Miniature Tomb Figurines and Models in Pre-imperial and Early Imperial China: Origins, Development,...

This article was downloaded by: [Armin Selbitschka]On: 02 March 2015, At: 12:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

World ArchaeologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwar20

Miniature tomb figurines and models in pre-imperial and early imperial China: origins,development and significanceArmin Selbitschkaa

a Ludwig-Maximilians-University MunichPublished online: 27 Feb 2015.

To cite this article: Armin Selbitschka (2015) Miniature tomb figurines and models in pre-imperialand early imperial China: origins, development and significance, World Archaeology, 47:1, 20-44, DOI:10.1080/00438243.2014.991801

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2014.991801

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/00438243.2014.991801&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2015-02-27

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwar20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00438243.2014.991801

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2014.991801

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Miniature tomb figurines and models inpre-imperial and early imperial China:origins, development and significance

Armin Selbitschka

Abstract

Early Chinese tombs contain great quantities of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines as well asarchitectural models. Both kinds of miniatures are generally regarded as part of a single trajectory thatultimately substituted for human sacrifices. The purpose of it all was to create ‘underground homes’ so thatthe deceased could enjoy the amenities of their former lives in the hereafter. This understanding is largelybased on received literature and scattered archaeological finds. Through a detailed analysis of the earliestinstances of funerary sculptures, this article seeks to demonstrate that figurines and models at firstrepresented two different rationales. Later on, these converged into a new view of the afterlife, one thatsymbolized not only ‘underground homes’, but entire estates of an ever increasing number of landowners.Early Chinese tomb miniatures were thus instrumental in the formation of personalized, subterraneanmicrocosms, or private ‘little empires’.

Keywords

Early China; tombs; figurines; models; mingqi.

Introduction

In China, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic miniatures became an integral part of funerary ritesfrom the early fifth century BCE onwards. Human and animal figurines, as well as models ofvarious kinds of vehicles and edifices, populate many museum collections in astonishingquantities. Unsurprisingly, a substantial body of scholarly literature on the subject already exists(e.g. Berger 1998; Huang 2003, 225–7; Kuwayama 1987; Liu 2005a, 2005b; Wu 2005, 2006a,2011, 99–126). Scholars routinely draw on received literature in order to explain the origins ofthe practice of placing these objects in tombs. Two passages transmitted in the prescriptive

World Archaeology Vol. 47(1): 20–44 Miniaturization© 2015 Taylor & Francis ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375 online

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2014.991801

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

Records of Rites, or Liji (compiled c. the second century BCE) are highly influential in thisregard. According to the first one, Confucius (trad. 551–479 BCE) supposedly said:

When one approaches the dead and treats them as if [they were absolutely] dead, this is notbenevolent and must not be done; when one approaches the dead and treats them as if [theywere still living], this is unwise and must not be done. Hence … ceramic [objects placed intombs] may not entirely hold water and wooden [items] may not be completely carved. …We call such artifacts ‘luminous objects’ (mingqi) because the spirits are able to clearlyperceive them.

(Kong 2008, 305)

Here, the master pronounced that burial objects ought to be without practical function, assupernatural beings were satisfied by the mere presence of such items. To his mind, the residentsof the netherworld had no intention of actually using the deposited goods. Appearances,apparently, were enough. In a second paragraph, the sage elaborated on the so-called mingqiconcept:

Those employing luminous objects already know the [proper] way of mourning as theyprepare goods that cannot be used. Alas! Accompanying the dead with objects used by theliving, is there not the danger of resorting to human sacrifices? [The things] that we callluminous objects are clearly [visible] to the spirits. Clay chariots and straw figures haveexisted since ancient times. They are the way of luminous objects! … Those who make strawfigures (chu ling) [are acting] well … those who rely on figurines (yong) are inhumane. Isthere not the danger of using human beings [instead]?

(Kong 2008, 377)

Again, the master stressed the functional inefficacy of burial goods. To his mind it was only asmall step from interring authentic objects to entombing human beings. Consequently, hedismissed lifelike figurines (yong) in favour of straw figures (chu ling).

These two quotes, along with some supplementary passages referring to ‘luminous objects’(or ‘spirit objects’, ‘brilliant artefacts’) scattered in a few third through first-century BCE texts,cemented the modern understanding of early Chinese tomb miniatures. The term mingqi becamesynonymous with grave deposits that served no obvious practical purpose, chief among whichare figurines and models (e.g. Guo 2010; Kesner 1995, 116; Liu 2005a, 2005b; Wu 2006b,2011, 87–99). Following Confucius’ authoritative voice, such items were devised sometimebetween the sixth and fifth centuries BCE to appease (or dupe?) the visual senses of the spirits.The master was not so much worried about the supernatural world as he was concerned aboutthe ethics of the living. He considered mortuary rites that cut too close to real life a gateway tothe cruel human sacrifices of ancient times. Indeed, almost all authors accept that tomb figurineshad by then replaced human sacrifice (e.g. Dien 1987, 3; Hu 1987, 25; Huang 1990, 155, 247;Lai 2002, 140–3; Wen and De 1998, 48; Wu 2005, 15–16, 2006a, 43, 2011, 100; morecautiously Rawson 1999, 10; Thote 1999, 196).

Although the emergence of mortuary miniatures has been related to early Confucian morals,recent descriptions of their functions go beyond this rather simplistic perspective. Largelyinformed by analyses of Qin Shihuang’s famous life-sized terracotta warriors, scholars have

Miniature tomb figurines and models in China 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

viewed scaled-down tomb figurines and models as constituting elements of undergroundmicrocosms. These recreated the necessities and amenities of real life for the deceased occu-pants to enjoy in the netherworld (e.g. Kesner 1995, 131; Rawson 1996–7, 33–4, 2002; Wu2005, 46, 2006a, 74–6, 2011, 115, 118). The point is well taken. However, it is not entirelyclear how far such alternative universes extended. Burials below the imperial or royal level thatlacked additional pits housing armies, entertainers and so forth are usually said to be ‘under-ground homes’.

By tracing the development of early Chinese tomb miniatures for the first time in some detail,I will argue that the introduction of architectural models brought a new element into play. Theirappearance coincided with a period of a dramatic increase in private landownership. Thus, tomboccupants (and/or their descendants) were no longer content with symbolic residences. Insteadthey represented the scope of their entire operations by including miniature houses, courtyards,workshops or fields. It will be shown that – contrary to the general perception – figurines andarchitectural models were essentially manifestations of two different developments. Finally,contextualizing miniatures with information provided by excavated manuscripts will facilitate amore nuanced understanding of the underground home. Such burials were not referring toabodes in the abstract but were instead depictions of specific households.

My arguments are based on a comprehensive analysis of data that are available throughpublished excavation reports. Table 1 lists only the very first examples of anthropomorphicfigurines yielded by tombs dating from the early eighth to early third centuries BCE. From thethird century onwards, the sites providing such finds are too numerous to recount. At firstrestricted to burials of the Chu cultural sphere (Thote 1999; on Chu, Cook and Major 1999;Falkenhausen 2003), i.e. roughly Hubei, Hunan, Anhui, and Jiangsu (Figure 1), effigies becamecommon throughout the early Han Empire (206 BCE–220 CE) by the first century BCE (e.g.Gansu 1972, 13–14; Guangzhou 1958, 38; Sichuan 1982, 11). Similarly, Table 2 gathers merelythe earliest instances of architectural models starting from the early seventh century BCE untilthe time they began to spread by the mid-second century BCE. However, the evidence underconsideration extends to the third century CE. The column ‘Number of tombs’ in Table 2requires some explanation. From left to right, the figures denote the total numbers of burialsthat were, a) documented at a cemetery, b) actually excavated and c) published. The fact that thelatter sometimes are comparably few relates to the way data are presented in Chinese excavationreports. Usually, high-quality finds and features are selected for publication. Inevitably, obtain-able evidence and, in turn, secondary scholarship such as this article focus largely on the higherechelons of society (Selbitschka, forthcoming).

