This spectacular terracotta figure of a standing
warrior belongs to a class of objects known as
‘mingqi,’ literally ‘spirit goods.’ These were items
buried with the dead to ensure that all their
social and material needs would be met in the
afterlife. Originally mingqi were fashioned from
expensive materials such as bronze or jade but
from the third century BC burial sculptures of
fired ceramic became more common. This was a
trend that lasted until the demise of the Tang
Dynasty when burial customs changed and
offerings were burnt in the belief that the smoke
would carry the essence of the goods to the next
world. The production of ceramic grave goods
created new opportunities for sculptors to
produce increasingly naturalistic and detailed
works of art.
This heavily armoured warrior was produced to
guard the deceased for eternity. Standing on a
plinth, he wears pointed boots and a helmet with
protective neck and ear flaps. A shield,
embellished with an animal mask and dancing
creatures, is supported in his left hand. His right
is positioned to hold a lance or spear that would
have been fashioned from a perishable material
such as wood. The facial features are striking,
especially the thick eyebrows and upturned
moustache. Modeled in the round, the detail of
the armour is equally impressive on both sides.
Considerable traces of the original red pigment
survive. Decorated with a technique known as
‘cold painting’, the warrior would have been
embellished with mineral pigments after firing.
These were applied over a white ground which is
now partly visible. In contrast to glazing, this
technique produced a more delicate and
naturalistic effect and the range of colours
available was more varied. The head of the
warrior was made separately and is removable.
Although never intended to be viewed by the
living, this piece is a supreme example of the
potter’s skill during the Eastern Wei period. (AM)
For a comparable example see, V. L. Bower,
‘From Court to Caravan: Chinese Tomb
Sculptures from the Collection of Anthony M.
Solomon,’ (New Haven and London, 2002), p. 93,
no. 20.
