Talk:Terracotta Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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?

Contents

38 Years?[edit]

According to the article and that on Qin Shi Huangdi (sp?) he died in 210 BC and was burried there. If the work began when it did, (246 BC according to the article) and the emperor was interred in 210 when he died, if the workers spent 38 years building the tomb and presumably the Terracotta army, they would have finished work, TWO YEARS AFTER HE WAS INTERRED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.101.131 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a source which quotes construction taking exactly 36 years which would account for this problem. I am writing a paper on ancient Chinese burial tombs right now, and when I'm done, I'll come back here and try to correct this. If it hasn't been corrected already that is... Eeyore22 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Scholars don't seem convinced that it was started when the text says it was started.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Authenticity ?[edit]

Has the authenticity (dates of manufacture) of the Terracotta Army been verified? Can sources be referenced? MultiPoly (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not just warriors and horses but animals as well[edit]

This article says that the collection consists of warriors and horses, in the introduction. There's more to it than that- there are also acrobats, musicians, administrators and other animals like birds. I don't know wikipedia well enough to edit the article to say this or what would be the best sourceto use. There are many out there though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.248.22 (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)



Pgrote 22:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't you tell obvious vandals when you see one? 24.89.245.62 05:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal comments for the last paragraph of this original article[edit]

The uncalled-for last paragraph about the excluding the Tibetan exhibition is a kind of extreme argument. The phrase "bowed to" and "Chinese pressure" seem Chinese goverment like to destroy culture stuff in the world, even at the moment, Peking regime and all chinese people have seen the Tibetan culture as their own culture rather than a foreign culture, therefore, the exculding of Tibet exhibition at Barcelona in 2004 could be reasonable for Chinese goverment for protecting Tibetan culture and then carry forward it to worldwide.


I agree that the exhibition paragraph is adding bias to the article. It only has peripheral relevance to the topic and is written by someone with an ax to grind. Not that I necessarily disagree with them, but I don't think that it belongs here. --Beirne 15:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Contents of tomb[edit]

There have been rumors concerning "rivers of mercury", "gems to simulate the sun and planets". Can anyone elaborate with authority on this? -Jimaginator 12:51, December 12, 2005 (UTC)

During my tour, there was no mention about a river of mercury. This might be a subject of legend. I would be cautious about including this information, and would only do so with a clear disclaimer that it is indeed a subject of legend or folklore.

--Heesung 15:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw a documentary that shortly mentioned this - it appears that some chineese historian (Sima Qian I believe) has described this Mousoleum and he mentions not only terracota army, but also a scale model of world inside the tomb - rivers and lakes filed with mercury to resemble waves, lightened by everlasting torches, and gems forming constellations... amazing story. Since tomb is not opened yet there can be only legends about contents of it, but as far I know mercury is very poisonos and I can`t imagine way how builders of the tomb in their time could posibly fill artifical lakes with it -- Xil - talk 06:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe that there were actually rivers of mercury, but by the time the tomb was discovered by the farmers the mercury had all disappeared.. evaporated maybe? I could be wrong. --Robin Chen 4:14 February 10 2006
According to a documentary shown on UK television the other day, soil samples have been taken above the tomb to see if they contained any mercury (on the basis that mercury vapour from the tomb (which is still unopened) could have escaped through the roof of the tomb. It was stated that significant quantities of mercury were found, confirming the "rivers and seas of mercury" legend. I see that another editor has recently updated the article mentioning teh mercury. --rossb 18:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The current version makes it sound as if the mercury is still intact and in the tomb. Is this accurate? --maru (talk) contribs 21:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Nobody knows. The tomb has never been opened (because the archaeologists are afraid it would collapse.) The only source for the mercury legend is Sima Qian, who mentioned it in 89 BCE (over a hundred years after the tomb was closed.) Sima Qian did not mention the terracotta army, which suggests he may not have known about it. The soil above the tomb does contain unusually high amounts of mercury, so that lends some credence to the story. Fumblebruschi (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Have the proper reference(s) been added to confirm the mercury? I would hate for this stuff to make it into the article without confirmation. Anyone know what the name is of the UK documentary? Jimaginator 11:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just saw this - there's a book by Julia Lovell, "The Great Wall: China Against the World," that has more info on Shih Huang-Ti's tomb. Specifically, and there may be more research out there in this particular area, Sima Qian, a court official from the Han dynasty, is quoted in there (from translated documents) mentioning the tomb, including the mercury. [1] - that link takes you to the quote from Qian, which does explain the supposed contents of the tomb quite well, on page 52. I do remember that when archaeologists were researching, there was an unusually high mercury content found (adding potential proof) at the site, but I can't recall from where that information is taken. Hope that helps out! --Elva barr 03:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

video[edit]

This section about Terracotta soldiers being featured in a video game... it is very really necessary? This section might be more relevant to an article on video games about war. --Heesung 15:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think references to popular culture, while not being perhaps strictly necessary, are certainly interesting. It shows that the Terracotta Army has captured the imagination of popular culture in a relatively short space of time. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 15:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. A video game is not relevant to the real Terracotta Army. If it were to be relevant, it would need to have a real impact on societies knowledge, such as a society assuming a fact because it is in the game, when infact it is incorrect. Even then, one would need to explain how this video game impacted society. Otherwise, the creation of a game is irrelevant to societies perception or knowledge of the Terracotta Army. Peoples' knowledge would be the same with or without the game. I will remove the section since it is not relevant. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 22:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
What gives you the right to make this arbitrary decision? THIS is why people won't donate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.89.163 (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Location![edit]

When I went to visit this summer the tour guide mentioned something about the tomb being placed between two mountains and near a river for reasons of jade resources nearby or something. I don't quite remember what it was exactly, does anyone know? I think there was something about some superstitious belief also... --Robin Chen 4:23 Feb 10 2006

I also was told about that -- the mountains the Shanxii province are a source of jade.--Heesung 14:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No the tomb was placed where it is because the Chinese thought that where your tomb was placed could effect you in the afterlife. Near Mts and rivers were good places to be buryed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.119.55.5 (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


Malicious user[edit]

Can anything be done about the users who keep defacing this page? IPs 71.134.54.229 and 63.192.31.221 i think?

