Steel Tiger
Senior Master
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.
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.
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.
) 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....
Hard to refute that. 
