de region, or by preservateur universel. Grube (Religion und
Kultus der Chinesen, p. 51) renders it "supervisors of the four points of the com-
pass." De Groot (The Religious System of China, Vol. VI, p. 974) proposes the
translation, "inspectors or rescuers of the country to the four quarters." These
translations do not render account of the two words Jang and siang: fang (No. 3435)
means not only "place, region, quarter," but also "a recipe, a prescription;" and
fang shi, according to Giles, is "a master of recipes, — a medicine man; a necroman-
cer." The word siang* (No. 4249) means "to judge of by looks; to practise physiog-
nomy" (hence in Buddhism: the lakshana or physical marks of beauty of a Buddha).
The fang siang shi, accordingly, is a "doctor" who has two functions, — he prescribes
medicines, and practises the art of physiognomy (siang fa).

3 Biot, Vol. II, p. 225.

4 Apparently a mask, which was worn by the Chinese shamans in all exorcising
ceremonies (see De Groot, The Religious System of China, Vol. VI, pp. 974-980,
1151, 1187 el seq.; also, Vol. I, p. 162).

Defensive Armor of the Archaic Period 199

When the coffin was lowered into the grave, he struck the four corners
with the spear, in order to chase away the spirits wang-liang. l The
bear-skin, a Chinese commentator explains, serves the purpose of lend-
ing him a formidable appearance; and the four golden eyes testify that
he spies in the four regions of the empire all places where contagious
diseases are raging. The spear seems to indicate that he combats
malignant spirits, and the shield is his means of defence against their
attacks.

The two figures of shamans represented on Plates XV-XVII are clad
with tight-fitting, sleeveless leather jerkins, the material being cut out in
the form of scales arranged in regular horizontal rows. On the front
(Plates XV, XVII) the scales are carefully outlined in black ink or
varnish over a coating of pipe clay; 2 on the back of one of the figures
(Plate XVI) they are impressed in the surface of the clay, presumably
by means of a stamp. This process is not applied to the other figure,
whose back is plain. In both, the jerkin is held by means of a leather
belt tightly drawn around the loins. It does not seem to have a slit
in front, and was presumably put over the head. The shaman in Plates
XV and XVI wears a hide helmet surmounted by a queer crest, and
laid out in vertical grooves; on the back (Plate XVI) coifs of hide scales
are attached to it. The other shaman (Plate XVII) is adorned with a
snail-like, high tuft of hair held by a hoop. Both are manifestly repre-
sented in the attitude of warriors, displaying the same pose of arms and
feet. The right arm is raised, the thumb being placed against the
second finger: they are apparently in the act of throwing a spear; and
the spear, presumably of wood, may have actually been in their hands.
The left arm reaching forth with clinched fist, and the feet wide apart,
correspond to this action; and the two men naturally concentrate their
weight on their right sides. The lively fighting attitude and the body
armor show us that the two shamans are engaged in a battle with the
demons; and, if the tradition of the Chinese is correct that such clay
figures were interred in the graves during the Chou period, we may infer
that, as the shaman warded off pestilence and malignant spirits from the
grave before the lowering into it of the coffin, he continued in this
miniature form to act as the efficient guardian of the occupant of the
grave.

Helmets bedecked with scales occur also in Chinese illustrations
(Fig. 33), and seem to have remained in the possession of shamans, even
though they did not don the scale armor. The clay figure of a magician

1 No. 12,518. These sprites are mentioned among those haunting travellers in
the sand deserts of Turkistan (Pei shi, Ch. 97, p. 5).

2 It is impossible to bring these fine lines out in the photographs.

200 Chinese Clay Figures

(Plate XVIII), which is much later than the two others shown and pre-
sumably no older than the T'ang period, has a helmet with hood, on
which rows of scales are outlined in ink. A cape of tiger-skin envelops
his shoulders. He wears a necklace and jewelry with floral designs on his
chest. His coat is girdled; and a shirt of mail, presumably plate mail, l
is emerging from beneath it. In his left hand, which is perforated, he
seems to have seized a spear or sword. 2 A rectangular bag, which pos-
sibly serves for the storage of his paraphernalia, is attached to the belt
on his left-hand side. The wearing of a coat over the armor is character-
istic of the T'ang period; and the artistic, though conventional, modelling
of the face would seem to point to the same epoch.

In general, the conditions of defensive armor, as encountered in the
archaic epoch of China, show a striking coincidence with those found in
other ancient and primitive culture-groups of Asia, and those still alive
in primitive societies. On the whole, the military equipment of the
ancient Chinese in principle agrees, for instance, granted the difference
of material, with that of the Scythians as described by Strabo (VII,
3), who states that they used raw ox-hide helmets and cuirasses, wicker
shields, spears, bows, and swords.

1 See Chapter V.

2 Presumably one of wood, which has decayed under ground.

III. DEFENSIVE ARMOR OF THE HAN PERIOD

"Your servant understands that, according to the clas-
sics, the perfection of government consists in preventing
insurrectionary troubles, and the highest point of military
art is to avoid the occasion of war."

Yang Hiung in Ts'ien Han shu.

The sculpture of the Han period unfortunately furnishes no decisive
contribution to the question of body armor. While possibly the artists
may have intended in some cases to represent armor, as perhaps in some
of the fighting horsemen, the stone work does not minutely indicate
texture, and the material is such that no positive inferences can be
drawn from it. 1 The only piece of defensive armor that is clearly enough
outlined on these monuments is the shield or buckler, usually handled in
connection with a sword. It is oblong and rectangular in shape with a
convex curvature in the centre, causing a hollow on the inner side where
the wearer's hand finds its place, and is notched in the middle of the
upper and lower ends (Fig. 25). It is a parrying shield easily movable,
and sufficient to protect the left arm and to ward off blows struck at it. 2

It is notable that many soldiers represented on the Han monuments
carry their shields also in their right hands, while manipulating the
swords in their left; I presume that the fighters, when wearied out,
sought relief in this manner by changing weapons from one hand to
the other. In Fig. 25 a left-handed, and in Fig. 26 two right-handed
shield-bearers have been selected. The same shield is employed also by
soldiers fighting from war-chariots.

Another form of shield is much larger, more convex, almost roof-
shaped, decorated with what appears like a tree design, and capable of
hiding a man's face and the upper part of his trunk (Fig. 27). 3

1 The difficulty of studying from the bas-reliefs the costume and the ornaments
displayed on it, is acknowledged also by M. Chavannes in his recent work Mission
arch£ologique dans la Chine septentrionale, Vol. I, part 1 : La sculpture a l'epoque
des Han, p. 39 (Paris, 1913). On a stone of the Hiao-t'ang-shan, M. Chavannes
(p. 82) has correctly recognized some warriors clad with cuirasses; but hardly any other
conclusion than that it is in general the question of hide armor can be drawn from
these representations. These warriors are barbarians styled Hu, and in all probability
Huns (Hiung-nu, who are frequently termed also Hu). We shall come back to this
monument below in speaking of the tactics of the Huns.

2 See, for example, Chavannes, Mission, Nos. 131, 136.

3 Ibid., No. 190. Chavannes (La sculpture a l'epoque des Han, p. 251) states
that this buckler is of rattan, doubtless for the reason that there are still rattan shields
in China; but these are always circular, almost half-spheroidal, and plaited in basketry
style. The present specimen is a rectangle, and exhibits no characteristic features of

201

2 02

Chinese Clay Figures

Fig. 25.
Left-handed Shield- Bearer (Sketch from Rubbing of Han Bas-relief).

Fig. 26.
Right-handed Shield-Bearers (Sketch from Rubbing of Han Bas-relief).

Defensive Armor of the Han Period

203

In the "Battle on the Bridge," * a picture executed with a great deal
of life and motion, the manner of handling the buckler in close combat

is vividly illustrated.
The commander of the
force, passing the bridge
in his chariot, defends
himself with his sword

Fig. 27.

Han Soldier with Rectangular Buckler (Sketch after

Chavannes, Mission, No. 190).

Fig. 28.

Soldier with Circular Buckler

(Sketch from Rubbing of Han

Bas-relief representing the

Battle on the Bridge).

against an arbalist whose crossbow he has adroitly overturned with a
thrust of his shield, while a footman is attacking his rearing horse

rattan plaiting. It is much more likely to be of wood covered with hide, on which
the design is painted. The rattan shields have often been described and illustrated
(Amiot, Art militaire, Memoires concernant les Chinois, Vol. VII, p. 371, and Plate
XXX, figs. 10 and 11 ; de Guignes, Voyages a Peking, Vol. Ill, p. 20; Atlas of
Staunton's Embassy, Plates XVII and XIX, No. 5, etc.). In Peking I had occasion
in 1901 to see these shields used by fencers, and procured two specimens painted
with tiger-heads for the American Museum, New York. The general opinion of the
Chinese is that rattan shields are a matter of recent development, and that originally
shields were made from a combination of wood and hide (see Huang ch'ao li k'i t'u
shi, Ch. 15, p. 21, where the earliest relevant text quoted is the Ki siao sin shu of
1566 by Tsi Ki-kuang, followed by the Wu pei chi of 1621 by Mao Yuan-i). The
earliest illustration of the rattan shield I am able to trace is in the Lien ping shi ki
(Ch. 5, p. 5, ed. of Shou shan ko ts'ung shu, Vol. 52), written in 1568 (Wylie, Notes,
p. 91). Merely judging from its circular shape, the round shield above referred to,
in the hand of the soldier at the foot of the bridge, might be a rattan shield; but I
venture to doubt that the latter was in existence during the Han period. The shield
in question may as well be of wood or hide (compare Figs. 28, 30). The rattan shield
painted with a tiger's head was officially introduced into the army under the Manchu.
This troop was uniformed with a short jacket of yellow cotton stuff on which tiger
stripes were represented in black, a pair of leggings and boots with the same design,
and a hood in the shape of a tiger- head (see Huang ch'ao li k'i t'u shi, Ch. 13,
pp. 49-50; the shield is figured and described in Ch. 15, p. 21).
1 Chavannes, Mission, No. 136.

204 Chinese Clay Figures

with a spear. On this representation we notice another type of shield
of circular shape (Fig. 28) on the arm of a warrior who is posted on
the left-hand side at the foot of the bridge. The question as to the
material from which this shield may have been wrought is not
susceptible of positive decision. Certain it is, however, that three
distinct types of buckler are depicted on the monuments of the Han. 1

Of the three types of Han bucklers, the first may be ascribed as
peculiar to the period, in so far as it does not seem to have survived in
later ages; it is not alluded to in military literature, nor is it traceable
among the specimens of shields in vogue during the Ming and Manchu
dynasties. The case is different with regard to the two remaining types.
The greatest authority on military matters is Mao Yiian-i, who published
his work Wu pei chi (not mentioned by Wylie) in 1621 (80 volumes).
It is the most comprehensive work of this class, and the one best il-
lustrated. All relevant illustrations of the T'u shu tsi ch'eng, which
quotes this author as Mao-tse, are derived from his work. In accordance
with an older work Wu king ("Canon of Military Matters"), he dis-
criminates between two main types of shields, the long shield of the
footmen (Fig. 29), and the round shield of the horsemen (Fig. 30).
The former is entirely made of wood, and, being as tall as a man, com-
pletely screens his body. It rests on the ground, and is a veritable fence
or bulwark. 2 The latter, of wood covered with hide, is carried by the
cavalier on his left arm, which is passed through the two straps in order
to protect his left shoulder against arrow-shots, while he brandishes in
his right hand the short sword. 3 Mao admits that it offers no advan-
tages, and it certainly was more an encumbrance than a safeguard. As
the round buckler is peculiar to the horsemen, we may suppose that the
Han soldier armed with it is an equestrian engaged in a dismounted
combat. There are instances on record to the effect that the soldiers,
especially when the decisive moment approached, dismounted from
their horses, marched on foot, sword in hand, and engaged in close com-
bat. 4

From the wooden documents of Turkistan recently edited and trans-
lated by M. Chavannes we learn that the shields used by the soldiers of
the Han period were red; that is to say, they were made of wood, and

1 Thus likewise Chavannes, La sculpture, p. 37.

2 This is the same type of shield as that figured and described by Ph. F. v. Sie-
bold (Nippon, 2d ed., Vol. I, pp. 336, 337).

