If you are a Martial Arts history buff like myself then you will find this article interesting.Written by Lt. Col. Stanley E. Henning who received his B.A. in History from the Virginia Military Institute
and an M.A. stressing Chinese language and area studies through an East-West Center grant at the University of Hawaii.Lt. Col Henning explains what he researched as a accurate history of Chinese Martial Arts or Wushu and its development thru the various dynasties in China. We are accustomed to hearing tales of the Shaolin Monastery and the Monks who lived and practiced Kung Fu there. He has done a lot of research and at the end of the article are the references he used to write this. It makes for interesting reading if you are into the history of Martial Arts in China but from a more educational point of view.

Chinese martial arts, or wushu as they are called in China today, are a fascinating yet little understood and inadequately researched aspect of Chinese history. Now com­prising Chinese boxing and various weapons techniques practiced in China primarily as a form of exercise and sport, they are all too often wrongly associated outside of China with mystic, martial monks in their mountain monasteries, and called by the none too descriptive term “Kung Fu.” This misunderstanding has arisen as a result of two widely accepted, deeply ingrained, and hard to quash myths: one attributing the orgins of Chinese boxing to the Indian monk, Bodhidharma, who, according to tradition, is said to have resided in the famous Shaolin Monastery around 525A.D.; and the other attributing the origins of taiji­quan, or Chinese shadow boxing as it is sometimes called in the West, to the mythical Taoist hermit, Zhang Sanfeng, whose dates have never been confirmed, but who is variously said to have lived during the Song, Yuan, or Ming Dynasties, sometime be­tween the tenth and fourteenth centuries A.D. The groundless nature of these myths was exposed as early as the 1930s by the pioneer martial arts historian, Tang Hao (1897-1959),and his contemporary, Xu Jedong ; however, their persistence to the present continues to be revealed in numerous books published on the subject in Chinese as well as other languages.
This article will therefore, attempt to paint a picture of the Chinese martial arts in proper perspective, based on available historical evidence and will, in the process, hopefully extract them from the realm of myth and pave the way for placing them in the realm of reputable historical research.

Centuries before the Christian era, scattered references were made to various forms of Chinese martial arts, which included archery, wrestling, weapons techniques, and probably boxing; however, the terminology used in many of these early references does not clearly distinguish between boxing and weapons techniques, possibly because of their inseparable relationship, the former being the foundation for the latter. To gain a better appreciation of the makeup of the early martial arts, one can refer to the archaeological record, which includes a variety of swords, knives, spears, axes, and halberds. Over the centuries, the types of weapons proliferated, but a basic 18 eventually be­ came the standard. Currently only four are stressed in Chinese nationwide wushu competition: double-edged straight sword, single-edge broad knife, staff, and spear.

