Re: symbols & suits - matiao & mahjong

On Apr 12, 4:30 pm, "Tom Sloper" <tslo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Oops, I guess I accidentally sent my reply to Allan privately. Meant to send
it to the group. See below.
Tom

--------------------------
"al" <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote

Please tell me, Tom. Where was the basis for matiao cards to acquire
the money-base?

I'm not sure what you're asking, Allan. If you take a look at FAQ 11h,
you'll find listings as follows:

* 1294 [China] First definite reference to playing-cards in China. On 17
July 1294 Yan Sengzhu and Zheng Zhugou were caught gambling in Enzhou (in
modern Shangdong province) and punished. Nine paper cards and 36 taels of
paper currency were seized. Source: "Da Yuan shengdong guochao dianzhang"
(Dynastic code of the sacred administration of the Yuan Dynasy) (1320),
reported by Andrew Lo in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies, University of London, Vol 63, part 3 (2000), pp 403-404 (special
thanks to John McLeod ofwww.pagat.comfor this addition to the timeline).

* Latter half of the 15th century [China] Dou Yeh-Tzu (played with a deck of
38 cards).

* Middle of the Ming era (1368 - 1644) [China] Matiao -- four suits, 40
cards, a trick-taking game.

* Ming era / Wan-li Years (1572 - 1620) [China] "Shu Qian Yeh-Pu" by Wang
Daokun, described a 48-card game derived from Matiao.

* Around 1610 [China] "Yeh-tzu Pu," document about Matiao and "Xu Yeh-tzu
Pu," by Pan Zhiheng; described a 30-card game using three-suited money
cards. Feng Menglung wrote about Matiao in "Matiao Pai Jing" and "Matiao
Jiao Li." (Source: MJM)

And if you take a look at matiao cards, you will see coins and strings of
coins, and the word "wan."

I mean was some historic reference source clearly grounded or was it
possibly just verbal recording of word-of-mouth?
Why such faith is placed on something that never gone through rigious
test and possibly accepted at facw-value? I asked Nath about too.
Michael may have an answer.

Still not sure what you're asking. Is it "how do you know those cards had
money symbols on them"? Or is it "what makes you think the symbols on
mahjong, which appeared afterwards, have any relation to the symbols on
those cards"? Or is it some other question?

Now I have doubts about your "validity" of the "stringog coins" Who
interpreted the coin-string?

I'm not sure what point you're making. Archeologists can read Mayan writing
and Egyptian hieroglyphics. You're saying card game historians can't
decipher Chinese symbols?

And why could a new game with new tiles instead of paper not to have
new symbols and meaning to all its new symbols?

It could. But it didn't.

Matial is paper and MJ is solid blocks. You are saying that they must
have the same symbols and meaning, because the paper matiao preceeded
the new MJ?

No. I'm saying, "look at them. You can see the similarity." I realize your
sight is limited, but with magnification you can surely see the similarity.

Respectfully,
Tom
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom, Allan here…Thank you for your advice to read Andrew Lo and thanks
to Michael for copies of Lo’s papers

(with reference to a post in April/07). I’ll use MJ = 麻雀 (Sparrow) =
Mah Jong.

[snip]
I was asking how and why MATIAO is referred to as cash-based?
I see no cash in matiao cards in FAQ#11

Allan. If you take a look at FAQ 11h,
you'll find listings as follows:

* 1294 [China] First definite reference to playing-cards in China. On 17
July 1294 Yan Sengzhu and Zheng Zhugou were caught gambling in Enzhou (in
modern Shangdong province) and punished. Nine paper cards and 36 taels of
paper currency were seized. Source: "Da Yuan shengdong guochao dianzhang"
(Dynastic code of the sacred administration of the Yuan Dynasy) (1320),
reported by Andrew Lo in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies, University of London, Vol 63, part 3 (2000), pp 403-404 (special
thanks to John McLeod ofwww.pagat.comfor this addition to the timeline).

From the news item and Andrew Lo’s description, we don’t know how many
cards in the deck the gamblers used or how the cards looked like.

In “The Late Ming Game of Ma Diao”, Andrew Lo wrote. “The law case
notes that nine paper cards and [some] paper currency were seized
along with wood blocks for printing [of paper] cards. Unfortunately,
we do not know anything more about the total number of cards in the
deck or the markings, etc.”

Lu Rong (1436-1494) was next to give a description of a deck of 38
cards. Note that Mr. Rong was not an experienced card game player. His
Chinese description was then translated by Andrew Lo. Here was the
first time “CASH” was recorded with reference to card game design.

One interesting point is that the cards depicted prominent figures
from a band of outlaws in a historic novel, The Water Margin. An
interpretation here is that the design of the cards was to commemorate
those heroes who had done good deeds by robbing the rich to help the
poor.

In other words the pictures and/or symbols on the 38-card pack carried
a message.

* Latter half of the 15th century [China] Dou Yeh-Tzu (played with a deck of
38 cards).

