 |
|
|
|
[History of MAHJONG - Front page] Related topics: Topic 205 | Topic 205a | Topic 205b | Topic 205c History of MAHJONG - HKOS and Chinese Classical
The mahjong world is complicated...
Arguments from those with different points of view certainly exist! A record of other or related arguments may be found at the Mahjong FAQ Database maintained by Mr Tom Sloper. Visit "http://www.sloperama.com/mjfaq.html", then click on the link "FAQ 11b. The CC Theory". It was an ongoing debate in the mahjong newsgroup (rec.games.mahjong) about the history and origin of the game MAHJONG. Instead of accepting the long existing fact that the development of MAHJONG has itself a long, unknown and undocumented history, some writers attempt at all times to conclude that Chinese Classical ("CC") is the only origin of MAHJONG and that all other variants are simply its descendants. Such attempts are based mostly on certain books published in recent years (late 1990's), and on the ignorance of the fact that most parts of the history of MAHJONG are still unrevealed. Those who attempt to make such conclusions usually quote books published in the 1920's, and The Complete Book of Mah-Jongg by A.D. Millington published in 1977. I have researched books on MAHJONG for several months since late 2001. I could not find any books published in the 1920's. I also could not see any original texts that were quoted out of any books by their actual names that were published in the 1920's. I, however, do not conclude that those books or the quotes are non-existent. I understand that they are simply not available to me. With reasonable belief, I assume that none of those books of the 1920's mentioned the game of MAHJONG by the name "Classical", "Chinese Classical", or any similar names. I also assume that none of those books of the 1920's gave any absolute suggestion that there was only one style of MAHJONG game that existed at that time, except the fact that all of these books could have called all game styles by one general name, MAHJONG. The purposes of my research are to prove the following conclusions: (1) Chinese Classical is not the origin of MAHJONG, or at least, Chinese Classical is not the only origin of MAHJONG. (2) Many variants, including Cantonese Mahjong or Hong Kong Old Style ("HKOS"), are simply not the descendants of Chinese Classical ("CC"). Many variants, including HKOS and CC, could have co-existed altogether for the long, undocumented history of the evolution and development of the game MAHJONG. I believe the following results of the research support these conclusions. (A) Was CC the origin of MAHJONG?This is a question that is as difficult to answer as to a similar question: "Was HKOS the origin of MAHJONG?" In my opinion, any definition of MAHJONG is itself not definite. One may define what CC is, what HKOS is, what IMJ is. However, one might not be qualified to define what MAHJONG is, as no any of such definition can be deemed to be absolute or definite, unless the history of MAHJONG itself can eventually be revealed and concluded in every detail. To those who insist that CC was the (only) origin of MAHJONG, I wish to draw their attention to what Millington had said. In The Complete Book of Mah-Jongg (1977), he wrote:
(p.7) In seeking to determine the true form of Mah-Jongg, of its rules, spirit and philosophy, we therefore proceeded first by an historical enquiry, asking which forms of Mah-Jongg were "authentic" - that is, which were played in China during the second decade of the twentieth century. This question was fortunately quite easy to answer, as a very considerable corpus of Mah-Jongg literature, by Chinese and Western authors, has come down to us from that period. It reveals, however, that even within China a very considerable diversity prevailed in the details of the game. Our second question was therefore to ask which of the variant forms was the most perfect, philosophically considered; which came nearest to the ideal form of Mah-Jongg; which was the most logical and internally consistent... Millington clearly knew that "several popular Chinese variant forms" were in fact co-existing with the form of game he defined as "Classical". He also clearly acknowledged in his search for the "authentic" game of MAHJONG, that "even within China a very considerable diversity prevailed in the details of the game". It should be a fact that many variant forms of MAHJONG had long been co-existing and they were all referred to the same name MAHJONG in general. CC and HKOS, which are names created and found in modern literature, were obviously games among those variant forms. (B) An evolved game rather than an invented game.It is a commonly accepted fact that MAHJONG is an evolved game, rather than an invented game. This gives reasonable ground that more than one style had actually been evolved from different point in time and in different places. Thus, CC must not have been the origin of the game, or, it must not have been the only origin of MAHJONG. As far as "proto mahjong" is concerned, there should have been more than one. (C) When games were evolved over time, which one should come first - simplicity or complication?It is more reasonable that games are evolved from simple and easy, through