Among the early works associated with the Confucian tradi­tion, the Rites oj Zhou (second century B.C.?) lists six arts to be mastered by the educated or morally superior man (junzi) : rites,archery, charioteering, music, calligraphy, and mathematics.
Archery and charioteering were clearly military-related skills, and even music contained an element of martial skill in the form of ritual “civil” and “military” dances, the latter incorporating
weapons techniques. These dances contained a practical as well as ritual aspect, however – that of a training device which tied
together various fighting techniques or forms into sets providing
the “dancer” with a safe, convenient method of perfecting them.
Early writing, to include the famous Shiji (Historical Records, 91
B.C.), show that these dances were performed with the sword, broad knife, and halberd.” Sword dancing was especially preva­lent during the Tang Dynasty (618-906A.D.). The famous Tang poet, Li Bo,was an accomplished swordsman, and his friend, the poet DuFu, dedicated a poem to the skillfully-performed sword dance of a Madam Gongsun.This perfection of form in dance-like maneuvers has been an outstanding characteristic of the Chinese martial arts through the ages, and is the essence of wushu as practiced in China today.3 It has apparently also led to misun­derstandings by some Western scholars in their attempts to trace the origins of the martial arts. For example, even Joseph Needham’s monumental work, Science and Civilization in China, has, I believe, erroneously associated the orgins of Chinese box­ing with Taoism based on observation of this dance-like phenomenon. According to Needham, “Chinese boxing (Chuanpo), an art with rules different from that of the West, and em­bodying a certain element of ritual dance, … probably origi­nated as a department of Taoist physical exercises. In the first place, Chinese boxing was originally a combat skill, not a sport like Western boxing. The ritual aspect has just been explained above. Finally, although Chinese boxing has been associated with Taoist practices, a more likely theory is that these practices were applied to already existing boxing styles, taijiquan being an out­ standing example.
The Han History bibliographies (Hanshu Yiwenzhi completed around 90A.D.) provide the first broad definition of the martial arts, which constituted one of four categories under the major heading, “Military Writings.” They are defined simply as “skills” or “techniques” to practice use of the hands and feet, and to facilitate the use of weapons to gain victory through offense or defense.
Based on the bibliographical listing, these skills in­cluded archery, fencing, boxing, and even an ancient game of football (cuju) for agility and maneuver in the field. The entry on boxing, or shoubo as it was called, appears to be the earliest clearly identifiable reference to Chinese boxing. Commentaries on the entry differentiate shoubo from wrestling, which was categorized as a military sport as opposed to a combat skill.The Han Dynasty (206B.C.-220A.D.)was a period during which conscript armies, trained in the martial arts, expanded the Chinese empire to Turkestan in the west and Korea in the north­east, where commanderies were established. It is possible that Chinese shoubo was transmitted to Korea at this time, and that it was the antecedent to Korean Taekwondo.According to one re­cent Korean source, “Taekwondo is known to have had its begin­ning in the period 209-427A.D The Chinese commanderies continued in existence in Korea throughout much of this period.

The Tang Dynasty (618-906A.D.) saw the beginning of an offi­cial examination system for recruiting and promoting the mili­tary bureaucracy, similar to that already established for the civil
bureaucracy. Skill in archery, using the composite short bow
from horseback and on foot, remained a major requirement tested during periods when the examinations were in effect, until their termination in 1902.Additional requirements included tests of strength, martial arts skill, and written tests involving pas­sages from the military classics. The only substantive change to these examinations came during the Reform Movement of 1898, when rifle marksmanship began being tested along side archery.

By the time of the Song Dynasty (960-1279A.D.), the military manpower system had evolved into one consisting to varying degrees, during different periods, of a professional standing army led by the military bureaucracy, and supplemented by a peasant militia and additional recruitment as necessary.” As a result, the martial arts were disseminated amongst an ever broader segment of the population. Under this system, individuals versed in the martial arts were found
throughout the population. Many of these were, or had been, military drill instructors such as some of the characters por­trayed in the popular fourteenth-century novel, Shuihuzhuan (Water Margin). A sampling of famous Chinese who received instruction from such individuals includes Song Dynasty patroit, Vue Fei (1103-1141A.D.); Ming Dynasty generals, Qi Jiguang (1528-1587A.D.) and Yu Dayou (1503-1580A.D.); and Qing Dynasty scholars, Gu Yanwu (1613-1682A.D.) and Van Yuan (1635-1704A.D.), to name just a few.” Ming Dynasty general, Qi Jiguang provides us with the best example of a martial arts training program for a force recruited amongst the peasantry. In 1558, Qi recruited about 3,000men in Yiwu, Jejiang Province and, through a strict training regimen, melded them into a highly effective fighting force for his cam­paigns against Japanese and indigenous pirates in China’s coas­tal provinces. He emphasized training in practical weapons techniques and denounced what he termed the “flowery” techniques then prevalent (probably in reference to emphasis placed on the superficial, outward appearance in practicing sets as opposed to the practical aspect). He scheduled martial arts proficiency tests four times a year, and those who did well were promoted and rewarded, while those whose technique failed to meet prescribed standards were disciplined.”
Qi further stressed the proper match of men to weapons in combined arms training. The young and agile were issued cane shields, broad knives, and javelins. Sturdy, mature adults were issued weapons called langxians (these were special defensive weapons, possibly designed by Qi himself, made of lengths of thick bamboo with from 9 to 11joints of protruding, sharpened branches to prevent the enemy from breaking through a forma­tion. Some were shaped like bamboo but made of iron). Daring,spirited men in their early thirties were issued long spears, and those with slightly lesser qualifications were issued shorter-poled weapons such as tridents, halberds, and staves. These weapons complemented each other in a basic 12-man formation called the yuan yang or Mandarin Duck (always shown in pairs) formation, so-called because it could be further divided into two teams of six based on the circumstances of enemy and terrain. Direct fire support was provided by archers, musketeers, and rocket troops.