3 The horsemen of the Kirgiz, who wore wooden cuishes, fastened a round shield
to their left shoulder to ward off arrow-shots and sword-cuts (T'ang shu, Ch. 217 B,
p. 8).

4 Compare the battle deciding the fate of Hiang Yu in Shi ki, Ch. 7 (Chavannes,
Les M6moires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. II, pp. 318-320).

Defensive Armor of the Han Period

205

Fig. 29.

Shield of Foot-Soldiers, Exterior (to the right) and Interior (to the left). From Tu shu tsi ch'ing.

Fir,. 30.
Round Shield of Equestrian Soldiers, Exterior and Interior.

206 Chinese Clay Figures

coated with a red varnish to protect the material from the influences of
the weather. x They were turned out in the official armory of Nan-yang
in Ho-nan Province, 2 and in all probability were adorned with the tail-
feathers of pigeons fastened to the lower edge. The wooden documents
employ the word tun, 3 once formed with the classifier 'spear' (wao); 4
and in one passage 6 appears the word p l ai (No. 8574), which, as far as I
know, is thus attested for the first time in the Han period. 6

In his Introduction M. Chavannes has given an admirable sum-
mary of the information garnered in these early documents, and has
drawn a vivid picture of the garrison life in those outposts of the Chinese
empire. 7 He has sounded also the sentiments by which those soldiers
were animated, by rendering several fine pieces of poetry of the T'ang
period. There is still another, contemporaneous source which permits
us some inferences as to the emotional life of those brave Han frontier-
guards. Chavannes 8 has ably described the function of the signal-
towers erected along the frontier at intervals averaging thirty li, which
served as optical telegraphs announcing the approach of hostile van-
guards by means of huge beacon-fires. In many cases the guards
stationed in these towers were kept alert in repelling undesirable in-
vaders. 9 In the burial pottery of the Han period, which is a microcosm
of the culture life of those days, we find a number of miniature models

1 Compare above, p. 189.

2 It seems to have been customary in the Han period to occasionally inter armor
and shield with a general. We learn that the son of the marshal Chou Ya-f u purchased
from an officer of the Imperial Armory a cuirass and buckler intended for the
funeral of his father (L. Wieger, Textes historiques, p. 448). This act led to an ac-
cusation against the old general, which resulted in his suicide; the illegal point of
the case, however, was sought in the step of purchasing imperial property, not in the
intended burial; and the charge was forced, as the Emperor was intent on causing
the downfall of the old officer. The Ku kin chu by Ts'ui Pao of the middle of the
fourth century relates that in the third year of the reign of the Emperor Chang
(78 a.d.) people dug up the ground of a burial-place at Yuan in Tan-yang (An-hui
Province) and found in it a piece of armor. It was a cuirass (kia).

3 Chavannes, /. c, Nos. 77, 763.

4 No. 75.

5 No. 682.

6 The Annals of the Han Dynasty employ neither of these words, but the word
shun.

7 1 can only join Mr. L. C. Hopkins (Journal Royal As. Soc, 1914, p. 475) in the
wish that the substance of this essay may be made more generally accessible. Per-
haps the Royal Asiatic Society itself might undertake to publish an English transla-
tion of it in a separate issue.

8 L. c, pp. xi-xiii.

• To quote one example, in 108 A.D., the K'iang (Tibetans) with a force of over
ten thousand men attacked the watch-towers near Kan-chou fu in Kan-su Province,
and killed or captured the officers and privates occupying them (Chavannes, T'oung
Pao, 1906, p. 257). Beacon-towers in which lookout soldiers were kept, tun t'ai
(No. 12,205), were still in existence under the Ming dynasty, and are well described
by Persian travellers in the fifteenth century (see Bretschneider, China Review,
Vol. V, p. 34). Compare Fig. 31.

Defensive Armor of the Han Period

207

208 Chinese Clay Figures

representing such watch-towers ; and all these, according to the unanimous
testimony of the Chinese, have been found in graves of Kan-su Province.
The conclusion would seem justified that pottery of this type was in-
terred, as worthy emblems of their martial calling, with renowned officers
who had deserved well of their country in the frontier wars and had
died the honorable death of the soldier. On Plate XIX is illustrated
a green-glazed model of a three-storied watch-tower rising from the
bottom of a round bowl: on the two parapets and roofs the sentinels
are engaged in showering from their crossbows a volley of darts on an
advancing column of scouts. 1 Here we enjoy seeing before us in action
the undaunted heroes of the Hunnic wars whose sentiments were im-
mortalized by Li Po. The imposing loftiness of the structure standing
with the force of a pyramid, the beautiful architectural forms, the jutting
wooden beams supporting the corners of the parapets, are notable fea-
tures making this bit of clay a live and unique document of the culture
of the Han period.

There are also less elaborate pottery models of such watch-towers.
One in the Museum collection 2 shows a single story with windows on
three sides and a door ajar in the front wall; the windows are provided
with elegant lattice-work. Another specimen 3 represents the section
of a city-wall with a roofed, square tower in the corner, to which a stair-
case leads up.

The most signal fact about defensive armor under the Han is that
metal suits gradually made their way during this period. We meet, for
the designation of it, a new word k'ai (No. 5798), written with a charac-
ter in which the classifier kin ("copper " 4 or "metal ") enters, and which
does not occur in the ancient canonical texts. From the terminology
of the dictionary Shuo wen (around 100 a.d.) we gather that armature
had then grown more complete, that there were metal helmets (tou mou) ,
brassards Qian) , 5 and metal protectors for the nape (ya-hia). 6 The old

1 This beautiful piece of Han pottery is in the collection of Mr. Charles L. Freer
of Detroit, to whom I am greatly indebted for the photograph and his kind permis-
sion to publish it. The object was acquired by Mr. Freer as early as in the seventies,
and is the first specimen of Han pottery that came to America; presumably it was
even the first to come out of China.

2 Cat. No. 118,489; 27.5 cm high, green glaze decomposed into silver oxidation.

3 Cat. No. 120,901 ; gray clay, unglazed; excavated by Dr. Buckens, physician in
the service of the Peking-Hankow Railway, near Cheng-chou, Ho-nan Province.

4 "Copper" is probably the original meaning, but not, as supposed formerly,
"gold." In the Chou li gold is always designated huang kin ("yellow metal").

5 Giles (No. 3791) translates "greaves; leg-guards for soldiers," which is doubt-
less also correct; but the definition of this word in the Shuo win is pei k'ai; that is,
arm-guards.

8 See Couvreur, Dictionnaire chinois-frangais, p. 115 b (also in Palladius,
Chinese-Russian Dictionary). Compare Chinese text opposite.

Defensive Armor of the Han Period

209

word han (p. 1 75) was now likewise connected with the classifier "metal "
(No. 3816); and an entirely new word ye (No. 12,996), composed of the
phonetic element ye ("leaf") and the same classifier, springs up to
denote a new contrivance in the structure of protective armor, — a
metal lamina (literally "metal leaf"). These facts combined go to
prove that far-reaching innovations had set in after the close of the

£p 2

#fe ill

fe-A,

£JtM

-tit. /.a-

Chou dynasty, and that the Han period must have revolutionized the
entire method and technics of armature. Cheng K'ang-ch'eng, the
famous commentator of the Chou li, who lived in the second century
a.d., says anent the armorers of the Chou time 1 that the ancients em-
ployed hide in the manufacture of corselets {kid) , but that now (in the
author's time) metal (kin) was utilized for the same purpose, and that
this product is designated k'ai. Of what metal was this new armor
made? And what type of armor was represented by it? The most
interesting contribution to this question is made by Chung Ch'ang-t'ung,

1 Biot, Chou li, Vol. II, p. 152.

210 Chinese Clay Figures

an author who lived in the beginning of the third century a.d., and who
is known as the editor of the Taoist writer Yin W^n-tse. 1 He is quoted
as follows in the Yen fan lu: 2 "In days of old, war-chariots were em-
ployed in warfare, and the fashion of iron plates was not yet in use for
armor; at the present time, hide armor, though it can still offer sufficient
resistance to a crossbow, will needs lead to the loss of the army and the
destruction of the empire. Regarding this matter, it was at the time
of the Posterior Han (25-220 a.d.) that armor received iron laminae,
but it is not known what the state of affairs was at the time of the
Anterior Han (b.c. 206-23)." Here it is plainly expressed that iron
armor came up under the Later Han dynasty, and the expression Vie cha z
leaves no doubt that it was armor composed of iron laminae.

In this connection another notice incorporated in Ko chi king yuan
(Ch. 41, p. 1 b) would be of interest, if any dependence could be placed
as to the value and the time of the source from which it is quoted.
This is a work called "Dissertation on Corporal Punishments" (Jou
king lun) by K'ung Jung, a descendant of Confucius in the twentieth
degree, who, according to Giles, 4 died in 208 a.d. Nothing is known
to me regarding this work; M. Pelliot, in his careful bibliographical
study of Chinese law, 5 does not mention it. In the present case, it
would be indispensable to know exactly when that work was composed,
as the author lays stress on a contemporaneous event, and to ascertain
whether the incriminated passage was really contained in the original

1 Wylie, Notes on Chinese Literature, p. 156; L. Wieger, Taoisme, Vol. I, Le
canon, p. 184, No. 1159.

2 Completed in 1175 by Ch'eng Ta-ch'ang (Wylie, Notes on Chinese Literature,
p. 160) and reprinted in the T'ang Sung ts'ung shu.

3 The word cha (No. 127) refers to the wooden or bamboo tablets used for writing
and united into bundles of books before the invention of paper. The discoveries in
Central Asia have rendered us familiar with the form of these wooden documents.
The plates, as used in the manufacture of armor, have indeed a very similar shape;
and hence the transfer of the name of the latter is easy to understand. Couvreur
(p. 736 b) translates cha by " les couches de cuir ou les plaques de m6tal qui composent
une armure;" Palladius in his Chinese-Russian Dictionary (Vol. II, p. 379) by
"fish-scale, armor;" Giles gives the meaning "a layer" and "numerative of kia,
armor." There are some passages in the Tso chuan and Han shi wai chuan (see P'ei
wen yiin fu, Ch. 97, p. 6) where cha doubtless relates to the different layers of a hide
armor; but as a rule it originally refers, as stated above (p. 196), to the scales of a hide
scale armor. This is also the opinion of K'ung Ying-ta (574-648), who, in his work
Shang shu cheng i, gives the following definition of the word ye (No. 12,996),—
"metal lamina or plate in armor; the metal lamina of armor is the same as that is
called cha in the K'ao kung chi (in the Chou li)." The word cha, however, does not
occur in the text of the Chou li, but only in the commentaries. In the same sense,
the K'ang-hi Dictionary defines the word cha as kia ye, "armor leaves," that is,
plates or laminae covering the armor.

* Biographical Dictionary, p. 401.

6 Le droit chinois (Bulletin de VEcole francaise a" Extreme-Orient, Vol. IX, 1909,
pp. 27-56).

Defensive Armor of the Han Period 211

edition. Not being able to do so, I can give it only with all reserve:
"The holy men of antiquity made armor of rhinoceros-hide; now the
pen ling 1 have iron armor."