Origins and development

As Table 1 illustrates, the relative lack of evidence for pre-imperial miniatures hampers any kindof definitive conclusions on the origins and early development of figurines as grave goods. Itappears as if people first started to bury fairly large wooden anthropomorphic figurines on thewestern outskirts of the so-called Central Plain (zhongyuan), the heartland of Chinese civiliza-tion along the lower reaches of the Yellow River. Since a void of 300 years separates these earlyeighth and the early fifth century BCE finds on the eastern margins of the plain, an evolutionarytrajectory is hard to maintain. Besides, the younger items could not differ more in size, material

22 Armin Selbitschka

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

Table1Listof

theearliestanthropo

morph

icfigu

rinesyieldedby

Chinese

tombs

know

nto

date

Tomb

Publication

Date

Anthropom

orphic

(w=wood;

allelse:ceramic)

Height

anthropomorphic

figure

Zoomorphic

Hum

ansacrifice

Shanxi,Yicheng,Dahekou

M1

KG

2011.7:10.

LateWZhou-earlyCQ

(early

eighth

c.BCE)

2w

(eachon

theback

ofaturtle)

Not

disclosed

No

Shaanxi,Hancheng,

Liangdaicun

M502

WW

2010.6:15–16.

LateWZhou(early

eighth

c.BCE)

4w

(movable

arms)

100cm

No

Shaanxi,Longxian,

Bianjiazhuang

M5

WW

1988.11:

23.

Early

CQ

(early-m

ideighth

c.BCE)

2w

(drew

thechariot)

80cm

1real

(?)chariot

No

Shaanxi,Fengxiang,Gaozhuang

M10

KGYWW

1981.1:21.

LateCQ

(early

fifthc.

BCE)

2cer.Chariot

wheels

Yes

(?)

Shandong,

Linzi

LDM4

LinziQimu:

58.

Early

ZG

(early

fifthc.

BCE)

18dancersandmusicians

c.8–10cm

6horses

Yes

Shandong,

Linzi

LDM5

LinziQimu:

86.

Early

ZG

(early

fifthc.

BCE)

1kneelin

gmale

6.1cm

Yes

Shandong,

Linzi

LDM6

LinziQimu:

101,

116.

Early

ZG

(early

fifthc.

BCE)

2(4?)

female(?)

8cm

Yes

Shandong,

Linzi

LZM2

LinziQimu:

320–

1.KG

2000.10:

57–8.

Early

ZG

(early

fifthc.

BCE)

1male

57cm

10horses/fow

lYes

Shandong,

Linzi,Xindian

M2

KG

2013.1:52–3.

Early

ZG

(early

fifthc.

BCE)

4kneelin

gmusicians

10robed

individuals

7.5–8.2cm

5dogs

4horses

Yes

Shandong,

Tai’an,

Kangjiahe

M1

KG

1988.1:45–6.

Early

ZG

(early

fifthc.

BCE)

5musicians

5.0–6.5cm

1pig3deer

4geese1duck

No

Shanxi,Changzi

M7

KGXB

1984.4:514.

Early

ZG

(early

fifthc.

BCE)

4w/clayfaces

68cm

Yes

Henan,Xinyang,ChangtaiguanM1

Xinyang

Chu

mu:

59–6

0Mid-latefifthc.

BCE

11w

65–8

5cm

No

Henan,Xinyang,ChangtaiguanM7

WW

2004.3:38.

Mid-latefifthc.

BCE

1w

65cm

No

Hubei,Suizhou,LeigudunM1

(MarquisYiof

Zeng)

ZenghouYi

mu:

383.

433

BCE

1w.head

5.5cm

Yes

Anhui,Bailuzhou

M585

WW

2012.11:

29.

Mid-ZG

(early

fourth

c.BCE)

14wwith

clay

head

(dim

ens.headsonly)

10.7–1

2.5cm

No

Hunan,Changsha,

Mayishungang

M1

KG

2003.4:66.

Mid-ZG

(early

fourth

c.BCE)

2w

84.6cm

No

Shandong,

Linzi,ZhaojiaxuyaoM2

KG

2005.1:38–43.

Mid-ZG

(early

fourth

c.BCE)

23standing

5femaledancers5kneelin

g(3

female,

2male)

6.7–9.8cm

7horses

9geese

No

Shandong,

ChangdaoM10

KGXB

1993.1:66

–7.

Mid-ZG

(early

fourth

c.BCE)

28musicians

anddancers

5–11cm

5pigs

No

Shanxi,Changzhi,Fenshuilin

gM14

KGXB

1957.1:116.

ZG

18musicians

anddancers

5cm

1felin

eNo

Shaanxi,Fengxiang,Baqitu

nBM103

WWZLCK

3(1980):74

–5.

Mid-ZG

(early

fourth

c.BCE)

2ceramic/woodoxcarts

12cm

(2model

granaries)

No


nBM27

WWZLCK

3(1980):75.

Mid-ZG

(early

fourth

c.BCE)

(4ceramic

lithophones)

No

Shaanxi,Gaolin

gyierGongsiM10

KGYWW

2006.3:12.

Mid-ZG

(early

fourth

c.BCE)

114.3cm

1horse

No

Shaanxi,Gaolin

gyierGongsiM65

KGYWW

2006.3:12.

Mid-ZG

(early

fourth

c.BCE)

11.2cm

1bovine

No

Shaanxi,Gaolin

gyierGongsiM54

KGYWW

2006.3:12.

Mid-ZG

(early

fourth

c.BCE)

1snake

No

(con

tinued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

Table1(Con

tinued)

Tomb

Publication

Date

Anthropom

orphic

(w=wood;

allelse:ceramic)

Height

anthropomorphic

figure

Zoomorphic

Hum

ansacrifice

Shaanxi,Gaolin

gyierGongsiM40

KGYWW

2006.3:13.

Mid-ZG

(early

fourth

c.BCE)

5.5cm

2birds

No

Shaanxi,Gaolin

gyierGongsiM44

KGYWW

2006.3:13.

Mid-ZG

(early

fourth

c.BCE)

2oxcartswith

4individuals

12cm

No

Hubei,Jiangling,

MashanM2

JHKG

1987.3:33–4.

Mid-ZG

(early

fourth

c.BCE)

26w

(mostdressed)

56–6

8cm

No

Shaanxi,Xianyang,

ShiyouM28057

Taerpo

Qin

mu:

50,figs41

and125.

KGYWW

1996.5:8.

Mid-lateZG

(early

fourth–

earlythirdc.

BCE)

2riders

onhorseback

22and22.5cm

No

Hubei,Jiangling,

MashanM1

JianglingMashanyi

haoQin

mu:

80–2.

WW

1982.10:

4–5.

Mid-lateZG

(early

fourth–

earlythirdc.

BCE)

4w

female(dressed)4w

male

(lacquered)

57.5–6

0.5cm

No

Notes

JHKG

=JiangHan

kaog

u;KG

=Kao

gu;KGXB=Kaogu

xuebao;KGYWW

=Kao

guyu

wenwu;

WW

=Wenwu;

WWZLCK

=Wenwuzilia

ocongkan.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

and subject matter. The early tall wooden figurines are strongly reminiscent of symbolic guardsor servants. The slightly clumsily modelled and painted tiny pottery miniatures depict scenes ofeveryday life: entertainment and livestock (Fig. 2). In the subsequent two and a half centuries,lacquered wooden human figures were largely restricted to high-ranking Chu tombs, whilezoomorphic figurines, apart from the occasional riding horses, were usually absent (e.g. Hunan2000, 395–400; Hubei 1984, 108–9). This southern Chinese tradition seems to be without direct

Figure 1 Map of the Chinese cultural realm, around the late fifth century BCE. From, Thote (2006, 58).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

Table2Listof

theearliestarchitectural

modelsyieldedby

Chinese

tombs

know

nto

date

Typesof

models

Tomb

Publication

Datemodels

Num

berof

tombs

Tombs

with

models

Granary

Stove

Well

Other

miniature

Shaanxi,Longxian,

Dianzi

LongxianDianziQin

mu,

102–6.