Edit, edit edit?[edit]

Why the numerous edit links on the bottom? Royrules22 06:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment[edit]

A nice article, with good length and sections, and lots of images. It includes a lot of things not central to the topic (which is a good thing - it's fleshed-out in the direction of becoming potentially a A-class-plus article). However, while the majority of what needs to be said has been, I think the sections still look short, and some expansion would be necessary in order to achieve GA or better status. LordAmeth 12:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from article: Trivia[edit]

The Terracotta Army under construction in Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom.
  • Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom, a computer game simulating the economy and trade of medieval China, includes a sequence on the Qin empire where the Terracotta Army is constructed by the player as part of the scenario goal. Laborers dig out a massive pit, after which carpenters assemble the wooden pillars. Ceramists use clay to make the Army, after which more carpenters hammer a wooden covering over the pit. Finally, this roof-like covering is covered over by dirt.
  • The computer game Rise of Nations includes the Terracotta Army as a wonder that the player can build. The wonder generates a new infantry unit once every minute.
  • In the console game Dynasty Warriors 5, there is an opening movie that shows the Terracotta army turning into real soldiers. This sequence shows them rushing to fight Zhao Yun, a hero of Shu, while others such as Cao Pi look on.

My reasoning to remove them is up there in the 'Video Games' section. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 04:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the trivia section. My reasoning is also up there in the "Video Games" section, and has not changed in the 8 months since I originally wrote it. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 05:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I still disagree with you. I would agree it should stay if you can show me the section would not be removed from the game's own article. That is, if you put the same text in the game's article as it stands here in this article. Until then, I will remove it as fancruft. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 09:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
And I still disagree with you. This article is neither the first, nor the last, nor the only Wikipedia article regarding an academic subject that has a section detailing instances where that subject is referenced in popular culture. Please do not remove perfectly valid, verifiable information merely because it does not meet your criteria for relevance. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not the only one who disagrees.

  1. There is a proposal to remove such triva and popular culture references from all but the most relevant articles. It has the support of several users.
  2. The arguement that the section would not be able to stand on its own in the games own article is a valid argument for removal from this article.
  3. This is fancruft. It is relevant to only a small portion of people on wikipedia and not relevant to others. It is generally supported that fancruft and cruft in general should be removed from articles. Read Wikipedia:fancruft for more information.
  4. Just saying it is relevant doesn't prove that it is relevant. Please give me some arguments to support your position that I have not addressed yet.

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 12:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Further to the point. Wikipedia:Importance details three qualifiers for importance.

An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:

  1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
  2. It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.
  3. Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.
In the first (1), there is not a reasonable number of people who are, were or might be interested in this subject at any one given point of time. These references are not well known to the community. It being featured in these games is not well known to the community in general if one openly asks them without telling them about it before hand. In the second (2), this section would qualify as a stub or list which is nearly indiscriminate, in that the game only needs to feature the Terracotta Army in one form or another. Third (3), the importance has not been established because it is in dispute. Thus, there is no current reason to display that section at the present time and should be removed until one of the tree qualifiers are met. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 12:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. There are people who are opposed to the removal of trivia sections. Therefore, the fact that there are also people who support the removal of trivia sections is not, in and of itself, particularly compelling.
  2. I do not agree that information has to be perfectly symmetrical to justify its existence in an article.
  3. Just saying that it is irrelevant does not prove that it is irrelevant. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The lack of arguments for its relevancy is enough of an argument for it being irrelevant when the section is called into dispute. Wikipedia is not a random list of related information. It is an encyclopedia of relevant information. What arguments are there for its (trivia's) importance or interest? The section is several things. It is a Directory of software that features the Terracotta Army (What Wikipedia is not), it is Trivia with no importance (Wikipedia:Trvia) and it is fancruft. These are all valid reasons for the removal of the section. What reasons are there for the sections inclusion?

--OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 13:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the section in question fits the description of a directory of games which feature the Terracotta Army. Here is an example of a directory. Wikipedia:Directory

As a matter of policy, which is found on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a directory. The trivia section is bound to this policy and the decision to remove the section is justified. I will remove the section first at 17:00 Copenhagen time to give you time to reply. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 15:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The heading "Terracotta Army references in popular culture" is problematic. If this heading merits inclusion, then why not create this heading in every other article? References in popular culture does NOT fit within the scope of this article, especially the bit about video games. This article should be about the actual Terracotta, not about what sort of video game it is mentioned in. Heesung 18:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No further arguments against removal were made, so either those who objected left the whole discussion, or have no further objections. Removed because it is a software directory; the directory listed games that featured the terracotta army. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 15:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the exact number of figures: 8,099[edit]

Can someone provide a citation for this number of figures being 1) exactly determined or 2) untirely unearthed? To my knowledge, which is in no way complete or good, there is only an estimate of figures (somewhere around 8000, so 8099 could very well be correct), and there are still many more to be unearthed. Am I mistaken?Eliteyak 19:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Xianyang or Xi'an[edit]

Are they located in Xianyang or Xi'an? - Privacy 12:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

在西安里面。咸阳离西安够近,所以无所谓。Mathpianist93 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Names for Pits[edit]

Some user has described the pits containing the army as being called "Nii-Sama" and the "baka Mei-Mei room." These are Japanese for "Big Brother" and "idiot Mei-Mei" respectively; I suspect malfeasance. A brief search finds no other references to the pits with these names (the first three appear to be simply numbered Pit 1, Pit 2 and Pit 3, and I do not find reference to a fourth pit at all). I'm not a contributor to Wikipedia but wanted to bring this to someone's attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.69.220.56 (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC).


