Paper Pai vs. MJ Tiles, Why?
pa...@email.unc.edu
several unresolved issues concerning the evolution of MJ. In this new
thread perhaps we can explore the question of why the paper pai used
in the three suit money cards (the presumed precursor to MJ) evolved
into tiles for MJ.
I feel that if MJ was simply an evolution of the card game, then why
change from cards to tiles? If the game was a modification for troops
in the field, however, this change could be rationalized. Thick tiles
are more durable than thin cards, even if the cards were made of
materials like bamboo or ivory which would be more durable than the
more typical pasteboard. The tiles are also thick enough to be stood
on end (as in the current Chinese game) so that bare hands are not
required to hold or manipulate them, an important consideration for
troops in the field during the winter who may not wish to expose their
hands to the elements while playing the game.
While we do not know the rules for the earliest versions of MJ, there
is no reason to think that they were significantly different than
those standardized in the 1920's. Money cards were dealt similar to
Western cards, but the MJ tiles are formed into a wall (four sides,
each two tiles high) that resembles a fortification, suggesting
possible military thought/influence.
While the inventor of Mahjong is not known with certainty (and there
are several folk versions that place MJ as far back as Confucius, see
for example the vintage articles on MJ listed at http://www.mahjongmuseum.com/)
one of the more plausible persons is Chen Yumen (see
http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq/mjfaq11.htm) who may have been a
military officer (General?) in the Imperial Chinese army (Eight
Banners? or Standard Green Army?) around 1850-5 during the Taiping
rebellion. Note also that the leader of the Taiping, Hong Xiuquan, is
also named as a possible inventor, thus the possibility that MJ hay
have originated with the Taiping. The Taiping seem to me to be
modifiers of existing things in order to fit their ideology, rather
than innovators so I am rather doubtful of this connection, but it is
possible that other researchers could find evidence to support the
Taiping origin theory (I think that the Himly set may present the most
likely set for associating with the Taiping, but I'll get to that in a
later post). Also the Taiping were very strict in their social
restrictions (including separating the sexes even for married couples,
prohibitions on drugs and alcohol, etc.) and I would suspect that
gambling would have been proscribed, although I have not seen specific
reference to this (note that money cards and MJ are both often used
for gambling).
Another factor that may imply a military origin for MJ is the
apparently very rapid spread of the game following its creation
(assuming an origin from no earlier than about 1850). By 1935, Lin
Yutang already wrote in "My Country and My People" that "they
[Chinese] have always played mahjong" indicating the rapidity with
which MJ became popular. Troops returning home after fighting in the
Taiping conflict would be one possible route for the rapid spread of
the game throughout the country, although spreading the game by
merchants would be an alternate possibility.
Finally, the 5 Character/Wan tile uses the modified 5 character which
may denote a group of five. I have only seen the standard character
for 5 used on money cards, implying that the changed character was
specific for the change to MJ. Since a carved tile does not require
the added security from forgery that this version of the number five
is sometimes used for in documents, I suspect that it may be used to
indicate a basic unit of five in troop numbers. I am uncertain, if
indeed this represents a military unit, if it refers to the basic five
man unit of the Taiping (four men plus a corporal) [or earlier
historical troop organization such as in the Zhouli, since the Taiping
apparently copied their structure from the Rites of Zhou], or a higher
level of organization (e.g. the five niru that form a jalan or canling
in the Qing Banner system). If the symbolism of the early MJ sets is
Imperial/civilian rather than based on military organization, then it
is possible that this five character may represent a group of five
interdependent families instead.
I have much more speculation along this "military connection" line of
thought, including examining the early tile sets, but I think that the
above is enough for now as it should provide plenty of points to
discuss.
Dan
Nath Krismaratala
> I feel that if MJ was simply an evolution of the card game, then why
> change from cards to tiles? If the game was a modification for troops
> in the field, however, this change could be rationalized.
I think a lot of people here are trying too hard to come up with
clever, somewhat intellectual explanations for simple, natural
matters. Don't forget the game of Mahjong, before any other
consideration, is meant to be... an amusement. The main criteria
leading is development is... fun. Players don't ask themselves highly
sophisticated questions. They only consider a change if it makes the
game more fun.
For instance, winning money is fun. That's a powerful motivation to
build a game around this theme. Modelling your life on the humble,
austerely simple life of the sparrows isn't fun. Ascetic ideals don't
make fun games.
Some game dynamics are simple : 1) Only fun games last several
centuries. 2) Games are replaced by other games only if the later are
somehow viewed as more fun. Any speculation that doesn't comply to
those two basic laws are likely to be worthless abstractions.
> why change from cards to tiles?
Try this hand-on experience : pick up a deck paper Mahjong playing
cards and play a few rounds, you'll see how less fun and how less
convenient it is compared to tiles. Players always make pragmatic
choices over abstract ones.
> the MJ tiles are formed into a wall (four sides,
> each two tiles high) that resembles a fortification, suggesting
> possible military thought/influence.
Sit down four players at a table, around a set of tiles. Let them
place the tiles anyway they wish: in a pyramid shape, in twelve
individual round packets, in a long strait line, in a diamond
shape, ... Very soon they will feel the need of building a wall to
delimit the playing area. And since the tiles are rectangular... One
don't need to have a military mind set to start building a rectangular
wall. It's what comes instinctively to anyone.
But you could also ask why we pile up the tiles? And, any child will
tell you it's fun to put a block on top of another. Why exactly two
tiles high? Try making the wall higher, you'll see... Then, why not
make a single story wall? Try playing with the sides 36 tiles long...
A rectangular, two story wall is the most fun and the most convenient
way of arranging the tiles.
> I suspect that [the modified 5 character] may be used to
> indicate a basic unit of five in troop numbers. I am uncertain, if
> indeed this represents a military unit,[...]
Theories must model reality, not the opposite. Here, you try very hard
to fit reality into your theory. That's wrong.
> I have much more speculation along this "military connection" line of
> thought[...]
I'm sure you do. But, doesn't any of your speculations take into
account Mahjong is a ludic activity?
It's tempting to come up with all sorts of abstract interpretations.
For instance, one could speculate, because some players build the wall
in a spiral shape, they are representing their place in the Universe,
on one arm of our spiral shaped galaxy, clearly displaying their acute
knowledge of astronomy. That's also why cardinal directions don't
follow the usual convention, as on terrestrial maps, viewed from
above, but like on celestial maps, viewed head up from below. The
White dragon is a graphic representation of the void in space. The Red
dragon, the gravitational forces that come from inside all matter. The
Green dragon, Universe's tendency toward more complexity. Etc.
Or, you could notice the obvious : people with short arms have
difficulties reaching tiles on the opposite side. So it makes the game
more pleasant for them if you rotate the wall.
Have a nice day,
Nath
pa...@email.unc.edu
Thanks for your reply, but you somewhat missed my intent for starting
this thread.
I wished to contemplate the possible reasons why paper pai evolved
into tiles. One possible theory that I thought of is that they may
have been changed to accommodate soldiers in the field as explained in
the first post. This hypothesis could be entirely wrong, but I
presented speculative ideas that lead me to think of this as a
possibility. The true test would be to see if the tiles added to the
game of MJ that are not found in the three suit money card decks
support this hypothesis. I'll get into more details on this starting
with speculations about the Taiping (and especially the Himley set)
later when I have more time.
I probably should state early that this line of inquiry has sort of
stalled for me. Though it is still possible that my hypothesis may
have some truth to it, I have been unable to find convincing
supporting evidence in the early sets.
I welcome other hypotheses (even contradictory ones) concerning the
possible reasons why the paper pai evolved into tiles.
Dan
Alan Kwan
> In fact, Two story wall was a late development. In the early time two
> parallel walls, of which one is 13 tiles and the other is 21 tiles,
> are built by everyone. It seems also learning from Domino Penghu game.
To be more precise, it's a 21-tile wall plus a 13-tile hand. The dice are then
tossed to determine which opponent's built hand you play with.
It's obvious why this older practice has been abandoned for the two-storey wall.
It was too easy to cheat that way, so it was thought that the "hands" should
be drawn from the wall instead of taken initially. But then there is not enough
space to line up 34 tiles on the table, so the wall had to be stacked up.
--
"大牌之所以大，就是貴在於能搶在小牌之前和牌。強加「起和」規定，
小牌不准和的話，便誰也懂得和大牌，沒有甚麼值得稀罕的。
要求大牌要能搶在小牌之前才能和，這才是真正的技術挑戰。"
"The true challenge of skill lies where big hands have to beat small
hands in speed in order to win. With a Minimum Requirement rule, anybody
can make big hands with no impediment; they cease to be extraordinary."
- Alan Kwan / ta...@netvigator.com
Zung Jung mahjong official website: http://www.zj-mahjong.info/
Nath Krismaratala
> into tiles.
Because it's more convenient to use tiles rather than cards. That's
all.
> One possible theory that I thought of is that they may
> have been changed to accommodate soldiers in the field as explained in
> the first post.
That's the part I don't understand. Why do you feel the need to link
the game to the military? Tiles are more convenient than paper cards.
This reason alone is not only simple but fully sufficient. It leaves
no troubling unexplained areas. It applies to every type of player,
civil and military. I see no need to involve soldiers specifically.
As far I know, Mahjong is not even remotely the official game of any
army, nor invented for or by soldiers. I have difficulties imagining
troops allowed to bring Mahjong sets in the field, even less in such
extent it prompted other Mahjong players to adopt tiles also.
> I probably should state early that this line of inquiry has sort of
> stalled for me. Though it is still possible that my hypothesis may
> have some truth to it, I have been unable to find convincing
> supporting evidence in the early sets.
Maybe because there is no mystery to be solved here, no missing link
to be found, only an intellectually pleasing hunch.
Cheers,
Nath
pa...@email.unc.edu
My first attempt at replying to you did not post for some reason, so
I'll try again.
Thanks for your reply, but I think that you somewhat misinterpreted
the purpose behind my starting this thread.
I wish to start a discussion about the question of why the game of MJ
switched from paper pai to tiles. My first post simply proposed a
preliminary hypothesis, and gave admittedly highly speculative
preliminary thoughts as to why this hypothesis may be worth following
up on.
Since the change from paper pai to tiles appears to have happened
simultaneously (or nearly so - correct me if I am wrong here) as the
appearance of additional MJ tiles (which do not seem to have any
symbolic ties with money) that have no relation to the three suit
money cards that they apparently evolved from, then it may be possible
to look at the earliest available tile sets (at least those currently
available to us) to search for evidence to answer this question.
I am open to other hypotheses about why the tiles came to be used for
MJ (even if they contradict my "military connection" hypothesis), but
to date I have not heard any other attempts to answer this question.
Perhaps a second related question to why paper pai were replaced by
tiles for MJ is why the additional tiles, that apparently have little
relation to the money cards that provided the basis for the MJ set,
appeared.
When I have time I will post my exploration of the Taiping origin
idea, especially in regards to the Himley set. I probably should state
early that my exploration of my hypothesis has sort of stalled without
discovering conclusive evidence for (or against) the idea. Perhaps
other forum members could contribute information that I failed to
discover. Other lines of inquiry will also follow when I have
sufficient time.
Dan
d_...@my-deja.com
wrote:
> > I wished to contemplate the possible reasons why paper pai evolved
> > into tiles.
>
> Because it's more convenient to use tiles rather than cards. That's
> all.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "convenient". In my way of
thinking, the paper cards are more convenient than tiles because the
cards are smaller (less bulky), lighter weight, easier to transport,
cheaper to make, easier to replace, require less space to play, and
so on. So what makes you think tiles are more "convenient" than
cards? The only one I can think of is that tiles do not require a
hand
to hold them up because they can stand on their own.
Edwin Phua
wrote:
> > I wished to contemplate the possible reasons why paper pai evolved
> > into tiles.
>
> Because it's more convenient to use tiles rather than cards. That's
> all.
Having personal experience with mahjong cards, I do find tiles much
easier to play with. This is due to the large number of tiles/cards
(136 or more) that is used in the game. Holding thirteen cards in the
hand is probably not a problem, but also needing to display all the
exposed melds, and the discards means the space need will have to be
large. Tiles give less problems of this sort.
Incidentally, Rummikub (commercial game) is also played using tiles.
Cheers!
Edwin Phua
pa...@email.unc.edu
1864. I was intending to look this date up before posting, but I
forgot when I hurried (though there ended up being no reason to hurry
since Google groups is being sooooo slow to post now) to reply to
Nath. Thus, 6 should be changed to the following:
6) One of the earliest sets, Himley (collected ~1868-76), has an
"Almighty King" (Zong Wang) tile with red characters in a single blue
border that uses the same characters as is often used for "God" -
possibly pointing to a connection with the religious Taiping. [Note:
The Taiping were defeated in 1864 and active from 1845, so even this
early set was collected about four to twelve years after the Taiping
defeat, thus it may have already gone through modifications (see 7)
from a theoretical "original" set. But my hope is that this early set
may have been saved from an earlier time to finally be collected by
Himley at the later date.]
Nath,
While the hypothesis that the inventor of MJ thought it would be more
fun to use tiles rather than paper pai (certainly a valid proposal, if
I am stating your hypothesis approximately correctly), I do not know
of any historical source material that may be used to help examine
this (but if you or anyone else on the forum does, then please post
your findings).
I tend to think that there must have been a more practical reason for
the switch to tiles in order to justify the added difficulty (and
expense...) in making and carving tiles vs. printing paper. Thus, unless
I hear of a more interesting (and testable) hypothesis for why MJ
abandoned the paper that was used for the three suit money cards that
presumably provided the basis for the MJ game, then I will continue to
devote my research efforts towards the "military connection" idea that
I have proposed.
Dan
msta...@aol.com
I think Nath's proposal is interesting as is the military proposal. We
would need some predictions stated, that are entailed from these
hypotheses. These predictions would describe what we would be expected
to find should material documentation turn up that is related to these
early sets.
I, on the other hand, have been dabbling with ideas (and these are
ideas only, not hypotheses yet) based around the calendrical chapters
in the 'Lu Spring and Autumn' text, which uses the five processes
(water, fire,wood,metal and soil) correlations. I mention this because
the five processes have certain correlations, for example four
seasons, four directions (including centre, which makes five) and five
colours.
There are also other correlations - nine numbers. Putting some of them
together one gets - centre/5/man/soil, east/spring/8/3/wood, south/
summer/2/7/fire, west/autumn/4/9/metal, north/winter/1/6/water.
Using the text above, an advisor to the ruler decides which process is
in ascendancy and the ruler then puts on robes of the correlated
colour(s), goes out to the suburb of the appropriate direction and
welcomes the appropriate season, performs certain other rituals,
occupies the appropriate quarter of the palace, from East to South to
West to North, moving from month to month through the three rooms of
each quarter.
As you can see, we can possibly draw up a number of hypotheses that
attempt to explain the icons on the early tiles. I could even propose
that the kings or rulers of the four directions are the guardians of
the ruler when he is in the appropriate direction.
I was interested in the remark about added expense and time engraving
tiles etc. I have often wondered whether expensive items like tile
sets were only within the reach of wealthy individuals which would
suggest Confucian Officials and/or members of the upper hierarchy of
Imperial Chinese Society.
Tiles require some effort to haul around - which might suggest there
function to be one of a sedentary social pursuit - precisely what we
encounter in the Late Qing novels. I have wondered whether it is these
types of individuals or those within the social upper social strata
defined by education and wealth that the ma que tile sets that we have
encountered have their germination.
But these are only idle musings. In other words, food for thought.
Cheers
Michael
Nath Krismaratala
> I tend to think that there must have been a more practical reason for
> the switch to tiles in order to justify the added difficulty (and
> expense...) in making and carving tiles vs. printing paper.
Yes, there are more reasons. And, it's my fault : I gave you only one
side of the answer. The look and feel of the tiles, their durability
makes them more convenient and fun to use than paper cards; but that's
only from the point of view of the player.
Let's examine the change from cards to tiles with the eyes of a game
manufacturer. Yes, paper tiles are easier to make than tiles. The
investment is less. However, when you want to market a new product,
ideally you want to make it look really new, evidently different,
truly improved, yet with all the fun familiar characteristics of the
previous loved game. You out there to manufacture a new fad. Yes,
tiles are more difficult and costly to make. But, if you are willing
to take the financial risk, you might succeed convincing consumers
your new game is more sophisticated, more luxurious. Distinctive
products, with obviously a lot more work in them, can sell at higher
price and are less likely to be copied by competitors. You'll sell
less units but at a greater margin of profit.
