In Sephodwyrm's excellent translation about Spring-Autumn and Warring States history, there is a very clear description of Warring States infantry formations.

Warring States infantry normally fought in a five-man squad called a wu. The squad stood in single file, the first two men armed with melee weapons, the third and fourth men armed with pole arms, and the last man carrying a bow, crossbow, or other ranged weapon. Five wu normally stood in line abreast to form a 25-man square platoon of infantry called a liang.

To judge by Qinshihuang's terracotta army, the infantry formation of the Qin army was quite different. The front line of the 6,000-man unit in Pit 1 is a line of unarmored skirmishers armed with bows and crossbows, and the line is only three men deep. A line of armored crossbowmen also screens each flank. Behind the front line march 11 columns of men, each column five men abreast. Theoretically, these columns could be made up of liang in line astern, in the classic warring states model, but it seems unlikely that the arrangement of weapons to each wu would be the same as in the ordinary Warring States wu. Can anyone say any more about the weapons and armor distribution in the main columns of the terracotta army?

As for the Han army, my picture is even vaguer. The one reform I have heard of is that Han Wudi modernized and supersized the cavalry forces. Otherwise, did the Han army resemble the Qin or the Warring States more? Or did its combat formations differ greatly from any of its predecessors?

This great article by Thomas Chen will probably help you a lot:

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=234

Sephodwyrm was recently challenged on another forum regarding how much armour Warring States armies would really have. His detractor claimed that the terracotta army had only 1/3 of its soldiers in armour. He asked me for some input about how much armour there really was, and whether it was limited to the high-ranking officers. Information and comments from you guys would be very welcome.

There was also some discussion of formations on this thread (though my info on Warring States formations is too vague to be very useful):

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=100

The infantry formation of Wu and Liang is a Jin formation that is first adapted in all-infantry army groups when they're fighting the Di who always chose mountainous and broken regions to fight in. The Jin chariots became useless and the commander ordered the charioteers to fight on foot.

The Qin formation is a little diferent. It is composed of small units within a large formation. THe first 3 lines are unarmored crossbowmen backed up by polearms. Short melee weapons seemed to be few in number. Chariots served as rallying point or defense points. Every unit has a unit commander (labelled such due to this armor and headgear). The whole formation is surrounded by lines of crossbow men. The Qin formation is combined arms of crossbow men, pikemen or Ge armed soldiers and chariots.

It was specifically commented to me that of a mass of Han ceramic warriors numbering around 3,000 that nearly 1/3 were cavalry and this is more than the Qin army which was 10-14% off the top of my head.
These warriors were excavated during Xianjang airport construction and I noted that the warriors were the same as I posted in an link here earlier. They had long polearms and shorter close defense weapons. These warriors also had a number with shields, and those I saw had quivers on their backs for arrows as had been noted in one of my texts. This is from memory so I cant give statistics for shields or quivers etc. but body armour didnt seem to be a priority even for such well armed and versatile warriors as these. A vest of scale for some.
The warriors at Yangling which date from JingDi (so quite early Han) had some that had seperate ceramic armour of scales, although these were in poor condition and most warriors were then naked after having been clothed in organic materials.
Proportions of armour are again difficult to gain, but I note that they had scale armour helmets on the armoured warriors....much in the stlye of the plate helmet of stone found near QinSHiHUnags tomb...so represent different armour stlye to QIn.
Whether these represent leather or iron is hard to say, as it is only during the Han that scale plate of iron was used.
It is interesting to note that by this time (JingDI)the iron JI halberd was in use..and the dagger axe already being replaced....the iron swords were long, but crossbow bolts were bronze. Inside the tomb area of Yangling there still were bronze swords of around 40cm of length presumably from contemporary tombs.
Even around Wudis tomb at Maoling there were bronze swords unearthed...and comparible to Warring States style blades. I saw so much stuff it was hard to take it all in but the weapons of Han were versatile.
Cast bronze helmets date from Zhou but seem to be reserved for generals too, in the same way as the Qin priveledged generals (and chariots riders) have some of the more complete armour amongst the terracota warriors.
In conclusion...even with well armed and versatile Han formations there is evidence that armour is not universal. By viewing, say, 100 West Han warriors of ordinary types it would be a notable number unarmoured compared to those that are armoured with scale vests or short sleeved shirts. Again I havent thought to take statistics over the years but even an overview might be 50/50.
Evidence of the warring state use of armour is very difficult when the armour is organic and the practice of tomb ceramics had not yet begun...so we have few images. I would assume that based on both the Qin and Han examples armour would be unlikely to be more common than this in the earlier periods. During the Warring States period the problems of scale were likely accute if we take figures of 100,000-300,000 man armies at peak. Simply getting weapons into the hands of the fighters would be enough work, and armour would not be standard.
It seems likely a great emphasis was not put on armour anyway, if we assume the formation defending QIn Shi Huang was one he could be confident in then fully armoured formations seem to be unnessecary.

