Jump to content

Talk:Terracotta Army/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2015

Please add source to: Soldiers and related items were on display from March 15, 2013, to November 17, 2013, at the Historical Museum of Bern.[citation needed] Such as an article from a major local newspaper: [1] Peschmae (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Die Terrakotta-Krieger sind da". Der Bund. Retrieved 2015-06-21.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Terracotta Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2015

The last photo in the gallery section says that it is a restored warrior which it in fact is not. It is a very new statue built to represent what they used to look like. Thank you for providing a great webpage. 76.118.243.212 (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2015

The figures, dating from approximately the late third century BCE,[1] were discovered in 1974 by local farmers in Lintong District, Xi'an, Shaanxi province. The figures vary in height according to their roles, with the tallest being the generals. The figures include warriors, chariots and horses. Estimates from 2015 were that the three pits containing the Terracotta Army held over 9,000 soldiers, 130 chariots with 520 horses and 150 cavalry horses, the majority of which remained buried in the pits nearby Qin Shi Huang's mausoleum.[2] Other terracotta non-military figures were found in other pits, including officials, acrobats, strongmen and musicians. Razzy358 (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Construction

The article says "It is believed that the warriors' legs were made in much the same way that terracotta drainage pipes were manufactured at the time." but how were drainage pipes made?

The PBS series 'Secrets of the Dead' states (and can be read in the transcript) "Yuan Zhong Yi (Translator) This ... Broken half body gives us very important information about how terra cotta warriors were made. We can see the internal traces of the clay layers here, which shows how the clay coiled up. The sign of how the clay coiled up and joined together is very clear. Here is one clay coil, here is another clay coil. One coil after another, until the clay layers were all joined up inside the body.

You see this layer, this layer, this layer and this layer ... Until it reaches this place, near the bottom, one by one ...

So, this is how a terra cotta warrior is made.

Narrator: The ancient evidence leaves no doubt: the original terra cotta warriors weren’t stamped out of moulds.

Moulds did play a part ... In making hands, ears, and heads ...

But as incredible as it seems, the bodies of all 8000 terra cotta warriors were made individually, by hand ... And with techniques that were revolutionary for their time..."

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/chinas-terracotta-warriors-watch-the-full-episode/844/ 2602:304:CDDD:5B00:30C9:5000:12F2:4961 (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Scientific research

Section Terracotta Army#Scientific research names two teams, one in the U.S. and another one in the U.K.; I can't believe the Chinese themselves have not done any scientific research about their own archaeological site. fgnievinski (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This is essentially a silly complaint. Science is international, and those papers are produced with cooperation with Chinese institutions. Just a glance at the names of authors as well as papers cited in the sources you will see Chinese people involved. This is a misuse of the tag. Hzh (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Chromium coated weapons through "ancient wisdom"

This claim should be removed. The first and third refrence don't lend any credibility to the claim of purposefully chromium coated weapons, and the second one is from a conspiracy nut that is certainly not a scholarly resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:840:17C8:7C7C:7A53:ACD1:4C75 (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Army crafted under the guidance of ancient Greek sculptors

According to the below links archaeologists believe that Greek sculptors may have been at the site to train the locals or guide them.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37624943

http://www.ekathimerini.com/212775/article/ekathimerini/life/ancient-greek-sculpture-inspiration-for-chinas-terracotta-warriors-researchers-say

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/china-terracotta-army-ancient-greek-sculptors-alexander-the-great-marco-polo-a7357606.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/famed-chinese-terracotta-warriors-could-have-been-made-with-the/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/china-first-emperor-terra-cotta-warriors-tomb/

http://www.livescience.com/41828-terracotta-warriors-inspired-by-greek-art.html


Do you think that we should add this information? Gre regiment (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you have more than enough sources to validate adding this information. 174.24.140.189 (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
No - these are just newspaper reports, apparently quoting one stray professor for there being Greek artists on-site. It has long been recognised that there is indirect Greek or Persian influence in the new idea of a life-size statue, but neither the technique nor the style have any close relation to Greek art (they are rather more like Persian stuff perhaps). We should wait for specialist secondary WP:RS. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like you are expressing original research and at the same time demanding research references rather than newspaper articles, which are perfectly valid sources.War (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Not for something like this, especially when they are all just repeating the same tv company press release. In any case the added text misrepresented the source cited, "largely based" being OR, and judging by other coverage, wrong. Johnbod (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Chinese archaeologist quoted in the bbc report has already refuted the report. Chinese archaeologist refutes BBC report on Terracotta Warriors http://english.cri.cn/12394/2016/10/18/2021s942861.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.85.191.37 (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I watched the programme and it did not offer any evidence of Greek sculptors in China, so it should not be included. However, speculation of Greek influence is perfectly valid (influence is a vague enough term, and can cover a lot of different scenarios, including Chinese having seen Greek-style sculptures in Central Asian countries, or learning of techniques via indirect route), which is how it is written at the moment. Hzh (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

edit request

one of the statues on loan to the Franklin Institute was vandalized. It's made international headlines... --199.191.107.18 (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a news story. Wikipedia is not a directory of news stories.Robynthehode (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Question

hi. what east asia country is most related to this? Fctfctctfc (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

