As civilizations emerge, evolve, and then disappear in the ashes of time, they leave a range of artifacts behind as reminders of how fragile human life is and how fleeting the era of the human reign can be. Of all art pieces that civilization may leave behind, sculptures tend to be the most durable and, therefore, the easiest to use in the analysis of what a specific culture represented, what values it held, and what philosophies it promoted.
Unfortunately, even sculptures ten to dissipate, with their colors withering away, and their intended meaning gradually being destroyed. However, at ties, due to their scale and size, sculptures created by previous civilizations manage to retain their original form, thus, representing a unique opportunity to examine the life of the people that represented it much closer. The Terracotta Army is one of such artifacts, consisting of a myriad of smaller sculptures that were intended to represent the army of one of the monarchs ruling China at the time, specifically, Qin Shi Huang (Emmerling 2001).
Although the Terracotta Army has been preserved in relatively good shape, its meaning and function have been vastly misrepresented in the history of archeology. The specified misunderstanding proves the importance of using proper scientific tools for understanding the past civilizations, as well as the threat of misinterpreting the meaning of the artifacts, thus, creating a false narrative about the civilization in question.
Having become a proverbial case in the archeological community, the Terracotta Army has been used as an example of what must not be done during the performance of the archeological analysis and the assessment of the discovery. Surprisingly, errors were made at the very first stages of managing the archeological discovery, as the existing sources indicate (Quinn et al. 2017). Namely, due to the inaccuracies in the archeological analysis, proper measures were not undertaken to shield the art piece from the detrimental effects of microorganisms and changes in the weather conditions (Li et al. 2016). As a result, the statues displayed in the artwork lost a significant range of colors, having become quite bland, with multiple nuanced elements of their design having turned barely noticeable (Li et al. 2016).
Apart from affecting the aesthetic of the artwork, the described change has also contributed to a worse understanding of the differences between individual statues and the function that each played in the context of the sculpture as a whole. Moreover, constant exposure to poor weather conditions has increased the fragility of the statues, leading to their partial destruction (Li et al. 2016). Consequently, the specified failure to implement the archeological analysis properly and determine the requirements for storing the art pieces correctly has sealed their further fate.
Furthermore, the case of the terracotta Army demonstrates how important it is to keep on the path of logically coherent and critically measured analysis instead of shifting toward the application of a biased approach that promises groundbreaking results. Specifically, Martinón-Torres, Marcos, et al.’s (2014) paper indicates that the temptation to succumb to the use of pseudoscience as the lens through which the art piece is considered is quite alluring (Martinón-Torres et al. 2014).
Namely, by applying the described controversial strategy of assessing art pieces, one is likely to come across thee results that will oppose the established perceptions of ancient cultures and the significance that it possesses. Specifically, due to the exposure to media and the lack of control over the media responses to the discovery among scientists, myths associated with the artifact were combined with scientific evidence, thus, creating the breeding ground for pseudoscience to shape the perceptions of the target audiences. For instance, it has been rumored and then spread broadly across the media that the Terracotta Army was cursed, and that touching it would lead to a string of misfortunes (Martinón-Torres et al. 2014).
Since the myths about the Chinese culture and beliefs were mixed with the factually correct data in media, the former were planted into the minds of the global audience profoundly and securely, making it almost impossible to eradicate the specified misconceptions (Martinón-Torres et al. 2014). As a result, the case of the Terracotta Army exemplifies how dangerous and remarkably inefficient pseudoscience is when it comes to forming an opinion about a specific culture based on the evidence and artifacts that it has left.
Therefore, the case of the Terracotta Army demonstrates the importance of using scientific analysis and trusted tools for conducting the assessment of an artwork. Moreover, the situation described above serves as a caution against the idea of spreading and perpetuating myths about a specific artwork or the culture that created it. Although the process of examining the mythology surrounding an art piece is a fascinating tsk that engulfs research, leading to crucial discoveries concerning the culture in question, as well as its values and traditions, the myths about it have very little to do with the culture in question, which makes their effect range from neutral to downright harmful.
For instance, the focus of the threat of a curse that the Terracotta Army has been keeping has shifted the analysis of the cultural value of the artwork from its actual significance and its intended meaning to the realm of pseudoscience and misconstrued guesswork, thus, altering the public discourse. Manage the negative effects of the specified rumors about the curse ad the failure to nip them in the bud, it might take years, even with the advances that innovative IT and ICT tools, such as social media, provide (Carmichael 2018).
The reason behind the specified drop in the speed of the conversation between the general audience and the scientific community can be explained by the removal of the shock value and the sensation factor that the initial message concerning the possible curse had (Carmichael 2018). Therefore, the case of the Terracotta Army exemplifies how important it is to apply the scientific method both to the analysis of the art piece and the management of information about it, particularly, the data that circulates on social media.
Thus, the Terracotta Arm sculptures exemplify the situation in which the excitement about the discovery and the inability to control the information that was released in public concerning the art piece, archeologists failed to address the threat of pseudoscience affecting the perception of the piece by general audiences. As a result, the myths regarding the curse have added to the mystery of the item, contributing to its popularity, while simultaneously damaging its perception and, thus, its scientific and cultural value. Due to the overly zealous focus on the promotion of the discovery in media combined with the lack of control over how the Terracotta Army was represented, the actual historical meaning of the sculpture was replaced with a trivial mystery that did not even have any support rooted in the culture and traditions of the early Chinese empire.
Having been misread and misrepresented significantly throughout the history of its discovery and further analysis, the Terracotta Army exemplifies the importance of a proper archeological analysis and the accurate use of tools for evaluating the meaning and function of specific items belonging to past cultures. Although the Terracotta Army, which was initially supposed to embody the troops and, therefore, the military power of Qin Shi Huang, who was the Chinese emperor at the time, the specified artwork has been misconstrued due to the improper application of critical analysis and the relevant archeological tools.
As a result, the failure to understand the true meaning of the art piece and the significance that it represents for the archeological community has facilitated the misinterpretation of the specified art piece by the general audience. Consequently, the immediate introduction of pseudoscience into the public interpretation of the art piece and its meaning ensued, leading to the replacement of its true value as the remnant of the early Chinese civilization with the trivial idea of an artwork that contained a curse and brought misfortune onto those that touched or even saw it.
Thus, the case of the Terracotta Army exemplifies the necessity to control the information released to the public regarding the artifacts found during the archeological excavation of artifacts and the further recording of the information about them, including their history, value, and place in the culture in question. Therefore, to avoid similar confusion and misrepresentations in the future, archeologists must consider improving the communication framework within the team, as well as coordinate the data released into the public media, particularly, social networks.
Reference List
Carmichael, Stephen W. 2018. Why the Terracotta Army Foretold the Rise of the Chinese Empires. Microscopy Today 26.1: 8-11.
Emmerling, Erwin. 2001. Aims and Results of the Chinese-German Project for the Preservation of the Terracotta Army. Monuments and Sites 3: 16-18.
Li, Xiuzhen, et al. 2016. Marking Practices and the Making of the Qin Terracotta Army. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 42: 169-183.
Martinón-Torres, Marcos, et al. 2014. Forty Thousand Arms for a Single Emperor: From Chemical Data to the Labor Organization behind the Bronze Arrows of the Terracotta Army. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 21.3: 534-562.
Quinn, Patrick Sean, et al. 2017 Building the Terracotta Army: Ceramic Craft Technology and Organisation of Production at Qin Shihuang’s Mausoleum Complex. Antiquity 91.358: 966-979.