Reconstructed vs unbroken transmitted traditions - Thoughts
Having gone through the various posts and back reading on some past entries in ATARN, I get the ?feel? that a large portion of what we see as traditional archery nowadays are reconstructed/resurrected techniques from a bygone era. To clarify what I mean when I say this, is at some point of time the original technique/tradition used for that era was totally lost (i.e no one left to pass it linearly to the next generation) and somewhere in the future, with the help of documentation/skill/modern interpretation, someone tries to reconstruct/resurrected these techniques. Unbroken traditions for the purpose of this write up refers to traditions passed down unbroken to the next generation in a linear fashion, with no ?reconstruction? done.
Let me digress, a little & extend my thoughts on ?traditional? traditions, by using the Japanese martial traditions as an example. In modern times (now), we have modern distillates like Judo, Kendo, Iaido, Kyudo so on and so forth derived from their battlefield forefather arts, which have national standardized rules and rituals to follow and modern rankings. These are very different from the battlefield systems they come from, which till this day are still surviving (albeit, slowly dwindling away as few are interested as they take a long time to learn, no sport/competition element and the instructors are getting very old) known generically as Koryu Bujutsu/Budo (Old flow warrior arts) and do not have standardized ?Japanese? techniques. In fact, these schools have different ?skills? to counter opposing styles.
Even among these old school styles, the technique concepts are different according to the ?era? where they were founded. (i.e Sengoku Jidai, warring states period ? i.e battlefield scenarios and Edo period ?i.e City/Unarmored combat). Joining these schools or ryuha (Traditions) are subject to their own propriety rules. Some of them require you to sign a ?keppan? (blood oath) where you swear not to reveal techniques or be punish by the gods (Marishiten (i.e Marici) . Ryu like Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu, Tatsumi Ryu, Takenouchi Ryu, Araki Ryu for example still practices this. Some of the schools don?t issue belts or dan system but follow a propriety certificate system (Menkyo). The dan system is a modern affliction, setup by the founder of Judo, Jigoro Kano, which have been adopted by many arts throughout the world, and some koryu budo ryuha have even taken this route.
Some of these Ryuha are Sogo Bujutsu, meaning they are all-rounded, (i.e their curriculum includes Sword, Spear and various battlefield arts) while other just have one type art (i.e Sword or archery). In particular, one teacher of such a tradition said that their school use to have a archery component but was ?lost? as not everything in the syllabus could be passed down in time to the next generation. The thought process was, even though they can ?reconstruct? the technique, using what was left down in their densho (The school technique books) it is not ?traditional?. It is a modern interpretation of a skill meant for the battlefield and reconstruction without that actual ?real war?setting, is just ?intellectual play-acting?, and if each generation keep adding/changing the original syllabus, eventually the system will not be what that particular style is and in essence stop being traditional. (However, the reality is, each head of the school do what they want in each generation. Hey if you're boss you can do anything).While not all koryu teacher share that view (which is obvious, since everyone is an individual), I think most do make it clear when the ?lost techniques? are reconstructed.
Even the supposedly traditional koryu traditions are evolving a bit. For example, the old school Japanese archery schools. Heki Ryu, Takeda Ryu (Horseback archery), Ogasawara Ryu (Horseback archery/ritual archery) are adopting practices which are not done during their medieval battlefield days. For example, the modern draw for even these old school archery schools are ?deeper? than before, and even some of these battlefield archery schools adopt ?yugaeri? (Rotating the bow 360 degree in the hand such that the string reaches the back wrist after shooting) where previous was not done. (I don?t do Kyudo, I just like to document little things here and there)
So why, am I mentioning all this? that is because some of the Japanese Koryu Bujutsu ryuha have very extent and very preserved documentation of not only their style techniques, they have a lineage tree of family heads/instructor names, which can be traced. Some of these schools have documents that stretch all the way back to Sengoku Jidai. Documentation like these are ?first hand? information to find out if styles/instructors are authentic or if someone who list learning from a fictious ?historical master?. This is in contrast to reading books written by people not practicing the art, and then researchers taking these as solid references when the ?outsiders? are effectively writing down things in their perspective. The other thing, I don't quite understand is, in the absence of archeological evidence, when trying to reconstruct 'imagery' from artwork/documentation, how do archeological researchers resolve the point that what they are looking could highly possibly be 'artistic license' and the dimension and size ratio might not be what the real thing was.
