The Emperors of China did not want their bodies to be alone in the afterlife, which resulted in the creation on Chinese Tomb Art. Chinese Tomb Art served a purpose to give the Emperors a home in the afterlife along with all the aspects from their lives that mattered to them such as servants, objects, wives, pets, guardians and food. All of these objects would be included with the burial of the Emperor. The Qin Shihuangdi tomb belonged to the first Emperor of China, Qin Shihuangdi who’s reign lasted from 221 BCE to 206 BCE. This short lived Empire introduced a lot to China such as standardization of currency, weights and measures and a single legal code. When he passed away, he was buried along with over 7,000 figures in his tomb. While pieces of his tomb are still being discovered today, the Terracotta Warriors were a huge part of his tomb occupying at least two of the three vaults of his tomb. Two prominent examples of the Terracotta Warriors were the armored kneeling archer and the armored general. These two pieces of art were similar and different in a few ways.
The armored kneeling archer and the armored general had a few similarities such as they were both armored and created the same way with similar features. Both of these figures wore armor that covered the shoulder and bodies of these warriors. This signifies that these warriors were valued in the eyes of the Qin Shihuangdi. Not all of the Terracotta warriors had armor on them, including certain archers, which explains there is a clear distinction between the sculptures that were armored and the sculptures that weren’t armored. Another similarity between the two figures were the way they were made. These figures were created starting from the feet and working up the body. The body parts were produced in bulk and then attached depending on the figure that was being built. Then they would be heated to make the figures. Both of these figures were painted but the paint has gone away after being buried for centuries. One feature that these figures have is that their faces are all different fro m each other. Each and every face of the Terracotta Warriors are unique despite the body structures being fairly similar depending the position of the warrior. These Terracotta warriors also did have weapons in their hands such as the infantryman that were equipped with their lances and crossbows. Despite some of similarities there are some differences between these figures.
These two figures have a few differences such as the number of figures, their positions, and their features. The number of figures found for each of these types of warriors are very different. There are thousands of the kneeling archers while only nine generals have been discovered so far. While the tomb hasn’t been completely excavated, this is still a huge difference. This shows how high of a rank the General was. The kneeling archer is kneeling while the general is standing. The archer is kneeling because they were kneeling during combat and that is why armor for the top half of their body was enough to protect since their bottoms halves were covered. The General’s position was standing to show the power he and his hands were put together to show that he did not participate in combat as a general. While the basic structure for the figures are similar, there are little features of the figures that lets any viewer know the position of the warrior. The hair of the archers was braided and arranged into a topknot. The hair of the general was put back and they wore a headdress to let people know who they were. The Generals had ribbons that showed their ranks while the Archer did not have any ribbons or indication of rank. The Generals had more distinctive features considering they had the highest rank. These were some of the differences between the two figures.
Hey Raj!
I think there are a lot of visual and contextual analysis done in detail, which is great. So I don’t think there is anything wrong with the quantity (hair, ribbon, paint, weapons, numbers, body parts, armors, etc) of the analysis. However, I feel that the analysis would be more substantial if there is a more challenging claim you are trying to prove. In this way, the analysis could go a step further. The current claim is that there are some similarities and some differences, which is true, but I think you could step up your game B)
For example, “each and every face of the Terracotta Warriors are unique despite the body structures being fairly similar depending the position of the warrior” – so the face is different from the body structures? What does this imply? Does this say anything about their methods of mass production? Is it effective? Is it good (in your opinion)? Does this respect the warriors’ individuality? Why do they differentiate the figures? Why am I asking so many questions? Am I digressing?
Okay, those questions might not be the right kind of questions, but I guess you could see where I was going with those. I just think digging deeper in your analysis might be interesting 🙂
Anyways, the rest are just minor grammar errors/ awkward phrasings so just proofread later on before you submit (or get your friend to proofread so you can have a fresh POV from them) and you’ll be good to go!
Thanks Christy for the good suggestions!
Good introduction, but it needs a lot of footnotes.
When you introduce the images, you also need to say (figure 1) and (figure 2).
Is this your thesis statement? “These two pieces of art were similar and different in a few ways.” As Christy points out, we need to find a small idea based on these similarities and differences.
Your idea might be hidden here: “This signifies that these warriors were valued in the eyes of the Qin Shihuangdi. Not all of the Terracotta warriors had armor on them, including certain archers, which explains there is a clear distinction between the sculptures that were armored and the sculptures that weren’t armored.”
Why are some armoured and some aren’t?
Is this section necessary?
“Another similarity between the two figures were the way they were made. These figures were created starting from the feet and working up the body. The body parts were produced in bulk and then attached depending on the figure that was being built. Then they would be heated to make the figures. Both of these figures were painted but the paint has gone away after being buried for centuries.”
You cannot include everything in your essay. Include what is relevant.
There is an idea hidden here as well: “Each and every face of the Terracotta Warriors are unique despite the body structures being fairly similar depending the position of the warrior.”
Here is another idea: “The Generals had more distinctive features considering they had the highest rank.”
Could you combine all three and show me a new thesis statement by tomorrow?
Where is your plan for the paper?
Your paragraphs also need lot’s of footnotes
Hello Sujatha,
Thank you very much for the feedback. This was very helpful. I have rewritten my thesis statement to be, “While these figures had their similarities and differences, its evident that there was a distinction in their rankings within the army based off of the looks of these figures.”
I have also included the footnotes that needed to be placed.
I was wondering if this these statement would be a stronger claim than what I had before.
It still consists of weak verbs:
“While these figures had their similarities and differences, its evident that there was a distinction in their rankings within the army based off of the looks of these figures.”
How about this?
While these figures share similarities in blah and blah, the differences in blah blah indicate a distinction in their rankings within the tomb army.
share and indicate are active verbs.
moreover, it is structured as a comparison.
so, the reader expects a paragraph on similarities and a paragraph on differences.