From Tang Dynasty Regulations to Ming Dynasty Paintings

The history of Chinese armor reveals fascinating complexities in terminology and design. During the Tang Dynasty (618-907 CE), official documents like the Tang Six Codes (唐六典) first recorded “mountain-pattern armor” (山纹甲), described as a distinctive type of military equipment. Emperor Taizong’s 645 CE expedition to Korea notably acquired gilded iron armor decorated with “five-colored mountain patterns,” suggesting both functional and ceremonial value.

By contrast, chainmail armor entered Chinese records much earlier. Cao Zhi’s 3rd-century Memorial on the Emperor’s Gift of Armor (先帝赐臣铠表) mentions “interlocking-ring armor” (环锁铠), while Tang historians described Central Asian warriors wearing “linked armor arrows cannot penetrate.” The Tang Six Codes formally categorized it as “chainmail armor” (锁子甲), emphasizing its interconnected metal rings.

The Ming Dynasty Visual Paradox

The magnificent Departure and Return of the Emperor (出警入跸图) scrolls in Taipei’s Palace Museum present a historical puzzle. These detailed 16th-century paintings show imperial guards wearing what modern observers call “mountain-pattern armor” – overlapping plates creating chevron patterns. Yet Ming legal codes like the Collected Statutes (明会典) meticulously list armor types without mentioning this design.

Military records from 1587 describe over twenty armor variants:
– Fish-scale armor (鱼鳞甲)
– Mirror armor (镜甲)
– “Bright armor” with exposed metal plates (明甲)

The absence of “mountain-pattern” terminology in texts despite its visual prominence suggests either:
1) The name fell out of official use while the design persisted
2) Modern interpretations misidentify the pattern

Decoding the “Mountain” vs “Chain” Confusion

Clues emerge from unexpected sources. The 1103 CE Treatise on Architectural Methods (营造法式) identifies “chain-pattern” (琐子纹) decorative motifs resembling the so-called mountain-pattern armor. Qing dynasty ceremonial armor (皇朝礼器图式) explicitly calls this pattern “chain brocade” (鏁子锦), not “mountain.”

Literary works compound the mystery:
– Yuan dramas distinguish “chainmail” from “interlocking armor”
– Water Margin describes three-layer armor with separate chainmail and interlocking components
– Korean records (世宗实录) illustrate classic chainmail while Chinese novels describe “silver-scale chainmail”

Cultural Legacy and Modern Misconceptions

The armor’s evolution reflects China’s cultural exchanges:
– Western Influence: Chainmail entered via Silk Road contacts
– Nomadic Adaptations: Liao and Yuan dynasties combined lamellar and chain elements
– Literary Embellishment: Ming novels romanticized armor types beyond historical reality

Modern media often misrepresents these armors:
– Video games uniformly render “chainmail” as European-style mesh
– Costume dramas freely mix armor styles across dynasties
– The term “mountain-pattern” persists despite uncertain historical basis

Unresolved Historical Questions

Key debates continue among historians:
1. Whether “mountain-pattern” truly derived from Chinese character morphology
2. How chainmail production techniques spread across Eurasia
3. Why textual and visual evidence diverges so dramatically

As seen in Malaysia’s Kek Lok Si Temple, certain chainmail arrangements can visually resemble mountain patterns under specific lighting – perhaps explaining some historical confusion. Until new archaeological evidence emerges, the full story of these iconic armors remains tantalizingly incomplete.