The fact that the word k'ai, and the new type of body armor under-
stood by it, were actually employed during the Han period, is now
obviously brought out by the contemporaneous wooden slips discovered
in eastern Turkistan, and which have been edited and translated by E.
Chavannes. 2 As already mentioned, the word k'ai occurs there on two
of the wooden documents (Nos. 758, 794); while the ancient word kia
is preserved in three other cases. Both types, kia and k'ai, accordingly,
were in use among the outlying Chinese garrisons of the Han period;
and as explicitly recognized by Chinese authors, the k'ai differed from
the kia in the essential point that they were reinforced by metal pieces.
The foundation of the armor k'ai consisted likewise of leather or hide;
and in Chavannes' document No. 794 the question is of "four pieces
of hide, two halves being so connected as to make two suits of armor."
The "halves" seem to refer to two large pieces of hide covering chest
and back.

The metal helmet appearing under the Han and perhaps under the
Ts'in dynasty (p. 175) is the natural accompaniment of metal armor; the
galea of ancient times gives way to the cassis (Figs. 32, 33). The word
ton mou for the metal helmet mentioned above appears, indeed, on one
of the contemporaneous wooden slips of the Tsin dynasty (2 6 5-3 1 3) . 3

If the metal of the Later Han dynasty was iron, — what was the
metal employed during the Former Han dynasty? And what was the
shape of the r etal pieces attached to the hide foundation?

It is not very likely, for technical reasons, that hide armor was im-
mediately followed by armor consisting of iron laminae. The latter
denotes a much more advanced stage of civilization, and presupposes
acquaintance with the art of forging iron; it is also a much more
complicated structure, its manufacture requiring a skill far superior
to the more mechanical mode of preparing a coat of hide. We are
fortunately in a position to show from both literary and archaeological
evidence that iron hide armor was preceded by copper hide armor. In
the work Yen fan lu quoted above, the observation is made that "in
the times of remote antiquity and in the period anterior to the Ts'in
and the Han leather armor named after the rhinoceros was much used
in the army, but that in the records of Se-ma Ts'ien's Shi ki mention

1 Apparently the title of a military office at the time of the Han dynasty.

2 Les documents chinois d£couverts par Aurel Stein dans les sables du Turkestan
oriental (Oxford, 1913).

3 Chavannes, /. c, No. 794.

212

Chinese Clay Figures

is made of armor fabricated from forged copper (tuan kin wei kia) ; that,
however, on close examination, the employment of the latter is still
much restricted." 1

We shall not be far wrong in concluding that the metal pieces em-
ployed for the reinforcement of armor in the period of the Anterior

Fig. 32.

Sketches of Helmets (from T'u shu tsi ch'ing which reproduced them from Wu pet chi),

representing the Tradition of the Ming Period.

1 The expression "to forge defensive armor" {tuan kia) occurs in Shi ki, Ch. 112,
in the biography of Chu-fu Yen (compare P'ei win yiinfu, Ch. 106, p. 56 b). In the
age of the Three Kingdoms (221-277) metal armor, for which copper or iron was
utilized, was firmly established, as we see from the life of the famous General Chu-ko
Liang (San kuo chi, Wu chi, Ch. 19, p. 1 b), who lived from 181 to 234 (see Giles,
Biographical Dictionary, p. 180). In Tsin shu and Sung shu, metal armor is fre-
quently mentioned. An iron mask (Vie mien) for the protection of the face is first
mentioned as being employed in the period Yung-kia (307-313 a.d.) by General
Chu Ts'e (styled Chung-w§n) in the battle of Hia-k'ou, in Han-yang fu, Hu-pei
Province (Tsin shu, Ch. 81, p. 6).

Defensive Armor of the Han Period

213

Han were of that metal then most generally employed, — copper. And
a number of perforated, thin copper plates exhumed in the environment
of Si-ngan fu from a grave of that epoch tends to confirm this opinion.
These lamina?, some of which are sketched in Fig. 34, can but have
served the purpose of being sewed on to the surface of a cuirass. They
were employed for the making of a k'ai, and formed the natural continua-

FlG. 33.

Sketches of Helmets (from T'u shu Isi ch'ing which reproduced them from Wu pei chi),
representing the Tradition of the Ming Period.

tion of the ancient scale armor kiai discussed at the end of the previous
chapter. The scales in the latter were cut out of leather: in the third
and second centuries B.C., the Han made a decided advance by gradual-
ly transforming these leather into copper scales; and the Posterior
Han, in the first centuries of our era, went a step farther in substituting
iron for copper. The specimens in Fig. 34 demonstrate that the copper
pieces leaned in their forms toward scales, though they approach to a
higher degree the shape of a leaf (hence the term "leaf" which we meet
in the Han authors) . A slow and gradual development must have been

214

Chinese Clay Figures

in operation toward effecting that uniform oblong, rectangular shape
which we are wont to designate as "plate." There is, for lack of
monuments, as yet no means of exactly ascertaining the date when this
type of regular iron plate armor sprang up in China. The term fie cha
employed by Chung Ch'ang-t'ung, discussed above, is very tempting in
leading us to assume that it existed at least toward the end of the
Posterior Han period in the third century a.d.; the word cha relates to
the rectangular wooden writing-slips still prominent in the administra-
tive system of the Han, and the application of this word to the plates of

Fig. 34.
Bronze Scales of Armor of Han Period (half of actual size).

an armor is most happy. As these wooden slips possessed regular forms,
we are allowed to infer that also the iron plates in the armor of the Han
were gradually adapted to the same uniform standard. In the age of
the T'ang (618-906) iron plate armor presents itself as an accomplished
fact, and was made with a technical perfection which must have been
preceded by centuries of diligent and intelligent practice (see Chapter V) .
The existence of protective lammas of rectangular shape under the
Han may be inferred also from another matter peculiar to that age. 1
In the biography of Ho Kuang, who died in B.C. 68, the great "king-
maker" of the Han dynasty, as Mayers calls him, mention is made of
"jade clothes" (yii i). Yen Shi-ku (579-645), the famous commentator
of the Han Annals, explains this term as denoting a coat of the form of an
armor (k x ai), consisting of jade slabs joined together by means of gold
threads; these jade slabs were shaped into regular plates (cha), one foot
long and two inches and a half wide; they formed a perfect enclosure, and
reached down to the feet. Another style of this garment, compared
likewise with armor by Yen Shi-ku, was composed of strung pearls or

1 The following information is drawn from the Han tsien (No. 1648) of Kua Ts'ang-
lin of the Sung; the edition before me is by Wu Ki-ngan of the Ming, and was pub-
lished in 1600. This is a most valuable work for the study of Han culture, being ar-
ranged in the form of a glossary of subject-matters (corresponding to our archaeologi-
cal dictionaries) extracted from the Han Annals together with the commentaries;
it allows us to ascertain at a glance what objects of culture existed under the Han.

Defensive Armor of the Han Period 215

beads in the upper part, while only the skirt was formed by jade plates.
It is self-evident that these jade plates, of which we hear nothing at
any earlier period, were produced in imitation of metal armor-plates;
and Yen Shi-ku's simile with an armor strongly supports this opinion.

By what factor was the innovation and progress of the Han in mat-
ters of defensive armor caused? The development of the defence of the
body moves along as the natural consequence of the advance in weapons
of offense. "The history of invention as applied to war has been the
record of alternate advances in this line, and in overcoming defence." 1
The steadily growing perfection of weapons necessitated a corresponding
increase in the efficiency and power of resistance of body armor. The
chief weapons of the Chou period were spear and bow; and the armor of
rhinoceros-hide offered to them adequate opposition. In the age of
the Han we meet the more effectual crossbow and the two-edged sword;
and Chung Ch'ang-t'ung justly says that hide armor then was no longer
a suitable shelter for the arrows shot from crossbows, if the interests of an
army were to be maintained. The copper or bronze swords in vogue
among the Former Han dynasty gradually gave way to iron swords
under the Later Han dynasty; and parallel with this movement, we
notice a logical development from plain hide and hide scale armor
to copper scale and iron scale, and ultimately to iron plate armor.
Thus, judging from appearances, it may be conceived that this
sequence in the gradual perfection of armor might have been evolved
from purely inward causes and necessities, and that no factors of any
outward influence need be invoked in order to account for it; but
such a conclusion hazarded without any regard to historical agencies
would be plainly illusory.

It cannot be denied that an entirely different point of view may be
pursued in this problem. It may be argued that the Chinese, despite
the numerous aggressive and defensive wars which they have made
on the adjoining tribes, cannot be called, in the strict sense of the word,
a warlike nation, and that they were always deficient in inventions of
military implements. At all times they were ready to adopt any
superior arms from their more belligerent neighbors, and to vanquish
their enemies with their enemies' devices. The crossbow is properly
claimed as a contrivance of the aboriginal tribes of southern China ; and
the type of the short bronze sword of the early Han (see Plate XX)
bears such a striking similarity to that of the Siberian bronze age, that
imitation due to historical contact may justly be suspected. Under
the Han, cast-bronze swords (Plate XX) gradually gave way to

1 O. T. Mason, The Origins of Invention, p. 389.

216 Chinese Clay Figures

cast-iron swords (Plate XXI), the latter being cast in the same shape as
the former. The process of transformation is identical with the one that
we observe in the antiquities of Siberia. The excellent plates of ancient
Siberian bronze and iron swords published by W. Radloff, 1 in which
bronze is colored green and iron brown, afford a good object-lesson for
the study of the gradual transition from bronze to iron: here, for
instance, we note that the hilt is changed into iron, whereas bronze is
retained for the blade (Plate XII, No. 4) ; or that the blades become iron,
and the hilts remain of bronze (Plate XIII, Nos. 1-3), until ultimately
there spring up types purely of iron which faithfully preserve the forms
and ornaments of the more ancient bronze swords. We know from
literary documents that the Han still turned out weapons of bronze,
that under the Former Han the latter were gradually superseded by iron
weapons, and that these were definitely established under the Later
Han: the year 219 may safely be regarded as the term when weapons
were made exclusively from iron, and when bronze was discarded for
this purpose. 2 It will therefore be in general correct to assume for
archaeological purposes that bronze swords bearing the characteristics
of the Han, with greater probability belong to the period of the Former
Han dynasty (b.c. 206-23), while cast-iron swords of the same features
most probably range in the period of the Later Han dynasty (25-220
a.d.). The casting of iron for implements of e very-day use is peculiar
to that age : the Chinese then ingeniously applied to iron the same pro-
cess as formerly to bronze, casting it in sand moulds, and perpetuating
in the new material their ancient bronze forms. Thus we have large
bulging vases (of the type styled hu) with movable lateral rings and
inscriptions in Han style cast in high relief on the exterior of the bot-
tom, 3 — of the same shape as the corresponding vases in bronze and pot-
tery. There are, further, stoves, large cooking-kettles, cooking-pans,
coin-moulds, bells, lamps, chisels, knives, and mountings for chariot
wheel -naves, — in style and decoration breathing the spirit of Han
culture, and the complete decomposition of the thick iron core testifying
to their great antiquity. The cast-iron spears shown on Plate XXI,
owing to the decay of the iron substance underground, have almost lost
their original forms. The swords are in a somewhat better state of
preservation. They are two-edged, like the older bronze prototypes,

1 Siberian Antiquities (Materials toward the Archeology of Russia, No. 5, in Rus-
sian, St. Petersburg, 1891).

2 See the interesting observations of F. Hirth (Chinesische Ansichten uber Bron-
zetrommeln, pp. 18-22, and The Ancient History of China, pp. 234-237).

s It is the well-known formula i hou wang ("may it be serviceable to the lords!").

Defensive Armor of the Han Period 217

with massive iron hilts, but with lozenge-shaped guards of bronze
coated with a dark and polished patina.