For myself, in particular, 2nd hand commentary from an outsider about a style technique should be taken with a huge grain of salt. It is best to hear, from someone practicing the system. Often in Asiatic arts, and in particular traditional Japanese arts, it is not, what-you-see-what-you-get. So, it is impossible to accurately judge what they are up to if you are not in the system. As an example, one particular Japanese sword ryuha often clash blades, and to a casual observer they are parrying or blocking, but the actual meaning (kuden, kuzushi, depending on what you call it), is that in a real situation your distance becomes closer and all your parrys become cuts, and a thrust is actually a cut to the wrist as well. So what then when there is no 1st source to ask from? I think the honest thing to do is acknowledge deep down, that when one is 'reconstructing', it ceases to be traditional but rather, 'traditional-like'. I guess, its a nicer way of putting it. Maybe, its like following what the people of the past were aiming for, rather than copying what they did wholesale.
In current times, if one is to follow the train of thought that something is authentic if it has no breaks or reconstruction and has been passed down in a linear unbroken fashion. I think very few cultural traditions who claim to be ?traditional? in the world fall in to this definition. Before, I go further, I would like to add, that these are just some intellectual ruminations and do not mean in anyway to disrespect or put down anyone. For example,
Chinese martial traditions: Competitive wushu, while derived from older arts, I think is not representative of the art from the era of the Warring states. I have a very strong feeling the style from that era is totally lost. I?m thinking chariots, repeated crossbows, calvary, warring states era, i.e Sun Tze era or Liu Bei/Cao Cao era. (i.e The Chinese version of the Sengoku Jidai Koryu Bujutsu Ryuha) I?m pretty sure what we see today known as Chinese martial arts is a ?distillate? of various pieces of different styles. Since, I haven?t really dwell too much into Chinese martial traditions, I?m not sure how unbroken some of the arts are. The arts practiced in Wu Dang mountains ?seem? unbroken but without knowing more its just speculation on my part. I think Shaolin has evolved to having many er.. franchise? (lack of better term).
Korean martial traditions: I heard about Taekyeon, what I don?t know is how linear and unbroken it is. It does seem uniquely Korean. I do know that there is some battlefield arts resurrected/reconstructed from the Muye Dobo Tongji book (which is a book heavily influence from some Chinese war manual). The other more popular Korean martial traditions seem to be drawn from/inspired from other cultural traditions. I know this is a dangerous thing to say (That?s why I leave out names *cough*), because a lot of nationalistic pride lies in some of these arts and they do not like to be thought as having originated from a ?foreign? source.
While I don?t say reconstruction is wrong, and it depends on an individual stance on the issue, The danger to me about reconstruction of a tradition is ,one can never know how accurate it is and it is almost inevitable that reconstruction relies on modern interpretation which is in every case, relying on the background of what the reconstructor is verse in, which is modern art. And if the view of these reconstructed technique or equipment gain momentum and eventually seen as historically accurate, even if it is not like the original thing, it become reality. (i.e, If enough people believes in something even if it is not true it becomes truth). That is why I can see why some forum members get heated up on certain issues about authenticity of bows. I guess they don?t want a situation like that to happen.
I have been long winded about it, but now that my premise has been set, its back to Asiatic archery.
One of my initial post was about modern Mongolian bows, and ATARN members pointed out that these are not Genghis Khan era bows, and there isn?t any ?standard? Genghis Khan bow, because the Mongolians were made up of tribes of various ethnic backgrounds. Modern mongolian bow is a safe term to use I guess (anything else and the purist in Atarn will jump on my neck for choice of words. *cough*). Digging around more, I read one of Stephan?s old post which mention that Munkhtsetese father, brought back a number of Manchu style bows from Ju Yuan Hao in China, to Mongolia. In short, somewhere down the lines, the Manchu style bow became the current modern Mongolia bow.
As for traditional Asiatic archery.
Chinese archery ? I guess Stephan is the best person here to ask, (I bought your book by the way Stephan and got it last week and combing through it slowly). From what very little I gather so far there is no ?standard? chinese archery style. What I do not know is that how ?unbroken transmitted? are these forms. I have seen some Chinese archery websites/web clips around. I personally don?t know how ?accurately? Chinese they are, or are they inspired from a ?foreign source?. Is Chinese archery style seen today ?reconstructed? solely from documentation? or is there some ?expert? who has been quietly passing it down to a selective group? From what I gather, Manchu archery has been lost but is currently been reconstructed.
Mongolian archery: Archery done now in modern Mongolian is not Genghis Khan era archery (from ATARN discussion). Modern Mongolian archery definitely has a ethnic flavor to it though.
Turkish archery: I haven?t read much it to this yet. So, I don?t know if current Turkish foot/horseback archery is an unbroken linear tradition or reconstructed at some point using documentation. This is one area which I would be interest to know more. From what I gather though from back combing through ATARN post, the Turkish bow appears to represent the pinnacle of composite Horn-Sinew bows.
