Introduction to Duan Qingbo's Life and Scholarship:

Duan Qingbo was born in 1964 in Ruicheng, Shanxi. After graduating in 1985 with a bachelor's degree in archaeology from Northwest University in Xi'an, he started working on Qin and Han excavations throughout North China. Duan earned his PhD in history from Northwest University in 2007 and returned to his alma mater to become professor, head of graduate studies, and later dean of the recently re-christened School for Cultural Heritage, where he trained over forty graduate students in history and archaeology.

In 1998 Duan Qingbo was appointed as director of the excavation team at the First Emperor's necropolis. For the next decade, he oversaw some of the most spectacular discoveries at the site since the initial find of the terracotta warriors in 1974. These included the satellite pits containing terracotta entertainers and bureaucratic officials, the bronze cranes, geese, and ducks of the First Emperor's underground pleasure park, and numerous assemblages of blue-slate armor. He also uncovered a massive underground water diversion system, employed by the tomb builders to protect the site from inundation, and he probed the tomb mound with direct and remote sensing devices, revealing the internal structure of the mound as a nine-step pyramid topped with wood-frame architecture. These fieldwork results were published in numerous preliminary reports and three major excavation volumes (2000, 2006, 2007; see bibliography), and they were synthesized in Duan's monograph on the necropolis published in 2011. For almost two decades, Duan served as the “ambassador” of the First Emperor of Qin to the Western world, appearing in numerous television documentaries and writing several essays for catalogs of traveling exhibitions of the terracotta warriors.

In 2006, Duan was selected to lead the Shaanxi regional survey of the surviving traces of the various “Great Walls” built in North China from the Warring States period onward. This was part of a national project to survey and conserve all the ancient long walls in the country. Duan and his team personally walked over 1,900 km of territory and excavated numerous wall segments and guard posts in a two-year project. These regional survey results were published in 2015, with broader syntheses covering the great walls of all time periods published in 2014 and 2019.

Stimulated by his discovery of the terracotta entertainers at the necropolis, which display a style of sculpture unprecedented in East Asia, as well as by the internal step-like architecture embedded within the emperor's tomb mound, Duan began to explore the influence of West Asian cultures on the Qin. He published some preliminary ideas on this topic in his 2011 monograph on the necropolis, but it was most fully explored in three articles published in successive issues of his university journal, Xibei daxue xuebao, in 2015 (translated here in their entirety).

In April of 2018, Professor Anthony Barbieri-Low of UCSB (the translator), and Professor Lothar von Falkenhausen of UCLA arranged a conference called “Ancient China in a Eurasian Context” at UC Santa Barbara and invited Professor Duan to give one of the keynote addresses. He presented his research from these three articles, and the audience was deeply fascinated, prompting plans to translate these pieces to make them available in English to the wider scholarly world. Unfortunately, soon after the conference, Professor Duan suffered a recurrence of the cancer that first struck him in 2016, and he passed away about a year later.

In his last few years, Duan was developing a novel theoretical framework to define the key features of ancient civilizations, but specifically focusing on Chinese civilization. He had become dissatisfied with the strongly materialist orientation of traditional archaeology in China, which overlooks the importance of ideas and institutions in the formation and evolution of ancient cultures. He laid out what he called the theory of the “Three Views” (sanguan 三觀), those core concepts that defined, gave cohesion to, and fostered the continuity of an ancient civilization. These were the mutually constructed and reinforcing systems of societal regulation (shehui zhili tixi 社會治理體系), which defined the power relationship between the state and its subjects (i.e., the form of government), cosmology (yuzhouguan 宇宙觀), the worldview and ideological framework which legitimated the state's system of social regulation and clearly defined the relationship between heaven, earth, and man, and, finally, the core system of values (hexin jiazhiguan 核心價值觀), which revealed the priorities of both the state and society, supported the implementation of governance, and resulted in particular modes of behavior and cultural productions. The material remains that archaeologists uncover are merely the byproducts of these all-important systems, making it difficult to penetrate the veil to comprehend the real society behind the material culture. Though he died before he could fully develop his theory, one can see a hint of some of these ideas expressed in the articles translated here. Duan Qingbo's passion, curiosity, and broad-minded approach were an inspiration to scholars in both China and the broader world of scholarship.

PART ONE EVIDENCE OF CULTURAL INTERCHANGE IN THE NECROPOLIS OF THE FIRST EMPEROR

Archaeological evidence makes it increasingly clear that technologies like wheat agriculture, iron-smelting, and fabrication of gold and silver vessels were introduced to China from West Asia and Central Asia along the Silk Road.Footnote ¹ Bronze technology and the horse chariot, both of which arose in West Asia and traversed the steppe, deserts, and the oases, or along the ancient “Tea and Horse Road” or other routes, had a profound influence upon China.Footnote ² Of course, there had been other cultural exchanges in even earlier periods (such as among Neolithic painted pottery cultures), and all of this occurred well before Zhang Qian 張騫 (d. ca. 114 BCE) had supposedly opened up some of these routes.Footnote ³

During the archaeological exploration of the mausoleum of the First Emperor of Qin, we also discovered that many cultural elements such as terracotta warriors and horses, figures of entertainers, bronze carriages and horses, bar-shaped bricks, stepped-architecture within burial mounds, and some techniques in the casting process for the bronze waterfowl appear completely out of the blue in the archaeological record, and, moreover, don't really leave many traces in subsequent periods. These phenomena deserve our comprehensive consideration within a larger temporal and spatial framework.

Terracotta Figures of Soldiers and Horses

Of the things that make the First Emperor's mausoleum world famous, enjoying the reputation as the “Eighth Wonder of the World,” none surpasses the many thousands of life-size terracotta figures of warriors and horses. The terracotta army, which seems to have appeared out of nowhere, may have garnered people's great admiration, but at the same time, it has prompted the following sort of doubts: Why did the idea of focusing on humans and animals as a way to express an artistic vision, which had never appeared before, suddenly arise during the Qin dynasty?

During the pre-Qin period, especially since the Shang and Zhou period (ca. 1045–256 BCE), the traditional artistic craft had always been the bronzecrafter's art, which principally involved the craftsman deploying extremely imaginative motifs to make all sorts of ritual vessels capable of communicating with the heavens. Depictions of humans and animals during this time only played supporting roles in expressing this principal theme, mostly as attachments to the bases of vessels or as decoration on handles. Although there have been scholars who have discussed the supporting technical prerequisites during the Qin period that would have allowed Qin artisans to produce the terracotta army, they have not considered the logical question of why such large-scale ceramic sculptures would appear at this particular moment in time.Footnote ⁴ More than thirty-five years ago [1986], there was a European scholar (German Hafner, 1911–2008) who considered that the art of the terracotta army “originated from Western contact, originated from knowledge of Alexander the Great and the splendor of Greek art.”Footnote ⁵ Lukas Nickel of SOAS has put forward a similar proposition.Footnote ⁶

Compared to bronze casting, ceramic sculpture was rather underdeveloped during the pre-Qin period, and its accomplishments were not really outstanding. It was only during the Warring States period (ca. 453–221 BCE), that there began to appear some small-scale sculptural pieces. A group of ceramic figurines about 10 centimeters in height was unearthed from one of the sacrificial pits accompanying a burial of the Spring and Autumn-Warring States period transition at Langjiazhuang 郎家莊 near Linzi County, Shandong.Footnote ⁷ There have also been scattered discoveries [of ceramic figurines] from other Warring States-period tombs of the various polities.Footnote ⁸ In the state of Qin, it was only during the late Warring States-period that we start to find some ceramic funerary figurines from several burials around the capital area of Xianyang.Footnote ⁹ In terms of typology, these unearthed Qin ceramic figurines consist of horse-and-rider figurines, or individual human or horse figurines, with heights all around 10 cm. The most telling feature of all these pieces is the lack of a detailed portrayal of the human body and especially in the face. The bodily proportions of the human and equine figures are neither harmonious nor accurate. And although they have polychrome painted decoration, only three types of pigments are utilized: white, red, and black. Some of the figurines are made of kiln-fired ceramic, while others are just modelled, unfired clay. The terracotta figurines of people, oxen, sheep, and dogs from the Qin tomb at Zaomiao 棗廟 village in Tongchuan County are just shaped out of clay then brightly painted.Footnote ¹⁰ The pottery figurines from the southern suburbs of Xi'an and the area of the confluence of the Jing and Wei rivers had a firing temperature that was very low. Some others are just unfired clay figurines. The clay or ceramic figurines are hand-modeled from red clay, and supplemented with applique, engraved designs, gouging, and other methods, while the majority are just painted monochromatically.Footnote ¹¹ The two, gray-bodied earthenware horse and rider figurines of nearly identical size and shape from the late Warring States-period burial at Taerpo 塔兒坡 near Xianyang had collars, cuffs, hood brims, hems, and noses that were painted in red, while the fabrication method was clearly hand modeling (see Figure 1).Footnote ¹²

Figure 1. Mounted rider, Qin kingdom, ca. 320–300 BCE. Painted earthenware; h. 22.6 cm. From tomb no. 28057 at Taerpo site. After Xianyang Shi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Taerpo Qin mu, Figure 96.