Startlate

seventhc.

BCE

308/287/71

2831

Shaanxi,Baoji,

Rujiazhuang

KG

1979.5:410.

Early

fifthc.

BCE

90/90/4

33

Shaanxi,Wugong,

ZhaojialaiM5

KG

1996.12:

47.

Early

fifthc.

BCE

?/20/4

11


KGYWW

1981.1:20

and36.

Early

fifthc.

BCE

?/47/10

43

Zhejiang,ShaoxingM306

WW

1984.1:16–1

7.Post473

BCE

?/?/?

11bronze

house

w/music

fig.


nBM103

WWZLCK

3(1980):

74–5.

Early

fourth

c.BCE

?/40/4

12

2oxcarts


M7

KGYWW

1981.1:21

and38.

Mid-third

c.BCE

?/47/10

41

Shaanxi,Lintong,Shangjiaocun

KGYWW

1980.2:49.

Latethirdc.

BCE

17/8/8

22

Shaanxi,Xi’an,Longshoucun

M2

KG

2002.5:35

–6.

Latethirdc.

BCE

18/2/2

17

1Shaanxi,Xi’an,Jingsiercun

KGYWW

2009.4:7–8.

Latethirdc.

BCE

?/9/4

42

3Shaanxi,Baoji,

Goujialin

gKGYWW

2012.1:4–10.

Latethirdc.

BCE

10/6/3

44

Jiangsu,

Xuzhou,

HouloushanM1

WW

1993.4:37.

Late3thirdc.

BCE

8/8/2

22

11

14figures

Jiangsu,

Xuzhou,

HouloushanM8

KG

2006.4:25

–6.

Latethirdc.

BCE

8/8/2

22

11

Guangdong,Guangzhou

Guangzhou

Han

mu,

127–

8.Latethirdc.

BCE

182(collect.)

22

1

Gansu,Wushan,

Donghanping

KG

2003.6:39

and40.

Latethirdc.

BCE

?/37/5

22

Hubei,Suizhou,Kongjiapo

M10,

M16

SuizhouKongjiapo

Han

mu

jiandu,

3–38.

Latethirdc.

BCE

?/16/4

32

Hubei,Yunmeng,

ShuihudiM1

KG

1981.1:43.

Latethird–

_earlysecond

c.BCE

77?/28/6

21

3human

figures

Hubei,Jiangling,

GaotaiM5

Jingzhou

GaotaiQin

Han

mu,

12–2

1.Latethirdc.

−157

BCE

44/44/11

31

1

Hubei,Jiangling,

GaotaiM2

Jingzhou

GaotaiQin

Han

mu,

22–8.

Latethirdc.

−157

BCE

44/44/11

31

28human

figures

Hubei,Jiangling,

Jingzhou,

Yueshan

KGXB2000.4:561–

2.Latethird–

late

firstc.

BCE

46/46/5

2420

213

Hubei,Jiangling,

Guanju,

Xiejiaqiao

M1

WW

2009.4:32–3.

184

BCE

1/1/1

11(contained

rice)

1?human

figure

1oxcart

1se

zither

Hubei,Jiangling,

Zhangjiashan

M336

WW

1992.9:6–8.

173–

167

BCE

258/6/6

21

124

human

figures

6an

imal

figures

1chariot

1boat

Hubei,Jiangling,

Zhangjiashan

M127

WW

1992.9:6–8.

Early

second

c.BCE

258/6/6

21

4hum

anfigures

1oxcart

Jiangsu,

Xuzhou,

Fenghuangshan

M1

KG

2007.4:38

–40.

Early

second

c.BCE

5/5/5

12

11

Jiangsu,

Xuzhou,

ZifangshanM2

WWZLCK

4(1981):61.

Early-m

idsecond

c.BCE

3/3/3

11

11

150hu

man

figures

Shaanxi,Xi’an

(east.suburbs)

M3

WW

2004.6:7.

179–

157

BCE

10/1/1

11

1Shaanxi,Fufeng,

ZhibaiM2

WW

2010.10:

46–8.

179–

157

BCE

18/18/1

11

3human

figures

5an

imal

figures

(con

tinued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

Table2(Con

tinued)

Typesof

models

Tomb

Publication

Datemodels

Num

berof

tombs

Tombs

with

models

Granary

Stove

Well

Other

miniature

Hubei,Jiangling,

Fenghuangshan

M167

WW

1976.10:

33–4.

167

BCE

29?/16/4

31(contained

millet)

154

human

figures

10anim

alfigures

2chariots

1oxcart

1boat

Hubei,Jiangling,

Fenghuangshan

M8

WW

1974.6:48–9.

179–

141

BCE

29?/16/4

31(contained

rice)

144

human

figures

7anim

alfigures

1chariot

1oxcart

1boat

Hubei,Jiangling,

Fenghuangshan

M10

WW

1974.6:48–9.

179–

141

BCE

29?/16/4

31

13human

figures

Hubei,Jiangling,

GaotaiM24

Jingzhou

GaotaiQin

Han

mu,

61–2.

156–

142

BCE

44/44/11

31

Hubei,Suizhou,Kongjiapo

M8

WW

2001.9:24.

142

BCE

?/16/4

31

6human

figures

3horses

1chariot

Hubei,Jianglin

g,Jinan,

SongboM1

WW

2008.4:26–7.

c.141

BCE

4/4/1

11

14human

figures

Shaanxi,Xianyang,

202suoM5

KGYWW

2006.1:7.

Latesecond

c.BCE

5?/5/3

11

Guangdong,Guangzhou

Guangzhou

Han

mu,

222–

7.Latesecond

c.BCE

64(collect.)

2416

1923

9houses

Shandong,

Weishan,Muqiancun

KG

1995.11:

999–1000.

Latesecond

c.BCE

8/1/1

32

22

3pigsties

Shandong,

Weishan,Weishandao

KG

2009.10:

31–3.

Startlate

second

c.BCE

44/44/9

?26

1819

23pigsties

Jiangxi,Nanchang,

Xianshihu

KGXB1976.2:176–

7.Latesecond

c.BCE

?/13/3

41

3houses

Jiangsu,

Xuzhou,

DagushanM2

KG

2009.4:44

–6.

Latesecond

c.BCE

2?/2?/1

12

22

2pigsties

Jiangsu,

Xuzhou,

JiuliM1

KG

1994.12:

1095.

141–

87BCE

2/2/2

23

21pigsty

Jiangsu,

Xuzhou,

JiuliM2

KG

2004.9:47

–8.

141–

87BCE

2/2/2

21

11

Shandong,

Linyi,Jinqueshan

(excavated

in1973)

KG

1975.6:367.

141–

87BCE

16/14/5

22

1

Neimenggu,

Guangyangucheng

WW

1977.5:28.

141–

87BCE

18/18/1

11

Sichuan,Mianyang,

Shuangbaoshan

M2

MianyangShuangbaoshanHan

mu,

49–143.WW

1996.10:

13–2

9.

141–

87BCE

2/2/2

12

2102human

figures

72equine

figures

30bovinefigures

13chariots

1house

1bell

Sichuan,Wushan,

Maituoshan

KGXB1999.2:177.

136–

118

BCE

69/19/2

22

Gansu,Qin’an,

Shangyuanjia

KGXB1997.1:69–7

0and78.