Don't forget, if you are after the wealthy, aristocratic consumers,
the ones with free time and money to play, it makes sense to build
luxurious sets of tiles instead of cheap decks of cards anyone can
print.
On the other hand, if your targeted market is military personnel, it
would make more sense to sell something small, like a set of dice. By
the way, when soldiers are at war, the last thing they want is games
that make them think more of the battle. They want distractions. They
want things like cups of sake with pin-ups on the bottom that reveal
themselves when full of liquid. I'm sure you won't sell a lot of
Battleship sets in Bagdad. I would be very surprise if a lot people
felt like playing a war game today.
Cheers,
Nath
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Oops! I posted the wrong date earlier! The Taiping were defeated in
> 1864.
It looks like Google problems prevented to the earlier post that I was
referring to.
Here it is again:
I thought that the Taiping may be a good place to start examining the
questions concerning the origins of the game of MJ for several reasons
(all highly speculative):
1) It has been proposed that the leader of the Taiping, Hong Xiuquan,
may have been the inventor of MJ.
2) If so (or if another Taiping actually invented it but with Hong
receiving the credit), then the change from a deck of cards used for
gambling to a recreational game may fit their extremely strict moral/
religious doctrines.
3) If 1 & 2, then it would make sense for the additional tiles in the
MJ game to not reflect money/gambling.
4) Since they were essentially a rebel military force, they might
support my "military origin" theory for the tiles (vs. paper pai).
5) Since they were essentially a rebel military force, they may have
been inspired for their new game of MJ by the Shuihu Zhuan (Water
Margin, Outlaws of the Marsh) characters (heroes, but also fellow
rebels) pictured on the Wan/Myriads suit on the three suit money
cards.
6) One of the earliest sets, Himley (collected ~1868-76), has an
"Almighty King" (Zong Wang) tile with red characters in a single blue
border that uses the same characters as is often used for "God" -
possibly pointing to a connection with the religious Taiping. [Note:
The Taiping were defeated in 1864, so even this early set was
collected about four to twelve years after the Taiping defeat, thus it
may have already gone through modifications (see 7) from a theoretical
"original" set. But my hope is that this early set may have been saved
from an earlier time to finally be collected by Himley at the later
date.]
7) If 6, then this may indicate a possible reason why there is a fair
amount of variability in the early sets, as non-Taiping may have
wanted to keep the game, but without the any of the Taiping religious
or organizational associations (see 8), and thus changed the added
tiles to suit their circumstances.
8) If 3 &7, then the other added tiles may reflect some aspect of
Taiping organization, beliefs, aspirations, etc., and examining them
may provide confirming evidence (or not) for my hypothesis.
9) If MJ originated with Chinese that speak the Hakka dialect (most of
whom were illiterate), then there may have been confusion by non-Hakka
speakers as to the name of the game, thus leading to the apparent
diversity of early names used for what we now call MJ. [Note: I have a
Chinese martial arts instructor of Hakka descent. He calls the game
"mahjong" and pronounces "ma que" in Hakka close enough to the
Mandarin pronunciation that my non-Chinese ears could not detect a
significant difference. This does not, however, rule out the
possibility that Taiping Hakka called the game something different.]
10) Etc.
As stated previously, I will post details of my Taiping/Himley
analysis when I have time, but in the meantime, forum members
interested in this line of inquiry may wish to review the Himley set
(&/or other early sets) and any information that they have concerning
the Taiping.
Dan
pa...@email.unc.edu
> I think Nath's proposal is interesting as is the military proposal. We
> would need some predictions stated, that are entailed from these
> hypotheses. These predictions would describe what we would be expected
> to find should material documentation turn up that is related to these
> early sets.
>
> I, on the other hand, have been dabbling with ideas (and these are
> ideas only, not hypotheses yet) based around the calendrical chapters
> in the 'Lu Spring and Autumn' text, which uses the five processes
> (water, fire,wood,metal and soil) correlations. I mention this because
> the five processes have certain correlations, for example four
> seasons, four directions (including centre, which makes five) and five
> colours.
>
> There are also other correlations - nine numbers. Putting some of them
> together one gets - centre/5/man/soil, east/spring/8/3/wood, south/
> summer/2/7/fire, west/autumn/4/9/metal, north/winter/1/6/water.
Michael,
One way to test my "military connection" hypothesis is to examine the
early tile sets to see if there are any strong correlations between
the tiles added for MJ and military organizations, experiences, goals,
etc. This is the way that I have approached the question through
examining those early MJ sets (I'll post more when time permits). For
this test I am assuming that the additional tiles appeared at the time
of the creation of MJ (or nearly so), and thus they may reflect the
ideas/circumstances/philosophy/etc. of that inventor and their
intentions for the game.
A possible way, I suppose, to examine Nath's idea would be to look at
historical Chinese games that use stackable pieces (or possibly
historic or more recent games from other countries as well, though
care should be taken to differentiate hand-made tiles from machine
made game pieces) to see if his speculations hold for other games.
Since I personally have almost no knowledge of this topic (not even
knowing how Chinese dominoes are set up for dealing, for example -
although I seem to recall seeing Chinese movies that show gambling
with dominoes that do use some pre-deal stacking formations), I doubt
that I could be of much help here.
Unfortunately, neither approach to the questions can really show
negative proof; rather, they really could only reveal supporting
evidence if found. (Thus I suppose that the way I stated the
hypotheses are not particularly good as they are not able to show both
positive and negative results: The tiles could have been developed
with a 'military connection' but the meaning/symbolism of the tiles
could reflect home life during peacetime; The inventor could have had
unique insights into how to make a game fun that are not reflected in
other games that use stackable pieces; etc. - but this is
investigating a game with spotty records and is certainly not
science.)
The five phases (wuxing) can be applied to numerous things relating to
Chinese life. I have also explored this line of speculation to some
extent. There may end up being significant overlap between this line
of inquiry and others. For example, the organization by fives (or
multiples of 5) appears frequently in Chinese military organization.
In my original post I briefly mentioned the organization by fives of
the Qing Banners. This use of five also shows up in historic sources,
i.e., armies being organized with a central command unit that directs
the vanguard, right and left wings, and rear guard. One of the
difficulties I have had with this approach is that the tiles really
only use three colors (four if counting the background white), thus
not really fitting with the five colors one would expect if
correlating with the wuxing.
Dan
al
wrote:
> On 27 avr, 12:44, p...@email.unc.edu wrote:
>
> > I tend to think that there must have been a more practical reason for
> > the switch to tiles in order to justify the added difficulty (and
> > expense...) in making and carving tiles vs. printing paper.
>
> Yes, there are more reasons. And, it's my fault : I gave you only one
> side of the answer. The look and feel of the tiles, their durability
> makes them more convenient and fun to use than paper cards; but that's
> only from the point of view of the player.
>
[snip]
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nath
***************************************
I have at least one thing new to add. It's the advantage of being able
to play the Sparrow game indoor or outdoor. Winds and fans do not blow
the tiles away ( regardless of the predecessor and descendant
argument).
My answer to the question why tiles of the Chinese Sparrow game have
the solid block shape is simple. It's for practical reasons.
Placing the block-tiles on the table in a row offers advantages:
A full view of every tile at all time
Hands-free playing for hours in more relaxed postures
Full exposure of discards within limited space on the table
Play indoor or outdoor unaffected by fans or winds
Clacking sound adds to party atmosphere
Noise keeps players awake and alert through long late nights
Durability, elegance and a class of its own
AL
pa...@email.unc.edu
corroborating correlations or other evidence, let's start with looking
at the Himley set. I suspect that this set may be the most likely to
show correlations with Taiping organization and/or beliefs (etc.) when
examining the Taiping origin proposal. [Other options to examine the
'military connection' hypothesis for the origin of MJ tiles would be
to look for correlations with the Water Margin bandit/heroes or Qing
troop organization under the Banner system, etc.]
The Himley set consists of the quadruplicated suit tiles which I will
not examine since they are probably similar to the money cards and
thus would be unlikely to reveal much information specific to the
inventor of MJ (assuming that MJ evolved from the money cards).
There are also quadruplicated Wind/Direction tiles for N, S, E & W,
and Blank/Replacement? tiles (bamboo only - not with a bone or ivory
face - so they would probably not be called Bai/White). There are also
four Seasons tiles (spring, summer, autumn and winter). There are
three Hua/Flower tiles (tong, suo, and wan) which may be carryovers
from the money cards' extra cards which are called the "Redflower,"
"Whiteflower" and "Old Thousand," as given in Wilkinson's 1895
article. [Note that these three Hua tiles not only appear in the Himly
Chinese MJ set, but also may be continued as jokers in a Vietnamese
set as illustrated at http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq/special.htm].
Finally, there are nine Wang/King tiles, one of which is set apart
from the other eight by using a different color scheme. The other
eight Wang/King tiles are the four directions (N, S, E & W; Bei, Nan,
Dong & Xi) and what are possibly cosmological correspondences (Heaven,
Man, Earth, and Harmony; Tian, Ren, Di & He).
The Wang/King tile that is set apart from the other eight has the
characters for "Almighty King" (Zong Wang) which is sometimes used to
refer to God. If this is the meaning of this tile, then we should
probably expect the other tiles in the Wang/King grouping to represent
other Taiping related religious individuals. The first possible
problem with this interpretation is that the Taiping also referred to
God with the terms Ye-huo-hua [Jehovah] and Shang-di (High Lord of
All), the latter of which was what was used in the group's name. While
Ye-huo-hua, at three characters long, may not have been appropriate
for carving on the tile, Shang-di is only two characters long and
certainly could have fit. My speculation is that the Zong-wang term
may have been chosen here over the Shang-di term in order to fit it
into the group with the other eight Wang/King tiles.
If Zong Wang represents God (and if the Himley set represents Taiping
ideology), then other Wang tiles would be expected to include Jesus
[but possibly not the "Holy Ghost" as this one of the Father, Son &
Holy Ghost trinity seems to have been problematical for the Taiping -
they later named Yang, the East King, with the additional title of
"Wind of the Holy Spirit" though], the leader of the Taiping Hong
Xiuquan who is titled the Heavenly King [Heavenly Younger Brother,
with God as the Heavenly Father and Jesus as the Heavenly Elder
Brother], the main Taiping advisors (and military generals) including
Yang Xiuqing the East King (and the Mouthpiece for God, later named
the "Holy Ghost"), Feng Yunshan the South King, Xiao Chaoqui the West
King (and the Mouthpiece for Jesus), and Wei Changhui the North King,
and finally Hong's son and heir apparent Hong Tiangui (also proclaimed
to be Jesus' adopted son).
So far we have the following possible correlations:
1) Zong Wang = God
2) East King = Yang Xiuqing (also the Mouthpiece for God, later also
named the "Holy Ghost")
3) South King = Feng Yunshan
4) West King = Xiao Chaoqui (also the Mouthpiece for Jesus)
5) North King = Wei Changhui
6) Heavenly King = Jesus Christ? [See 7.]
7) Earthly King = Hong Xiuquan? [Here, even though Hong titles himself
Heavenly King, since he is promising to bring about a heavenly
paradise on earth and since he resides on Earth while Jesus has risen
to join God in Heaven, I think that it is reasonable to assign 6 & 7
this way.]
8) Humanity's King = Hong Tiangui? (also proclaimed to be Jesus'
adopted son) [Here I think that since Tianqui is the son of the
Earthly King Hong Xiuquan and the adopted son of the Heavenly King
Jesus, this correlation does not seem unreasonable.]
9) Harmony King = ?? (Holy Ghost??)
As can be seen, there is uncertainty in trying to correlate the
Taiping with the Wang tiles, especially with the four 'cosmological'
tiles (Heaven, Earth, Man & Harmony). One other possible problem is
that there is a fifth general that, even though he was never accorded
the same status as those given above, was an important general in
military affairs. Thus the fifth general, Shi Dakai (as the Wing
King), could possibly be ignored as he does not seem to fit anywhere
(and he seems unlikely to be the Harmony King, although if someone
else has resources on the Taiping that could explain this, perhaps as
an alternate title for Shi, etc, please let us know).
If the above correlations seem plausible, then the military divisions
of the four generals (Yang, Feng, Xiao & Wei) could be what is being
represented by the Winds/Directions tiles (and the Blanks, if used in
play with this set, could represent the military division lead by
general Shi, the Wing King). Of course, these Winds/Directions tiles
could also represent something as simple as the desire of the Taiping
to bring their Heavenly Paradise on Earth to all of China (i.e., in
all directions).
The three Hua/Flower tiles can probably be ignored as carryovers from
the money cards, but if anyone else knows of possible correlations to
the Taiping, please let us know.
All that leaves us to examine are the four Season tiles. These have
characters in red and blue frames, which is the same color scheme as
the Zong Wang tile, possibly linking these tiles together (at least
symbolically, if not actually in play). Although it is probably not of
influence in the Himley set, I thought that I should point out that
the seasons are used in the Taiping organization in the form of the
six central government ministries: named Heaven, Earth, Spring,
Summer, Autumn and Winter (this ordering being drawn from the Zhouli/
Rites of Zhou). I doubt that this is important here because the Heaven
King and Earth King tiles are related to the other King tiles by
style, color scheme, etc. which are different than the Seasons tiles.
Note also that Taiping military organization has also been influenced
by the Zhouli in that encampments are arranged in five groups, each of
which have their own signal flags which follow the wuxing (five
phases) scheme: South = red flag, West = white flag, North = black
flag, East = blue flag, and Center = yellow flag. Troop organization
is also as given in the Zhouli: four men per corporal; five of the
preceding per sergeant; four of the preceding per lieutenant; etc.
Finally, note that if the purported Taiping invention of MJ (at least
the version illustrated in the Himley set) pans out as in the
speculations given above, then it would probably mean that this set
would have been made between 1850 (the year that Hong learned of his
first son's 1849 birth) and 1857 (when many of the organization's
Kings began to die due to battles with imperial troops, illnesses,
etc.).
So, that is about as far as I have been able to get in trying to
examine a possible connection between the Himley set and the Taiping
(there are some other interesting items discovered in my research but,
since I doubt that they are relevant to MJ history, I have left them
out of the discussion for now). As can be seen, there are some
difficulties with my speculations since the correlations do not seem
to fit precisely enough to resolve this question (especially
concerning the Harmony King). Therefore, any comments (supporting and/
or refuting) this line of inquiry is welcome. I will continue with a
look at the two nearly contemporaneous Glover sets (collected 1872-3)
in a future post.
Dan
PS: Sorry about the length of this post!
pa...@email.unc.edu
engaged in printing and publishing (primarily religious texts as
interpreted by Hong) and at one point had at least 400 men
transcribing the characters and carving the blocks. This indicates to
me that they would have had no problem technically in having carvers
that could have been used to produce MJ tiles.
Dan
msta...@aol.com
[snip]
> PS: Sorry about the length of this post!
Hello Dan. I will read your post carefully. For now, I should like to
report that Thierry has published this month, in The Playing-card
journal, an in-depth analysis of the link between the Himly set 'wang'
tiles and the Taiping 'kings'.
To be honest, I have not read Thierry's piece yet, due to work
constraints plus a bout of migraine headaches.
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
[snip]
> I have at least one thing new to add. It's the advantage of being able
> to play the Sparrow game indoor or outdoor. Winds and fans do not blow
> the tiles away ( regardless of the predecessor and descendant
> argument).
>
> My answer to the question why tiles of the Chinese Sparrow game have
> the solid block shape is simple. It's for practical reasons.
>
> Placing the block-tiles on the table in a row offers advantages:
>
> A full view of every tile at all time
> Hands-free playing for hours in more relaxed postures
> Full exposure of discards within limited space on the table
> Play indoor or outdoor unaffected by fans or winds
> Clacking sound adds to party atmosphere
> Noise keeps players awake and alert through long late nights
> Durability, elegance and a class of its own
>
> AL
Interesting. This is similar to my proposal in my April 27th post,
that the tiles allow for a sedentary social pursuit. I commented that
this is backed up by some descriptions from the late Qing novels.
Cheers
Michael
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Hello Dan. I will read your post carefully. For now, I should like to
> report that Thierry has published this month, in The Playing-card
> journal, an in-depth analysis of the link between the Himly set 'wang'
> tiles and the Taiping 'kings'.
Michael,
You mean I could have saved myself all that effort?
Actually, I would love to see what Thierry came up with on this.
