Bronze Weapons of the Qin Terracotta Warriors: Standardisation, Craft Specialisation and Labour Organization by Xiuzhen Li (review)

type of casting technology separately. Peng apparently realizes this critical division and uses chapter 7 to address matters of design, while chapter 8 deals with technological questions. It is clear that two-dimensional openwork first appeared on Chinese bronzes during the Late Shang (thirteenth–eleventh centuries B.C.) and Western Zhou (eleventh– eighth centuries B.C.) periods, but was likely cast with section-moulds. Moreover, Peng argues that the driving force behind the rise of lost-wax castings in China was probably the creation of three-dimensional interlace as a realization of the previous two-dimensional ones. This theory is certainly worth serious consideration, but the author does not explain how this design penetrated into the bronze repertoire of the Eastern Zhou states or when lost-wax casting was first employed in producing it. On the other hand, the technology of lostwax casting was likely transmitted to the Central Plains via the northern zone, stretching from Xinjiang and Gansu in the West to Liaoning and Jilin Province in the East. This theory, opposing the southwest route of transmission or local invention theory previously preferred, is supported by well-dated archaeological finds. The author highlights the importance of northern Hebei in this process because bronzes found in this region reveal zoomorphic finials which are also commonly found in southern Siberia and were probably made by lost-wax casting. Though it is not completely clear in which manner these earlier and stylistically different lost-wax casting pieces affected the later Eastern Zhou metal workers in areas further south, it is certainly an important place of origin for this exotic technology. After finishing these chapters, readers may find themselves still lacking conclusive answers to most of the questions surrounding the debate on the lost-wax versus piecemould technology. This problem, I think, largely stems from the incapability of current technical methods to identify lost-wax casted objects. Though artifacts with three-dimensional openwork interlace have been generally accepted as an indicator of lost-wax casting, there is still much uncertainty when investigating two-dimensional openwork, deeply cut, or zoomorphic shaped artefacts. In chapter 9, the author raises the question whether or not lost-wax casting can even be exclusively associated with interlaced openwork (p. 167). He gives the example of bronze waterfowl statues from the mausoleum of the First Emperor of Qin, which were confirmed to be items made via the lost-wax casting process but lacked interlaced openwork. Is this a sign that lost-wax casting was introduced into China more than once and consequently adapted to the Chinese traditional bronze production system in more than one way? As we only have very few confirmed lost-wax cases, I would be more cautious in providing conclusive remarks on transmission routes or diachronic development sequences for this technology. This is certainly not to devalue Peng’s work. I believe, based on the contents of this book, that researchers can finally put aside previous disputes and move forward to more culturally significant questions, thereby joining the effort to develop new investigative tools for answering these questions.