Antiquity V O L . X L V I I No. 186 J U N E 1973 Editorial PLATES XIIIU AND XXIII-IV It was a great pleasure, at long last, to see the Cardiff Giant in its present and (?)final resting-place in the Farmers’ Museum at Cooperstown, New York. Incidentally, the Farmers’ Museum itself is full of interest: it is run by the New York State Historical Asso- ciation, an educational, non-profit-makiig organization chartered in 1899 by the Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York. The Museum and the Village Crossroads reflect the life of ordinary people in r u i r a l New York between 1783 and the 1840s. Thomas Jefferson wrote that ‘the first object of young societies is bread and covering’. The fjirst two rooms of the Museum show the implements and possessions of the pioneer family, which were mostly handmade, and some of the methods by which a living was wrested from the wilderness. The work of the woodworker, the broom- maker, cooper, tinsmith, harnessmaker, c:obbler, spinner and weaver are all well shown, and around the Museum are reconstructed a country shop of 1820, a blacksmith’s shop of 1827, a printing shop of 1823, and a drugshop of 1832. The New York Historical Association has done in Cooperstown what others with more resources have done for an earlier colonial period at Colonial Williamsburg. It also owns Fenimore House, built in 19-32 by E. S. Clark on the site of a cottage once owned and occu- pied by James Fenimore Cooper. The Asso- ciation is administered from this building, which, with its remarkable and distinguished collection of American art, supplements and enriches the story told by artifacts in the Farmers’ Museum. This Museum is a must for anyone interested in historical archaeology, and therefore for any archaeologist, because it is only the misguided who think that archaeology is prehistory; it is the study of all the artifacts of our ancestors from the beginning to yesterday. But it is also the study of their pseudo-artifacts. We went to the Farmers’ Museum not only to see it as a brilliant historical-archaeological museum but to see the Giant. The Cardiff Giant was pur- chased by the New York State Historical Association a quarter of a century ago, and on 19 May 1948, eighty years after its conception, it was placed on view in the Museum. This ‘American belly laugh in stone’, as it is called by James Taylor Dunn in his ‘The True, Moral and Diverting Tale of the Cardiff Giant or the American Goliath‘ (a pamphlet reprinted from New York HistoryJ July 1948), began in 1866, and it is indeed a true, moral and diver- ting tale. The village of Cardiff lies in Upper New York State just south of Syracuse. It is in what Carl Carmer in his Listen for u lonesome drum (New York, 1936) calls the ‘broad psychic highway’, a narrow 300-mile strip across New York state which witnessed The End-of-the-World Millerites, Mother Ann Lee and the Shakers, the Publick Universal Friend Jemima Wilkinson, the Spirit Rappings of the FOX Sisters, and the discovery by Joseph Smith of The Tablets of Moroni. Upper New York State was ready for an exciting prehistoric discovery just as Minnesota was ready for the bogus petroglyph (see Antipity, 1958, 264-7). The affair began in 1866 when George Hull, a tobacco farmer and cigar maker from Bing- hamton, was visiting his sister in Ackley, Iowa. He got engaged in a heated argument with a nonconformist minister called Turk concerning 89 A N T I Q U I T Y the real meaning of the Biblical passage, ‘There were giants in the earth in those days’ (Genesis, vi, 4). Hull was a confirmed agnostic and Turk’s dogmatic acceptance of the truth of this phrase preyed on his mind. The more he thought about it all the crosser he got, and he resolved to manufacture a giant. He thought this would confound ridiculous religious enthusiasts and fundamentalists like Turk, but he also thought he might make a little money on the side. In June 1868 George Hull and an Iowa friend of his got to Fort Dodge, Iowa, and bought a block of gypsum 12 ft. by 4 ft. (3.6 by I-zm.) which they explained was going to be displayed in Washington as a specimen of the best building-stone in the world. The slab went to Edward Burkhardt, a stone cutter at 940 North Clark Street, Chicago. He and his two assistants carved it into a likeness of George Hull: the finished figure measures 10 ft. 4i in. (3-1m.) and weighed 2,990 pounds (c. 13,000 kg.). The figure was crated in an iron-strapped box marked ‘finished marble’ and shipped to Union, near Binghamton. From Union, teams of horses sweated to get it to Cardiff to the farm of William C. Newell, a relative of Hull’s. When questions were asked by curious farmers and inquisitive tavern keepers along the way, many answers were given but the general acceptance was that it was contraband tobacco and this accounted for all the secrecy of the operation. The Giant reached its destination, and by lantern light one dark November evening in 1868 it was buried in the field behind the barn of William C. Newell. The ground was seeded to clover and no more was heard until October of the following year when Newell told his men that he wanted to dig a well for his cattle, and told them where they should dig. A metre below the surface one of them struck some- thing hard: first a foot appeared and then the whole of the Cardiff Giant: one of the workmen said, ‘Jerusalem, it’s a big Injun!’ The Cardiff Giant was put on public display: the public thronged to ‘Giantville’. Hull and Newell rapidly made a fortune. A man from New York offered a hundred dollars for a flake from the body. The cow shed on the Newell farm was turned into an eating-place and signs like ‘Warm Meals-Oysters and Oats’ appeared everywhere. Two restaurants called ‘The Giant Saloon’ and ‘The Goliath House’ ministered to the crowds. We know what the crowds were viewing but what did they think they were viewing? They were divided between the view that they were seeing the remains of a petrified giant and the view that they were seeing a great work of ancient art, and while they were polarized thus, no one thought about a modern forgery. A prominent local clergyman said, ‘This is not a thing contrived of man, but is the face of one who lived on the earth, the very image and child of God.’ Dr John F. Boynton, a local lecturer, declared, however, that it was a statue of ‘Caucasian origin, and designed by the artist to perpetuate the memory of a great mind and noble deeds’. He thought it the work of early Jesuit priests, made to impress the Indians. Alexander McWhorter of Yale said it was the figure of the Phoenician god Baal, and claimed that he had found pictorial in- scriptions, which no one else could see, on its right arm; these he interpreted as Phoenician. Oliver Wendell Holmes bored a hole behind the Giant’s ear and observed marvellous anatomical detail, which no one else could see, and which was not there. Ralph Waldo Emerson was more cautious and fortunately less experimental : he contented himself with saying that it was ‘beyond his depth, very wonderful, and undoubtedly ancient’. Cyrus Cobb declared that any man who called the Giant a humbug ‘simply declared himself a fool’. But the Giant was a humbug and the world was fooled. George Hull published the true facts, but what is so fascinating is that the Cardiff Giant, having been proved a hoax, was still of great interest. Phineas T. Barnum offered 60,000 dollars for a three months’ lease of the Giant, and, when his offer was turned down, had an exact copy made. When the real Giant reached Broadway it had to com- pete with an already well-established copy made by Otto of Syracuse and exhibited by Barnum E D I T O R I A L in Woods’s Museum and Menagerie only two blocks away, and this is the origin of Mark Twain’s two entertaining short stories, ‘A ghost story’, and ‘The Capitoline Venus’ in his Sketches new and old (New York, 1875). Barnum advertised his fake as ‘The Original of all “Cardiff Giants’” and people thronged to see them both and to laugh at what had com- pletely hoodwinked so many alleged experts. The owners of the real Giant-the original hoax-tried without success to get an injunction to prevent the display of the imitatiion hoax. In the end the original Giant left New York, was exhibited in Boston (and this is when Oliver Wendell Holmes made his experiment), and then went into storage, emerging for a short appearance at the Pan-American Ex- position in Buffalo in 1901. In 1934 it made a transcontinental tour advertising the film The Mighty Barnum and appeared in the Iowa State Fair in 1935. What a good thing it has eventually come to rest! But its lesson is as simple as this: you can fool most of the people most of the time. We print here a photograph of the giant (PL. X I I I U ) , by kind permission of the New York State Historical Association. rTp The English Place-Name Society was founded in 1923 to carry out the Survey of English Place-Names, undertaken with the approval and encouragement of the British Academy. T h e Society publishes the results of the Survey county by county in a series of volumes which contain an explanation of the meaning and origin of the place-names (and even, for many counties, the field-names) in each part of England thus covered. T h e explanations define the source and date of the earliest extant record, and the linguistic, ethnic, historical, geographical and archaeolo- gical significance of each place-name, both in its immediate geographical and historical context and in a broader view. These volumes, published for the Society by the Ca:mbridge University Press, enjoy a world-wide repu- tation for sound scholarship and have become necessary equipment for both the amateur and professional historian, geographer, archaeolo- gist and philologist. They are also very useful for the information and entertainment of the casual reader. ANTIQUITY has been assiduous in reviewing the volumes of the Survey as they came out, and Crawford was keenly interested in place- names