Below is an excerpt from a post that appeared at Kung Fu Tea, regarding the weapons practice of Wing Chun. The full article may be read here.
From time to time I am asked why Wing Chun teaches only two weapons.
For those unfamiliar with the system these are the long single-tailed
fighting pole, favored by a number of southern Chinese styles, and the
butterfly swords.
Most of Guangdong’s more popular styles have extensive arsenals.
The
straight sword (jian) and broadsword (dao) are commonly seen throughout
the region as are the trident, iron ruler, spear, fighting chain and
rattan shield.
Such a question may well be impossible to answer. One suspects that
many of the explanations that are given are basically post-hoc
justifications. It could be that the focus on only two weapons reflects
the style’s dedication to “parsimony” and its “concept” rather than
“technique-based” approach to fighting. Or this could all simply be a
matter of coincidence. If you examine the historical record it is not
difficult to locate accounts of Republic period Wing Chun enthusiasts
who took an interest in a more diverse set of weapons.
Still, there is something undeniably unique about the pole and double
swords. While arts like Hung Gar, White Crane and Choy Li Fut teach a
greater number of forms, these two are often the first weapons actually
introduced to students.
There is also a longstanding tradition (which one can see in the
written literature on the Chinese martial arts as far back as the Ming)
justifying the long pole’s special place in military training. It was
favored by instructors as it could both physically strengthen students
and introduce them to techniques that would aid their study of other
weapons.
Meir Shahar has argued that it was this idea,
rather than any Buddhist prohibition on bladed weapons, that explained
the Shaolin Temple’s specialization in cudgel fighting throughout the
Ming era. Thus there may be concrete historical reasons why these
particular instruments came to be favored as the foundation of 19th
century southern weapons training.
We have already seen that the pole and the hudiedao (butterfly
swords) came to constitute the core of Guangdong’s 19th century training
for
gentry led militias and other paramilitary groups.
These forces cannot be dismissed as peripheral to the area’s history.
They carried out a great deal of the actual fighting that occurred
during the Opium Wars and the Red Turban Revolt.
The provincial government was also extensively involved in financing
and procuring the arms that these groups used. While some authors have
dismissed the hudiedao as an eccentric toy for martial artists, in fact
these weapons were critical to southern China’s military identity
throughout the 19th century.
This might be one way of understanding modern Wing Chun’s parsimony
in the realm of weaponry.
The forms it taught would allow a martial
artist from the Pearl River Delta region to pick up and competently use
the two weapons that they were most likely to be given in the case of a
community crisis. Other weapons, such as spears or daos, were (rightly
or wrongly) considered close substitutes.
Yet when we look at the martial arts as they developed during the
final years of the Qing and Republic periods, we are primarily
discussing civilian fighting traditions which were taught in a
non-military context. Do we have any witnesses to the use of these
specific weapons in a civil setting?
How common were they compared to
other traditional weapons which were available in Chinese communities
during the middle of the 19th century?