Hungarian archery: From what I gather, no one knows exactly what a bona-fide Hun /Magyar bow is like, and Hungarian bows we see today is ?inspired? from a archeological find. As for modern Hungarian archery, I?m not sure if it is a modern interpretation. (As an off-side, I use a ?Hun-style asymmetrical bow.)
Korean archery: Korean archery seems unique Korean from my untrained perspective, then again I don?t know much about it. Maybe Thomas Duvernay can let us know if the current Korean archery style has been practiced like it is in an unbroken linear fashion or has it been reconstructed/modified at some point or is it a distillate of an older form. (The Korean bow, is the next bow which I plan to get. I hear good things about it so far.)
As for traditional archery, I?m not sure (for lack of better terminology) how easy is the reconstruction to accuracy ratio (70% same as the old days? 90%? I guess no one knows exactly), I am guessing it may be more forgiving in terms of ease of reconstruction to lets say reconstructing a sword technique, since there?s only so many way one can fire a bow, and if it lands on target that?s it. (Can?t really test how effective a sword/spear reconstruction technique is in modern times). I won?t mind If someone would like to start a new thread, about the various Asiatic archery traditions today. (i.e If they have been reconstructed, or at what point did the ethnic group change their styles, bows, e.t.c)
I guess, at the end of the day, the reality is, no matter how serious the modern ?traditionist? are, they/we are just a bunch of guys/gals who are really weekend warriors, romantising about an era gone by. So, as I grow older, not as old as some of the forumers (tongue in cheek), I don?t harp upon how 100% accurate a tradition is, but take it as something to intellectually enjoy and just to shoot a couple of arrows for fun.
Let me digress, a little & extend my thoughts on ?traditional? traditions, by using the Japanese martial traditions as an example. In modern times (now), we have modern distillates like Judo, Kendo, Iaido, Kyudo so on and so forth derived from their battlefield forefather arts, which have national standardized rules and rituals to follow and modern rankings. These are very different from the battlefield systems they come from, which till this day are still surviving (albeit, slowly dwindling away as few are interested as they take a long time to learn, no sport/competition element and the instructors are getting very old) known generically as Koryu Bujutsu/Budo (Old flow warrior arts) and do not have standardized ?Japanese? techniques. In fact, these schools have different ?skills? to counter opposing styles.
Even among these old school styles, the technique concepts are different according to the ?era? where they were founded. (i.e Sengoku Jidai, warring states period ? i.e battlefield scenarios and Edo period ?i.e City/Unarmored combat). Joining these schools or ryuha (Traditions) are subject to their own propriety rules. Some of them require you to sign a ?keppan? (blood oath) where you swear not to reveal techniques or be punish by the gods (Marishiten (i.e Marici) . Ryu like Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu, Tatsumi Ryu, Takenouchi Ryu, Araki Ryu for example still practices this. Some of the schools don?t issue belts or dan system but follow a propriety certificate system (Menkyo). The dan system is a modern affliction, setup by the founder of Judo, Jigoro Kano, which have been adopted by many arts throughout the world, and some koryu budo ryuha have even taken this route.
Some of these Ryuha are Sogo Bujutsu, meaning they are all-rounded, (i.e their curriculum includes Sword, Spear and various battlefield arts) while other just have one type art (i.e Sword or archery). In particular, one teacher of such a tradition said that their school use to have a archery component but was ?lost? as not everything in the syllabus could be passed down in time to the next generation. The thought process was, even though they can ?reconstruct? the technique, using what was left down in their densho (The school technique books) it is not ?traditional?. It is a modern interpretation of a skill meant for the battlefield and reconstruction without that actual ?real war?setting, is just ?intellectual play-acting?, and if each generation keep adding/changing the original syllabus, eventually the system will not be what that particular style is and in essence stop being traditional. (However, the reality is, each head of the school do what they want in each generation. Hey if you're boss you can do anything).While not all koryu teacher share that view (which is obvious, since everyone is an individual), I think most do make it clear when the ?lost techniques? are reconstructed.