We are now confronted with the fact that the Han period has run
through the same phase of development with regard to offensive and
defensive armor. It is therefore inevitable to conclude that a correlation
exists between these two developments, and that the production of
defensive iron armor under the Posterior Han is prompted by the coeval
coming into existence of iron weapons. The two phenomena are in
mutual proportions. In the same manner, the perfection of bronze
arms under the Anterior Han must have resulted in the machination
of bronze protective armor. The same causes bring about the same
effects; and if the agencies of the cause, the weapons, are suspected
with good evidence of foreign origin, the same suspicion is equally ripe
for the effects — defensive armor. The one is inconceivable without
the other. In the ancient Siberian swords we meet the same process of
development from bronze to iron as in ancient China, and this paral-
lelism plainly reveals the historical interrelation of the two culture
groups. This being the case, the further supposition is justifiable that
also the progress made under the Han in body armor might be due to
an impetus received from the same quarter. At this point due attention
must be paid to the great historical connections linking all Asia in mat-
ters of military art. No human invention or activity can be properly
understood if viewed merely as an isolated phenomenon, with utter
disregard of the causal factors to which it is inextricably chained.
Every cultural idea bears its distinct relation to a series of others, and
this reciprocity and interdependence of phenomena must be visualized
in determining its historical position. The development of harness
must be viewed in close connection with the mode of military tactics,
the science of warfare: every progressive step advanced in the latter
draws a natural reaction on the form of armament, and a transformation
of the latter is a sure sign of the fact that a considerable change in tactical
conduct has preceded it. It is therefore from the history of tactics
that we must derive our understanding of the technique of armor.
The problem now set before us is, — What great movement in military
tactics caused the radical transformation of arms experienced by the
peoples of China, Central Asia, and Siberia around the centuries of our
era? This movement, in my opinion, proceeded from ancient Iran.
I shall endeavor to demonstrate that far-reaching tactical reforms were
launched in Iran and deeply affected the entire ancient world, and that
these innovations spread from Iran to the Turkish tribes of Central
Asia, and were handed on by the latter to the Chinese. Developments of
tactics and armature moved along very similar lines in the three groups.

218 Chinese Clay Figures

First of all, attention should be called to the fact (and this cannot be
an accident) that the new parts of the armor added in China during the
Han period are exactly those which we find in ancient Persia. The
nape-guard (ya-hia) 1 meets its counterpart in the kuiris named in the
Avesta, rendered in the Pahlavl version grlvpdn ("neck-guard") and
explained by the gloss, "attached behind from the helmet to the corse-
let." 2 The Avesta mentions also leg-guards, ranapano ("thigh-protec-
tor") which are interpreted as greaves; and according to Jackson, the
helmet is described in the Avesta as made of iron, brass, or gold. 8
Likewise the new mode of fighting prevailing in the Han period —
the use of the sword in connection with shield and armor — is paralleled
in Persia when we read in Xenophon's Cyropadia (II, i, 21) that
Cyrus, in training his men, relieved them from practice with the bow
and the javelin, and exercised them in but one direction, to fight with
sword, shield, and armor. 4

Further, it is essential to grasp the fundamental fact of the difference
between mounted archers and true cavalry, and the development of
these two different arms and means of tactics among the Iranians.
Herodotus (VII, 84) states that the Persian horsemen were equipped
in the same manner as the infantry, except that some of them wore upon
their heads devices wrought of brass and steel. Accordingly, the
Persian cavalrymen of that time must be credited with the wearing of
sleeved tunics of diverse colors, bedecked with breastplates of iron
scales like fish-scales, as attributed by Herodotus (VII, 61) to the
infantry. The description of Herodotus (IX, 49) leaves no doubt that
the Persian horsemen fighting the Greeks were only a body of infantry
mounted on horses and chiefly depending upon their bows, at which
Herodotus expresses astonishment by remarking that, though horsemen,
they used the bow; they were, accordingly, mounted archers.

This mode of fighting was spread over the entire Scythian and
Iranian world. The Scythians shot with bow and arrow from horse-
back (Herodotus, IV, 131), and singly skirmished in open order
against their opponents, attacking them here and there where chance or
advantage offered ; they were at the same time nowhere and ubiquitous,
effectually screening their operations. The Massagetae (Herodotus, I,

1 A Chinese word suspicious of foreign origin.

2 A. V. W. Jackson, Ancient Persian Armor (in Classical Studies in Honor of
Henry Drisler, p. 118, New York, 1894).

3 Ibid., p. 119. The greaves are mentioned also by Xenophon (Anabasis, vin,
6); Herodotus (vii, 84) ascribes brass and steel helmets to the Persian cavalry men;
Xenophon (Cyropcedia, vi, 1, 2) speaks of brazen helmets, and in one case (vi, 4, 2)
of a golden helmet.

4 Compare also Cyropcedia, 1, 2, 12.

Defensive Armor of the Han Period 219

215) were familiar with the mode of fighting both on horseback and on
foot, which indicates that when in the saddle they were mounted foot-
men. The Parthian mounted archers were dreaded and detested by the
Romans, chiefly because in taking to flight they shot their arrows back-
ward at the pursuing enemy. 1 The Mongols, during their invasions,
availed themselves of the same mode of tactics. " In battle they with-
draw in good order, as soon as they are at a disadvantage, " says the Ar-
menian historian Haithon, "but it is very dangerous to pursue them, as,
though turning back, they are able to shoot during the flight, and thus
wound men and horses."

According to Xenophon (Anabasis, VIII, 6, 7), there were around
Cyrus about six hundred cavalry, the men all armed with breastplates,
greaves, and helmets, except Cyrus, who presented himself for battle
with his head unprotected; 2 and all the horses of the cavalry that were
with Cyrus had defensive armor on the forehead and breast. Here,
then, for the first time is the question of real cavalry; horse and man
being completely armored, and this new equipment being a sign of a new
mode of tactics, while in the age of Herodotus the horse of the Persians
was not yet caparisoned. 3 Though the term " cataphracti " is not used
by Xenophon, the institution described by him is either the forerunner
of the latter or identical with them.

In Cyropcedia (VI, 4, 1), besides the frontlets and breastplates of
the horses, single horses with greaves, and chariot horses with plates
upon their sides are mentioned; so that the whole army glittered with
brass, and shone with purple garments. Abradatas equipped the horses
of his chariot with brazen mail (ibid., VI, 1, 51). 4 In the same work
(VII, 1, 2) it is on record that all those who were with Cyrus were fur-
nished with the same equipment as himself; purple coats, brazen armor,
brazen helmets, white crests, short swords, and each with a spear made
of the timber of the corneil-tree. Their horses were armed with brazen
forehead-pieces, breastplates, and shoulder-pieces which simultaneously
served as thigh-protectors to the rider. The rider allowed his feet to
hang down behind these flank-pieces which safeguarded his thighs.

1 E. Bulanda, Bogen und Pfeil bei den Volkern des Altertums, p. 61 (Wien, 1913).

2 On the armor of Cyrus see Xenophon (CyropcBdia, 1, 4, 18; vn, 1, 2).

3 The Massagetae (Herodotus, i, 215), who in their costume and mode of living
resembled the Scythians, had their horses caparisoned with breastplates of bronze,
while gold was utilized for the bridles, the bit, and the cheekplates. The fact that
the horses in the army of Xerxes were not caparisoned is practically demonstrated
by the Nisaean charger of the Persian noble Masistius, which received an arrow in its
flank (Herodotus, ix, 22). Neither were the horses of the Assyrians caparisoned,
who possessed only mounted infantry, not cavalry in the strict sense.

4 Compare also vi, 2, 17.

220 Chinese Clay Figures

Finally, in his concluding chapter (VIII, 8, 22), in which Xenophon
laments the gradual degeneracy of the Persians after the death of Cyrus,
he sums up again by saying that Cyrus, after breaking them of the habit
of skirmishing at a distance, armed with breastplates both men and
their horses, gave every one a javelin in his hand, and trained them to
close fighting; but now, the historian complains, they neither skirmish
from a distance, nor do they engage hand in hand. In this passage it is
clearly stated that Cyrus was the father of a new mode of tactics, and
that this method was exactly what we understand by regular cavalry
in the modern sense, — horsemen engaging in close combat, and charging
their opponents with all possible speed by means of javelin, spear,
lance, or sabre. The Cyropadia, of course, is nothing more than an
historical romance, and the attribution to the elder Cyrus of the new
tactical principle is plainly an anachronism ; it must, however, have been
in full operation among the Persians in Xenophon's time. It cannot
have existed under Cyrus, as we do not find it in the army of Xerxes
invading Greece.

The mail-clad warriors of the Persians and related nations became
known in the antique world under the name cataphracti (KardippaKTOL)
or catafractarii, derived from cataphracta, the designation of their de-
fensive armor. Sarmatians clad with such armor are represented on the
Column of Trajan; actual fragments of armor of this sort discovered in
graves of southern Russia, and, further, the notices of classical authors,
enable us to form some idea of the appearance of these suits of armor. 1
They consisted of a foundation of cloth or leather, to which scales or
laminae of metal (copper or iron), more rarely of horn or bone, were
sewed on in such a manner that the single rows overlapped, each row
covering the upper part of the row immediately below. The result,
accordingly, was a type of scale armor (<£>o\i5cot6s) , the details in the
arrangement of which naturally escape us. It was singularly flexible,
provided with sleeves, and enveloping the entire body except that por-
tion of the thighs which grips the horse. It was well adapted to the
form of the trunk, and permitted the soldier ample freedom of motion.
The horses likewise were completely armored with the same kind of
scales, though they were frequently caparisoned with leather only
(Ammianus, XXIV, 6), 2 as they were handicapped by the weight of the
metal. The man had to be lifted on his horse. He was equipped with
a long spear, which was supported by a chain attached to the horse's
neck, and at the end by a fastening attached to the horse's thigh, so as

1 Compare the excellent article of E. Saglio in Dictionnaire des antiquites grecs
et romains, Vol. I, p. 966.

2 Operimentis scorteis equorum multitudine omni defensa.

Defensive Armor of the Han Period 221

to get the full force of the animal's weight into the spear-thrust. 1 At a
given signal, the squadron composed of such horsemen dashed forth for
the assault of the enemy, and was a formidable weapon against the
infantry armed with bows, as the body protection rendered the horsemen
arrow-proof. There were also cataphracti armed with bows, as follows
from the figure of such a cavalier represented on the Column of Trajan,
and shooting backward. It is clear that this troop could be efficient
only as a united body and for the purpose of a surprise charge; when
successfully repelled, the result must have been disastrous to the clumsy
horsemen. The single ones were incapable of defending themselves:
and we hear that the Gauls who accompanied the army of Crassus
practised the stratagem of seizing their lances and pulling them off the
horses. The difference in principle between the former mounted
bodies of archers and this new system of cavalry is obvious: the mounted
infantry soldier was an individual, and as such an independent fighting-
unit, able and mobile on any occasion, be it charge, enduring battle, or
pursuit; this troop did not advance at command in any regular align-
ments, but dispersed in open order, small bands suddenly sallying forth
here and there, and as swiftly turning round, now attacking, then
feigning flight, exhausting their opponents in pursuit, then rallying and
pushing forward again till the contest was decided. The new cavalry
troop was a machine set in motion by the will and word of a single com-
mander. It was effective as long as the body preserved the agility of its
members and worked with collective action as an undivided unit. Its
success was bound up with the speed, security, and force of its assault;
when the charge failed, its case was lost.

When and by whom this new mode of tactics was invented is un-
known. We have seen that it existed in Persia at the time of Xenophon,
and the idea seems to have indeed originated among Iranians. Sub-
sequently we find it in the army of Antiochus Epiphanes ; and from the
time of Antoninus Pius it became common in the armies of the Romans,
soldiers of this description being frequently mentioned in inscriptions
of that period. Thus we see the Romans adopt the strategy of their
adversaries,— a bit of history which, as we shall see presently, repeats
itself in China. The Iranian mode of strategy with the peculiar body
armor for man and horse spread likewise to the Scythians (see p. 220),
and to Siberia as far as the Yenisei, as witnessed by the famed petro-
glyph of a mounted lancer equipped with plate mail. This horseman in-
deed represents a cataphi -actus (Fig. 35). This monument may be

1 Smith, Wayte, and Marindin, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,
3d ed. (Vol. I, p. 384).

222

Chinese Clay Figures

roughly dated in the time of the Siberian iron age, and is surely coeval
with the period of Chinese-Turkish relations in the epoch of the Han.