Mr Kenneth I don't think this thread has to do with equipments but rather on formation. And if equipment is not standard, one cannot hope to arm an army efficiently.

Seph, Daniel was asking about "weapons and armour distribution", so I find Kenneth's post to be relevant enough.

Can someone define 'Phalanx" for me please ? Considering there isn't any evidence that the Chinese used their ge or ji like the Greeks which makes a wall of spears, I am a little confused why Chen used this term when describing each devision in the Qin tombs

Mr Sephodwyrm,
...and there you go.....take it or leave it.
You may study as a historian (and come to your own conclusions from your sources) but I am primarily approaching Chinese history from a material culture & archaeology approach as is my background. Just as in my country an ancient history can give a name that archaeology does not, archaeology provides insight that contemporary histories (with its own positives and negatives) do not.
Your history will tell you which King fought who, how many people allegedly were on each side, and the outcome...but it wont tell you the nitty gritty about the everyday equipment they carried. In this way I am intersted in studying rubbish heaps (or midden) of bone and shell from prehistoric sites in NZ. A tribal group may have a history about who lived there at one time, but they can never tell you what was on the menu for dinner or what sort of industry was carried out on a site.
This forum is of use to me as a way of filling in some of the blanks for the names and events of the period items I study belong to.
I can only in turn bring the evidence of the items to the forum, and I feel no disadvantage from enquiry on my own terms. I feel a strong connection to the past because I study it in my hands rather than off a page.

More specically to Daniels question, yes, Yangling provides formations excavated as they lay for 2,000 years, and they have wooden screens at the front of some formations... and cavalry, infantry and chariots in mixed regiments ina fashion like QIn. This is a fairly late date for battlefield chariots (beyond the transport of nobililty) and it predates Wudi, which I suspect was the time where cavalry become more effective with larger horses. It has been said that chariots went into decline from 500bc onwards with the emergance of large disiplined infantry formations but there is evidence they still acted as combat formations up to this date (Qin & early West Han)
There are clearly variations in the ethinc identity of some of the cavalrymen (and some are even called cavalrywomen oddly enough). Some of the facial features show distinct exaggerated high cheek bones which is attributed to a steppes formation.
The groups there are even suggested one represents a southern Han army, and another a northern Han army. For more information, as with many such questions, the answer will be in archaeololgical publications from the Universties in XIan, or museum periodicals. Such information is not for the layperson and would involve sourcing it via a contact there.

Wujiang, in terms of Phalanx, it would simply be a tight formation..and with polearms up to 12-14' long the comparison is valid. A greek phalanx formation is shown in one of my texts outlining ancient Chinese weapons and the inference is clearly they were employed like this. I believe it is entirely plausible as the Zhou had a miltary disipline and devoloped efficient large infantry formations.
A row of these weapons hooking and swinging down in front of them would disrupt the enemy and in close the short personal defense weapons would be used...again comparible to the greek formation but without the emphaisis on heavy armour.
I can only see the dagger axe used as a vertical swing in a formation however, but this is still effective feeling as I hafted on of my own to a (shorter) pole and it can swing down like and axe....and reminds me off 2 handed tomahawks used for fighting by Maori in the 19th century tribal & colonial fighting.