141–

49BCE

6/6/2

33

Notes

KG

=Kao

gu;KGXB=Kaogu

xuebao

;KGYWW

=Kaogu

yuwenwu;

WW

=Wenwu;

WWZLCK

=Wenwuzilia

ocongkan.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

precedents when judged from material, stylistic and thematic perspectives. As far as the latter isconcerned, servant statuettes figure most prominently in the respective tomb assemblages, yet alimited number of armed figurines, such as the ten wooden men carrying wooden swords foundin Baoshan Tomb No. 2 (dated 316 BCE), might have conceptually anticipated the FirstEmperor’s warriors (e.g. Hubei 1991, 254–6). Nonetheless, the life-sized figurines and thescope of his army were unparalleled. Despite some rather small pottery figurines in the materialremains of the Qin state, the First Emperor’s funerary sculpture seems to have come out ofnowhere (Ledderose 2000, 57; Nickel (2013) has suspected origins in classical antiquity).Succeeding generations of Western Han (206 BCE–9 CE) emperors, kings and high-rankingnobility in principle followed in his footsteps, albeit on a smaller scale. A multitude of ancillarypits surround many of their burial mounds containing vast armies of circa 50cm-tall soldiers,grooms (sometimes accompanied by actual horse skeletons), entertainers or herds of livestock(e.g. Shaanxi 1966; Shaanxi 2008, 9–14; Wang and Wu 1976, 131).

Material preferences depended upon three factors: location, time and quantity. Wood and clayremained in use throughout the Western Han. In the early decades of the empire, wood waspredominantly employed south of the Yangzi River for tombs below the royal level (Hunan 1973,97–100). Members of the imperial family resorted to pottery even in the south simply because massproduction was easily facilitated. For instance, the king of Chu’s looted rock-cut tomb at Beidongshanin Jiangsu province still housed 430 painted ceramic figurines (dated 129 BCE: Xuzhou 2003, 61–100). The necessary techniques had been perfected at the imperial capital Chang’an, where kilns (e.g.Zhou and Wang 1985; Zhongguo 1994) churned out massive quantities of zoomorphic and anthro-pomorphic pottery figurines for imperial funerals (e.g. Shaanxi 2008). The advantages of ceramicproduction – a high volume of finely crafted objects in a short amount of time – certainly contributedto the fact that sooner or later all figurines consisted of fired clay.

The other kinds of miniature of interest to us are architectural models. There are occasional finds ofceramic and wooden vehicles such as chariots, oxcarts and boats, but these were almost exclusivelyrelated to human and animal figurines and thus parts of respective tableaux (Tables 1 and 2). Roundceramic model granaries with pointed roofs (Fig. 3) emerged sometime between the late seventh andlate sixth century BCE from tomb assemblages of the pre-imperial Qin polity in modern-day Shaanxi

Figure 2 Ceramic dancer figurine (height 7.6cm) from Zhaojiaxuyao Tomb No. 2, Linzi, Shandongprovince (c. early fourth century BCE). From Linbo (2005, 42, fig. 11.3).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

(Table 2; Falkenhausen 2004, 132). It took about four centuries until the typological repertoire waswidened. A few ceramic miniature stoves (Fig. 4) from at least three late third-century BCE cemeteriesin Shaanxi hint at a linear development in that specific cultural milieu. Yet the small number of findsand their vague dates are nothing more than circumstantial indicators. Table 2 tells us, though, that thecustom quickly spread after the empire had been established. Either alone or in combination, miniaturegranaries, stoves and wells (Fig. 5) became familiar sights in the mortuary rites of the social elite.Comparable to figurines, ceramic models – a small number of wooden or bronze items are known aswell (e.g. Guangzhou 1957, 26–8; Guangxi 1972, 26; Table 2) – are restricted to well-equippedburials. Table 2 further indicates the next phase of the development. Once granaries, stoves and wellshad been fairly well established, miniature houses and pigsties began to complement tomb inventoriesaround the mid-second century BCE. By the mid- through late Eastern Han (23–220 CE) a wide varietyof buildings was popular across the country. They ranged fromworkshops through fortified courtyardsto multi-storied towers and paddy fields (e.g. Erickson 2010, 76; Guo 2010, 15–137; Luo 2003).

Artisanal detail

To reiterate, human beings and architecture were miniaturized. Yet artisanal details have beentouched upon only in passing. Servants, dancers or acrobats are recognizable as such because oftheir body posture. Servants, for example, are either kneeling or standing. Some fold their handson the abdomen or breast, while others extend their forearms in serving gestures. The bodies are

Figure 3 Ceramic model of a round granary with pointed roof (height 23.6cm) from Tomb No. 252 atDianzi, Longxian, Shaanxi province (late seventh century BCE). From Shaanxi (1998, 105, fig. 78.1).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

covered by long robes that were either physically sculpted or tailored from intricately embroi-dered silk fabric (Fig. 6). The same effect was accomplished through lacquer paint on three-dimensional clothes carved from a single piece of timber or pigment colour on garmentsmodelled in clay (Fig. 7). Both kinds of technique were utilized to convey more specificattributes or accessories. In a few pre-imperial tombs of the Chu culture, elaborate paintedpendants are dangling from the belts of lacquered wooden attendants (e.g. Jiangling 1989, 46–7;Hubei 1999, 12–13). In the same area, we find quite a few pierced earlobes or real hair onwooden effigies (Hubei 1984, 108–9; Figs 6 and 8). Weapons that identify their carriers assoldiers or guards were applied in colour directly onto the bodies of the figurines or producedseparately. Wooden shields, swords, lances and halberds count among the most common arms,whereas bows, arrows and crossbows appear less frequently (e.g. Nanjing 1987). Likewise, theinstruments of musicians, e.g. ceramic drums and lithophones in early Shandong burials(Table 1) or zithers, flutes and mouth-organs in Western Han tombs, were minutely executed,but non-functional, miniatures (e.g. Hunan 1954, 29, 1973, 97–100, 2000, 399–400).

Some wood and ceramic figurines are missing arms. The fact that most of them were naked atthe time of excavation suggests that they originally wore clothing and that the upper limbs weremade from perishable materials. The exposed bodies could take two forms: from barelysuggesting hominid shape (Fig. 8) to realistically rendering human anatomy. Interestingly,

Figure 4 Ceramic stove model depicting a figurine tending fire, a figurine scooping water, a dog crouchingin front of the fire hole, a gecko on the wall and a pot containing a turtle. The item was recovered fromKongwuling Tomb No. 1, Guigang, Guangxi province (late second century CE). From Guangxi (2005, 47,fig. 6.6).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

coarse outlines are reserved for wooden statuettes. Ceramic figurines, in turn, might even showgenitalia. Or not, as the explicitly removed penises of eunuchs in an ancillary pit of EmperorJing’s (r. 157–141 BCE) tumulus demonstrate (Jiao 2006, 54; Ma and Li 2005). Regardless ofwhether artisans barely finished or intricately fashioned the body, they always took great painscarefully to depict facial features and hair. Be it through apparel, body parts or countenance, astrong concern for realism is quite obvious. This observation has prompted Ladislav Kesner tospeculate on whether figurines were fashioned after specific living individuals, a reading that heultimately rejected for lack of conclusive inscriptions (2007, 44).

Figure 5 Ceramic well model (height 13.2cm) including pyramid roof (originally supported by fourwooden posts) from Tomb No. 8 at Huanghuagang, Guangzhou, Guangdong province (late second centuryCE). From Guangzhou (2004, 468, fig. 14.5).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

The large quantities and wide typological variety of architectural models precludes acomprehensive account of structural minutiae. Nevertheless, the following examples suf-fice to illustrate that craftsmen again strove for verisimilitude. Some granaries reproducedthe tall stilts of actual buildings. Many such structures exhibit conical extensions at thetop, a feature that was supposed to prevent rodents from pilfering crops from real store-houses. Cooking stoves consist of a fire chamber, a chimney and the stove top, on whichsteamers and pots were placed. Selected items show an anthropomorphic sculpture tendingkindling inside the fire chamber. Other artefacts provide glimpses into local cuisine as wefind fish (and cooking tools) impressed on the stove top surfaces or the occasional turtleinside a vessel (Fig. 4). A number of square enclosures housed sows, with sucklingpiglets, and a small building. At times a hole in the elevated floors of such sheds opensinto the pit below. On rare occasions, a human sculpture squatting over the cavity explainsthat we are indeed looking at latrines-cum-pigsties. Larger residential courtyards mayshow scenes of everyday life as well. Their gates are defended by armed personnel,while figures surrounded by kneeling servants safely sit in the interior (e.g. Selbitschka(Xie) 2010: 178–84).

