

Things You Didn’t Know About China’s Terracotta ArmyRead - webista
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/04/5-things-you-didnt-know-about-chinas-terracotta-army/

======
janzer
Two legends, namely:

"While he awaited a tonic, Qin turned to mercury tablets."

and then a map where:

"rivers of quicksilver represent the kingdom’s waters"

finally some modern evidence:

"Modern investigations have been able to corroborate this legend with some
chemical evidence. In 2005, a research team led by Chinese archaeologist Duan
Chingbo took 4,000 samples from the earthen mound to test for Mercury, and all
of the samples came back highly positive."

Which legend would you think that should be supporting?

Sometimes I just don't understand the thought process going into an article.

------
dsrguru
"Though both the Germans and Americans invented this chrome-plating technology
in 1937 and 1950, respectively, it existed in China 2,200 years ago."

Assuming all three forms of that technology are identical as the article makes
it sound, that's awesome.

~~~
ars
China invented an amazing number of things before anyone else - and then
promptly forgot each one.

To put it in modern terms, China of old had amazing engineering skills but
terrible execution.

~~~
batista
> _To put it in modern terms, China of old had amazing engineering skills but
> terrible execution._

Or, to put it in terms I prefer more, China had amazing engineering skills but
wasn't obsessed with exploiting each every thing for financial gain and
milking inventions.

~~~
ars
You might like your terms more, but they are not historically accurate. They
were very happy to exploit things, they just didn't see how certain things
could be exploited.

Most of the things were invented "for fun" and when that worse off (for
example the emperor lost interest) they were forgotten.

I guess it's one drawback to the patronage system - it lets you jump ahead of
the curve and invent amazing things (due to all the funding), but you don't
look for economic reasons to do it - all you care about is making your patron
happy, and when he looses interest the project is canceled.

Going to the moon is a modern example of this. We went to the moon because the
patron (the Government) wanted it, and funded it. But there was no actual
reason to do it. So someday when there is a huge economic reason to go to the
moon (if I knew what it was I'd be rich :) people will wonder how the US
squandered the opportunity.

~~~
batista
> _You might like your terms more, but they are not historically accurate.
> They were very happy to exploit things, they just didn't see how certain
> things could be exploited._

I don't think they were stupid (the inventions prove it in the first place).

They were perfectly capable of seeing how they could be if they focused on
that dimension. They just didn't focus on that dimension, which is what I'm
saying.

> _Most of the things were invented "for fun" and when that worse off (for
> example the emperor lost interest) they were forgotten._

Which corroborates what I'm saying. They didn't event them to exploit them in
the first place, but with a playful attitude towards them.

~~~
ars
The most definitely did try to exploit them for personal gain - the only
difference was the gain was favor from the emperor rather than selling in the
market.

You are trying to imply they did things purely for the fun and interest in
them, and that is completely not true.

If the emperor wanted to sell the things, they would have jumped at that.
Don't try to imply they had some "noble" mindset with an implied criticism of
those with a more mercantile mindset since that's simple not true, and it's
just a form of the "noble savage" fallacy.

The main criticism you can read into my text (if you want) is that when the
emperor lost interest they did not just stop making the item - they also
forgot how to make it, they did not record the inventions for future
generations. They apparently were not interested in collecting knowledge, only
in amusing or impressing the emperor.