The tallest Qin figurines from the late Warring States period do not exceed 20 centimeters in height, and the majority are around 10 centimeters. But once we arrive at the Qin imperial period (221–207 BCE), the Qin terracotta warriors have suddenly sprung up in height to between 180 and 196 centimeters. Even the bodies of the kneeling horse-groom figurines unearthed at the Shangjiaocun 上焦村 site are still an unprecedented 100 centimeters in height. Not only is there a huge disparity between the two groups in terms of physical dimensions, but in terms of fabrication techniques, painting style, figurine types, and other aspects, they can't even be spoken of in the same breath. The terracotta warriors and horses are gray-bodied earthenware, fired at between 950 and 1,000°C. They were fashioned using techniques that combined both painting and modeling, and a sculptural technique in which some parts that were prefabricated in molds were later combined with parts that were hand-worked. Types of figures include generals, officers, chariot drivers, kneeling archers, cavalry soldiers, foot soldiers, entertainers, bureaucratic officials, musicians, stable attendants, and horses. The palette of colors used for painting is quite rich, including green, red, black, purple, pink, white, yellow, and sienna. The modeling of faces and hair is extremely fine and detailed.

Although the Western Han dynasty (206 BCE–8 CE), which inherited and carried forward many aspects of the Qin, also employed pottery figurines to accompany burials, and the fabrication techniques of these figures seem to roughly follow the style of the earlier Qin pieces, the modeling is comparatively stiff and unnatural. The main purpose was to employ an orderly military formation to demonstrate to people a stern and imposing armed troop for the burial rites of the deceased. But when comparing these figurines to the Qin terracotta warriors and horses in terms of dimensions, the majority of these Western Han figurines are much smaller at only 30–40 centimeters in height, with the tallest not surpassing 60 centimeters. But the types of figurines are now even more varied, with bureaucratic officials, musicians, dancers, servants, and the recently unearthed ceramic figurines featuring articulating wooden arms and wearing actual clothing.Footnote ¹³

So, even though there is only a distance of several decades in time between the pottery figurines of the various Eastern Zhou polities along with the late-Warring States Qin figures and the appearance of the imperial Qin terracotta warriors and horses, there is a considerable difference in terms of artistic techniques and a massive difference in artistic style. If we place them on the path of development of Qin culture and carry out a logical assessment, we see that between the former and the latter there is a sudden qualitative leap. The huge gap in the developmental sequence between the two is logically unacceptable, and the greater resource allocation ability of the Qin empire is clearly insufficient to explain this degree of difference. When assessing the development in terms of size, form, and artistic style between the Qin terracotta army and the Western Han-period figurines, there is a similar sort of puzzle. So, what is the cause that leads to the huge difference in style between the pottery figurines of these three periods of the Warring States-period Qin state, the Qin empire, and the Western Han?

In terms of formal characteristics and style of dress and adornment, the closest parallels to the Warring States-period Qin figurines are found in the Scythian culture. Wang Hui 王輝 has examined the exchanges between the cultures of the Yellow River valley and the Scythian culture of the steppe.Footnote ¹⁴ During a 2007 exhibition on the Scythians in Berlin, there was a bronze hood on display labeled a “Kazakh military cap.”Footnote ¹⁵ This bronze hood and the clothing of the nomads in kneeling posture [also depicted in the exhibition] are very similar in form to those of the terracotta figurines from the late Warring States Qin-period tomb at the Taerpo site (see Figure 1). The style of the Scythian bronze horse figures and the saddle, bridle, and other accessories on their bodies are nearly identical to those seen on the Warring States-period Qin figurines and a similar type of artifact from the Ordos region, and they all date to the fifth to third centuries BCE.

Large-scale ceramic sculpture similar in dating and style to the imperial Qin terracotta warriors and horses have not yet been discovered in other cultural traditions such as Persian, Greco-Roman, or Indian civilizations. However, these regions did have long traditions of bronze and stone sculpture, like the widespread tradition of narrative relief carvings and paintings of ancient Egypt or the states of the ancient Near East, as well as the classical sculptural and painting traditions of ancient Greece, which took the actual size of the human figure as a model. The only thing that closely matches the artistic style of the imperial Qin terracotta warriors is the head of a painted pottery figure unearthed in Uzbekistan (see Figure 2).Footnote ¹⁶ The piece dates to around 100–50 BCE. Unfortunately, all that was found was the head, which measures 23 cm high (the heads of the Qin terracotta warriors range from 23–26 cm). The figure wears a felt hat and an upper garment with a high collar. The facial features and facial hair are quite lifelike, and the face is covered with a reddish pigment. The way of assembling the head and body for this Kushan figure of a warrior (possibly Saka) was the same as that employed for the Qin terracotta warriors, in that they were fabricated separately, and then the head was inserted into the trunk of the figure.

Figure 2. Warrior, Kushan kingdom, mid-first century BCE. Painted ceramic. Found at Khalchayan palace site, Uzbekistan. Termez Archaeological Museum. Photographer Nicoletta Stofkoper (CC0 license).

The information presented above clearly shows that the artistic form of the Warring States-period Qin figurines may have received influence from the Scythian culture, but that the art of the Qin imperial terracotta warriors possibly had a different source of inspiration.

Figurines of the Long-Pole Entertainers from Dulu

A group of life-size, polychrome-painted terracotta figures of entertainers was unearthed from sacrificial pit no. K9901 at the First Emperor's necropolis. The sculptural techniques and painting style employed to make these were identical to those used to fashion the terracotta warriors. The facial expressions are also a bit stiff and lacking in vitality. It seems that the clothing style on all these terracotta figures consisted of just a short kilt around the waist, with the remainder of the limbs and trunk left completely nude.

But there were also some differences in modeling techniques between these terracotta figures of entertainers and those of the terracotta army. The methods for portraying expression in the torso, skeleton, and musculature, along with the highly accurate bodily proportions, reveal that the artists had a very refined grasp of human anatomy. The bulging arm muscles when a figure exerts itself, the visible musculature and ribs along the flanks, the suggestion of spinal vertebrae, and the postural shift in the bulging belly when a figure is lifting something heavy, all demonstrate that the sculptor had also developed mastery concerning the kinetics of the human body (see Figure 3). That kind of artistic style, at this stage in the development of Far Eastern art traditions, is unprecedented.

Figure 3. Strongman, Imperial Qin period (221–207 BCE). Terracotta with polychrome paint. From pit no. K9901 at First Emperor's Necropolis, Lintong County, Shaanxi. Museum of the Qin Emperor's Terracotta Warriors and Horses. Photo courtesy of Duan Qingbo.

There is one figure among the terracotta entertainers that scholars have determined is a long-pole entertainer from Dulu. Dulu long-pole acrobatics was a very popular entertainment during the Han period, involving acrobats who climbed to the top of a long pole. In the pictorial stone carvings of Han-period funerary shrines and tombs, depictions of this entertainment are fairly common (see Figure 4). Today, it is just called “long-pole acrobatics.” It involves a formidable strongman who supports a long pole with either his two hands or with his head. Atop the pole there are numerous performers doing acrobatic tricks. The greatest number of performers seen in depictions reaches as many as nine people.Footnote ¹⁷ The performers’ actions include hanging upside-down, leaping, twirling, dancing, and sitting. The entertainment would have been breathtaking, with one thrill after another. There are some scholars who consider that this entertainment developed from the “dwarves climbing halberd shafts” (zhuru pulu 侏儒扶盧) entertainment of the Spring and Autumn period.Footnote ¹⁸ But Dulu 都盧 is an ancient non-Chinese placename. Some consider that it was located south of present-day northern Vietnam; others think that it was located near Pyay, along the middle course of the Irrawaddy River in present-day Myanmar.Footnote ¹⁹

Figure 4. Long-pole acrobats, Eastern Han period, ca. 150–184 CE. Ink on paper rubbing of pictorial stone. From lintel of east wall of central chamber of tomb no. 1, Beizhai village, Yi'nan, Shandong. Collection of Anthony Barbieri-Low

It has been said that the “Discourses of the Jin” section of the Discourses of the States (Guoyu 國語) text records that during the Spring and Autumn period they already had an acrobatic skill called “dwarves climbing halberd shafts” which might, in terms of form, be related to the “long-pole entertainers of Dulu” of the Qin and Han periods; however, when looking at the Han-period designation of “Dulu” in the title “long-pole entertainers of Dulu,” we must admit that the Qin and Han period version of this entertainment possibly took shape under the transformative influence of foreign acrobatic traditions.Footnote ²⁰ When the Han envoy Zhang Qian was pioneering the route to the Western Regions and was in Bactria (in present-day northern Afghanistan), he saw cloth from Shu 蜀 and bamboo staves from the region of Qiong 邛 (both in present-day Sichuan) which had been imported from the southwestern portion of China, having passed through India, before arriving in Sogdiana and Bactria.Footnote ²¹ It shows that already during the pre-Han period there existed a “southwestern Silk Road” for economic and cultural exchange, traveling from southwest China, passing through Myanmar to India and then to Central Asia and West Asia.Footnote ²²

So, we can make the following conjecture: the envoys of cultural exchange, whether by traversing the traditional oasis Silk Road or the southwestern Silk Road, brought with them ideas about sculptural arts from Greece in the Mediterranean and from Persia, carrying them into the Central Plain of China. So, after the sculptural tradition of Qin figurines and entertainer figurines had reached an early stage of sculptural development, people opened up external communication through the southwestern Silk Road and brought the acrobatic entertainment of the “long-pole climbers of Dulu” from the Myanmar region into the Land within the Passes (Guanzhong 關中; the Qin heartland), and this melded with the native Chinese tradition of the “dwarves climbing halberd shafts,” forming a new acrobatic skill. Of course, at this time, we also see imported into China the “magic mountain jutting out of the artificial sea,” “the dance of the Manyan sea monster,” and other acrobatic skills and magic tricks.Footnote ²³

Mass Grave Pits of the Necropolis Workers

During the spring of 2003, within the necropolis of the First Emperor of Qin, we discovered a mass burial pit of some of the workers who built the mausoleum. All the 121 skeletons belonged to males whose bodies were heaped up in a disorderly fashion, within an abandoned kiln site. The bodies all overlapped each other and were not provided with coffins or burial goods. The orientation of the limbs and heads was chaotic with no consistency. The age of most of the men ranged from 15 to 40 years old, and the average height was around 1.7 meters. The skeletons, which exhibit robust development and prominent spinal columns, all clearly belong to heavy laborers.

