The Size of the Chinese Terra-Cotta Warriors - 3rd Century B.C.

John Komlos
Department of Economics
University of Munich
Ludwigstraße 33/IV
D-80539 Munich, Germany
Telephone: +49-89-2180-5824
+ 49-89-8983-9700
Voice Mail: +49-89-2180-3169
Fax: +49-89-33-92-33
email: jk@econhist.de

Abstract: The size of the terra-cotta underground army made to “protect” the tomb of the first
Chinese Emperor Qin more than 2,200 years ago bears considerable resemblance to modern
infantry units in armies which enforced a minimum height requirement. The height requirement
meant that the distribution of size deviated from a normal distribution, and this is precisely what
one finds for the terra-cotta figures. Assuming that the underlying population from which the
Chinese warriors were recruited was normally distributed, and that its standard deviation was
about the same as modern values, the estimate of the physical stature of the Chinese population
two thousand years ago can be estimated as between 162-171cm. The other body dimensions are
quite similar to those of US soldiers who fought in the Civil War.

The extraordinary life-size terracotta warriors discovered in 1974 near the present day town

of Xi’an in China’s Shaanxi Province have been excavated and measured.1 The famous statues

were made in the 3rd century before our time – that is to say, they are more than two thousand

years old. Numbering more than 7,000 - buried in three pits,- this amazing terra-cotta

underground army, was created in order to symbolically “guard” the mausoleum of the first

Chinese Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi. The soldiers are true-to-life, and are buried in battle

formation fully armed.2 We analyse the size of these figures on the basis of a sample of 734

measurements (out of 1087 figures excavated so far), in order to consider the extent to which this

imaginary army reflects the actual physical size of the Chinese population of the time.3 The mean

size of the figures is 177.7 cm (range: 166.0 - 187.5 cm). There was very little difference between

the size of the armoured and plain infantry (Table 1).

In considering the distribution of the size of the figures one should consider that a) the size

of human populations is normally distributed; b) the standard deviation (σ) of the height

distribution of human populations is very close to 6.85 cm even in populations whose mean
height is substantially different; and c) most military prior to the universal conscription laws of

the 19th century enforced a minimum height requirement (mhr). An examination of the size

distribution can give one a good sense of the mhr. The measurement of the figures by the

archaeologists were made in metric units, which are converted to chi, the linear measure used at

the time of the Qin Dynasty (1 chi = 23.0 cm). The distributions should be examined in the

original measurement units because that is the appropriate method for identify the mhr for

entering the military.4 The size ought to be considered as an approximation of reality because the

figures were assembled from individual components, and therefore, the craftsmen could not

possibly reproduce the true height of the soldiers exactly. In addition, the clay shrank as much as

10 percent in the kiln so that the final outcome could not be determined exactly.5 Hence, it should

suffice to consider the size distribution of soldiers in increments (bins) of 0.1 chi (Figure 1). The

values indicated are at the centre of the intervals. The size distribution resembles almost precisely

the distributions obtained in most military institutions of the 18th century.6 It indicates that the

mhr was probably at 7.65 chi (175.95 cm), because this is the point at which the sample

distribution obviously begins to deviate markedly from a normal distribution. The mhr was not

enforced stringently, inasmuch as 17.9 percent of the observations are below the mhr.

In order to estimate the height of the Chinese population from which the soldiers were

drawn, one should calculate the mean of the truncated sample (after the data below the mhr have

been discarded), and subsequently, convert these values into population mean estimates by using

the above mentioned two attributes of human height distributions, namely that they are normal

with a σ = 6.858 cm.7 Hence, we discard data less than 175.95 cm, because these are not

representative of the height of the population from which the soldiers were drawn. The mean size

of the figures above the mhr is the truncated mean of 178.5 cm (Table 1). This truncated mean

translates into a population mean height of 162.3 cm (Table 2). In other words, if one draws a

sample from a population with mean of 162.3 cm and σ = 6.858 cm, but limits the sample to

those who are taller than 175.95 cm, then the sample obtained will have a mean of 178.5 cm.
Admittedly, this estimate is quite sensitive to the assumed values of the mhr and σ. With different

plausible values, the estimated height of the Chinese population can range all the way up to 171.2

cm (Table 2). Thus, the exact population mean height cannot be ascertained with certainty, but we

can, nonetheless, infer that the size of the terra-cotta figures could well represent the true physical

stature of the Chinese infantry, and these, in turn, could well have been drawn from the

population at large. The physical stature of the Chinese population implied by the terra-cotta

figures is certainly within the plausible range, even if one were to subtract 1-2 cm as an allowance

for the head-dress and cap of the terra-cotta figures.8 The other available body dimensions of the

terra cotta figures can be compared to those of American soldiers of the Union Army in the 1860s

(Table 3).9 Foot length, shoulder width, arm length, as well as the height/arm-length ratio are all

remarkably similar, while waistline differs somewhat on account of the different mode of

measurement. The head length does differ considerably, but that is caused by the different

ethnicity of the Chinese army. All in all, the resemblance of the body dimension to modern

populations is quite remarkable.