and archaeology. When the Survey of English Place-Names was initiated, Crawford wrote an article for the opening volume of the Survey publications entitled ‘Place-names and archaeology’, and, in the first volume of ANTIQUITY, published an article by Allen Mawer with the same title. We are delighted that C. W. Phillips has agreed to write for us an article with the same title to celebrate the first fifty years of the Survey, and this will be published later this year or early in 1974. In the current number of the Journal of the English Place-Name Society, the President, Professor Dorothy Whitelock, has contributed an article which deals with the history, im- portance and relevance of the work of the Society to date. It is a fascinating and illu- minating article. She reminds us that Isaac Taylor’s Words and Places was published as long ago as 1864 and while it naturally con- tained many false interpretations, yet foresaw how important place-name evidence might be for the historian. She quotes a reviewer of the Worcestershire volume in The T i m s Literary Supplement in 1927 who said, ‘Rightly viewed, the study of place-names has all the excitement of a detective story’, and Sir Maurice Powicke’s review of the Northamptonshire volume when he says, ‘The volumes. . . are books to be turned over again and again, to be savoured and sampled. They are full of exciting scholar- ship and of surprises’ (History, n.s., XIX, We have always thought that one of the most exciting surprises in this line is the entry for Baldock in the Hertfordshire volume, where we are told: This town was founded by the Knights Templars in the 12th century . . . Buldac is the Old French form for Baghdad (Ital. Baldacco) and Skeat rightly suggested that the place was named by the Templars after the Arabian city. Ekwall notes that Mandeville and Skelton call Baghdad, Baldak and Baldock. Any attempt to interpret ‘934s54-5). the final element as containing the word oak breaks down on the point that in the 12th century the form in Hertfordshire would clearly have been ok(e) not ak(e). Professor Whitelock’s account (JournaZ of the English Place-Name Society, v, 1972-3, 6-14) may be supplemented by Professor Bruce Dickins’s article, ‘The progress of English place-name studies since I~OI’, pub- lished in these pages (Antiquity, xxxv, 1961, 281-5). I n his 1927 A n t i p d y article Mawer emphasized the use of the survey in supplying archaeologists with evidence for the sites of burial-places, fortifications, watch-towers and meeting-places and for courses of roads, salt-ways and other tracks. Professor Barley has advised archaeologists to excavate at small settlements with names ending in burg (Medi- eval Archaeology, 111, 1959, 340-2) and stressed the immense body of raw material relating to medieval settlement after the Norman Con- quest that was provided by place-names, and Martin Biddle has recently suggested that field-names may preserve local traditions of the sites of former palaces (in ed. P. Clemoes and Kathleen Hughes, England before the Conquest : studies in primary sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, Cambridge, 1971, 391-408). We congratulate the English Place-Name Society on its first fifty years and wish it well for the future. Although helped by a grant from the British Academy, the Society depends for the progress and success of itself and its Survey on the annual subscriptions of its members. Inquiries for membership are in- vited by The Hon. Director, English Place-Name Society, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2 R D . a Professor J. V. S. Megaw of the University of Leicester has started a Midlands Seminar in Archaeology. T h e first meeting was held in the Department of Archaeology at Leicester on 14 March. T h e subject was ‘Archaeology: how should it be taught or, indeed, should it be taught?’ and the discussion was opened by the Editor of ANTIQUITY. T h e meeting was well attended, the main body being representatives of the Universities of Birmingham, Nottingham, A N T I Q U I T Y 92 Oxford and Sheffield, as well as, of course, the host University of Leicester. Plans were laid for future meetings, and other points discussed were whether the Midlands Seminar might propose a Midlands venue for a future meeting of the reconstructed and London-based Semi- nar on Archaeology and related subjects, and what assistance the Midlands Seminar might be able to give the Council for British Archaeo- logy’s proposed Working Party on Publications. This Midlands Seminar promises to be a lively and worthwhile body. Those interested should write to Professor Megaw, Department of Archaeology, University of Leicester, Leicester LEI 7RH. a After the great success of the Tutan- khamun Exhibition in the British Museum, it is good to know that in the autumn of this year we shall have in London an exhibition of Chinese treasures. About a year ago rumours began to reach the West of a series of remark- able discoveries which