When we were carrying out physical anthropological identifications at the site, we discovered three relatively well-preserved skulls that exhibited the unusual features of cheek bones and nasal ridges that were relatively higher and eye sockets that were rather deep set, clearly differentiating them from the other skulls. Later, under comparative analysis in the lab, the specialists considered that these features still fell within the normal variation of East Asian physical types. We then took samples from this group of bones for DNA analysis. During the first test, we discovered that one of the skeletons belonged to an individual of a European haplogroup. Later, when we retested the materials, we extracted mitochondrial DNA sequences of nineteen individuals. Specialists in molecular biology compared these mitochondrial DNA sequences with those of thirty-two modern Chinese individuals and determined that the nineteen ancient laborers belonged to a mixed East Asian group. Compared with the samples of the thirty-two modern Chinese individuals, they exhibit even more diversity. Among the laborers, there were those from ethnic-Han Chinese stock, and some from those who are today classified as ethnic minorities in China. The majority of those appear to have come from southern China, while there was no sample that clearly pointed to an individual from a northern ethnic minority.Footnote ²⁴

As for the mitochondrial DNA analysis undertaken by the molecular biologists on the skeletons to determine the racial affiliation of ancient human bones, it is still difficult to accurately characterize with any certainty the racial or ethnic affiliation of bones that were archaeologically excavated, based on the accumulated data and the current stage of development of this technology. Because of the disparity between the on-site visual inspection of the mass graves of the necropolis workers, and the results of the first and second DNA analyses, it is still not possible to make any final conclusions in terms of the racial or ethnic affiliation of the skeletons unearthed from the mass burial. However, it does provide us with some room for imagination to speculate about the place of origin of these heavy laborers.

Terraced Architecture within the Grave Mound

After grave mounds began to appear at elite mausolea in the Yellow River valley during the late Spring and Autumn period, the construction of those mounds basically consisted of layer after layer of rammed earth (hangtu 夯土) of inconsistent thickness. But only at the necropolis of the First Emperor of Qin do we find the phenomenon of large-scale architecture that is built above ground, but embedded within the tomb mound itself. Inside the tomb mound of the First Emperor of Qin, we discovered a cluster of completely unprecedented rammed-earth constructions jutting high above the ground level. These were built on each of the four sides over the tomb pit, towering about 30 meters in height. When taken together, they form a stepped, rammed-earth enclosure wall, narrow at the apex and broad at the base, with stepped platforms facing the exterior and the interior (see Figure 5). In cross section, it would look a bit like the Chinese character tu 凸. The exterior face of the four-sided rammed-earth construction forms a nine stepped platform. On the steps, we discovered a rather thick deposit of ceramic roof tile fragments, and upon the highest steps, near the apex of the platform, the tile fragments were particularly plentiful. There was no scorched red earth found atop the platform or on any of the steps, nor any remains of charcoal from burned timber. The exterior side of the base of the rammed earth platform was built atop the original Qin-period ground level, beyond the perimeter of the tomb pit itself, and the inner facing steps extend towards the pit. The foundation of the rammed-earth platform had first been leveled, so that the lowest steps of each side of the construction would be at the same height.Footnote ²⁵

Figure 5. Reconstruction of Stepped Platform within Tomb Mound of the First Emperor. From Duan Qingbo, Qin Shihuangdi lingyuan kaogu yanjiu 秦始皇帝陵園考古研究 (Beijing: Beijing Daxue, 2011), frontispiece. Photo reproduced with permission of estate of Duan Qingbo

This form of architecture is related to that of the high-platform constructions of ancient China. In terms of construction techniques and shape, there is no real difference between the two. High-platform terraced architecture really flourished during the Spring and Autumn period (722–481 BCE) and was not well developed before then. Received texts only mention that during the prior Three Dynasties period (of the [legendary] Xia, Shang, and Western Zhou), there was the Jade Terrace (Yao Tai 瑤臺) of King Jie 桀 of the Xia, the Deer Terrace (Lu Tai 鹿臺) of King Zhou 紂 of the Shang, and the Magic Terrace (Ling Tai 靈臺) of King Wen 文 of the Zhou.Footnote ²⁶ Once we get to the Spring and Autumn period, there was the gradual proliferation in each state of constructions referred to in one later text as “pavilions and lavish palace rooms atop high-terraced platforms” (gao taixie, mei gongshi 高臺榭，美宮室).Footnote ²⁷ The most famous high-terraced constructions during this period were the “Nine-Level Terrace” (Jiuceng Tai 九層臺) of Duke Ling of Jin (Jin Ling Gong 晉靈公, r. 620–607 BCE), which was begun in 611 BCE, but never completed,Footnote ²⁸ and the Zhanghua Terrace (Zhanghua Tai 章華臺) of King Ling of Chu (Chu Lingwang 楚靈王, r. 540–529 BCE), completed in 535 BCE.Footnote ²⁹ During the Warring States period (453–221 BCE), terraced constructions were all the rage. The rulers of the various polities all constructed palaces atop high terraces, trying to outdo one another for ostentatiousness. The most famous examples are the Patterned Terrace (Wen Tai 文臺) in Wei,Footnote ³⁰ the Grand Terrace (Hong Tai 鴻臺) in Han,Footnote ³¹ the Royal Hall Terrace (Luqin Tai 路寢臺) in Qi,Footnote ³² and the Terrace of Connected Palaces (Cong Tai 叢臺) in Zhao.Footnote ³³ In terms of architectural form, craftsmanship, and building materials, these high-terraced constructions were basically the same as the stepped-terrace construction embedded within the tomb mound of the First Emperor of Qin. But, as far as we can tell, these palace terraces of the Warring States period rarely exceeded three stepped stages, whereas the terrace in the First Emperor's tomb mound rose in nine stepped levels. However, since the high-terraced buildings within the Qin emperor's tomb mound were eventually covered over completely and crushed by the earthen fill of the mound, they clearly served a different function.

Roughly comparable in form to the Chinese high-terrace architecture was a long-standing tradition in Mesopotamia of a similar type of construction. Due to the lack of stone and wooden building materials there, a style of multi-step high-terraced building called the ziggurat was developed in response to local conditions, fashioned out of a core of sun-dried mud bricks and rammed earth and sometimes faced with kiln-fired bricks. They were used for sacrifices to nature deities and to observe and record celestial phenomenon. This kind of building exhibited a stepped form, with the four corners oriented to the cardinal directions. A sloped ramp or staircase led to the apex, upon which was built a small shrine. The surviving Great Ziggurat at Ur, dedicated to the moon goddess (Nanna), stood about 21 meters high and was originally a three-stepped terraced construction made of mostly adobe bricks and rammed earth. Under the Assyrian Empire, in the eighth century BCE, some ziggurats rose to as high as 60 meters. Assyrian King Sargon II's (r. 721–705 BCE) palace at Dur-Sharrukin, near present-day Khorsabad, Iraq, had a terraced ziggurat with four levels, successively colored black (to represent the netherworld), red (the human realm), blue (the sky), and white (the sun).Footnote ³⁴ In the sixth century BCE, after the Achaemenid Persian Empire had conquered the Neo-Babylonian Empire (539 BCE), the technique of terraced-platform architecture, or at least the idea of it, was transmitted to Persia. The tomb of the founder of the Persian Empire, Cyrus the Great (r. 559–530 BCE), and the tomb of the nominal satrap (and quasi-independent ruler) of Caria, Mausolus (r. 377–353 BCE), both belong to this general category of terraced-platform architecture. Cyrus's tomb is located at his capital of Pasargadae, 79 kilometers northeast of Persepolis.Footnote ³⁵ The base of the mausoleum is made of giant stone slabs, with six broad stone steps on the exterior leading to the summit. The tomb of Mausolus was located in present-day southwestern Turkey (ancient Halicarnassus) and was built in around 353 BCE. As reported by classical authors like Pliny the Elder, Pausanias, and Vitruvius, the lower part of the mausoleum was an elevated rectangular podium, and the top part was a seven-meter-high pyramid-like construction with twenty-four receding steps, symbolizing the number of years of Mausolus’ rule. At the apex stood a six-meter-high colossal statuary group in marble of Mausolus and his wife (Artemisia II) driving a four-horse war chariot.