Thierry (or Michael after you have gotten a chance to read it) could
you post a summary of the article here for those of us who do not
subscribe to The Playing-card Journal, or at least state how your
research differs from what I presented above? I would love to know how
the "Harmony King" was handled as that was a major stumbling block for
my analysis.
Thanks, Dan
msta...@aol.com
Dan, I will try and notify Thierry. He would be best placed to deal
with this since it is his material.
In the mean time, I am going to read both Thierry's article and your
post.
Cheers
Michael
al
Hello, Michael,
I just went to your April 27 post now. It was a long lost of 7 or 8
paragraphs. I must admit. I didn't read it in detail. The same way I
glance over all the other posts.The one thing no one had mentioned was
the stability aspect of the tile blocks.
So, as you might notice I started by saying at least one thing new I
can add...
I heard no comment on that.
Then I just list the advantages of one over the other, as I see them.
I claimed no credit. And I didn't read too much into the other posts.
I spoke from experience.
In olden day China, there was no air-conditioned environment for
recreation. People play the game outside some times. Or if playing
indoor, there may be servants to fan the air to cool the players.
Paper cards may be flying in windy condition. That was the key point I
wanted to contribute.
Cheers! AL
msta...@aol.com
Hello Allan. I agree with you. My comment was that we seem to have
both offered similar explanations. I wasn't suggesting you took my
explanation. I also agree with your stability of the tile blocks
explanation.
I don't know if you know that the early tile sets had curved tiles -
both the base and top of the tiles were curved the same way. One
explanation I have seen is that they followed the natural curvature of
the bamboo and bone.
However, it had not passed my attention that when stacked for a wall,
they were very stable. Also, I was told that some expert MJ players
would not look at their tiles - they would feel them with their
fingers to know what the particular tile was. Whether this was or is
true, I don't know. However, it does explain some of the
characteristic fading of the tile engravings in some of my curved tile
sets, fading which cannot be explained by rubbing when being mixed on
a surface. I thought that the curved face of a tile made it easy to
rub your finger up it.
Curved tiles, according to the Japanese MJ museum, were and are still
produced in Suzhou.
Cheers
Michael
Tom Sloper
>Also, I was told that some expert MJ players
>would not look at their tiles - they would feel them with their
>fingers to know what the particular tile was. Whether this was or is
>true, I don't know.
It's true that it's not uncommon for a player to be able to recognize many
tiles by feel, some tiles being more difficult to read than others. I myself
have found it very easy to tell when I've picked up 2B or 2D or 1D, red
dragon or white dragon. Reading the craks by feel is much more challenging.
It's probably not true that a player who reads a tile with his fingertip
would not look at the tile.
Tom
Cofa Tsui
news:742dnYs31KAcoqbb...@giganews.com...
> <msta...@aol.com> wrote
>>Also, I was told that some expert MJ players
>>would not look at their tiles - they would feel them with their
>>fingers to know what the particular tile was. Whether this was or is
>>true, I don't know.
>
> It's true that it's not uncommon for a player to be able to recognize many
> tiles by feel, some tiles being more difficult to read than others. I
> myself have found it very easy to tell when I've picked up 2B or 2D or 1D,
> red dragon or white dragon. Reading the craks by feel is much more
> challenging.
I can verify this practice ^_^ - At peak time I could feel these almost
without error:
All three Dragons, East and North
Tan (Dot/Circle): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9
Sok (Bamboo): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Wan (Craks/Characters): 1, 4, 6, 8
> It's probably not true that a player who reads a tile with his fingertip
> would not look at the tile.
But to some frequent players this *is* also true; as to some who have this
practice and with guesses of which the results seem to be obvious (e.g.,
White Dragon, 1 Tan, 2 Sok, etc.). With this practice, however, some have to
"let go" when he made a wrong guess - I saw many times a pai was discarded
due to a wrong guess that was immediately claimed by others for win etc.
This is not a good practice but I think this is also an enjoyable feature of
the game (at least to me it is).
Cheers!
--
Cofa Tsui
International Mahjong[r] Infoweb
www.iMahjong.com
msta...@aol.com
> "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote in message
>
> news:742dnYs31KAcoqbb...@giganews.com...
>
> > <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote
Hello Cofa. Can you tell me why you think it became a practice? Was
there some cultural belief involved or was it due to keeping the tiles
safe from onlookers etc, for example.
Cheers
Michael
pa...@email.unc.edu
> The one thing no one had mentioned was
> the stability aspect of the tile blocks.
>
> So, as you might notice I started by saying at least one thing new I
> can add...
> I heard no comment on that.
Al,
Sorry for not commenting on your contribution. It was a good
observation!
Since I had, up to that point, only really offered speculation about
the paper to tile transition and the possibility that it may have been
related to a 'military connection' to the development of MJ, and since
Nath presented a differing viewpoint, I decided to try and move the
thread along to being more about the development of the game rather
than focusing specifically on the paper vs. tile question. Thus I was
not thinking much about this when you made your post. The military
connection (and paper vs. tile question) has now become only one of
many things that I am attempting to explore in my posts examining the
possible evolution of MJ.
Dan
al
> On May 4, 1:05?am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 3:11 pm, mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 10:37 pm, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > [snip]
>
> > > > I have at least one thing new to add. It's the advantage of being able
> > > > to play the Sparrow game indoor or outdoor. Winds and fans do not blow
> > > > the tiles away ( regardless of the predecessor and descendant
> > > > argument).
>
> > > > My answer to the question why tiles of the Chinese Sparrow game have
> > > > the solid block shape is simple. It's for practical reasons.
>
> > > > Placing the block-tiles on the table in a row offers advantages:
>
> > > > A full view of every tile at all time
> > > > Hands-free playing for hours in more relaxed postures
>
> Hello Allan. I agree with you. My comment was that we seem to have
> both offered similar explanations. I wasn't suggesting you took my
> explanation. I also agree with your stability of the tile blocks
> explanation.
>
> I don't know if you know that the early tile sets had curved tiles -
> both the base and top of the tiles were curved the same way. One
> explanation I have seen is that they followed the natural curvature of
> the bamboo and bone.
>
> However, it had not passed my attention that when stacked for a wall,
> they were very stable. Also, I was told that some expert MJ players
> would not look at their tiles - they would feel them with their
> fingers to know what the particular tile was. Whether this was or is
> true, I don't know. However, it does explain some of the
> characteristic fading of the tile engravings in some of my curved tile
> sets, fading which cannot be explained by rubbing when being mixed on
> a surface. I thought that the curved face of a tile made it easy to
> rub your finger up it.
>
> Curved tiles, according to the Japanese MJ museum, were and are still
> produced in Suzhou.
>
> Cheers
> Michael
Hello, Michel,
You pretty well have all the answers I can think of.
Cofa gave a fuller answer still.
True... even I when I used to play the game frequeent could tell most
of the cards by feel. (I can tell the Bai still every time!). Serious
MJ players are usually not laborers who work with their hands. Their
fingers and touch are sentitive. However playing without seeing the
cards is just a show-off. Real good players don't have to do that.
As for curved tiles, I have not seen a set. But I agree with your
observations that there are advantages.
Cheers.........AL
Cofa Tsui
news:1178296592....@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hello Cofa. Can you tell me why you think it became a practice? Was
> there some cultural belief involved or was it due to keeping the tiles
> safe from onlookers etc, for example.
Hi Michael,
I can't see any way the practice has to do with culture. The practice might
just be an advance of skill (related to how the pai is handled). Another
possible reason is the player enjoying the "guessing" or "calling"
excitement while revealing what he/she gets - probably the same reason
gamblers revealing the cards bit by bit in baccarat.
Feeling and discarding a pai without seeing it is probably a kind of
show-off, as Allan has said. Sometimes the price for a wrong guess could be
huge!
al
Hello, Dan,
Your Figure 5 and its association with the military in Chinese history
is an interesting observation. Did you trace the design idea of the
Pentagon?
Cheers..............AL
al
Hello, Dan,
This is rather interesting. Pardon my ignorance. What year or period
in Chinese history was that?.
I also noticed the research you have done. All those detailed
descriptions amount to an impressive project undertaken.
So the tiles and their carvings are symbols representing a person, a
concept or something. In other words. The engravings on the block
tiles have meaning. Am I right to draw that interpretation? Have you
tried to tie the pieces together? I mean do you have a summary of what
the Himley set was all bout? I imagine it must relate to the military
organization over-all. Interesting...
Cheers, AL
al
> "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com> wrote in message
>
> news:742dnYs31KAcoqbb...@giganews.com...
>
> > <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote
Hello, Cofa,
I found the Flowers are most difficult to tell by touching.
By the way, I used to rely on my right thumb to feel and tell the
tiles. Then I lost a piece of cut thumb on a steel door-frame and the
nerve endings messed up. Using finger tips would slow down the game.
To do it quickly, people just wipe their thumb over the surface of the
tile as they retrieve it...minor detail.
AL
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Hello, Dan,
> This is rather interesting. Pardon my ignorance. What year or period
> in Chinese history was that?.
The Taiping were a serious force from around 1850 through 1864.
> I also noticed the research you have done. All those detailed
> descriptions amount to an impressive project undertaken.
Thanks, but there are a lot of details which are not convincing enough
for my own satisfaction. I hope that other researchers will keep my
speculations in mind and perhaps eventually add supporting
documentation to help in our understanding of the issue of the
evolution of MJ. There will be more to follow when I have the time to
organize additional posts.
> So the tiles and their carvings are symbols representing a person, a
> concept or something. In other words. The engravings on the block
> tiles have meaning. Am I right to draw that interpretation? Have you
> tried to tie the pieces together? I mean do you have a summary of what
> the Himley set was all bout? I imagine it must relate to the military
> organization over-all. Interesting...
>
> Cheers, AL
Yes Al, I think that the tiles have meaning. In brief, I think that
the Taiping may have taken inspiration from the 108 heros/bandits
depicted on the three suit money cards (since the Taiping were also a
rebel group fighting imperial rulers), and changed that game into MJ
by adding tiles that reflect their organization/idiology, resulting in
the Himley set as described in the earlier post.
Dan
pa...@email.unc.edu
Glover MJ sets, so it is difficult to speculate how tile changes may
have been influenced by the evolution of the rules (or vice versa),
but I feel that the Himley set was probably the earlier set for
several reasons:
1) The Himley set has the three Hua/Flower tiles that probably carry
over from the extra cards in the three suit money card deck (which -
for the cards - were possibly not used in play, but also possibly used
as 'Jokers' or wild cards for their respective suits) and which are
dropped from the Glover sets (as well as more recent sets).
2) The Himley set is constructed more simply with only bamboo used,
whereas the Glover sets (and most of the more recent sets) have a bone
face added to the bamboo backing. In the evolution of many things,
there is a tendency to progress from the simpler to the more complex
or elaborate (although the presence of post-1920 MJ sets made of just
bamboo without the bone face illustrates that there are certainly
exceptions to this trend), so this could be a possible indication that
the Himley set preceded the Glover sets.
3) It would fit an evolutionary model for the game that, although
highly speculative, would seem plausible. This is what I am now
working towards in this series of posts: that MJ was modified from the
money cards by the Taiping, then these were further modified for use
by imperial troops (possibly by Chen Yumen (or Zhengyao or Yanglou...)),
then the tile representations further modified for domestic use
possibly by literati or Qing officials...
Now let's look at the Glover sets (collected 1872-3). Both sets have
some pieces missing, and there is some slight variation in how the
tiles are carved, but for my purposes I will consider them to be
conceptually the same. They vary from the Himley set by removing the
"Almighty King" (Zong Wang) tile and the three Hua/Flower tiles, and
have the addition of a quadruplicated Zhong/Center set of tiles. Note
also that there are eight Blank/Bai/White tiles (the white bone now
being used as a facing for the bamboo) possibly indicating that four
were used in play (with four as replacements - as in current usage).
In the Himley set the Hua/flower tiles, as a grouping of three, does
not seem to fit well with the other tiles that are in groups of four,
and neither does the Zong Wang tile (making the Wang tiles add up to
nine rather than eight or, perhaps more precisely, two groups of four
- the directions and the cosmological correlations). These could have
been used as wild cards; the Zong Wang tile possibly used for both the
eight other Wang tiles as well as the four Seasons tiles. Because
these tiles do not correspond well to the multiple of four found in
all the other groups of tiles, this alone may explain their
elimination in the Glover sets. But there may also be other reasonable
explanations.
The following line of speculation is based on the idea that the
Taiping were the developers of the game of MJ from the money cards
predecessor (or at least that the Himley set relates to the Taiping
and that it is the oldest known set available for our examination).
Although I have not seen Thierry's article, I am assuming that he
found enough supporting evidence for this Himley set and Taiping
correlation to feel confident in publishing the results of his
research. At least I am not the only researcher that sees this as
being plausible.
I speculate that since Qing troops defeating Taiping rebels would
reasonably be the first to encounter the game of MJ as played by the
Taiping (and illustrated by the Himley set), then they may be the ones
to have made the modifications as found in the Glover sets. The first
thing that would need to be eliminated from the set would be the
Taiping ideological reference to God in the form of the Zong Wang
tile. By eliminating this one tile, the three remaining mismatched
tiles (the Hua/Flowers) would also be likely to be discarded. Then it
would also be reasonable to think that these four tiles would be
replaced by four other tiles that are meaningful for the Qing
soldiers. Thus the four Center/Zhong tiles may have been added.
As stated for the Taiping military and civilian organizations being
based on the Zhouli (Rites of Zhou), this important work also
influences other aspects of Chinese life, probably including the Qing
imperial troops (although I have as yet not researched the
organization of the Qing Banners in depth). Thus the grouping of fives
as in the five directions (S, W, N, E and Center) may be reasonable
for a reflection of Qing troop organization. Perhaps the four
directions may represent the four squads that an Eight Banner company
is divided into (or, alternatively, each of the quadruplicates of each
direction tile could possibly represent these four squads?), perhaps
with the four Center/Zhong tiles representing the squad leaders or
some command unit that directs the squads. The Center/Zhong quartet
could alternatively represent the central unit used by the military
leader to coordinate/control the other four directional forces. I'm
just speculating here, so if someone with more knowledge of the Qing
Banner system can contribute to this line of reasoning, please post
additional information.
Stripped of having Taiping associations with their leadership, the
remaining Wang/King tiles could remain unchanged. These tiles are now
grouped into two distinct groups of four as indicated by the use of
single borders for the four direction tiles, and double borders for
the four cosmological tiles.
The directional four could now represent the ancient idea of the Four
Heavenly Guardians (or Diva Kings): E = Mo-li Qing (Chi Guo), S = Mo-
li Hong (Zeng Zhang), W = Mo-li Hai (Guang Mu), and N = Mo-li Shou
(Duo Wen). The cosmological four tiles could then be related to the
ancient concept of the harmony of Man with Heaven and Earth, a concept
used as far back as in the Yi Jing (Book of Changes) where fortunes
were determined by examining the relationships between Heaven, Earth,
and Man (i.e., in the trigrams, the lower line corresponds to Earth,
the middle line to Man, and the upper line to Heaven, and in the
hexagrams the lower two lines correspond to Earth, with one of the
lines representing the Yin principle and the other the Yang
principle...). Here it would have been more convincing to my ideas if
the King/Wang characters would have been dropped from these tiles thus
retaining only the characters for Harmony, Heaven, Earth and Man,
since I have not heard of these principles being associated with
Kings. Has anyone else? But perhaps the King/Wang characters were
retained on these four cosmological tiles in order to indicate that
they still functioned the same way in play that the four King/Wang
directional tiles did (rules for play with the Glover sets would be of
help here).
One final speculation that I will present here concerns the four White/
Bai/Blank tiles that may have been used in play by this time. Once
their professed neutrality came to an end, Western military forces
aided the Qing in defeating the Taiping. If I were to speculate how a
Qing soldier might represent these white foreign troops (British,
French, American, etc.) in the game of MJ, and if the above
speculation that the directional tiles (including the Center/Zhong
tiles) could represent Qing troops is correct, then troops of these
foreign powers could be represented by four white tiles. Since the
troop composition of these Western forces could be different from
battle to battle, a single character (unless a general term like
'foreigner' or 'barbarian' etc.) would not seem appropriate to
represent them. I also have no doubt that the Chinese of the time
would have had no qualms in associating these foreign troops with the
color of death in using a blank white tile to represent them!