Qi recorded the basic weapons techniques and standards in his
New Book of Effective Discipline (1561).He reserved the last
chapter for boxing, noting that, although it did not appear useful
in preparing for large-scale combat, it served as the basic foundation for all the weapons techniques. Based on his research of
about 16knownstyles of boxing,Qi developed a practical 32-form
set to train his volunteers. Interestingly, about half of the 32
forms illustrated in his manual have the same or similar names
as forms found in present day taijiquan, and virtually all the
forms shown can be found in either the old Chen style or more
popular Yang style taijiquan, both of which are practiced in
China today.

In compiling his martial arts manual, Qi listed the well-known boxing styles and weapons techniques of his day, including a staff
fighting set named after the Shaolin Monastery located on Mount
Songin Henan Province. His omission of any reference to a box­ing style named after the monastery is significant, and is consis­tent with other Ming period works on the subject. For example, Cheng Zhongdou (1522-1587A.D.), in his Explanation of the School of Shaolin Staff Technique, notes that the monks were working on their boxing technique, which had not gained a nationwide reputation, in hopes of raising it to the level of the highly-polished staff technique. Thus, the boxing practiced at the monastery was apparently not considered noteworthy enough to warrant naming it after the monastery and listing it among the better known styles. QiJiguang’s comrade-in-arms, Yu Dayou, wrote that the Shaolin monks were said to have practiced fencing in the past, but had lost their skill. Yutaught his sword technique to a young Shaolin monk named Zongji,who was a camp follower for a time during Yu’s anti-pirate campaigns.”
Historically, the fighting fame of Shaolin Monastery can be
traced to several recorded incidents during its long history (first
built around 496A.D.), which won its residents the appellation
“Shaolin Monk-Soldiers.”Two of these incidents are particularly
worth mentioning here. First, in 621A.D., the monks are said to
have assisted Tang Emperor Taizong in quelling a rebellion by
Wang Shichong, for which the monastery was rewarded. What
fighting techniques they used is not recorded, but it is safe to say
that they probably used a variety of weapons as opposed to box­
ing. In the other incident, during the Ming Jiaqing period (1522/1566A.D.), the monks were summoned by the provincial military
governor to assist in defending against pirates in the Songjiang
area near Shanghai. A monk called Yue Kong reportedly re­sponded to the call and led some 30of his followers into battle armed with iron staves. After reportedly dispatching a large number of the enemy they themselves were all killed on the field of battle. Ming period literature contains other scattered refer­ences to the martial arts practice of some of the Shaolin monks, which included staff, sword, whip,halberd, and boxing.One piece even describes a monk demonstrating monkey-style fighting technique (monkey boxing was one of the known styles recorded by Qi Jiguang). So, while some of the monks apparently did practice boxing,they appear to have practiced the known styles of the day. In any case, through the end ofthe Ming period there is no record of a unique Shaolin style of boxing.It was not until after the establishment of the foreign Qing Dynasty (1644-1911A.D.) that stories associating Shaolin Monastery with a style of boxing began to appear.

Chinese resentment toward Manchu (Qing) rule provided fertile soil for the growth of secret societies and a prolifera­tion of martial arts styles and myths surrounding their origins.

Many Confucian scholars refused to serve the new Manchu re­gime, and, in 1727,83 years after establishment of the dynasty, Ming loyalists were still actively plotting the overthrow of the government. Among the uncompromising scholars were Huang Zongxi (1610-1695A.D.), Gu Yanwu, and Yan Yuan, all of whom, to some degree, encouraged martial arts training as a form of patriotic resistance to foreign rule.