As for the stepped-terrace construction embedded within the Qin emperor's tomb mound, although porches covered with ceramic tile roofs were constructed on each level, it is significantly different in conception from the elevated terrace constructions in evidence from the pre-Qin period onward. Because this nine-step construction was eventually covered over completely by the earth of the man-made tomb mound, I once proposed that they served as the “viewing pavilions at the mezzanine level” (zhongcheng guanyou 中成觀游), mentioned by the Han scholar Jia Shan 賈山, which allowed the soul of the First Emperor of Qin to journey forth from the tomb to view his domain.Footnote ³⁶ As for a precedent for a nine-stepped terraced building, among Chinese received texts, we have only the never-completed Nine-Level Terrace of Duke Ling of Jin. Could there be any connection between the six-stepped stone mausoleum of Cyrus the Great of the Persian Empire, [or any of the other such Persian-style platform tombs found in Asia Minor], or the twenty-four-step pyramid atop the mausoleum of the satrap Mausolus and the terraced constructions embedded within the tomb mound of the First Emperor of Qin? If there is some sort of connection, then what gave rise to the similarity between them? If there is no connection, then why, among all the tomb mound structures of ancient China, is the First Emperor's tomb the only example with such a feature?Footnote ³⁷

Bar-Shaped Bricks

Within the territories of the various polities of the Warring States period, we have discovered quantities of bluish-gray bricks, fired at a relatively high temperature. The main types are all varieties of square or rectangular paving bricks and large hollow-cored bricks, but from this period we have never discovered bar-shaped bricks that were used as masonry to build up the body of a wall. In fact, the bar-shaped paving bricks discovered in the terracotta warrior pits of the First Emperor's mausoleum are a relatively early example of this type. Our question is this: What is the ultimate origin of the bar-shaped bricks, as well as related technologies such as staggered brick patterns and brick arch construction?

The bar-shaped bricks found in the Qin terracotta warrior pits are fine-textured and fired at a relatively high temperature, with the most prevalent unearthed so far being small rectangular bricks of about 28 cm by 14 cm by 7 cm. The floors of the pits have been paved with bar-shaped bricks running in regular horizontal and vertical rows, without any staggering pattern. In addition, in the southeast corner of terracotta warrior pit no. 1, there is a brick wall measuring 1.65 meters high, 0.85 meters wide, and half a meter thick, built as a retaining wall to repair a partially collapsed section of the regular rammed-earth wall of the pit. The two courses of bricks are just stacked vertically, with no overlap or staggering pattern between them. One can imagine that this configuration would not be very stable. The earliest use of bar-shaped bricks to construct an underground crypt is found in two burials to the west of the First Emperor's necropolis at the Warring States-period cemetery at Liuzhuang 劉莊.Footnote ³⁸ Those buried here died constructing the First Emperor's necropolis, but the tombs were fashioned by free artisans with a grasp of certain technical skills. The walls of the tomb chamber were built of courses of bar-shaped bricks, while the ceiling was covered over with wooden beams. Even though the preliminary report of the excavation said that they employed “a technique of stacked and staggered brick courses to build up the walls, and the floor was also paved by laying flush staggered courses of bricks,” the evidence from contemporary finds, in particular the bar-shaped brick masonry techniques found in the Qin terracotta warrior pits, leads me to doubt the accuracy of that report.

The current state of archaeological data demonstrates that, before the middle of the Western Han period, no one in China had yet discovered the technique of using an arch to solve the problem of spanning a space with bar-shaped bricks. The tomb of a consort in the lineage cemetery of the famous late Western Han-period minister Zhang Anshi 張安世 (d. 62 BCE) revealed what is probably the earliest evidence in the Central Plain of China of a vaulted-brick chamber tomb.Footnote ³⁹ The near-contemporary tomb of Zhang Anshi himself consisted of front and rear tomb chambers. And while the main rear chamber took the form of a traditional wooden-beam outer coffin, this wooden chamber was enveloped by another wall built up in staggered courses of bar-shaped bricks, with a layer of charcoal in between the two walls. All was later covered over with a ceiling of wooden beams. The staggering of courses is foundational to the technique of constructing arches and vaults. Arch-building technology appeared relatively late in China. Spanning architectural gaps had gone through several developmental stages, including the use of lintel slabs made of large hollow-cored bricks, pointed arches, and finally curved arches.Footnote ⁴⁰ Starting from the late Western Han period, the technique and style of building barrel-arched or dome-vault shaped tomb chambers and tomb entrances using bar-shaped bricks began to appear. Slightly later, multi-chambered, vaulted tombs constructed of bar-shaped bricks became very popular throughout the Han empire's territory. Not only were bar-shaped bricks and their associated construction techniques able to spread rapidly, but also various forms of blue-gray bricks suitable for the construction of different types of tomb chambers began to appear in rapid succession, including wedge-shaped bricks, fan-shaped bricks, tongue-and-groove bricks, and interlocking bricks. In West Asia and the Mediterranean, arch technology has a relatively clear sequence of transmission and development. The earliest arch technology originated in Mesopotamia in the fourth millennium BCE. Later, it underwent further application and development in Babylonia, Assyria, India, and the Roman Empire. The technique of the corbelled arch had already appeared by 1250 BCE, as seen in the famous Lion Gate at the citadel of Mycenae, and in later periods of Ancient Greece (eleventh–first centuries BCE), arch construction witnessed very considerable advances. Later, this technology spread to the west coast of Asia Minor and to the region of Etruria in northern Italy, and after subsequent wars, was carried far down the Italian Peninsula.Footnote ⁴¹ The period of ancient Rome, from around the first to fourth centuries CE, is when arch construction gradually reached maturity. The ancient Romans, building on the foundations of the Etruscans (eighth–second centuries BCE) and ancient Greeks, developed a comprehensive system of post-and-lintel and arch construction that combined both Near Eastern and Mediterranean technologies.

In the more than one hundred years following the first appearance of bar-shaped bricks in the First Emperor of Qin's necropolis, we see almost no material that demonstrates that these bricks were being used to build walls or used to solve the problem of spanning open spaces by using arch technology. The most prevalent technology seen in the Far East during this century was still the various types of bricks which had appeared during the pre-Qin period (i.e., late Warring States period), such as hollow-cored bricks and square and rectangular paving bricks. The fact that, during the late Western Han period after Zhang Qian had opened the routes to the Western Regions of Central Asia, arch technology underwent an unusually rapid development in China, leads us to consider that although the technique of making bar-shaped bricks had already been spread to China through cultural exchanges beginning during the Qin dynasty, arch technology had not been promoted along with it. It was only during the Western Han period, after Zhang Qian had opened up the route to Central Asia, that this technique once again passed through the oasis Silk Road, or through the maritime Silk Road, and was reintroduced to the East, quickly gaining widespread recognition and application.Footnote ⁴²

Casting Technology of the Bronze Waterfowl

Forty-six life-size, painted bronze waterfowl were unearthed from pit no. K0007 at the First Emperor's necropolis. They include cranes, swans, ducks, and wild geese, and they were discovered together with terracotta figures of musicians playing instruments. This burial pit represents a tableau of a musical troupe composed of fifteen performers. One can imagine that as they performed their songs, it caused the waterfowl to gracefully dance to the changing rhythm of the music. During restoration and conservation work on some of the waterfowl, conservation experts discovered some bronze fabrication techniques that are rarely seen in East Asia but are quite commonly observed in the Mediterranean area. The bronze of these waterfowl is composed of an alloy of the two elements of copper and tin, very similar in elemental composition to other bronzes previously discovered at the First Emperor's necropolis, but differing from the normal composition of pre-Qin bronzes in China, which were cast from an alloy of copper, tin, and lead.Footnote ⁴³ Moreover, in the fabrication process for the bronze waterfowl, the craftsmen frequently employed a technique whereby individual parts were cast separately and later connected with joinery techniques, such as brazing or mortise and tenon joints. Almost all of the core-supports used in the casting of the waterfowl were made of clay, and they were put in place by inserting little rods of clay. Core support rods are often found in the neck area of the birds, made of either bronze or wood. The bases of the waterfowl all have one or two square apertures which had later been patched over. Casting defects on the exterior surfaces, holes left by the core supports, and the square apertures on the bases were all patched by the inlaying of a bronze plaque into a prepared recess with slightly undercut sides. The techniques seen in the bronze waterfowl, such as the multi-part casting, the joinery methods, the particular core-support method, the use of support rods within the core, the square apertures seen on the base of most pieces, and especially the technique of inlaying bronze plaques for patching, are rarely or never seen on pre-Qin bronze vessels found in China,Footnote ⁴⁴ but they are commonly seen on the bronze sculptures of Egypt, Greece, and Rome starting in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE in the Mediterranean region. So, based on the current data, experts speculate that the fabrication techniques seen in the bronze waterfowl from the First Emperor's necropolis had received some influence from the bronze-casting technology of the Mediterranean.Footnote ⁴⁵