Since Chen Yumen is sometimes credited as being the inventor of MJ,
let's go ahead and speculate that he was the individual to make these
modifications (producing a new, non-Taiping version of the game). He
seems to have been in the right profession, at the right time in
history, and in the right place while fighting the Taiping. The
parenthetical comment on Tom's web site that "Chen Yumen was solely
responsible for modifying existing games and thereby creating the
first true mah-jongg set and game" may also point to Chen being a
'modifier' of the Taiping version of MJ into a version closer to what
we know as MJ today.
Next I will speculate about latter versions (at least as indicated by
early tile sets collected at later dates than either the Himley or
Glover sets) of the game of MJ.
Dan
al
> early tile sets collected at later dates than either the Himley or
> Glover sets) of the game of MJ.
>
> Dan
Hello, Dan, I see you did a lot work here. I don't have detailed
history to comment on that aspect of hypothesis. I will just mention
my knowledge from the cultural perspective.
1. You are reflecting on history, knowing roughly how the war began
and ended. The people fighting the war had no ides how it was going to
go. When did you figure they were making the game design changes?
Where would they have found the facility to produce the modifications
during a war?
2. Fighting soldiers were mercenaries who go to war for a livelihood.
They were poor and unemployed. They were not accustomed to pastime
gaming. Was there a need for all the changes to the game?
3. Under warfare environment, would a quieter game have been more
suitable in terms of accommodation for army barrack privacy and sleep
as well as for keeping vigilance against surprise attacks by enemies.
That's all I can of for now.
Cheers........AL
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Hello, Dan, I see you did a lot work here. I don't have detailed
> history to comment on that aspect of hypothesis. I will just mention
> my knowledge from the cultural perspective.
Hi Al,
Thanks for taking the time to think about and contribute to my posts.
I am, to some extent, building a 'house of cards' with my line of
speculation, i.e. the foundation rests on the three suit money cards
evolving into MJ with that next layer relying on the modification by
the Taiping into MJ as illustrated in the Himley set. The publication
of correlations between the Himley set and the Taiping by Thierry
(although I have yet to read it) somewhat emboldened me to assume that
this level may have sufficient evidence to at least propose further
levels. Originally I thought that the Taiping may have simply modified
an existing MJ game in order to include their ideology, but now I am
leaning towards them being the link between the cards and the creation
of MJ. The ideas presented in the later post about the Glover sets
sort of rely on the analysis of the Taiping and the Himley set being
reasonably close to accurate.
> 1. You are reflecting on history, knowing roughly how the war began
> and ended. The people fighting the war had no ides how it was going to
> go. When did you figure they were making the game design changes?
> Where would they have found the facility to produce the modifications
> during a war?
I estimate that the modifications illustrated in the Glover sets may
have occurred around 1860, give or take about four years. I
established that the Taiping probably had the resources in skilled
carvers to have made MJ tiles, but you are correct that I have not
established that capability for the Qing troops. Any ideas concerning
this would be welcome. I would speculate that, since Qing troops were
often assigned to guard strategic locations (including cities and
towns) they could have employed townspeople to craft the tiles.
Craftsmen from towns would also probably include those capable of
dovetailing the bone faces to the bamboo backings. Note that war, at
least as I understand it for the period around the mid-1800s, included
a lot of boring duty simply staying in one location (e.g., guarding a
town or city).
> 2. Fighting soldiers were mercenaries who go to war for a livelihood.
> They were poor and unemployed. They were not accustomed to pastime
> gaming. Was there a need for all the changes to the game?
I don't really agree with this statement. Poor, mercenary, etc,
possibly, but "not accustomed to pastime gaming" I doubt. Do you think
that ordinary peasants were not accustomed to pastime gaming? I would
think that soldiers, whether professional or mercenary or common
peasants fighting for the rebel Taiping cause, would be even more
likely to engage in recreational gaming in order to relieve some of
the boredom of the soldier life. The necessity for the change of the
tiles from the Hinly set to the Glover sets could have been motivated
by the presence of a 'God' tile in the Taiping/Himley set - if you are
fighting a war against the 'God worshipers' then I doubt that you
would wish to maintain their idiology (especially the reference to
God) in the game when you start playing it yourself!
> 3. Under warfare environment, would a quieter game have been more
> suitable in terms of accommodation for army barrack privacy and sleep
> as well as for keeping vigilance against surprise attacks by enemies.
Remember that the troops we are talking about here are from the
mid-1800s where the forces typically numbered in the thousands or tens
of thousands, not the smaller forces in use today (with their advanced
weaponry providing the increased firepower). We are also not talking
about gorilla warfare. Those large troops, and those assigned to
guarding towns and cities, would also not need the silence needed to
protect the secrecy of their location or worry so much about surprise
attacks from what were likely to be similarly large enemy forces.
Dan
msta...@aol.com
[snip]
> I am, to some extent, building a 'house of cards' with my line of
> speculation, i.e. the foundation rests on the three suit money cards
> evolving into MJ with that next layer relying on the modification by
> the Taiping into MJ as illustrated in the Himley set. The publication
> of correlations between the Himley set and the Taiping by Thierry
> (although I have yet to read it) somewhat emboldened me to assume that
> this level may have sufficient evidence to at least propose further
> levels. Originally I thought that the Taiping may have simply modified
> an existing MJ game in order to include their ideology, but now I am
> leaning towards them being the link between the cards and the creation
> of MJ. The ideas presented in the later post about the Glover sets
> sort of rely on the analysis of the Taiping and the Himley set being
> reasonably close to accurate.
Hello Dan. Thierry's conclusion was that there was not enough
correlation between the Taiping kings and the wang tiles of the Himly
set. That is, there were far more dissimilarities than similarities.
On this basis he concluded that the Himly wang tiles did not originate
with the Taipings but much earlier. He proposed that they were
eliminated after the Taiping's defeat because they were an
embarassment - they were a reminder of the apalling brutality and
bloodshed that characterised the Taiping uprising.
Cheers
Michael
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Hello Dan. Thierry's conclusion was that there was not enough
> correlation between the Taiping kings and the wang tiles of the Himly
> set. That is, there were far more dissimilarities than similarities.
> On this basis he concluded that the Himly wang tiles did not originate
> with the Taipings but much earlier. He proposed that they were
> eliminated after the Taiping's defeat because they were an
> embarassment - they were a reminder of the apalling brutality and
> bloodshed that characterised the Taiping uprising.
>
> Cheers
> Michael
Michael,
Not quite the summary that I was expecting, but thanks for the
information. Thanks also for the generous supply of your research
(sending your articles) and thoughts (through this group as well as
private emails), without which I never would have explored this line
of enquiry. Your research supplies many interesting items that spark
ideas for further research. Thanks.
Even though Thierry's article indicated a lack of support for the
Taiping connection, since I have gone this far, let me continue in
future posts to try and take this line of reasoning even farther. Even
though my 'house of cards' may easily be toppled without strong
evidence for a Taiping connection, at least I am presenting thoughts
that may provoke future examinations into the evolution of MJ.
Dan
msta...@aol.com
> On May 8, 4:58 pm, mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Hello Dan. Thierry's conclusion was that there was not enough
> > correlation between the Taiping kings and the wang tiles of the Himly
> > set. That is, there were far more dissimilarities than similarities.
> > On this basis he concluded that the Himly wang tiles did not originate
> > with the Taipings but much earlier. He proposed that they were
> > eliminated after the Taiping's defeat because they were an
> > embarassment - they were a reminder of the apalling brutality and
> > bloodshed that characterised the Taiping uprising.
>
> > Cheers
> > Michael
>
> Michael,
>
> Not quite the summary that I was expecting, but thanks for the
> information. Thanks also for the generous supply of your research
> (sending your articles) and thoughts (through this group as well as
> private emails), without which I never would have explored this line
> of enquiry. Your research supplies many interesting items that spark
> ideas for further research. Thanks.
No problem. I am arranging that Thierry's article be sent to you.
> Even though Thierry's article indicated a lack of support for the
> Taiping connection, since I have gone this far, let me continue in
> future posts to try and take this line of reasoning even farther. Even
> though my 'house of cards' may easily be toppled without strong
> evidence for a Taiping connection, at least I am presenting thoughts
> that may provoke future examinations into the evolution of MJ.
Thierry also states that "Two of the Confucian "Five Classics", the
Shujing and the Shijing, have references to three "sage rulers" huang,
namely Tianhuang, Dihuang and renhunag, who are supposed to have
reigned over heaven(tian), easrth(di), and manking (ren). Harmony
(he)would come later."
Huang is close to wang. Check out the character.
Here is a little bit of info for you. Check out the character for '5',
wu, in the myriads suit. It is not the same character as usually used.
All MJ sets I have seen use this more formal character. But why??? The
early playing card packs use the ordinary character for '5'. My
dictionary says that this character (the formal one) is used on
banknotes to prevent fraud. Is this a modern usage? Or was it used on
very old banknotes? It also has additional meanings of 'army' and
'ranks' (I thought you might be interested I that!! ^_^).
The 'ranks' meaning also is found in MJ sets as the character 'pin'.
In some locations, MJ sets were made - and still are - with the
character 'pin' replacing the character 'wan'. In the mauger set, the
# 1 pin was a swastika in the clockwise formation.
Cheers
Michael
pa...@email.unc.edu
> I am arranging that Thierry's article be sent to you.
Thanks Michael, I'm looking forward to reading it!
> Thierry also states that "Two of the Confucian "Five Classics", the
> Shujing and the Shijing, have references to three "sage rulers" huang,
> namely Tianhuang, Dihuang and renhunag, who are supposed to have
> reigned over heaven(tian), easrth(di), and manking (ren). Harmony
> (he)would come later."
>
> Huang is close to wang. Check out the character.
Thanks again, I certainly will examine this.
> Here is a little bit of info for you. Check out the character for '5',
> wu, in the myriads suit. It is not the same character as usually used.
> All MJ sets I have seen use this more formal character. But why??? The
> early playing card packs use the ordinary character for '5'. My
> dictionary says that this character (the formal one) is used on
> banknotes to prevent fraud. Is this a modern usage? Or was it used on
> very old banknotes? It also has additional meanings of 'army' and
> 'ranks' (I thought you might be interested I that!! ^_^).
I did mention the 5 character from the myriads suit in my initial post
on this thread, but it is good that you pointed it out again since I
failed to include it when I started posting about a possible evolution
from cards to Taiping rebels to military to civilian games.
> The 'ranks' meaning also is found in MJ sets as the character 'pin'.
> In some locations, MJ sets were made - and still are - with the
> character 'pin' replacing the character 'wan'. In the mauger set, the
> # 1 pin was a swastika in the clockwise formation.
Thanks, I knew about this rendering of the MJ set from the example
posted on Tom's site, but I did not know how common it was.
Do you have any additional insights into the three extra tiles in the
Culin set (1909)? You show that they were unlikely to be used in play
since they were larger than all the other tiles, but I was thinking
that they may have been used in a manner similar to the 'wind disks'
found in later sets. Note that only three tiles would need to be used
to indicate four players' status/positions (the fourth having no
status tile). When were 'wind disks' introduced into MJ sets? Part of
my reason for asking this is, of course, that these three extra tiles
show striking similarity to my proposed evolutionary progression, i.e.
Zong/'Controller' from the 'Taiping set' plus Wu/Military plus Wen/
Civilian. Is this just coincidence or is it possibly a carryover from
the games evolution?
Dan
pa...@email.unc.edu
the Taiping and MJ, which is a foundational idea behind this line of
reasoning, since I have gone this far I guess I will continue a little
farther.
If we speculate about the further evolution of MJ tiles, the next sets
I'll examine are those collected by Wilkinson (~1889-90) and Laufer
(~1901) which essentially share common characteristics. These sets
retain the pointed-end representations for the 'bamboo' suit as well
as the non-bird rendering of B1. They differ from the Glover sets in
eliminating the Seasons and King/Wang tiles while adding the Fa
quartet.
My speculation here is that the tiles were changed when the game of MJ
moved to being played by the civilian population (after being
modified, from the Taiping type, for use by Qing troops) sometime
after the end of the Taiping uprising (i.e., after 1864).
Civilians (especially if literati and/or Qing officials) may not have
liked the reference to 'kings' as found in the Glover sets' Wang/King
tiles. If they decided to eliminate these tiles, then the Seasons
tiles, being also of the non-quadruplicated type, may also have been
eliminated. I originally thought that these non-quadruplicated Season
and King/Wang tiles, presented as three sets of four, may have been
consolidated into two sets of four with illustrations depicting
subjects with more relevant meaning for literati, thus becoming the
Flowers/Seasons (i.e., the Four Fine Arts and the Four Nobel Plants
groups, or the other sets of four as found in more recent MJ sets),
while the Fa quadruplicates replaced the third set.
What puzzles me here is that the apparently earlier Wilkinson and
Laufer sets lack the Flowers/Seasons, while the apparently more recent
(due to the change in the depictions of the Bamboo as rectangular
rather than with pointed ends, as well as the appearance of a distinct
bird on B1) Culin set (collected in 1909), and others, have the Flower/
Season tiles. I don't have evidence to determine whether the Flowers/
Seasons is a reappearance and modification of the former tile types
(represented by Seasons and King/Wang tiles), or if they were an
entirely new feature of these later sets. Or, my thoughts on which
sets are older may be incorrect.
Another puzzle is why the choice of the Fa character for the added
quartet of tiles? If the Four Directions, Center/Zhong, and Blank/Bai/
White tiles were no longer associated with military organization
(assuming that they ever were), then they could all have collectively
been looked at as indicating directions. Thus we could have S, W, N, E
and Center (of course) plus the Bai/White (Blank) tiles which could
represent death and thus burial and thus down. An additional set of
tiles then would need to be added that imply up in order to complete a
set that indicates all directions.
This line of speculation could be somewhat supported by the Chinese
use of the term 'Arrow tiles' for what are now called 'Dragons' in the
West (at least after ~1920 and Babcock's attempt at copyrighting MJ by
using his own terminology). [Note however that 'arrow' could, rather
than indicating directionality, indicate actual arrows; thus the
center line in the Zhong character which can represent an arrow
piercing the center of a target, as well as the arrow sub-character in
the older version of the Fa character, although I have no idea how one
would associate an actual arrow with the Bai/White/Blank tile.] Also,
the use of the color green for the character could imply up, as in the
growth of plants (although it could instead simply be the only
remaining available color choice when only blue red and green are used
for the MJ tiles; blue already being used for the Directions/Winds,
and red already being used for Zhong/Center).
But why choose Fa? According to my Mathews' dictionary (Shanghai 1931,
revised 1943) Fa translates as "To issue, to put or to send forth. To
rise. To manifest. To issue stores." and by Fenn's dictionary (Peking
1926, revised 1940) as "To put forth, rise, start, grow; become." So
this character could imply an upward direction (e.g., rise, grow).
Still, the reason for the selection of the Fa character for use in MJ
is unclear.
The name of the game of MJ, as reported by Westerners around this
time, may support an argument against the directions speculation
presented above. That is, rather than representing the center
(Zhong1), the Zhong(4) tiles may mean "to hit a mark, gain an end" and
when paired with Fa meaning "to put forth, rise, start, grow; become"
together (Zhong Fa) meaning something like "hit and go" as translated
by Wilkinson. The name of the game at this point of time could also
have been referred to as Sparrow (Ma Que) in some places within China,
but Wilkinson's writing on this point seems somewhat unclear.
Dan
msta...@aol.com
> Even though Thierry's research does not support the connection between
> the Taiping and MJ, which is a foundational idea behind this line of
> reasoning, since I have gone this far I guess I will continue a little
> farther.
Hello Dan. Sure, no problem.
> If we speculate about the further evolution of MJ tiles, the next sets
> I'll examine are those collected by Wilkinson (~1889-90) and Laufer
> (~1901) which essentially share common characteristics. These sets
> retain the pointed-end representations for the 'bamboo' suit as well
> as the non-bird rendering of B1. [snip]
Yes. Their separation is around 12 years. I commented in my articles
that these may have represented a type of 'standard pattern' - but
based on only 2 samples of course.
Further, I have some more observations from my research and I have not
made public this point. It is purely for this newsgroup. I do not wish
it to be reported anywhere as yet as i am working on another line of
enquiry that I hope to report/publish in due course. I have a picture
of a set of MJ playing cards dated early 20th century. They have a
modified '# 1 string of cash' plus pointed end strings of cash. No
flowers/seasons. The three 'dragons' and the four directions plus the
# 9 string of cash have conspicuous red dots on them. These are
analogous to the red marks on the early 19th century playing cards I
have mentioned in another thread. The dots represent important
markings as they are found on many early playing card packs. In one
game played with these, a winning hand must contain a special group of
triplets called 'eyes' and these cards that make up these eyes are the
ones with the red stamps or dots. The three cards do not necessarily
have to be indentical - only that they have the red markings.