PS; I feel the Qin terracota warriors are of limited worth for analysising a combat formation on a battlefield. I see a formation in marching order, or perhaps in review order and so much is made from the positions within it, but clearly the formation might alter into any if 100 ways depending on the position of the enemy and the function the troops were employing. The position of the armoured troops may alter at a command and the movement of the chariots break away to the rear or the flanks....in any number of variations, and yet this formation is taken as literal for the evaluation of troops...like chess pieces on a board before the first move......and just like the chess pieces on a board you might not deduce much about the player by studying this initial deployment, so the function of armoured troops relative to the archers or crossbowmen is entirely imaginative.
This is fine, and the best that can be done with ancient objects...but when I see chariots mixed in with the footsoldiers as in the Qin army I see a force on a parade ground (like all the pictures of civil war soldiers standing with gun carriages beside them) and not one the will break into action without breaking the tight order.
The Han tomb warriors are deployed in this tight formation also, but just like the ceramic animals all lined up (pigs, cattle, dogs & geese by the hundreds) in these tomb pits we know that farm animals dont actually line up into regiments. It is probably convenience in the pits as much as anything too....
Perhaps I should include an image to illustrate what I mean, the large groups of animals are put into tomb pits in the same ordered fashion as the warriors. Multiple rows, and facing in one direction (although a few terracota warriors of Qin in the 'command post' are more naturally positioned). In this way the ceramic troops may not represent a diorama of military deployment.
Just a thought.


weapon production can be to a uniform standard, but who/which unit gets equipped with them first does not have to follow this logic.
This statement seems to overlook your own statement about some warriors being armoured and yet others are not in the Qin army within a single formation, or the variety of weapons carried by normal infantry (some being simple bronze tipped clubs, some Ge having spear points above etc) or that there is a variety of armour styles even within the armoured infantry...even little differences such as the belthooks on individual warriors show they may have made these minor adjustments to their kit like a modern soldier might.
Consider the problems in total war such as the Second World War....a divison on paper may be equiped differently or even have different numbers in reality based on supply and what the commanders can obtain for their troops. Even in ancient battlefields some warriors needed to scrounge armour and weapons from the dead to improve their own.
It would be a whole lot easier to supply shields to infantry than provide each with fitting suits of laminar leather or iron scale.
This is not to say that weapons arent produced to certain standards, but that armour was not standard (i.e universal) for whatever reason you want to choose the physical evidence is clear. It may simply be that in a West Han unit the unarmoured warriors suggest that either priority or simple nessicity meant there are unarmoured elements amongst the many tens of thousands of soldiers on pay. These problems are reflected in modern contexts also so far as equipping large armies with modern equipment.


Note the kit of the warriors here, Warring States period..and Ge both long and short (one can be weilded while holding an enemy by the hair). Swords in scabbards on their hips also.

Yes, I am looking for information on both the formations themselves and on how weaponry and equipment was distributed in the formations. Thus all these responses are very useful.

I would like to find out more about these Han figurines at the Xianjang airport site. Where is Xianjang airport? When I look it up on the Web, all I find is one reference to a Xianjang river near Changsha, as well as several people who spell "Xinjiang" as "Xianjang," but I find nothing about the airport. Is Yangling the same place?

Regarding the terracotta army, I doubt very much that they are in march formation; eleven columns abreast would be a very wide march formation. It might work in the middle of a plain, but in any kind of restricted terrain a narrower march formation would be necessary. However, I would agree that probably the Qin warriors would only be deployed like this before battle was joined. I guess the purpose of the skirmish line is to keep the columns of heavy infantry unengaged so that the general can move them more freely. Presumably the heavy infantry would first move into line or wedge formation before they actually charged the enemy or received a charge. I have never heard of anybody deliberately engaging the enemy while in column formation!

On standardized equipment, remember the ancient Chinese were way ahead of the game in arming soldiers from state armories at all. In Europe and the Arab world, soldiers had to provide their own equipment, right up until the 17th century. The differences in arms and armor amongst the soldiers may reflect deliberate planning, or lack of standardization; if the latter, it would make the Chinese army no less efficient than most armies throughout history.

I wasn't saying they march into battle like this BTW. I meant the 'marching order' or 'review order' idea to suggest it ISN'T a military formation that an insight of QIn tactics can be taken from with certainty (as has been attempted in literature). It may just be they are lined up in a pit just the same as ceramic animals are....(I really should show you a picture of the huge groups of animals lined up in the same fashion). Just my thought.