Terracotta Army outside China[edit]

  • Forbidden Gardens, a privately funded outdoor museum in Katy, Texas has 6,000 1/3 scale replica terra-cotta soldiers displayed in formation as they were buried in the 3rd century BC. Several full-size replicas are included for scale, and replicas of weapons discovered with the army are shown in a separate Weapons Room. The museum's sponsor is a Chinese businessman whose goal is to share his country's history.
  • China participated in the 1982 World's Fair for the first time since 1904, displaying four terra-cotta warriors and horses from the tomb of Emperor Ying Zheng.


should previous be included? it was deleted by anon but may be in correct place??DUBJAY04 02:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Whoever it was that deleted the orignal paragraphs (as shown above) seems to have done so in order to vandalize the content. Following is a copy of the vandalized paragraph as seen on 28, January 2007. (Highlighting is mine) Gseletko 07:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


  • China participated in the 1982 World's Fair for the first time since 1904, displaying four terra-cotta warriors and horses from the tomb of Emperor Shi Huandi well he was gay as far as we know but in the 1987 we found out that it is usual for emperors to be gay!

I have restored the original content. Gseletko 07:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I was unsureDUBJAY04 07:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Stupid vandals are teh gheys!!!


  • An editor added text to the British Museum (BM) section adding 3 US museums. I guess it's usual for rarely loaned items to go on a "grand tour" around the globe and that would be good to know. But the text hasn't been updated other than adding the museums: giving them impression that it was at same time. And the notes about the impact on BM attendance are not relevant. And the citations are all BM specific.

So have split it into 2 - but it's looking very sparse - if someone can augment that would be good (and interesting)

Icarusgeek (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protected[edit]

I have "semi-protected" the article (no editing by anons or just registered users) for a period of 8 days, as the article is listed at the current Cosmos Magazine and has been attracting anon vandals. -- Infrogmation 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Huzzah! Unfortunately, the bulk of the vandalism predates the Cosmos article. --KNHaw (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

further vandalism: correction needed[edit]

i suspect this may be further vandalism on the page. i first tried to make sense of this and then realized it was an incorrect and badly worded sentence at that. someone please delete/replace it:

The terracotta figures were manufactured so that the empire could start a war with god and then make everyone die both in workshops by government laborers and also by local craftsmen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htg (talkcontribs) 14:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

grammar?[edit]

I am trying to understand the following sentence from the article: "The fire was described by Sima Qian, who described them as the consequences of General Xiang Yu, who raided the tomb less than five years after the death of the First Emperor, as that the effects of General Xiang’s army included looting of the tomb and structures holding the Terracotta Army, as well as setting fire to the necropolis and starting a blaze that lasted for allegedly three months, though no other recorded great fire in history ever lasted more than seven days (other great notable fires: Great Fire of Rome, 1871 Great Chicago Fire, London fire, Fire of Moscow (1812))."

It is unclear to me how the "as that the" in the middle fits in. Is the meaning just "Sime Qian says that Xiang Yu set the site on fire"? Is this monster really a correct sentence? Maybe a native speaker could clarify. --Jochen 12:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a correct sentence. I have re-written the section for clarity. Fumblebruschi (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --Jochen (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

terrecttca[edit]

What has been said to be the most exciting archeological find of the 20th century, the discovery of an entire army of over 7000 life sized terra cotta soldiers, is nothing short of astonishing. Over 2000 years old, and completely forgotten by the people of China, the Terra Cotta Army was stumbled upon by some local peasant farmers drilling a well to irrigate their fields. The statue army is complete with generals, archers, horses, foot soldier and more, each individual statue being unique. Now from the same villages that the original warriors were produced and using the same techniques, this site is offering replica Terra Cotta Warriors. Bring the 8 Wonder of the World into your home as a decorative piece of art, or use one as a garden statue.

These authentic reproductions are the closes thing you can get to having one of the 2200 year old warriors. They come is sizes from 1/4 to full size of the original.

Offered is a 5 piece set that covers all the major groups of Qin Shi Huang Di's army. It is available in two different sizes 20CM (7.9") and 35CM (13.8").

Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.22.191 (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very poorly written and bad grammar[edit]

Just a comment from an interested reader. This page is horribly written and badly organised. It requires a total rewrite. I would do it, but am here to learn about the tom, not to write about it for others. Seriously, some pages are cleaned up if someone spells a word wrong, here it seems it's just left there to rot. When I accessed this page, it said that the tomb was discovered in 1675, and that over a billion people took over 360 years to complete it. Just an example, but another part, which I deleted said that some company doesn't make tents big enough to cover the site blah blah, which was put there as fact, but was blatantly the product of someone's imagination. Regards 84.203.35.113 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Scope and Name of Article[edit]

I think this article needs to cover the finds from the other 594 pits and the mausoleum itself, rather than just treat the army on its own. So, it needs renaming with a redirection page for Terracotta Army. Anyone disagree?--Doug Weller (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A move creates a redir. The question is, move it to what title? Ling.Nut (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, it's hard to keep it short - what's the longest title on Wikipedia I wonder?

The Terracotta Army and the Tome of the First Emperor? That puts the most popular bit first The Tomb of the First Emperor and the Terracotta Army? That puts the most important bit first, the army is just part of the tomb.