Figure 6 Lacquered wooden female figurine with human hair clothed in an embroidered silk robe (height 57.5–60.5cm) from Tomb No. 1 at Mashan, Hubei province (c. 340–278 BCE). From Hubei (1985, 81, fig. 66).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

Archaeological context

Figurines and model vehicles appear within tomb assemblages as parts of clusters of specificobjects or deposited together with other statuettes. The latter was, for instance, the case in TombNo. 168 at Fenghuangshan near Jiangling, Hubei province (dated 167 BCE). Its wooden chamberwas divided into three compartments, one of which accommodated the 60-year-old maleoccupant’s two nested coffins, another segment housed beverage and food containers and thethird section contained 50 lacquered wooden figurines. These comprised farmworkers holdingspades and other tools, soldiers carrying bamboo swords and attendants. In addition, the gravecontained two model chariots, an oxcart and a rowing-boat (Hubei 1993, 484–9). In the easternand southern compartments of Mawangdui Tomb No. 1 (dated 168 BCE) a large retinue ofattendants accompanied foodstuff stored in vessels. In the northern section, a banquet scene wasrecreated. The setting involved an actual seating area (consisting of a bamboo mat, a lacquerscreen and an armrest), a real lacquer tray (laden with lacquer plates, cups, bamboo skewers)and a group of miniature wooden musicians and dancers encircled by servants (Fig. 9).

Figure 7 Lacquered wooden female servant figurine wearing a painted silk robe (height 42cm) from TombNo. 168 at Fenghuangshan, Hubei province (d. 167 BCE). From Hubei (1993, 489, fig. 31.4).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

Tracing the position of architectural models in tombs reveals that granaries, stoves and wellswere at first exclusively related to sustenance. All early objects listed in Table 2 were combinedwith food and/or beverage vessels. This did not change throughout most of the Western Han

Figure 8 Female wooden figurine with roughly prepared body, painted (lacquer) facial features and humanhair (height 54.6cm) from Tomb No. 354 at Yutaishan, Hubei province (early-mid fourth century BCE).From Hubei (1984, 115, fig. 91.4).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

period (e.g. Hubei 1993, 495; Shandong 1975, 367). When further miniatures, such as housesand towers, started to emerge towards the end of the Western Han, the arrangements began tospread out. Granaries, stoves and wells still remained affiliated with food and drink containers,

Figure 9 Arrangement of lacquered wooden figurines from Mawangdui Tomb No. 1 (168 BCE). Northerncompartment: seating area consisting of a bamboo mat (no. 449), a lacquer screen (no. 447) and an armrest(no. 445); lacquer tray and contents (no. 382); musician, dancer and servant figurines (eastern part of thecompartment). Additional figurines in association with food and beverage containers were found in theeastern and southern compartments. From Hunan (1973, 36, fig. 36).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

but various kinds of farm buildings, livestock and workshops were now added. Burials thatyielded residential structures were usually larger in scope and presented several chambers(Fig. 10; Beijing 1977, 377; Hunan 1980).

In general, figurines and architectural models surface from burials of the social elite. Thestatus of tomb occupants determined the absolute number of figurines and the variety of rolesthey represented. Highly complex tomb structures such as those of the imperial family encom-passed several hundred or even thousands of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic statuettes whilethe rather modest wooden chamber of a local official interred in Tomb No. 11 at Shuihudi,Hubei province (d. 217 BCE), for example, accommodated two figurines, one carriage and threehorses (Yunmeng 1981, 8, 52–3). The same is true for architectural models; the larger and more

Figure 10 Location of ceramic models from the brick chamber Tomb No. 8 at Huanghuagang, Guangzhou,Guangdong province (late second century CE): house (no. 59), granary (no. 3), stove (no. 14) and well (no.16). From Guangzhou (2004, 457, fig. 6).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

exquisitely furnished the tombs, the more (different) kinds of miniature appliances, buildings,etc., come to light.

The sexes of most human remains are impossible to determine so that any relation betweenthe departed and the amount or kinds of figurines is hard to gauge. The few sites that allowtentative conclusions suggest that a few armed men might be discovered in male and femaleburials, but larger numbers of troops were restricted to male occupants. As exemplified byFenghuangshan Tombs No. 167 and 168, servants, musicians, acrobats and others are spreadroughly equally between the two sexes (Fenghuangshan 1976, 33, 35; Hubei 1993, 484–9). Asfar as models are concerned, some late third-century BCE through first-century CE gravesrevealed stoves, granaries and/or wells. Interestingly, these mostly coincided with male indivi-duals or joint burials (e.g. Hubei 1993: 495, Gansu 1972: 12–13). As stated previously,elaborate miniature courtyards, towers and the like gained prominence around the early secondcentury CE. At that time, wooden chambers at the bottom of verticals shafts had been supersededby horizontal brick chambers (Figs 9 and 10). Simpler structures comprised one single room andlittle to no architectural miniatures. They were generally designed to host the remains of oneperson. In more extravagant constructions, several rooms were arranged around a central hall(e.g. Beijing 1977, 377). The fact that such tombs often did not provide human bones at allprevents any meaningful analysis of this issue.

Significance

My introductory remarks have already shown that most modern commentators concur with thereceived texts in seeing figurines as substitutes for human sacrifices and miniature models (aswell as figurines) as mingqi especially produced for funerals. The latter argument is anything butcompelling if one takes evidence from contemporary settlement sites into account. Scholarshiphitherto has failed to recognize that comparable kinds of figurines and models are also knownfrom various residential sites. For instance, miniatures discarded together with administrativedocuments and legal codes in ancient wells or left inside a house clearly belonged to the realmof the living (e.g. Changsha 2013, 9; Guangdong 1998, 25; Huang 1956, 45; Jiangling 1988,17–18; Shaanxi 2007, 19). Granted, this is a far less common phenomenon, but given therandomness of settlement finds this is hardly surprising. The point is to realize that miniaturesplayed a – thus far unexplored – role in the lives of the living as well as the dead.

The substitute theory cannot entirely withstand closer scrutiny either. In following Confucius’arguments scholarship ordinarily accepts that figurines rather suddenly replaced human sacri-fices for moral reasons. Yet, both customs overlapped for almost one millennium – the oldestfigurines date from the early eighth century BCE while sacrificed humans are documented untilthe second century CE (Table 1; Huang 1990, 247; Xu and He 1973, 59–60); all in all anobservation that barely speaks for a swift change in practices. The more pertinent question, then,is: did human sacrifices and miniature figurines fulfil similar functions in tombs? Some thirdthrough first-century BCE texts describe three different types of human sacrifices: a) servants/domestic slaves, b) favourite concubines and c) cherished aides. Authors evaluate actualsacrificed humans in tombs according to sex, cause of death (e.g. decapitation), spatial proxi-mity to the main tomb occupant and associated burial goods. Although not completely


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

unaffected by the written records, archaeologists usually arrive at a similar conclusion: the(involuntarily) deceased were slaves, servants or concubines (Shandong 2007, 437–8).