In fact, the Turkish tribes who fought the Chinese at that time had
undergone a similar development from the primitive and crude warfare
of mounted archers to the principle of organized cavalry, like their
Iranian neighbors; and the Turks, on their part, were duly seconded in
this respect by the Chinese. We know surely enough that the pri-

Mounted Lancer Clad with Plate Mail, Rock-Carving on the Yenisei, Siberia (from Inscriptions

de l'lenissei, Helsingfors, 1889).

meval Chinese did not possess cavalry, and that their battles were fought
by soldiers on foot or in war-chariots (p. 185). We know, further, that
the tactics of mounted infantry archers, in imitation of Turkish practice,
were first organized in China by King Wu-ling (b.c. 325-299) of Chao;
that he introduced the narrow-waisted and tight-fitting barbaric
costume among his subjects, and taught them shooting with the bow
while on horseback. 1 Regular cavalry, we see, came up in China from
under the Anterior Han, and this was still less a truly Chinese idea
than the mounted infantry. It was adopted from the Huns; and the
Huns, I venture to assert, — though this impression cannot be supported
at present by a literary document, — had learned this lesson from Ira-
nians. There is no escape from the conclusion that historical contact
and derivation must have been in operation, for it would be against all

1 See the writer's Chinese Pottery, p. 216.

Defensive Armor of the Han Period 223

reason to assume that both the Huns and the Chinese should independ-
ently have run through the same stages of development of a complex
series of phenomena as the Iranians did several centuries before this
period. The inward identity of these developments on the three sides,
resulting in the same styles of body armor improved by the utilization
of metal, and the same manner of fighting, is sufficient proof for the fact
that the one nation successively adopted the new practice from the other.

It would be beyond the scope of the present investigation to enter
into the details of the history of this military institution in China.
China's military history has been much neglected, though it offers a
wide field for studies of great culture-historical interest. Among these,
a research into the subject of cavalry is worthy of special consideration.
A few suggestive remarks may here be offered. 1

The Huns, the Hiung-nu of the Chinese Annals, were born fighters,
tribes of horsemen, and expert archers. According to the picture of their
life drawn by Se-ma Ts'ien, 2 they taught their children to practise
riding on the backs of sheep, and to shoot birds and rodents with bow
and arrow. Qualification in archery made the soldier, "and every
soldier strong enough to bend a bow was a cuirassed horseman." 3
This plainly indicates that the soldiery of the Huns consisted of mounted
archers fighting in open order and individually, like the Scythians; and
the historian further adds that their offensive weapon for distant fight-
ing was the bow and arrow, 4 while in close combat they employed swords
and short spears. Whether they engaged also in dismounted combat, we
do not know. When Se-ma Ts'ien adds that they were not ashamed of
flight, this is duly connected with their mode of fighting, as set forth
above (p. 218) in regard to Iranians and Scythians: 5 their flight was a

1 An interesting work giving a digest of the military affairs of the Han dynasty is
the Pu Han ping chi (reprinted in Chi pu tsu chat ts'ung shu).

2 Shi ki, Ch. no, p. 1 b.

3 Thus in the translation of E. H. Parker (China Review, Vol. XX, p. 1), which
seems to me exact. Hirth (Ancient History of China, p. 168) translates, "Having
grown to become soldiers, they would thus become excellent archers, when they were
all supplied with armor on horseback." This, though generally rendering the sense
of the passage, is hardly in Se-ma Ts'ien's text; at any rate, the words kia ki cannot
be separated, but form a technical term, "a horseman clad with hide armor." The
word kia in Se-ma Ts'ien invariably refers to hide armor or cuirass, not to metal ar-
mor, which is k'ai.

4 As swift and mounted archers the Huns appeared in Europe (motibus expediti,
et ad equitandum promptissimi : scapulis latis, et ad arcus sagittasque parati.
Jornandes, xxi v), as did the Mongols at a later date.

5 Marco Polo (ed. of Yule and Cordier, Vol. I, p. 262) very aptly says in re-
gard to the Mongols, "As they do not count it any shame to run away in battle, they
will sometimes pretend to do so, and in running away they turn in the saddle and
shoot hard and strong at the foe, and in this way make great havoc. Their horses
are trained so perfectly that they will double hither and thither, just like a dog, in

224 Chinese Clay Figures

sham-flight to deceive and exhaust their opponents, and they did not
fail during this manoeuvre of retreat to send their arrows backward.
Their cuirass (kid) was of leather obtained from the skins of their
domestic animals, from which also their ordinary clothing was prepared;
in addition to leather garments, they had coats of felt.

The re-organizer of the military power of the Huns was the famed
Moduk 1 (Mau-tun), who at the end of the third century b.c. welded the
sca'tered tribes into a compact unit. Moduk was the son of the
Shan-yu 2 T'ou-man, who afterwards had a younger son by a favorite
consort. Wishing to disinherit Moduk, and to place this younger
son on the throne, he sent Moduk as hostage to the old enemies of the
Huns, the Yiie-chi (Indoscythians), and then went on the war-path
against the latter. Moduk, his life being thus imperilled, thought of
his safety, and, stealing one of the swiftest horses of the Yiie-chi, fled
homeward. His father, who thought this was an heroic deed, placed
him in command of ten thousand horsemen. The ambitious Moduk
then plotted against his father's life and throne. The Chinese historian
Se-ma Ts'ien 3 narrates the story of how he achieved his scheme, in a high-
ly anecdotal form, from which important events are apparently omitted.
The story is that Moduk, making sounding arrows, 4 trained his equestrian

a way that is quite astonishing. Thus they fight to as good purpose in running away
as if they stood and faced the enemy, because of the vast volleys of arrows that they
shoot in this way, turning round upon their pursuers, who are fancying that they have
won the battle. But when the Tartars see that they have killed and wounded a good
many horses and men, they wheel round bodily, and return to the charge in perfect
order and with loud cries, and in a very short time the enemy are routed. . . . And
you perceive that it is just when the enemy sees them run, and imagines that he has
gained the battle, that he has in reality lost it, for the Tartars wheel round in a mo-
ment when they judge the right time has come. And after this fashion they have won
many a fight." This picture holds good as well of the Scythians, Huns, and T'u-kue.
From the numerous representations of the mounted archer shooting backward on the
relief bands of the Han pottery we see how deeply impressed the Chinese were by
this feat of military skill.

1 This is the correct Turkish restoration of the name, as based on the data of the
Chinese commentators, according to O. Franke (Beitrage aus chinesischen Quellen
zur Kenntnis der Turkvolker und Sky then Zentralasiens, Abhandlungen der preus-
sischen Akademie, 1904, p. 10). He reigned B.C. 201 to 177.

2 Title of the sovereigns of the Huns. Compare Plate XXII for a Chinese pictorial
representation of one of the Shan-yu.

3 Shi ki, Ch. 1 10, p. 3 b. Compare A. Wylie, History of the Heung-noo in their
Relations with China (Journal of the Anthropological Institute, Vol. Ill, 1874, P- 4°8) '<
E. H. Parker, The Turco-Scythian Tribes (China Review, Vol. XX, p. 7); and F.
Hirth (Sinologische Beitrage zur Geschichte der Tiirk-Volker, p. 254, St. Petersburg,
1900), who very well characterizes Moduk as a hero.

4 He did not invent them, as Wylie translates. Also Giles (No. 10.Q28; ming
ti) states that the sounding arrows were "invented by Mao-tun or Meghaer" (simi-
larly Palladius, Vol. I, p. 174). Aston (Nihongi, Vol. I, p. 87) makes Parker say
that the sounding arrows are not Chinese, but an invention of the Huns; but Parker
(China Review, Vol. XX, p. 7), referring to the nari-kabura of the ancient Japanese,
observes only that the latter seem to have imitated the Huns. In my opinion it is.

Defensive Armor of the Han Period 225

archers in shooting with them. An order was issued by him to the
effect that all his men, at whatever goal he should discharge a sounding

begging the question to speak in this case of an invention of Moduk, or of a Hunnic
invention, or of invention at all; for such a contrivance is not an invention creditable
to an individual or a single tribe. It represents the result of a gradual finding and
experimenting, the how, when, and where of which is lost. All we may safely assert
is that chronologically we first meet these buzzing arrows among the Huns, — and
the text of the Shi ki contains the oldest record of them, — and that numerous archae-
ological finds made in central and western Siberia testify to the fact that this type of
arrow was formerly generally diffused among the Turkish stock of peoples (compare
B. Adler, Pfeifende Pfeile und Pfeilspitzen in Sibirien, Globus, Vol. 81, 1902,
pp. 94-96; this brief notice is purely descriptive, without an historical point of view).
Moduk did not invent the sounding arrow, which surely existed before his time, and
which was used by his countrymen for hunting purposes; but he turned it to a novel
use by availing himself of the whizzing noise as a signal for a cavalry attack. With
this specific end in view he had such arrows "made, " as the Chinese text says, which
implies that they were previously known. Hirth (/. c, p. 254, note) has justly
doubted whether Moduk may be regarded as the "inventor" of the sounding arrow,
since a similar expression (hao shi, No. 3872, "sounding arrows, discharged by bandits
as a signal to begin the attack") is metaphorically employed by the philosopher
Chuang-tse of the fourth century B.C. But the ming ti of Moduk must have been
affairs somewhat different from the latter, otherwise we should not have the two dif-
ferent terms. There are indeed (and the ethnographical point of view should never
be neglected) diverse types of sounding arrows in our collections. An arrow can be
made "sounding " by merely having one or several perforations in the iron blade; and
the humming is essentially intensified by a special whistling apparatus inserted be-
tween shaft and head. This device is an oval-shaped knob of wood or bone, perforat-
ed like a whistle with two, four, or more holes, on which the wind plays when the arrow
sharply cuts the air. I venture to presume that the sounding arrow mentioned by
Chuang-tse belonged to the first of these types, and that of Moduk to the second;
the interpretation given by Ying Shao (Shi ki, Ch. no, p. 3 b) of the term ming ti
leaves no doubt as to this fact. Again in the Chinese Annals we hear of sounding
arrows being in the possession of the T'u-kue or Turks (for instance, Chou shu,
Ch. 50, p. 3; Pei shi, Ch. 99, p. 2; and Julien, Documents historiques sur les Tou-
kioue, p. 9). A new term appears in the Annals of the T'ang Dynasty (T'ang shu,
Ch. 39, p. 9), — hiao arrows (hiao shi). The word hiao, not listed in any of our dic-
tionaries, is written with a character composed of the classifier 'bone' (ku) and the
phonetic element hiao ('filial piety'). This reading is indicated in the Glossary of
the T'ang Annals (Ch. 4, p. 2 b) where the word is explained by the older term ming
ti ("sounding arrow"). The manner of writing the word indicates that the question
is here of arrows with a whistling contrivance carved from bone. These arrows,
according to T'ang shu, were sent as tribute from the district Kuei-ch'uan in Kuei
chou, now the prefecture of Suan-hua in Chi-li Province (Playfair, Cities and Towns
of China, 2d ed., No. 7363). Sounding bone arrows, accordingly, were made and
used in China during the T'ang period; and in coming to Japan, we need not invoke
the Huns, but are confronted with the plain fact of an idea directly imported from
China. The Kojiki of 712 a.d. (B. H. Chamberlain's translation, p. 72) relates
that "the Impetuous-Male-Deity shot a whizzing barb into the middle of a large
moor, and sent him [the Great Deity] to fetch the arrow, and when he had entered
the moor, at once set fire to the moor all round." The text employs the same charac-
ters for the word as Shi ki and Ts'ien Han shu (Ch. 94 A, p. 2 b: ming ti), but they
receive the Japanese reading nari-kabura (literally, ' singing turnip '). Chamberlain,
in the introduction to his translation of the Kojiki (p. lxix), justly emphasizes that
this peculiar kind of arrow belongs to the traces of Chinese influence on the material
culture of old Japan (Japanese illustrations in Ph. F. v. Siebold, Nippon, 2d ed.,
Vol. I, p. 342, and G. Mueller-Beeck, Mitteilungen der deutschen Ges. Ostasiens,
Vol. IV, p. 3, Plates 5 and 6). In the Nihongi of 720, a sounding arrow with eight
eyes or holes is mentioned (Aston, Nihongi, Vol. I, p. 87; K. Florenz, Japanische
Mythologie, p. 206). Reverting to China, we have for the Mongol period Rubruck's
account to the effect that Mangu made a very strong bow which two men could