Or -- since we will have a redirect, leave Terracotta Army out of the title altogether. The Tomb of the First Emperor doesn't mention China. The Tomb of China's First Emperor? It's one of the world's most important archaeological sites for a variety of reasons. It's still pretty intact (the tomb itself hasn't been excavated and the remote sensing suggests that the roof of whatever structure is there is still there), it should have some amazing stuff in it, it's going to have to rely on some pretty high tech for future work, etc. The article needs expanding in my opinion is it should not be just about the Terracotta army in isolation from the mausoleum complex (ie the tomb and the other 594 pits).--Doug Weller (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Split into two articles, one Terracotta Army for the statues themselves, and one Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor for the whole structure. _dk (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Since this article is so important, maybe you should take this question up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China... Ling.Nut (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I note that Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor redirects here, which won't help the reader much at the moment.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Name#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things. The policy is that the name should be the one that most people would use and understand. The mausoleum complex is known and understood as the Terracotta Army. Possible alternatives would not be a search item on Google. The main search item would be Terracotta Army, so that is the one policy says we should use. SilkTork *YES! 19:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you also saying then that the scope of the article should be the whole tomb complex?--Doug Weller (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Sections within Terracotta Army can deal with specific areas or aspects of the complex, then - as and when those sections become too large for the main article - they can be considered on an individual basis for splitting into standalone articles as per WP:Summary style.
I have just come back from the exhibition at the British Museum. The title is The First Emperor, China's Terracotta Army - though it is about the whole tomb complex. Essentially the tomb complex is a hill, which will NOT be investigated until such time as the technology is available to investigate the complex without doing any harm (unlikely in our lifetime), and the digs around the hill. The digs have revealed the stables and other areas, the most notable, dramatic and interesting of which is the soldiers. The term Terracotta Army covers what has been discovered from all the digs - as an army does not consist only of soldiers, but also consists of stables, logistics, etc, which support and enable the army. SilkTork *YES! 16:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Great exhibition, eh? Glad you made it before it closes, I went last week. I'm not convinced that the term covers, for instance, the artificial river with the bronze birds (I'm really glad they put that in the exhibition). I managed to get the show catalogue from a local Derbyshire library to my surprise. The catalogue/book, like the exhibition, has sections on the making of China, the rise of the Qin and the conquest of the Warring States, The First Emperor /Qin Empire with subchapters on coins, architecture/palaces and gold/jade, Imperial Tours & Mountain Inscriptions, The Afterlife Universe, A Tw0-Thousand Year Old Underground Empire -- and here we have 3 chapters on the Army, Armour for the Afterlife and Entertainment for the Afterlife.
The birds and musicians were found quite a way from the Army (and about equally far from the tomb). This is explained as a way in which the tomb complex crated a whole world. Although I guess we can keep the name, I wouldn't say that the term army covers everything. And at some point the army might be a much smaller part of the article than it is at the moment, but we can wait for that to happen.Doug Weller (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I really enjoyed the exhibition. Army does also mean a large group of people organised for a single purpose [2], so that could comfortably include all those figures in the digs which had been created for the purpose of serving Qín in the afterlife. The thing that is puzzling me, and the catalogue is vague on the point, is the "modern replica" of a "contemporary model" of the workers creating the figures. I loved that model and found it full of life and energy - something lacking in the mass produced life-size models. My companions felt the model was a modern interpretation of the workshop and that "contemporary" referred to modern rather than the past. I feel that the word contemporary in this sense means belonging to the same period as the Army, and wondered why the catalogue would use contemporary in the sense of "same period" when talking about the historian Sima Qian, would use "modern" when talking about the modern replicas, yet slip into contemporary for modern in this one case. Do you know much about the model I'm talking about? I was hoping the Wiki article would have some info, but it doesn't, and my own feeble researches have turned up nothing as yet. SilkTork *YES! 15:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The model was very striking, but my wife and I disagree as to when it was made. It is catalogue no 115, and the text with the photograph of it talks about division of labour, etc but doesn't comment on the model itself, although a few pages later workshops are mentioned. The catalogue/book is written by different authors which probably explains the differnce in terminology. I feel pretty sure that if that was an artefact or a reconstruction from a drawing it would have been mentioned.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
My companions are also of the view that if 115 was contemporary with Qin then some indications would have been made in the text at some point. SilkTork *YES! 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If that had been an excavated artefact it would have been as marvelous as any other part of the army and would be the subject of academic monographs. It would have been probably a unique example of mass production -- and if course it would almost certainly not have survived intact. On page 167 of the catalogue I've just found the phrase "each workshop", if that helps.Doug Weller (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

5 pits.[edit]

I just got back from china a few weeks ago, and there are actually 5 pits total, not 4 as detailed in this article. I don't have good enough writing skills to edit this, but there were definetly 5. (only 3 are dug up) also it claims that pit 4 is uncompleted, this is an outright lie. they were ALL completed. there are actually only 5 publicly released pits, and there are numerous other pits that haven't been released to the public from the government. Nafango2 (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean 5 pits total? What was in your 5th pit? The exhibition says there are almost 600 pits. That's no secret. A lot more than 5 have been excavated. And how do you know that Pit 4 was completed?Doug Weller (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
let me rephrase that, it was pretty disorganized. This article claims that there are 4 pits total in the facility, three of which have been/are being excavated, and it claims pit number 4 was left unfinished by the workers in the qin dynasty. This is wrong, there are 5 pits total in the facility, three of which are being/were excavated, and the remaining two have not been dug up for a number of different reasons. i see that a few websites on the internet claim to agree with wikipedia, however I have literature purchased from the terracotta army museum IN xi'an, china, that say otherwise. Nafango2 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The army outside China[edit]

Let's discuss this before we remove it, please. Thanks--Doug Weller (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The timing is bad for me; I can't get into long discussions 'cause I'm working on a dissertation. But I think the section should go go go. Delete the section without prejudice. It's a list, see WP:MOSLIST. It's unencyclopedic [See WP:NOT]. It smells an awful lot like promotion for various galleries, showings etc. Finally, the info in this section is not notable [NB that "notable" is a slippery concept; but I don't give a flip if you can find newspaper clippings that say these showings exist.The showings are irrelevant to the topic, again see WP:NOT). Ling.Nut (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh that's a shame. As I new visitor to this page I was interested in seeing if the chariot on display at the British Museum was the same one later displayed at Shanghai Expo 2010 China, but all I can see is the BM information. And I'm not sure why BM warrants retention?Icarusgeek (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Longest fire??[edit]

In the "Destruction and gradual decay" sub-heading it is mentioned that according to Sima Qian, General Xiang’s army looted the tomb and the structures holding the Terracotta Army, as well as setting fire to the necropolis and starting a blaze that allegedly lasted three months (though no other recorded great fire in history ever lasted more than seven days).