Bronze Carriages with Horses

Of all the wonderful objects unearthed from the First Emperor's necropolis, nothing surpasses the two polychrome-painted bronze horse and carriage teams, one representing a military-style chariot driven by a royal guard, and the other, a comfortable traveling carriage for the First Emperor to ride in (see Figure 6). The vehicles and the horses were all fashioned at one-half scale. The former weighs 1,061 kg, and the latter weighs 1,241 kg. The construction of both vehicles is quite complex, as both are comprised of a great number of individual parts that were later joined together into assemblages. Most of these parts were first shaped by casting, and then finished by grinding, polishing, drilling, cutting, engraving, inlaying, punching, and other processing techniques. Many parts were then connected by precasting (where a premade part is placed within the mold for the casting of the next part), casting-on (where a handle or other part is cast onto an existing part, locking it into place), or soldering.Footnote ⁴⁶ Although the bronze horse and carriage teams unearthed at the First Emperor's necropolis are only one-half life-size, the high degree of realism in the simulation of all their components makes people almost gasp in amazement. Using bronze to simulate a horse and carriage team, whether as an actual working object or as a piece of art, is a phenomenon never witnessed in ancient China, either in received texts or in archaeological excavations. But, faraway in the Persian Empire, atop the tomb of Mausolus, completed sometime in the 330s BCE, there is indeed a precedent. Although specific information about this gilded, two-wheeled, bronze [sic] chariot driven by statues of Mausolus and his queen can no longer be known, there is no doubt that in its form, and the very concept of having a bronze [sic] carriage, it was quite consistent with the bronze carriages found at the First Emperor of Qin's necropolis.Footnote ⁴⁷

Figure 6. Imperial carriage and quadriggae. Qin dynasty, ca. 210 BCE. Bronze with paint. Museum of the Qin Emperor's Warriors and Horses, Lintong County, Shaanxi. Photograph by Anthony Barbieri-Low, August 4, 2005

PART TWO OTHER EVIDENCE OF EAST-WEST CULTURAL INTERCHANGE IN QIN CULTURE

Just because there are many examples of Western cultural elements discovered at the First Emperor of Qin's necropolis that do not belong to Qin culture, or to Far Eastern culture in general, does not mean that East–West cultural exchange only began during the period of the Qin empire. While combing through the developmental course of Qin culture, we have discovered that from the late Spring and Autumn Period to the late Warring States period (ca. 500–222 BCE), for a period of roughly three centuries, there are relatively clear clues pointing towards ongoing Sino-Western cultural exchanges. At the beginning of the last century, when archaeological materials were still lacking, Chinese scholar Zhang Xinglang 張星烺 (1888–1951) put forward the view that, “without a doubt, there was a flourishing exchange between the Qin dynasty and the Western Regions before the time of the First Emperor.”Footnote ⁴⁸ With the continuous enrichment of archaeological data, we have discovered a few important objects and craft techniques that clearly had been transmitted from West to East during this earlier period and that the state of Qin played an important role in this process due to its unique geographic location.

The currently available data makes clear that the earliest man-made iron objects (i.e., not of meteoric iron) originated in West Asia in roughly 2000 BCE, and that, after that, iron-working spread to South Asia, Europe, and Central Asia. In recent years, a relatively large number of iron objects, dating to around 1000 BCE, have been unearthed from tombs in the Xinjiang area of far northwest China. Some scholars have speculated that “China's initial iron-smelting technology, including that of the Qin State, may have been brought from outside the region.”Footnote ⁴⁹ Not only have the finds of iron objects from the Qin state been more numerous than those from any of the other polities, but they are also the earliest, chronologically. From the early Spring and Autumn period, there are the iron objects from the large Qin ducal tomb at Dabuzishan 大堡子山, in Li County, Gansu, and from the Qin tomb at Yuandingzishan 圓頂子山. There is also the iron sword with bronze hilt from the Qin tomb at Bianjiazhuang 邊家莊 in Long County, the iron dagger from the Qin tomb at Changwu County, Shaanxi, as well as the iron sword with bronze hilt unearthed from the Qin tomb at Jingjiazhuang 景家莊, Lingtai County, Gansu. From the middle to late Spring and Autumn period, there are the iron shovels and spades unearthed from the enormous Qin ducal tomb no. 1 in Fengxiang County, Shaanxi, the iron spade from the Qin ancestral temple site at Majiazhuang 馬家莊, and especially the twenty-three very impressive iron artifacts uncovered from the Qin tomb dated to the early part of the late-Warring States period at Yimenbu 益門堡 village (also called Yimencun 益門村), in Baoji, Shaanxi province. The unearthed types include three iron swords with golden hilts, thirteen iron-bladed knives with golden ring-handles, two iron-bladed knives with rectangular gold handles, and two iron-edged blades with golden ring handles. After analysis, it was determined that the iron sword with bronze hilt from the Jingjiazhuang site, and the iron swords with golden handles from the Yimenbu site were carburized, forged blades made from directly reduced sponge iron, and that the iron objects from the Qin ducal tomb no. 1 and the Majiazhuang site were all made of cast pig iron. These and all the other iron objects from this period can definitely be considered to be from man-made (and not meteoric iron) materials.Footnote ⁵⁰ Contemporary with these pieces, the earliest man-made iron objects from the Central Plain area include the iron sword with bronze hilt from the large incipient Spring and Autumn-period tomb no. 2001 from the Guo 虢 state cemetery at Shangcunling 上村嶺 near Sanmenxia in Henan and the iron knife with bronze handle from tomb no. 2009 at the same site. From the early and middle Spring and Autumn period in the Central Plain, we have the fragmentary iron objects found near the capital of the Jin 晉 state at the Tianma-Qucun 天馬曲村 site in Shanxi. The iron objects from the area of the Chu 楚 state all date from the late Spring and Autumn period, or the transitional period between the Spring and Autumn period and the Warring States period. From this evidence, we can see that almost all the earliest iron objects were discovered within the bounds of the Qin polity.

Moreover, flexed burials and solid gold objects seem to have followed the same route of transmission as iron production. Chinese scholar Zhao Huacheng 趙化成 considers that many elements of Qin culture, including flexed burials, the prevalence of iron smelting and iron objects, and the use of gold are all evidence for cultural interchange.Footnote ⁵¹ This conclusion has been receiving more and more recognition from scholars. In addition, we have discovered many other elements within Qin culture pointing to cultural exchange, which shall be introduced forthwith.

Trough-Form Pan Tiles for Roofing

The trough-form, pan tile for roofing, in which the two sides are sharply folded up into a raised lip, appears suddenly at the middle-to-late Spring and Autumn-period site of Majiazhuang, purportedly the Qin ancestral temple in the capital of Yong (see Figure 7).Footnote ⁵² This type of pan tile had not been seen previously in Qin culture and would not appear again after this time; nor has it yet been found in the cultural remains of any of the other polities of the Eastern Zhou period.

Figure 7. Qin Trough-Form Pan Tiles with Cover Tile. Qin state, ca. 500–400 BCE. From Majiazhuang site, Fengxiang County, Shaanxi. Photo courtesy of Duan Qingbo

During the fifth and sixth centuries BCE, the architectural building materials in the Qin capital of Yong seem to undergo a process of extremely rapid development. Not only do the types of building techniques and materials abruptly become quite rich and varied, but also the scale of construction suddenly becomes much greater. The trough-form pan tiles for roofing unearthed from the ancestral temple site at Majiazhuang is just one example of this.Footnote ⁵³ In form, these pan tiles have a dustpan like shape, with the two sides sharply turned upward. The leading and trailing edge are of different width, which facilitates the interlocking and overlap of further tiles to the front and rear. The interior and exterior surfaces of most of the pan tiles have cord markings, though some have a triangular pattern impressed on the exterior at one end. Most of the pan tiles are about 44–47 cm long, 24–27 cm wide, with the wall of the trough extending about 4–7.6 cm upward. They are about 1 cm in thickness and weigh up to 2.75 kg each.

Even though trough-form pan tiles only appear at this one site in all of East Asia, they are very commonplace from around the sixth century BCE in the Greco-Roman world and Persian Empire in the west. Guo Qinghua and others have pointed out that in terms of typology, basic form, and special features, the trough-form pan tiles from the Yong capital site of the Qin have many similarities to Acquarossa-type (Etruscan) and Roman-type pan tiles, and that the Far Eastern trough-form pan tiles make their appearance later than the comparable Western types.Footnote ⁵⁴

Scholars consider that clay roof tiles were invented in the first half of the seventh century BCE in Corinth, for shortly after 680 BCE the first known baked terracotta-tile roofing system was deployed at the Temple of Apollo at Corinth.Footnote ⁵⁵ This new technology greatly improved the water resistance and fire resistance of roofing, and quickly spread to all of the areas of the Greek world. Not only that, but the technology was soon widely deployed on the Italian peninsula as well. At the Etruscan settlement site of Acquarossa (near Viterbo in Etruria), trough-form pan tiles were unearthed that date to no later than the second half of the sixth century BCE. Many features of Etruscan culture were later absorbed by the Romans. With the further expansion of Greek culture, trough-form pan roofing tiles were also discovered at the Phrygian site of Gordion in Turkey (around 90 km southwest of Ankara), dated to the middle of the sixth century BCE.Footnote ⁵⁶ They have also been discovered at the site of the Macedonian capital of Pella in northern Greece, dated from around 320–300 BCE.Footnote ⁵⁷ They can also be seen at the Roman period site of Burgundy in France, dated to around the turn of the common era, demonstrating that the technology of this type of tile was inherited by the Romans from Greece and then carried into France.Footnote ⁵⁸ In addition, from the late Warring States period through the Qin imperial period, the practice of “quality-control and accounting inscriptions” on manufactured objects was thoroughly implemented in the state of Qin.Footnote ⁵⁹ Terracotta tiles were often stamped with a designation of an official ceramic workshop, and the same phenomenon also appeared in the West during the time-period when trough-form pan tiles were popular, where some pan tiles from this period carry the impression of an official stamp.

