Where Did Boxing Originate From?

[Marchegiano]

Ok then. How about this one?



Poliakoff dates it to 1500 BCE. Making it, again, anywhere from 1100 to 1500 years AFTER the Mesopatamian fist fighting depiction.

Just facts. No need to get emotional about it.

Well, you did post an image I went out of my way is not what I'm referring to. I don't think it's snappy or *****y to then ask if you read the post.



Try getting off that one webpage bud. I've already looked at that link, it's not there.

That page ironically enough references the same book while giving a different depiction...Which is interesting.



This depiction I am hunting, and if I don't find it I'll just scan the book, if of a singular man, he is covered in armor, he has stone gloves, I believe it's an engraving not a painting or anything like that. He's not a sportsman, he's a soldier. The depiction isn't of a fight, or event, or festival, it's of war.

[ShoulderRoll]

Well, you did post an image I went out of my way is not what I'm referring to. I don't think it's snappy or *****y to then ask if you read the post.



Try getting off that one webpage bud. I've already looked at that link, it's not there.

That page ironically enough references the same book while giving a different depiction...Which is interesting.



This depiction I am hunting, and if I don't find it I'll just scan the book, if of a singular man, he is covered in armor, he has stone gloves, I believe it's an engraving not a painting or anything like that. He's not a sportsman, he's a soldier. The depiction isn't of a fight, or event, or festival, it's of war.

The last image I posted is where the image in the book "Combat Sports in the Ancient World: Competition, Violence, and Culture" comes from. Same vase.

On page 69.

https://books.google.com/books?id=e2...0crete&f=false

Am I right or am I right?

[billeau2]

Yeah, you've got the right idea.

I think Shoulder took particular interest in my assertion that the oldest depiction of fist fighting in any form came from Aegean Islands.

I'm not sure why....surely as we dig up new stuff we will find older, and maybe since the book I lifted that information from was written we have and I just don't know.

I didn't feel like I was making a point yet, just talking about early depictions. It's really a non-issue to me except Shoulder taking interest in it has given me an interest myself. I might try to prove me wrong if he doesn't.

There's nothing about the early depictions, Greek or otherwise, that's connected to the sport. I made no claim the early Aegeans spread boxing around the ancient world and I went out of my way to stress I don't know how boxing as a martial art or performance art spread when I spoke about Sparta. I feel like I was very clear about where and how one of these many random forms of fist fighting morphed into a fist fighting sport and how that fist fighting sport became the fist fighting sport we call boxing today.


It's really a non-issue. If the Persians punched one another and drew it or carved it or whatever before the Aegeans then that's interesting and stuff but it changes this story by such a minute amount I'm curious why anyone would take interest in that part.

We are always limited by the amount of information to which we have access. If we find a text, we can reconstruct to a degree. The Japanese have been the best about keeping lineages going when possible...We can actually look at a living art as it was done in the 1500's late 1500's at least. That is amazing to me and the very definition of what a real martial art looks like.

Unfortunately these arts and the way they are practiced are not "sexy" and very expensive...One really does have to go to Japan, at least occasionally. But if you know what to look for... you will find the fat girl that knows how to rock, so to speak. Its all there...and it all makes perfect sense.

I digress. My point is without all that information we fight a losing battle against understanding anything essential about a particular fighting tradition.

[billeau2]

I like Marchegiano.

But did he or did he not write that our first or oldest bit of evidence for fist fighting comes from the Aegean islands and Corfu? Yes or no?

That is simply not true. I just proved that statement wrong with facts.

I would rather assume you are quoting M correctly and apologize if this was an oversight on my part.

I think it would be helpful to establish a few points so the debate can focus on the real issue. Certain statements are confusing and take away from the real substantive issue.

When we extend the time line for human actions it becomes easy to assert certain things from an anthropological and physiological point of view. Chief among these is the notion that since we branched off, or came to this planet, we have been hitting things with a closed hand. it is in our physiology. It is the counter to all training, all cultural mores concerned with training the body for combat. Human beings, are designed to use gravity through our height when hitting. We are designed to hit down on our adversary. We do this with closed hands, sticks and even with primitive sharps, if we can use the thumb to grab a handle area on the sharp.