Huang Zongxi, whose son Huang Baijia studied boxing under
Wang Zhengnan (1617-1669A.D.), apparently used his Epitaph
for Wang Zhengnan not only to eulogize the latter, but also to
express his anti-Manchu sentiments through symbolism. In the
Epitaph, Huang refers to the Buddhist Shaolin Monastery as
representing what he calls the “external” school of boxing in
contrast to Wang’s “internal” school, which allegedly traces its
origins back to the Wudang Mountains in Hubei Province, and the
mythical Taoist hermit, Zhang Sanfeng. Huang further infers the
superiority of the “internal” school which uses Taoist yielding
concepts to defeat an opponent as opposed to the aggressive
techniques of the “external” school.

Huang’s Epitaph is the first reference in the history of the
Chinese martial arts to allude to the purported fame of Shaolin
boxing, and “external” and “internal” schools of boxing; how­
ever, its significance at the time it was written lay not in its
reference to boxing, but in its underlying symbolism. Shaolin
Monastery and the “external”school of boxing represented foreign Buddhism, and symbolized the foreign Manchu rulers. The Wudang Mountains and “internal” school of boxing rep­resented indigenous Taoism, and symbolized Chinese resistance to the Manchus.

The extent of Huang’s anti-Manchu sentiment is further revealed at the end of the Epitaph, where he refused to record Wang’s birth and death dates with the appropriate character combinations of the traditional Chinese 60-year cycle.

Despite the lack of historicity in the symbolism of the Epitaph,
Wang Zhengnan apparently actually was skilled in boxing,and it
is quite possible that he incorporated Taoist concepts into his
boxing technique. Huang Baijia recorded the terminology for
Wang’s “internal” style of boxing,but did not explain it and, as it
does not correspond with that of any other known style, its true
content has been impossible to determine. In any case, it appears
that Huang Zongxi,through his Epitaph, unwittingly provided a
source from which less intellectually inclined perpetrators of the
myths surrounding the Chinese martial arts would later draw truly
an ironic contribution from a man who was considered to be
a master historian.

By the middle 1800s,the Chinese landscape had become a panorama of conflict, racked by incessant civil strife, foreign incursions, and natural catastrophes resulting in famine and widespread banditry, especially in the northern provinces. Local militias were raised, trained, and disbanded according to the exigencies of the moment. Private protection agencies (biaoju) flourished. Run by professional martial artists, they served to escort transported goods and to protect the homes of the wealthy, banks, pawn shops, and other commercial enterprises.” Secret societies and religious sects such as the Hungmen Society,Eight Trigrams, Small Knives, Big Knives, Long Spears, and Right­eous and Harmonious Fists or Boxers flourished among the frus­trated peasantry. Their activities included popular Taoist and Buddhist religious practices and martial arts training, and rep­resented the common man’s way of uniting against lawlessness,oppressive government officials, and privileged foreigners in his midst. In this chaotic atmosphere, martial arts styles multiplied,especially boxing styles, many of which claimed to trace their origins to Shaolin Monastery, the mythical Taoist, Zhang San­feng, or the Song Dynasty patriot, Yue Fei.

Eventually, possibly as early as the middle of the Qing period,
boxing manuals began to refer to Shaolin Monastery as Chinese
boxing’s place of origin.” Stories varied in the secret society atmosphere. Some groups attempted to identify with the patriotic
example of the Shaolin Monk Soldiers. For example, the members of the Hungmen Society even went so far as to compose mythical history which traced their origins to a group of anti­ Manchu monks,who were said to have resided in a second Shaolin Monastery in Putian, Fujian Province.”
By the close of the nineteenth century, these stories had been stretched to claim that the Indian monk,Bodhidharma, had introduced boxing to Shaolin Monastery around 525A.D. Bodhidharma is traditionally said have resided in the monastery and to have introduced Zen”(Chan), the meditative school of Buddhism to China although, histori­cally, this doctrine is known to have already been well established by that time.” He is also traditionally said to have introduced the Muscle Change Classic (Yijin Jing), Marrow Cleansing Classic (Xisui Jing) , and Eighteen Lohan exercises,the latter supposedly providing the foundation for the develop­ment of Chinese boxing.
None of these alleged contributions can be historically verified. Finally, in 1915,a book by an unknown author titled Secrets of Shaolin Boxing was published, which wove together all these groundless stories. Both Tang Haoand XuJedong exposed this book’s lack of historicity but unfortunately,it became popularly accepted as a key source for Chinese martial arts history enthusiasts, and its pernicious influence has permeated literature on the subject to this day.”

