Martial Art History - How Reliable Is It Anyway?

[Steel Tiger]

Recently I have noticed a lot of discussion of the history or a number of arts (Karate, TKD, and TSD in particular) and it has made me wonder about martial art history generally. The phenomenon of the martial art historian is quite recent really. To be sure people within styles have kept records of lineages and have made note of particularly important events within the lifetime of a style, but not until the last 20 or 30 years has anyone applied the rigours of the disciplines of history and archaeology to the martial arts.

Let me use my own art as an example.

[SIZE=+3]

E[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]xact [/SIZE]and plentiful details concerning Dong Haichuan and his creation of Baguazhang are few and far between, due in large part to an aura of mystery that Dong intentionally cultivated. We do know that he was originally born and raised in Wen An, Hebei province and later moved to Beijing, where he taught the palace guards his new and unique style, Baguazhang. Several legends and possibilities are presented below.
[SIZE=+1]One legend[/SIZE] is that Dong wondered into the mountains near Beijing and encountered a dwarf. This dwarf allegedly led Dong to a monk named Bi Deng Xia (Man Without Shadow Under the Lamp) who was the number one student of the actual founder of Baguazhang. Dong acquired his art from Bi Deng Xia while Song Wei Yi the famous swordsman learned his skill from Bi Yue Xia (Man Without Shadow Under the Moon). In 1949, the writer Li Yingan was learning fencing with master Guo Zhifeng. According to master Guo his arts came from Master Song Wei Yi. However, Master Guo's fencing and pugilistic arts are quite different from those of Dong Haichuan's. In view of this difference, it can be surmised that the validity of this historical version is open to doubt.
[SIZE=+1]Another version[/SIZE] came from Master Ren Zhicheng who wrote a book called Yin Yang Ba Gua Zhang. According to this book, Ren's teacher Master Li Zhenqing's Eight Palm Maneuvers and Dong Hai Chuan's Eight Palm Maneuvers were both learned from Master Dong Menglin. Indeed there were many similarities between Li's Babanzhang and Dong Haichuan's Baguazhang. However, there is no concrete proof of master Ren's version.
[SIZE=+1]The most plausible[/SIZE] version is that Dong Haichuan created Baguazhang from his life experiences. He trained extensively in martial arts for much of his youth in his home, Wen An in Hebei province. At the age of 40, he was said to have left Wen An and joined a pacifist order of Taoist monks who practiced their faith by walking in circles and chanting mantras. He later became a servant in the Emperor's kitchen where he had to balance great dishes on each hand and in so doing inspired many future Bagua palm movements. It is most likely that he combined various elements - his years of training in Wen An, the circle walking of the Taoists, the footwork and palm changes in the kitchen - to create the Baguazhang forms.

Dong Haichuan (1796 - 1880) is the most reliable and earliest source for the origin of baguazhang, but is the founder? Nobody knows. He probably is, but the origin of the gua, the trigrams goes back millenia (legend has it they were first developed by Huangdi in the 3rd millenium BC) which creates confusion. Where did the numerous versions of the discovery come from? What evidence is there? Well there is almost none which, of course, adds to the confusion.

I would like my own style to have a direct connection to Dong or, at least, to his time, but it is not to be. We can only trace it back to the Cultural Revolution and the Emei region of Sichaun.

There is a great desire, it seems, in martial arts to have an old art. But the problem is that the focus of martial arts, naturally, is not on history. The result is that if any history was recorded it was done selectively or half-heartedly. More often than not the history is constructed from passing mentions in the record of other events, and these usually need to be interpreted to find the reference to a specific art. For example, we know that Pao Chui (Cannon Fist) is quite old because there is a mention of a demonstration during a festival given by Emperor Gaozu (566-635), founder of the Tang Dynasty.

In the last generation or so numerous people have discovered that what they thought was the history of their art is not correct and they have delved into the subject. The result has been the discovery of convoluted, positively Machiavellian politicing, and major personality clashes which are not mentioned in the 'official' history of their arts. They are finding out that the real history is infinitely more interesting than the party line.

The history of an art is very important for understanding. Forms and techniques get reinterpreted and reinvented over time. Sometimes as a result of good insights and sometimes as a result of bad insights. but it behooves a student who wishes a full understanding of his or her art to know what the changes are and why they exist. If a change has come about simply because one master doesn't like another, that's not so good for the art.

The biggest problem with sanitised histories is that they exclude. Anything the compiler of the history does not like is left out. Anything that the governing organisation does not like is left out (and here I am actually thinking more of the Yang family in taiji than, say, the WTF in TKD). The fullness of the art is truncated by a desire to emphasise one element.