Was there a description of this 38-card pack? Was it different from
the Lu Rong pack? They were in the same time frame, mid 15th century.

* Middle of the Ming era (1368 - 1644) [China] Matiao -- four suits, 40
cards, a trick-taking game.

This first 40-card pack was a modification of an earlier 38-card pack.
According to Andrew Lo, two cards were added, the “Zero Cash” and the
“Half Cash”. Also five sketches were substituted with drawings of
different personalities (refer to page 116 of Andrew Lo’s article, The
Late Ming Game of Ma Diao).

However, the 40-card Ma Diao was different from MJ (Sparrow 麻雀) in
markings and in game-play.

The important point here I noticed is that an author or translator
(such as Peng Menglong, for example) can make change to the NAME of
the game from “horse loses leg” to “horse hanging up one leg” and
change to the story by substituting some different figures as
mentioned above. So, changes occurred with games.

The game of Sparrow (MJ) is no exception. We know there had been
changes made through the years to the design and number of tile-cards
for the game. We see that in the collection sets shown in M.
Stanwick’s articles, “Mahjong(g) Before and After Mahjong(g)”.

However, a key difference between Ma Diao and MJ (Sparrow 麻雀) is the
feature of trick-taking in Ma Diao verses trick-making in MJ 麻雀. Trick-
taking goes by a ranking order for all 3 or 4 suits as in Ma Diao, is
different from making tricks of runs (sequence) and ‘three-of-a-kind’
of the same suit as in MJ (麻雀 Sparrow).

Trick-taking required a common base (e.g. cash amount) for rank
comparing in a hierarchical structure across all different suits and
sequential ranking between cards within each suit One String of Cash
equals 100 Cash and one Myriad equals 100 String. Thus one Myriad
equals 10000 Cash. A trick with a higher value takes a trick with a
lower value. Ma Diao needed for all its cards in all the suits a
common cash base. The object of play is to take the most tricks to
win.

Because MJ (Sparrows) is not a trick-taking game and it is a trick-
making game, it does not need a common cash-base for comparative
ranking among different suits and within each suit. In fact the suits
in MJ need not be related, the cards can only form or make tricks
within their own suit, whether a trick is 3 identical cards or a
sequence run of 3 cards. In other words, if apples, buttons and coins
were the three suits, buttons go with buttons only; apples go with
apples only and likewise for coins and they don’t compare or mix.
Therefore there is no need for a “cash-base” in MJ. As we know, the
object of play in 麻雀 is to make four tricks plus a pair.

It is true. There were cash of myriads and cash of thousand myriads in
Ma Diao. But myriads in MJ are unspecified. They can be myriads of
apples or myriads of buttons; they do not necessarily mean myriads or
cash. By the way, as examples for the various meaning of “myriad” in
traditional Chinese expressions, “myriad of years” is like eternity;
“myriad of potential” means near-omnipotent.

Not only myriads in MJ (Sparrow, 麻雀) are non-specific. Both “zero
cash’ and “half cash” are absent in MJ. All other circular shapes in
MJ do not have a square hole in the middle like those cash cards in Ma
Diao. There is no “cash” symbol in MJ, unless we take the solid round
objects as “fruits”, because “half-cash” was called “sprig of flower”
which was supposed to be “half-fruit” in Lo’s paper.

There is one distinct features shared by MJ and Ma Diao. It’s the
counterclockwise rotation in game-play. Another is the concept of the
“pillar” or “banker” position.

The fact that MJ, the game 麻雀 Sparrow did not adopt a clockwise
rotation of play (to go with the winds, so to speak), indicates a
possibility that the counterclockwise rotation might have been adopted
from Ma Diao (assuming Ma Diao existed before MJ). That would explain
the illogical contravening contra-geographic rotational movement of MJ
play. That is, going to the right from an East (Pillar) position to
South, the next position. The direction of MJ play could have been
copied from Ma Diao which had no wind or geographic directions to
consider but for right-handed convenience.

A third item of interest is the common narrative characteristic of
game design and that is story-telling with or without an intention to
commemorate. In the case of Ma Diao, there were depictions of Water
Margin figures (supposedly). They were heroes commemorated for their
good deeds. In the case of MJ 麻雀, the commemoration might have been
the author’s admiration for the sparrows’ way of life which is a model
of freedom, friendship and unity.

In addition, I can see two other similarities between MD (ma Diao) and
MJ (麻雀): (1) the games are for four players and (2) they start with a
dice throw. But I have not read any mention by historians of
connectivity inferred.

A rather subtle difference between Ma Diao and MJ (Sparrow) is this.
In Ma Diao, the figures were specific and identifiable whereas in MJ,
the author used symbols in the form of metaphors to allow anyone’s
imagination for the narrative theme. The Ma Diao story is for a
specific period of time, whereas the game of Sparrow 麻雀 is relevant
for all time and all places because the symbols are variable as in the
eyes of the beholder. So in a way, he theme of MJ is timeless.

