{"id":699,"date":"2015-02-16T17:38:20","date_gmt":"2015-02-17T00:38:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/?p=699"},"modified":"2015-02-16T17:38:20","modified_gmt":"2015-02-17T00:38:20","slug":"rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/archives\/699","title":{"rendered":"Rules"},"content":{"rendered":"

The study of cultural pass-times can become particularly difficult when studying aspects that no longer survive. \u00a0Even games that enjoyed a particularly long span of popularity are easily lost to the sands of time. \u00a0L<\/em>iubo<\/em>, game of leaves<\/em>, and boyi<\/em>, are all once widely understood ancient games that today only serve to confuse modern scholars. Andrew Lo in “The Game of Leaves: An Inquiry into the Origin of Chinese Playing Cards” cites two examples that depict that even as early as the 11th and 12th century people were understanding the frailty of game play. He cites\u00a0Ouyang Xui (1067 AD) as stating,\u00a0\u00a0“The game of yezi ge<\/em> (Rules of Leaves) was present after the mid Tang period \u2026 It was popular during banquets of the scholar-officials of the Tang period.\u00a0 This was still so in the Five Dynasties period (907-60) and the early years of the dynasty (960 onwards), and then gradually it was put aside and not handed down” and\u00a0Hu Yinglin (1134 AD) states, “The games of changxing<\/em> and leaves<\/em> have not been handed down to the present …” (p.390; 395). \u00a0The examples of liubo<\/em> and game of leaves<\/em> are particularly striking because they enjoyed over five-hundred years of popularity; most of the popular games played today were invented within the last century.\u00a0Edmund Lien in his paper entitled “Wei Yao’s Disquisition on boyi” depicts\u00a0the popularity liubo received. He states, “If the game of bo<\/em> was respectable enough to be played by immortals as depicted on bronze mirrors of the Han, attractive enough to be an enticement for “summoning the soul” to return to the human world, and glorified enough for the king to play with celestial deities, it seems likely that bo<\/em> was the dominant board game in ancient times” (p. 570). Figure 10:6 in the\u00a0Art of Contest,\u00a0<\/em>shows the only complete liubo set in existence today, dating\u00a0back to the 2nd century BCE. We know that the game was remarkably popular, and we have every piece required to play the game, and yet the game play remains a mystery. \u00a0The\u00a0Art of Contest\u00a0<\/em>chapter on Liubo explains the difficulty of trying to understand a game without its rules. \u00a0Depictions of the game, and writings that mention liubo<\/em> are\u00a0sources used in the quest to recreate the game today. \u00a0Which have been rather unsuccessful to date. \u00a0The depictions rarely show the game in progress, giving us only confidence in the game layout prior to commencement, and the vagueness of surviving texts has led to debate over\u00a0their actual connection with the game.\u00a0Andrew Lo in “The Game of Leaves<\/em>: An Inquiry into the Origin of Chinese Playing Cards” outlines a similar issue experienced in his inquiry into the game of leaves,<\/em>\u00a0made even more difficult without the survival of any accessories to the game. Analysis of the surviving written sources have led to the creation of three theories that try to explain the game. These theories claim that the game of leaves is either strictly a card game, a combination of dice and cards, or strictly a dice game. Lo has arrived at the conclusion that the game of leaves<\/em> was a dice game, and the “leaves” served to explain\u00a0the value of dice roll combinations. \u00a0This conclusion, while important, does not allow for the game to be enjoyed\u00a0today, it only allows for us to understand the games most basic premise. \u00a0Without the discovery of a manual on liubo<\/em> and the game of leaves<\/em>, we may never understand\u00a0what captivated Chinese society for over five-hundred years. \u00a0This conclusion makes one question as to whether we could take the rule book out of a modern game and give it to a beginner, would they be able to reconstruct the game in the absence of concrete rules? Most likely no. If the rules of a game survived in the absence of the games accessories, a working model could be recreated and the game could be enjoyed today. \u00a0The surviving liubo<\/em> set, mentioned earlier, attests to the fact that in the absence of rules the accessories are just relics of a game long forgotten.\u00a0Thus one can conclude that a game is nothing without its\u00a0rules.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The study of cultural pass-times can become particularly difficult when studying aspects that no longer survive. \u00a0Even games that enjoyed a particularly long span of popularity are easily lost to the sands of time. \u00a0Liubo, game of leaves, and boyi, are all once widely understood ancient games that today only serve to confuse modern scholars.…<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-699","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/699","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=699"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/699\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":702,"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/699\/revisions\/702"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}