The myth surrounding the origins of taijiquan appears to date
back no earlier than the early 1870s,and was the product of
practitioners of the Yang style of taijiquan, who seized on the
story in Huang Zongxi’s Epitaph to claim ancient Taoist origins
for their style of boxing, Actually, the style of Chinese boxing
which became known as taijiquan evolved from a boxing set
practiced in the village of Chenjiagou, Henan Province, which
Chen Changing (1771-1853)taught to Yang Luchan (1799-1872).
The set practiced by the Chen family appears, in turn, to have
received considerable inspiration from Ming general, Qi
Jiguang’s 32forms, and was not originally called taijiquan. The
name taijiquan appears to have been adopted around 1854or
later, after the discovery of an old boxing treatise which used the
term taiji in the opening line to one section. It is also possible that taijiquan’s emphasis on Taoist concepts, which has resulted in its evolving into a form of therapeutic exercise, dates from this
period.

The Chinese martial arts entered the twentieth cen­tury cloaked in their mantle of myth. After the overthrow of the Manchu regime in 1911,the country continued in a state of confusion dominated by regional warlord conflicts which lasted until 1928.In addition to training with more modern weapons,the warlords, such as XuShuzheng of the Beiyang Clique,hired martial arts instructors to train their men. Feng Yuxiang (1882-1948) even organized an elite Big Knife Unit which eventually saw action against the Japanese. During this same period, the com­mon man’s reaction to warlord armies and banditry could be seen in the Red Spear Society (named for the spears they carried with red-dyed horsehair fringe affixed just below the spearheads), which was active primarily in north China.”

By 1928, the new Nationalist government, still shackled by
“unequal treaties” with the Western powers and Japan, and the
appellation “sick man of Asia,” sought to harness the nationalis­tic
aspects of the Chinese martial arts to its benefit. As part of the effort to develop a “martial spirit” in the people, a Central Martial Arts Academy was established at Nanjing with branches at various levels throughout the country. An attempt was made to
popularize the martial arts in nationwide physical education
programs and to use them in military and police training. One
instructor associated with the new academy, Huang Bonian, even
published a manual for military training in boxing, sabre, and
bayonet based on the techniques of a traditional style of boxing
called xingyiquan.

The 1930s witnessed the beginnings of serious scholarly re­search in the martial arts. Tang Hao, the undisputed leader in the
field, claimed that they needed to be purged and put in order. He
mercilessly attacked popular myths and even pointed the finger
at well-known contemporary martial artists for perpetuating
such myths. Xu Jedong was another who took a more exacting
approach in writing on the martial arts, but, generally speaking,
the efforts of these two men represented a cry in the dark. Some
progress was made in organizing the martial arts prior to the War
of Anti-Japanese Resistance (1937-1945),but divisive tendencies
already prevalent during the Qing period as a result of the secret
society mentality, carried over into the Nationalist period, and
are still evident today in the martial arts activities in the overseas Chinese communities. Perhaps the high point for the Chinese
martial arts during this period was their performance by a troupe
at the Eleventh Olympiad in Berlin in 1936.