226 Chinese Clay Figures

arrow, should aim at the same, under penalty of decapitation. To
ascertain how far his followers might be relied upon, he speedily put
them to the test. Taking the sounding arrow, he aimed at his favorite
horse, when some of his attendants hesitated to follow his example, and
were decapitated on the spot. A sterner test was soon in store: his
attendants stood aghast at seeing the sounding arrow fly at his cherished
wife; those fearing to comply with the order were at once beheaded.
Afterwards he went ahunting and discharged the sounding arrow at
King T'ou-man's favorite horse; his men without exception duly followed
suit: thus Moduk knew that his adherents could be trusted, and finally
resolved on the accomplishment of his grand coup d'etat. While on a
hunting-expedition with his father, he seized a favorable opportunity
to let a sounding arrow fly at the Shan-yu, whereupon a volley was
fired at him by his adherents. The king fell ; and his death was followed
by the massacre of his wives (except Moduk's own mother), his youngest
son , and all officers of state who refused allegiance to the victor. Moduk
set himself up as Shan-yu in b.c. 201. 1

There is assuredly the fact of a large political movement at the bot-
tom of this narrative. Certainly, there was no need of a brigade or
two of cavalry to eliminate the person of the king; it was a wrestle for
the kingdom which involved a contest with a huge army. The problem
confronting Moduk was how to overrun the king's powerful host. At
this point his reform set in : he became the drill-master of his equestrian
archers and a prominent cavalry tactician. His task was beset with

hardly string, and two arrows with silver heads full of holes, which whistled like
a pipe when they were shot; Mangu sent these as a symbolic gift to the King of the
Franks (W. W. Rockhill, The Journey of William of Rubruck, p. 180). As to the
Ming period, these arrows are figured in the Wupeichi of MaoYtian-iof 162 1 (Ch. 102,
p. 10). Those used in the army under the Manchu dynasty are illustrated and
described in the Huang ch'ao li k'i Vu shi (Ch. 14). They exhibit a great number of
types and varieties which require a special study; in principle, there are two chief
classes, — arrows with sharp iron points stuck into the whistle; and arrows with
whistle, but without any iron point. The latter do not serve the purpose of killing,
but of making only a certain impression. The Kalmuk of the eighteenth century availed
themselves of whizzing arrows in hawk-hunting. When the water-fowl frightened
by birds of prey would not rise, it was roused by means of such arrows provided
with a bone knob, but without iron; for the fowl should not be slain while in the
water (P. S. Pallas, Sammlungen, Vol. I, p. 147)- Such blunt sounding arrows were
used till the end of the Manchu dynasty by the imperial body-guards to frighten ob-
trusive people when the emperor was driving out. Wounds from this weapon, if any,
were of course harmless. This type of arrow is styled pao (E. v. Zach, Lexicogra-
phische Beitrage, Vol. I, p. 50) ; it is not, however, as v. Zach explains, merely the bone
knob which is so called, but the entire implement. The bone knob is termed ku
pao. The word pao first appears in the T'ang leu Hen (the "Six Statutes of the T'ang
Dynasty") in the sense of a bone arrowhead. At one time, sounding arrows were
used in old England, the arrowheads being perforated (J. Strutt, Sports and Pastimes
of the People of England, p. 127).

1 This is the date given by M. Tchang (Synchronismes chinois, p. 118). Wylie
gives the date as B.C. 209.

Defensive Armor of the Han Period 227

grave difficulties; to break the former deep-rooted habit of irregular
fighting on the part of these wild hordes, and to train them to the word
of one chief commander, required a master's mind and an iron will-
power. Men always wont to unrestricted freedom in the discharge of
their weapons, and almost unconstrained as to their movements and
operations on the battle-field, were now forced to absolute subjection
under the command of the chief, and compelled to fire volleys strictly at
his signal, — a genuine cavalry feat.

Speaking cum grano salis, Moduk did the same as Cyrus in Xeno-
phon's Cyropoedia, or Maurice of Nassau when in the war of inde-
pendence of the Netherlands (1568-1609) he drilled his German mer-
cenaries, who were more lightly armed and mounted than their Spanish
opponents, to form in two or three lines, to move rapidly, and to make
direct charges while firing their pistols at the enemy. Moduk's method
of drilling naturally presupposes an orderly array of his troops in rigor-
ous alignments. The revolutionary character of his innovation, which
was a source of amazement to his countrymen, is indicated by the grad-
ual exercises and tests, and the severe punishments meted out to the
negligent ones. His military genius is illustrated by the fact that he
conceived the bold plan of introducing a radically new mode of tactics,
that of organized and compact cavalry, in order to overthrow his father's
irregular horsemen. He opposed the art and strategy of war to natural
belligerents, the principles of cavalry attacks to unprincipled savage
warfare. Was Moduk himself the inventor of this new science of
tactics? This can hardly be presumed. We remember that he lived
as a hostage among the Yue-chi. This, of course, was at a time when
the Yue-chi still occupied their seats in the northern part of Kan-su;
their westerly migration took place in b.c. 165. Maybe he learned
military lessons from the Yue-chi. The facts, at all events, prove that
he had the spirit and nerve of Cyrus in him. The Iranian standard is
clearly demonstrated in his doings. In the same manner as Iranian
cavalry practice was adopted by the Romans, it deeply influenced
the Turkish tribes; and Moduk was the prominent leader and organizer
of this reform.

In reading carefully the battles fought by the Huns against the
Chinese, we recognize, despite their meagre and incomplete descriptions,
that the Huns were most expert cavalry tacticians, who fully practised
the rules laid down by Frederick the Great after the lesson which he
received from the Austrians at the battle of Mollwitz, — "Every officer
of cavalry must ever bear in mind that there are but two things required
to beat the enemy : first, to charge him with the greatest possible speed
and force; and second, to outflank him." Hunnic skill in manoeuvres

228 Chinese Clay Figures

of the latter sort x and their ability for making the best of the field of
operations or any accident of territory, are especially notable in the
fierce struggle against the army of Li Ling. On outpost and scouting
duty they were unsurpassed. The manner in which Moduk in an
unusually cold winter forced the army of the first Han Emperor, 320,000
men, mostly infantry, into a siege, enticing it on by feigning defeat
and flight and keeping his best forces in ambush, is a feat worthy of this
military genius. It is a deplorable loss that the details of this unique
campaign have not been recorded accurately. 2

A "battle of the Huns" is preserved on the stone monuments of the
Hiao-t'ang-shan. 3 There we see them galloping on their sturdy ponies,
and shooting with bow and arrow. Others are equipped with long hal-
berds, and show us that the Huns charged in the same manner as the
cataphracti. One horseman makes an attempt to drag another out
of the saddle by means of a long lance with presumably hooked point. 4
A dismounted warrior, clad with a cuirass and with sword in hand, is
engaged in cutting off heads. Also some of the mounted archers have
donned an armor. Reserves waiting in ambush are kept in the back-
ground, shielded behind hilly ground or artificially thrown-up intrench-
ments. 6 The king of the barbarians is seated in front, giving instructions
to a man kneeling before him.

1 It is interesting that there is a Turkish word for this manoeuvre, tulghama. This
practice was introduced by Baber into India, and is described in his Memoirs (Pa vet
de Courteille, Baber nameh, Vol. I, p. 194, and P. Horn, Das Heer- und Kriegs-
wesen der Grossmoghuls, p. 22, Leiden, 1894). The cavalry of the Moghuls, con-
sisting of armored lancers mounted on caparisoned horses, certainly is an offshoot of
the ancient cataphracti.

2 A great setback to the study of military matters is the lack in the Chinese annals
of any descriptions of battles, such as we have in the classical authors. The annalists
are usually content to state the figures of the respective armies, the names of the
commanders, date and locality of the battle, and its final dry net result with the quota
of the slain and captives; but nothing, as a rule, is given out concerning the military
operations in the course of the battle. Only in the biographies of the prominent gen-
erals of the Han period do we occasionally encounter a somewhat detailed record of
the military evolutions of a combat, though these also are sadly deficient and pass
over in silence what we are most anxious to learn. The Confucian scholar never was
interested in the military side of the events.

3 Chavannes, Mission, No. 47, and La sculpture, p. 82. In a poem of the first
century a.d. by Wang Yen-shen, descriptive of a palace in K'u-fu, the home of Con-
fucius, are mentioned representations of people from Central Asia (H u jen) depicted
in a group on the upper parts of the pillars. They were outlined kneeling in a reveren-
tial attitude opposite one another. "There they remained unmoved with their
long and narrow heads and their eyes in a fixed gaze like that of a bustard {tiao).
Over their lofty noses and deep eyes they lifted their highly arched eyebrows. They
looked sad as if in danger" (J. Edkins, in Chinese Recorder, Vol. XV, 1884, p. 345).

4 Such lances are illustrated in Wu pei chi and other Chinese works concerning
military matters.

6 M. Chavannes (/. c.) conceives them as going out of tents. This point of view
is possible, but the opinion as given above seems to be preferable. The outlines here
in question have hardly any resemblance to tents.

Defensive Armor of the Han Period 229

It must certainly be granted, as justly emphasized by Chavannes, 1
that the Huns were initiated also into the more "scientific" strategy of
the Chinese by those Chinese generals who, from fear of being cashiered
and court -martialled at home as a sequel of their defeats, preferred
surrender to the enemy. The brave General Li Ling, who was forced
to surrender to the Huns, is reported to have trained their soldiers in the
art of war as then practised by the Chinese; the Emperor, on hearing
these tidings, condemned him as a traitor, and caused his mother, wife,
and children to be put to death. 2

Hirth, 3 in balancing the advantages and shortcomings of Hunnic and
Chinese warfare, thinks that the Chinese have had on their side greatly
superior armament and a certain uniformity of organization. The
latter observation is doubtless to the point, but I hardly believe that
Chinese arms were superior in technique to those of the Huns: the
ancient bronze and iron arms discovered in Siberian soil are surely as
good as any of ancient China. Possibly the crossbow, which was foreign
to the Huns, rendered the Chinese superior in some respect.