Trough-form pan tiles for roofing appear suddenly during the middle-to-late Spring and Autumn period in China, but in Qin culture they leave no trace of their origin and disappeared just as suddenly, without seeming to have had any influence on later developments. However, in the distant Mediterranean and in the territory of the Persian Empire, this type of pan tile appeared considerably earlier and saw widespread use, with a clear sequence of development and adoption. One cannot but help to wonder whether there was some cultural interchange between the two areas.

Prohibition of “Bu-de” Sacrifices

It is almost universally accepted that Buddhism passed through Central Asia before being introduced to China; however, there is still no consensus about the exact time period of its transmission to the Central Plain. It may be possible to make a case that it arrived during the Qin period. In the “Basic Annals of the First Emperor of Qin” in the Records of the Grand Scribe (Shi ji 史記) of Sima Qian, it is recorded for the thirty-third year of the reign of King Zheng (214 BCE) that, “It was forbidden to offer sacrifice to the bu-de 不得; a comet appeared in the western sky.”Footnote ⁶⁰ The earliest person to put forward the view that Buddhism had been introduced to China during the Qin dynasty was the Japanese scholar Fujita Toyohachi 藤田豊八 (1869–1929).Footnote ⁶¹ In a 1927 article, he suggested that the phrase bu-de, seen in that passage in the Records of the Grand Scribe, was a transliteration of the Sanskrit “Buddha,” which today (and since the medieval period in China) is usually transliterated as Fotuo 佛陀 or Futu 浮屠/浮圖. Thus, he considered that Buddhism had already entered China by the time of the First Emperor of Qin. Soon after Fujita published this piece, it caused a major reaction among Japanese and Chinese scholars. Chen Yinke 陳寅恪 (1890–1969), Fu Ssu-nien 傅斯年 (1896–1950), Xiang Da 向達 (1900–1966), Ma Feibai 馬非百 (1896–1984), Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 (1893–1964), Cen Zhongmian 岑仲勉 (1885–1961) and others discussed this problem.Footnote ⁶² There were a few who endorsed Fujita's theory, while those who opposed it were quite numerous.Footnote ⁶³ This controversy has continued until quite recently.Footnote ⁶⁴ Cen Zhongmian, in particular, had originally endorsed this theory, but after extensive further research, he concluded that the above-mentioned historical materials do not refer to Indian Buddhism, but rather to Zoroastrianism coming to China from Iran during the Qin dynasty.Footnote ⁶⁵ Most scholars still consider that the reference in the Records of the Grand Scribe indicates the prohibition of sacrificial activities to some kind of star or other astrological phenomena.Footnote ⁶⁶ Xin Deyong 辛德勇 thinks that the passage in question should be parsed together with the following one, resulting in, jinbude ci mingxing chu xifang 禁不得祠明星出西方, meaning that “private sacrifices to Venus (the asterism that controls the fate of military affairs), when it appears in the west, are to be prohibited.”Footnote ⁶⁷

Ma Feibai believed that the casting of the famous “Twelve Bronze Men” of the Qin (see part three, below) and the Buddhism of the Western Regions were closely connected. In his compendium of Qin historical records, Ma includes the later (Sui dynasty) story that reads as follows:

According to a passage in the Weilüe 魏略 (A Brief Account of the Wei Kingdom) text (mid-third century CE) by Yu Huan 魚豢:

This is the earliest mention in received literature of the formal introduction of Buddhism to China, but there is no relevant archaeological data to support it.

Also according to received literature, during the Eastern Han period (25–220 CE), under the reign of Emperor Ming (r. 57–75 CE), Buddhism had already entered China. In the tenth year of the Yongping era (67 CE), Emperor Ming dreamt that he saw a golden man. Thereupon, he sent men to the Western Regions to welcome the two eminent monks Jieye Moteng 迦葉摩騰 (Kāśyapa Mātaṇga) and Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 (Dharmaratna the Indian), using a white horse to carry a statue of the Buddha and Buddhist sutras. He thereupon established the White Horse Monastery in the capital of Luoyang.Footnote ⁷⁰ However, judging by the statement that Emperor Ming immediately constructed a Buddhist monastery soon after the white horse brought back the sutras prompted by his dream, Buddhism must have already established a foundation in China before this point. It had just not received official recognition by the government. Therefore, the emperor's dream was just used as a pretext to spread the faith with even greater fanfare, the goal being to lend greater credibility to the unification of politics and religion.

The time period and route of transmission of Buddhism is an important subject in the study of Chinese cultural history. However, based on the existing data, it is still impossible to reach a consensus regarding the exact time, route, and recognizable signs of its introduction to China. As one possibility, Buddhism may have been introduced to China during the Qin dynasty. We put forward this possible premise, for as we have seen, the presence of Western cultural elements within Qin culture was commonplace.

Stone Inscriptions and Stone Sculpture

Before the appearance of the large-scale stone sculptures in front of the tomb of Huo Qubing 霍去病 (d. 117 BCE) of the middle Western Han period (see Figure 9), no monumental works of sculptural stone art like this had ever been seen in Qin culture or in those of the other Warring States polities.Footnote ⁷¹ There are a small number of inscribed stone artifacts from Qin culture, including the famous Stone Drums of Qin, the inscribed chime stones from the tomb of Duke Jing of Qin (r. 576–537 BCE), the “Curses against Chu” execration texts (zu Chu wen 詛楚文) from the reign of King Huiwen of Qin (r. 338–311 BCE), and, of course, the stone steles carved on mountaintops during the First Emperor of Qin's imperial tours. From within the territories of the Six States to the east of Qin, there is only the Heguang 河光 stele from the polity of Zhongshan 中山.

The inscribed Stone Drums of Qin are some of the most well-known of all the remains of Qin culture, but their dating has elicited great controversy (see Figure 8).Footnote ⁷² This assemblage consists of ten inscribed drum-shaped blocks of stone, around 60 cm in diameter and 90 cm in height. They were found during the Tang dynasty, and may have originally been installed near the Altar of Fu 鄜畤, one of the noted sacrificial altars near the Qin capital of Yong, (present-day Changqing Township, southwest of Fengxiang County), where the Qin made suburban sacrifices to Heaven (or to the different di 帝 powers).Footnote ⁷³ They are carved with inscriptions related to historical events of the Qin, and their style of calligraphy has characteristics of an intermediate phase between Scribe Zhou's script (zhouwen 籀文) and large seal script (dazhuan 大篆). Each stone “drum” is carved with a poem in predominantly four-character lines, for a total of ten verses. The majority of the graphs on the stone drums are completely effaced. When Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 (1007–1072 CE) recorded the inscriptions during the Northern Song period, 465 graphs were still visible, while the Ming dynasty “Tianyi Pavillion” library edition of the rubbings of the Fan family, preserved only about 462 graphs. Yet, today, on the eighth of the drums, now preserved in the Palace Museum in Beijing, not a single graph can be made out.

Figure 8. Inscription on Stone Drum of Qin (fifth century BCE). Ink on paper rubbing, Ming dynasty, seventeenth century CE. Metropolitan Museum of Art, accession no. 1992.166.1a, b. Photo courtesy of Metropolitan Museum of Art (CC0 license)

The oldest Qin stone inscription extant today is found carved in large-seal script on a chime-stone excavated from the tomb attributed to Duke Jing of Qin (d. 537 BCE), and its dating is not disputed. After compiling the inscription from the seventeen different inscribed chime-stones, there are twenty-six lines overall, for a total of 206 characters. They were made in 573 BCE (the fourth year of Duke Jing's reign). The main idea of the inscriptional text is that Duke Jing would carry on the Mandate of Heaven and had acquired the throne in legitimate succession from Duke Gong (r. 608–605 BCE) and Duke Huan (r. 604–577 BCE) of Qin, which had been recognized by the Zhou king. Relying on the blessings of their high ancestor, Zhuanxu 顓頊, the Qin state had pacified the peoples of the Four Quarters, and their might and prestige resounded throughout the lands of the Chinese cultural sphere (Huaxia) and even extended to those of the barbarians, who vied among themselves to be the first to submit to Qin.