It is my view that there were other games floating around, at the time
the ma que tile set was being produced, that could be played with such
a set. Culin's 1909 informant made a remark that the dominoes ( ma que
tiles) could be used for two games. I had wondered whether this throw-
away remark actually hinted at a wider cultural attribute of playing
card use - that sets of tiles/cards were not fixed for one game only.
Thus, the Wilkinson and Laufer sets may be examples of just such a
type of set. But they do not sport red marks. Unless we consider the
red colouring used to paint some of the parts of each tile?? But this
does not take into account the wan character which always appears red.
[snip] (will read later)
> What puzzles me here is that the apparently earlier Wilkinson and
> Laufer sets lack the Flowers/Seasons, while the apparently more recent
> (due to the change in the depictions of the Bamboo as rectangular
> rather than with pointed ends, as well as the appearance of a distinct
> bird on B1) Culin set (collected in 1909), and others, have the Flower/
> Season tiles. I don't have evidence to determine whether the Flowers/
> Seasons is a reappearance and modification of the former tile types
> (represented by Seasons and King/Wang tiles), or if they were an
> entirely new feature of these later sets. Or, my thoughts on which
> sets are older may be incorrect.
The seasons tiles identically portrayed as in the Glover sets, with
frames, were a feature of tile sets into the 1920's. They were
uncommon but not unknown. I called them a 'relict' group. Their
absence during the intervening years may be an artefact of selection
bias - ie., hardly any sets during that time.
[snip] (to read later)
> But why choose Fa? According to my Mathews' dictionary (Shanghai 1931,
> revised 1943) Fa translates as "To issue, to put or to send forth. To
> rise. To manifest. To issue stores." and by Fenn's dictionary (Peking
> 1926, revised 1940) as "To put forth, rise, start, grow; become." So
> this character could imply an upward direction (e.g., rise, grow).
> Still, the reason for the selection of the Fa character for use in MJ
> is unclear.
Aint that the truth.
> The name of the game of MJ, as reported by Westerners around this
> time, may support an argument against the directions speculation
> presented above. That is, rather than representing the center
> (Zhong1), the Zhong(4) tiles may mean "to hit a mark, gain an end" and
> when paired with Fa meaning "to put forth, rise, start, grow; become"
> together (Zhong Fa) meaning something like "hit and go" as translated
> by Wilkinson. The name of the game at this point of time could also
> have been referred to as Sparrow (Ma Que) in some places within China,
> but Wilkinson's writing on this point seems somewhat unclear.
The game-play appears to have been called peng hu and the term ma que
was possibly reserved for the tile set. This is consistent with
Wilkinson's account from Central China of ma que being reserved for
playing cards of three suits in which each card was quadruplicated. It
seems the important point was that it was the fact they were
quadruplicated which denoted their importance and having the ma que
term applied to them. This quadruplication feature possibly having a
term or name given to it by way of the instruments that were
quadruplicated, is unusual in the sense I cannot determine what
function it would serve. What makes quadruplication be associated with
sparrows?
I mentioned the zhong tile being center and part of the 4 directions
purely according to Glover's categorization of the tiles that way in
his description. I though it was curious and that it may have been an
artefact of his reporting, but after further research I discovered
that indeed, the four directions plus centre are an important ancient
concept/grouping when closely linked with the four seasons.
Cheers
Michael
d_...@my-deja.com
> I mentioned the zhong tile being center and part of the 4 directions
> purely according to Glover's categorization of the tiles that way in
> his description. I though it was curious and that it may have been an
> artefact of his reporting, but after further research I discovered
> that indeed, the four directions plus centre are an important ancient
> concept/grouping when closely linked with the four seasons.
Along the same lines, maybe it was discussed previously but I don't
remember (memory is the first to go). If the zhong tile was
associated
with the 4 directions, then why are the 3 "dragon" tiles called the "3
scholars" (三元)? And how/when did the 4 directions become the "4
happiness" (四喜)?
Back to the Taiping connection, is there anything to the "heavenly
hand"
(天和) and "earthly hand" (地和)? Seems these terms would fit with the
Taiping terminology.
msta...@aol.com
> On May 9, 1:20 pm, mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I mentioned the zhong tile being center and part of the 4 directions
> > purely according to Glover's categorization of the tiles that way in
> > his description. I though it was curious and that it may have been an
> > artefact of his reporting, but after further research I discovered
> > that indeed, the four directions plus centre are an important ancient
> > concept/grouping when closely linked with the four seasons.
>
> Along the same lines, maybe it was discussed previously but I don't
> remember (memory is the first to go). If the zhong tile was
> associated
> with the 4 directions, then why are the 3 "dragon" tiles called the "3
> happiness" (??)?
I think this is because the zhong tile - in zhong, fa, bai = the 3
'dragons' - was on its own in two (Glover sets) of the three earliest
sets we know of. In one of them it doesn't even appear. If Glover's
description was accurate, then sometime between 1875(Glover) and
1889(Wilkinson, when we have the earliest set with zhong, fa, bai) the
zhong might have been annexed from the Directions to form one of the
three 'Dragons'. I don't recall the three being called the 'three
scholars' in the early literature (pre 1920) so I suspect that this
may be a relatively new term. If this is the case then it has no
documented relationship with the three tiles.
Similar reasoning for the four Directions.
> Back to the Taiping connection, is there anything to the "heavenly
> hand"
> (??) and "earthly hand" (??)? Seems these terms would fit with the
> Taiping terminology.
Oddly enough, I had asked about the 'heavenly hand' some time ago. I
too can't remember, back that far that is.
My perspective on the extra tiles in the Himly set is informed by the
assumption that the tile game was a sedentary pastime; and coupled
with the expense of carving the tiles, a reasonably expensive one -
which would suggest a pastime associated with officials/scholars/
literati etc. If these groups were aware of ancient cosmology
(suggested by heaven, earth, man and harmony plus the juxtapostion of
the four directions with the four seasons) then perhaps ancient
cosmology - particularly that surrounding and dictating the Emperor's
conduct, would be a place to look for inspiration since I would assume
that these groups would be in the Imperial hierarchy. According to A.
C. Graham in his 'Disputers of the Tao; philosophical argument in
ancient China', there were various calendars regulating the ruler's
conduct throughout the year. "The standard one is in the Lu Spring and
Autumn, from which it passed into the Confucian tradition as the
'Monthly Orders' in the Records of Ceremony, chapter 6." This contains
the correlations with the Five Processes that I have mentioned before.
Especially the seasons, the nine numbers, the fours seasons and the
five directions.
Cheers
Michael
ithinc
> Back to the Taiping connection, is there anything to the "heavenly
> hand"
> (天和) and "earthly hand" (地和)? Seems these terms would fit with the
> Taiping terminology.
"Heavenly Hand" and "Earthly Hand" came from Domino Penghu, Japanese
"reach" also.
"Tian Wang", "Di Wang", "Ren Wang", "Hu Wang" four tiles should have
been inspired by both Taiping and Domino Penghu.
pa...@email.unc.edu
> ...If the zhong tile was
> associated
> with the 4 directions, then why are the 3 "dragon" tiles called the "3
> scholars" (三元)? And how/when did the 4 directions become the "4
> happiness" (四喜)?
>
> Back to the Taiping connection, is there anything to the "heavenly
> hand"
> (天和) and "earthly hand" (地和)? Seems these terms would fit with the
> Taiping terminology.
Unfortunately, since we do not have the rules for play to accompany
the Himley set, I do not know of any way to relate game play (hands,
etc.), to the Taiping.
Just the names of ‘3 scholars’ and ‘4 happiness’ seem to indicate
later rules additions if viewed from my evolutionary model, i.e., they
probably would have appeared after the game began being played by the
literati.
The ‘heavenly hand’ and ‘earthly hand’ sound like they could relate
back to Taiping ideology but, as much as I would like to find more
support for the Taiping connection to MJ, these terms could just as
easily relate to the Heaven and Earth Societies (Triads) [possibly
through Triad run MJ gambling operations], or numerous other Chinese
cultural correspondences (e.g., those proposed by Ithinc for
dominoes).
Dan
pa...@email.unc.edu
early versions of MJ (Taiping and military) would be fairly consistent
in their depictions due to a limited group using these sets, but that
there would be much greater variability once it switched to civilian
use. Unfortunately we have only a limited number of sets to use for
comparative purposes for the early stages of MJ development.
>From Culin's 1909 MJ set through the standardization of Babcock's
sets, the only major changes are that the bamboo suit now commonly
appear rectangular rather than with pointy ends, the 1B is commonly
illustrated with a bird, and there appear (reappear?) the eight Flower/
Seasons tiles in two groups of four.
What variation there is in sets now seems to me to reflect either
personal or regional preferences. Thus, some may prefer to use a
military or civil ranking symbolism as when using Pin/Rank in place of
the Wan/Myriads suit, different birds may be used to illustrate B1,
some may wish to retain the earlier style of bamboo depictions, others
may substitute Dragon and Phoenix for Zhong and Fa, different
depictions for the Flowers/Season tiles are also frequently seen,
whether or not to use these Flower/Seasons tiles in play, etc. Once
there was a wider distribution of MJ (when becoming a civilian game),
individuals from one region could see other versions of play when
traveling to other places and decide to include the variations found
in those other regions into the way that they play the game. Also,
individuals who were soldiers during the Taiping rebellions may recall
the tiles that they used to use, and they may decide to reintroduce
them into the version as depicted in the Wilkinson/Laufer version of
the tiles.
Thus, except for the possible significance of the three extra, non-
play (larger) tiles found in the Culin set, this essentially ends my
evolutionary model for the development of MJ. As I speculated in my
earlier reply post to Michael, it is possible that these three extra
tiles may function in a manner similar to the 'winds
indicators' (Ming) found in more recent sets.
I have just received Thierry's article on the Taiping and will respond
to specific points when I have had a chance to read through it
carefully. From my initial look, it seems like his research is
accurate, but the correlations, and thus the conclusions, differ from
mine. I viewed the Himley set as the only Taiping example, but Thierry
also mentions another set which would qualify, according to my
criteria, that was written about by Tokusaburo Nakamura (published
1924). Thierry includes the Glover sets in his analysis, but I view
these as being modifications to the Taiping set (removing what I
consider the tile that represented God - the Zong Wang tile). I was
unaware of the Nakamura set and its documentation and would love to
analyze it in relation to the Himley set.
Dan
msta...@aol.com
Hello Dan. The Nakamura set is indeed interesting. The tiles are
arranged so that we have for the non suit groups, in the order as they
appear in the picture (across and down);
Marquis, Duke, Premier, Marshall/General.
Snow, rain, Wind , Sun.
Happiness, Longevity, Joy, Fortune.
Lotus, Chrysanthemum, Spring orchid?, Plum.
Next to these we have( in the order across and down);
Almighty king/Zong Wang, Tong Hua, Suo Hua, Wan Hua.(hua here is
'change').
Harmony King/He Wang, Ren Wang/Man King, Di Wang/Earth King, Tien Wang/
Heaven King.
North King, West King, South King, East King.
Winter, Autumn, Summer, Spring (these are all represented by one large
character each).
The suit symbols are like the Wilkinson/Laufer sets except that the #
1 String of Cash is more streamlined. It has zhong, fa and bai. I have
two sets in my collection with very similary rendered suits and # 1
String of Cash. It is my view that these tiles come from after 1920.
But that is on very flimsy evidence - style of engraving mostly when
compared to two other sets I have that are reliably from after 1920.
The truth is -we just don't know its date. But Thierry gives a
reliable period from when it could have originated.
The Glover sets originated - so we are told - from Fuzhou whereas the
Himly set came from Ningbo. So we may be experiencing regional
variations in their differences rather than temporal variations. Now,
we have Culin's reference that the tiles were from Fuzhou and we know
Glover worked in Fuzhou. But he was also in Shanghai and his letter
was written from there. Also, Himly and Glover were strict
contemporaries in time, so we have three sets that are pretty similar
in most respects, with one different group in each. Given the close
similarity in time I had wondered whether we were therefore witnessing
two regional variations in the differences. From what I have seen from
Chinese playing cards, the patterns are pretty resilient to change. I
think Doctor Gernot Prunner said that the differences were due to
regional variations, but I'll check that out. My point is, given their
close proximity in time, and IF Glover collected the sets in Shanghai,
then the Glover/Himly differences might be due to regional variations.
I think the argument could swing both ways.
I am tired, so I hope the above makes sense?
Cheers
Michael
pa...@email.unc.edu
emphatic statement that "there can be no link whatsoever between
mahjong and the Taiping." Far too definitive in my opinion! I do want
to thank him for allowing me to obtain his article for review,
especially since he probably knew, from my postings on this thread,
that I would disagree with him. MJ researchers are fortunate to have
someone with this open attitude. Thanks Thierry!
While his research on the Taiping seems mostly sound, I don't agree
with the way that he attempts to correlate the Taiping leaders with
the Wang/King tiles. If I had not realized that the Zong Wang tile may
represent God, then I may have reached similar conclusions, but my
analysis differs markedly once I analyzed the Taiping from a God down
order rather than trying initially to fit the Taiping leadership to
the Wang/King tiles as Thierry has done.
Thus, I came up with God being represented by the one tile (Zong Wang)
in the Himley set that, by its color scheme, is unique to the set.
Though probably related to both the other eight Wang/King tiles by the
Wang character and the colors used for both characters, and to the
four seasons by the tile border/frame color, it is the only tile of
its type in this set.
With the Zong Wang (God) tile removed as in the Glover sets, I think
that Thierry's conclusion that the set cannot be correlated with the
Taiping is accurate. This is why my condition for defining a putative
Taiping set is that it must have the Zong Wang (God) tile. It is also
why I proposed that the Glover sets were probably modified by the Qing
opponents of the Taiping rebels in order to eliminate the God (and
thus the Taiping) reference in the MJ set.
Defining the Zong Wang tile as God, one would then expect
representations of God's family to be included among the other Wang/
King tiles. Thus we could expect to find the Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit
from the Christian trilogy, plus God's son and grandson as viewed by
the Taiping in their modified ideology. Thus:
* Zong Wang/Supreme King = God
* Tian Wang/Heavenly Kink = Jesus Christ, God's 1st son
* Di Wang/Earthly King = Hong Xiuquan, God's 2nd son and leader of
the Taiping
* Ren Wang/Mankind King = Hong Tianggui Fu (Heaven's Precious
One), Hong's son and heir apparent, God's grandson, Jesus' adopted
son.
* He Wang/Harmony Kng = Holy Ghost/Spirit (Wind)
Hong's four top advisors (provincial rulers or deputy kings as well as
military generals) would then be the following:
* Dong Wang/East King = Yang Xiuqing (the Mouthpiece of God)
* Xi Wang/West King = Xiao Chaoqui (the Mouthpiece of Jesus)
* Nan Wang/South King = Feng Yunshan
* Bei Wang/North King = Wei Changhui
These correlate quite well, however, as I pointed out in my earlier
post, there are difficulties with this analysis (e.g., using a
different term for God than was commonly used by the Taiping; the Holy
Ghost/Spirit (Wind) which the Taiping seemed to struggle with
conceptually; changing Hong from the Heavenly King as he was known by
his followers to the Earthly King; the exclusion of the Wing King,
etc.). The difficulties can be reasonably explained, but I was hoping
for additional evidence before concluding that the Taiping created the
Himley set. But my analysis for a Taiping connection certainly can not
yet be ruled out, contrary to what Thierry concludes.
There are some additional comments that I will make about Thierry's
article in future posts.
Dan
pa...@email.unc.edu
Thierry concerns Shi Dakai. Shi was one of the five original Taiping
Kings (generals and advisors to the leader Hong), the longest lived
(executed in 1863) and perhaps the most successful as a general, and
yet does not seem to have a Wang/King tile to represent him as the E,
W, N, and S Kings apparently do. Thierry, though not explicitly
stating so, gives by his presentation the impression that Shi may be
the second in command behind Hong (Thierry does state that Shi was
Hong’s “closest companion”). My understanding is that Shi was not
accorded the same status as the other four Kings and thus perhaps
could be ignored in assigning Hong’s top advisors to the MJ tiles.