Therefore, naturally human beings fought with fists, before any depiction (the word that M used to describe his assertion you challenged, according to M) and after depictions, of the activity in question. Its not central to the debate at hand whether this is so... We know it is so from evolutionary biology, regardless of whether cultures depicted the activity, or not.

It would make for a lot less confusion if this issue was addressed and resolved. It becomes a red herring when debating the origin of different systems of fist fighting that developed, and that we can trace as being part of a greater whole.

If this issue was addressed and if perhaps all sides accepted that inevitably we will see depictions of combat, some older than the Greek Isles, it would allow the central conclusion M is presenting to be debated. If, on the other hand, it is allowed to flounder, then many will simply assert that Boxing, as an organized system, with a known goal, body of information on techniques, rules, etc... has existed.

Generally speaking, military combat history, as a discipline in between the physiological and the absolute proof of a system of combat, tells us that boxing and wrestling, were part of most human societies, primarily used by those training in combat for the military. As a matter of fact, civilian combat systems always present a puzzle when looking for when they branched off from institutional military use. We get a lot of this information from two sources: China and Japan, because these societies were under a heavy period of anarchy. hence, people had to fight to live. To live meant to protect oneself. Buddhist orders in Japan were a perfect example of this need. Monks would be robbed and because they were rivals to Shinto, Japan's native religion, they could not count on any warlords controlling the area, at least initially, to protect them. The Shao Lin temple was originally a similar situation...bandits would ambush the monks in forest, killing and taking their provisions, so a civilian system of defense was a necessity.

The other thing that tells us about this division is in cultures that were tribal in nature. These structures had no military per se, it had warriors who learned fighting skills. These groups give one a picture of how systems developed without a central system, or central method of transmission. Africa has stick fighting traditions that developed and blossomed simply through word of mouth, direct transmission from one participant to another. South East Asia, at the height of her existence probably has literally thousands of these systems taught. The weakness with these systems is one that can be said to plague many civilian systems outside Asia, as well: No records were kept, so we simply cannot know about most of them.

Here is the problem: Unlike the evolutionary biologist, who has all the time in the world to assert conclusions about what people have done, using the primacy of our body structure vis a vis the environment... the luxury of information about these fighting traditions is lacking. We need proof that boxing was used, developed, and was transmitted, from places like Egypt, Mesopotamia, Meso-America, etc.

Its not impossible to imagine that one day in one of these cultures, we will find a text that tells us a lot more about one of these systems. lets keep in mind that we know lot about Mesopotamian shipping codes. This is because Cuniform was discovered initially when business accounts, taxes, and import labelling artifacts were found.

[Marchegiano]

The last image I posted is where the image in the book "Combat Sports in the Ancient World: Competition, Violence, and Culture" comes from. Same vase.

On page 69.

https://books.google.com/books?id=e2...0crete&f=false

Am I right or am I right?

Probably, there's a ****load of photos in that book. That's not a photo of that's book depiction of the early Aegean soldier though.

If I only had one book I'd've done grabbed it and looked. Around mid-afternoon I should have time to get it out of my shelf, take a look through it, scan it, and post it.

I can scan page 69 as well if you like....maybe the whole boxing section is in order? That's a bit of work but we'll see how it goes.



There's an undertone to our convo I want to squash. I'm not arguing, like I told Billeu I don't really know, I was just mentioning what I retained, but, since you've taken up the challenge we haven't actually gotten to the photo I'd mentioned. I'm really not trying to be right, I'm trying to help you find the thing I was talking about. It very well can be wrong but to be wrong we first have to identify it in an open space anyone can take a look at the info...it does you no good as a photo in my book, we need to find it and post it. I really didn't think it'd be that hard to find a scanned copy online, but it is. I'll scan it myself.

I understand on your end it must be frustrating for me to just sit here and say but that ain't the right pic, but it isn't. The Fresco is like a thousand years after, totally different people. The second, I'm not sure, I'm less familiar and not an expert on ancient art.

If you're reading me passive aggressively or offended, or a bit on a high horse, I promise I really don't have strong feelings about this. Like I said to bil, it changes the rest of my post very very little and I put no thought into it I just went by memory...I mean I have no reason to argue. I see me as helping you to find what I was talking about.

[ShoulderRoll]

I would rather assume you are quoting M correctly and apologize if this was an oversight on my part.

