一片甲，许多答案：中国古代铠甲怎样保护身体

Page 2

材料不是一级一级换掉的

Materials Did Not Replace One Another in a Neat Order

旧故事常把铠甲排成一列：先有兽皮，再有青铜，接着是铁，最后升级成钢。考古发现并不支持这样整齐的台阶。商代墓葬发现过彩绘皮质甲片，西周有铜甲片，春秋战国又有成套的涂漆皮甲；铁甲片逐渐出现以后，皮革、织物和金属仍会在不同地区、不同部队和不同部位继续使用。

为什么不把所有甲都换成“最新材料”？因为工匠要同时考虑原料、制作时间、重量、活动方式、潮湿和维修。硬皮经过整形和涂漆，可以做成轻便的甲片；金属更耐切割，却要采矿、冶炼和锻打，也可能生锈。十二至十三世纪云南大理国的一件实物铠甲，仍以涂了红黑漆的硬皮板为主体，并同时使用皮绳、铜合金和铁。这件晚期皮甲证明，旧材料不会因为铁器出现就自动退出历史。

第一幅图可以帮助我们看见“裁皮、打孔、连接”的动作，却不是商代工坊的复原图。画中的完整胸衣、缝法、衣服、工具和营地布置都属于现代想象，不能拿来证明商周士兵统一穿这种样式。

An old-fashioned story lines armor up like this: first animal hide, then bronze, then iron, and finally steel. Archaeology does not show such a tidy staircase. Painted leather armor plates have been found in Shang tombs, bronze plates are known from the Western Zhou, and complete suits of lacquered leather armor survive from the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. After iron plates appeared, leather, textiles, and metals continued to serve different regions, units, and parts of the body.

Why not replace every suit with the “newest” material? Armor makers had to balance raw materials, labor, weight, movement, weather, and repair. Shaped and lacquered hard leather could form relatively light plates. Metal resisted cutting well, but it required mining, smelting, and forging, and it could rust. A surviving suit from the Dali Kingdom in twelfth- or thirteenth-century Yunnan still used rigid leather panels coated with red and black lacquer, together with leather laces, copper alloy, and iron. This late leather armor proves that an older material did not vanish when iron became available.

The first illustration helps us picture the actions of cutting, piercing, and joining leather, but it is not a reconstruction of a Shang workshop. Its complete vest, stitching pattern, clothes, tools, and camp are modern inventions. It cannot prove that Shang or Zhou soldiers wore one standard design like this.

Page 4

兵马俑告诉我们外形，不直接告诉我们材料

The Terracotta Army Shows Shape, Not Material Directly

秦始皇陵的陶俑把三世纪前的衣领、腰带和甲片排列塑得很细。有些步兵俑的躯干和肩膀有甲，有些骑兵俑的防护较短，也有俑没有穿甲；军官形象的装饰和覆盖方式又不同。这些差异让我们研究军队分工和甲衣结构，却不能证明每个真实秦兵都得到同样装备。

陶俑的甲也是陶土塑出来的。根据战国涂漆皮甲实物和陶俑表面的表现，许多研究者把它们理解为涂漆皮甲的形象；但秦代已经有铁器，真实军队也可能使用不止一种材料。说“秦军主力一定都是皮甲”超出了陶俑能证明的范围。

秦始皇陵另一个坑还出土了用石灰岩片和铜丝编成的甲胄。它们制作精细，却太重、太脆，不适合直接上战场，更可能是陵墓中的礼仪模型。第二幅图把现代真人复原放进兵马俑坑，只能作为“根据陶俑想象真实铠甲”的示意，不能当作考古现场。

The Terracotta Army from the First Emperor's mausoleum models collars, belts, and armor patterns from the third century BCE in remarkable detail. Some infantry figures have protection over the torso and shoulders. Some cavalry figures wear shorter armor, other figures have no armor, and officer figures show different coverage and decoration. These differences help researchers study military roles and armor construction. They do not show that every living Qin soldier received the same equipment.

The armor on each figure is clay. Based on surviving lacquered leather armor from the Warring States period and the modeled surfaces, many scholars interpret the figures as representations of lacquered leather armor. Yet iron was already used in Qin times, and a real army could use more than one material. The figures cannot support the blanket claim that the Qin army's “main armor” was certainly leather.