Thierry uses “Second” as the translation of a character for Yi (乙) for
the title of Shi. I use the translation of Wing (“the wings of a bird;
the flanks of an army”) for a different Yi character: 翼. It is
possible that we are referring to two different names for Shi since
the Taiping used multiple titles, but it should also be noted that the
character he uses could also mean ‘second grade’ or ‘grade B’ and thus
accord with Shi’s status below that of the other Kings.
The mystics Yang and Xiao, who were believed to channel the voices of
God and Jesus, respectively, could even give orders to Hong (the
Taiping leader) when using these voices. Also, the four other Taiping
Kings were all older than Shi who was only 20 years old in 1850. Since
Thierry interpreted Shi as having a higher status in the Taiping
organization than I do, whereas I feel alright eliminating Shi from
the tile set (although I do think that the Taiping connection idea
would have been strengthened if he were represented), Thierry
apparently doesn’t and states: “Moreover had the Taiping Kingdom been
the cradle of mahjong it would at least have offered a ‘Second King’
if not the complete envoy of its various kings.”
Thierry correctly points out the early dates for the deaths of the W &
S Kings (1852) and the deaths of the E & N Kings (1856). The
replacement Kings (or Princes) from 1857 on, as I understand it, were
never given the status or prestige of the earlier Kings, and thus I
did not consider them in my analysis. The original Kings seemingly
were held almost reverentially even long after their deaths such that
Western visitors to the Taiping frequently did not even realize that
they were dead. Thus the possible inclusion of the four directional
kings in MJ sets well after their deaths is not particularly
unexpected, nor should be the exclusion of the replacement kings
(princes).
Dan
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Do you have any additional insights into the three extra tiles in the
> Culin set (1909)? You show that they were unlikely to be used in play
> since they were larger than all the other tiles, but I was thinking
> that they may have been used in a manner similar to the 'wind disks'
> found in later sets. Note that only three tiles would need to be used
> to indicate four players' status/positions (the fourth having no
> status tile). When were 'wind disks' introduced into MJ sets? Part of
> my reason for asking this is, of course, that these three extra tiles
> show striking similarity to my proposed evolutionary progression, i.e.
> Zong/'Controller' from the 'Taiping set' plus Wu/Military plus Wen/
> Civilian. Is this just coincidence or is it possibly a carryover from
> the games evolution?
Some information from Peter Dekker (researcher, martial artist and
Chinese archery specialist):
"As for the East and West, East has always stood for the civil, or wen
while West has been traditionally associated with Wu or martial. The
emperor would always sit in the South during audiences with his
martial officers to the West and the civil officials to the East.
Because South also represents male and North female, the emperor also
entered the Forbidden City from the South, while his women would
always enter it from the North. I have no idea what it might imply for
the directions but perhaps any of this might help you see a connection
with other tiles."
Thus the three over-sized extra tiles in the Culin MJ set (1909) may
have been used in a manner similar to the 'wind disks' and represent
the following:
Zong/Controller = Dealer
Wen/Civillian = the player on the dealer's right
Wu/Military = the player on the dealer's left
Dan
al
Hello, Dan,
I am interested in knowing more about the dragon and phoenix pair of
tiles. Where did they first appear earliest known date? The two tiles
were replced by one tile, the Zhong, correct? When roughly did that
take place? Any explanation given anywhere so far? Thanks... AL
pa...@email.unc.edu
> Hello, Dan,
> I am interested in knowing more about the dragon and phoenix pair of
> tiles. Where did they first appear earliest known date? The two tiles
> were replced by one tile, the Zhong, correct? When roughly did that
> take place? Any explanation given anywhere so far? Thanks... AL
Hi Al,
Michael would probably be better at directly answering this than me
since I have not yet received or read his latest MJ article (Sept.
2006). Tom's site mentions the article and the MJ set of Sheng
Xuanhuai (collected in 1884 or 1892) as having those tiles as well as
changing the Characters (Craks) to Pin (Rank or Grade), the Directions
(Winds) to Confucian cardinal virtues, etc. What is interesting is
that the set also includes four Wang/King tiles as well as the Supreme
King (Zong Wang) tile that I had proposed to represent God if the
Taiping ideology is represented in the Himly set. See
http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq/mjfaq11.htm.
Based on very limited information, my speculations would be as
follows:
If the Himly set represents Taiping organization and ideology, then it
is possible that some Qing imperial soldier (officer?) that fought
against the Taiping may have obtained a set and modified it to remove
the Taiping connections. Initially let's assume that this person was
Chen Yumen. Chen taking MJ to his (presumed) hometown of Ningbo to
play with military associates may have changed the set by eliminating
the Zong Wang (God) tile and the three Hua/Flower tiles and replacing
them with the Zhong/Center direction tiles. Later the remaining Wang/
King tiles were eliminated and the Fa tiles introduced. These now may
represent archery in the Arrow tiles grouping (in the west called
Dragons) composed of Fa representing a bow and arrow ready to shoot/
issue, the Blank/Bai/White tiles representing the target, and the
Zhong tiles that now may represent the mark made when the target is
hit.
The Sheng set may represent a different modification of the Himly set
if Chen were summoned to court to report on the Taiping conflict, and
may have been modified to reflect imperial values for a gift to the
court. It is stated that a major motivating reason for Chinese support
of the war against the Taiping was the defense of Confucian values.
Thus it fits reasonably well with my hypotheses for an anti-Taiping
gift to have the physical direction tiles replaced by Confucian values
that represent those directions. The replacement of Zhong and Fa with
the Dragon and Phoenix (possibly as representations of the Emperor and
Empress) also seems reasonable for a set presented as a gift to the
court. I will have to wait to see Michael's article prior to
speculating about the King/Wang tiles as I am not entirely certain
which four are retained. The Emperor still answers to heaven, however,
so the presence of a Zong Wang tile may not be too unreasonable,
although it would probably no longer represent the Christian deity.
Dan
msta...@aol.com
[snip]
> The replacement of Zhong and Fa with
> the Dragon and Phoenix (possibly as representations of the Emperor and
> Empress) also seems reasonable for a set presented as a gift to the
Hello Dan. I am posting a colour photocopy this Monday.
At this point it is not possible to say what came 1st. Both the Sheng
and Wilkinson sets are close in time and are from different regions.
There is no evidence that Sheng intended his set as a gift to the
court.
I also replied to Allan by email but the information in the email is
relevant here, so I figure I will post it. Here it is with some small
additions ...
It is interesting that both the Sheng set and the Mauger set have Feng
and Long together with the 'rank' suit denoted by the character 'pin'.
It is reasonable to consider that 'pin' stands for a degree of rank,
as mentioned in my 1978 facsimile edition of the 1874 'Chinese Readers
Manual' by Mayers, where it gives as reference # 282 "The Nine Degrees
of Offical Rank". These were nine Imperial Official Ranks intimately
linked with the particular Dynasty in which they existed.
Each set also has alternatives to the four Directions. Either the Four
Ranks of Nobility or the Four Confucian Cardinal Virtues - both linked
to the Imperial court.
If we consider these meanings as contexts which surround the Feng and
Long in both sets, then one may hypothesise that Feng and Long
represent Empress and Emperor, as Dan mentions.
I offered these explanations for these tiles in my article.
Cheers
al
> On Jun 29, 10:05?pm, p...@email.unc.edu wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > The replacement of Zhong and Fa with
> > the Dragon and Phoenix
>
Michael & Dan,
I would have thought the replacement was reversed. Dragon and phoenix
are pictures and zhong and fa are words.
Generally speaking, the progression in language is from picture to
words. How and why the assumption of replacement for the tiles was in
that order?
As I understand it, zhong (one tile) replaced 2 tiles [dragon
(Lhong) and phoenix (Fhong)]. Dragon is male and phoenix, female.
However, gender was a matter of chance in olden time. If you are
lucky, birth is male and that would be a zhong! The change was
probably taken place and for a reason, as mentioned by somebody else,
due to the disappearance of the monarchy.
>
> {snip]
>
> Cheers......AL
msta...@aol.com
> > > The replacement of Zhong and Fa with
> > > the Dragon and Phoenix
> Michael & Dan,
> I would have thought the replacement was reversed. Dragon and phoenix
> are pictures and zhong and fa are words.
> Generally speaking, the progression in language is from picture to
> words. How and why the assumption of replacement for the tiles was in
> that order?
It is the **current explanation** based on the evidence we have.
However, the Sheng tile set is pretty much a contemporary of
Wilkinson's. Both are examples of the different triplicates. At his
point in my view, the evoidence does not allow us to suggest that one
came before the other or that both appeared at the same time.
> As I understand it, zhong (one tile) replaced 2 tiles [dragon
> (Lhong) and phoenix (Fhong)]. Dragon is male and phoenix, female.
> However, gender was a matter of chance in olden time. If you are
> lucky, birth is male and that would be a zhong! The change was
> probably taken place and for a reason, as mentioned by somebody else,
> due to the disappearance of the monarchy.
Strange. The Wilkinson set has zhong, fa and bai and it was collected
(1889)during the Qing period.
Cheers
al
> On Jul 2, 3:06?am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > The replacement of Zhong and Fa with
> > > > the Dragon and Phoenix
> > Michael & Dan,
> > I would have thought the replacement was reversed. Dragon and phoenix
> > are pictures and zhong and fa are words.
> > Generally speaking, the progression in language is from picture to
> > words. How and why the assumption of replacement for the tiles was in
> > that order?
>
> It is the **current explanation** based on the evidence we have.
>
"probably this and seems like that" sort of tentative stuff. We should
examine and consider additional ideas and new suggestions instead of
rejecting whatever different, like what was done in the Middle Age era
on the heliocentric theory.
>
> However, the Sheng tile set is pretty much a contemporary of
> Wilkinson's. Both are examples of the different triplicates. At his
> point in my view, the evoidence does not allow us to suggest that one
> came before the other or that both appeared at the same time.
Just think about a moment, Michael. The sets, Sheng and Wilkinson, are
"pretty much contemporary". That means they were existing close
together within a period of time. Designs like that don't change fast,
What looked contemporary could mean many years apart.
What "evidence does not allow us to suggest one came before the
other"? Is there something specific?
My thinking is opposite, Michael. The two sets, Sheng and Wilkinson,
although contemporary, could not have been exactly came at the same
time. Logic allows us to judge and decide one came before the other.
Since physical evidence is unavailable to determine which came first
and since one had to have come first, then intellectual evidence is a
critical deciding factor. We can say that that is a reason for the
decision.
>
> > As I understand it, zhong (one tile) replaced 2 tiles [dragon
> > (Lhong) and phoenix (Fhong)]. Dragon is male and phoenix, female.
> > However, gender was a matter of chance in olden time. If you are
> > lucky, birth is male and that would be a zhong!
The change was
> > probably taken place and for a reason, as mentioned by somebody else,
> > due to the disappearance of the monarchy.
About the change, I think I read in a post or it was stated in Tam
Wing Kwong's book (1925). It was meant as a reason for the
discontinued use of Dragon and Phoenix after 1911 when the Qing
dynasty ended. That did not prevent what was produced before the
"band".
>
> Strange. The Wilkinson set has zhong, fa and bai and it was collected
> (1889)during the Qing period.
You are right, Michael. That does seem strange. Tam Wing Kwong had
given the explanation belated, the use of Zhong as replacement for
Dragon and Phoenix took place before Qing ended). We don't really know
for sure when the Wilkinson set was made. The product was made in Qing
(1636-1911), 1889 or earlier. But the MJ design had to be earlier; no
indication it wasn't an earlier creation from Ming.
Now that brings up a point I tried to make all along. That is giving
an age to the MJ sets according to the time they were collected and
paid for is wrong and unscientific. I gave the analogy of assigning an
age to North America according to the day of its discovery. Here is
evidence I can use to support my argument. Not only This Wilkinson
set, but all the other MJ precursor sets may not be dated properly.
Carbon-dating or newer technique is needed to get accurate age for
the old MJ sets.
However, history has shown us pictures came before words. On that
basis, due to lack of evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe
the set with Dragon and Phoenix came before the other, Michael.
.
>
> Cheers......AL
msta...@aol.com
> On Jul 2, 8:34 am, mstanw...@aol.com wrote:> On Jul 2, 3:06?am, al
> > It is the **current explanation** based on the evidence we have.
>
> What evidence is that? Michael? Some so called evidence comes from
> "probably this and seems like that" sort of tentative stuff.
What are you talking about here Allan? Characterising 'physical
evidence' in that manner is unwarranted.
> We should examine and consider additional ideas and new suggestions instead
> of rejecting whatever different, like what was done in the Middle Age era
> on the heliocentric theory.
Look, the standard rule I reason by is 'proportion your belief to the
evidence'. In other words 'don't get ahead of yourself'.
I'll consider any additional proposed idea provided it has some basis
in reality - and I mean some *basis*, some evidence that is
unambiguous and that is somehow related to what we are talking about.
> > However, the Sheng tile set is pretty much a contemporary of
> > Wilkinson's. Both are examples of the different triplicates. At his
> > point in my view, the evidence does not allow us to suggest that one
> > came before the other or that both appeared at the same time.
>
> Just think about a moment, Michael. The sets, Sheng and Wilkinson, are
> "pretty much contemporary". That means they were existing close
> together within a period of time. Designs like that don't change fast.
Says who??? Where did you get this fact?? We have no idea what rate of
modification or development was in existence back then.
> What looked contemporary could mean many years apart.
NO. I did not pull this phrase 'pretty much contemporary' out of thin
air. It is based on what I know. I know because I have dates assigned
to each set. I know when they were acquired. Sheng got his sometime
between 1884 - 1892 and Wilkionson got his in 1889. Hence 'pretty much
contemporary.
I can understand you may not know the period of the Sheng set as I
have not sent you the article yet.(Tomorrow). However, I think I have
mentioned it in other posts.
> What "evidence does not allow us to suggest one came before the
> other"? Is there something specific?
Yes. The two were collected within the same time period. The Wilkinson
set is new - I have seen it. Sheng brought his to Tianjin from the
South. It came from there and we know when he was in the South so that
gives us a time span.
> My thinking is opposite, Michael. The two sets, Sheng and Wilkinson,
> although contemporary, could not have been exactly came at the same
> time. Logic allows us to judge and decide one came before the other.
> Since physical evidence is unavailable to determine which came first
> and since one had to have come first, then intellectual evidence is a
> critical deciding factor. We can say that that is a reason for the
> decision.
There are many modes of development. They could have developed
simultaneously, but in different areas for example. They may reflect
regional variations for example. They may come from two separate tile
set symbols traditions for example.
> > Strange. The Wilkinson set has zhong, fa and bai and it was collected
> > (1889)during the Qing period.
>
> You are right, Michael. That does seem strange. Tam Wing Kwong had
> given the explanation belated, the use of Zhong as replacement for
> Dragon and Phoenix took place before Qing ended). We don't really know
> for sure when the Wilkinson set was made. The product was made in Qing
> (1636-1911), 1889 or earlier.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Wilkinson set was
made earlier. Wilkinson had the set in its factory box. The entire set
is brand new. I can attest to that.
> Now that brings up a point I tried to make all along. That is giving
> an age to the MJ sets according to the time they were collected and
> paid for is wrong and unscientific. I gave the analogy of assigning an
> age to North America according to the day of its discovery. Here is
> evidence I can use to support my argument. Not only This Wilkinson
> set, but all the other MJ precursor sets may not be dated properly.
> Carbon-dating or newer technique is needed to get accurate age for
> the old MJ sets.
It is not wrong. It is the date we know they existed. They may have
existed prior to that date but we do not know, although there is some
evidence that the Glover sets might be earlier(see below). But how
much earlier we do not know. That is why I only go as far back as
Himly's arrival for the Glover sets since they are similar. There is
no evidence the other particular sets in question existed prior to
their documented dates. Therefore we cannot say in any meaningful way
that they did exist prior to those dates. We just don't know. And
because we don't know it is pointless and baseless to assert otherwise
- unless the idea is built into some hypothesis that itself has some
evidence in it. The Wilkinson set is new as far as my observations
tell me. The Culin set is new as he was talking to the manufacturers
about this type of game.
I can say that some of the Glover pieces are missing and some of the
blanks have been drawn on as replacements. But I don't know who did
that or when.
> However, history has shown us pictures came before words. On that
> basis, due to lack of evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe
> the set with Dragon and Phoenix came before the other, Michael.