I think it would be helpful to establish a few points so the debate can focus on the real issue. Certain statements are confusing and take away from the real substantive issue.

When we extend the time line for human actions it becomes easy to assert certain things from an anthropological and physiological point of view. Chief among these is the notion that since we branched off, or came to this planet, we have been hitting things with a closed hand. it is in our physiology. It is the counter to all training, all cultural mores concerned with training the body for combat. Human beings, are designed to use gravity through our height when hitting. We are designed to hit down on our adversary. We do this with closed hands, sticks and even with primitive sharps, if we can use the thumb to grab a handle area on the sharp.

Therefore, naturally human beings fought with fists, before any depiction (the word that M used to describe his assertion you challenged, according to M) and after depictions, of the activity in question. Its not central to the debate at hand whether this is so... We know it is so from evolutionary biology, regardless of whether cultures depicted the activity, or not.

It would make for a lot less confusion if this issue was addressed and resolved. It becomes a red herring when debating the origin of different systems of fist fighting that developed, and that we can trace as being part of a greater whole.

If this issue was addressed and if perhaps all sides accepted that inevitably we will see depictions of combat, some older than the Greek Isles, it would allow the central conclusion M is presenting to be debated. If, on the other hand, it is allowed to flounder, then many will simply assert that Boxing, as an organized system, with a known goal, body of information on techniques, rules, etc... has existed.

Generally speaking, military combat history, as a discipline in between the physiological and the absolute proof of a system of combat, tells us that boxing and wrestling, were part of most human societies, primarily used by those training in combat for the military. As a matter of fact, civilian combat systems always present a puzzle when looking for when they branched off from institutional military use. We get a lot of this information from two sources: China and Japan, because these societies were under a heavy period of anarchy. hence, people had to fight to live. To live meant to protect oneself. Buddhist orders in Japan were a perfect example of this need. Monks would be robbed and because they were rivals to Shinto, Japan's native religion, they could not count on any warlords controlling the area, at least initially, to protect them. The Shao Lin temple was originally a similar situation...bandits would ambush the monks in forest, killing and taking their provisions, so a civilian system of defense was a necessity.

The other thing that tells us about this division is in cultures that were tribal in nature. These structures had no military per se, it had warriors who learned fighting skills. These groups give one a picture of how systems developed without a central system, or central method of transmission. Africa has stick fighting traditions that developed and blossomed simply through word of mouth, direct transmission from one participant to another. South East Asia, at the height of her existence probably has literally thousands of these systems taught. The weakness with these systems is one that can be said to plague many civilian systems outside Asia, as well: No records were kept, so we simply cannot know about most of them.

Here is the problem: Unlike the evolutionary biologist, who has all the time in the world to assert conclusions about what people have done, using the primacy of our body structure vis a vis the environment... the luxury of information about these fighting traditions is lacking. We need proof that boxing was used, developed, and was transmitted, from places like Egypt, Mesopotamia, Meso-America, etc.

Its not impossible to imagine that one day in one of these cultures, we will find a text that tells us a lot more about one of these systems. lets keep in mind that we know lot about Mesopotamian shipping codes. This is because Cuniform was discovered initially when business accounts, taxes, and import labelling artifacts were found.

The topic of the thread is where boxing originated.

I think I've shown that the oldest depiction we have of fighting with fists predates ancient Greece and even ancient Egypt.

If you want to argue about culture or philosophy or who has more surviving evidence available to piece together I think those are all separate issues.

[ShoulderRoll]

Probably, there's a ****load of photos in that book. That's not a photo of that's book depiction of the early Aegean soldier though.

If I only had one book I'd've done grabbed it and looked. Around mid-afternoon I should have time to get it out of my shelf, take a look through it, scan it, and post it.

I can scan page 69 as well if you like....maybe the whole boxing section is in order? That's a bit of work but we'll see how it goes.



There's an undertone to our convo I want to squash. I'm not arguing, like I told Billeu I don't really know, I was just mentioning what I retained, but, since you've taken up the challenge we haven't actually gotten to the photo I'd mentioned. I'm really not trying to be right, I'm trying to help you find the thing I was talking about. It very well can be wrong but to be wrong we first have to identify it in an open space anyone can take a look at the info...it does you no good as a photo in my book, we need to find it and post it. I really didn't think it'd be that hard to find a scanned copy online, but it is. I'll scan it myself.

