Mancala & Backgammon
Patronius
I've wondered about this for some time. Maybe someone here can help.
Are Mancala (Wari/Awari) and Backgammon related? If so, which came first?
Granted, they're two different kinds of games, as played today. But it seems
to me that the movement of stones along a track in both games is too basic a
thing to be incidentally common to the two games. Also, Mancala seems to have
had its origin in Africa; and Backgammon has been especially popular in North
Africa and the Middle East.
Of course, the Indian game Pachisi (and Ashtapada) may fit in here somewhere
too. Does anyone know where, or how?
Patrick Carroll
patr...@aol.com
Bruno Faidutti
In article (Dans l'article)
<199805040145...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, patr...@aol.com
(Patronius) wrote (écrivait) :
> I've wondered about this for some time. Maybe someone here can help.
>
> Are Mancala (Wari/Awari) and Backgammon related? If so, which came first?
>
> Granted, they're two different kinds of games, as played today. But it seems
> to me that the movement of stones along a track in both games is too basic a
> thing to be incidentally common to the two games. Also, Mancala seems to have
> had its origin in Africa; and Backgammon has been especially popular in North
> Africa and the Middle East.
Mancala and Backgammon are very likely related. Old egyptian gameboards
have been discovered, which belongs to a game probably related to both of
them (it can be the ancester of both, or an evolution of mancala which
later gave birth to backgammon). Nothing is really sure, because the exact
rules of the egyptian games are not known: we have only board, tokens and
dice.
I don't know how parchisi fits in there, but this seems also likely to me.
R. Maker
Patronius wrote:
>
> I've wondered about this for some time. Maybe someone here can help.
>
> Are Mancala (Wari/Awari) and Backgammon related? If so, which came first?
>
> Granted, they're two different kinds of games, as played today. But it seems
> to me that the movement of stones along a track in both games is too basic a
You've got the wrong end of this. There has been a lot of study in the
last century or so by anthropologists on the question of diffusion vs.
independent origin of cultural features, and the general consensus is
that the basics are the most commonly reinvented. Similarities in the
details are what demonstrate diffusion. As an example, graphicly
recording words (writing) is a basic trait and almost certainly invented
in numerous cultures. Use of the Latin alphabet or the Chinese
pictographs is a detail. Western Europe learned writing from the
Romans. The Japanese and Koreans learned it from the Chinese.
This does not disprove a relationship between Mancala and Backgammon,
but it does indicate that more specific evidence is needed.
Ross
Patronius
>> it
>seems
>> to me that the movement of stones along a track in both games is too basic
>a
>> thing to be incidentally common to the two games. <snip>
>
reinvented. Similarities in the
>details are what demonstrate diffusion.
>
>but it does indicate that more specific evidence is needed.
OK, agreed. I'm still curious, though.
As to bits of specific evidence--besides noting that the two games may have had
the same geographical point of origin--I'd mention that the standard Mancala
board has 12 pits, which is the same as one side of the Backgammon board. Also
that there's (in some sense) capturing/blocking in both games--i.e., when there
are at least X number of stones on a point, they're safe; but if there are less
than X, they're subject to capture (or to being bumped, in the case of
Backgammon).
Patrick Carroll
patr...@aol.com
Wgreview
Patronius (patr...@aol.com) has been suggesting that
similarities between mancala and backgammon might indicate a
common origin. I cannot see a single interesting similarity
between them, other than being board games of skill.
Backgammon is a dice-based race game, where pieces move (in
essence) one at a time. The "circular" board is an illusion; the
track is essentially a single 24-point path (or 26 if you count the
bar and bearoff areas). Pieces in backgammon are colored to
mark their owners.
Mancala is a perfect information game in which the pieces
move along a true circular path, but using a highly distinctive
movement system. Pieces in mancala belong temporarily to the
player on whose side they lie. The mancala board is six pits
wide only in some variants (e.g. wari); in others it is seven or
more wide (in some variants (kahala) the large end pit on a
player's own side is also part of the movement path, in others
they are merely storage pits for captured pieces).
Patronius wrote:
>I'd mention that the standard Mancala board has 12 pits ...
There's no such thing as a standard mancala board.
>...when there are at least X number of stones on a point, they're
>safe; but if there are less than X, they're subject to capture...
Again not a standard. Different mancala games use several
different kinds of capturing methods. It's not standard in
backgammon-like games either -- some have no capturing whatsoever, and are pure
blocking/racing games.
