The
term history has become an ubiquitous word conceptualized differently by various
scholars. Traditional conception viewed history as any written narrative of
events. This definition today is inadequate and unacceptable. First, the
definition did not acknowledge the development of history overtime. Second, it
did not recognize the division of the discipline into such fields as political,
social, economic, military, intellectual, constitutional and educational
history and their sub brunches. Third, the conception of history as mere narration
of events is now archaic because history has metamorphosed from mere
description of events into critical and analytical interpretation of events .
Arthur
Marwick defined history as “the entire human past as it actually happened”,
second, as “man’s attempt to describe and interpret the past” and third, as “a
systematic study of the past” .
History
on the other hand, as a field of knowledge encompasses not only past events but
also their consequences. In addition, not all events of the past capture the
interest of the historian, rather important historical events with consequences
are usually preferred.
Barraclough
states that “the history we read, though
based on facts, is strictly speaking not factual at all, but a series of accepted
judgements”
Evidence
is the pillar of historical research. This is because without evidence there
will be no historical interpretation. The submission of the historian is not a
product of speculation or imagination. History is not fabricated and thus
cannot be manufactured. Instead, evidence is the rubric upon which history
stands.
Finally,
history is an outcome of diligent research. History is critical in the
selection, interpretation and analysis of available data. It is these features
of history that have made it look science. These aspects of history imply that
what is presented as history is a product of honest inquiry and not that of the
historian’s sensibilities or imagination.
Researching
history of martial arts is incredibly hard. There are several major problems
that obstruct and make almost impossible to conduct any meaningful historical
research of martial arts, especially Chinese martial arts.
In Chinese
academic circles anything connected to martial arts is considered as a sort of
forbidden area. There is no scientist who would engage in any kind of research of
martial arts because that would be the end his academic carrier. Academic
society outside China has pretty much the same attitude about the subject. All
martial history researches come from other areas of life, almost all of them
are martial arts practitioners and unfortunately without high education in any
discipline or science. Even those with high education have degrees in areas
that have no connection to history what so ever.
All
this not only mean that researchers have no necessary qualification to do any
historical research but also means that they have no support of any kind from
academic institutions which conducts such researchers , which leads to the situation
that any finds cannot be validated and even more, cannot be considered even
remotely acceptable on any level. Simply, martial “historians” because of total
lack of professional qualifications, complete lack of professional research resources
such as various laboratories for validation of physical findings, access to
experts of other disciplines necessary for processing the data and complete
lack of any connection to academic circles simply cannot provide any valid
result out of their research.
Another
big problem is strict government control of data in China. During cultural
revolution chairman Mao declared that “working people of China is master of its
history”. This says enough. Disregarding any scientific standards and being
aware of cultural influence of martial arts in China and especially on the West
and of course the economic potential , history of martial arts is simply
written to fulfil current socio-political and economical demands. Probably the
best example is Shaolin monastery which was purged from monks and left in ruins
for decades only to be rebuild and established as one of the most successful multinational companies in China today with enormous social, cultural and economical
influence all over the world although historically martial arts were never practiced
in Shaolin. Same thing is currently happening with so called Southern Shaolin which
historically never existed and was a part of legends ,but because of ever
growing interest for that particular place ,especially from the West ,Chinese
government went a lengthily road to prove its existence and today we have not one but three Southern Shaolin
monasteries , each claiming and offering evidence it is true one. Another example
is “suggestion” to Fujian practitioners
of various White Crane styles to publicly support Japanese theory that Okinawan
karate originated from Fujian White Crane in order to increase not only grater
influx of Okinawan tourists and “researchers” but to establish stronger
cultural influence to Karate practitioners all over the world . These are just
few most obvious examples how politics and economics influence “history”
research in China.
Close
to this problem is objectivity of the researches in general. Like it was said
before, majority of martial arts “historians” are martial arts practitioners
them selfs, involved in one or more particular styles. Desire to find and prove
historical significance of the particular style on one side and lack of proper
historical research training on the
other often leads to completely wrong interpretation of the findings, selective
gathering of the evidence and sometimes to deliberate distortion of the
findings and outright forgeries.
Next
big problem is lack of historical sources on the topic of martial arts of any
kind. The
quality of a historical study is determined largely by the manner in which
sources are collected and used. Sources are basic in historical research and
they are many and varied. The absence of written sources upon which
conventional history rests presents
problem for any field of historical research, even more for martial arts
history because written evidence is the only source of information for this
field of research. For centuries martial arts were restricted only to army
personal, common people didn’t and more than often couldn’t practice martial
arts. Not only that, martial arts were almost completely military oriented.
Like toady, complete military and martial education was reserved for officer
core, common soldiers were trained only to certain extent and specialized for
specific tactical tasks. What we know today about martial arts came from work
of just a few military leaders of the past but they didn’t feel necessary to
give any details to actual martial arts training system. We have just a few
rare manuals that present some basic fighting techniques with infantry weapons
of the era but nothing else. Majority of martial practitioners through the
history were illiterate and what was passed down to next generations in the
form of oral histories soon got lost in myths and legends. Those who were
literate and did practice martial arts didn’t recognize the danger of not making
records of their practice. Lack of
written evidence leads to other sources of information such as oral tradition,
mainly in the form of myth, legend, song, and popular history. However, the use
of oral sources in historical reconstruction is replete with difficulties of
which the problem of chronology is outstanding. Accurate chronology was hardly
taken seriously as emphasis was on specific events. Even when there are
specific references to years, generations and periods, they may relate to
‘structural’ and not chronological time. Frailty of human memory makes it
difficult to chronicle events in specific detail for more than four
generations. Distortion is yet another limitation of oral tradition. Distortion
in oral tradition occurs either due to alteration of traditions or adaptation
to provide the basis for the elevation of a particular society above another
and this is more than obvious in Chinese martial arts. Another problem with
Chinese martial arts oral tradition is that it is extremely hard to make a
distinction between reality and phantasy. In the core of Chinese culture is to
give ‘face’ to the ancestors and objective truth has nothing to do with that.
Not only that distorting the truth and sometimes outright lies are socially
acceptable in martial oral tradition they are even desirable. It is almost a
rule to invent completely false stories which will elevate ‘ancestor’s” skills,
morality and ethics on highest possible level completely disregarding the real
person behind the story. Each generation feels obligated to give a little (or a
lot) more ‘face to the ancestor and each generation will add more and more
fiction in their oral tradition until the real person and real events are
totally lost.
