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.