How is it possible that no other great fire lasted more than seven days when the fire set in nalanda university by muslim invaders, burned the entire structure for several months as mentioned in wikipedia. Is it that this fire not in the category of "great fire"?? 122.165.2.35 (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.165.2.35 (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Then there's Centralia, Pennsylvania, where a mine fire has been burning for 46 years now, and is estimated to last another 250. Not sure what the criterion is for a "great fire", but there are many fires that have lasted longer than 7 days. Lurlock (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Coal seam fires: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_fire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.176.48 (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

General Xiang set the fire in about 200 BC. The Nalanda University was destroyed in 1193. The editor should mean "though at that time no other recorded man-made great fire in history ever lasted more than seven days" --Quest for Truth (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The statues are a fake[edit]

According Jean Lévi, a French sinologist, research director at CNRS (French National Scientific Research Center, the terracotta army is a fake. In his most recent book, “La Chine est un cheval et l’Univers une idée” published in 2010 October the7th at “Maurice Nadeau” editions (ISBN 978-2-86231-215-6) Jean Lévi writes, page 17, “These statues are a fake. The famous funerary army, when it was exhumed, was just a heap of charred rubbishes a mix of dust and fragments.(…) Even with the most modern techniques, it would be impossible to piece together again a single warrior, and Chinese archeologists did not have a thorough knowledge of the most modern techniques. The statues were rebuilt, not according an original one, whose it is impossible to know anything, but according the stubborn executives of Culture Ministry imaginations of a First Emperors Funerary Statue.(…) It is a modern work, made on assembly lines by contemporary slaves, in XX century kilns, under control of Maoist bureaucrats”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.214.165.26 (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

An ISBN, OCLC or even ISSN would be handy. I cannot find this book on Google or WorldCat. (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Contemporary accounts of the army's dicovery mention whole heads, the author sounds likes a sensationalist to me. Philg88 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The book does seem to exist, with ISBN 978-2862312163. The author Jean Lévi also exists, and is indeed a research director at CNRS, who has written extensively on ancient Chinese literature and has translated many classical Chinese texts. I can't confirm that the book makes the claims stated, not having seen it. I did find this article from la Croix where Lévi is quoted as expressing similar skepticism. There's not a lot of context for that quote, though, so I'm not quite sure how to take it. Mahousu (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Here is a reference to the book from France Culture (public French radio): France culture. Térence Billeter the Swiss ambassador to China, Térence Billeter, also puts his doubts in a book (L'Empire de la poudre aux yeux - Carnets de Chine, 1970-2001). Another writter who believed the army was a fake was Guy Debord, who calls it a "buraucratic fake" in his book "The Society of the Spectacle", Zone Books 1995, ISBN 0-942299-79-5.
There are several reasons which make them think the army is a fake:
1- The army has been discovered during the cultural revolution, at a time when Mao Zedong was comparing himslef to Qin Shihuang
2- No mention of this army is done in the very detailled description of the Qin Shihuang's tomb made by Sima Qian
3- The soldiers are 1.76 to 1.96 meters tall, which is much taller than men at this time
4- The style of the soldiers is much more modern than the ones found in other burial of the same time, or even newer like the Han dynasty army shown in Xianyang Xianyang museum
5- The soldiers are amazingly preserved after more than 2000 years, no other terracotta artifact has been so well preserved.
6- It is estonishing that the tomb of Qin Shihuang has still not been searched, as if the authority didn't want to see that the style of the artifacts found there is very different than the terracotta warriors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a conspiracy theory and it shouldn't appear in the article. Also Térence Billeter probably hasn't been allowed to study the site so in other words he doesn't know what he is talking about. Laurent (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no policy to exclude conspiracy theories, so long as they are notable and are not added in an excessive way that creates weight problems. See Fringe theories. I have trimmed the included text on this basis though if this is still an issue, I suggest a local RfC as to whether to include some reference to these theories or not. (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is actual mainstream scientific findings on this, this is not encyclopedic.--TheLeopard (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Further, for conspiracy theory to be relevant it has to be "notable". If there is any ounce of notability or even credibility in this, shouldn't this be mentioned by mainstream English publications and media (i.e. The New York Times)? Has any scientific publications mentioned this?--TheLeopard (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Recognition by the UNESCO[edit]

I have serached for the criteria used by UNESCO to recognise such a site, here is what I found: UNESCO.

About the authenticity, the chapter II.E ("Integrity and/or authenticity") says that: "81. Judgments about value attributed to cultural heritage, as well as the credibility of related information sources, may differ from culture to culture, and even within the same culture. The respect due to all cultures requires that cultural heritage must be considered and judged primarily within the cultural contexts to which it belongs."