Even the supposedly traditional koryu traditions are evolving a bit. For example, the old school Japanese archery schools. Heki Ryu, Takeda Ryu (Horseback archery), Ogasawara Ryu (Horseback archery/ritual archery) are adopting practices which are not done during their medieval battlefield days. For example, the modern draw for even these old school archery schools are ?deeper? than before, and even some of these battlefield archery schools adopt ?yugaeri? (Rotating the bow 360 degree in the hand such that the string reaches the back wrist after shooting) where previous was not done. (I don?t do Kyudo, I just like to document little things here and there)
So why, am I mentioning all this? that is because some of the Japanese Koryu Bujutsu ryuha have very extent and very preserved documentation of not only their style techniques, they have a lineage tree of family heads/instructor names, which can be traced. Some of these schools have documents that stretch all the way back to Sengoku Jidai. Documentation like these are ?first hand? information to find out if styles/instructors are authentic or if someone who list learning from a fictious ?historical master?. This is in contrast to reading books written by people not practicing the art, and then researchers taking these as solid references when the ?outsiders? are effectively writing down things in their perspective. The other thing, I don't quite understand is, in the absence of archeological evidence, when trying to reconstruct 'imagery' from artwork/documentation, how do archeological researchers resolve the point that what they are looking could highly possibly be 'artistic license' and the dimension and size ratio might not be what the real thing was.
For myself, in particular, 2nd hand commentary from an outsider about a style technique should be taken with a huge grain of salt. It is best to hear, from someone practicing the system. Often in Asiatic arts, and in particular traditional Japanese arts, it is not, what-you-see-what-you-get. So, it is impossible to accurately judge what they are up to if you are not in the system. As an example, one particular Japanese sword ryuha often clash blades, and to a casual observer they are parrying or blocking, but the actual meaning (kuden, kuzushi, depending on what you call it), is that in a real situation your distance becomes closer and all your parrys become cuts, and a thrust is actually a cut to the wrist as well. So what then when there is no 1st source to ask from? I think the honest thing to do is acknowledge deep down, that when one is 'reconstructing', it ceases to be traditional but rather, 'traditional-like'. I guess, its a nicer way of putting it. Maybe, its like following what the people of the past were aiming for, rather than copying what they did wholesale.
In current times, if one is to follow the train of thought that something is authentic if it has no breaks or reconstruction and has been passed down in a linear unbroken fashion. I think very few cultural traditions who claim to be ?traditional? in the world fall in to this definition. Before, I go further, I would like to add, that these are just some intellectual ruminations and do not mean in anyway to disrespect or put down anyone. For example,
Chinese martial traditions: Competitive wushu, while derived from older arts, I think is not representative of the art from the era of the Warring states. I have a very strong feeling the style from that era is totally lost. I?m thinking chariots, repeated crossbows, calvary, warring states era, i.e Sun Tze era or Liu Bei/Cao Cao era. (i.e The Chinese version of the Sengoku Jidai Koryu Bujutsu Ryuha) I?m pretty sure what we see today known as Chinese martial arts is a ?distillate? of various pieces of different styles. Since, I haven?t really dwell too much into Chinese martial traditions, I?m not sure how unbroken some of the arts are. The arts practiced in Wu Dang mountains ?seem? unbroken but without knowing more its just speculation on my part. I think Shaolin has evolved to having many er.. franchise? (lack of better term).
Korean martial traditions: I heard about Taekyeon, what I don?t know is how linear and unbroken it is. It does seem uniquely Korean. I do know that there is some battlefield arts resurrected/reconstructed from the Muye Dobo Tongji book (which is a book heavily influence from some Chinese war manual). The other more popular Korean martial traditions seem to be drawn from/inspired from other cultural traditions. I know this is a dangerous thing to say (That?s why I leave out names *cough*), because a lot of nationalistic pride lies in some of these arts and they do not like to be thought as having originated from a ?foreign? source.
While I don?t say reconstruction is wrong, and it depends on an individual stance on the issue, The danger to me about reconstruction of a tradition is ,one can never know how accurate it is and it is almost inevitable that reconstruction relies on modern interpretation which is in every case, relying on the background of what the reconstructor is verse in, which is modern art. And if the view of these reconstructed technique or equipment gain momentum and eventually seen as historically accurate, even if it is not like the original thing, it become reality. (i.e, If enough people believes in something even if it is not true it becomes truth). That is why I can see why some forum members get heated up on certain issues about authenticity of bows. I guess they don?t want a situation like that to happen.
I have been long winded about it, but now that my premise has been set, its back to Asiatic archery.
One of my initial post was about modern Mongolian bows, and ATARN members pointed out that these are not Genghis Khan era bows, and there isn?t any ?standard? Genghis Khan bow, because the Mongolians were made up of tribes of various ethnic backgrounds. Modern mongolian bow is a safe term to use I guess (anything else and the purist in Atarn will jump on my neck for choice of words. *cough*). Digging around more, I read one of Stephan?s old post which mention that Munkhtsetese father, brought back a number of Manchu style bows from Ju Yuan Hao in China, to Mongolia. In short, somewhere down the lines, the Manchu style bow became the current modern Mongolia bow.
As for traditional Asiatic archery.