Another pit at the mausoleum contained armor made from limestone plates joined with copper wire. The pieces are finely made but too heavy and fragile for ordinary combat, so they were probably ceremonial models for the tomb. The second illustration places a modern costumed person inside a Terracotta Army excavation. It can only suggest how someone might imagine armor from the figures; it is not an archaeological scene.

Page 5

汉代铁甲：从锈块读回三千片

Han Iron Armor: Reading Three Thousand Plates from a Rusted Lump

铁甲在战国晚期至汉代越来越重要，但“汉代铁甲登场”仍会让人误以为此前没有铁、此后没有皮。西汉中山靖王刘胜墓中，一件锈结成团的铁甲经过整理，发现由将近三千片熟铁甲片连缀而成。徐州狮子山楚王陵则留下上万片铁甲残片，修复者根据孔位和形状，复原出札甲和不同大小的鳞甲。出土物告诉我们的不是一套统一制服，而是同一时期也有多种结构。

古代“铁”和“钢”也不是排在两级台阶上的简单名词。对秦汉铁器的科学分析已经发现熟铁、钢和不同种类的铸铁制品。工匠会通过冶炼、锻打和热处理得到不同性质的材料；一件装备还可能把铁片、皮绳、漆和织物组合在一起。因此，不能把唐宋说成钢甲突然替代铁甲的时刻，更不能说钢只供极少数将军使用而普通人全部停在“铁时代”。

第三幅图里的整套铁札甲、护面头盔和红色盔缨，是现代设计者组合出的汉军形象。它可以解释铁片编缀的概念，却没有证据说明汉军都穿这一套，也没有证据说明红缨是全军统一识别标志。

Iron armor became increasingly important from the late Warring States through the Han, but saying “iron armor arrived in the Han” makes it sound as if iron had never appeared before and leather vanished afterward. In the Western Han tomb of Liu Sheng, Prince Jing of Zhongshan, conservators separated a corroded mass into a suit made from nearly three thousand wrought-iron plates. At the tomb of a King of Chu near Xuzhou, more than ten thousand iron fragments allowed researchers to reconstruct lamellar armor and several types of larger and smaller scale armor. The finds reveal variety within one period, not a single uniform.

“Iron” and “steel” are also not two simple levels on a timeline. Scientific studies of Qin and Han iron objects have identified wrought iron, steel, and several kinds of cast iron. Craftspeople changed a material's properties through smelting, forging, and heat treatment, while one piece of equipment could combine iron plates, leather cords, lacquer, and cloth. We cannot describe the Tang or Song as the moment when steel armor suddenly replaced iron, or claim that steel belonged only to a tiny group of generals while everyone else remained in an “iron age.”

The complete lamellar suit, face-covering helmet, and red plume in the third illustration are a modern designer's composite image of a Han soldier. It can demonstrate the idea of laced iron plates. It cannot show that Han troops all wore this set, and there is no evidence here for a standard red plume used to identify every formation.

Page 6

找出“材料进化图”里的陷阱

Spot the Trap in the “Evolution” Picture

再看第四幅图：四件胸甲从毛边皮衣排到光亮钢壳，很像电子游戏里的装备升级。可是它们的轮廓更接近现代人对欧洲整块胸甲的想象，并不能代表中国历代铠甲。真正的变化往往发生在甲片大小、开孔方式、重叠方向、覆盖部位和编缀材料上，未必一眼就能排成“越来越亮、越来越硬”的队伍。

朝代名称也不能替代地点、兵种和用途。骑马的人需要肩臂活动，步兵可能更在意躯干和腿部覆盖，仪仗甲又可能重视颜色与装饰；边地和中原得到的原料与技术也不同。同一时代并存的差异，有时比两个朝代之间的差异还大。

Now look at the fourth illustration. Four breastplates march from a fur-edged hide vest to a shining steel shell, like equipment upgrades in a video game. Their shapes are closer to modern ideas about European solid breastplates than to a reliable survey of Chinese armor through the dynasties. Many important changes in Chinese armor involved plate size, hole patterns, overlap direction, protected areas, and lacing materials. They cannot always be arranged visually from “duller and softer” to “shinier and harder.”

A dynasty name cannot replace information about place, military role, and purpose. A rider needed free movement at the shoulders and arms. An infantry soldier might value more coverage over the torso or legs, while parade armor might emphasize color and decoration. Border regions and the central plains also had access to different materials and technical traditions. Differences within one time period could be greater than differences between two dynasties.