In past discussions of the significance of early Chinese tomb miniatures, semiotics played norole. Yet their physical realism unmistakably identifies them as iconic signs in the Peirceiansense that they stand in an intentional relationship with their referents (e.g. Preucel and Bauer2001, 88–9; Pilz 2011, 19). The statuettes clearly represent servants, musicians, soldiers and soforth. Craig Owens distinguished two kinds of representation. To his mind ‘substitution’ is asymbolic activity in which the image, i.e. our figurine, compensates for an absence. On the otherhand, ‘imitation’ is a theatrical activity that repeats the visual experience and gives the illusionof a tangible, physical presence (1992, 97). Figural substitutes, therefore, would refer to real-lifecounterparts, an understanding rejected by Kesner due to missing inscriptions. However,relevant data are indeed available as more than ten thirdthrough first-century BCE tombsyielded figurines and so-called bamboo inventory slips (qiance) referring to such effigies. Threetexts simply call the miniatures ‘luminous boys’, ‘perished boys’ or ‘effigy humans’ (Henan1989, 59–60, 130; Hubei 1996, 162–3; Chen 1973, 37); the remaining records call them‘humans’, ‘servants’, ‘male servant/slave’ or ‘female slave/servant’ in addition to specificdescriptions of their functions. The inventory from Fenghuangshan No. 168, for instance, counts‘one charioteer [at the rank of] grand servant’ and ‘four male horse grooms [at the rank of]grand servants’ (Hubei 1993, 504). A highly instructive manuscript comes from FenghuangshanNo. 8. The tomb unveiled a list that exceeded the neutral narrative familiar from the otherrecords by assigning personal names to the figurines. Considering appellations such as ‘grandmale servant Equestrian Yi’, ‘grand female servant Fu serving a comb’, ‘grand female servantYi Huan holding a hoe’ or ‘grand male servant Xiong doing construction work’, there can belittle doubt that these wooden artefacts substituted for actual members of the male tomboccupant’s estate (Changjiang 1974, 70–1). Inscribed bronze statuettes and horses unearthedfrom the late second-century CE burial of a high official named Zhang at Leitai, Gansu province,establish an even closer link. They mark the miniatures, for instance, as ‘male/female servants ofthe Zhang family’ or ‘riding horses of Lord Zhang’ (Gan 1972, 17–18; Gansu 1974, 90–7). Thepersonal relationship between the deceased and the miniature surrogates becomes still moreintimate in the so-called ‘announcement to the underworld’ (gaodi ce) retrieved from Tomb No.1 at Xiejiaqiao; the manuscript lists ‘sons, daughters, subordinate concubines, male and femaleservants, horses, and oxen’ among the items that followed the female occupant into the graveand apparently required declaration to the underworld bureaucracy. In this case, not just servantsand livestock were substituted for, but family members as well (Jingzhou 2009, 41; Liu 2009,120–1). Although the grave has been looted, Table 2 demonstrates that an unspecified numberof figurines and an oxcart were still present. In short, early Chinese tomb figurines weresymbolic stand-ins for absent personnel (and perhaps even relatives). The fact that they wereembedded in clusters of artefacts, or tableaux (Wu 2005, 22–5, 2011, 106–11), lends furthercredence to the point. Surrounded by things linked to their trades, the statuettes still fulfilledtheir erstwhile duties. This explains that they were not only substitutes by Owens’ definition, butimitations as well. The arrangements certainly succeeded in recreating lively scenes of everydaylife.

In light of these arguments, the relation of human sacrifices to figurines becomes muchclearer. Essentially, both shared a fragment of one function in tomb assemblages. The aspect ofcompanionship visible in human sacrifices is largely missing from miniatures. Close personal


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

ties between effigies and the dead are only hinted at by the manuscript just mentioned. Thecommon denominator was serving the deceased in the afterlife. Yet the scope of such services ismuch narrower in tombs associated with human sacrifices that immediately precede the growingpopularity of figurines from the fifth century BCE onwards (Table 1), i.e. roughly the timeeffigies supposedly substituted for actual human beings, in one crucial respect: human sacrificesmay symbolize, for example, attendants, musicians and charioteers (e.g. Huai’an 2009, 19), butnot warriors or even ‘farmhands’. The palette of social representations through figurines wasnoticeably wider as their roles departed from a highly personal to a more broadly defined,impersonal sphere. Thus, effigies were conceptually rooted in human sacrifices. However,instead of merely substituting for the latter, human miniatures quickly took the idea to thenext level.

Including models in the analysis adds another dimension to the range of representations.Scaled-down vehicles such as chariots are closely connected to figurines and, by extension, tothe most private domain. Some excavated manuscripts suggest that they were not imagined tocarry the soul of the dead into the afterlife as has been claimed (e.g. Wu 2011, 201–4). Byalluding to modes of transportation through model chariots, individuals were rather expressingthe need to continue their jobs beyond the point of biological death. Several texts in scribe Xi’sburial at Shuihuidi (No. 11: Yunmeng 1981, 52–3) and in the tombs of other clerks like him(e.g. Table 2, Zhangjiashan M336; Hubei 1999, 26–32) disclose that their work as lowerofficials required extensive travelling. Their model carriages were for them to get around inthe hereafter.

The relation of the earliest miniatures of immobile objects (granaries, stoves, wells) tosustenance is undeniable. Unlike vehicles such as chariots, oxcarts and boats (Table 2), whichintroduced the notion of space, they emphasized the factor of time. While the deceased mayhave consumed the pre-prepared meals with which they were buried shortly after entering analtered existence, granaries – some still containing rice or millet (Table 2) – ensured that therewould be an indefinite supply to cook on the ovens. Given the importance of subsistence, it iseasy to see why granaries, stoves and wells became the most popular models. They werediscovered even in fairly modest (although by no means ‘poor’) burials that produced few othermodels and/or figurines, or none at all. While pigsties and comparable objects elaborated on theissue of sustained nourishment, residential houses, complex courtyards and so on addressedanother matter. Since the private estates of the tomb occupants and thus their main sources ofincome through tax collection had grown increasingly vast (e.g. Bielenstein 1979, 146–52;Ebrey 1986, 622–6; Hulsewé 1978, 13–14), the sheer sizes of graves no longer sufficed tosubstitute for one’s environment. Linking the deceased to actual landownership is no easy featsince explicit inscriptions are missing. Nevertheless, some evidence might help to remove anylingering doubts. For instance, inscriptions preserved on four ceramic pots retrieved from a latesecond-century CE tomb at Zhanwan, Henan province, projected that the land of the tomboccupant would generate revenues of 20 million coins for his heirs. Unsurprisingly, the largevaulted brick chamber brought a miniature tower, a house, a granary, a well, a workshop, apigsty, a sheepfold, a stove, dogs and fowl to light (Henan 1975, 78–9, 82). Another telling findcomes from a mid-third-century CE tomb at Echeng, Hubei province. Despite being looted, itstill yielded various figurines and models. Among the latter, a large courtyard comprising afortified wall, living quarters and workshops is the most significant find. An inscription on thefind reads as follows: ‘This is the estate of General Sun’ (Echeng 1978, 165). The military


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

leader clearly owned property that was supposed to be substituted in the grave. Lastly, somesecond- and third-century CE burials contained models and so-called ‘land contracts’ thatidentified the occupants as rightful owners of the plot. In such instances, at least possessionof the very land the tomb was built on seems certain (Hulsewé 1978; Kleeman 1984, 9–18). Insum, miniature buildings, workshops and agricultural fields helped to recreate the ‘new worldorder’. Naturally, the latter models would fit the sustenance argument equally well, but theywere much more than that. The harvests reaped from rice paddies were not feeding the deaddirectly, but represented sources of income. Analogous to human sacrifices and figurines, thesocial personas of landowners, officials and aristocrats came into focus rather than theirimmediate bodily welfare. Various kinds of architectural models not only replaced real-lifehomes; they were instrumental in creating a microcosm of the entire realms of the deceased,their own ‘little empires’ so to speak.

Conclusion

Although reduced in size, most members of the early Chinese social elite – setting aside anumber of tomb owners that still relied on human sacrifices – regarded tomb miniatures as noless effective than their actual counterparts. Transformed into the world of tombs, servantstended their masters, musicians and acrobats provided entertainment, farm workers ploughedfields and soldiers defended the realm visualized in the afterlife. As such, tomb miniatures wereamong the first, if not the most eminent material manifestations of new religious practices. Oncebronze ritual vessels, and by extension ancestor worship, were paramount in tomb assemblages;now the personal fate of the dead individuals took precedence. Men and women strove to enjoythe rewards of a life well lived also in the hereafter.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by an Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Feodor LynenPostdoctoral Fellowship and the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures, StanfordUniversity. I am grateful to John Kieschnick and two anonymous reviewers for valuablecomments on earlier drafts. All remaining mistakes are, of course, my own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Armin SelbitschkaLudwig-Maximilians-University Munich

[email protected]


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

References

Beijing shi Wenwu Guanlichu. 1977. “Beijing Shunyi Linhecun Dong Han mu fajue jianbao.” Kaogu 6:376–81.