Chinese archery ? I guess Stephan is the best person here to ask, (I bought your book by the way Stephan and got it last week and combing through it slowly). From what very little I gather so far there is no ?standard? chinese archery style. What I do not know is that how ?unbroken transmitted? are these forms. I have seen some Chinese archery websites/web clips around. I personally don?t know how ?accurately? Chinese they are, or are they inspired from a ?foreign source?. Is Chinese archery style seen today ?reconstructed? solely from documentation? or is there some ?expert? who has been quietly passing it down to a selective group? From what I gather, Manchu archery has been lost but is currently been reconstructed.
Mongolian archery: Archery done now in modern Mongolian is not Genghis Khan era archery (from ATARN discussion). Modern Mongolian archery definitely has a ethnic flavor to it though.
Turkish archery: I haven?t read much it to this yet. So, I don?t know if current Turkish foot/horseback archery is an unbroken linear tradition or reconstructed at some point using documentation. This is one area which I would be interest to know more. From what I gather though from back combing through ATARN post, the Turkish bow appears to represent the pinnacle of composite Horn-Sinew bows.
Hungarian archery: From what I gather, no one knows exactly what a bona-fide Hun /Magyar bow is like, and Hungarian bows we see today is ?inspired? from a archeological find. As for modern Hungarian archery, I?m not sure if it is a modern interpretation. (As an off-side, I use a ?Hun-style asymmetrical bow.)
Korean archery: Korean archery seems unique Korean from my untrained perspective, then again I don?t know much about it. Maybe Thomas Duvernay can let us know if the current Korean archery style has been practiced like it is in an unbroken linear fashion or has it been reconstructed/modified at some point or is it a distillate of an older form. (The Korean bow, is the next bow which I plan to get. I hear good things about it so far.)
As for traditional archery, I?m not sure (for lack of better terminology) how easy is the reconstruction to accuracy ratio (70% same as the old days? 90%? I guess no one knows exactly), I am guessing it may be more forgiving in terms of ease of reconstruction to lets say reconstructing a sword technique, since there?s only so many way one can fire a bow, and if it lands on target that?s it. (Can?t really test how effective a sword/spear reconstruction technique is in modern times). I won?t mind If someone would like to start a new thread, about the various Asiatic archery traditions today. (i.e If they have been reconstructed, or at what point did the ethnic group change their styles, bows, e.t.c)
I guess, at the end of the day, the reality is, no matter how serious the modern ?traditionist? are, they/we are just a bunch of guys/gals who are really weekend warriors, romantising about an era gone by. So, as I grow older, not as old as some of the forumers (tongue in cheek), I don?t harp upon how 100% accurate a tradition is, but take it as something to intellectually enjoy and just to shoot a couple of arrows for fun.
Which Chinese archery Web sites/videos are you referring to?
My understanding is that Chinese archery practiced nowadays is a reconstruction. But this kind of "reconstruction" is not unusual in Chinese history. For example, the installation of Tang military exams are reconstructions of Zhou-era archery rituals. And then there's the reboot of Chinese archery after the Yuan-Ming transition, a reconstruction which lead to new types of equipment and new innovations in technique. Reconstruction is nothing to be ashamed of --- it's the best we can do given circumstances that are out of our control. If people incorporate ideas from modern archery to enhance the practice of traditional Chinese archery, that's fine (and could lead to innovation). In my mind, what is more important is that people are aware that Chinese archery traditions existed (even if our understanding of those traditions is not 100%).
However, we have enough evidence to enumerate the fundamental elements of Chinese archery technique (such as the thumb draw). For example, if some people shoot a Chinese bow (of which there are many styles) using a 3-finger release (instead of a thumb draw), I won't have a problem --- but it's not traditional Chinese technique. But if those same people claim that they are shooting authentic Chinese style with their 3-finger release, then I will object because they would be misinforming others (even if they do so unintentionally).
My understanding is that Chinese archery practiced nowadays is a reconstruction. But this kind of "reconstruction" is not unusual in Chinese history. For example, the installation of Tang military exams are reconstructions of Zhou-era archery rituals. And then there's the reboot of Chinese archery after the Yuan-Ming transition, a reconstruction which lead to new types of equipment and new innovations in technique. Reconstruction is nothing to be ashamed of --- it's the best we can do given circumstances that are out of our control. If people incorporate ideas from modern archery to enhance the practice of traditional Chinese archery, that's fine (and could lead to innovation). In my mind, what is more important is that people are aware that Chinese archery traditions existed (even if our understanding of those traditions is not 100%).