China. Brutannica (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


The image of the emperor chariot is not of a excavated artifact but of a replica. Should that me noted on the image?

Archaeologist attributed with the discovery of the army not mentioned in the article

Saw multiple credible news items around Zhao Kangmin (1 , 2 . Might be a good idea to enrich the article with pertinent information. Devopam (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Bronze does not rust!

This article states that '...10–15 micrometer layer of chromium dioxide that kept the swords rust-free for 2,000 years.' The article also states the sword was made out of bronze. The term 'rust' only refers to the product that is formed when iron oxidizes. Hence, I'd like to suggest that the last portion of the sentence be reworded to '...kept the sword free of oxidization for 2,000 years.' M.p.schulze (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


Held as slaves during construction

This Wikipedia article references the 700,000 people who were involved with the construction of the Army of Terracotta statues. However, the fact that these 700,000 artisans and others were held against their will by the Emperor is omitted and needs to be addressed and included in the article. The Washington Post notes:

The main historical record that archaeologists rely on for clues to the tomb’s construction is a 1st-century B.C. account by Sima Qian, who wrote that 700,000 people labored to build Qin’s mausoleum complex. Slaves, indentured servants, prisoners of war, foremen, masters, artisans — all were conscripted into a strict hierarchical system with brutal work conditions. Skeletons in iron shackles unearthed at the site back up this account.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/chinese-terra-cotta-warriors-had-real-and-very-carefully-made-weapons/2012/11/26/999b9cb4-2840-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9de479272598

Bit about chariot warfare in the "Weaponry" section

Last paragraph in the "Weaponry" section was -

"An important element of the army is the chariot, of which four types have been found. In battle the fighting chariots formed pairs at the head of a unit of infantry. The principal weapon of the charioteers was the ge or dagger-axe, an L-shaped bronze blade mounted on a long shaft and used for sweeping and hooking at the enemy. Infantrymen also carried ge on shorter shafts, ji or halberds and spears and lances. For close fighting and defence, both charioteers and infantrymen carried double-edged straight swords. The archers carried crossbows, which have sophisticated trigger mechanisms and are capable of shooting arrows farther than 800 metres (2,600 ft)."

While this information is extremely interesting, I found it indirectly relevant at best. A discussion on ancient Chinese warfare does not quite belong here. Removed for now, but wanted to start a potential discussion on it in case others disagreed. Thanks. Cjfvanm (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

New research about the protective chromium on bronze weaponry

From the article: "The chrome plating on the Terracotta Army bronze weapons—once thought to be the earliest form of anti-rust technology—derives from a decorative varnish rather than a preservation technique, finds a new study co-led by UCL and Terracotta Army Museum researchers. The study, published today in Scientific Reports, reveals that the chemical composition and characteristics of the surrounding soil, rather than chromium, may be responsible for the weapons' famous preservation power." Surface chromium on Terracotta Army bronze weapons is neither an ancient anti-rust treatment nor the reason for their good preservation https://phys.org/news/2019-04-scientists-mystery-terracotta-army-weapons.html https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40613-7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.10.6.120 (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Please correct/clarify "laid out" and "lay"

Last sentence of the first paragraph of the Excavation section, under the Pits subsection reads, "The soldiers within were laid out as if to protect the tomb from the east, where the Qin Emperor's conquered states lay." Were the soldiers "laid out"? They appear in the photos to be standing, not laying. Perhaps "configured" is a better word than "laid out"? Also in the same sentence "lay" is used again, specifically "conquered states lay" which is confusing. Please clarify! Thank you for the article. Fascinating. Sunsweeper (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It is fine as it is. From the Cambridge dictionary - [1] "lay out" (past tense "laid out") means to "arrange in a pattern or design; to plan something by showing how its parts fit together". The other "lay" is the past tense of "lie". Hzh (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Chinese synonym?

