Jottings from the Granite Studio

In a paper accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Sciences, a team of Chinese researchers has concluded that the terracotta army discovered at the tomb of Qin Shihuangdi in 1974 may have been manufactured in two separate locations. Lead researcher Hu Yaqin, from the Botany Institute at CASS, analyzed pollen taken from crushed pieces of the terracotta and found two separate pollen groups in the terracotta samples. From ABC (Australia):

“Based on the pollen differences, the researchers conclude that the horses were produced near the mausoleum, while the warriors were made at an as-yet unknown site away from the region. The horses are large (about 2 metres long) and heavy (nearly 200 kilograms) compared with the warriors, which weigh around 150 kilograms. The horses also are more delicate, given their relatively fragile legs. The scientists therefore theorise that whoever planned the terracotta army’s construction determined it would be easier to build the horses closer to the destination site to minimise transport. Michael Nylan is a professor of history at at Berkeley who specialises in early Chinese history. Nylan says that because scientific access to the terracotta figures is difficult, it would be hard at present to verify the findings.”

Professor Nylan is right that verification will be difficult and the access issue is one that slows down the process by which the world can learn more about these fascinating artifacts. Nevertheless, Professor Hu’s argument does, on the face of it, have some merit. It was not unusual in the construction of monuments or other large-scale building projects for materials or even actual pieces to have been produced locally and then moved, often through considerable effort, to the building site. In fact, new regulations enacted by the Qin government may have made such a process easier than it had ever been before.

One of the most important accomplishments of Qin Shihuangdi was to standardize axle widths across his empire. Why is this important? On dirt/mud roads, different axle widths mean different ruts. By standardizing axel widths, the Chinese were then all in the same rut. (No joke needed here.) What this meant was that all vehicles traveled along roads in twin ruts that functioned almost like tramways, thus facilitating easier communication, trade, and administration.