This paper examines the Mausoleum of Qin Shi Huangdi, discovered in 1974 in China's Shaanxi province, with particular focus on the famous terracotta warrior figures. Drawing on art historian Ladislav Kesner's 1995 article in The Art Bulletin and a general overview from Planetware, the paper explores the central scholarly debate: were the terracotta warriors mass-produced, stereotyped figures, or intentional portraits of real soldiers from the First Emperor's army? The paper situates Kesner's argument within the New Historicism of the 1990s, considers the mortuary and religious functions of the figures, and ultimately concludes that while Kesner's thesis is philosophically intriguing, the preponderance of evidence favors the more conventional view of standardized, workshop production.
The paper models source comparison as an analytical strategy. By juxtaposing Kesner's close formal analysis of individual statues against the Planetware article's broader, more recent survey — and noting how each author's choice of accompanying images reflects their argument — the writer shows that how scholars present evidence is itself meaningful and subject to critique.
The paper opens with discovery context and a brief introduction of its two primary sources, then moves through Kesner's argument in detail — covering his theoretical framework, his reading of mortuary practice, and his formal analysis of the figures. The middle sections use specific quotations from Kesner to build and test his thesis. The final section introduces contradicting evidence from the more recent Planetware account and delivers a clear evaluative conclusion. The structure follows the sources' logic before stepping back to judge them.
In 1974, one of the greatest archaeological finds in the field of Chinese history was discovered in the Shaanxi province of Lintong. The structure was that of the burial chamber of the first Chinese emperor, Qin Shi Huangdi (r. 246–210 B.C.). The tomb was massive and sprawling, and according to a 2009 article on Planetware, uncovering its many treasures remains a work in progress ("Mausoleum of Qin Shi Huangdi: Terracotta Army," 2009). Ironically, the Mausoleum would never have been discovered at all had not some local peasants been digging for water — much like the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was also discovered entirely by chance.
The relatively recent nature of the discovery and the fact that the archaeological site is still under excavation may be one reason there is comparatively limited research on the topic. Some authors, such as the anonymous scholar on Planetware — a site devoted to discussing archaeological finds — take a strictly factual approach, while scholar Ladislav Kesner's 1995 article "Likeness of No One: (Re)presenting the First Emperor's Army," published in The Art Bulletin, attempts to contextualize what the work's symbolic and religious meaning would have meant to Chinese society during the time of the Mausoleum's construction.
Specifically, the figures known as the "terracotta army" — a series of warrior figures enclosed in the structure along with the dead emperor — fascinate Kesner. He argues that rather than being stereotyped and strictly symbolic figures, as they initially appear, the terracotta warriors are in fact meant to be realistic depictions of individual figures from the Chinese army of the time.
"Close to the tumulus which, according to historical accounts, should contain the tomb of the First Emperor itself, the terracotta army, situated in three subterranean pits, is the most conspicuous part of the entire burial compound, which also includes remains of a funerary precinct with auxiliary burials, sacrificial pits, and many other structures. According to the commonly accepted explanation, the underground army was created as a replica of the Qin army: clay soldiers and horses represent Qin Shi Huang's army and stand in place of the real soldiers who could not have been actually buried" with their master (Kesner 1995, p. 115). The symbolic function of these soldiers, some scholars believe, was to guard the corpse of the Emperor, much as the actual dead bodies of servants and attendants were interred with Egyptian pharaohs.
However, according to Kesner, questions and controversies still rage as to the nature of the figures' realistic depiction of the "real" Chinese army. Kesner notes that the majority of scholars point out "that the clay warriors' faces conform to a certain number of stereotypes" and are "unwilling to regard them as representations of individuals or to consider the Qin terracotta figures as portraiture" (Kesner 1995, p. 115). Kesner disagrees with this majority view and believes that the figures were likely intentional representations of real individuals. He contends that historical evidence suggests "that the figures were modeled after living soldiers, that they were actual portraits of individual warriors" (Kesner 1995, p. 115).
Kesner's article, although published in an art journal, reflects the New Historicism of the mid-1990s — a movement in literature and sociology that stressed the historical contextualization of works of art and emphasized the contradictions inherent in artistic representations rather than singular and linear meanings. He writes: "it is hoped that the current elusive and unsettled issues of portraiture, resemblance, construal of identity, and other related problems of theoretical interest can be enriched somewhat by attending to the ever more complex artistic tradition, which has been literally surfacing from Chinese soil in recent decades" (Kesner 1995, p. 115).
In contrast, the more general 2009 introductory article on Planetware states that "although the faces of the warriors show individual features, parts of the figures were probably mass-produced in large workshops" ("Mausoleum of Qin Shi Huangdi: Terracotta Army," 2009). Comparing the two articles, it is interesting to note the different images each author selects to illustrate their central point: Kesner chooses individual depictions of distinct statues, while the Planetware article's comment on the mass-produced nature of the terracotta army is accompanied by images showing legions of figures, seemingly innumerable in their similarity. Many of these figures are headless, a desecration that further underlines their sameness.
Kesner, as an art historian, disagrees with the common idea that the figures were mass-produced without reference to existing human beings, calling this a reductive assessment. He points out that the terracotta figures do not conform to typical earlier Chinese conventions of figure stereotyping or caricature. Simply because the figures do not conform to Western constructions of realism does not mean they fail to reflect what their crafters understood as individualized reality. The figures had a dual function: they protected the Emperor in a generalized way, but also had to represent reality in order to "defend" him in the actual afterlife — and thus had to be individualistic and replicate real figures from the army.
You’re 46% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 4 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.