The Religious and Humanistic Context of Chinese Tang-Dynasty Armour Futun (Abdominal Swallowing-like Beast)

The Tang dynasty (618–907 CE) is often regarded as the most wealthy age of ancient Chinese empires, and Tang art elaborately demonstrates the dynasty’s cultural diversity. The evolution of visual symbols in clothing, including armour, is a key part of Tang aesthetics. Before the Tang dynasty, Chinese armour prioritized function and lacked ornamentation, but these values changed, owing to a long period of peacetime accompanying the economic and cultural development of the Tang dynasty (Romane, 2018, pp. 107–9). Representing distinct Tang designs, armour became more decorative, and new shapes of armour progressively emerged and stimulated an armour prototype. The term futun, which refers to an image of a swallowing beast’s face on the abdomen of the armour, became a section of the armour structure that provided protection and adornment; the wearer’s belt passed, almost violently, through the mouth of the beast. Making the armour style more attractive and decorative, the futun image was extensively employed during the mid-Tang dynasty and continued to be used through the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) and into the Qing dynasty (1644–1911).

According to the records from the Tang Liu Dian (Six Codes of the Tang), there were thirteen types of armour in the Tang dynasty, among which ‘bright and shiny’ (Ch: mingguang) armour was the most commonly used (Liu, 1995, p. 84). Mingguang armour, a type of ancient Chinese chest armour, consisted of two pieces, with each side covering a round metal plate with a raised pattern. Dating from the Northern and Southern dynasties (386–589) through the Tang period, not only warriors but also Buddhist heavenly kings appeared in armour. Mingguang armour was the most prevalent style of armour during the Tang era. Many paintings and sculptures depict gods and generals dressed in mingguang armour; senior generals had access to mingguang, as well as warrior figurines buried in tombs of kings and nobles. Armour or exquisite burials became indicators of power and rank. In figure 1, a warrior statue from a Northern Wei (386–534) tomb wears original mingguang armour, with two oval pieces of metal plate on the chest, a shield in the left hand, and a weapon in the right hand that might have been lost.

Based on the strong national power and handicraft industry of the Tang dynasty, mingguang armour with the classic Tang style gradually formed, and futun also gradually evolved and matured, finally forming a unique artistic language. The evolution progress of futun can be divided into three distinct periods, each of which display distinct stylistic traits. The process of formal complexity, material diversification, and abdomen adornment can be easily recognized.

Tomb objects combine realistic styles with religious art and are a primary resource of armour examples. Figure 2 shows a buff-earthenware figurine of an ancient fully armoured Chinese warrior that served as a guardian outside the tomb of ancient Chinese emperors. Typical figures wear dragon-form repoussé-metal shoulder plates and a helmet, a leather skirt with padding, and a knitted liner worn under the armour. The style of warrior-figure armour began to change during the Tang period, with the shoulder design becoming more complex and a third oval metal plate added to the abdomen armour design, with the shape and size almost identical to that of the chest plate. In the past, this armour was deemed to be a variant of the mingguang armour, but after examining historical documents, I conclude that this definition lacks depth. Research on the guangyao armour has been neglected in the ‘Tang Thirteen Armours’. Professor Yu Gengzhe believed that yao (要) in guangyao armour meant ‘bright’ (耀), but this explanation makes it difficult to discern between mingguang and guangyao armour. However, after analyzing an ancient book, Guang Yun, I discovered that yao (要) also meant ‘waist’ (腰) in ancient Chinese. From another ancient book, Mozi, it was recorded that ‘the king of Chu favoured women with a thin waist’ (昔者，楚靈王好士細要) (Wu, 2006, p. 467), with the word yao used as ‘waist’ in this context. According to these investigations, it can be inferred that guangyao armour is most likely a synonym of ‘bright waist armour’ and that the armour with circular glossy metal plates at the waist is the referent of the expression ‘bright waist’. Therefore, this sort of armour is certainly guangyao armour and not a subtype of mingguang armour; it is a totally separate category, as one of the ‘Tang Thirteen Armours’. In comparison to the warrior figurines of the Northern and Southern dynasties, figurines of the early Tang are lavishly depicted in their armour. Both the movements of the warrior figurines and the shape of the armour are very subtle and restrained. The waist structure of guangyao armour is considered the earliest image of futun armour in the Tang era.

After a long period of peace through the early Tang, the shape of mid-Tang period armour was influenced by multiple ethnic cultures and became increasingly exquisite and detailed. In order to enhance convenience and aesthetics, the protective function of ceremonial armour was diminished. Guangyao abdomen armour that had been a simple round metal plate evolved into a huwei shape that referred to the tail feathers of a falcon; it was a protective structure that originally functioned as a crotch guard (fig. 3). During the mid-Tang dynasty, this structure was supplemented by the ruyi pattern. At the same time, the shoulders, legs, helmets, and shoes of the armour became more magnificently crafted in an unprecedented style. What is clear is that the armour in this period began to feature a three-dimensional animal-face decoration, which did not occupy the visual centre of the armour but rather was the decoration on the shoulders and, at small scale, on the breastplate, another part of the armour that began to convey a sense of hierarchy. This development can be regarded as a progressive transition, throughout the Tang dynasty, from practical to ornamental armour.