There have been no further discoveries of inscriptions on stone within the territory of the polity of Qin for the two-hundred-year period after the reign of Duke Jing. It is not until the twenty-sixth year of the reign of King Huiwen of Qin (312 BCE), that we have another example (which was discovered during Northern Song times). In that year, King Huiwen of Qin ordered the invocator of the Qin ancestral temple to beseech three powerful Qin ancestral and nature spirits (Wu Xian 巫賢, Dachen Juejiao 大沈厥湫, and Wutuo 惡駝) to bring down destruction upon the polity of Chu.Footnote ⁷⁴ The texts are known as the “Chu Execration Texts” (Zu Chu wen 詛楚文). Though each stone entreats a different spirit, the text on each is nearly identical, and the well-proportioned calligraphy is very close to Qin Small Seal (xiaozhuan 小篆) script. There is a slight difference in the number of graphs on each stone (only differing because of the name of each respective deity). They were buried in three separate locations: Kaiyuan Si 开元寺 in Fengxiang County, Shaanxi; Chaonaqiu 朝那湫, west of Pingliang City, Gansu; and Yaoceqiu 要冊湫, northeast of Zhengning County, Gansu. The three tablets carried 336, 318, and 325 graphs, respectively. All three tablets were lost sometime after the Southern Song period (1127–1279 CE), and today we only have transmitted rubbings of them.Footnote ⁷⁵

Around a century later, during the time of the First Emperor of Qin (r. 221–210 BCE), there suddenly appear seven great stone inscriptions. After his “unification” of China, the First Emperor embarked on extensive tours of his empire, and during four eastern tours, he left behind stone inscriptions in six of the locations he passed through. These are the Jieshi 碣石 inscription, the Zhifu 之罘 inscriptions (two steles), the Mount Tai 泰山 inscription, the Langye Terrace 琅琊臺 inscription, the Mount Kuaiji 會稽 inscription, and the Mount Yi 嶧山 inscription.Footnote ⁷⁶ The graphs were all carved in Qin Small Seal script, supposedly based on the brush calligraphy of the minister, Li Si 李斯. Some were carved on the living rock of mountains, while others were carved on prepared stone steles. For example, the stele erected upon Mount Tai reportedly measured three zhang and one chi (approx. 7.61 m) in height and three chi (approx. 0.693 m) in breadth.Footnote ⁷⁷ When the Second Emperor of Qin made his royal progresses throughout the empire, he imitated his father's practice and appended inscriptions to those stele previously erected by his father. All these inscriptions, except for the inscription on Mt. Yi, are fully recorded in the “Basic Annals of the First Emperor of Qin” in the Records of the Grand Scribe of Sima Qian. Generally, there are three major themes in the inscriptional texts: The first is the justification that the state of Qin carried out the will of Heaven when it “unified” the land, because the other Six States to the east were all greedy and corrupt, which concerns the legitimation of the regime. The second is that the policies implemented after the conquest were all magnificent and correct, which provides the rationale for the institutions of government. The third is that by following the current institutional blueprint, the country in the future will be prosperous and the people will be strong, which demonstrates wise foresight and planning.

The majestic Qin dynasty tradition of stone inscriptions (and stone sculptures) suddenly disappeared without a trace after the demise of the empire. It is not until around a century later that the phenomenon reappears within the territory of an East Asian empire. The sixteen large stone sculptures in front of the tomb of the Han general Huo Qubing 霍去病 (ca. 117 BCE), are mostly sculpted following the form of the original stone (see Figure 9). They employ techniques such as sculpting in the round, raised relief, and engraved intaglio lines to carve stone sculptures of oxen, horses, pigs, tigers, sheep, a fantastic beast eating a sheep, a man fighting a bear, a horse trampling a Xiongnu warrior, and other images. It is hard to find any evidence in China for this type of crude but concise lifelike rendering before these monuments.

Figure 9. Horse Trampling a Xiongnu Warrior. Western Han period, ca. 117 BCE. Carved stone. Tomb of Huo Qubing, Xingping City, Shaanxi. Photo by Anthony Barbieri-Low, August 5, 2005

When we next see an example of the art of stone carving or inscription, it is with the Stone Classics of the Xiping era (Xiping shijing 熹平石經), from the reign of Emperor Ling (168–189 CE) of the later Eastern Han period. The classical texts were carved on stone steles, which measured about one zhang (approx. 2.31 m) in height and four chi (approx. 92.4 cm) in breadth, following the clerical script, brush-written draft of Cai Yong 蔡邕 (132–192 CE) and others. Altogether there were forty-six steles, totaling 200,911 graphs, including classics like the Book of Documents (Shangshu 尚書), Lu Recension of the Book of Poetry (Lu Shi 魯詩), Book of Etiquette and Ceremonial (Yili 儀禮), Spring and Autumn Annals (Chunqiu 春秋), Gongyang Commentary (Gongyang Zhuan 公羊傳), and the Confucian Analects (Lunyu 論語). The calligraphic style of the graphs was not only a major achievement in Han clerical script, as a contemporary model for standardized calligraphy, but is also significant for its deep and long-lasting influence on the calligraphic tradition. During this period, in several regions of China, there also appeared a great quantity of pictorial stone carvings.Footnote ⁷⁸

Stone stele inscriptions and the art of stone sculpture not only emerged very early in places like Egypt, Persia, and the Mediterranean, but the subject matter was incredibly rich, and the technology became highly developed. Looking at materials from along the route of the classic “Silk Road,” the techniques of stone inscriptions and stone sculpture shows signs of having diffused from the West to the East. The practice was first transmitted from Egypt and Babylonia to Greece, and then throughout the Mediterranean islands and coastal areas. After that, from the territory of the Persian Empire, it spread to India during the Mauryan dynasty in the time of Ashoka, to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and finally arrived in China. The timeframe for the first appearance of the art of stone carving basically follows the pattern of “early in the West, later in the East.” And even though the techniques of stone inscriptions and stone sculpture progressively absorbed some of the local artistic characteristics of each area that they passed through in their course of development from West to East, looking at it from a purely chronological perspective, the chain of transmission from West to East is basically complete.

The Law Code of Hammurabi, which was unearthed from a secondary context in Susa, Iran, is an artifact which dates to around 1792–1750 BCE. The sculpted relief portion measures about 71 centimeters high, while the entire stele is 2.13 meters long, engraved on all sides with a long cuneiform inscription. The carving is very fine and the entire surface has been polished. The uppermost part of the stone displays a deep-relief carving of the Babylonian sun god Shamash conferring the law code upon King Hammurabi (r. ca. 1792–1750 BCE) of Babylon. The sun god is depicted as larger (than Hammurabi) and his whiskers are neatly plaited. He is adorned with a spiral-shaped crown as he sits upright, wearing a robe with one shoulder bared. He is shown in the act of conferring the magical rod and ring, emblems of authority, upon Hammurabi. Hammurabi is depicted wearing the traditional crown of kingship. His expression is solemn as he raises his right arm to declare an oath.

Because of the great antiquity of the Law Code of Hammurabi, and the great differences in terms of both space and time between that monument and the stone carvings found within Qin culture, it would be hard to say that there is any relationship between them. It is only with the stone inscriptions and stone sculptural art unearthed from within the territory of the Achaemenid Persian Empire (559–330 BCE) that we might begin to see a greater correlation with similar remains from Qin culture, which now deserves our special attention.

The Old Persian cuneiform inscription found at the site of Bost (Qala-i-Bist) in Sistan, southwestern Afghanistan, is a noteworthy inscription from the Achaemenid Persian Empire, dating from around the fifth century BCE. It was incised on a pyramidal green diorite stone that served as a standard weight measure.Footnote ⁷⁹ But the monument which holds the most probable link to comparable remains within Qin culture would be the famous cliff inscription at Bisitun, set up by the Persian king Darius I (r. 522–486 BCE) (see Figure 10).

Figure 10. Bisitun Carving and Inscription. Achaemenid Persian Empire, ca. 520 BCE. Height 15m; breadth 25 m. Public domain photograph

The Bisitun inscription was carved by Darius I around 520 BCE on the face of a sheer limestone cliff located near present-day Bisitun village, 32 kilometers east of Kermanshah, Iran. Darius was said to be greatly moved when he passed through this area, so he ordered men to record his merit for reunifying the empire in both words and images on this rock face.Footnote ⁸⁰ The area of high-relief carving is about three meters high and five meters wide, and in general the sculpted images occupy the upper portion of the carving, while most of the trilingual text sits below the images. The relief carving shows the nine pretender kings who rebelled against Darius I and were captured (the image of a tenth defeated ruler was added later). Nine of the captives are chained at the neck by a long rope, and their hands are tied behind their backs as they face Darius. The life-size figure of Darius stands erect, his left foot trampling on the prostrate figure of Gaumata (the false Bardiya). Darius grasps a bow in his left hand, while with his right he gives gratitude and praise to a representation of the highest god Ahura Mazda in the sky (shown as a divine king within a winged solar disc).Footnote ⁸¹ As a creator god symbolizing light, Ahura Mazda holds the magic ring symbolizing legitimate kingship in his left hand and prepares to hand it to Darius. The lengthy inscription is carved in three languages using cuneiform script: Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian. The main content of Darius's inscription relates the following: testifying that he (Darius) is the legitimate king in the Persian succession; boasting of his military exploits in nineteen wars in a single year and the capture of the nine rebel kings; signifying his receipt of a heavenly mandate from Ahura Mazda; and emphasizing the inviolability of his divinely ordained kingship. When the beginning of his inscription states, “I am Darius, the Great King, King of Kings, King in Persia, King of All Countries,” this naturally leads one to think of the similar content in the First Emperors of Qin's inscribed steles from his eastern tours. The Central Asian inscriptions of the edicts of the Mauryan king Ashoka the Great (r. ca. 268–232 BCE) and the Greek recensions of these that were found in Afghanistan (the Chehel Zina Greek-Aramaic bilingual inscription and the Greek-only inscription, both near Kandahar), as well as other Greek [private-dedication inscriptions on metal vessels] from the Gandharan region of northwest Pakistan are the closest in geographic proximity to the stone inscriptions found in the Qin culture.Footnote ⁸² They can be roughly dated to between 260 and 232 BCE and certainly can't be earlier than 329 BCE (the date of commencement of Alexander the Great's Central Asian campaigns). They are all later than Duke Jing of Qin's chimestone inscriptions, but earlier than the First Emperor of Qin's steles from his eastern tours.

