Which came first?

[David]

No, this isn't a lineage question!

Which came first: weapons or barehands?

SPM as I know it uses much the same techs regardless of whether there's a weapon or not. If the techniques are the same, wold there be advantages in learning weapons first and then going barehanded? The Romans trained their swords with wooden swords which were much heavier than the real thing so when they got a real sword, it was child's play to wield. The same could happen in kungfu, perhaps. Targetting at a greater distance using a clumsy extension to your arm (sword, pole etc) is a lot more difficult than getting in close and using your own body and requires more strength. If you'd trained weapons first, the aiming and power of barehands would maybe be much better..?

(A bit hungover from a party last night so apologies for not proof-reading this one.)

The powers of Kung Fu never fail!
-- Hong Kong Phooey

[Kung Lek]

Hi-

It is better to train just the self and then later to train extensions of the self.From my perspective.
Do you crawl first or walk? walk or run?

Although, in MA practice, both weapons and empty hand have purpose both tactically and towards the development of personal Kung Fu.

peace

Kung Lek

[David]

But, back in the day, barehands would have been the Last Resort, relied upon a few moments before certain death from an attacker with a big blade thing.

You can get a pilot's license before you can get a driving license in this country...

The powers of Kung Fu never fail!
-- Hong Kong Phooey

[Steven T. Richards]

Hi David,

I guess that ontologically, it depends how far back you want to go? Some peoples appreciation (or acceptance) of things ends with say religion in that history/pre-history only counts in so far as it is within the time frame of a religious dogma. So, if you want to look at paleoanthropology for example and look at issues of human evolution and the history of wepaons usage then weapons go back a very long way indeed. Archery for example goes back at least 18,ooo BP (Before Presesnt), the use of boomerangs
for example (not in fact only native to Australasia)go back several tens of thousands of years more, the use of spears even longer still.

Obviously, without a time machine it isn't possible to directly observe paleolithic human cultures, but, given that our near primate relatives (once again qualified by religion for some people)use 'natural' weapons such as sticks and rocks, then the usege of these things as weapons very likely pre-dates the emergance of the human species proper.

If you look at modern anthropology, many of the 'natural' human fighting behaviours are little different from those found in a Baboon troupe: clubbing swinging hand attacks, biting, butting etc.

On balance the empty hand probably came first.

interesting waht you sau about the Romans, have you read: 'The Epitome of Military Science' by the Latin Roman writer Vegetius? (published by Liverpool University Press).

Jack has some interesting contributions on the use of double weight weapons and similar practices
maybe he could share them here?

Best Regards,

Steve.

[Kung Lek]

hi-

Codified systems of martial arts such as those that were developed in the shaolin temple of old had virtually no weapons practice until much later in the time line.

Being a buddhist Monastery, weapon use was viewed in a very dim light. In fact, when the monks would capture weapons such as spears from aggressors, they would knock the blades off and turn those spears into staffs, primarily for walking but eventually staffs were developed as a weapon that could be used without risking fatality to an opponent. Usage of bladed weapons was strictly forbidden.

Martial arts that were developed for military usage invariably was about superior technology and therefore weapons were practiced and improved upon continually up until the advent of firearms.

If you view Kung Fu as a trasformative process and a means to better living then use of weapons is not necessary at all.

The cores of the systems of chinese martial arts that are from Buddhist or Taoist origins do not include weapons and the handsets are considered the "core" of these systems.

Weapons use above empty hand practice is superiorly practiced moreso by modern armies than in any martial art school.

The modern weapons render all classical weapons obsolete and useless. But still martial artists practice classical weapons.why? in my opinion, the reason why is tradition and maintenance of knowledge that may still one day prove useful.

Your hands are an inoffensive (socially) way to quell an altercation, and you are able to take your hand skills with you everywhere whereas you are nt able to carry weapons about in most civilized nations.

peace

Kung Lek

[David]

In execution, kungfu is so far removed from our natural fighting I am amazed it ever got invented. Of course Chinese military history is ancient and prehistory is mind-blowingly unknowable in it's content and extent.

Natural fighting would have come from a one-on-one contest for supremacy and would be barehanded and most likely involved much wrestling. When humans invented property and dominions, there came a time when groups of people would be united in fighting against other groups of people. This would trigger the growth in non-natural martial art. Now, those people had a level of organisation and a will to defend. They would have used weapons straight off. No more wrestling if they could help it, and if it did come to that say in a surprise ambush of an 'enemy' individual , a hidden blade would be drawn, perhaps.

The point is, that once you have "sides", you automatically think about weapons. So, then, weapons were the prime reason for any martial training they did.

Now the point about the Shaolin temple and using weapons last if at all is perhaps a luxury that couldn't be afforded by the millions of Asian martial artists who lived and died before Shaolin existed. I take the point that training hands primarily, allows greater, more steady development of the individual, giving space for grace and meditative learning.

So perhaps there are two paths. One, the quick way to strength and violent potential with weapons (based on my guesswork about prehistory..!). The other the lifestyle choice. The quick way was designed for people who didn't expect to live very long. Perhaps, if they were permitted the luxury of longevity through prowess or peace, they could spend time on their insides and their hands...

The powers of Kung Fu never fail!
-- Hong Kong Phooey

[Steven T. Richards]

Hi David,

Humans are unusual in that they risk injury in their social and cultural disputes (including War).