My background is archaeology so I have a tendency to want all the possible data I can get my hands on to draw conclusions and so exclusive histories really annoy me. That is why I am so pleased to see so many people these days willing to put aside any preconceptions thy have and let the investigation take them where it will.

I think I have gone on long enough now. One last thing.

I would like to suggest that we all be open to all the history of our various arts in the hopes of gaining a better understanding of this pastime we are all so passionate about.

 

[Twin Fist]

anything past the last 50 years, take with a grain of salt.

Actually, take everything with a grain of salt since there is no ONE group that records MA history

 

[Touch Of Death]

anything past the last 50 years, take with a grain of salt.

Actually, take everything with a grain of salt since there is no ONE group that records MA history

Even then... maybe.
Sean

 

[exile]

Consider the following, about the centrepiece of MA 'history', the source of Asian MAs in Bodhidharma's celebrated visit to the Shaolin Temple:

Some recent scholars have expressed doubt that Bodhidharma ever lived at all, and the infrequency with which legitimate early historical sources mention him is worthy of note. [22] What is really disputed, however, is not his existence, but his reputation as the first patriarch of Ch'an Buddhism (Japanese Zen). Scholars point out that the central Ch'an idea of meditation had been present since the time of Parthian missionary An Shihkao, at Lo-yang after 148 and "the first undoubtedly historical personality in Chinese Buddhism." [23] There is also no evidence connecting Bodhidharma with any of the eccentricities that later came to characterize the Ch'an sect in particular. [24] So it is unlikely that Bodhidharma really was the first Ch'an patriarch, and "no scholar today takes the tradition very
seriously." [25]

One should regard the legend of Bodhidharma as "a literary piece belonging
to the genre of hagiography," and posthumously embroidered upon "in order
to give more legitimacy to the new school" by later followers." [26] This
was a common practice in China, where the stature of a past master measured the prestige of a school. If the legend connecting Bodhidharma with the creation of Ch'an is not born out by the historical record, the one
connecting him with Shao-lin boxing is even less substantial. [27]

The legend of Bodhidharma's association with the martial arts is no older
than the last imperial dynasty (1644-1912). A book called the I-chin ching,
bearing the date 628 and purporting to contain the words of Bodhidharma
himself, does make the connection, but scholars cannot verify its existence
any earlier than about 1800. It appears to have been a late Ch'ing forgery
ascribed to Bodhidharma to enhance its value. [28] Bodhidharma's
then-secure reputation as the first patriarch of Ch'an would have made him
a natural magnet for such frauds.

Apart from the Bodhidharma legend there are some other stories associating
Shao-lin temple with the martial arts. One account has the "monk-soldiers"
of Shao-lin playing a part in the stabilization of the early T'ang dynasty
in 621. [29] A contemporary stele inscription says these monks "led a crowd
to oppose the false army," and it appears more likely that they raised a
private army than that they used any special boxing skills. [30] Vast
estates and labor forces were available to many monasteries during this
period and it is not at all improbable that Shao-lin temple could have
mobilized a large conventional fighting force. [31]

By the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the monks of Shao-lin were
reportedly studying boxing, and were renowned for their use of cudgels
(kun). In 1561, because of this fame, a Ming general sought out the temple
to observe the use of cudgels there, but he was disappointed that the arts
he sought had been lost, and he ended up by instructing the monks himself.
[32]
​

and the always formidable Stanley Henning's critique here.

Historical texts speak of Bodhidharma, the legendary founder of Chan Buddhism, a Brahmin born in Kacheepuram (sic) in Tamil Nadu, in 522 A.D. arriving at the courts of the Chinese Emperor Liang Nuti, (sic) of the 6th dynasty, as the person responsible for bringing Kalaripayattu from India to China.[2]
He taught meditative and physical exercises to the chinese monks so that they could defend themselves against the frequent attacks of bandits.[2]
It is not until centuries after Bodhidharma's death that the "Jingde Chuandenglu" (1004) makes the first explicit association between Bodhidharma and the Shaolin temple.[3] However, it contains no record of Bodhidharma teaching martial arts to the Shaolin monks or reference to any fighting skill or martial prowess on his part.[4]