With the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the Chinese martial arts or wushu came under the guidance of the
People’s Physical Culture and Sports Commission. The Com­munists were well aware of the popular base of the martial arts, and they recognized their value as a form of exercise and training
discipline during the Jiangxi Soviet period dating back to 1927.In
1953,a Traditional Physical Culture Research Committee was
organized to review the traditional sports ofthe Han Chinese and
national minorities. Between 1953and 1965,standardized sets of
changquan (long boxing) and weapons sets were developed, and
standard rules for nationwide competition were established for changquan, nanquan (southern boxing), taijiquan, and the four
basic weapons. As implified taijiquan set was also developed to
serve as a nationwide form of exercise for the people. During this
period, the martial arts historian, Tang Hao, continued his re­search efforts for the People’s Physical Culture and Sports Commission until his death in 1959.

In 1965,the Chinese martial arts entered the painful period of
over a decade which came to be known as the Great Proletarian
Cultural Revolution. During this period, vestiges of “feudal”
practices associated with the martial arts were criticized, but the
arts themselves continued to be practiced as they are today – as
a uniquely Chinese form of exercise and sport with origins
reaching back through a mythical mist to ancient military com­
bat skills.”
As can be seen from the foregoing account, the Chinese martial arts trace their origins to ancient military skills which included weapons techniques and boxing. Placed in proper historical perspective, these arts were gradually spread throughout the
population and were practiced by individuals from all walks of
life, including some who chose the monastic life, the monks of
Shaolin Monastery being the most noteworthy. Generally speaking, however, China did not witness the widespread
phenomenon of warrior-priests and mercenary armies as­sociated with Korean and Japanese Buddhism.” Some styles of Chinese boxing have emphasized Taoist concepts in their prac­tice. These styles have come to be called “internal” styles as a result of Huang Zongxi’s Epitaph, while all others have been categorized as Shaolin or “external” styles. Huang’s Epitaph also served as the nucleus from which the myths surrounding the Chinese martial arts evolved in the anti-Manchu, secret society atmosphere of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911).