The military equipment and organization of the Han, compared
with that of the Chou, show a number of fundamental changes which are
simultaneously symptoms of radical reforms in the manner of tactics
and strategy. The main features of these innovations are the great
importance attributed to the horse, — as the renowned General Ma
Yuan put it, "the horse is the foundation of all military operations," 4 —
the preponderance of horsemen over infantry, the prevalence of the
crossbow over the bow, the use of body armor on the part of the horse-
men, and the gradual development of a genuine and regular cavalry.
The immediate cause of these military reforms was brought about by the
endless struggles with the ever-restless nomadic hordes threatening the
north-western outskirts of the empire; and imitation of their mode of
warfare consequently became imperative. The wearing of armor
by the horsemen, as we noticed, was a custom of the Huns; and if the
Chinese followed suit, we may well lay it down as an adoption of Hunnic
practice. This is not merely an impression in the matter, but a fact
confirmed by the report of Ch'ao Ts'o presented to the throne in b.c.
169. 5 In this lengthy memorial the diversity of Hunnic and Chinese
warfare is set forth in detail; and for the first time the formation of a

1 Les Memoires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. I, p. lxix.

2 Giles, Biographical Dictionary, p. 450.

3 Ancient History of China, p. 166.

4 Hou Han shu, Ch. 54, p. 9.

6 L. Wieger, Textes historiques, p. 414.

230 Chinese Clay Figures

corps of chevaulegers (king ki) 1 is recommended, as the heavy infantry
and war-chariots of the Chinese were powerless against the Huns. He
further advised employing the tactics of the Huns against the Huns,
and hiring mercenaries of the horde I-k'ii for this purpose; while within
the boundaries of the empire the Chinese army should continue with the
Chinese mode of tactics. This suggestion was not carried out im-
mediately, but we see it brought into effect under the Emperor Wu
(b.c. 140-87), who may be regarded as the reformer of Chinese cavalry.
The man who really achieved the work and infused new life into the
cavalry arm was General Ho K'iu-ping, who completely abandoned
the traditional ground of Chinese tactics, and put the institution of
chevaulegers into practice. 2 As a youth of eighteen he was an ac-
complished horseman and archer, and at the head of a squadron of eight
hundred chevaulegers, forming the advance-guard of the army, gained
laurels against the Huns. In b.c. 121, when only twenty years of age,
he was appointed commander-in-chief of the entire force of chevaulegers,
and defeated the Huns in six consecutive battles. 3 His common sense is
shown by the fact that he positively refused to study Sun Wu's "Art
of War," and preferred to trust to his own judgment. This doubtless
means that he was a practical man who rejected theories, and by long
experience had grasped the warfare of his adversary and appropriated
the latter's method as the most promising one. His victories over the
Huns are due to the tactics of cavalry which he adopted, while his pred-
ecessors under the early Han emperors prior to Wu met with dis-
astrous failures by opposing infantry to the horses of the enemy. Surely
the Chinese had bought their experience at a high price.

Cavalry thus grew during the Han period into an independent
arm, and finally was the most important one in the wars against the
roving tribes of Central Asia. The cavalry had its own organization
and administrative powers. As shown by a passage in a memorial

1 Or p'iao ki (No. 9134), "fleet cavaliers" (see Chavannes, Les M6moires his-
toriques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. Ill, p. 559), apparently translation of Turkish lap-
kunci (P. Horn, Das Heer- und Kriegswesen der Grossmoghuls, p. 21, and W.
Radloff, Worterbuch der Turk-Dialecte, Vol. Ill, col. 1922).

2 A repetition of this spectacle took place in Europe when it suffered in the tenth
century from the inroads of the Hungarians, until Henry I of Germany, by adopting
the cavalry methods of the enemy, finally succeeded in repelling him. Again, in the
thirteenth century, the light horsemen of the Mongols and Saracens got the better
of the iron-clad cavalry of central Europe. Only the German Order of Prussia then
possessed enough military acumen to form an excellent light cavalry under the
designation "Turcopoles" placed at the command of a "Turcopole," which rendered
good services against Lithuanians and Poles (M. Jahns, Ross und Reiter, Vol. II,
p. 86).

3 His biography is in Shi ki (Ch. in) and Ts'ien Han shu (Ch. 50). It has been
translated by A. Pfizmaier (Sitzungsberichte Wiener Akademie, 1864, pp. 152-170);
see also Giles, Biographical Dictionary, p. 260.

Defensive Armor of the Han Period 231

presented by Huai-nan-tse to the Han Emperor Wu, there were then
four officially recognized main bodies of troops, — war-chariots, cavalry,
archers, and arbalists. 1

The new order of military affairs is especially expressed by the new
military offices instituted by the same Emperor. The high signi-
ficance which the tactics of cavalry must have reached in his time
is very conspicuous in these functions. He established a commander
of cavalry (tun ki hiao wet), a commander of the squadrons of foreign
cavalry (yiie ki hiao wei) formed by the men of the country of Yiie
subjected to China, a commander of the squadrons of foreign cavalry
(ch'ang shui hiao wei) formed by the Turks or Huns (Hu) of Ch'ang-
shui and Siian-ho, and a commander of the Turkish or Hunnic cavalry
(hu ki hiao wei) stationed at Ch'i-yang. 2 In this institution of Turkish
cavalry 3 incorporated with the Chinese army we may recognize a positive
sign of the fact that the Chinese had borrowed the whole affair from
their Turkish neighbors, and utilized against them their own tactical
stratagems. Also in the military colonies founded by the Emperor
Wu in Turkistan to break the power of the Turks, detachments of
cavalry were established. 4

The perpetual wars with the turbulent nomads required an immense
number of horses. "In view of his campaigns against the barbarians
of the north, the Son of Heaven maintained a large number of horses,
several myriads of which were reared in the capital Ch'ang-ngan,"
relates Se-ma Ts'ien. 5 "In B.C. 119, the commander-in-chief and the
general of the chevaulegers made a great incursion to attack the barba-
rians of the north; they took from eighty to ninety thousand captives.
Five hundred thousand pounds of gold were distributed as reward.
The Chinese army had lost over a hundred thousand horses. We do
not here render an account of the expenses incurred by the land and
water transportation, the chariots and cuirasses." 6 Here, accordingly,
is the question of cavaliers wearing cuirasses.

The generals of the Han dynasty were all clad with armor and
mounted on horseback. When in 48 a.d. General Liu Shang was badly
defeated by the Man barbarians, General Ma Yuan, who had formerly

1 L. Wieger, Textes historiques, p. 506.

2 Compare Chavannes, Les M£moires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. II,
PP- 525. 526.

3 The Tibetans (K'iang) also were recruited by the Chinese to form regiments of
cavalry (Chavannes, T'oung Pao, 1906, p. 256).

4 See E. Biot, Memoire sur les colonies militaires et agricoles des Chinois (Journal
asiatique, 1850, pp. 342, 344, 345).

6 Chavannes, Les M6moires historiques de Se-ma Ts'ien, Vol. Ill, p. 561.
8 Ibid., p. 569-

232 Chinese Clay Figures

gained laurels in their pacification, turned in a petition asking to be
placed in service again. As he was in his sixty-second year, however,
the Emperor declined his offer in view of his advanced age. Ma Yuan
then made a personal appeal to him, saying, "Your servant is still able
to sit in the saddle with the armor on his body." The Emperor de-
manded the experiment, whereupon the aged soldier flung himself into
the saddle and daringly looked around, in order to demonstrate that he
was still of use. The Emperor, filled with admiration, entrusted him
with the command. 1 It is on record that General Keng Ping, who died
in 91 a.d., was always at the head of his troops, enveloped with his armor
and mounted on horseback. 2 There is thus sufficient evidence at
hand that the Chinese derived their whole system of cavalry from the
Huns, both cavalry tactics and cavalry equipment; and there can be no
doubt of the fact that the Chinese made exactly the same use of cavalry
as the Huns. 3 Thus the Iranian ideas have filtered through the Huns
into the Chinese. For this reason it is most likely also that the new
cuirasses bedecked with copper and iron laminse, coming up in China
during the epoch of the Han, received their impetus from the west, more
specifically from the metal scale and plate armors worn by the Iranian
and Scythian cataphracti.

As said before, the history of cavalry development in China (and
that of military art in general) remains to be written. An interesting
observation may still be added here. Under the Sui and T'ang, the
light cavalry, apparently the inheritance of the institution of the Han,
was in full operation, particularly in the campaigns against the Turkish
tribes. It seems, however, that the method of cavalry charges, as
established by the Han after Hunnic example, had subsequently fallen
into oblivion; for we are informed from the interesting biography of
Yang Su inserted in the Annals of the Sui Dynasty 4 that this daring

1 Hou Han shu, Ch. 54, p. 12 b; Hirth, Chinesische Ansichten uber Bronze-
trommeln, p. 60.

2 Chavannes, T'oung Pao, 1907, pp. 223, 224.

3 A good example of the employment of cavalry for reconnoitring is furnished
in B.C. 1 52 by the feat of Li Kuang, who went out with a guard of a hundred horsemen
and suddenly saw himself confronted by a cavalry corps of several thousand Huns.
He advanced to make them believe that he represented the vanguard of a large force
following. At a short distance from the enemy he gave orders to dismount and to
unsaddle, in order to show that he had no mind to retreat. A captain of the Huns
sallies out; Li Kuang and ten of his men jump on their horses, and fell him with an
arrow-shot. He turns back, unsaddles again, and orders his soldiers to graze the
horses, and to take a rest. Until the evening the distrustful Huns durst make no
charge. Under cover of night, the Chinese retreated in good order. The interesting
biography of Li Kuang has been translated by A. Pfizmaier (Sitzungsberichte Wiener
Akademie, 1863, pp. 512-528).

4 Sui shu, Ch. 48, pp. 1-6. According to Giles (Biographical Dictionary,
p. 914) Yang Su died in 606 a.d.

Defensive Armor or the Han Period 233

commander was obliged to inaugurate again a reform of cavalry tactics.
In 598 a.d. the Turkish Khan Ta-t'ou, the Tardu of the Byzantine
historians, made an inroad into China; and Yang Su, appointed gen-
eralissimo against him, met with unusual success. Formerly, the Chi-
nese annalist tells us on this occasion, the generals in their battles with
the Turkish hordes were chiefly concerned about the cavalry of the en-
emy, and merely observed an attitude of defence by forming a carre of
chariots, infantry 7 and riders, the latter being posted in the centre sur-
rounded by the other troops, and the carre being encircled by an abatis. 1
Yang Su held that this means of defence was merely an act of fortifying
one's self, but could never lead to a victory; and he entirely abandoned
this old-fashioned practice. He
formed his troops solely into
squadrons of horsemen ready
for immediate attack. On
learning these tidings, the Khan
was overjoyed, exclaiming, // %(

"Heaven has accorded me this & & k a '" $
favor!" Dismounting from his FlG - 36 -

, , , 1 T _ Abatis (from Huang ch'ao li k'i I'u shi).

horse, he looked up to Heaven

and worshipped. At the head of a hundred thousand picked equestrians
he advanced, and suffered a distressing defeat from the hand of Yang Su,
who charged him with all vehemence. Fortunately we are told also
some details as to the method of Yang Su's offensive procedure. He was
a harsh warrior, enforcing martial laws with Spartan severity: capital
punishment was meted out to whomever infringed the articles of war.
In open battle he began operations by rushing one or two hundred riders
against the position of the enemy. Did they succeed in breaking him,
it was all right; did they fail and retreat, he had all of them, irrespective
of their number, beheaded on the spot. Then he proceeded to send
forth a squadron of two to three hundred men, until the enemy was
beaten. Thus his officers and men were overwhelmed with awe, and
"possessed of a heart ready to die." From this time, Yang Su remained
victorious in every combat, and reaped the fame of a remarkable com-
mander. 2

When I make the armament of the Iranian and Scythian cata-

1 In Chinese lu kio ("stag horns "). Every visitor to China has seen these affairs
in front of Yamen and police stations. The illustration (Fig. 36) is derived from
Huang ch'ao li k'i t'u shi (Ch. 15, p. 26). These abatis are first mentioned in the life
of Su Huang (San kuo chi, Wei chi, Ch. 17, p. 6), then in the fife of Ma Lung (Tsin
shu, Ch. 57, p. 2 b), who made extensive use of this means of defence in open territory.