The association of Bodhidharma with martial arts can be traced to the Yi Jin Jing, though its authenticity has been discredited by several historians such as Tang Hao,[5] Xu Zhen and Matsuda Ryuchi.[6] This argument is summarized by modern historian Lin Boyuan in his Zhongguo wushu shi as follows:
As for the “Yi Jin Jing” (Muscle Change Classic), a spurious text attributed to Bodhidharma and included in the legend of his transmitting martial arts at the temple, it was written in the Ming dynasty, in 1624 CE, by the Daoist priest Zining of Mt. Tiantai, and falsely attributed to Bodhidharma. Forged prefaces, attributed to the Tang general Li Jing and the Southern Song general Niu Gao were written. They say that, after Bodhidharma faced the wall for nine years at Shaolin temple, he left behind an iron chest; when the monks opened this chest they found the two books “Xi Sui Jing” (Marrow Washing Classic) and “Yi Jin Jing” within. The first book was taken by his disciple Huike, and disappeared; as for the second, “the monks selfishly coveted it, practicing the skills therein, falling into heterodox ways, and losing the correct purpose of cultivating the Real. The Shaolin monks have made some fame for themselves through their fighting skill; this is all due to having obtained this manuscript.” Based on this, Bodhidharma was claimed to be the ancestor of Shaolin martial arts. This manuscript is full of errors, absurdities and fantastic claims; it cannot be taken as a legitimate source.[7]
According to Matsuda, none of the contemporary texts written about the Shaolin martial arts before the 19th century[8] even mention Bodhidharma, let alone credit him with the creation of the Shaolin martial arts.

The association of Bodhidharma with martial arts became widespread with the 1904–1907 serialization of the novel The Travels of Lao Ts'an in Illustrated Fiction Magazine.[9]

Shaolin monastery records state that two of its very first monks, Huiguang and Sengchou, were expert in the martial arts years before the arrival of Bodhidharma.[10] None of the canonical Buddhist sources associates Bodhidharma with martial arts whereas they do note Sengchou's skill with the tin staff.[11]​

And there's more... lots more at both sources. The whole multimillenial picture of MA origins we're handed appears to be a series of dojo legends and dojang mythmongerings, fueled by wishful thing and romanticization of other cultures' pasts.

My feeling is that standard MA 'history' is to actual history as alchemy is to chemistry or astrology is to astrophysics. We are drowning in a vast sea of misinformation (as per the stuff on Bodhidarma, or the flagrent mythologizing of MAs on the Korean peninsula, or...), disinformation (as in the cynical efforts of MA organizations and their various branch-plant puppets to peddle just-so stories of ancient origins and mythical warriors, e.g. this from USA TKD) and our seemingly desperate longings for a connection to an ancient heroic age via the fighting systems we study.

The endless mystification that MA history has been subject to does no one any favors. And it's so unnecessary. If we want something closer to the truth, all we have to do is press those who come up with these MA fishing tales to present their evidence in explicit detail. I've dealt with people on this board who have made incredibly strong claims about the influence of something called taekyon, a kind of Korean leg-wrestling game that first shows up in Korea at the very beginning of the 19th c. (and was, moreover, also practiced in Japan), on the history of the modern KMAs martial arts, in spite of the fact that every bit of documentation available has made it clear that the old gambling game taekyon was dead as a doornail by the time the Kwan founders of TKD and TSD began learning their MAs. People in other TMAs have apparently had the same experience, as Steel Tiger's OP makes clear. Over and over again, we seem to find the same thing. What we really need is hard-headed history, up to the same standards as the academic history of any other domain, along the lines of Holcombe's and Henning's work in their respective areas of expertise.

 

[tellner]

If we had a single source for martial arts history there'd be a single point of failure and only one corruption necessary to bury people in B.S. Fortunately there's no such thing.

How reliable is MA history? About as reliable as any book of legends and folklore. There may be some stories which are true. There may be some which are derived from historical events filtered through time, exaggeration and people's personal agendas. For the most part it says more about their hopes, dreams and self image than anything factual about events that you could record with a camera.

 

[terryl965]

All we know for sure is it has been around a long time.

 

[Steel Tiger]

I don't think there will, or should, be a single history for the MAs, that would be, at the very least, unfeasible. What I would like to see is almost the complete opposite. Each individual art has a wealth of very specific history with which the understanding of the art is intimately linked, but it is being subsumed beneath a veneer of myth and fable for whatever reason is, or was, current at the time.

If we can peel back this protective shell of myth and get a good plausible history, or set of histories, for each art then it would be easier to see what arts influenced each other, what arts developed in complete isolation (not too many I should think), and what individuals have had the great influence throughout the broad sweep of the martial arts.