Berger, P. 1998. “Body Doubles: Sculpture for the Afterlife.” Orientations 29 (2): 46–53.

Bielenstein, H. 1979. “The Restoration of the Han Dynasty, Vol. IV: The Government.” Bulletin of theMuseum of Far Eastern Antiquities 51: 1–300.

Changjiang Liuyu Dierqi Wenwu Kaogu Gongzuo Renyuan Xunlianban. 1974. “Hubei JianglingFenghuangshan Xi Han mu fajue jianbao.” Wenwu 6: 41–61.

Changsha shi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. 2013. “Hunan Changsha Wuyi guangchang Dong Han jiandufajue jianbao.” Wenwu 6: 4–26.

Chen, Z. 1973. “Yunmeng Xi Han mu chutu mufang chushe.” Wenwu 9: 37–39, 44.

Cook, C. and J. S. Major, eds. 1999. Defining Chu: Image and Reality in Ancient China. Honolulu:University of Hawai’i Press.

Dien, A. E. 1987. “Chinese Beliefs in the Afterworld.” In The Quest for Eternity: Chinese CeramicSculptures from the People’s Republic of China, edited by S. L. Caroselli, 1–15. London: Thames &Hudson.

Ebrey, P. 1986. “The Economic and Social History of Later Han.” In The Cambridge History of China, Vol.I: The Ch’in and Han Empires, 221 B.C.-A.D. 220, edited by D. Twitchett and M. Loewe, 608–48.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Echeng xian Bowuguan. 1978. “Echeng Dong Wu Sun jiangjun mu.” Kaogu 3: 164–67, 163.

Erickson, S. N. 2010. “Han Dynasty Tomb Structures and Contents.” In China’s Early Empires: A Re-appraisal, edited by M. Nylan and M. Loewe, 13–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Falkenhausen, L. V. 2003. “Social Ranking in Chu Tombs: The Mortuary Background of the WarringStates Manuscript Finds.” Monumenta Serica 51: 439–526.

Falkenhausen, L. V. 2004. “Mortuary Behavior in Pre-Imperial Qin: A Religious Interpretation.” Religionand Chinese Society, Vol. 1: Ancient and Medieval China, edited by J. Lagerwey, 109–72. Paris: Écolefrançaise d’Extrême-Orient; Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

Fenghuangshan Yiliuqihao Han Mu Fajue Zhengli Xiaozu. 1976. “Jiangling Fenghuangshan yiliuqihaoHan mu fajue jianbao.” Wenwu 10: 31–7, 50.

Gan, B. 1972. “Gansu Wuwei Leitai Dong Han mu qingli jianbao.” Wenwu 2: 16–19.

Gansu sheng Bowuguan. 1972. “Wuwei Mojuzi sanzuo Han mu fajue jianbao.” Wenwu 12: 9–21.

Gansu sheng Bowuguan. 1974. “Wuwei Leitai Han mu.” Kaogu xuebao 2: 87–108.

Guangdong sheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. 1998. “Guangdong Boluoyingang yizhi fajue jianbao.”Wenwu 7: 17–30.

Guangxi Zhuangzu Zizhiqu Wenwu Gongzuodui and Guigang shi Wenwu Guanlisuo. 2005. “GuangxiGuigang shi Kongwuling Dong Han mu.” Kaogu 11: 42–50.

Guangxi Zhuangzu Zizhiqu Wenwu Kaogu Xiezuo Xiaozu. 1972. “Guangxi Hepu Xi Han muguo mu.”Kaogu 5: 20–30.

Guangzhou shi Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui. 1957. “Guangzhou Huangdigang Xi Han muguo mu fajuejianbao.” Kaogu tongxun 4: 22–29.

Guangzhou shi Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui. 1958. “Guangzhou Huanghuagang 003 hao Xi Han muguomu fajue jianbao.” Kaogu tongxun 4: 32–40.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

Guangzhou shi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. 2004. “Guangzhou Huanghuagang Han Tang muzang fajuebaogao.” Kaogu xuebao 4: 451–84.

Guo, Q. 2010. The Mingqi Pottery Buildings of Han Dynasty China (206 BC-AD220): ArchitecturalRepresentations and Represented Architecture. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press.

Henan sheng Bowuguan. 1975. “Lingbao Zhangwan Han mu.” Wenwu 11: 75–93.

Henan sheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. 1989. Xinyang Chu mu. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.

Hu, L. 1987. “Zaoqi Qin yong jianshu.” Wenbo 1: 23–25.

Huai’an shi Bowuguan. 2009. “Jiangsu Huai’an shi Yunhecun yihao Zhanguo mu.” Kaogu 10: 3–20.

Huang, F. 2003. Han mu de kaogu yanjiu. Changsha: Yuelu Shushe.

Huang, Z. 1956. “Yijiuwuwu nian chun Luoyang Hanhe Nanxian cheng dongqu fajue baogao.” Kaoguxuebao 4: 21–54.

Huang, Z. 1990. Zhongguo gudai de renxing renxun. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.

Hubei sheng Jing Sha Tielu Kaogudui. 1991. Baoshan Chu mu. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.

Hubei sheng Jingzhou Diqu Bowuguan. 1984. Jiangling Yutaishan Chu mu. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.

Hubei sheng Jingzhou Diqu Bowuguan. 1985. Jiangling Mashan yihao Chu mu. Beijing: WenwuChubanshe.

Hubei sheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. 1993. “Jiangling Fenghuangshan yiliubahao Han mu.” Kaoguxuebao 4: 455–513.

Hubei sheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. 1996. Jiangling Wangshan Shazhong Chu mu. Beijing: WenwuChubanshe.

Hubei sheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. 1999. “Hubei Jingzhou Jinan cheng yi, erhao Chu mu fajuejianbao.” Wenwu 4: 4–17.

Hulsewé, A. 1978. “‘Contracts’ of the Han Period.” In Il diritto in Cina: Teoria e applicazione durante ledinastie imperiali e problematica del diritto Cinese contemporareo, edited by L. Lanciotti, 11–38. Firenze:L. S. Olschki.

Hunan sheng Bowuguan. 1980. “Hunan Changde Nanping Dong Han ‘Youyang chang’ mu.” Kaogu 4:339–42.

Hunan sheng Bowuguan and Zhongguo Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo. 1973. Changsha Mawangdui yihaoHan mu. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.

Hunan sheng Bowuguan, Hunan sheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Changsha shi Bowuguan, and Changshashi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. 2000. Changsha Chu Mu. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.

Hunan sheng Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui. 1954. “Changsha Yanjiawan M006 hao mu qingli jianbao.”Wenwu cankao ziliao 12: 20–46.

Jiangling Wenwuju. 1988. “Jiangling Taihugang gu yizhi yu muzang diaocha qingli jianbao.” Jiang Hankaogu 2: 12–22.

Jiangling xian Wenwuju. 1989. “Hubei Jiangling Wuchang Yidi Chu mu.” Wenwu 3: 35–50, 62.

Jiao, N. 2006. “Han Yangling congzangkeng chutan.” Wenwu 7: 51–57.

Jingzhou Bowuguan. 2009. “Hubei Jingzhou Xiejiaqiao yihao Han mu fajue jianbao.” Wenwu 4: 26–42.

Kesner, L. 1995. “Likeness of No One: (Re)Presenting the First Emperor’s Army.” Art Bulletin 77 (1):115–32.

Kesner, L. 2007. “Face as Artifact in Early Chinese Art.” Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 51: 33–56.