However, we have enough evidence to enumerate the fundamental elements of Chinese archery technique (such as the thumb draw). For example, if some people shoot a Chinese bow (of which there are many styles) using a 3-finger release (instead of a thumb draw), I won't have a problem --- but it's not traditional Chinese technique. But if those same people claim that they are shooting authentic Chinese style with their 3-finger release, then I will object because they would be misinforming others (even if they do so unintentionally).
http://www.chinaarchery.org/archives/ca ... al-archeryJustin Ma wrote:
Which Chinese archery Web sites/videos are you referring to?
There is a clip titled :"Mr. Junyang Lee Showing Chinese Traditional Archery".His movements are beautiful to watch, and I enjoy looking at the clip. In the clip it mentions, ceremonial archery/battlefield archery Chinese style. I might try shooting in his style one day just to give it a go, as I'm open to new things. I'm not sure what era of chinese archery it is though. The style reminds me a little bit of kyudo though. Are you able to identify what sort of Chinese archery style is that, and if what Mr Junyang Lee is 'passed down'?
It might be totally un-related, but last week, I watched a Chinese warring state era movie called Red Cliff. (Decide to watch it because, I saw Tiger said he supplied arrows to the movie, so was curious about the show). I enjoyed the movie tremendously. While, I am aware there is a healthy dose of fiction in it, the archers in the movie, used a thumb draw which, I'm unsure if it is historically accurate. The best I can describe, looks like this - Thumb hooks string as per standard (mongolian draw) but the arrow shaft rest in between the webbing of the index finger and middle finger (sort of like a Mediterranean draw but horizontal) whereby both the index and middle finger 'lock' on top the thumb. Is this fact or fiction ?Justin Ma wrote:
However, we have enough evidence to enumerate the fundamental elements of Chinese archery technique (such as the thumb draw). For example, if some people shoot a Chinese bow (of which there are many styles) using a 3-finger release (instead of a thumb draw), I won't have a problem --- but it's not traditional Chinese technique. But if those same people claim that they are shooting authentic Chinese style with their 3-finger release, then I will object because they would be misinforming others (even if they do so unintentionally).
Simply a variation of the thumb draw, there are various methods each with subtle differences.
With regards to traditional practices being unbroken or linear, one could possibly argue there are none. Since we live in a different time, there are elements that are affected by modern times. Even if many examples of ancient bows were available, reconstructing them would include modern tools and technology; same applies to other martial practices.
The major problem we have with archery, in my opinion, is the invention of firearms. Bows became redundant.
With regards to traditional practices being unbroken or linear, one could possibly argue there are none. Since we live in a different time, there are elements that are affected by modern times. Even if many examples of ancient bows were available, reconstructing them would include modern tools and technology; same applies to other martial practices.
The major problem we have with archery, in my opinion, is the invention of firearms. Bows became redundant.
Chinese ceremonial archery influenced Japanese and Korean practices, so the similarity is not surprising. I'm going to guess that Junyang Lee's style is a reconstruction of Chinese ceremonial archery. It could be a mix of things.J-Boon wrote:
Are you able to identify what sort of Chinese archery style is that, and if what Mr Junyang Lee is 'passed down'?
Wang Ju (Tang dynasty) describes shooting from a kneeling position as a form of training. The part depicting battlefield archery, where he starts with the bow pointing forward-down at pre-draw, is similar to the "Inchworm Draw" technique described by Gao Ying of the late Ming dynasty --- but I wouldn't be surprised if earlier peoples used the same pre-draw position. Starting with the bow overhead at pre-draw is easier gives you the most leverage --- compound shooters do this all the time. But in the heat of battle (or during speed shooting) you might not have time to raise your hands overhead, and instead pull the bow directly after you've nocked the arrow.
Mr. Lee tips the bow forward after the shot (and I've seen clips of a couple Taiwanese practitioners doing this), which is probably one interpretation of Wang Ju's passage describing how the bow ends in a horizontal position post-release. However, my interpretation of that passage is that the bow actually spins in your hand and ends up horizontal, but with the belly facing down instead of up, and with the bow index finger pointed toward the target --- a much more elaborate flourish. You can find examples of this spinning if you dig up clips of Stephen demoing the ceremonial style or clips of some Korean (and Romanian!) archers at this year's WTAF.
This is probably one possible interpretation of Wang Ju's passage about draw hand technique. Wang Ju describes a "Chinese" thumb draw where the thumb hooks around the string to touch the ring finger, the middle finger reinforces the thumb, and the index finger points upward along the string. If you interpret the passage literally, the resulting technique is very awkward and tense. Another interpretation of that passage is that you simply reinforce the thumb with middle and index fingers curled over it (which is one of the ways Kyudo practitioners draw).J-Boon wrote:
Thumb hooks string as per standard (mongolian draw) but the arrow shaft rest in between the webbing of the index finger and middle finger (sort of like a Mediterranean draw but horizontal) whereby both the index and middle finger 'lock' on top the thumb. Is this fact or fiction ?
