Explanation: In the World History to 1500 class in which I'm currently enrolled, there are two source analysis assignments. Here's the first, on the Terra Cotta Army of Qin Shi-Huang. I used Mary Lynn's Rampolla's guides for source analysis from her Pocket Guide to Writing History.
======
Discovered in
1974, the Terracotta Army of Emperor Qin Shihuang of China constitutes an intriguing primary source that can
communicate much about Chinese political history during the founding years of
the Qin Dynasty. Despite the scarcity of contemporaneous written documents
about the army, we can nevertheless
glean a great deal about these works as primary historical sources from the
statues and objects themselves. In particular, we can determine their
fundamental nature in terms of time, place, and materials, and we can draw
relatively firm conclusions regarding who created them and why.
Based on where
they were unearthed, we know that the Terracotta Army was produced in China.
The life-size figures were found in 1974 near Xi'an, which is near where Qin
Shihuang established his capital at Xianyang.1 The Asian Art Museum (AAM) Web site notes that
the emperor ordered the construction of the burial complex in 246 BCE and that he
died 37 years later, so we can definitively date the Terracotta Army to
that span of years, in particular because, as the Web site mentions, the
project was unfinished.2 We
know, moreover, that the army was not intended for use per se; rather, it was intended to be buried along with the
emperor, so it formed an essential part of the emperor's burial complex. Thus,
it was likely never displayed, so we would not
have any idea how contemporaries might have responded to it. Finally, we know
the materials from which the army and its materiel were made, including gold, bronze, jade, and of course, terracotta,
so we can deduce that the Chinese had by this period developed bronze
metallurgy, and the absence of iron weapons indicates dating before the use of iron for swords, although iron metallurgy had already been introduced.3
Because the work
was commissioned and because the individual pieces of the army are not signed
or otherwise attributed, we do not know the specific identities of the people
responsible for creating the army, nor can we compare the army to other works
of these artists. That said, the AAM Web site does provide some information.
For instance, we are told that the project required "enormous numbers of
laborers."4 The
site further quotes the historian Sima Qian that these artisans were actually
imprisoned within their work area to prevent their divulging the worth of the
materials therein.5 If
nothing else, this information tells us about
the vast discrepancy in the value imputed
to the lives of individuals on the basis of their life stations. Finally, the
site points out that the individual
soldiers in the army have intricately rendered facial features,6 which indicates a high level
of skill among the artisans, which
in turn demonstrates that they were likely trained in some capacity.
Given that the Terracotta Army
was buried, we can be sure that its
purpose was not aesthetic or to entertain. Although in considering the army its purpose is fairly apparent, the
textbook clearly states, "The terra-cotta army of Qin Shihuangdi [sic]
protected his tomb.7 There are two possible ways
to interpret this statement. On the one hand, it is likely that this protection
is entirely material, i.e., that should someone or something try to disturb the
emperor's tomb, the army might scare
it/them off. On the other hand, it is possible that the army, as the AAM Web
site states, was "intended to protect him
in the afterlife."8 In
either case, the army makes it clear that the emperor's experience in unifying
China following the period of the Warring States alerted him to the ongoing nature of military conflict.
In conclusion,
despite a lack of written evidence, the Terracotta Army tells us much about China in the third century
BCE and its leader. We can learn from it that bronze weaponry was common, that
artisans were talented and perhaps well trained, and that human lives were not
treated equally, probably to some extent on the basis of economic inequality.
The army provides, thus, an interesting example of a non-written primary
source, which while not as direct as a written source is nevertheless
informative.
====
[1] Jerry Bentley and Herbert Ziegler, Traditions and Encounters, Volume 1: To 1500, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012), 105.
[2] "Archaeology," Asian Art Museum Web site, accessed December 1 2015, http://www.asianart.org/exhibitions_index/archaeology.
[3] Bentley & Ziegler, ibid, 56.
[4] "Archaeology," ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Bentley & Ziegler,
ibid, 106.
[8] "Immortality," Asian Art Museum Web site,
accessed December 1 2015, http://www.asianart.org/exhibitions_index/immortality
No comments:
Post a Comment