Kleeman, T. 1984. “Land Contracts and Related Documents.” In Chūgoku no Shūkyō, Shisō to Kagaku,edited by Makio Ryōkai Hakase Shōju Kinen Ronshū, 1–34. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

Kong, Y. 2008. Liji Zhengyi. Shanghai: Shanghai Guji.

Kuwayama, G. 1987. “The Sculptural Development of Ceramic Funerary Figures in China.” In The Questfor Eternity: Chinese Ceramic Sculptures from the People’s Republic of China, edited by S. L. Caroselli,63-93. London: Thames & Hudson.

Lai, G. 2002. “The Baoshan Tomb: Religious Transitions in Art, Ritual, and Text during the Warring StatesPeriod (480-221 BCE).” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.

Ledderose, L. 2000. Ten Thousand Things: Module and Mass Production in Chinese Art. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Linbo shi Linzi qu Wenhuaju. 2005. “Shandong Linbo shi Linzi qu Zhaojiaxuyao Zhanguo mu.” Kaogu1: 32–44.

Liu, C. Y. 2005a. “Embodying the Harmony of the Sun and the Moon: The Concept of ‘Brilliant Artifacts’in Han Dynasty Burial Objects and Funerary Architecture.” In Providing for the Afterlife: ‘BrilliantArtifacts’ from Shandong, edited by S. L. Beningson and C. Y. Liu, 17–29. New York: China Institute.

Liu, C. Y. 2005b. “The Concept of ‘Brilliant Artifacts’ in Han Dynasty Burial Objects and FuneraryArchitecture: Embodying the Harmony of the Sun and the Moon.” In Recarving China’s Past: Art,Archaeology, and Architecture of the ‘Wu Family Shrines’, edited by C. Y. Liu, M. Nylan, and A.Barbieri-Low, 205–21. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Liu, G. 2009. “Xiejiaqiao yihao Han mu ‘gaodi shu’ du de chubu kaocha.” Jiang Han kaogu 3: 120–22.

Luo, E. 2003. “Handai moxing mingqi zhong de shuitian leixing.” Kaogu 4: 74–80.

Ma, Y. and G. Li. 2005. “Tantan Yangling chutu de ‘huan zhe yong’.” Kaogu yu wenwu 4: 71–72.

Nanjing Bowuyuan. 1987. “Jiangsu Yizheng Yandaishan Han mu.” Kaogu xuebao 4: 471–501.

Nickel, L. 2013. “The First Emperor and Sculpture in China.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental andAfrican Studies 76 (3): 413–47.

Owens, C., 1992. Beyond Recognition: Representation, Power, and Culture, edited by S. Bryson, B.Kruger, L. Tillman, and J. Weinstock. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pilz, O. 2011. “The Uses of Small Things and the Semiotics of Greek Miniature Objects.” Pallas 86: 15–30.

Preucel, R. W. and A. A. Bauer. 2001. “Archaeological Pragmatics.” Norwegian Archaeological Review 34(2): 85–96.

Rawson, J. 1996–7. “Thinking in Pictures: Tomb Figures in the Chinese View of the Afterlife.”Transactions of the Oriental Ceramic Society 61: 19–37.

Rawson, J. 1999. “The Eternal Palaces of the Western Han: A New View of the Universe.” Artibus Asiae59 (1–2): 5–58.

Rawson, J. 2002. “The Power of Images: The Model Universe of the First Emperor and its Legacy.”Historical Research 75 (188): 123–54.

Selbitschka, A. Forthcoming. “The Pitfalls of Second-hand Information: On the Traditionalist Dogma inChinese Excavation Reports.” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 79–80.

Selbitschka, A. (Xie Z.) 2010. “Moxing Mingqi Suo Miaohui De Han Dai Lingnan Diqu De RichangShenghuo.” In Xi Han Nanyue Guo Kaogu Yu Han Wenhua, edited by Zhongguo Shehui KexueyuanKaogu Yanjiusuo and Guangzhou shi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, 177–205. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe.

Shaanxi sheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo. 1998. Longxian Dianzi Qin Mu. Xi’an: San Qin Chubanshe.

Shaanxi sheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo. 2007. “Xi’an nanjiao Miaojiazhai Handai cisuo yizhi fajue jianbao.”Kaogu yu wenwu 2: 15–20.

Shaanxi sheng Kaogu Yanjiuyuan. 2008. “Han Yangling diyuan dongce 11-21 hao waicangkeng fajuejianbao.” Kaogu yu wenwu 3: 3–32.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

Shaanxi Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui and Xianyang shi Bowuguan. 1966. “Shaanxi sheng Xiangyang shiYanjiawan chutu dapi Xi Han caihui taoyong.” Wenwu 3: 1–4.

Shandong sheng Bowuguan and Linyi Wenwuzu. 1975. “Linyi Yinqueshan sizuo Xi Han muzang.” Kaogu6: 363–72, 351.

Shandong sheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. 2007. Linzi Qi Mu: Di Yi Ji. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.

Sichuan sheng Bowuguan and Qingchuan xian Wenhuaguan. 1982. “Qingchuan xian chutu geng xiu tianlümudu: Sichuan Qingchuan xian Zhanguo mu fajue jianbao.” Wenwu 1: 1–16.

Thote, A. 1999. “Continuities and Discontinuities: Chu Burials during the Eastern Zhou Period.” InExploring China’s Past: New Discoveries and Studies in Archaeology and Art, edited by R. Whitfieldand T. Wang, 189–206. London: Saffron.

Thote, A. 2006. “Au-Delà Du Monde Connu: Représenter Les Dieux.” Arts Asiatiques 61: 57–74.

Wang, X. and Z. Wu. 1976. “Xi’an Renjiapo Han ling congzangkeng de fajue.” Kaogu 2: 75 and 129–33.

Wen, X. and S. De. 1998. “Qinguo renxun zhidu de yanbian.” Wenbo 6: 45–49.

Wu, H. 2005. “On Tomb Figurines: The Beginning of a Visual Tradition.” In Body and Face in ChineseVisual Culture, edited by H. Wu and K. R. Tsiang, 13–47. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University AsiaCenter; London: Harvard University Press.

Wu, H. 2006a. “From the Neolithic to the Han.” In Chinese Sculpture, edited by E. F. Howard, 17–103.Beijing: Foreign Language Press; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Wu, H. 2006b. “‘Mingqi’ de shilun he shijian: Zhanguo shiqi liyi meishu zhong de guannian huaqingxiang.” Wenwu 6: 72–81.

Wu, H. 2011. The Art of the Yellow Springs: Understanding Chinese Tombs. Honolulu: University ofHawai’i Press.

Xu, F. and G. He. 1973. “Luoyang Dongguan Dong Han xunren mu.” Wenwu 2: 55–62.

Xuzhou Bowuguan and Nanjing Daxue Lishi Xuexi Kaogu Zhuanye. 2003. Xuzhou Beidongshan Xi HanChu wang mu. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe.

Yunmeng Shuihudi Qin mu Bianxiezu. 1981. Yunmeng Shuihudi Qin mu. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.

Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo Han Cheng Gongzuodui. 1994. “Han Chang’an cheng23-27 hao yaozhi fajue jianbao.” Kaogu 11: 986–96.

Zhou, S. and Z. Wang. 1985. “Han Chang’an cheng xibeiqu taoyong zuofang yizhi.” Wenbo 3: 1–4.

Armin Selbitschka is an assistant professor at Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, and isthe author of Prestigegüter entlang der Seidenstraße? (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010). He haspublished on archaeological practice in the People’s Republic of China, and is currentlypreparing a monograph on early Chinese burial customs reflected in the archaeological recordand received literature.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Arm

in S

elbi

tsch

ka]

at 1

2:49

02

Mar

ch 2

015

Miniature Tomb Figurines and Models in Pre-imperial and Early Imperial China: Origins, Development,...

Documents

Transcript of Miniature Tomb Figurines and Models in Pre-imperial and Early Imperial China: Origins, Development,...