Thousands of figures, no two quite alike
Visitors to the pits are often struck by how individual the soldiers look. Faces differ in shape, moustaches and hairstyles vary, and some figures seem to have a distinct expression. The impression of portraiture is partly real and partly a product of the method. The figures were not each modelled from scratch, and they were not stamped out identically either. They were assembled from standard parts and then individualised by hand.
Most scholars describe this as a form of modular production. The details below come from studies of the figures and from the technical work of conservators, and some points, such as the number of moulds used, are still discussed.
How a figure was built
A typical warrior stands about 1.8 metres tall, with officers and generals somewhat taller. The general sequence is thought to have been as follows.
- Legs and base. The legs are generally solid, which helps carry the weight, and stand on a plinth.
- Torso. The torso was built hollow from coils or slabs of clay, joined to the legs. Armour, belts and clothing were added as separate pieces of clay or modelled directly.
- Head. Heads are commonly thought to have been made in moulds, often in two halves joined together, with ears, noses, hair and beards added by hand. A modest number of basic head forms seems to have been enough to produce the varied faces seen today.
- Arms and hands. Arms and hands were made separately and attached, and this is why their positions vary even when the bodies look similar.
All the parts were assembled while the clay was still workable, and the surfaces were smoothed and finely modelled. Then the figure was fired. The result is that two soldiers can share a mould for a head but differ in moustache, hairstyle, ears and expression, so that a visitor reads them as different people.
This is not a potters wheel technology, since the figures were hand-built and moulded rather than thrown. Their scale and finish nevertheless required careful control of clay, drying and firing so that large hollow forms did not crack.
Painted figures
The figures were originally brightly painted. A layer of lacquer was applied first, and mineral pigments went on top. Pigments reported by analysts include cinnabar red, malachite green and azurite blue, as well as a synthetic purple often called Han purple. When the pits were opened, the colours deteriorated quickly as the lacquer layer dried and flaked, which is why almost all the figures seen in museums today appear in the colour of grey fired clay. Conservation work has since tried to preserve surviving traces, and new finds are now treated much more carefully.
The paint matters because it changes the way the army should be imagined. Rather than a grey and sombre force, it was a multicoloured display, with varied clothing and perhaps meaningful colour distinctions between units. Reconstructions of the original colours remain partly speculative.
Marks that point to organisation
Many figures carry stamped or incised marks, often on hidden surfaces. Most are thought to be names or numbers of the makers or workshops. This fits what is known of Qin administration elsewhere: government work was often marked with the name of the person responsible, so that errors could be traced. A traditional phrase associated with the period describes inscribing the maker’s name to test the quality of the work.
These marks suggest the following about how the work was organised:
- Production was run by the state, probably with central workshops and also workshops attached to local administrations.
- Different craftsmen worked on groups of figures, and supervisors held responsibility for their quality.
- A division of labour existed: some workers prepared clay, others built bodies, others finished heads and details, and others painted.
The historian Sima Qian says that hundreds of thousands of conscripted labourers worked on the tomb. The number is probably an exaggeration, and it does not tell us how many were skilled craftsmen. What the figures themselves show is a system in which skilled specialists and a larger pool of labour were coordinated.
What the method says about Qin
The terracotta soldiers combine mass production with variety. That is consistent with the state described in other sources, where standard procedures, supervision and accountability were central. It also invites caution. Efficient organisation does not mean modern factory work. The figures vary in finish and in quality, and the pits show signs of different hands.
Other early cultures also made terracotta figures, but for different reasons and on a different scale. The Nok terracotta tradition of West Africa, for instance, produced striking heads and figures in a very different social setting. Looking at the wider world of ancient traditions of terracotta sculpture, the Qin army stands out for its scale and for the evidence of systematic organisation, not for being the only one of its kind.
Why the details matter
Understanding how the figures were made also helps with their care. Studies of clay, pigments and firing guide conservation, and they help to identify which fragments belong to which figure. As a case study in early technology, the army shows how a society with relatively simple tools could organise people to produce thousands of consistent objects.
Questions remain about how long the work took, how many workshops were involved and how the sculptors decided on the final faces. The answers will probably come from continuing analysis of the pits rather than from the written record, which says little about the craftsmen themselves.