I understand on your end it must be frustrating for me to just sit here and say but that ain't the right pic, but it isn't. The Fresco is like a thousand years after, totally different people. The second, I'm not sure, I'm less familiar and not an expert on ancient art.

If you're reading me passive aggressively or offended, or a bit on a high horse, I promise I really don't have strong feelings about this. Like I said to bil, it changes the rest of my post very very little and I put no thought into it I just went by memory...I mean I have no reason to argue. I see me as helping you to find what I was talking about.

Let's have the discussion.

You mentioned Michael Poliakoff's book "Combat Sports in the Ancient World: Competition, Violence, and Culture" and a Minoan boxer who was in armor with a helmet etc.

I went through the boxing section in that book and the only image I see matching your description is the one of the Minoan boxer on page 69.

There are a few pages missing from the free preview online so perhaps the specific image you described is found in one of those. Seems doubtful, though, because the depictions are generally arranged in order from oldest to newest. The Minoan boxer on page 69 is the oldest image and the missing pages come later, after him. But you never know.

So if you can find or scan that specific image that would be great.

At the moment the plaque containing Mesopatamian boxers and wrestlers is the earliest piece of evidence presented in this thread.

[billeau2]

The topic of the thread is where boxing originated.

I think I've shown that the oldest depiction we have of fighting with fists predates ancient Greece and even ancient Egypt.

If you want to argue about culture or philosophy or who has more surviving evidence available to piece together I think those are all separate issues.

Yeah you have. Just sort of think it is almost self evident. We could probably find depictions on cave walls if we havent yet. But yes you did prove that point... at least to my satisfaction lol. I never believed otherwise, but if I was ever going to... I will always remember that Shoulder Roll nipped that one in the bud!

Its not exactly about culture, or philosophy but to an extent it is about evidence. Human Beings survive by fighting, f u c king and learning. There are your separate issues. How we fight tells us a lot, you may have it backwards frankly. We don't have to assume a philosophy, or cultural orientation...we simply have to look at what is in front of us. If we study combat, then we draw conclusions from that endevour.

[ShoulderRoll]

Yeah you have. Just sort of think it is almost self evident. We could probably find depictions on cave walls if we havent yet. But yes you did prove that point... at least to my satisfaction lol. I never believed otherwise, but if I was ever going to... I will always remember that Shoulder Roll nipped that one in the bud!

Its not exactly about culture, or philosophy but to an extent it is about evidence. Human Beings survive by fighting, f u c king and learning. There are your separate issues. How we fight tells us a lot, you may have it backwards frankly. We don't have to assume a philosophy, or cultural orientation...we simply have to look at what is in front of us. If we study combat, then we draw conclusions from that endevour.

My contribution to this thread was just to attempt to answer the OP's question with actual evidence of some sort.

But by all means if you have any proof of cave paintings that predate Mesopotamia feel free to post them.

[Anthony342]

We are always limited by the amount of information to which we have access. If we find a text, we can reconstruct to a degree. The Japanese have been the best about keeping lineages going when possible...We can actually look at a living art as it was done in the 1500's late 1500's at least. That is amazing to me and the very definition of what a real martial art looks like.

Unfortunately these arts and the way they are practiced are not "sexy" and very expensive...One really does have to go to Japan, at least occasionally. But if you know what to look for... you will find the fat girl that knows how to rock, so to speak. Its all there...and it all makes perfect sense.

I digress. My point is without all that information we fight a losing battle against understanding anything essential about a particular fighting tradition.

Those martial arts lineages have interested me to an extent. Maybe not to the extent you delve into. More of a cliff notes version for me. Cliff Notes was my favorite author in high school, by the way (ba dum bum, rimshot).

And when seeing some of the ATG boxers and MMA fighters or if you even want to go more int depth, competitive martial artists in stuff like kickboxing or karate (be it full contact or for points), one can see the beauty in it and the "art" in martial arts. Pulling a great rally for a TKO, cumulative KO or one punch KO can be great to see and a well executed submission is just as much a thing of beauty to me as one of those knockouts. I appreciate those like others to paintings, sculptures, or the local classical music concert.