After sifting through all the information presented above, we realize that commemorating events with stone inscriptions had a very long history in Egypt, Greece, and West Asia, and the high level of achievement in the art of stone sculpture in Greece, Rome, and Persia is quite well known. But what we want to know is this: why does the Qin state, which was located at the far western corner of the Chinese cultural sphere, develop a tradition of commemorating events through stone inscriptions (even though the remains show some discontinuity, it probably was always present), when none of the other states to its east had done so? And why was the art of carved stone illustration so rare in central China before the end of the Eastern Han period? Scholars of the previous generation (like Cen Zhongmian) had already incisively recognized that the creation of stone stele carving in China must have received some influence coming from the West.Footnote ⁸³ When the Stone Drums of Qin make an appearance, the inscriptional form and technique is already exquisite and highly advanced. Just as was the case with the sudden appearance of bronze vessels in China, this must have been the result of learning from foreign models from beyond the frontiers.

Elliptical Cocoon-Form Flasks

As a container for holding liquids like water, wine, or oil, the elliptical cocoon-form flask is relatively complicated to manufacture, but carries the advantages of ease of pouring liquids in and out, a relatively large capacity, the ability to withstand relatively high external pressure, as well as the convenience of being highly portable without being easily damaged.Footnote ⁸⁴ Those cocoon-form flasks discovered so far (from the middle to late Warring States period) have mostly been found at sites in the core area of Qin culture (i.e., Guanzhong), as well as in the expanded zone of Qin culture.Footnote ⁸⁵ This type of small-mouthed, broad-bellied ceramic vessel, with the belly taking a form similar to a silkworm cocoon, maintains a relatively stable vessel shape over its period of development. Only rarely do we see examples fashioned in bronze, such as the vessel excavated from the tomb of a chief of the Rong at the Majiayuan 馬家塬 site. They can be divided into types with a slightly flattened circular base (see Figure 11 left) or those with a ring-footed base (see Figure 11 right).

Figure 11. Cocoon-Form Flasks. Left: Qin Imperial Period, ca. 221–210 BCE. From First Emperor of Qin's Necropolis. After Qin Shihuangling kaogudui 秦始皇陵考古隊, eds., “Qin Shihuangling xice ‘Lishan shiguan” jianzhu yizhi qingli jianbao” 秦始皇陵西側「麗山飤官」建築遺址清理簡報 [Preliminary report of the clearing of the architecutural site of the Lishan Provisioning Office on the western side of the mausoleum of the First Emperor of Qin], Wenbo 1987.6, 17 Figure 143. Right: Late Warring State period, ca. 250–221 BCE. From Yilipo tomb no. 3, Ankang County, Shaanxi. After Li Qiliang 李啟良, “Shaanxi Ankang Yilipo Zhanguo mu qingli jianbao” 陝西安康一里坡戰國墓清理簡報 [Preliminary report of the cleaning of the Warring States tomb at Yilipo, Ankang County, Shaanxi] Wenwu (1992.1), Figure 3.5

In general, the vessels are not that large, with most being around 30 centimeters in breadth. The only exception to this is the more than twenty examples exceeding 60 centimeters in diameter excavated from sacrificial pits next to the large (probably royal) late Warring States Qin tomb at the Shenheyuan 神禾塬 site, in the Chang'an district of present-day Xi'an. Some of the ceramic cocoon-form flasks from that site also carry polychrome painted decoration on the exterior.Footnote ⁸⁶ The cocoon-form flask first appears during the middle Warring States period (late fourth–early third centuries BCE) and its use extended to the middle of the Western Han period (ca. 100–50 BCE). Most examples have come from burials. After the middle Western Han period, they seem to disappear completely.

Actually, the earliest type of cocoon-form flask appeared in the Guanzhong area during the middle-to-late Western Zhou period (ca. 900–771 BCE). The Qijia 齊家 village hoard in Fufeng County yielded one ceramic cocoon-form flask, and the bronze hoard site in Wugong County yielded four cocoon-form vessels.Footnote ⁸⁷ I have not seen any report of a find of a cocoon-form flask from the Spring and Autumn period, and it is only by the middle Warring States period that they once again make an appearance. At the bronze foundry site of the Jin state at Houma 侯馬, archaeologists discovered a huge cocoon-form vessel, which was probably a water storage jar.Footnote ⁸⁸ This type of vessel was produced once more within the Qin culture of the middle Warring States period, where it flourished and underwent further development.

According to the archaeological finds, cocoon-form flasks were quite rare before the middle-to-late Warring States period. Although a similar oviform vessel was unearthed from the enormous tomb no. 1001 at the Xibeigang royal cemetery near Houjiazhuang 侯家莊 (ca. 1200 BCE) at the last Shang dynasty capital near Anyang, Henan, the further development of this form was not continuous or smooth, probably because of the difficulty in manufacturing vessels of this shape. It was only during the middle-to-late Warring States period, especially after it was accepted into Qin culture, that this vessel form was able to achieve widespread endorsement and rapid dissemination.

Far away, in the islands and coastal areas of the eastern Mediterranean, there existed a type of cocoon-form flask that was similar in size and shape to those examples found in Qin culture (see Figure 11). It was prevalent between the tenth century BCE and second to third centuries CE. The body was made of earthenware, and the exterior was frequently polished and sometimes painted with exquisite designs (see Figure 12).

Figure 12. Barrel-Shaped Jugs from Cyprus: (a) Cypro-Geometric III (ca. 850–750 BCE). H. 24 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, accession no. 74.51.495. (b) Cypro-Archaic I (ca. 750–600 BCE). H. 35 cm, L 32 cm. Metropolitan Museum of Art, accession no. 74.51.517. Photographs courtesy of Metropolitan Museum of Art (CC0 license)

The island of Cyprus is the easternmost island in the Mediterranean. It faces Greece, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt across the sea. Since ancient times, it has been a transport hub connecting the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. In Ancient Greece, the cocoon-form flasks popular in this area (called by European scholars “barrel-shaped jug” or “barrel-shaped vase”) are dated to between 950–600 BCE (see Figure 12). Their outward form is very similar to that of the cocoon-form vessels found in Qin culture.

The mouth is often flared out and trumpet-shaped, the belly looks a bit like a silkworm cocoon, and the base is curved, without a ring-foot pedestal. The body of the jug is often painted with bird, floral, and other plant designs, and some pots are also equipped with a filter (Figure 12b). This type of vessel is most often found in tombs, so it is speculated that the jugs contained offerings for the deceased. The size of these vessels varies. The small ones are considered to have served as perfume containers, while the larger ones probably were used to store and transport liquids like wine and olive oil. Some scholars think that this vessel type was first developed within the indigenous civilization on Cyprus, but strongly under the influence of Mycenaean culture.Footnote ⁸⁹

There is a relatively high degree of formal similarity between the cocoon-form (barrel-shaped) jugs of the Eastern Mediterranean and the comparable vessels found within Qin culture, where most examples have also come from a funerary context. However, due to limitations in the collected evidence, we cannot yet sort out the development and distribution of similar artifacts in the Mediterranean region, nor in the domain of the Persian Empire. However, when such distinctive artifacts with similar shapes and functions appear in areas separated by such distances, with one situated at the far eastern edge of the Mediterranean and the other at the far western part of China, it certainly stimulates the imagination.

PART THREE DARIUS THE GREAT AND THE FIRST EMPEROR OF QIN

The establishment of the Qin empire cannot be considered simply as the inevitable result of societal evolution in China since the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, but must be seen as a pioneering innovation, a decisive rupture with the traditions of the past in terms of political and cultural forms. If one seeks to understand the political and institutional civilization, as well as the artistic forms and technological innovations created during the Qin period, it is necessary to examine Qin culture in the context of the developmental sequence of the evolution of Chinese civilization, but it is even more imperative to broaden one's horizon and carry out objective analyses that always take care to consider the patterns of Greco-Roman, Persian, or Indian civilizations.

Comparison of Ruling Ideology and Policies of Darius I and the First Emperor of Qin

Through the conduit of the Silk Road, certain material cultural elements that were appreciated in both the East and the West were able to achieve acceptance and spread, and we can confirm this with textual and archaeological evidence. But my question is this: Is the fusion, interchange, and dissemination of these kinds of material cultural elements really the most important and crucial aspect in the process of civilizational interchange?

Upon comparison, we discover that the series of reform measures adopted by Darius I after he “unified” the Persian Empire during the sixth century BCE, and the institutions established by the First Emperor of Qin after his “unification” of China three hundred years later, show a surprisingly high degree of similarity with some being almost identical. Aspects of concrete knowledge as well as their underlying ideological principles, such as the First Emperor of Qin's ruling ideology, the actual system of government, and its administrative measures had perhaps been deeply influenced by the Persian Empire. This outcome may be related to the eastern campaigns of Alexander the Great of Macedon.

Reasonable Speculation Concerning East–West Cultural Interaction during the Reign of the First Emperor of Qin

In 330 BCE, the Persian Empire, which had persisted for 220 years, was conquered by Alexander the Great of Macedon. After he incorporated the Persian Empire into his realm, this new master of the state inherited and basically continued the entire political and administrative structure of the former Persian Empire, and like Darius I, Alexander also conquered east to the Indus River valley. It was perhaps at this time that Persian, Greek, and Chinese culture collided with each other and experienced a series of interchanges.