The distinctive feature of MJ, Sparrow, is of course the tile format
and individual tiles carved with meaningful Chinese words in addition
to 3 basic suits. Tile-cards with completely legible written words
which can have various meanings by context are the MJ game’s utmost
uniqueness. Only Shi Pai (poetry cards) ever had that verbal feature
in all Chinese games.


* Ming era / Wan-li Years (1572 - 1620) [China] "Shu Qian Yeh-Pu" by Wang
Daokun, described a 48-card game derived from Matiao.

* Around 1610 [China] "Yeh-tzu Pu," document about Matiao and "Xu Yeh-tzu
Pu," by Pan Zhiheng; described a 30-card game using three-suited money
cards. Feng Menglung wrote about Matiao in "Matiao Pai Jing" and "Matiao
Jiao Li." (Source: MJM)

All the games mentioned above were trick-taking and different from MJ 麻
雀 which is trick-making. Trick-taking games have a hierarchical
ranking structure; cards in trick-making game like MJ are not ranked.
So cards in the different suits of (MJ) 麻雀 game can not mix in their
formation of tricks. “Myriads” in one suit can not make tricks with
“circles” in another suit. Again the myriads in Ma Diao are not the
same as myriads in MJ 麻雀 or mah-jong even though the words look and
sound identical.

And if you take a look at matiao cards, you will see coins and strings of
coins, and the word "wan."

The symbols in Ma Diao are said to be Cash, Strings of Cash and the
word “wan”; “wan” has “cash value amount” only in context with “cash”
and “strings of cash”. In other words, the word “wan” can be and is
often used as an adjective to describe a large quantity of many
things. It does not always mean large amount of cash.

Since (MJ) has more cards than Ma Diao and the added cards are in the
form of carved Chinese characters, (besides “wan” that ranges #1 to
#9), the narrative of MJ must have different meaning than Ma Diao. The
graphic symbols of the other two suits in MJ also appear different
from “cash” and “strings of cash” in Ma Diao. The look-alike cards,
“wan”, are only “modifiers” and not specific objects; they can only be
a very weak link in terms of lineage between the two games. MJ 麻雀 game
is very different from Ma Diao which was totally “cash-based”.

As we have seen in other older Chinese games, poetic metaphors abound.
Cards were personified (e.g. Water Margin heroes), personalities
assigned, (the Supreme Ten Thousand Myriad guan: a bearded Heaven’s
Supreme Star, Preserver of Righteousness, Song Jiang), and philosophic
idea attached (Wang: emptiness offers greatest potential for
fulfillment, as in “zero cash”). It would seem odd for a game design
like that MJ, Sparrows, not to have a meaningful theme. (References to
old games are taken from Andrew Lo’s papers).

[snip]

[snip]

And why could a new game with new tiles instead of paper not to have
new symbols and meaning to all its new symbols?

It could. But it didn't.

History has taught us through history lessons that existing knowledge
does not always have the “last word” on a subject.

“Seek. Ye shall find” may apply here yet.

Matial is paper and MJ is solid blocks. You are saying that they must
have the same symbols and meaning, because the paper matiao preceeded
the new MJ?

No. I'm saying, "look at them. You can see the similarity." I realize your
sight is limited, but with magnification you can surely see the similarity.

It’s true, Tom, I have poor eye-sight, but my physical handicap has
forced me to use my mental vision to see things in my mind. That might
have enabled me to “see” more of the dissimilarities between MJ and Ma
Diao.

I just reviewed a 3-suited card-game like the modern version of “Peng
He Pai” in your FAQ #11. I don’t know of any analysis on the details
in those cards. They seem to indicate a wedding of importance in the
Song Dynasty. The words for Song Dynasty are shown on the first card
of the second suit. There is the symbol of “double happiness” along
with some names. The picture by my observation is that it was a
wedding commemorative.
Again, I just want to point out the fact that card games do have
narratives.

The tiles-cards in (MJ) 麻雀 have a story/theme that is universal; it
is about LIFE ( 中 發 白 = birth, growth, death ) EVERYWHERE ( 東南西
北 ) east south west and north (4 sides or 4 corners on earth). The
unspecified symbols in the three basic suits’ allow each person to
make life’s story individually in accordance with personal experience.
So, the whole game of MJ or Ma Jong is a metaphor; that includes the
chattering tiles as tiny noisy sparrows.

In summary, my answer to the question, “why a sparrow” (on Bam #1) is
simple, because the game 麻雀 (Sparrows) is about life in general and
lives of sparrows in particular. The validity of my answer is not from
historical evidenced, (that is not possible because whoever was the
author did not record it) but it has to come from an understanding and
appreciation of: (東 East 南 South 西 West 北 North) and zhong, fa, bai (中
Birth 發 Growth 白 Death) taken together in context with the key figure
the SPARROWS. After all, these few words and the sparrows give
definition to the game 麻雀 and differentiate it from all other games.

Cheers…AL

.

Loading