2 Sui shu, Ch. 48, p. 3.

234 Chinese Clay Figures

phracti responsible for the appearance of metal armor in China, and
when I am inclined to trace the perfection in the organization of the
cavalry among the Huns and Chinese to a movement issuing from Iranian
quarters, it should be pointed out, on the other hand, that the cata-
phracti do not seem to have exerted any directly imitative influence on
Huns and Chinese, or that these two nations did not absolutely copy or
adopt in all particulars this peculiar mode of warfare. At least, there
is no direct documentary testimony to this effect, save the rock-carved
lancer on the Yenisei (Fig. 35), which thus far represents an isolated case.
The "battle of the Huns" above referred to displays Central- Asiatic
horsemen armed with long halberds amidst equestrian archers, and
could possibly be invoked as attesting, on the part of the Huns, cavalry
charges in the manner of the cataphracti. In the Chinese Annals,
however, as far as I know, no instance of a charge of horsemen with
spears, 1 on the part of either the Chinese or the Huns, is on record; nor
do I find any mention of armored horses in the Han period. The
earliest palpable evidence for an armored warrior astride a caparisoned
horse is represented by a clay figure pointing to the T'ang epoch. 2
Several references in the Annals allude to such caparison in the sixth and
seventh centuries of our era. As the facts are, neither the Huns nor the
Chinese could have had any use for the more specific tactics of the
cataphracti. These were directed against heavy-armed infantry lined
up in regular files. The Huns did not possess any infantry; and the
Chinese employed theirs against the Huns only in the experimental
stage of their operations, and with such disastrous results that it deterred
them from further experiments. On the whole, Hunnic-Chinese
expeditions were cavalry wars conducted with light brigades. The
long marches, the wretched roads, the difficulty of the field of operations,
the uncertainty of supplies and forage, and the exhausting Central-
Asiatic climate, formed a serious handicap in the equipment of troops,
man and horse, with heavy armament; so that a selective method
in what western progress in the art of war had to offer became indis-
pensable.

In the Ming period mail-clad cavaliers managing lances and war-clubs

1 Spears are not mentioned in the Han documents translated by M. Chavannes,
but the conclusion would not be warranted that they were then not used by the
Chinese army. The renowned General Li Ling, who in B.C. 99 advanced into the
territory of the Huns with a small army of five thousand foot soldiers, in the first
encounter with the enemy, arrayed his ranks in such a manner that the front line
was formed by those armed with spears and bucklers, while the archers and arbalists
occupied the rear. The Huns, as well as the T'u-kue and Uigur of later date, accord-
ing to the Chinese records (Pei shi, Chs. 97, p. 5; 99, p. 2), had spears.

2 See Chapter VII and Fig. 51.

Defensive Armor of the Han Period

235

were in existence, as attested by an illustration in the Lien ping shi ki l
(Fig. 37). As this recent epoch lacked any inventiveness in military
matters and merely continued the institutions of the T'ang, Sung, and
Yuan, it can hardly be credited with the feat of having originated

■--o

-^^

iTrg»

Fig. 37.
Detachment of Mail-clad Cavalry (from Lien ping shi ki of 1568).

mounted lancers; for the present, however, I am unable to say exactly
at what date this arm sprang up in China.

In Yule's edition of Marco Polo (Vol. II, p. 501) is figured an in-
teresting sketch from a Persian miniature of the thirteenth century, rep-
resenting two mounted soldiers. They are styled by Yule "Asiatic
warriors," and in all probability are intended for Mongols. The one
of the two encased with a plate mail is charging with a lance; while his

1 A work on military art by Ts'i Ki-kuang, written in 1568 (Wylie, Notes,
p. 91). It is reprinted in Shou shan ko ts'ung shu, Vols. 51 and 52.

236 Chinese Clay Figures

opponent is equipped with club and circular shield, a bow-case being
suspended from his girdle.

We hear of lancers in the history of the Sui dynasty, particularly in
the insurrectionary wars leading to its downfall. Yang Hiian-kan, who
died in 613, 1 revolted against the Emperor Yang of the house of Sui;
his fortitude and audacity are emphasized in his biography, and it is
recorded that in battle he brandished a long lance, while rushing at the
head of his troops with loud war-cries. 2 Li Mi (582-618) , 3 in his strug-
gle against Wang Shi-ch'ung, availed himself of a cavalry troop equipped
with long lances, who, enclosed in a narrow pass, were helpless against the
riders of Wang Shi-ch'ung armed with short swords and bucklers. 4

1 Giles, Biographical Dictionary, p. 903.

2 Sui shu, Ch. 70, p. 2.

3 Giles, /. c, p. 453.

4 Tang shu, Ch. 84, p. 3.

IV. HISTORY OF CHAIN MAIL AND RING MAIL

Steed threatens steed, in high and boastful neighs
Piercing the night's dull ear, and from the tents
The armourers, accomplishing the knights,
With busy hammers closing rivets up,
Give dreadful note of preparation.

— Shakespeare (King Henry V).

In the preceding notes we attempted to establish on the basis of
inward evidence a progressive historical sequence indicating a connec-
tion which linked Iran, Turan, and China in matters of warfare and
armament about the first centuries before our era. We now propose
to subject to an investigation a specific case revealing in the time of the
early middle ages the transmission of a well-defined type of body armor
from Persia to China and other countries.

At the present time we find widely distributed over Asia an interest-
ing type of defensive armor occurring in the two variations of chain
mail and ring mail. The word "mail" is derived from French maille
(Latin macula), and originally designates the mesh of a net. Chain
mail consists of interwoven links of iron or steel so joined together that
the whole affair in itself forms a shirt or coat. Ring mail is composed of
rows of overlapping iron or steel rings fastened upon a heavy back-
ground of cloth or leather forming a jerkin. Chain mail was a favorite
means of defence in the chivalrous age of Europe, during the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries. At present specimens are still encountered in
Persia, among the tribes of the Caucasus, in India, Tibet, Mongolia,
Siberia, and China. 1 Tibet is probably now the only country in the
world where chain mail is still donned in actual military service; while
all other peoples simply keep it as an heirloom or relic of the past, or,
like the chieftains of some Caucasian tribes, may sometimes parade it
on ceremonial occasions.

The origin of chain mail, as will be seen from the following notes, is
to be sought in Iran. The Persian chain mail is an astounding example
of the migration and wide distribution of a cultural object over a vast
area. Not only is it diffused over India, Tibet, and China, but also over
the whole of Siberia; and it is interesting to note that nearly all observers

1 Reference to the use of chain mail among the Kiu-ku Miao has been made above
(p. 194).

237

238 Chinese Clay Figures

in those regions are agreed as to its foreign origin. 1 Old Pallas 2
describes it as existing among the Kalmuk on the Volga, and "consisting
in Oriental fashion of a net-work of iron or steel rings." According to
his investigations, "it arrived there through commerce with the Truch-
men and Usbek, likewise through wars with China; the finest is of Persian
workmanship, wholly from polished steel, and is valued at fifty horses
and even more. Such precious armor as well as fine swords and horses
receive individual names among the Kalmuk and Tatar tribes. Armor
of brass scales is the most common among the Mongols and in China."
In various regions of the Altai, chain mail has been discovered which,
according to W. Radloff, 3 does not come down from the so-called
Siberian iron period, but was imported at much later times from other
countries, perfectly agreeing in its form, as it does, with chain mail
wrought in the southern part of Asia. A. v. Middendorff 4 states that
shirts of chain mail are still found in the possession of some Tungusians,
reminding them of the valiant deeds of their ancestors. But J. Gmelin 5
in the eighteenth century had already observed that they had fallen into
disuse among them, and were shown as mere curiosities. They are now
alive only in their heroic tales; nor did I encounter any, despite repeated
inquiry, among the Tungusian tribes with which I came in contact in
eastern Siberia. The same is the case with the Irtysh-Ostyak, a
tribe of the Ugrian stock of peoples, whose princes, judging from the
references in their epic songs, were formerly in possession of chain
mail. S. Patkanov, 6 to whom this observation is due, comments that
chain mail was previously known to almost all nations of western, and
partially of middle and eastern Siberia, and that it presupposes a culture
and manual dexterity superior to any that could be expected from most of
these. Although the former inhabitants of those regions were rather
well versed in the art of forging iron and weapons, he inclines toward the
opinion that the shirts of mail formerly found among them originated
from countries whose peoples were further advanced in culture, and
that they were imported from the Orient through the medium of the

1 It is widely spread also over northern Africa (Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie, Vol. XI,
1879, Verhandlungen, p. 34).

2 Sammlungen historischer Nachrichten uber die mongolischen Volkerschaften,
Vol. I, p. 145 (St. Petersburg, 1776).

3 Aus Sibirien, Vol. II, p. 130 (Leipzig, 1884).

4 Reise in den aussersten Norden und Osten Sibiriens, Vol. IV, p. 1516 (St. Peters-
burg, 1875).

5 Reise durch Sibirien, Vol. II, p. 644; and C. Hiekisch, Die Tungusen, p. 73
(Dorpat, 1882).

6 Die Irtysch-Ostjaken und ihre Volkspoesie, Vol. II, p. 014 (St. Petersburg,
1900). In the Turkish epic poetry these iron armors are likewise mentioned (A.
Schiefner, Heldensagen der Minussinschen Tataren, p. xvi, St. Petersburg, 1859).

History of Chain Mail and Ring Mail 239

Volga and Kama peoples, or rather from the southern Turko-Tatar
tribes who seem to be very familiar with this kind of defensive armor.
The representation of chain mail on figures in the cave-temples of
Turkistan 1 might be directly traceable to Iranian influence, which is
overwhelmingly manifest in those monuments. But let us first exam-
ine the state of affairs in regard to ancient Persia.

Specimens of Persian armor of very ancient date, unfortunately,
seem not to have survived; and our knowledge of the subject is largely
founded upon literary records, and on reconstructions based on the
appearance of warriors as often represented in the stone sculpture of
the Sassanian period. In regard to the armor of the ancient eastern
Iranian tribes, W. Geiger 2 remarks that it possibly consisted of metal
scales or of a texture of brazen rings. The fundamental passage for
our knowledge of ancient Persian armor remains Herodotus (VII, 61) ;
and A. V. W. Jackson, 3 taking it as the starting-point of his study, has
made a very valuable contribution to the subject. According to the
statement of Herodotus, the ancient Persians wore tunics with sleeves
of diverse colors, having upon them iron scales of the shape of fish-scales;
and this comparison leaves no doubt that scale armor, and not chain
mail, is meant. 4 The nobles and commanders seem to have worn
breastplates of golden scales, bedecked with a purple tunic (Herodotus,
IX, 22). This passage shows that Persian armor was solid enough to

1 A. Grunwedel, Altbuddhistische Kultstatten in Chinesisch-Turkistan, pp. 8,
25 (Berlin, 1912).

2 Ostiranische Kultur im Altertum, p. 444 (Erlangen, 1882).

3 Herodotus vn, 61, or the Arms of the Ancient Persians illustrated from Iranian
Sources (Classical Studies in Honor of Henry Drisler, pp. 95-125, 6 figs, and 1 plate,
New York, 1894).

4 According to O. Schrader (Reallexikon, p. 611), chain mail then became
known in Europe for the first time.— The Persian shield mentioned by Herodotus
under the name gerron, and contrasted with the Greek aspis, in my opinion, has not
received full justice from the hands of Professor Jackson (/. c, p. 99). The additional
note of Prof. Merriam (p. 124) is very ingenious, but it should not be forgotten that
Ammianus Marcellinus (xxiv, 6, 8) describes the Persian shields as oblong and
curved (convex), of plaited willow, and covered with rawhide, and as used by the
infantry composed of the rural population (quorum in subsidiis manipuli locati sunt
peditum, contecti scutis oblongis et curvis, quae texta vimine etcoriis crudis gestantes,
densius se commovebant). Similar types of shields, in which wood and skin were
combined, occurred among the Arabs (G. Jacob, Altarabisches Beduinenleben,
p. 136; G. Migeon, Manuel d'art musulman, Vol. II, p. 246, Paris, 1907). Typologi-
cally, they correspond to the circular Chinese shields plaited from cane or rattan,
and painted with the head of a tiger (p. 203). The gerra alluded to by Herodotus were,
I am inclined to think, likewise devices of plaited willow. G. Rawlinson translates,
"They bore wicker shields for bucklers." Also Xenophon {Anabasis, 1, 8) speaks of
Persian troops with wicker shields, and next to them heavy-armed soldiers with long
wooden shields reaching down to their feet (the latter were said to be Egyptians).
The ancients, according to the testimony of Vegetius (Institute ret militaris, 1, 11),
who lived at the end of the fourth century A.D., availed themselves of