Most animals posture a lot and threaten but usually a flurry decides who is dominant (the Alpha male - typically). Predators are similar - take very few risks. The use of weapons increases destructive capability and potentially at least reduces an individuals own vulnerability.
'
I agree with the drift of your argument.

Isn't it interesting to see the pre-human behaviours of dominance, agression and territoriality still acted out by 'civilised' individuals, and, the same kind of thing systemised, sanitised and 'cultivated' into a martial 'art'?

That's one of the big contemporary issues as in 'street reality' versus traditional martial arts.

Hmmm...

[Cincinnatus]

I think it would depend on who did the developing of said art. For example, classical Japanese MA, what's now called Koryu, was developed by soldiers and warriors and thus weapons usage was placed first on the list of things to master. Empty-hand skills the form of jujutsu (sp?) developed as an adjunct to weapons skills. This is obvious when you consider that on the battlefield, the guy with a sword, spear, stc was far more advantageous than one without weapons. When there was a lull in the cycle on warfare and peace, you had the soldiers taking their battlefield skills and experimenting with them, trying to find use of them in non-battlefield conditions, i.e. out about town, in the castle, in the alleyways, etc. That's why a lot of jujutsu styles nowadays have a basis in swordsmanship and kenjutsu movements.

In China, I'd say the same thing happened, except over an even longer period of time. For although Japan had a nominal Emperor, civil war didn't really stop until the Tokugawa Shogunate. In China, once an Imperial Dynsty was established, there were relative periods of peace when the country was not wracked by constant warfare. Taking Shaolin as an example, the fist methods of Shaolin didn't develop in a vacuum. Many veterans of fighting who did not want to deal with the chaos often entered monataries. The idological framework of using physical exercise as another method of obtaining enlightenment (notice I say physical exercise not necessarily fighting skills as a lot of people believe) that Damo imparted on the Shaolin disciples was different to the static and sedentary method meditation that was the only method practiced widely at that time. This ideological framework of physical exercise was ideal for former soldiers/warriors to use in maintaing the similar level of physical discipline that the soldiers were used to. If you think about it, monastic discipline and military discipline are different only in kind, but not degree. Thus physical exercise that incorporated potential fighting applications was introduced. Coupled that with a psychological framework of warriorship in the form of Chan (and later Zen) Buddhism and you get a fertile ground in which what we now call martial arts can grow. Obviously people have been fighting each other for longer than we care to remember, so fighting skills have been in develpoment for a long time. I would say thoug, that up to then these fighting skills were more martial systems and not necessarily martial arts as we think of them today as physical paths to betterment and enlightenment. This is what was unique about Shaolin, not that all of kung fu originated there, which is hogwash.

As for which came first, fist or weapon, let's take a quick look at an art, Hsing Yi, as an example. The movements were based on spear fighting motions, and the techniques and principles reflect that. So in this case we have an art where the peaon came first. OK, what about another old art, like Suai Jiao? Well as a grappling art this is a development of old-time wrestling harkening back to the days when we were just crawling our way into sentience. This is an art that not necessrily grew out of weapons skills. But we should also acknowledge that both these things occured concurrent with each other. Meaning that the spear guy probably learned to use his weapon so he could fight anybody, where it was another spear guy, sword guy, or a shuai jiao guy, and the same for the wrestler. Once we got sophisticated about learning to hit and kick more efficiently, then the two processes fed off of each other.

So in conclusion I'd say if you go far back enough, it's like the question of chicken or the egg. When we are talking about codified martial systems it may be easier to determine from what source a particular system of fighting may have found inspiration, but that would only be true within the last 2-4000 years - within the written historical period. Much of Human history is unwritten and far deeper.

What we do in life, echoes in eternity
--Maximus Decimus Meridius, General of the Army of the North, Commander of the Felix Legions

[honorisc]

"Which came first: weapons or barehands?"

It seems thatpeople reach/look for weapons when threatened. They see each other as equals, so they seek an advantage~.

In the formalized fightings there are techniques that are similar or interchangeable between empty-handed and weaponed. It could naturally be either barehanded through desperation and accidentally realizing they could cause hurt or intimidate. Or realizing that the stabbing motion without the stone, stick or knife is still effective without those--a punch. Theoretically as both ways are natural, it can be said it is likely that they both occurred independently of one another. Each was used when needed and developed as creativity and understanding allowed.

Shui Chiao refers to horn throw. As the grappling occurred during trying to throw each other by a horn on their helmet or head which can be viewed as weapon use, Shui Chiao might should be considered a weapon based system.~

Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

[joedoe]

I'm not really sure which would have come first historically, but from a training point of view I feel weapons come after you are good enough with the empty hand.

IMHO it is easier to learn the technique empty handed, get it right, then develop the power using weapons.

cxxx[]:::::::::::>
What we do in life echoes in Eternity

[fiercest tiger]

i know if i went to battle i would have rather a sword or spear rather going into battle with barehands!

what would you want fight with...empty hand was taught incase you lost or dropped your weapon i believe. a skilled swordsman would beat a skilled empty hand fighter anyday. :eek:

come & visit us!
http://home.iprimus.com.au/ykm
yaukungmun@hotmail.com