Basically, the Chinese government said it is authentic, so the UNESCO doesn't question that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the UNESCO never questions anything. If I want, tomorrow I can submit an application to WHC, claim that my flat is 2000 years old, and they'll accept it because they don't check anything.
Otherwise, do you have any source for your claim that "no independant expert have been allowed to determine the real age of the soldiers"? Or did you also get that from another French conspiracy theory? Laurent (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you cannot make the claim your are talking about to the UN, because you are not a government. If you were a government, member of the United Nation, this would be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
How about my question? Where did you read that no expert has been allowed to study the site? Laurent (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If some independant expert have been allowed to determine the real age of the soldiers, then please tell me who they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The UNESCO doesn't make the first decisions on whether or not if it is authentic or the conditions are good, all the cultural World Heritage Sites has to be evaluated by the International Council on Monuments and Sites before it can be considered of any kind of World Heritage status.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Further, the most renowned scientific organizations, such as National Geographic Society has done studies on [3] [4] and showcased the Terracotta Army at its headquarter [5]. So did Science, on archaeologists' findings on the Terracotta Army [6]. Both Scientific American [7] and Nature [8], have published studies on the chemical testings and protection of the Terracotta Army by the team at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich ("The lacquer base-coat has changed while in storage," explains Heinz Langhals of the University of Munich. "The foundation cracks, comes loose, rolls together, and falls off as soon as the relative humidity gets below 84 percent." Langhals and his colleagues developed the new protective treatment using a common chemical used to produce plastics. They treated the excavated terra-cotta pieces with hydroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA), which is water soluble and can penetrate the wet surface (the figures have been housed in damp soil for the past 2,000 years). - Scientific American). And you think the British Museum and the National Geographic Society does not verify the authenticity of its exhibiting artifacts?--TheLeopard (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I followed all of the link you give, and found nowhere any scientific study to determine the date of the terra cotta warriors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.21.85 (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Did you bother read the articles? The Scientific American article specifically said "the figures have been housed in damp soil for the past 2,000 years." The point is, the Terracotta Army has been studied, and even chemically tested by international archaeological experts (such as the team from University of Munich), and these studies has been published by the most reputable scientific publications (Scientific American, Nature, Science). Most importantly, did you ever find any actual scientific studies that doubts the authenticity of the Terracotta Army?--TheLeopard (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I read the articles fully, they never say they have chemically tested them. The sentence you are quoting is just repeating what is generally said about the terra cotta soldiers. The University of Munich has help to preserve the soldiers, but they didn't make any datation of them. I even contacted them to check.
To anonymous user, yes, that's what "most" academic sources would say about the Terracotta Army, as that's the consensus. And the statement came from Scientific American.--TheLeopard (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Importantly, you did not answer my questions, did you find any actual scientific studies that doubts the authenticity?--TheLeopard (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The Scientific American didn't study the authenticity, neither did the Munich University. So, we have no scientific study prooving those soldiers authentic or a fake. It should then be possible to discuss this topic. There has been some similar cases in the past where some archological findings were revealed a fake after being considered true by the majority of specialists. Here is a case involving terra cotta which should make you think about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_terracotta_warriors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Scientific American and Nature articles are not about studying authenticity, they are about how to use chemistry to preserve the Terracotta Army. However, none of them remarked doubts about its authenticity, and they contains statements that described the age of the Terracotta Army. There are many sources about the preservation of the Terracotta Army. This article from the International Journal of Radiation Applications and Instrumentation [9] states: "The TL dates of the ceramics and baked soil are consistent with C-14 dates on charcoal samples taken from the same layer in Xian Terracotta Army Site. It is consistent with other evidence that the Terracotta Army figures were made about 2200 yr ago..." And this article from BCIN [10] states "The samples for spectroscopy, prepared by a special method of extraction, made it possible to show that water-soluble contents of the ground layer had migrated into the neighboring layers of terracotta, the covering layer, and the soil during 2,000 years of deposition in the ground."--TheLeopard (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been in contact with one of the researcher who worked on the project you mention, who confirmed that they did no test for datation and told me that he would ask around information about this. So let's wait and see. But be aware that controversies about this kind of archeological findings are very common, like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glozel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
To the anonymous user above, what researchers? I've listed various sources above. Do you have actual evidence of any contacting? How are we suppose to verify that you were contacting some researchers of some projects? And how are we suppose to verify something someone else said to you? Why are you skipping around? I've just listed the source from journal International Journal of Radiation Applications and Instrumentation that specifically described the date of the Terracotta Army.--TheLeopard (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I will not put names in Wikipedia. You can send mail to those people like I did, so you can make up your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
In other words, it is unpublished data (WP:VERIFY) and borders on original research (WP:OR). If there was clear data (from reliable sources) to the contrary, it would be different, but all you're saying is that you talked to researchers (who you won't name) who told you stuff that might or might not be true. Besides, Wikipedia isn't the place to argue about the authenticity of something, nor is it somewhere to discuss original research or theories (see WP:NOT). Like another editor mentioned, it is based on consensus rather than independent discussions about the "truth". By the way, I'm sure no "independent expert" has tested the moon to verify that it is indeed not made up of cheese. -Multivariable (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
We are in the discussion part. TheLeopard quote the Munich University, I just inform him that they didn't make any datation of the terracotta warriors. If you want to check that, contact them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.10.60.85 (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Taurendur, 1 April 2011[edit]

The picture captioned "An officer's statue" is actually a picture of an archer. I just visited the Terracotta Warriors and common soldiers had top-knots on the right side; archers had top-knots on the left side; and officers had a funky hat. This is confirmed in the book The Qin Dynasty Terra-Cotta Army of Dreams ISBN 7-80712-184-X pg.112

Please change "An officer's statue" to "An archer's statue"

Taurendur (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Taurendur

 Done Stickee (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Findings: Either wrong or misleading data[edit]

The paragraph "Findings" is quite shocking. Quoting directly, it states as follows:


At the tomb of the first Qin Emperor, extremely sharp swords and other weapons were found which were coated with chromium oxide. This coating made the weapons rust resistant.[9][10][11] Chromium only came to the attention of westerners in the 18th century.[12] The alloys of tin and copper enabled weapons such as bronze knives and swords to avoid rust and remain sharp in spite of 2000 years of degrading conditions.[13] The layer of chromium oxide used on steel swords was 10 millimetres and left them in pristine condition to this day. A Qin crossbow arrow had a range of 800 metres.[14]»

Regarding the sentence linked to source [13], tin and copper alloy was applied to bronze weapons, yet bronze IS an alloy of copper and tin. Quite misleading.