Xianjang & the airport is about 30 minutes drive from Xian IIRC...although where Xian city actually ends and Xianjang begins is hard to tell.
A book which has a lot of items which were found during the airport construction was 'gilded dragons' but I forget the author. This mentioned these infantry & cavlary too, so presumably the same period. There are a number of tombs still visible around the airport, smaller ones than the Imperial mounds though.
Yangling is in the general area, and pits were discovered during another roads construction...but the tombs are spread over 40km so it is convenient to visit while enroute to the airport but is not beside it.
Xianjang musuem no longer houses relics as the Shaanxi regional museum bought together a number fo collections and the (some)warriors are on display there.

Hopefully the text here will be legible...although whether these figures on the right are infact armoured is debatable as I find armour on Han soldiers is generally clear, and plates visable...but not on these.

Regarding the lack of complete armour on Han warriors and cavalry....I believe armour was not a priority...and therefore certain warriors were not armoured. Those that were armoured may have belonged to specific units or had an influential commander if we made analogies to modern industrialised armies also...ie, take priority.
There isnt evidence of very different equipment beyond this(head gear, uniforms, weapons, mounts) in any other way to suggest a real distinction in roles/employment .i.e naming Han heavy and light cavalry defined by often a small sleeveless vest of scale armour alone seems a bit of an exaggeration...and I believe they simply were 'cavalry' at this time and employed in the same fashion.
Regardless there are unarmoured warriors in Han armies and the meaning of it is speculation, however, had they wanted armour for every warrior then consider the cost of producing 100,000 suits (at least) for soldiers that during Western Han also included conscripts.
Before assuming that the Han were a bottomless pit for military then consider the fact that no more full sized ceramics are made after Qin. JingDi wisely acknowledged the expense of arming terracota warriors with real weapons and the downsize seems to suggest a burden to even produce Imperial tomb contents (up to 1/3 of Han yearly income was allocated to Royal tombs). Although we know that arsenals of real crossbows were in the hundreds of thousands there has to be a cost to all this. The expeditions of Wudi were very taxing on the Han and the was a schism in the upper circles over the value of expansion versus the costs. All this suggests the Han, like everyone, were operating with a bottom line, and finite resources (of course). The Han were well aware of what bought the first Emperors downfall, and even the tombs of Emperors in early West Han excercise some sort of moderation mixed with their grandiosity! (although Wudi lived long enough so that there was difficulty fitting over 50 years worth of tomb treasure into his burial mound)
A western Han Emperor also had to forbid the burying of Jade and precious metals in tombs at around this time. It all suggests a recognition of limits to expense, and if noblity had to fall into line then consider problems of scale (I seem to be saying this a lot recently) in supplying the West Han armies....let alone feeding and housing them.
One of my spear points I am told is West Han (although resembles a Qin spear) is almost entirely hollow to the tip. Such cast is very difficult and risks miscasting. It broke alone the holes for rivets on the pole most likely in ancient times. The casting is uneven in thickness. Such a cast is economic however as you could arm perhaps 10 warriors instead of producing one bronze sword.
On another note...the lack of bronze swords (although not absense) during East Han was attributed to economic factors and the need for coinage by Jessica Rawson, who has written a number of books on ancient China.
I am not trying to portray the Han unfairly, but provide extra considerations for such a huge army.
Another note; despite the public imagination (as may be the case here too) the armies of the Third Reich even at their height of preparedness in the Blitz on the Soviet Union incorporated large numbers of draught horses for transport and artillery. Just because the images of panzer grenadiers and swift tank divisions make the most impression in any documentary.....consider that modern nations still struggle with the same problems.
Again, each can make up their own minds why unarmoured warriors are mixed with armoured warriors during Han and I choose a little from column A (not viewed as very important) and column B (there would be considerable expense in equipping the whole army thusly).
I am playing devils advocate here, but if somebody can list half a dozen examples to the contrary angle then that would be helpful to the discussion.



and this below is Yangling

here are a pair of West Han warriors, of a type shown at SHaanxi also. These belonged to Tony Allen and are much the same...about 50cm or 60cm tall.
I suspect they are found in pits of formations too, as some number turn up at his shop and are then sold individually.
Note the troops are from the same pit in my opinion, and yet the only difference is in a vest of scale plates. It am not convinced these fulfill a different role to each other, as the distinction between 'heavy' & 'light' is not as clear as in the Qin army.
The helmeted and scale armoured warriors at Yangling seem to have such a distinction as some had even more armour than the Qin warriors, but it was only a small amount that clearly showed scale armour (whether this is just due to survivabilty of the evidence or only a small minority being armoured in such is the question)
It simply seems that some have armour and others dont. Cavalry is the much same.
It is hard to have a final answer 'why', but it seems some people performing the same role as light infantry of cavalry might be issued with partial armour...perhaps the veterans. Could well mean conscipts and proffesionals sections mixed into one larger unit and equipment assigned to those elements that are known performers.
Who knows. Other peoples thoughts are welcome as there is no final answer.



another image of Yangling; long (minature)iron swords on hips and the wheels of a chariot can be seen on both pictures here.