REFERENCES
1. ZhouWei,’Zhongguo Bingqi Shigao [Historical Manuscripts
on Chinese Weapons], (Beijing: Joint Publishing Company,
1957).Listings ofthe 18tradional weaponsvary. For onelisting in
English see J.H. Jackson, tr., Water Margin (Cambridge Mass.:
C&TCo., 1976),11-12.For two other listings in Chinese see Xu
Jedong, Guoji Lunlue [Short Discourse on the Martial Arts],
(Taibei: Zhonghua WushuChubanshe, 1970),60.
2. Xin Lan, “Kongzi zai Tiyufangmian-de Shijian he
Zhuzhang” [Confucius’Practice and Adovcacyof Physical Cul­
ture], New Sports (Aug. 1962), 13-16;Zhang Wenguang and
others, Wushu Yundong Xiao Zhishi[A Little KnowledgeAbout
the Martial Arts Sport], (Renmin Tiyu Chubanshe, 1979),3.
3. Shi Quanxuan, “Li Bo he Jian” [Li Bo and the Sword],New
Sports (April1962),21; WangTifu, “Du Fu yu’ Jiannqi Xing'” [Du
Fu and ‘On the Sword’], New Sports (Dec. 1962),26; Bai Ye,
“Wujian Suixiang” [Thoughts on a Sword Dance], New Sports
(Aug. 1962),12.
4. Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China, vol. 2
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956),145-146.
5. Wang Xiangqian, ed., Hanshu Buzhu[Annotated Han History], (Changsha, 1901).
6. Korea: Past and Present (Seoul: KwangmyongPublishing
Company, 1972),383.
7. For a detailed account of the military examination system
see Etienne Zi, “Pratique des examens militaires en Chine,”
Varietes Sinologiques (Shanghai), vol. 3, no. 9, Feb. 1895;Wu
Wenzhong,Zhongguo Jinbainian Tiyushi[ AHistory of Physcial
Education in China During the Last One Hundred Years] ,
(Taibei: Taiwan Commerical Press), 39.
8. For a concise description of the militia or baojia system
begun during the Song Dynasty and in effect during the Qing
Dynasty, see Dun J. Li, The Ageless Chinese: A History (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971),209-211.
9. Qian Ruwen, ed., Song Yue Ewang Nianpu [Chronological
Biography of SongDynasty Sir Yue of Hubei], (1924);ZhuZhon­
gyu, “Qi Jiguang Qiangshen Baoguo”[Qi Jiguang kept Physi­
cally Fit to Defendthe Nation],New Sports (Jan. 1963),36; Wang
Kejun, “Yu DayouXiwuWeimin” [YuDayouPracticed the Mar­
tial Arts to Protect the People], New Sports (Sept. 1963),19-20;
Zhu Zhongyu, “Wenwu Bingzhong-deGu Yanwu” [Gu Yanwu Placed Equal Emphasis on Civil and Military Affairs], New
Sports (Dec. 1963), 19-20;Kuang Wendan, “Wenwu Quanneng-de
Jiaoyujia- Yan Yuan” [Yan Yuan-an Educator Fully Versed
in Civil and Military Affairs], New Sports (Feb. 1963), 15-16.
10. Xie Chengren and Ning Ke, Qi Jiguang (Shanghai: Renmin
Chubanshe, 1961), 43-48,84-89, 94-97.
11. Qi Jiguang, Jixiao Xinshu[New Book of Effective Discip­
line], (Taibei: Hualian Chubanshe, 1971). This is a copy from a
Ming Wanli edition (1573-1620),which is widely available; how­
ever, two pages containing 8 of Qi’s 32forms can be found in Mao
Yuanyi, Wubeizhi [Encyclopedia of Military Affairs], 1621edi­
tion.
12. Cheng Zhongdou (Zongyou) , Shaolin Gunfa Chanzong
[Explanation of the School of Shaolin Staff Technique], 1621edi­
tion. This book is more readily available in a recent version titled
Shaolin Gun TUjie[Illustrated Shaolin Staff], (Taibei: Hualian
Chubanshe, 1975)
13. Yu Dayou, “Shi Song Shaolin Siseng Zongji” [A Poem for Shaolin Monk Zongjij, Zhengqitang Wenji[Literary Anthology
from the Hall of Uprighteousness], (Boshanjingshe, 1934).
14. Gu Yanwu, “Shaolin Sengbing” [Shaolin Monk-Soldiers],
Rizhilu Jishi [Record of Daily Knowledge: Collected Comments],
chapter 29; Paul Demieville, “Le Bouddhisme et la Guerre,”
Melanges Publies por l’Institute des Hautes Etudes Chinoises,”
11 (1957),359-368; Arthur F. Wright and Denis Twitchett, eds.,
Perspectives on the T’ang (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1973),244; Tang Hao, Shaolin Wudang Kao [Shaolin-Wudang In­
vestigations], (Hong Kong: Unicorn Press, 1968), 43-45.
15. I have arrived at the interpretation expressed in this
paragraph based on the material presented in Tang Hao,
Neijiaquan-de Yanjiu [A Study of the Internal School of Boxing],
(Hong Kong: Unicorn Press, 1969).
17. AI).excellent description of these protection agencies can be
found in lZhou Jiannan, “Wogou Xiri-zhi Baobiao yu Huyuan”
[Our Nation’s Bygone Era of Escort and Guard Agencies], Wutan