to complicated and difficult. HKOS is simpler and easier than CC. It is very reasonable to assume that HKOS existed even earlier than CC, should HKOS and CC are related to each other. An experience I have with a card game called "Big 2" might give you some hint how the score settlement of CC could have been developed. Big 2 is a game played by four players where each player is dealt with 13 cards. In turn a player may discard cards to beat cards of other players, with cards #3 being the lowest rank and #2 the highest. The one who exhausts all of his cards first wins the game, and collects amount from all other players according to the total points of all remaining cards in each player's hand. When I first played this game in/around 1985/6, only the winning player would collect money from the 3 losing players (no settlement of scores among players other than the winner - similar to the score settlement system in HKOS). In a very short period, we found ourselves playing with a modified settlement system where not only the winning player collects money, but also all losing players settle the difference among one another (similar to the score settlement system in CC). (D) How scores are settled in MAHJONG?The most important differences between HKOS and CC are the way players settle the scores when a player wins a Game (A "Game" is herein defined as a complete process of a short playing period ended in a result involving the paying and receiving of scores). MAHJONG is believed to be evolved or developed from games like "Matiao", "Domino", "Rummy", "Tian Jiu" (Heaven Nine). Knowing how scores are being settled in these games may give some hints or indications whether or not, and how, HKOS and CC were evolved or developed from these games. (In this section (D), texts quoted from the referred original articles are in "..." and/or (...), while remarks made by Cofa are in [...].)
The following is a message posted to the mahjong newsgroup by John McLeod, regarding "Matiao":
This message didn't say whether there is "settlement of scores between players other than the winning player". I don't know how players settle scores when one has won in the game of Matiao (Ma Diao). I tried to get some input by posting a query to the newsgroups rec.games.mahjong and rec.games.playing-cards but could not get any answer. I don't play Domino and Tian Jiu and don't have information as to how the winning player is being scored. I asked a friend who used to play Tian Jiu. He said "only one player wins in a game and the winning player collects money from all other players". I searched several web sites for the answers about other games. The following are my findings: Si Se Pai - One of several "Asian Rummy Games": "Generally, points are turned into monetary units (e.g., dollars) and are paid to the winner by the loser (the player who discarded the winning card, or, if the card was drawn, all players pay that amount)." [Wai Wa Huang's "Rules for Si4 Se4 Pai2 (Chinese Chess Cards)" at Link] [Viewed Feb 19, 2002] The game of "Quan Dui", another type of Asian Rummy Games: "The play continues in this way until someone collects a hand of eight pairs, exposes their cards and wins the agreed stake from each other player." [Pagat.com maintained by John McLeod] [Viewed Feb 19, 2002] Kap Tai Shap (one of Asian Rummy Games) - Rule rendition by Joe Celko: "The name means "collecting tens" and it is credited as being the ancestor of Mah Jong. It is like a Rummy game played with Chinese dominoes instead of cards, and pairs instead of triple or quadruple combinations. The game continues until a player announces that he has completed his hand and he collects the pot." [Link] [Viewed Feb 19, 2002] From the above findings, all of those ancestor games of MAHJONG (pending Matiao) have only one winner getting paid. It is obvious that HKOS has more direct connections with those ancestor games of MAHJONG, than CC has. (E) Differences in the background of writers of books on MAHJONG.Most books written by authors of the Chinese origin support that when a Game is won, there is no settlement between players other than the winning player. Among those authors of the "western" origin (i.e., non-Chinese origin), some support this rule and some don't. Why most Chinese authors didn't support "settlement between players other than the winning player" and why not all western authors support this rule? (The word "most" is used because I did not read or know of ALL books of ALL Chinese writers. However, among those books I present herein, ALL Chinese writers supported ONLY rules that only the winning player gets scores.) The only reason I could see is that, rules of Millington, who called the game of MAHJONG he chosen as "Chinese Classical", were not the only rules of MAHJONG that were existing at all times. In other word, CC was not the only rule style that existed when MAHJONG first became known to people outside China, CC was not even more popular than other rules that had the same settlement system as HKOS. SUMMARY OF BOOKS REVIEWED:
(1973)
(1977)
(1989)
(1990)
(1990)
(1991)
(1998)
(1998)
(2001)
SUMMARY OF ALL 9 BOOKS:
Copyright 2002 Cofa Tsui. |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
^ | Home | |||||||||||||||||