The futun form of Tang armour reached its full maturity when Buddhism was widespread, during the middle and late Tang dynasty. If the armour of the early Tang was refined and reproduced preceding the dynasty’s ancient style, then the armour of the middle Tang began to establish a relatively full structure and artistic style, one that was highly characteristic of Buddhist style, and the futun armour had a very specific expression. The presence of futun armour grew, from tomb burials to larger Buddhist statues. In the ancient Nanchan Temple, built in 782, in Wutai county, Xinzhou city, Shanxi province, one of the tianwang, or heavenly king, statues in the main hall shows the characteristics of the maximum extent of futun armour (fig. 4). This colourful statue represents a heavenly king, mysterious and solemn, wearing shanwen armour, a type of traditional Tang-dynasty armour. Depicted on the armour in a strongly three-dimensional manner is a beast showing an exaggerated expression of rage: frowning, with bulging eyes, tiny incisors densely arranged, huge canines, curly hair, and a beard. Under a wide snout, a big mouth holds a leather belt. A feature of the tianwang statues is their high vantage point relative to the viewer, which evokes in the viewer a privileged perspective and a feeling of awe. This image type, of an animal holding its prey in its mouth, is not the only instance seen in traditional Chinese art. The Han-dynasty door ornament or ring holder (pushou) used this shape, which typically appeared in pairs as a gate adornment and also served as a doorbell (pushou had been used for approximately 3,000 years, morphing into roughly 100 different forms) (Pei and Wan, 2019, pp. 251–54). The design concept of a gold pushou from a Tang-dynasty royal gate, shown in figure 5, is akin to the tianwang armour futun. It symbolizes avoiding misfortune and seeking blessing as well as praying with the gods to drive evil away like a wild beast. There is more than one image of the beast in the heavenly-king armour, and it is also found on the shoulders, but it is clear that the beast face on the abdomen is the focus of the design, which carries more wishes of blessing.

After analyzing different expressions of the three stages of futun images, I sum up its evolution process in figure 6, which illustrates the significant changes in the appearance of futun during the Tang dynasty.

The image of the armour futun is associated with the well-known bronze beast-face pattern. The beast-face bronze helmets excavated from Shang dynasty (c. 1600–c. 1046 BCE) sites in Jiangxi province are the earliest armour pieces excavated in China and show the earliest application of beast-face motifs in ancient Chinese armourㄗfig. 7). This bestial pattern is widely believed to be a taotie, a term used to describe the principal two-eyed motif of Shang and Western Zhou (c. 1046–771 BCE) decoration on ritual bronzes. The meaning of the taotie motif is vague. Textual sources suggest the possibility of the taotie motif becoming the decoration of the armour in the Tang dynasty; the earliest description of taotie character traits is found in the ancient Chinese text Zuo Zhuan, which recorded, ‘Greedy for money as tao, greedy for food as tie’ (Plaks and Nylan, 2016, pp. 189–223). This is an extremely negative description, and numerous records of taotie likened it to a synonym for greed. Just as the West has ‘comfort food’, China had ‘comfort art’ (Murck, 2005, pp. 56–62). At this point, it was anachronistic to use the taotie as a decorative motif for religious icons.

In the multireligious environment of the Tang dynasty, Buddhism, Christianity, Taoism, and other religions such as Nestorianism (a branch of Christianity), Manichaeism, and Zoroastrianism all achieved great development, and different religious cultures integrated with each other in a process of mutual debate and competition.

8
Sculpture of house in Shi Jun tomb
China, Xi’an, Weiyang district, Daminggong township, eastern Jingshang village
Stone
Xi’an Museum
Photo courtesy of Huitu.Com

Before the Tang dynasty, about the early 4th century CE, the Sogdians, from present-day Iran, crossed Xinjiang and came to the central plains of China. Towards the middle of the 8th century, the Iranian impact on Chinese civilization reached its pinnacle, and the Sogdian groups were more firmly absorbed into Chinese society. In some corroborated views, it is widely believed that images of ‘awe animals’ (weishou) were worshipped as Zoroastrian gods by the Ruthenians in China. (Weishou is a generic term that encompasses a variety of images that represent characteristics of a divine beast.) There is a wide variety of weishou associated with the Sogdians, but the representation of fearful animals on stone funerary objects is relatively stable in the burials of the Suthenians in China. The main features of the weishou motif are as follows Firstly, these weishou images are from stone funerary objects with enclosing screens, such as sarcophagi. They all appear on the top of the stone couch of the enclosure or as the pillar of the couch. Secondly, these weishou all feature animal heads, with broad wings, wide noses, angry eyes, exposed canine teeth, and hideous facial expressions. Thirdly, they all show a forceful weight-lifting posture. A typical image of weishou can be clearly seen at the lowermost edge of the stone chamber of the Shi Jun tomb, in Jingshang village, Daminggong township, Weiyang district, Xi’an (fig. 8). However, this image of weishou in a lifting position was used not only as a decoration for the stone house but also in even more elaborate depictions, seen in the Jiu Yuan Gang wall paintings of the Northern Dynasties (386–581) in Yizhou, Shanxi (fig. 9). One might argue that the use of weight-lifting weishou images is not restricted to tomb art; it is a prevalent artistic feature in religious scenes for seeking sanctuary from supernatural powers.