Michael Keller, World Game Review, 1747 Little Creek Drive, Baltimore, MD
21207-5230, <Wgre...@aol.com>, http://members.aol.com/wgreview/index.html
Patronius
> Patronius (patr...@aol.com) has been suggesting that
>similarities between mancala and backgammon might indicate a
>common origin. I cannot see a single interesting similarity
>between them, other than being board games of skill.
Well, maybe you just don't find the obvious similarities interesting, then.
> Backgammon is a dice-based race game, where pieces move (in
>essence) one at a time. The "circular" board is an illusion; the
>track is essentially a single 24-point path (or 26 if you count the
>bar and bearoff areas). Pieces in backgammon are colored to
>mark their owners.
> Mancala is a perfect information game . . .
An irrelevant fact to me. Many games have evolved from dicey to "perfect
information." Chess is one example.
> in which the pieces
>move along a true circular path, . . .
Another petty detail from my point of view. Whether the track is truly
circular or not, it's still a track. Each stone occupies a specific point on
the track and moves in a prescribed direction along it.
> but using a highly distinctive
>movement system. . . .
True, the movement system in mancala is unique. But it could have been
developed in response to the dice being taken away from the original game (if
the original game used dice). Or the backgammon movement system could have
been devised to facilitate the use of dice (if the original game did not have
dice).
>Pieces in mancala belong temporarily to the
>player on whose side they lie.
Yes, now there's a real difference, IMHO. If the two games do have a common
origin, it seems to me that this feature shows distinct cultural preferences.
Backgammon is clearly an "us vs them" game, like most in the Indian/Roman
world. Mancala reflects a whole different cultural mindset. Still, I think
the two games could have had a common origin but developed in these two
directions.
> The mancala board is six pits
>wide only in some variants (e.g. wari); in others it is seven or
>more wide (in some variants (kahala) the large end pit on a
>player's own side is also part of the movement path, in others
>they are merely storage pits for captured pieces).
And the storage pit or end pit rather reminds me of the "bar" in backgammon,
though used for a different purpose. Is it purely accidental that many mancala
boards are shaped as two facing rows of pits--much like the two facing rows of
points in backgammon? I tend to think not.
I'll freely admit that I'm being less than scientific here. I just have a
strong hunch that there's a historical connection between mancala and
backgammon (and pachisi, etc.).
Patrick Carroll
patr...@aol.com
Kevin J. Maroney
wgre...@aol.com (Wgreview) wrote:
>Patronius wrote:
>>I'd mention that the standard Mancala board has 12 pits ...
>
> There's no such thing as a standard mancala board.
Right. The most common are 5-pits or 6-pits on a side with a well at
either end for captured pieces, which has no analog in any backgammon
ancestor of which I know.
>>...when there are at least X number of stones on a point, they're
>>safe; but if there are less than X, they're subject to capture...
>
> Again not a standard. Different mancala games use several
>different kinds of capturing methods. It's not standard in
>backgammon-like games either -- some have no capturing whatsoever, and are pure
>blocking/racing games.
The most important point is that backgammon is a clear decendent of
Roman race games. Despite the fact that the Roman empire ruled
significant parts of North Africa, I've never seen any evidence that
mancala was played in the European parts of either Roman empire.
Larry Russ probably knows more about this subject than any person
alive; let's hope that he jumps in.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Patronius
Reposted from another thread:
> What I've long wondered about is the connection between Mancala and
Backgammon.
> Are they related? Which came first?
As the earliest known "backgammon" boards involved three rows as did a
family of
mancala games I suspect that they are related but only in the sense of
originally
using the same board. These original versions of backgammon, by the way, are
probably around 2,000 to 3,000 years old. It is interesting to note that the
six-"well" design of both mancala and backgammon games suggests the use of
six-sided dice yet there is little evidence of six-sided dice in any of the
ancient
mancala sites (throwing sticks, shards, coins were generally used). Probably,
that
is a fortuitous coincidence. Mancala generally consists of six wells plus the
"storage" well. This is probably of divinatory significance deriving from the
"seven gods". As the rows increase but the number of "storage" wells stayed one
or
one for each player the well number focused on six. Then, when the six-sided
die
was introduced for backgammon the use of the six-well pattern became obvious.
Although a one track version of mancala is probably older the game of senet
has
been been found on 5,000 year old egyptian murals and the related "royal game
of
Ur" is also around 5,000 years old. Both appear to be related games and show a
level of sophistication and popularity that suggests at least several centuries
of
development before that. So senet is almost certainly older than Go.
Geoffrey Tolle
WBec...@mindspring.com
Both Backgammon, Mancala, and Nine Men's Morris have their roots in North
Africa, particularly egypt. Parchesi, although this is not known, is thought
to be an evolution of Backgammon, simplified in some ways, varied in others.