Regarding the sentence linked to source [14], the layer applied was 10 millimetres. Assuming it talks about thickness (the only useful parameter when measuring a layer of any kind), it is 1 cm thick... Quite probably wrong. Actually, more than probably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.165.240 (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Topic started by jordissim (didn't have an account when doing it :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordissim (talkcontribs) 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The errors are now fixed. Hzh (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Too many errors[edit]

There appear to be many errors in this page. I have tried to correct some of the errors in the page, and deleted some. Many of the errors seem quite basic, for example confusing millimeter and micrometer, not knowing the difference between "square meter" and "meter squared" (the base of the pyramid is more than 350 meter squared, that's over 100,000 square meter, and not 350 square meter), or indeed the location of the site. Others I'm not sure if they are errors so I'm leaving them in there for the time being. For example, did the construction really started when the emperor was 13? Although Sima Qian said he began building soon after he became emperor at 13, others have put the date of actual construction much later, perhaps 20 years later. And where did this comes from: "He specifically stated that no two soldiers were to be made alike, which is most likely why he had construction started at that young age"? It sounds too much like something someone made up rather than historical fact. Since wiki pages are often used by people as reference and they copied what's written verbatim, there is responsibility to try to get these facts as accurate as possible. I can't check everything that's written here, so I hope someone will try to do more to check the facts here, correct them where necessary, and give proper references for the facts. Hzh (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have decided to adjust or delete those parts. There are however still quite a few other bits which need to be look into. I have translated the original text of Sima Qian the best I can (and imperfectly, I'm not skilled in ancient texts) in the Notes section, those who can do better are welcome to improve it. Hzh (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Please give original source where possible so that other people can check its validity, translation or interpretation. Also avoid speculation, for example I've deleted the speculation that those who found the army may be descendants of those sent to guard it - there is simply no way of knowing if there could be any truth in it. Hzh (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed ! You're doing the best that you can. Go for it Hzh ! Krenakarore (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

incorrect coordinates listed[edit]

I looked at the coordinates and found nothing in google earth but found the building itself not too far off.

the actual coordinates are:

34 degrees 23 minutes 6.00 seconds north

109 degrees 16 minutes 24.00 seconds east

This is a large building that from the outside looks like the inside view of the building in the wiki and is about the same size as pit 1.

Enjoy this new information.

Wheller007 (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Destruction and gradual decay?[edit]

The destruction and gradual decay section is gone. Where did it go? Was it vandalized? If there's no one willing to rewrite it or bring it back I will make an attempt, but I know zilch about referencing and formatting. Deenasao (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing it, but if you feel that it contributes to the article, then by all means restore the content. However, referencing is pretty much essential, and if the original content wasn't referenced, that might be the reason it was removed. If you don't know how to do references, you can read about it here at WP:CITE. At the most basic level, simply place the reference between the two reference tags here like this - <ref> place reference here </ref>. References may be book (page number would be helpful) or websites. 21:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I went back and checked, and it appears no reason was given for the deletion. The content can be found here. Some of the content are already in other part of the article, so it you want to restore it you would need to rewrite other parts of the article. There are also errors in that section, for example, Sima Qian did not state that Xiang Yu burnt the tomb (he burnt the Qin palaces), and he never mentioned the Terracotta Army, so it would need to be rewritten as well because those bits are false. On consideration, the first paragraph should not be used at all because there are too many errors in there, while the second and third paragraphs needs rewriting and updating. Hzh (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

China's Terracotta Warriors: The First Emperor's Legacy is exhibited October 20, 2012, through January 20, 2013, at the Minneapolis Institute of Art, 2400 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55404 (astsmia.org). A symposium "Beyond the First Emperor's Mausoleum: New Perspectives on Qin Culture" on October 27-28, 2012, at MIA featured 12 international scholars on early Chinese history, culture, art and archeology, sharing insights in light of recent archeological discoveries. 71.63.172.113 (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Bill Weir cell 612-751-0445

Correction: website is artsmia.org on my note submitted minutes ago. Bill Weir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.172.113 (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh Exhibition 1985[edit]

I remember going to see it, perhaps it could be added to the article. Here's a link to an auction listing of the guide: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/The-Emperors-Warriors-Chinese-terracotta-army-Edinburgh-/171016406644?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&_trkparms=aid%3D444000%26algo%3DSOI.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D24%26meid%3D7168633404466253527%26pid%3D100029%26prg%3D1009%26rk%3D10%26sd%3D171016406634%26&nma=true&si=drUzkAB10Pegycg%252FU1eOSxXN7bk%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

EdX20 (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Appearances in popular culture?[edit]

Can anyone add anything about appearances or mentions of the Terracotto Army in movies or books? I know I've seen movies in the last ten years that feature figures like these that come to life. Was it a Lara Croft film or something else? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

gard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.224.120.166 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent information regarding Hellenistic connection and Greco-Buddhist art[edit]

User:Macedonian recently added quite a bit of information regarding possible Hellenistic links to the Terracotta Army to the article. While the theory of that the Terracotta Army is possibly connected to the Hellenistic period is interesting, this article doesn't need to carve out a specific section solely for this information. A brief mention of it is enough. Further, the Greco-Buddhist art connection to the Terracotta Army User:Macedonian inserted is flimsy and anachronistic. The Greco-Buddhist development did not occur in China or East Asia until much later on (early 1st millennium to say the earliest; while Buddhism entered into China during the late Han Dynasty). Further, even the earliest surviving examples of Greco-Buddhist art in Gandhara dates to around the 1st-2nd century AD (while the Terracotta Army and the Mausoleum of the first Qin Emperor was constructed in the 3rd century BC); thus such connection seems to be a lapse in logic and timeline.--TheLeopard (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You took it completely wrong, that was a See also link, not a Main article link... Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
See also link infers that there is connection, which would be anachronistic.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is your perception. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I think this issue brings up something that is missing in the article, that is, these terracotta figures are unusual, there had been no tradition of such large and realistic figures before the Qin Dynasty. The unusual nature of these figures is probably something worth mentioning somewhere, perhaps in a paragraph on its design (I think the section on "Construction of figures" can be expanded into "Design and Construction of figures"), then we can introduce this possible Hellenistic influence, probably as just a sentence or two. Hzh (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree, I added some info from the source provided, and waiting on User:TheLeopard's opinion on your section's naming suggestion. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
We are talking about elaboration on the design aspect of the Terracotta Army and the unusual nature of it, which is perfectly understandable; while you seems to "only" want to focus on this possible Hellenistic connection of it.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand you, of course there should be a mention on the theory of the possible Hellenistic connection. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Carbon Dating[edit]