The version of Wang Ju's manual that we have today is messy. But that's because it passed through the hands of editors in later dynasties, so it's not surprising that it contains inconsistent descriptions that will make your head hurt. In his book, Stephen admits that this version of Wang Ju's passages was very difficult to translate.
Is this similar to a hybrid Sassanian/thumb ring release? One of my friends does that, using the middle finger on the thumb and using the first finger to point along the arrowshaft.Justin Ma wrote:
This is probably one possible interpretation of Wang Ju's passage about draw hand technique. Wang Ju describes a "Chinese" thumb draw where the thumb hooks around the string to touch the ring finger, the middle finger reinforces the thumb, and the index finger points upward along the string. If you interpret the passage literally, the resulting technique is very awkward and tense.
Could be, but though I'm not sure what a Sassanian release looks like. I think what your friend does still sounds reasonably ergonomic. I just think that pointing the index finger up along the string wreaks havoc on the hand ligaments... Although at full draw the string would be at an angle, so maybe you don't have to raise the index finger so high... I'll have to try this again at the next practice.daryush wrote:
Is this similar to a hybrid Sassanian/thumb ring release? One of my friends does that, using the middle finger on the thumb and using the first finger to point along the arrowshaft.
A Sassanian release is like a three finger release, except your index finger lines up straight along the arrow. The arrow goes on the same side of the bow as the thumb release - the index finger keeps it in place.
That sounds uncomfortable - let us know how it works out (+ photos?). Good luck!
That sounds uncomfortable - let us know how it works out (+ photos?). Good luck!
Yes, all Chinese traditional archery performed today is reconstructed. The last 100 years of Chinese history made it impossible for the art to be transmitted.
There are a number of transmitted traditions in Asia, with Korean and Japanese being the strongest. Failure of transmission can be caused by a number of things: loss of expertise, political pressure and the general inconvenience of practicing killing people and furry animals with bows and arrows.
The way I see the conversations on ATARN is just trying to collect up the torn-up pieces of Asian traditional archery before they are completely blown away by the wind. There will of course be those who profess expertise in the unknowable and those who ask for precise answers to questions like "How thick were the strings on bows used by the Sarmatians?"
Gradually the re-assembly and practice of these fragments is giving rise to exciting new art forms and crafts. I for one am totally uninterested in whether they are authentic or not.
There are a number of transmitted traditions in Asia, with Korean and Japanese being the strongest. Failure of transmission can be caused by a number of things: loss of expertise, political pressure and the general inconvenience of practicing killing people and furry animals with bows and arrows.
The way I see the conversations on ATARN is just trying to collect up the torn-up pieces of Asian traditional archery before they are completely blown away by the wind. There will of course be those who profess expertise in the unknowable and those who ask for precise answers to questions like "How thick were the strings on bows used by the Sarmatians?"
Gradually the re-assembly and practice of these fragments is giving rise to exciting new art forms and crafts. I for one am totally uninterested in whether they are authentic or not.
We can be absolutely sure that 3000 years ago some people complained that archery was not what it had previously been. And they were right.
Who knows how many traditions died and were resurrected or modernized through history?
I find all those nuances endlessly interesting, if not necessary.
Who knows how many traditions died and were resurrected or modernized through history?
I find all those nuances endlessly interesting, if not necessary.
Wang Ju's release is very similar to the Yana Indian release that Ishi used.
J-boon
you talk about a very true point here and we could write books on how accurate each culture manages to recreate historic archery.
Concerning Ottoman/Turkish archery we are a bit luckier as there is a lot of old books we can read and new books are discovered in the Ottoman archives. The Ottoman archives are a black box and will reveal many surprises in the future.
On the other hand we have difficulties as well and almost all of the Turkish archers use modern arrows, fiberglass bows, low poundages and many even have a bad technique, so right, if you are strict you could say we do modern recurve archery with thumbrelease.
We know that our ancestors put a rope in front of them and they had to shoot under it and hit a target in at least about 160meters (puta target discipline). That means it is a hell of a low trajectory. Nobody in Turkey can do that, especially not with these slow 40lbs baby bows with high trajectory of which the maximum distance is maybe 130m.
But I want to praise the English traditional archers, I think out of all the nations they come closest to the way their ancestors shot 500 years ago on the battlefields (with 120 lbs+ yew bows, appropriate arrow heads etc.)