Already we can see Indian influences into China, Chinese influences into Korea, Okinawa, and Japan, but we only see them in a broad sense because we have to read the histories, such as they are, with great care. In many cases the martial arts are intimately linked to the military and thus with states and state creation so politics has a powerful influence on what is presented as martial history.

Using examples I am most familiar with, there is the ubiquitous Shaolin Temple which is closely linked to a number of dynasties in China, but has a reputation as a home of rebellion. Many of the Muslim styles of western China were developed to oppose the Imperial government. Praying Mantis and at least one style of taiji were taught to Imperial guards, so there is a political association there. These things need to be known in order to be able to understand what has influenced the development of the art whether it be religion, conformity, rebellion, or the varying moods of an old man sitting in a cave.

 

[kidswarrior]

If we can peel back this protective shell of myth and get a good plausible history, or set of histories, for each art then it would be easier to see what arts influenced each other, what arts developed in complete isolation (not too many I should think), and what individuals have had the great influence throughout the broad sweep of the martial arts.

This would indeed be fabulous. A sort of baseline of truths on each of the main lines of the martial arts which we took to be trustworthy--or at least, acceptable until further evidence came along. While we may have enough primary source material--or archaeological evidence (I was trained as an historian in my undergraduate days, but don't know much about archeology)--for a few of our arts, I'm afraid such primary sources are probably scarce for most arts further back than a century or so. Then, we'd need to rely on oral history, which can often get intermingled with legend and folklore, and then we are back to guessing fact from fiction.

But I believe it's a very worthy idea. Would love to see a project undertaken by those with the language and history skills.

 

[punisher73]

I don't think it is reliable at all. If you look at the eastern culture/mentality it is kind of an "older is better" mentality". So when karate started popping up they said that it was an old chinese style and took out certain parts of the lineage (ie: okinawa).

How many of the asian styles were "started" because the founder had a vision from his/her god while meditating? Or how many were started when the found was watching 2 animals fighting?

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

We know for a fact that martial systems have been around for a long, long time. However, we do not know for a fact many of the stories surrounding the various styles out there or can we prove those stories.

 

[exile]

The 'proof' aspect is the really important one. Any time you propose something, you face a burden of proof; you need to show why your particular story stands out against the background—why it's more likely to be true, given the facts, than any of the alternatives. Given the difficulty of proving that something didn't happen, there has to be a default assumption behind the way we evaluate conflicting historical scenarios: there actually has to be some positive reason to prefer a given account; it's not enough to say, well, you can't show it's not true. The tired old 'monks hiding in the mountains transmitting their arts in secret' line, for example, is impossible to refute, because by its very content it presupposes that there will be no record of these monks (they're carrying out their training 'in secret', remember? ) So at the very threshold, if that's the best that someone can come up with, they have no story. And you'd be surprised at the many variants of that account that people try to push out there....

 

[terryl965]

That is just it proven what he or she says, Tke me for instance. I say I trained in Korea do I have proof beside some pics. No not really but yet I did. MA truth and lies go hand in hand.

 

[Xue Sheng]

When you are talking CMA history you have a whole lot of things to take into account.

You have salesmanship, the he was never defeated or the making of a new family style because a person in old China that is trained in a family style of which he was not a member of that family tends to make little or no money teaching that style by comparison to the family members… so you get new styles.

You also get legitimate reasons for new styles Xingyi to Yiquan but Wang Xiang-zhai trained with so many people and in his early days was defeated from time to time but (but of course after Yiquan came to be he was undefeated) it is hard to track actual evolution and legitimate history of who he trained with. This is just one of the more recent examples.

You also have an attempt to make your style look more pure or superior to the style from which it came. This by the way is one of the (multiple) possible reasons why the whole Zhang San Feng thing started in Taiji, it started with Yang Luchan as it applies to Taiji but it has other starting points as well and multiple versions. And it is hard to trace actual history of Chen taiji as well; it was to their benefit to create a history that says it is theirs and all theirs. But there is still speculation that it is a combination of things the Chen family put together one of those things being Shaolin Pao Chui. Note on the writing of Zhang San Feng, it was likely written after his death (that is if he ever lived) by a person that claimed they were clairvoyant and Zhang San Fen contacted them and told them what to write.