What is the association between the weishou image and the futun? The prototypical futun is a piece of metal armour to protect the abdomen; after the simple metal plate evolved into a beast face, the design of the beast’s mouth biting the belt served to better hold the position of the belt. The futun, belt, and waist decoration (paodu) form a three-part stable structure bearing some of the weight of the metal armour. The functions of weight-bearing and lifting are in conjunction with the meaning expressed by the weishou motif, and in this regard, the weishou is more likely to be a symbol of the futun function rather than a decorative art symbol.

9
The mural of Jiu Yuan Gang
Yizhou, Shanxi province, China
Northern dynasty (386–581)
Photo courtesy of Shanxi Provincial Museum

A sarcophagus decorated with intricately engraved imagery, acquired by the Minneapolis Institute of Art in 1946, is one of the most important extant examples of stone carvings from early mediaeval China (220–581) (fig. 10). This object is a fusion of multiple religious cultures, including Daoist elements, Buddhist motifs, and core Confucianism, in which the weishou figure plays an important role and has been analyzed by many scholars for its religious artistic connotations (Xu, 2020). However, on the side of the sarcophagus, there is a beast-faced ring (figs 11a–b). This form, which appears in the pushou, is located in the centre of the side view of the sarcophagus, but, unlike the pushou that usually appear in pairs, it appears as a single form in the visual centre of the entire image.

The presence of weishou and beast-faced rings in the tombs of aristocrats during the Northern Wei dynasty is not a coincidence, proving two things: First, before the Tang dynasty, Zoroastrianism was already integrated with mainstream religion in China and accepted by the nobles. The combination of the weishou and the beast-faced ring motif on armour has a historical basis. Second, the futun pattern that emerges in Tang armour reflects the desire for the power of supernatural blessing among people at war, akin to the yearning for a peaceful afterlife in the tomb. It has ecstatic meaning, rather than purely aesthetic criteria, which are clearly conveyed in the armour’s ornamental elements.

10
‘Yuan Mi’ sarcophagus, excavated before the 1940s
China, Henan province, Luoyang; Northern Wei dynasty (386–534), 520s
Minneapolis Institute of Art
Photo courtesy of Minneapolis Institute of Art

In the study of traditional Chinese armour, whether it is from the Tang or any other dynasty, it is better to situate the armour in multiple contexts to understand the human connotations of the armour in all aspects. The Tang dynasty and earlier civilizations before the Tang were diverse, tolerant, compatible, and co-existing, and Zoroastrian culture was assimilative and cohesive. The unique artistic and humanistic landscape of the Tang dynasty led to the construction of armour futun in an environment of mutual understanding, tolerance, and adaptation between two living cultures. The futun did not disappear with the fall of the Tang dynasty, and it was an important creative focus in later armour designs. The study of Tang-dynasty futun armour images from the perspective of religious culture and social history not only allows for the creation of a new interpretation and theoretical model for traditional Chinese armour but also leads us to a deeper consideration about the influence of the Tang dynasty’s religious art.

Wenxi Wu is a graduate of College of Textiles, Donghua University, Shanghai, and Parsons School of Design, The New School, New York.

Xinhou Wang is Professor at College of Textiles and College of Mechanical Engineering, Donghua University, Shanghai.

Selected bibliography

Y. Liu, Ancient Chinese Amour, Beijing, 1995.

A. Murck, ‘Responses to the Manchu Conquest: Wu Hong and Kong Shangren’, Orientations 36, no. 8 (2005): 56–62.

S. Pei and Y. Wan, ‘The Analysis of Mr. Li Xiping’s Pushou Collection and the Development and Evolution of Chinese Pushou and Ornamentation’, 3rd International Conference on Culture, Education and Economic Development of Modern Society (ICCESE), April 2019, pp. 251–54.

A. Plaks and M. Nylan, Zuo Tradition/Zuozhuan: Commentary on the ‘Spring and Autumn Annals’, Seattle, 2016.

J. Romane, Rise of the Tang Dynasty: The Reunification of China and the Military Response to the Steppe Nomads (AD 581–626), South Yorkshire, UK, 2018.

Y. J. Wu, Mozi’s Commentary, Vol. 1, Beijing, 2006.

J. Xu, ‘Recovering the Honour of a Royal General: The “Yuan Mi” Sarcophagus Reattributed’, Orientations, July/August 2020.

To read more of our online content, return to our Home page.

The Religious and Humanistic Context of Chinese Tang-Dynasty Armour Futun (Abdominal Swallowing-like Beast)

Remembrance of Things Past: Negotiating a Scholar-Official Identity in Sweetmeat Vendor and a Child

In Pursuit of the Picturesque: Jades from the Qianlong Era in the Minneapolis Institute of Art