Tic Tac Toe, or Noughts and Crosses, is a simplified Nine Men's Morris, used
to teach players the basics before actually playing NMM.
I personally think that Mancala came before Backgammon and that Backgammon
came from Mancala, but this is entirely my own guessing.
Will Beckley
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Wgreview
Geoffrey Tolle <gto...@infinet.com> wrote, and Patronius
reposted for no apparent reason:
>What appear to be very early versions of Mancala boards have
>been found in Egypt and Palestine dating roughly 3,000 years old.
>Given the nature of play of Mancala I suspect that it is probably
>almost as old as counting in the Middle East.
There is no doubt than mancala is one of the world's most
ancient games.
>As the earliest known "backgammon" boards involved three rows ...
The ancient Egyptian race games played on a three-rowed
board, whose rules can only be guessed at, can hardly be called
backgammon yet -- more like a primitive pachisi-like game. What
sets backgammon apart from its ancestors is the relatively large
number of pieces per side and the sophisticated blocking strategies
which result. The first games that can be remotely called
backgammon are from the Roman period.
>as did a family of mancala games ...
Larry Russ's detailed book of mancala variations lists only
two games played on three-row boards -- a tiny minority compared
to the dozens of games played on two- and four-rank boards of
lengths ranging from four pits to more than twenty. Without
solid evidence I find it hard to believe that the original mancala
was played on a three-row board.
>It is interesting to note that the six-"well" design of both
>mancala and backgammon games ...
Once again, boards six pits long are merely one of many
size variations.
>suggests the use of six-sided dice ...
The earliest forms of dice were mostly three- and four-sided.
Robert McConville, in "The History of Board Games", says (p.11):
"The cubic die was the last step in the story of dice.... No cubic
die were found [sic] in Egypt before the Seventh Century B.C."
>yet there is little evidence of six-sided dice in any of the
>ancient mancala sites (throwing sticks, shards, coins were
>generally used). Probably, that is a fortuitous coincidence.
Probably that is because mancala is not a race game, and
has no need whatsoever for dice.
>Mancala generally consists of six wells plus the "storage" well.
Mancala doesn't generally consist of anything of the kind.
Not only does size vary greatly, but storage wells are by no
means standard.
>... Then, when the six-sided die was introduced for backgammon the
>use of the six-well pattern became obvious.
The size of the backgammon board is logical, given the use of
six-sided dice, but what on earth does that have to do with mancala?
Geoffrey Tolle
Wgreview wrote:
> Geoffrey Tolle <gto...@infinet.com> wrote, and Patronius
> reposted for no apparent reason:
> >As the earliest known "backgammon" boards involved three rows ...
>
> The ancient Egyptian race games played on a three-rowed
> board, whose rules can only be guessed at, can hardly be called
> backgammon yet -- more like a primitive pachisi-like game. What
> sets backgammon apart from its ancestors is the relatively large
> number of pieces per side and the sophisticated blocking strategies
> which result. The first games that can be remotely called
> backgammon are from the Roman period.
I was unclear on that point. The egyptian three-row game that you refer to
(senet) is not what I was refering to. I was refering to the roman-era games some
of which have been found from ptolomaic-era Egypt (and which I am most familiar
with).
> >as did a family of mancala games ...
>
> Larry Russ's detailed book of mancala variations lists only
> two games played on three-row boards -- a tiny minority compared
> to the dozens of games played on two- and four-rank boards of
> lengths ranging from four pits to more than twenty. Without
> solid evidence I find it hard to believe that the original mancala
> was played on a three-row board.
Your mention of numbers of mancala variants is probably quite accurate.
However, the three-row board is the "national" mancala of Ethiopia. As such it is
ancient, played by a fair number of people and easily accessible to Egyptians,
Greeks, Indians, and, probably, Romans. I never asserted that the original
mancala board was a three-row game. To the contrary, I believe I mentioned that
the "probably" original mancala consisted of seven wells. What I didn't mention
was that it was the variant with six wells in a circle around a larger central
one. Of course, it is uncertain that it is mancala but it seems likely.
> >It is interesting to note that the six-"well" design of both
> >mancala and backgammon games ...
>
> Once again, boards six pits long are merely one of many
> size variations.
Agreed, but the six well game and its multiples are among the most common and
among the most ancient.
> >suggests the use of six-sided dice ...
>
> The earliest forms of dice were mostly three- and four-sided.
> Robert McConville, in "The History of Board Games", says (p.11):
> "The cubic die was the last step in the story of dice.... No cubic
> die were found [sic] in Egypt before the Seventh Century B.C."