You also have legitimate styles that in a grasp for legitimacy claim lineage from a famous person in Chinese history. It is SOOOO much more marketable to claim this comes from Yeuh Fei as apposed to this comes form Li Jiang…. Who the HECK is Li Jiang. There are multiple arts linked to Yeuh Fei, Xingyiquan being one of them but there is no historical documentation of this to date. But there is a spear form from Yeuh Fei that could be linked to Xingyiquan so there maybe a legitamate link but it was likely NOT what we today know as Xingyiquan. And another thing to consider; writings form anyone does not necessarily mean they wrote it. It means they might have written it but it could also be that it was written by someone else and they just used the name, again salesmanship, grab for legitimacy and $$$

You also have many illiterate teachers that were highly skilled martial artists that only passed things on to a few disciples as to the history of the art. And you have translation errors form disciples that copied their master’s book by hand and wrote a character wrong. You have people who were legitimate students of a teacher but after that sifu dies they make themselves out to be a disciple or inside student when in fact they were not, this too occurred with Yiquan and one of Wang Xiang-zhai’s last students.

You have Dynastic change that at times FORBID any previous martial art form training (a great example of this was the change from the Ming Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty) or sought it out to try and destroy it and of course you have the cultural revolution that did a couple of things. One it out and out tried to destroy much of Chinese history including CMA and it made those guys that were legitimate masters shut-up and go into hiding or leave the country all together and keep their mouths shut because opening it made you a target. But again this was really nothing new to martial artists in China based on its long history it is just that the PRC is more recent and was trying to stamp out ALL history not just CMA.

However there are still a few guys around that know the REAL lineage of their style back several generations and if you can find one of these guys he can tell you who learned form who and how much they learned. Again using Yiquan the student that made himself out to be the last real student of Wang was forced to make a public apology in a major Beijing News paper. But in the case of a teacher like Yang Chengfu it is hard to know all of those he taught or how long he taught them, he taught a lot of people. Chen family runs into the same thing from time to time due to the time they have been around but they seem to have a much better grasp on who learned form them.

But then CMA hits the West and all bets are off. You are back to translation error issues and of course false claims of lineage that in the West cannot be stopped as easily. In China it is stop it or get regular beatings until you do stop it. In the West it is stop it or I will have to come back and tell you to stop it again.

And of course you have in the west a few that show up from China and simply make the whole damn thing up. How their style is a secret style or a little know style or so deadly it is only taught to a few. And on occasion the "this is so VERY popular throughout China" styles, and there are the claims that it is a certain style that it in fact is not. I have seen this with Sanda, Taiji, Long Fist, etc… But since the majority of their students will never go to China they can get away with it.

Somewhere in there is truth but it is very hard to find. There are a few in some of China’s Universities today trying to find the truth in it and if I ever find that I can read traditional Chinese I plan on giving it a shot myself. But it is still very hard to find truth since you have translation errors in old Chinese texts and dynastic change that makes it difficult to trace things to far back in some cases.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Just my personal thoughts on this, but I find that some of the most popular belifs may have been changed and grown over the years with the retelling of stories. I also know that if a person or organisation says something long and louad enoough people tend to see what they are saying as the truth and it is hard to change peoples minds no matter how much proof you provide

 

[Xue Sheng]

Just my personal thoughts on this, but I find that some of the most popular belifs may have been changed and grown over the years with the retelling of stories. I also know that if a person or organisation says something long and louad enoough people tend to see what they are saying as the truth and it is hard to change peoples minds no matter how much proof you provide

You are correct sir.

 

[kidswarrior]

Note on the writing of Zhang San Feng, it was likely written after his death (that is if he ever lived) by a person that claimed they were clairvoyant and Zhang San Fen contacted them and told them what to write.

Hard to refute that.

I also know that if a person or organisation says something long and louad enoough people tend to see what they are saying as the truth and it is hard to change peoples minds no matter how much proof you provide

Oh, yes, the American Dream: Promote yourself until you've drowned out the voices of reason. :headbangin:

 

[Xue Sheng]

Oh, yes, the American Dream: Promote yourself until you've drowned out the voices of reason. :headbangin:

:lfao:

EDIT

Oh and I am stealing that too :EG:

 

[kidswarrior]

:lfao:

EDIT

Oh and I am stealing that too :EG:

Why *pulls on suspenders*, if you weren't bigger, younger, stronger, trained longer, and hit so many trees, well... Oh, but you are and have. Go right ahead.

 

[tellner]

That is just it proven what he or she says, Tke me for instance. I say I trained in Korea do I have proof beside some pics. No not really but yet I did.

I can get in touch with the people you claim to have trained with. I can look at your passport to see if you entered Korea. I can talk to other people who were there. If you got a piece of wallpaper I can write to the issuing body and ask if it's real.

MA truth and lies go hand in hand.

:rofl:

 

[Touch Of Death]

We all know that The martial arts started in a small fishing village in Korea... SINANJU!
Sean