Chinese archaeologists had been making during the period now known as the Cultural Revolution. Among the treasures the Chinese were said to have found were two strange, life-sized funerary suits made entirely of plates of jade sewn together. It seemed that these were discovered quite by chance behind a mysterious iron door in a mountainside: this door concealed a pair of royal tombs somewhat reminiscent of that of Tutankhamun. Another report spoke of a magnificent ‘flying’ or ‘galloping’ horse cast in bronze, one hoof poised on a swallow, also found in an ancient tomb. For a long time we in the West had to be content with fragmentary reports, gossip, and rumour. Then, last June, there appeared in Paris and London three magnificent books published in Peking containing photographs of the flying horse, the jade-suits and many other fantastic and exciting things. These books are in Chinese but the People’s Republic of China have, very wisely, produced an extensive version of these treasures in beauti- fully illustrated books in many languages. T h e large book in its English version is called Historical relics unearthed in New China: it is published by the Foreign Languages Press, E D I T O R I A L Peking, 1972, and its English price is E3.50. It contains 217 plates, at least two thirds of them in colour, and is a magnificent production which every library and museum must have. (The reproductions in the Chinese version are even better, but this costs E9.) For those who cannot afford the big book there is an excellent little book, also published by the Foreign Languages Press, Peking, called New archaeological finds in China. We saw a copy in the window of Collet’s Chinese bookshop in Great Russell Street and at once bought several copies: it is very cheap at the price of zop for a text of 54 pages and 12 colour plates. Collet’s also have for sale a series of 12 colour postcards entitled Cultural relics un- earthed in China for which they charge 15p. We reproduce here (PL. ~ ~ I I I ) , unfortunately in black-and-white, two of these postcards: the first is a gilded bronze ink-slab case of the Eastern Han dynasty (AD 25-220) and the second pottery figurines of acrobats and musi- cians of the Western Han dynasty (:lo6 BC- AD 24). We do not know whether these objects are coming to Paris and London but we also publish photographs of two objects that are coming (PL. xxrv). The first is the bronze ‘flying’ horse on a swallow from the Eastern Han dynasty (1st century AD), and the second part of the jade funerary suit made for Queen Tou of the Western Han dynasty about IOO BC. These illustrations, even in black-and-white, give a foretaste of the autumn Chinese treasures exhibition. It will contain nearly four hundred of China’s finest archaeological treasures from the Peking Palace Museum. T h e exhibition goes first to Paris and then will open in London inlate September in the rooms of the Royal Academy, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London. The choice of the Royal Academy as a venue is very appropriate: many of our readers will remember the famous Chinese exhibition there of 193516. This exhibition is being sponsored bg The Times, The Sunday Times and the Great Britain-China Committee, whose Chairman is Sir Harold Thompson. For further informa- tion write to Guy Pearse, Times Newspapers Limited, Printing House Square, London EQ. There also appeared in Europe and America last year copies of the two Chinese archaeo- logical journals, Wen Wu and K a o Gu, whose publication had only just been resumed after a gap of several years. They not only contained detailed accounts of the discoveries but also a list of radiocarbon dates from early China which are new to most of us. Professor Richard Pearson, of the University of British Columbia, drew our attention to these dates, and we publish them here, with his comments (pp. 141-3). In the next two numbers of ANTIQUITY we shall be publishing articles by Dr ChCng TC-Kun and Professor William Watson on some general aspects of Chinese archaeology. a We deliberately published D r David Clarke’s article ‘Archaeology: the loss of innocence’ (Antiquity, 1973,6-18) knowing that it would cause alarm and despondency among many. We commissioned it as a follow-up to the earlier articles by R. A. Watson (Antiquity, 1972, 210-15) and A. C. Hogarth ( A n t i p i t y , 1972, 301-4), and we have invited Professor C. F. C. Hawkes to continue this discussion and hope to publish his views in the September number. We thought it right and proper that the main British exponent of what is tiresomely called in America ‘the New Archaeology’, as if all archaeology was not moving to newness by discovery and interpretation every decade, should have his say, and set out his views. It was a personal statement and no one who has read Analytical Archaeology would have supposed that it would be written other than in the obscure jargon promoted by the Bin- fords. But we have been surprised by the vio- lence of the