I believe that I made essentially the same point.
> >yet there is little evidence of six-sided dice in any of the
> >ancient mancala sites (throwing sticks, shards, coins were
> >generally used). Probably, that is a fortuitous coincidence.
>
> Probably that is because mancala is not a race game, and
> has no need whatsoever for dice.
Mancala, as we have known it for the last millennia or so, involves no
randomness. We know nothing about its divinatory origins (although I doubt that
it ever involved dice or throwing sticks). My point was that three-row double
six-well boards were known. When six-sided dice were introduced to the area the
obvious synergy between the board and the dice could easily have produced the
first "backgammon" games. No mancala rules involved.
> >Mancala generally consists of six wells plus the "storage" well.
>
> Mancala doesn't generally consist of anything of the kind.
> Not only does size vary greatly, but storage wells are by no
> means standard.
The six well point I mentioned above. Of the ten or so variants that I'm aware
of (which probably covers 90+% of the mancala games played around the world all
of them involve storage wells so I'm not sure where your second comment comes
from.
> >... Then, when the six-sided die was introduced for backgammon the
> >use of the six-well pattern became obvious.
>
> The size of the backgammon board is logical, given the use of
> six-sided dice, but what on earth does that have to do with mancala?
As mentioned above.
Geoffrey
Tolle
WBec...@mindspring.com
> > The earliest forms of dice were mostly three- and four-sided.
Wait a sec here. What is a 3 sided die and what does it look like? I am very
confused. Also, what has been said is probably somewhat proven, but I think
that cubic dice are more simple than any other polyhedral shaped die. The
constant right angles make it much simpler than odd angles used in others. Of
course, ancient dice were probably not regular (conguent sides and angles)
either.
Patronius
>Wait a sec here. What is a 3 sided die and what does it look like? I am very
>confused. Also, what has been said is probably somewhat proven, but I think
>that cubic dice are more simple than any other polyhedral shaped die. The
>constant right angles make it much simpler than odd angles used in others. Of
>course, ancient dice were probably not regular (conguent sides and angles)
>either.
Well, since the blind are leading the blind here anyway, I'll pitch in again
too.
As I understand it, some early dice were made of animals' knucklebones. And a
primitive two-sided die was the cowrie shell, which can land flat (open) side
up or flat side down. Also, the ancient Indian game Chaturanga (and probably
Ashtapada too, since they shared the same board) used 4-sided dice, if I
remember right: cube-shaped but elongated, with only the long sides numbered
(the ends didn't count, and the dice never landed on the ends).
A 3-sided die, I suppose, would look triangular from the ends (which are
unnumbered and don't count) but rectangular from any of the three side views.
Patrick Carroll
patr...@aol.com
Wgreview
Many early dice were not polyhedrons at all, but "long dice" which rolled along
only one axis (think of a sort of pencil shape).
Glenn Kuntz
patr...@aol.com (Patronius) wrote:
>>Wait a sec here. What is a 3 sided die and what does it look like?
>
>unnumbered and don't count) but rectangular from any of the three side views.
Another variation was done using (in various cultures)
essentially 2-sided dice. For example, 2 coins. They could
land both heads (25%) both tails (25%) or one of each (50%)
Not a "true" balanced 3-sided, but still 3 possible outcomes.
--
The CROKINOLE Board
http://www.frontiernet.net/~crokinol
Geoffrey Tolle
WBec...@Mindspring.com wrote:
> > > The earliest forms of dice were mostly three- and four-sided.
>
> Wait a sec here. What is a 3 sided die and what does it look like? I am very
> confused. Also, what has been said is probably somewhat proven, but I think
> that cubic dice are more simple than any other polyhedral shaped die. The
> constant right angles make it much simpler than odd angles used in others. Of
> course, ancient dice were probably not regular (conguent sides and angles)
> either.
I can't say that I remember a 3-sided die. There was a tetrahedral die (four
triangular sides) but the only examples of it that we have had, for instance, two
painted and two unpainted corners. This allowed for a roll of "one" or "two". It
seems a waste of a perfectly good four-sided die but who can tell. As for the
six-sided die, as Patronius pointed out, knuckle bones, shells, pottery shards,
and split sticks were the easiest to come by. Six-siders take a lot of work to
make by hand without steel implements.
Geoffrey Tolle
R. Maker
There is also a device called a Teetotum which is spun like a top and
comes to rest leaning or lying with one side up. The dreidel (sp?) used
by Jewish children at Hannukah is a four-sided teetotum.
Ross