Sun tzu said to concentrate armour did he not?
so i think the chinese infantry was sorted into tactical groups,heavier armoured troops to be used like a block or defensive formation which uses its weight to attack or defend, and then have lighly armoured troops who could attack fast and furiosly but were weaker on defense
About the phalanxe thing any tight formation which is armed with all the same weapon will maximise the potential of that weapon,the romans maximised the use of the sheild by masssing it,the greeks did it with the long spear,so im guessing if chinese massed halberds it would be an effective attacking weapon with many axed slashing downwards and also a defensive formation with halberds pointed like a phalanxe

This isn't true. State supplied weapons were the norm in Europe and the Middle East long before this (eg Egypt, Assyria, Hittites, Mittani etc). The practice is even recorded in Ur over 4000 years ago. The distribution of armour is not what you would expect if it was state issued, but it is very similar to the situation in Roman Republican armies (dates 500BCE to 100BCE approx), whare weapons, shields and helmets were issued by the state along with some basic armour, but individuals bought and wore a lot of personal armour (to the extent that chain mail became the norm for legionaries). Another analegous situation would be the troops of Alexander the Great. In 330BCE he issued new arms and armour to the troops but many of them decided not to wear the new armour as they felt it slowed them down.

rgds.
Tom..

I said in Europe and the Arab world, not the pre-Arab Egyptians or Hittites. What I said is perfectly true of the European world, and even in the Roman Empire it was the rule, not the exception. Rome depended considerably on mercenaries, many of them "barbarians," who had to supply their own weapons and armor.

The entire reason for the feudal system in Europe, and in other countries that practiced it, was that the king was unable to arm and equip an army out of his own resources.

I'm not clear whare you have built up your perception of ancient Europe from but I'll try to explain what I mean (as a Scotsman I'm probably assuming too much on what information is available elseware).

Rome: The state never "...depended considerably on mercenaries..." The closest to this was during the Republican period when generals like Julius Ceasar hired mercenary cavalry and light infantry to suppliment the legions (c. 60BCE), but even then the majority of the troops (and the core of the army) were the legionaries. Later Augustus reformed the army and empire (c 20BCE). Huge numbers of non citizens were recruited. but all were long term professionals (25 yrs plus) clothed, fed, equipped and housed by the state.

The feudal period was much later, troops were supported by land grants and supplied their own weapons and equipment. This is the same system used to raise and equip cavalry in most of China's history, eg directly contemporary T'ang cavalry.

"Arab" armies were slightly different. Most cavalry (the Jund) and infantry (city militias and Abdah) were state equipped. Later cavalry were supported by land grants (just like feudal system but not hereditary). Many armies also included numbers (often large numbers) of Ghazi, irregular troops fighting for religious faith with no payment or reward beyond any loot they could obain. Even some of these were well organised and issued with weapons.

rgds.
Tom..