Is 秦俑 a Chinese synonym? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A Dubious Source

I was perusing this article and stumbled upon a citation for Maurice Cotterell’s The Terracotta Warriors: The Secret Codes of the Emperor's Army , ISBN 978-1591430339. The source seems, politely, suspect. From the Google Books description:

Maurice Cotterell shows how Shi Huangdi--like the pharaoh Tutankhamun, the Mayan lord Pacal, and Viracocha in Peru--was a keeper of the sacred solar science of the ancients, a science that included a sophisticated understanding of the effect of the sun on earthly affairs, fertility rates, and personality. The keepers of this science taught that the soul was immortal and was destined to transform into star energy or be reborn on Earth, depending on an individual’s spiritual progress in his or her lifetime. Using his unique understanding of how and why ancient civilizations encoded this extraordinary knowledge, Cotterell decodes the emperor’s farewell message concealed in the terracotta warriors--a message that reveals the true purpose of life and the imperishable nature of the soul.

Mr Cotterell indeed may have “a unique understanding” of the world, but if so I suspect that it is that peculiar kind of understanding which lands you in a padded cell. Regardless this is clearly not a reliable source. I merely wished to call this to the attention of any enterprising editors. Lightcaller (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The passages where it is cited don't appear to be controversial, merely basic descriptions of the Terracotta Army. I would be concerned if it is making unusual claims, but as it is, it is not particularly troubling. It is however a replaceable source, and can be substituted when other sources are found. Hzh (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Animals and Images

We see horses in the gallery below. Ok so they built horses. How about other animals? Are there any signs that there were cats or dogs too? If so it would be nice to add these to the gallery. Not everyone is able to travel to china to see that, so the gallery helps to show what has been found. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:FA9F:8D5F:B40F:A65A (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

But what about the Working Class?

I hate articles and essays like these which basically say: "some working class people were digging on the land that the byzantine system which allows people to "own" fractions of the earth's surface declared was "theirs" when something unexpected popped up —" and then basically details how academic and various other elites swooped in and laid claim to the entire region, but no further mention is made of the people whose lives depended on that land. What happened to them? If a wealthy person owned that land they would be compensated millions or literally billions for a serendipity of such value, but I'm betting the farmers were compensated based on the farming value of the land and not the value of the terracotta empire which, inconveniently, they probably owned.

It's like that Antique Roadshow where someone pays a guy $5 for a crappy painting and it turns out to be an original Jackson Pollock worth $100,000,000. Except that in this case I bet the original guy still owned the painting when it was discovered to have an inflated value, but he only got paid $5 anyways because he was working class and "didn't know what he had" even though he obviously did.

All this is speculation, of course. What *actually* happened? 172.5.154.148 (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Instead of bombarding us with Marxist drivel, wild rage-fueled speculating, and rambling idiotic diatribes about Antique Roadshow, why not look for this info for yourself and put the sources you find up for review to see if the info is relevant for this article? Also, it's ironic to complain about seizures of land in a article dealing with China where that "byzantine" system of land ownership doesn't truly exist and thus allows "elites" to engage in such seizures of peoples livelihood to begin with. Typical far left twit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:580F:B900:455E:60ED:9FD3:EFD6 (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The Peoples Republic of China doesn't seem to be very good at compensating farmers when it takes their land, but perhaps they got jobs building the museums, & then in the ticket office. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Frankly, this is not the place for politics. The Terracotta Army is a part of history; thus we should try to represent that history as much as possible as it was originally FOUND and discovered; and then after that analyse further. But first you need to get a full overview of all the data. How many Terracotta figures were there? Were they evenly spaced throughout the lands? And so forth. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:FA9F:8D5F:B40F:A65A (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

Estimates from 2007 were that the three pits containing the Terracotta Army held more than 8,000 soldiers, 130 chariots with 520 horses, and 150 cavalry horses

Correct:

Estimates from 2007 were that the three pits containing the Terracotta Army held more than 8,000 soldiers, 130 chariots with 520 horses, and 150 cavalry horses and Swans Whisperman2420 (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Please correct Whisperman2420 (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide sources to justify this change. The article does mention ducks and cranes found in some pits, but mentions that that the statues of birds were specifically not found in the three pits that contained the Terracotta army. The sentence you are asking to modify specifically refers to those three pits. Living Concrete (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The bronze birds are fund in pit K0007, that is located a bit north from the pits for the Terracotta Army. The bird pit, (and others), fit better in the article Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor. (The Terracotta Army is a sub part of the mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor). BR --Bairuilong (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

OSGFilms Video Article : Terracotta Warriors at Discovery Times Square The Necropolis of the First Emperor of Qin Excerpt from lecture

Links don't work 81.6.39.91 (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terracotta_Army/Archive_2&oldid=1188226275"