That is ok Allan. I do not want to stop you choosing to believe this
or that. But I do want to rebut your chosen beliefs if you want to
discuss them or put them forward on this newsgroup for us to read and
consider. That is only fair. That way we can see if they have
usefulness and merit.
But you have not demonstrated your 'pictures came before words'
premise is logically related to your conclusion Allan. You have not
demonstrated the premise is related to the same time frame of the
maque tiles sets in question and you have not demonstrated that that
is what happened in that time frame.
Cheers
Michael
al
Hello, Michael, that's all I have to say bout Dragon/Phoenix for now.
I see the pair have played a significant role in the game of MJ. AL
Tom Sloper
> Now that brings up a point I tried to make all along. That is giving
> an age to the MJ sets according to the time they were collected and
> paid for is wrong and unscientific. I gave the analogy of assigning an
> age to North America according to the day of its discovery.
That's ridiculous, Allan. It's very "scientific" to annotate the date of the
first appearance of a thing, and to note that the thing came into existence
no later than that date. Of course it would be ridiculous to discover a
continent on day X, and say that it had come into existence that day. But if
a live baby animal, of a species previously thought to have been extinct, is
found... then it's not ridiculous, it's "scientific," to say that it was
born shortly before the day it was found.
Tom
pa...@email.unc.edu
The Glover's sets (~1872-3) seem to indicate that Zhong was initially
considered as the center direction, and the appearance of Zhong in
these two sets also indicates to me the possibility that Zhong was
added to MJ prior to the Fa tiles, possibly as a replacement for the
Zong Wang and three Hua/Flower tiles. Fa seems to have come later as
found in the Wilkinson (~1889-90) and Laufer (~1901) sets which seem
to have replaced the Seasons tiles with the Fa tiles and eliminated
the remaining Wang/King tiles (possibly later being changed to the
Flowers/Seasons tile groups).
To me, Sheng's set (~1884-92) does not fit particularly well into this
progression, as I would have expected the Dragon and Phoenix
representations to have been simply a substitution for the Zhong and
Fa tiles, like the Confucian virtues (or Nobel's titles) seem like
simple substitutions of the directional tiles (E, S, W, N) and the Pin/
Ranks to be simple substitutions for the Characters/Craks. The change
to Dragon and Phoenix seems to indicate that this set may have come
after the addition of the Fa tiles (i.e. after ~1889 Wilkinson set),
while the retention of the Zong Wang (and four Wang/King) tiles seems
to indicate that this set came before the addition of the Fa tiles
(i.e. before ~1872 Glover sets when the Zong Wang tile was
eliminated). I do not have any particularly good ideas for resolving
this apparent conflict, but would suggest that the individual having
this set made (Sheng?) may have been familiar with both the earlier
and later versions of the MJ tile sets (of course, multiple versions
of MJ could have been played simultaneously in different regions by
different people). It seems likely that the version played in the
south (starting among military associates of Chen?) may have been
modified specifically to reflect imperial and literati organization
and beliefs when MJ began to be played by the nobility and/or literati
(Sheng and his associates? When moving to the north and closer to the
capital?).
Note that the Sheng set may somewhat weaken my Taiping hypothesis
since I would have expected the Zong Wang tile to have been eliminated
if it represented the Christian God as I have proposed. Of course,
this tile could have been assigned other meanings not related to the
Taiping, but if the Sheng set's Confucian virtues tiles replacement of
the directional tiles represent anti-Taiping ideology as I have
suggested, then I would have expected at least a renaming for the Zong
Wang tile (e.g. to Shang-di or something similar) even if it was
retained in this set.
MJ historical development certainly gives room for speculation! I am
glad to have the insights of individuals familiar with native Chinese
culture to help puzzle out the possibilities. If the literati were
responsible, at least in part, for MJ historical development, then
their seeming love of obscure allusions to historical subjects,
poetry, etc. could greatly hinder anyone not extremely familiar with
classical Chinese learning! While I proposed that Fa may relate to
archery (because of the 'Arrows' tile grouping, etc.), it could easily
refer to other things that I am not familiar with, e.g. it could be a
literary figure or poetic reference that could relate it to the
possible 'Beauty' meaning (Tam Wing Kwong) for the Bai/White tiles,
etc.
Dan
pa...@email.unc.edu
Li Hung-chang (1823-1901), a general whose first success was as a
commander of forces fighting the Taiping Rebellion, in 1870 employed
Sheng Xuanhuai (1844-1916) who soon became his chief economic deputy
and who by 1893 had taken over control of the important China
Merchants' Steam Navigation Company, established the Imperial
Telegraph Administration, etc.
>From 3/22/2007 library news (Shanghai Library):
"The ¡°Sheng Xuanhuai Archives¡± are composed of records of Sheng
Xuanhuai family during an eighty-year span from 1856 to 1936,
including 175,000 items that total 100 million Chinese characters.
Therefore, it constituted an enormous historical treasury to be
explored, providing significant resources..."
So if anyone happens to have time to spare while in Shanghai, it would
be great if these documents could be searched for possible information
on MJ.
Dan
al
wrote:
> "al" <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > Now that brings up a point I tried to make all along. That is giving
> > an age to the MJ sets according to the time they were collected and
> > paid for is wrong and unscientific. I gave the analogy of assigning an
> > age to North America according to the day of its discovery.
>
> That's ridiculous, Allan. It's very "scientific" to annotate the date of the
> first appearance of a thing, and to note that the thing came into existence
> no later than that date.
Hello, Tom, but the fact is that it could have come EARLIER than that
date. That was my point. Not every collected set was brand new. Not
all deceased set unearthed. Many sets have different designed tiles.
As you said, "no later than that date" is correct. Any implication
that none existed earlier is inaccurate. Any archaeologist will tell
that.
Furthermore, this is an important point, Tom. even if the Mj set was
fresh out of a factory, the DESIGN of the game could have been from a
thousand years ago. In addition, the MJ sets in collection were not
unique (unlike a baby.)
>Of course it would be ridiculous to discover a
> continent on day X, and say that it had come into existence that day.
That is what seems to be the thinking, Tom. Because the Cash and
strings of Cash and the Wan are indisputable signs of heredity, until
and unless a buried mahjong set can be found from an old tomb, then
mahjong can not be older that the late 19th century.
But if
> a live baby animal, of a species previously thought to have been extinct, is
> found... then it's not ridiculous, it's "scientific," to say that it was
> born shortly before the day it was found.
I agree with you in the example above, Tom. But I think I remember
your saying "overwhelming evidence" on Mahjong's ancestry. I just
cited the fact that the ESWN are based on knowledge of flat earth and
pre-heliocentric days. Yet, it does not seem to matter a bit. I see
immediate rejection rather than receptive consideration. I thought it
was a valid point that could affect the history of mahjong,
where are the "scholars"? Discuss it now or we will have another
MAHJONGG story again.
I believe mahjong could be older and the evidence against that is not
"overwhelming". I will pursue it for my own curiosity & satisfaction.
I appreciate all the help given to me so far and I will need more.
Thanks. And cheers......
> Tom
AL
msta...@aol.com
Hello Dan. A quick read shows me we are in agreement on some points or
observations. I am writing up an article at the moment so cannot go
into detail at his point. However, regional variations and individual
preferences seem to be two very probable explanations.
>
> Note that the Sheng set may somewhat weaken my Taiping hypothesis
> since I would have expected the Zong Wang tile to have been eliminated
> if it represented the Christian God as I have proposed. Of course,
> this tile could have been assigned other meanings not related to the
> Taiping, but if the Sheng set's Confucian virtues tiles replacement of
> the directional tiles represent anti-Taiping ideology as I have
> suggested, then I would have expected at least a renaming for the Zong
> Wang tile (e.g. to Shang-di or something similar) even if it was
> retained in this set.
I agree. My view is that we need to look more closely at the context
in which these tiles are used - ie., the game itself.
> MJ historical development certainly gives room for speculation! I am
> glad to have the insights of individuals familiar with native Chinese
> culture to help puzzle out the possibilities. If the literati were
> responsible, at least in part, for MJ historical development, then
> their seeming love of obscure allusions to historical subjects,
> poetry, etc. could greatly hinder anyone not extremely familiar with
> classical Chinese learning! While I proposed that Fa may relate to
> archery (because of the 'Arrows' tile grouping, etc.), it could easily
> refer to other things that I am not familiar with, e.g. it could be a
> literary figure or poetic reference that could relate it to the
> possible 'Beauty' meaning (Tam Wing Kwong) for the Bai/White tiles,
> etc.
This is possible. It is annoying that no data has appeared as yet that
might hint at a probable explanation. It seems to be a remaining
mystery for now at least.
Cheers
Michael
msta...@aol.com
Dan, if you are interested, try and get the book 'China's Early
Industrialisation Sheng Xuanhuai and Mandarin Enterprise' by Albert
Feuerwerker. It has the material you have found plus much more. No
mention of maque though.
Cheers
Michael
PS I drew on this book for my article I am sending you.
msta...@aol.com
> On Jul 3, 11:17 am, "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@DONTsloperamaSPAMME.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "al" <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > > Now that brings up a point I tried to make all along. That is giving
> > > an age to the MJ sets according to the time they were collected and
> > > paid for is wrong and unscientific. I gave the analogy of assigning an
> > > age to North America according to the day of its discovery.
>
> > That's ridiculous, Allan. It's very "scientific" to annotate the date of the
> > first appearance of a thing, and to note that the thing came into existence
> > no later than that date.
>
> Hello, Tom, but the fact is that it could have come EARLIER than that
> date. That was my point. Not every collected set was brand new. Not
> all deceased set unearthed. Many sets have different designed tiles.
> As you said, "no later than that date" is correct. Any implication
> that none existed earlier is inaccurate. Any archaeologist will tell
> that.
Hello Allan. This point is not in dispute. Where is it implied that
"none existed earlier"??
> Furthermore, this is an important point, Tom. even if the Mj set was
> fresh out of a factory, the DESIGN of the game could have been from a
> thousand years ago.[snip]
This is also not in dispute. But that is not the same as saying that
it *probably* did come from a thousand years ago (in case that is what
you meant?). There is a huge gaping chasm between what is possible to
what is actual. That chasm is bridged by some form of unambiguous non
contradictory evidence. A lack of evidence is no evidence at all.
> >Of course it would be ridiculous to discover a continent on day X, and say that it had come into existence that day.
> That is what seems to be the thinking, Tom. Because the Cash and
> strings of Cash and the Wan are indisputable signs of heredity, until
> and unless a buried mahjong set can be found from an old tomb, then
> mahjong cannot be older than the late 19th century.
That is NOT my thinking Allan. Whose thinking is it??? Please tell me.
I would like to read where that thinking is written.
If you will forgive me Allan, but you have concluded with a statement
of certainty - "then mahjong *cannot be* older than...". There is a
huge difference between good reasons/evidence and certainty. I hope I
have not written anything to give that impression.
The situation which has been detailed on this group many times, is
that we have no good reasons to consider that the game (tile set, game
play and name) maque to be older than a certain period. This is NOT
equal to "cannot be older".
> I agree with you in the example above, Tom. But I think I remember
> your saying "overwhelming evidence" on Mahjong's ancestry. I just
> cited the fact that the ESWN are based on knowledge of flat earth and
> pre-heliocentric days. Yet, it does not seem to matter a bit. I see
> immediate rejection rather than receptive consideration.
Come now Allan. Please tell me where you haven't been given "receptive
consideration". I certainly considered your proposals. I may not have
commented on them or agreed with them but I certainly have considered
them. Anyway, what do you mean by "receptive"? Does it mean you were
not agreed with? Please tell me where you were immediately rejected???
> I believe mahjong could be older and the evidence against that is not
> "overwhelming".
Your belief is a claim, no more, no less. A claim's veracity is
established by the amount of evidence in its favour.
Your idea is possible and I do not want to discourage you from
pursuing it.
Cheers
Michael
al
Michael,
When it comes to semantics, you are miles ahead; as for Mahjong
knowledge/history, you are decades in advance. Speaking truthfully, I
value history as records of discoveries and I look to intuition and
imagination for solution to problems. That said, with mutual respect,
I need and ask for your help here, Michael.
You have mentioned the importance of evidence. Since we all are
interested in getting at the truth, so to speak, I won't hesitate to
ask you and others. What would be acceptable as qualified evidence in
our discussion topic, i.e. MJ was created before or earlier than the
17th century?
I mean what would you look for if you were I, try to prove it to a guy
like you? Give me examples of useful evidence or clues as where and
how to look for evidence. I assume you would like to know if any one
can come up answers pro or con to the status quo.
I remember you placed weight on predictability, as in your argument
for the "wan" as a link to MaDaio. What would be, in your view,
equivalent in weight for my argument? Is there something in the
precursor set (tile design for example) that can characterize and
identify an idea or material that may uniquely date the Game, not just
a particular set?
Come to think of it. I guess I have been from the beginning objecting
to the basic concept of putting an age to the game of Mahjong by
estimating the age of a few actual sets in existence. We are talking
about how old Mahjong is, or when the game was first created; not how
old the oldest sets in collection are.
I welcome your ideas and suggestions of parallels for comparison?
Looks like I have a lot of work to do. Any help will be appreciated.
Cheers...........AL
msta...@aol.com
Hello Allan.
> > Where is it implied that "none existed earlier"??
You didn't answer my question above. I need to know the answer to it
in case the info you have read on this NG needs to be clarified or
corrected.
> > > >Of course it would be ridiculous to discover a continent on day X, and say that it had come into existence that day.
> > > That is what seems to be the thinking, Tom. Because the Cash and
> > > strings of Cash and the Wan are indisputable signs of heredity, until
> > > and unless a buried mahjong set can be found from an old tomb, then
> > > mahjong cannot be older than the late 19th century.
> > That is NOT my thinking Allan. Whose thinking is it??? Please tell me.
> > I would like to read where that thinking is written.
Can you answer this one as well? I need to know in case info needs to
be corrected etc.
> Michael,
> When it comes to semantics, you are miles ahead; as for Mahjong
> knowledge/history, you are decades in advance.
Thanks for the compliments. ^_^ But I am neither. Just an inquiring
mind trying to make his way in the Universe. ^_^
> You have mentioned the importance of evidence. Since we all are
> interested in getting at the truth, so to speak, I won't hesitate to
> ask you and others. What would be acceptable as qualified evidence in
> our discussion topic, i.e. MJ was created before or earlier than the
> 17th century?
I would like to know if you have found anything related to the games'
established characteristics in the tile sets, the game-play or the
name.
>
> I mean what would you look for if you were I, try to prove it to a guy
> like you? Give me examples of useful evidence or clues as where and
> how to look for evidence. I assume you would like to know if any one
> can come up answers pro or con to the status quo.
Absolutely. For example, I offered an explantion for the extra tile
groups based on some cosmological concepts. But there is Dan's thesis
that could refute that and I look forward to it. I am also working on
a hypothesis that accounts for those tiles that may contradict my
earlier explanation.
Check out Dan's reasoning etc. He is using the 'ideal analogy'
approach. In this case it goes something like this...
The 3 established properties of the maque game above - tile set,
gameplay and name, each have additional properties - for example,
symbol designs, types of symbols, types of melds or some word for the
name. Once we have decided on which of those 3 properties to use, we
can then look for them in past records etc. If we find one of those
with the additional property(s) we could say that we have good reason
to suppose it is related to the maque game.
> I remember you placed weight on predictability, as in your argument
> for the "wan" as a link to MaDaio. What would be, in your view,
> equivalent in weight for my argument? Is there something in the
> precursor set (tile design for example) that can characterize and
> identify an idea or material that may uniquely date the Game, not just
> a particular set?
You will need to ask yourself "if I were to look into past records
etc, what properties of the maque game would I expect to find, given
my(ie.,your) ideas about the game's development".
> Come to think of it. I guess I have been from the beginning objecting
> to the basic concept of putting an age to the game of Mahjong by
> estimating the age of a few actual sets in existence. We are talking
> about how old Mahjong is, or when the game was first created; not how
> old the oldest sets in collection are.
I understand what you are saying of course. But you are claiming that
there is a conflation of two separate issues. As far as I am aware, no
one has claimed (1) that the oldest date of a set is X, therefore (2)
the age of the game is X. This is a non sequitur as you have pointed
out.
It is important that when we talk about the age of a set or sets or
name or gameplay that we say that the game's age, so far, has been
pushed back to so-and-so date. But that is not saying the game was
created at that date.