In the Ottoman empire and today's Turkey the line was broken. The last person who was in the line was Necmettin Okyay, just recently I wrote a blog post about him, he is my role model in many ways.
http://turkishflightarchery.blogspot.co ... okyay.html
There was one thing we found out that he passed on. We read in books that when shooting an arrow e.g. at the Okmeydanı in Istanbul, you shouted 'yaaa hak' which means like 'oh god'. But we learned from that source that you shout rather 'ya haaaaaak' with different intonation and really like Karate shout. Small detail, but still a detail...
But Necmeddin's archery or even the Ottoman archery book of Kahvecibaşı Mustafa Kani efendi (1847), shall we see it as the true traditional archery? It seems the book is already the last attempt of reviving Turkish archery in a fast paced industry world and battlefields. For the famous Ottoman archers/horsearchers you have to go even 250 years earlier in time at least, so before the 1600s, ideally 15th and 14th ccs. But it is highly unlikely that this knowledge was passed on to people in the 17th or even 19thcc. So I would say many things are lost.
Anyway we try our best to research from books and do also practical research. So for me the glass is half full :)
But you are right we shall keep these things in mind and be careful as how we label our work. As an example I criticize how some people 'market' the Kassai horsearchery style as 'historic and exactly how they shot on the battlefield'. Until you arrange those 10 arrows in your bow hand you will be pierced by 10 enemy arrows. With your 30lbs bow you will not even pierce through leather armour. The nocks are so wide opened, I have never seen that in any museum of any culture, etc etc...
cheers
Gokmen
you talk about a very true point here and we could write books on how accurate each culture manages to recreate historic archery.
Concerning Ottoman/Turkish archery we are a bit luckier as there is a lot of old books we can read and new books are discovered in the Ottoman archives. The Ottoman archives are a black box and will reveal many surprises in the future.
On the other hand we have difficulties as well and almost all of the Turkish archers use modern arrows, fiberglass bows, low poundages and many even have a bad technique, so right, if you are strict you could say we do modern recurve archery with thumbrelease.
We know that our ancestors put a rope in front of them and they had to shoot under it and hit a target in at least about 160meters (puta target discipline). That means it is a hell of a low trajectory. Nobody in Turkey can do that, especially not with these slow 40lbs baby bows with high trajectory of which the maximum distance is maybe 130m.
But I want to praise the English traditional archers, I think out of all the nations they come closest to the way their ancestors shot 500 years ago on the battlefields (with 120 lbs+ yew bows, appropriate arrow heads etc.)
In the Ottoman empire and today's Turkey the line was broken. The last person who was in the line was Necmettin Okyay, just recently I wrote a blog post about him, he is my role model in many ways.
http://turkishflightarchery.blogspot.co ... okyay.html
There was one thing we found out that he passed on. We read in books that when shooting an arrow e.g. at the Okmeydanı in Istanbul, you shouted 'yaaa hak' which means like 'oh god'. But we learned from that source that you shout rather 'ya haaaaaak' with different intonation and really like Karate shout. Small detail, but still a detail...
But Necmeddin's archery or even the Ottoman archery book of Kahvecibaşı Mustafa Kani efendi (1847), shall we see it as the true traditional archery? It seems the book is already the last attempt of reviving Turkish archery in a fast paced industry world and battlefields. For the famous Ottoman archers/horsearchers you have to go even 250 years earlier in time at least, so before the 1600s, ideally 15th and 14th ccs. But it is highly unlikely that this knowledge was passed on to people in the 17th or even 19thcc. So I would say many things are lost.
Anyway we try our best to research from books and do also practical research. So for me the glass is half full :)
But you are right we shall keep these things in mind and be careful as how we label our work. As an example I criticize how some people 'market' the Kassai horsearchery style as 'historic and exactly how they shot on the battlefield'. Until you arrange those 10 arrows in your bow hand you will be pierced by 10 enemy arrows. With your 30lbs bow you will not even pierce through leather armour. The nocks are so wide opened, I have never seen that in any museum of any culture, etc etc...
cheers
Gokmen
Thesis that transmission of archery's technique must be necessarily by man to man sound me a bit "esoteric". Culture was always transmitted from past by men, of course, but especially by books. Men studies the books of past and they experience, they try, they change. This is true also for archery. So for me to read the words contained in an ancient treatise, compare it with other historical sources ecc. is a path to learn ancient archery equally valid to a direct transmission "by master to disciple".
Regarding the Sasanian release: I conducted some research on it and tested the theory. It works and you can use it with the arrow on either side of the bow.
I start out the draw with the little finger extended, but sometimes my concentration fails and it curls a little.
I start out the draw with the little finger extended, but sometimes my concentration fails and it curls a little.