reaction to the article, and print three letters of considerable interest. T h e first is from D r Peter Salway who is now a Regional Director of the Open University, written on 9 March: I have much respect for Dr David CIarke as a practising archaeologist. Hence I am all the more horrified by his article ‘Archaeology: the loss of innocence’ in the March issue of Antiquity. Much of my own daily working information comes from systems analysts, data processers, social scientists and educational technologists. I find it requires no mental effort at all to write, 93 A N T I Q U I T Y for example, that in archaeology within certain parameters it is possible by deriving suitable structured questions from a model and trans- lating them into an algorithm for non-subject- sympathetic operators to process survey research field data and allocate it to type cells in a multi- dimensional matrix, provided that by raising coded signals one can retrieve comparative information on file in a suitable data-base system. It is extraordinary that D r Clarke should complain that specialists are ‘unconsciously raising barriers to communication between archaeologists’ and continue to write in the way he does. This misuse, not to say wilful disregard, of the English language is far more destructive. Indeed it is potentially fatal to archaeology. Communication between pro- fessionals becomes almost impossible. David Clarke’s actual points, when one can cut one’s way through to them, are valuable and already widely held (some, indeed, are not so new as they may appear wrapped up in this curious dialect). But they could easily be expressed in normal English, and there really is no reason why busy professionals should learn this new language. Indeed there is a real danger of separate (or do I mean discrete?) languages emerging, unintelligible between specialisms. T h e answer is not a new common jargon, since the worst danger is that the serious amateur with very limited time for his archaeology is likely to be baffled and repelled. This is a split many of us are anxious to avoid. Even worse, public understanding of archaeology is likely to decline into total incomprehension. Rescue and the multitude of local research committees were hardly founded for this. Dr Clarke would have done better in his second paragraph to talk not of ‘craft style’ but of ‘craft mystery’, for this is what it is. Mystifi- cation is a time-honoured method of keeping a profession exclusive, but it will do nothing to gain public support and informed participation in all the fields vital to archaeology today, particularly legislation and planning. If I may be permitted one trendy word (now sanctified by Government use), in the end it is not only a matter of saving the raw material of our ‘craft’, it is also a matter of enabling the public to under- stand the information they need to judge the issues affecting their own environment-or is it ‘quality of life-style’ ? T h e second letter is from the President of the Society of Antiquaries of London. Dr J. N. L. Myres writes : If David Clarke and his New Archaeologists are no longer Innocent, it follows that they must be Guilty. Guilty of what? Well, clearly of at least one unpardonable sin, an outrageous misuse of their mother tongue. If I understand aright the message of his article (and I have been at some distasteful pains to do so), the meaning behind twelve pages of tortuous gobbledygook can be stated in one simple sentence : Archaeologists now have access to more assistance of many kinds from other disciplines than was formerly the case, and, properly used, these aids are capable of adding greatly to our knowledge. These propositions are self-evident and it is not necessary to lose one’s innocence to appreciate their truth. To make a new archaeology out of them apparently requires the use (often the misuse) of three long words wherever one short one will do. So we are expected to live in a ‘metaphysical field space’, peopled by ‘paradigms’, ‘epistemologies’, ‘taxa’ (what language are they?), ‘postdictions’ and ‘theoretical hatracks’. It seems a great pity that the ‘doomed race of disciplinary dinosaurs’ (Dr Clarke’s one truly memorable phrase) who tried to teach him archaeology, did not use their blue pencils to better effect on his literally unspeakable prose. We agree with some of Dr Myres’s criti- cisms and believe that epistemologies and postdictions are unnecessary neologisms of the so-called new archaeologists. T h e word ‘para- digm’ is a trendy alternative for the perfectly good word ‘model’. But surely there is nothing mysterious or unusual about the words ‘taxon’ and ‘taxa’, which are back-formations from taxonomy, ‘the science, laws, or principles of classification’, and both words coming from the Greek taxis, meaning arrangement or order, Here is the definition of taxon in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969); ‘Biology. A group of organisms cons- tituting one of the categories or formal units in taxonomic classification, such as a phylum, order, family, genus or species, and character- ized by common characteristics in varying degrees of distinction.’ T o take an example from megalithic monuments: passage-graves, allges couvertes, entrance-graves, menhirs, 94 E D I T O R I A L portal-chambers, statue-menhirs, are all taxa. But if we defend some words we do not defend the spate of jargon of the Binford- Clarke school. We are reminded of what A. E. Housman said in his Leslie Stephen Lecture for 1933 entitled The name and nature of poetry: ‘When I hear anyone say, with defiant emphasis, that Pope was a poet, I suspect him of calling in ambiguity of language to promote confusion of thought.’ Aspiring archaeological Popes should ponder over Housman’s wise words. T h e third letter was from D r Graham Webster of the Department of Extramural Studies in the University of Birmingham. H e writes: Having made a serious effort to read David Clarke’s article without understanding hardly a word of it, I began to get very worrie’d. As an old fashioned practical excavator, was I begin- ning to lose my grip, or did I lack the intellec- tual ability to grasp the modem concept? So I gave it to a young student to read and tell me what it is about. She could not understand it either. So we are baffled. Perhaps it is not written in English at all, but some new kind of scientific language which uses some English words . . . . It is possible that the article applies only to Prehistoric Archaeology. If this is so, it is unfortunate that a gulf is being created between practitioners on the same subject in different periods. This lack of communication could lead to serious consequences, so would it not be desirable for at least a summaq of such important papers to be translated into English for the benefit of those concerned with the post- prehistoric periods ? We asked D r David Clarke if he would like to comment on the letters from Salway, Myres and Webster but he said his comments could be found in his ,review of the Newell-Vroomans book which we print in this issue (pp. 158-60). We wonder whether his critics will be satisfied with this answer, and we sometimes wonder whether the Binfords and Clarkes of this world realize they write in gobbledygook gibberish? T h e OED tells us that the word ‘gobbledygook’ was invented by Maury Mave- rick of Texas and means ‘official verbiage or jargon’; the gobble part is, of course, talking turkey, and the gook, we learn elsewhere, may come from the Scottish gowk, a simpleton, or the Middle English g m k e , a cuckoo. Certainly and fortunately the Binford-Clarke jargon is not the official verbiage of archaeology. Let us hope it may never become so. As for us, we have happily put down our blue pencil, said to hell with these gibbering turkeys and cuckoos, and are away across the road for a large stein of Stella Artois. a We hear with regret that Miss Beatrice de Cardi is retiring from the Secretaryship of the Council for British Archaeology at the end of November this year. We hope that it will be possible to find a worthy successor: the post is now being advertised as Director/Secretary at the salary level of a Senior Lecturer in a university. It really ought to be at an even higher level-that higher level at which Miss de Cardi has served the CBA for so many years with such devotion and distinction. It is rare to find persons who combine admini- strative ability with scholarship : Beatrice de Cardi was such a rarity, and her retirement is a sad loss-but not, happily, a loss to scholar- ship. Someone should give her the money to spend three months each year in the Persian Gulf to pursue those important researches that ANTIQUITY has been privileged to publish from time to time. Is not your voice broken? . . and every part about you blasted with Antiquity? 2 Hen. IV Rejuvenate yourself with a book from H d e r s : the bookshop at 20 Trinity Street, Cambridge 95 heffers: P L A T E X I I I a : E D I T O R I A L . The (Cardisf Giant transported to the Farmers' Museum, Cooperstown See pp. 89-90 Photo : A'ezo Yovk State Histovical Association b P L A T E X I I I b : T H E L O C H H I L L L O N G C A I R N . Stone faGade and cairn, from N See pp. 96-100 Photo: Iione! Masters P L A T E X X I I I : E D I T O R I A L ( a ) Gilded bronze ink-slab case, Eastern Han dynasty ( A D 25-220) ; ( b ) pottery3guvines of acrobats and musicians, Western H a n dynasty (206 HC-AD 2 4 ) See pp. 92-3 Photo, : Fog eign La??guages P y e s r , Peking PI. A T E s s I v : E D I T o R I A J, ( a ) Bronze f m n ( I tomb of the Eastern Han Dynasty (1st century A D ) : agalloping horse 'jlying' on a swallow. Excavated at Wu-wei, K a n Su Prozince, 1969. H t : 34.5 cm. ; length : 45 cm. ( b ) From a tomb of the Western Han Dynasty at kfan-cla 'eng in Hopei Province c . I O O RC :jade funerary suit made for Tou, Queen of Liu Sheng, excavated in 1968. Length : 172 cm. SeF P P . 92-3 Photos. D w r d U'i f l y , c o p y t q h t Time, .Veencspapers