The age of the game is a continuum back into the past. We are going
back along that continuum step by step and those steps are the good
reasons we have for doing so. They happen to be based on the evidence
from sets, novels, name and gameplay. These reasons have allowed us to
step back to around 1870 or so. But no one, as far as I am aware, has
said it stops there.
So please tell me where it is said in this NG that the tile sets age
is the age of the games creation. I need to correct that notion where
it is written.
Cheers
Michael
al
> On Jul 4, 4:24?am, al <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 3, 4:18 pm, mstanw...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hello Allan.
>
> > > Where is it implied that "none existed earlier"??
>
> You didn't answer my question above. I need to know the answer to it
> in case the info you have read on this NG needs to be clarified or
> corrected.
I missed your question, Michael. I took this quote from FAQ#11.
"Many money card games evolved from matiao, and many variations of
money card decks have come and gone. Three-suited money cards became
favored (one of the four money suits was dropped), and in a
development that surely led to mah-jongg, a game known as Peng He Pai
used four sets of three-suited cards."
I thought "a development surely led to mah-jongg" gave the implication
or impression that mah-jong came after so and so a certainty. Did I
get a wrong impression?
>
> > > > >Of course it would be ridiculous to discover a continent on day X, and say that it had come into existence that day.
> > > > That is what seems to be the thinking, Tom. Because the Cash and
> > > > strings of Cash and the Wan are indisputable signs of heredity, until
> > > > and unless a buried mahjong set can be found from an old tomb, then
> > > > mahjong cannot be older than the late 19th century.
> > > That is NOT my thinking Allan. Whose thinking is it??? Please tell me.
> > > I would like to read where that thinking is written.
We have discussing about the evidence and linking of ""cash and
strings of cash" all this time. The "wan" was the key and predictor,
as I recall. Are these not the treads that link MJ to the "money-
based" game?
>
> Can you answer this one as well? I need to know in case info needs to
> be corrected etc.
Well, that was not my thinking for sure, Michael. I refuted the money-
based hypothesis and gave an over-view interpretation of the old card
games. As you may recall I repeatedly tried to de-emphasize the
significance of the "wan".
Sorry... I have to break here. Interruption is in progress... Allan
> > for the "wan" as a link to MaDaio. ?What would be, in your view,
msta...@aol.com
> > > > Where is it implied that "none existed earlier"??
>
> > You didn't answer my question above. I need to know the answer to it
> > in case the info you have read on this NG needs to be clarified or
> > corrected.
>
> I missed your question, Michael. I took this quote from FAQ#11.
>
> "Many money card games evolved from matiao, and many variations of
> money card decks have come and gone. Three-suited money cards became
> favored (one of the four money suits was dropped), and in a
> development that surely led to mah-jongg, a game known as Peng He Pai
> used four sets of three-suited cards."
>
> I thought "a development surely led to mah-jongg" gave the implication
> or impression that mah-jong came after so and so a certainty. Did I
> get a wrong impression?
Hello Allan. Thanks for the reply. So it came from Tom's website.
Could you ask him what he meant? I cannot provide an answer until I
know what Tom meant. The phrase you highlighted is ambiguous in that
there are more than one meaning.
> > > > > >Of course it would be ridiculous to discover a continent on day X, and say that it had come into existence that day.
> > > > > That is what seems to be the thinking, Tom. Because the Cash and
> > > > > strings of Cash and the Wan are indisputable signs of heredity, until
> > > > > and unless a buried mahjong set can be found from an old tomb, then
> > > > > mahjong cannot be older than the late 19th century.
> > > > That is NOT my thinking Allan. Whose thinking is it??? Please tell me.
> > > > I would like to read where that thinking is written.
>
> We have been discussing about the evidence and linking of ""cash and
> strings of cash" all this time. The "wan" was the key and predictor,
> as I recall. Are these not the threads that link MJ to the "money-
> based" game?
Sorry. You missed my point. I should have been more explicit. I was
pointing out your use of certainty or absolutism again, when you used
the word 'indisputable'. From the paragraph above I get the sense that
you are in fact saying that our knowledge - as illustrated by the
money hypothesis for example - is irrefutable. That is most certainly
NOT the case. Just because we have good reasons to consider it and
accept it as the mosat reasonable explanation does NOT mean that it is
100% the case. It is the best explanation we have at this point in
time. Best does not mean indispuable either. Another reasonable
explanation or bit of evidence might come along that contradicts the
money explanation.
> > Can you answer this one as well? I need to know in case info needs to
> > be corrected etc.
>
> Well, that was not my thinking for sure, Michael. I refuted the money-
> based hypothesis and gave an over-view interpretation of the old card
> games. As you may recall I repeatedly tried to de-emphasize the
> significance of the "wan".
Oh, OK. But I recall that you argued against the hypothesis. I don't
recall you refuting it. I remember the 'wan' bit but I don't recall
your arguments being strong enough to rebut anything.
>
> Sorry... I have to break here. Interruption is in progress... Allan
>
Sure. Ok.
Michael
Tom Sloper
>> I took this quote from FAQ#11.
>>
>> "Many money card games evolved from matiao, and many variations of
>> money card decks have come and gone. Three-suited money cards became
>> favored (one of the four money suits was dropped), and in a
>> development that surely led to mah-jongg, a game known as Peng He Pai
>> used four sets of three-suited cards."
>>
>> I thought "a development surely led to mah-jongg" gave the implication
>> or impression that mah-jong came after so and so a certainty. Did I
>> get a wrong impression?
msta...@aol.com> wrote:
>Hello Allan. Thanks for the reply. So it came from Tom's website.
>Could you ask him what he meant? I cannot provide an answer until I
>know what Tom meant. The phrase you highlighted is ambiguous in that
>there are more than one meaning.
Michael, you don't need to ask Allan to ask me to explain myself. You can
ask me directly, if you feel compelled to.
Not being the diligent scholar that you are, I think what I wrote is
sufficiently clear as to be self-explanatory. I refer you to this entry in
FAQ 11h, the timeline:
* Ching era; Chian-lung Years (1735 - 95) [China]; You-Hu was now more
popular than Matiao, and Peng He Pai expanded the number of cards to 120 or
150. (Source: MJM) John (Zi Rong) Low says that the Peng He Pai playing
cards were also known as zhi pai, and that this game was rummylike.
Cheers,
Tom
al
wrote:
> Allan wrote:
> >> I took this quote from FAQ#11.
>
> >> "Many money card games evolved from matiao, and many variations of
> >> money card decks have come and gone. Three-suited money cards became
> >> favored (one of the four money suits was dropped), and in a
> >> development that surely led to mah-jongg, a game known as Peng He Pai
> >> used four sets of three-suited cards."
>
> >> I thought "a development surely led to mah-jongg" gave the implication
> >> or impression that mah-jong came after so and so a certainty. Did I
> >> get a wrong impression?
> >Hello Allan. Thanks for the reply. So it came from Tom's website.
> >Could you ask him what he meant? I cannot provide an answer until I
> >know what Tom meant. The phrase you highlighted is ambiguous in that
> >there are more than one meaning.
>
> Michael, you don't need to ask Allan to ask me to explain myself. You can
> ask me directly, if you feel compelled to.
>
> Not being the diligent scholar that you are, I think what I wrote is
> sufficiently clear as to be self-explanatory. I refer you to this entry in
> FAQ 11h, the timeline:
> * Ching era; Chian-lung Years (1735 - 95) [China]; You-Hu was now more
> popular than Matiao, and Peng He Pai expanded the number of cards to 120 or
> 150. (Source: MJM) John (Zi Rong) Low says that the Peng He Pai playing
> cards were also known as zhi pai, and that this game was rummylike.
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
+++++++++++++++++++
Tom, since I am even less of a scholar than you are, I have admit I am
unsure what the passage above tries to says. To me it is not "self-
explanatory" if your reference to time-line. I mean what comes after
what ? The implication was that Peng He pai comes after Matiao and
before Mahjong (with high degree of certainty?)
My point is that the implied degree of certainty is not justified.
Since I was quoting from your FAQ, Michael must have felt that I
should let you to clarify. I think that was what was meant.
Cheers, AL
++++++++++++++++++++
msta...@aol.com
wrote:
> mstanw...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Hello Allan. Thanks for the reply. So it came from Tom's website.
> >Could you ask him what he meant? I cannot provide an answer until I
> >know what Tom meant. The phrase you highlighted is ambiguous in that
> >there are more than one meaning.
>
> Michael, you don't need to ask Allan to ask me to explain myself. You can
> ask me directly, if you feel compelled to.
Hello Tom. Thanks for the offer. However, I took the view that there
was more to it than a simple request. The problem seemed to be that
Allan might be misinterpreting what you wrote. Since he was the person
making the claim about what you wrote, then it should be him who does
the spade work, so-to-speak.
You see he was making the claim so therefore it should be him that
provides the answer or clarification. I wasn't going to do the job as
it was not me who made the claim. The same would be the case if I were
making a claim.
> Not being the diligent scholar that you are, I think what I wrote is
> sufficiently clear as to be self-explanatory. I refer you to this entry in
> FAQ 11h, the timeline:
> * Ching era; Chian-lung Years (1735 - 95) [China]; You-Hu was now more
> popular than Matiao, and Peng He Pai expanded the number of cards to 120 or
> 150. (Source: MJM) John (Zi Rong) Low says that the Peng He Pai playing
> cards were also known as zhi pai, and that this game was rummylike.
This is interesting as it is not the quote below that Allan had cited.
"Many money card games evolved from matiao, and many variations of
money card decks have come and gone. Three-suited money cards became
favored (one of the four money suits was dropped), and in a
development that surely led to mah-jongg, a game known as Peng He Pai
used four sets of three-suited cards."
I cannot find it on the website. can you assist me?
Cheers
Michael
Tom Sloper
> This is interesting as it is not the quote below that Allan had cited.
>
> "Many money card games evolved from matiao, and many variations of
> money card decks have come and gone. Three-suited money cards became
> favored (one of the four money suits was dropped), and in a
> development that surely led to mah-jongg, a game known as Peng He Pai
> used four sets of three-suited cards."
>
> I cannot find it on the website. can you assist me?
That quote is on FAQ 11b. I referred you to FAQ 11h as the basis for what I
wrote in FAQ 11b.
I'm not going to spend any effort defending what I wrote in either case - if
someone shows me where something I wrote is factually incorrect and needs to
be changed, I'll consider changing it. Wording recommendations would be a
bonus.
Cheers,
Tom
al
wrote:
> <mstanw...@aol.com> wrote
[[I thought
"a development surely led to mah-jongg"
gave the implication or impression that mah-jong came after so and so
a certainty. Did I get a wrong impression?]]
Tom, the above was what I wrote in a reply to Michael when he asked
me to show him where the age of Mahjong was implied or indicated as
nearly a certainty.
Surely you don't mean "surely" or did you?
Cheers.....AL
Tom Sloper
> [[I thought...
> "a development surely led to mah-jongg"
> a certainty. Did I get a wrong impression?]]
> Tom, the above was what I wrote in a reply to Michael when he asked
> me to show him where the age of Mahjong was implied or indicated as
> nearly a certainty.
> Surely you don't mean "surely" or did you?
Surely I do. And surely I believe that it surely did.
I am not the scholar that Michael is, I don't have the kind of patience that
Michael does, and my FAQs are not meant to be on the same scholarly level
(beholden to the same rigorous scholarly requirements) that Michael's
articles are on. I don't intend to get into an endless debate justifying
what I believe or why I believe it. And I don't intend to debate what
wording I should have used instead. Show me facts that indicate that I've
misstated the history of games, and I'll change what I wrote. But you'll
have to do it without involving me.
In another thread, pertinent to this discussion, Allan wrote:
>I am looking for an explanation and evidence to support my hypothesis
>that MJ is older than back to the 18th or 19th century. Any clues you
>can suggest?
Sorry. As you have seen by my writings (those very writings you are
questioning in this thread), I believe otherwise.
Tom
msta...@aol.com
> Surely you don't mean "surely" or did you?
Allan. From what Tom has provided, it now seems that I can say the
term 'surely' is meant to indicate a strong belief.
The belief is in fact an *inference* made between two sets of data -
on the one hand the quadruplication + construction of 3 suits + draw
and discard, and on the other hand the set of facts regarding ma que,
the 3 suits, quadruplication = draw and discard.
The additional *inference* is between the data of peng he pai's period
of appearance and the period of appearance of ma que (from what we
know at this point in time).
Tom has made it clear he will not discuss his inferences, but he will
discuss his facts - better if he is supplied with factual corrections
if you have any.
However, I don't think there is a need to discuss the facts/data in
any case, as the real meat, as always, is in the inferences we make
when we use those facts/data.
I think you should take "surely" this way; As far as we know from the
data so far - the modification of the four suited money pack to three
suits + the quadruplication of each card + the coupling of the draw
and discard method to this three suited pack + the development of
melds that these allowed (in a game like peng he pai) - we have good
reasons to therefore consider that these were strong influences the
development of maque.
Isn't it amazing what a little word like "surely" can contain? ^_^
Cheers
Michael
al
Hello, Michael,
Surely it's amazing.
I recall Dr. David H. Li's blog in which he said it was one little
word translated from Chinese to English that was misconstrued as to
mean "foreigner" in a negative tone (intentionally or otherwise) by
the British and they started the Opium War of 1842.
Yes. Pens can be mighty than swords, especially when you have both
the words and the swords!
Cheers....AL
al
wrote:
> "al" <a...@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > [[I thought...
> > "a development surely led to mah-jongg"
> > ...gave the implication or impression that mah-jong came after so and so
> > a certainty. Did I get a wrong impression?]]
> > Tom, the above was what I wrote in a reply to Michael when he asked
> > me to show him where the age of Mahjong was implied or indicated as
> > nearly a certainty.
> > Surely you don't mean "surely" or did you?
>
> Surely I do. And surely I believe that it surely did.
That is clear enough. It does not mean what you believe is true,
though.
>
> I am not the scholar that Michael is, I don't have the kind of patience that
> Michael does, and my FAQs are not meant to be on the same scholarly level
> (beholden to the same rigorous scholarly requirements) that Michael's
> articles are on.
Michael is truly a gentleman and a scholar. We agree on that.
We are not looking at scholarly level in writing. I was looking for
accuracy and clarity.
>I don't intend to get into an endless debate justifying
> what I believe or why I believe it. And I don't intend to debate what
> wording I should have used instead. Show me facts that indicate that I've
> misstated the history of games, and I'll change what I wrote. But you'll
> have to do it without involving me.
I just did that, Tom. The development of games did not "surely" lead
to Mahjong as stated. It was only a probability, not a certainty as
sure as you had implied and stated.
>
You may not want to debate on "wording", but all your words are
important to the game and in the world of Mahjong, Tom. Your FAQ
readership is worldwide.Your words are influential.
> In another thread, pertinent to this discussion, Allan wrote:
>
> >I am looking for an explanation and evidence to support my hypothesis
> >that MJ is older than back to the 18th or 19th century. Any clues you
> >can suggest?
>
> Sorry. As you have seen by my writings (those very writings you are
> questioning in this thread), I believe otherwise.
> Tom
My invitation is open all members and I intend to pursue the question.
That's okay, Tom. I accept that when a writer and publisher believes
in what s/he published. By the same token, when I believed differently
I expect you to understand.
I believe the development of Mahjong is not yet or may be never will
be a certainty. Take a quick look at Fig.01 (in your FAQ #11) and see
how "History and Culture of Mahjong" shows the dice game and card game
linked directly to MJ. There are big gaps between dice games, card
games and Mahjong unexplained as yet. Why can't Mahjong tiles come
before cards? Wood and bamboo, as well as bones and ivory, came before
paper. Knives came before pens and printing press. It was much simpler
to carve a few symbols than to draw up detailed pictures as seen on
cards. These are factual information. We need common sense thinking in
addition to evidence. I did appeal for help. I expect to get it
somehow.
One more point to consider is this. The (East South West North)
rotation in Mahjong play is contrary to reality proven by Galileo and
theorized by Copernicus hundreds of year before the earliest MJ set
was bought. Isn't that a simple fact that indicates the Chinese who
created the MJ game at a time when they still believed the sun was
revolving around the earth? The movement of the sun was tracked by
measuring its shadow cast by a pole and determined summer solstice and
winter solstice. The sun's apparent path around the earth is the
ecliptic. That data may be the logical explanation for the reversed
directions in Mahjong. And if so, do you think the game might have
originated before the 19th century? I would surely think it could. The
earth was flat with 4 corners and even a king for a central region in
the evolution of the game.
Cheers......ALI