[Martial Forum], Taibei, vol. I, no. 11 (April 1972), 19-21 (this
magazine has ceased publication).
18. One ofthese old manuals still extant is Zhang Kongzhao,
Quanjing Quanfa Beiyao [Boxing Classic, Essentials of Boxing]
found in Miaoyuan Congshu, 1900. This manual was supposedly
copied from one dated 1785.
19. William T. deBary, Sources of Chinese Tradition (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1963), 649-650.
20. Ibid., 388.
21. Zun Wozhai Churen, ed., Shaolin Quanshu Mijue [Secrets of
Shaolin Boxing], (Taibei; Zhonghua Wushu Chubanshe, 1971).
This edition contains the critiques by Tang and Xu as appendices.
For persistence of this myth see Jonathan Kolatch and Jonathan
David, Sports, Politics and Ideology in China (New York: Middle
Village, 1972), xvi.
22. The conclusions above are my own, but were based on my
study of the following materials: Tang Hao, Wang Zongyue
Taijiquanjing Yanjiu [A study of Waang Zongyue’s Taijiquan
Classic], (Hong Kong: Unicorn Press, 1969); Tang Hao, Taijiquan Zongshi Wang Zongyue Kao [Investigation of Taijiquan’s
Honored Master, Wang Zongyue], (Hong Kong: Unicorn Press,
1969); Xu Jedong, Taijiquan Kaoxinlu [Record of Investigation
into the Facts on Taijiquan], (Taibei: Zhenshanmei Chubanshe,
1965); Xu Jedong, Taijiquanpu Lidong-Bianwei Hebian [Correct
Approach Toward and Recognition of False Aspects of Taijiquan
Manuals: Combined Edition], (Xu Jedong, Taibei: Zhenshanmei
Chubanshe, 1965); Tang Hao and Gu Liuxin, Taijiquan Yanjiu
[Taijiquan Research], (Hong Kong: Yixin Shudian, orginally
published in the People’s Republic of China in 1963, this book
came under criticism in 1965, at the outset of the Cultural Re­
volution); and Zhou Renfeng, ed., Taijiquan Changshi [Common
Knowledge on Taijiquan], (Renmin Tiyu Chubanshe, 1978), 1-2.
23. For an excellent description of the warlord period see
James E. Sheridan, Chinese Warlord: The Career of Feng Yu­
hsiang (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1966). For refer­
ence to Xu Shuzheng, see Sun Lutang, Xingyiquan Quanshu
[Complete Book of Xingyiquan], vol. 2 (Hong Kong: Unicorn
Press), addendum by Lee Ying-Arng titled, “Xingyiquan-zhi
Fazhan” [Development of Xingyiquan], 7. For a detailed de­
scription of Red Spear Society activities see Dai Xuanzhi, Hong­
qianghui [The Red Spear Society], (Taibei: Shihuo Chubanshe,
1973).
24. For developments during the Nationalist period in general24. For developments during the Nationalist period in general
and background on the Central Martial Arts Academy in par­
ticular see Wu Wenzhong, above. For Huang’s training manual
see Xiezhen Quanxie Jiaofan [Illustrated Boxing and Weapons
Instructions], (Taibei: Hualian Press, 1971,orginally published
about 1928).
25. Wu Wenzhong, 266
26. For a general discussion of the early development of mar­
tial arts programs in the People’s Republic of China see Cai Jing,
ed., Minzu Tiyu-zhi Hua – Tantan Zhongguo Wushu Yundong [An
example of People’s Physical Culture: A Discussion of the Mar­
tial Arts Sport], (Renmin Tiyu Chubanshe, 1959).
27. Articles in New Sports (Tiyu) attacking aspects of the
martial arts at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution include
Jiao Lubin, “Buxu Jiajie Qigong Mingyi Sanbu Fengjian Mixin
Dusu” [False Use of Qigong to Spread Poisonous Feudal Supers­
titions Must not be Allowed], (March 1965),25-26; Gu Shenglin,
“Zuihan-de Wushu Buke Yao” [‘Drunken’ Martial Arts are Im­
permissible], (March 1965), 26; Jing Bai, “Taijiquan
Huodongzhong-de Caopo Bixu Qingchu” [The Chaf Must be
Separated from the Taijiquan Movement], (April 1965), 22-23;
Xiang Ling, “Fandui Guanyu Taijiquan-de Shenmihua Guan­
dian” [Oppose Superstitious Views About Taijiquan], (May 1965),
29-30;Zhao Renqing, “Yong Jieji Guandian Kaocha Taijiquan-de
Lishi” [Take the Class View to Investigate Taijiquan’s His­
tory], (May 1965), 30-31.
28. For Korea, see Takashi Hatada, A History of Korea (Santa
Barbara: American Bibliographical Center Clio Press, 1969),
18,44; and William E. Henthorn, A History of Korea (New York:
The Free Press, 1971), 105. For Japan, see George Sansom, A
istory of Japan to 1334 (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
1967), 222-223,429.