That is a rhetorical question, and the answer would be 'yes'...but what insight does it provide?
The question is more like 'how much armour was there' & 'what counts as heavy armour in mixed units and why is the armour often marginal or not present.' the issue for me is not 'did heavy armour exist?'
Clearly there are heavy infantry during Han and QIn, as I commented on scale helmeted and scale shirted Han warriors...and the QIn chariot riders have some of the heaviest of all with long sleeved shirts (even covering the hands) with scale laquered plates and upturned collars of scale at the neck.
The lack of armour suggests it was not a priority for some troops...either through military thinking or priority in issue to units. I also propose that putting armour on huge swollen infantry formations that evolved during the warring states would also have been a burden and problems of scale would have existed in Han also.
This is not to say it has to be a primary reason or the only reason..thats why I would geuss it as both influenced by scenario A & B.
It seems pretty clear that armour is also given to most valuable troops or higher ranking individuals...and in this way I look at the 2 soldiers above and wonder if one is a proffesional element, and the other a conscript. Entirely whimiscal, but a bit of speculation can occasionally produce a reasonable result.
To labour a point in this physical example of two red uniformed soldiers who no doubt would have fought together (above)...
...is there really a seperate function between troops 'Heavy/Light' where a short sleeveless vest is the only distinction (above). If there isnt a functional difference then why are some armoured and others are not?
I dont see any clear distinction in the role such warriors would be employed at all...they mix partial armour and no armour into one and yet the weapons and headgear are the same. Simply infantry.
It suggests to me that perhaps some elements of 'light' infantry recieved partial armour and others did not.
That is my query....but one thing is for sure, armour was not standard for Han troops and nether would it have been during the warring states period..Plenty of warriors faced the enemy with perhaps a shield and coloured cloth to turn the arrows and blades of their foe. The reason behind this is the question.. Simply calling them heavy & light in some instances does not always make much sense. I might consider some 'elite' units in an infantry formation.

Another consideration for problems of scale is that the Han moved large numbers of part time soldiers as settlers onto land at border areas....suggesting the difficulty of huge numbers of proffesional soldiers on full-time pay was a recognised issue and this was a security policy, but also an economic one.
Somebody else may have better understanding of this, or be able to provide just as much evidence contrary to what I have just said......but it's all good fun!

PS;
My memory was jogged based on this discussion. Not many Gladius turn up for collectors and it was commented on the sword forum essentially that gladius are rare in burials because they didnt belong to the soldiers and so are not often found when they have retired and been buried around the Empire. I forget the examples of where they have turned up...like a few spots in Europe that may have been scenes of fighting...but a search of the sword forum might articulate the 'Roman state arsenal' idea/validity better than I can.

Perhaps I did not have the whole picture of the Roman army, but I believe what you say here does not show the full picture either. It appears that mercenary units, recruited as foederati, were used at the same time as other barbarians were recruited into the legions in the manner you describe. For example, from Wikipedia,

Also, what about the Numidian cavalry used at Zama; were not these supplying their own weapons instead of being armed by the Roman state? Certainly they were not integrated into the legions; they fought independently.



Well, yes, but my original post referred to the whole period up until the 17th century as being a time when European armies mostly had to provide their own equipment. We may disagree about how much Rome was an exception to that, but as your post makes clear, the feudal armies were indeed not state-equipped.



It was guys like the ghazi that I was prinicipally thinking about; perhaps they were not as important a part of the army as I imagined.

#1 Wikpedia is a wonderful thing, but it's individual inputs and this one at least is not particuarly accurate.
Foderati was a term for individuals who were allowed to settle within the Empire in return for various obligations. Normally a key requirement was to supply troops. Such records as we have suggest that these were raised and organised along the same lines as the "limitanti" they replaced. Also the state run armaments factories continued to produce their equipment. One thing not normaly pointed out about these barbarians is that the leaders invariably took on Roman titles etc and their main aim was to become part of the Empire rather than destroy it.
ps did you know that for non soldiers carrying weapons in the empire was an offence and you could be executed for it.

#2 Even in Feudal states many weapons were centrally issued, particuarly for infantry. eg in Anglo-Saxon England there was a special death tax, the heriot, whare the dead msns weapons had to be returned to the king. There was a set quantity of money and equipment depending on rank (eg an Eaorl 4 sets armour, 4 helmets, 4 swords, 8 spears, 8 shields, 4 warhorses, 4 pack horses and money).

#3 Numidians at Zama, these were allied troops provided by Juba, not part of the Roman army (and even then some of their equipent was centrally supplied). Compare these to the various groups groups that allied with Han armies against the Xiongnu

#4 I know you were making general coments, but your basic assumption was that Han China was "way ahead" of Europe etc (we will ignore Arabs as their civilisation didn't start untill 800 years later, at this point in time they were organised in city states with centralised 'palace economies' state armouries etc...). This isn't true and, more interestingly, the actual trend (both in China and Europe) was away from centralised issue of equipment (particuary for elete cavalry troops).

rgds.
Tom..

I wonder if Warring States Infantry formations were developed mainly to defend charges from charioteers or cavalry.