It would be nice if the article included some of the researchers findings; like carbon dating, mineral analyse, and such. Also, does anyone know if any of those involved tried doing a DNA test on the army? This may come off as a bit crack-potish, but this could be proof of the existence of Medusa (who could turn whole armies to stone). Maybe that one guy was right about there being a cover-up, just not what you would think it was...just curious, the article owner/s can delete this if they want... Cicisox (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Notable visitors[edit]

I'm not sure whether this section should be included or not. According to the guideline, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." In other words, a visit to the Terracotta Army by a notable individual is not inherently worthy of inclusion in an article. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 05:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've always really liked the the style of that policy, "Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included..." I think this counts here, if we listed all the notable people (have wiki articles) who have visited this site, or other similar sites, the list would be huge. Currently the list isn't notable people but rather heads of states (or former). I think we could lose this section and the article would not lose anything as a result. Rincewind42 (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a case for the first visits by US presidents, and maybe the Queen and Putin, but after that I think we can take other heads of state and government, and spouses, for granted, or do a onwe sentence list. And 5 photos of state visits is far too many. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Rincewind42 and Johnbod thanks for your comments. Based on those, I thought the best way to handle this was to rename the section "Visits by heads of state", then there can be be no argument as to who qualifies. Yes, I know Ban Ki-moon isn't a head of state but SG of the UN is an exceptional case. I've also shifted some of the associated photos to the gallery ► Philg88 ◄ talk 09:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Other tourist attractions do not list visits by these people. Merely visiting a location is not encyclopedic content. After a week has passed it isn't even news worthy content. Presidents travel around the world frequently visiting famous landmarks. Such visits are not usually notable. They are in effect just handshakes. I can understand that for the president to visit a high school would be a significant event for that school. Possibly the biggest thing that has ever happened to the school. However, the Terracotta Army is a significant entity in its own right. Something needs to happen beyond just a visit to make it worth keeping in the article. Also I see no reason why the US presidents or the British Queen should get special treatment over other heads of state. Oh, and Michelle Obama isn't a head of state. Rincewind42 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@Rincewind42: Michelle Obama isn't there any more :) If you want to delete the whole section I have no issue with that but I suspect that some editors may object. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 17:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── After further thought, I have now deleted the whole section on the basis that a visit to a notable site by a notable individual does not make the visit itself notable. Such visits have no enduring historical significance or widespread impact. (cf. 1972 Nixon visit to China, 1895 visit of Emperor Franz Joseph to Zagreb and Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United Kingdom. Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor a collection of indiscriminate information. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 03:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Exhibitons[edit]

Part of the army has been exhibited in the Museum am Ostwall, Dortmund, Germany: "Jenseits der grossen Mauer,der 1. Kaiser von China und seine Terrakotta-Armee ; Ausstellung, Museum am Ostwall, Dortmund, 12. August bis 11. November 1990 ; eine Ausstellung der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Auslandsgesellschaft e.V., Auslandsinstitut Dortmund in Zusammenarbeit mit der Auslandsgesellschaft für Archäologische Ausstellungen der Provinz Shaanxi, Xi'an, Volksrepublik China, herausgegeben von Lothar Ledderose und Adele Schlombs, Katalog [Taschenbuch]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.164.193 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Parts of the army have been exhibited at a great many museums and galleries around the world. We are not going to list them all. Rincewind42 (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Emperor chariot[edit]

I live in riverside co.ca.U.S.A There is an chariot in a antique shop in an nearby city from china,& im wondering why this shop came to posses such an beautiful museum piece? Regards Kim Carpentier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.185.104.74 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please keep the discussion to issues relating to this article. Rincewind42 (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Organization of sections[edit]

Whoever that reorganized the different sections has made a complete mess of the page. Now the organization of the different sections is completely incoherent, full of randomly scattered sections - the Contruction section doesn't belong to History, the Weaponry doesn't belong to Excavation site, why is the Necropolis separate from the Tomb section by History, etc. etc. It's giving me a headache just to look at it, now I'm not sure how to recover and fix it. Hzh (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Exhibitions[edit]

An Exhibition of at least 23 items from the collection were displayed in Australia between December 1982 and September 1983. The Exhibition moved to five different Galleries in Australia: National Gallery of Victoria 22 December 1982 to 6 February 1983; Art Gallery of New South Wales 23 February 1983 to 24 April 1983; Queensland Art Gallery 4 May to 4 June; The Art Gallery of South Australia 15 June to 17 July; and The Art Gallery of Western Australia 3 August to 4 September. The Exhibition Tour was in Celebration of the 10th Anniversary of Diplomatic Relations between Australia and China. Source: [1]

References

  1. ^ Capon, Edmund, 1982. Qin Shihuang: Terracotta Warriors and Horses, Catalogue to the "Exhibition of the Terracotta Figures of Warriors and Horses of the Qin Dynasty of China", 2nd Edition,Wilke and Company Limited, Clayton, Victoria.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2015[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

References

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

External links modified[edit]

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.

☑Y 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[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2015[edit]

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)

  • Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
  • The current numbers are backed up by a source. If you want to update the numbers you must provide a new source that backs up your claims. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Construction[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2017[edit]

acrobats to aristocrats Words1011 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It actually was acrobats: Xian's terracotta acrobats. Stickee (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Terracotta Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

edit request[edit]

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)

Archaeologist attributed with the discovery of the army not mentioned in the article[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

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 "Weponry" section[edit]

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)