 Figure 1. The Size Distribution of the Terra-Cotta Figures

50

40

30
Percent

20

10

0
7.30 7.40 7.50 7.60 7.70 7.80 7.90 8.00 8.10

Size (chi)

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (cm) of the Size of the Terra Cotta Figures

Type of Figure N
Size of Standard Minimum Maximum N after Truncated
Figures Deviation Truncation Mean
Plain infantry 305 177.6 2.8 168.5 187.5 236 178.7
Armored infantry 427 177.7 2.6 166.0 186.0 365 178.4
All 733 177.7 2.7 166.0 187.5 601 178.5

Table 2. Estimated Mean Height (cm) of the Chinese Population of the Qin Empire

standard deviation
mhr 6.858 6.8
175.95 162.3 171.1
175.00 166.3 171.2
Table 3. Body Dimensions of Terra Cotta Figures compared to US Soldiers, 1860

Head Length Source Comments

Terra-Cotta 733 24.5 2.7
US 1860s 10,876 34.3 n.a. Gould p. 370.

Waistline
Terra-Cotta 733 94.6 7.8 with clothing
US 1860s 10,876 80.0 n.a. Gould. p. 267 without clothing

Arm Length
Terra-Cotta 733 74.5 13.8 arm + hand length
US 1860s 7,889 74.2 n.a. Gould. p. 267

Shoulder Width
Terra-Cotta 733 43.5 3.1 with clothing
US 1860s 4,085 41.6 n.a. Gould. p. 285. without clothing

Height/Arm Length Ratio

Terra-Cotta 733 2.5 0.4
US 1860s 4,855 2.3 n.a. Gould. p. 271

Foot Length
Terra-Cotta 733 27.7 1.6 with shoes
US 1860s 6,400 25.6 n.a. Gould. p. 273 without shoes
 Endnotes

The data for this project were kindly provided by Catharina Blansdorf of the Bavarian

Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, and I take this opportunity to express my appreciation for her

support, as well as that of Tianchao Li for help with data processing, without implicating

either in the results presented here.

1
Zhang Wenli, The Qin Terracotta Army. Treasures of Lintong, London: Scala Books, 1996.
2
Even if the statues are probably not actual portraits. Ladislav Kesner, “Likeness of No One:

(Re)presenting the Firts Emperor’s Army,” Art Bulletin, 77, 1 (1995): 115-32.
3
Shaanxi sheng kaogu yanjiusuo and shihunagling Qinyongkengkaogu fajuedui, (eds.), Qin

Shihuangling bingmayong keng: Yi hao keng fajue baogao, 1974-1984, Beijing: Wenwu

Press, 1988, Vol. 1, pp. 349-75.

4
John Komlos, “How To (and How Not to) Analyze Deficient Height Samples,” Unpublished

Manuscript, University of Munich, 2002; available at: http://www.vwl.uni-

muenchen.de/ls_komlos/howto.pdf
5
Lothar Ledderose, Ten Thousand Things, Module and Mass Production in Chinese Art,

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), pp. 51-74.

6
John Komlos, Nutrition and Economic Development in the Eighteenth-Century Habsburg

Monarchy: An Anthropometric History (Princeton: Princeton University Press: 1989).

7
We do not use maximum likelihood (ML) method, because the mhr was probably well

above the mean, and in such cases ML procedure does not provide the most reliable results.

Komlos, “How To (and How Not to).”

8
The height of 19th century Chinese men ranged between 162 and 167 cm. John Murray,

“Stature and Body-Mass Index among Mid-Nineteenth Century South Chinese Immigrants, “

Annals of Human Biology, 1994, 21, 6, 617-620.

9
Gould, Benjamin, Investigations in the Military and Anthropological Statistics of American

Soldiers (Cambridge: Riverside, Press. 1869, reprinted Arno Press, NY 1979).