THE ARTS OF CONTEST

(5) In the beginning...

Down page

Part 5 of my introductory chapter to the catalogue accompanying an exhibition of Oriental Games mounted by the Asia Society, New York, 2004

Where and how did games begin? The question is obvious, but, unfortunately, amenable only to speculation. The oldest civilizations to have left written records refer to games of various sorts without suggesting that any of them were novelties or out of the ordinary run of daily activities. Where written records are lacking, archaeological remains include game boards scratched on stone or clay and the occasional shaped piece that might have been used in gaming, not to mention obvious randomizing devices such as dice and astragals. Anthropologists who have studied still extant primitive societies find that most have games of one sort or another [40]. It would seem that games, like languages, religion, and the arts, are natural products of the human urge to order and harmony, and originated far beyond the catchment area of even prehistorical research. "We are order-making creatures, like it or not", says Alex Randolph, one of the world's great games inventors [41]. It is generally accepted that physical games developed earlier than gambling games, and that games of mental strategy later, if at all. Strategy games are rare among primitive societies, and become most prominent in relatively advanced civilizations, especially where administrative advancement tends to be secured by competition rather than by the casting of lots.

The most obvious supposition is that games arose by the adaptation to playful purposes of implements and activities originally devised for functional purposes. For example, the primary function of shooting arrows from bows in a hunting society is to secure food and perhaps to guard hunting grounds from rival tribes. A secondary purpose would be to practise the use of bow and arrow in order to improve one's skills. A subsequent one would be establish, by competition, who the best marksmen are in order to allocate more efficiently the various co-operative labours of hunting. Some archers would gain more pleasure from the exercise of skill itself, or from the kudos attaching to the best of them, than from fulfilling their original purpose. What began as the purely practical thus gradually evolves into the purely recreational. One might say that archery, by definition, has become more playful by becoming more abstract, thereby underscoring our previous comment on a natural tendency of games to be more characterized by abstraction than representation.

Another origin of games, or of some games at least, may have lain in that other natural tendency of human beings to representationalise their aspirations and activities. Cave paintings of hunting scenes have been the subject of various interpretations as to their probable purpose: to encourage a successful outcome by a process of sympathetic magic, for example, or perhaps to plan strategies or serve as a visual aid in identifying good target areas. It is possible that another type of visual aid to planning strategy would take the form of placing pieces representing prey and hunters (or enemy and warriors) on a flat surface charged with other pieces or markings representing topographical features, and moving them around to represent appropriate actions. A similar process of abstraction would then have resulted in the evolution of a game through a shift of emphasis from the practical to the recreational employment of the equipment involved. String games (non-competitive games of the Cat's Cradle type), which are found all over the world even in primitive societies that appear to lack any other type of formal game, may similarly illustrate the same abstracting tendency, as it is extremely unlike that string was originally invented for games and only later found to be really useful for tying things up.

The same process probably also underlies the derivation of games of chance from the casting of lots intended for what would originally have been considered practical and functional purposes such as divination, ritual, and decision-making. Doubt has been cast on this theory by reference to the awe in which the laity would have held those authorized for such practices, such as magicians, shamans, and the like (who also, no doubt, guarded their position and privileges jealously), or to a fear of upsetting the gods; but it is not difficult to see those driven by the natural gambling impulse as in some sense "playing the part of" such favoured authorities as they submit themselves to the outcome.

A survey of the games of Asia will not of itself provide an answer to the origins of games. But as we explore such ancient and distinctive contributions as playing-cards and dominoes, Go, Nyout, Pachisi, Nard, and the mysterious game of Liubo, we may come to realize that the whole of humanity is related not just by its urge to play, which is common to many creatures, but to play in accordance with those structured sets of rules that we call games.

In order to form a just estimation of the character of any particular people, it is absolutely necessary to investigate the sports and pastimes most generally prevalent among them. War, policy, and other contingent circumstances, may effectually place men, at different times, in different points of view; but, when we follow them into their retirements, where no disguise is necessary, we are most likely to see them in their true state, and may best judge of their natural dispositions [42].

Back to square 1

	The Incompleat Gamester by David Parlett
Games index	THE ARTS OF CONTEST (5) In the beginning...	Down page
	Part 5 of my introductory chapter to the catalogue accompanying an exhibition of Oriental Games mounted by the Asia Society, New York, 2004
	Where and how did games begin? The question is obvious, but, unfortunately, amenable only to speculation. The oldest civilizations to have left written records refer to games of various sorts without suggesting that any of them were novelties or out of the ordinary run of daily activities. Where written records are lacking, archaeological remains include game boards scratched on stone or clay and the occasional shaped piece that might have been used in gaming, not to mention obvious randomizing devices such as dice and astragals. Anthropologists who have studied still extant primitive societies find that most have games of one sort or another [40]. It would seem that games, like languages, religion, and the arts, are natural products of the human urge to order and harmony, and originated far beyond the catchment area of even prehistorical research. "We are order-making creatures, like it or not", says Alex Randolph, one of the world's great games inventors [41]. It is generally accepted that physical games developed earlier than gambling games, and that games of mental strategy later, if at all. Strategy games are rare among primitive societies, and become most prominent in relatively advanced civilizations, especially where administrative advancement tends to be secured by competition rather than by the casting of lots. The most obvious supposition is that games arose by the adaptation to playful purposes of implements and activities originally devised for functional purposes. For example, the primary function of shooting arrows from bows in a hunting society is to secure food and perhaps to guard hunting grounds from rival tribes. A secondary purpose would be to practise the use of bow and arrow in order to improve one's skills. A subsequent one would be establish, by competition, who the best marksmen are in order to allocate more efficiently the various co-operative labours of hunting. Some archers would gain more pleasure from the exercise of skill itself, or from the kudos attaching to the best of them, than from fulfilling their original purpose. What began as the purely practical thus gradually evolves into the purely recreational. One might say that archery, by definition, has become more playful by becoming more abstract, thereby underscoring our previous comment on a natural tendency of games to be more characterized by abstraction than representation. Another origin of games, or of some games at least, may have lain in that other natural tendency of human beings to representationalise their aspirations and activities. Cave paintings of hunting scenes have been the subject of various interpretations as to their probable purpose: to encourage a successful outcome by a process of sympathetic magic, for example, or perhaps to plan strategies or serve as a visual aid in identifying good target areas. It is possible that another type of visual aid to planning strategy would take the form of placing pieces representing prey and hunters (or enemy and warriors) on a flat surface charged with other pieces or markings representing topographical features, and moving them around to represent appropriate actions. A similar process of abstraction would then have resulted in the evolution of a game through a shift of emphasis from the practical to the recreational employment of the equipment involved. String games (non-competitive games of the Cat's Cradle type), which are found all over the world even in primitive societies that appear to lack any other type of formal game, may similarly illustrate the same abstracting tendency, as it is extremely unlike that string was originally invented for games and only later found to be really useful for tying things up. The same process probably also underlies the derivation of games of chance from the casting of lots intended for what would originally have been considered practical and functional purposes such as divination, ritual, and decision-making. Doubt has been cast on this theory by reference to the awe in which the laity would have held those authorized for such practices, such as magicians, shamans, and the like (who also, no doubt, guarded their position and privileges jealously), or to a fear of upsetting the gods; but it is not difficult to see those driven by the natural gambling impulse as in some sense "playing the part of" such favoured authorities as they submit themselves to the outcome. A survey of the games of Asia will not of itself provide an answer to the origins of games. But as we explore such ancient and distinctive contributions as playing-cards and dominoes, Go, Nyout, Pachisi, Nard, and the mysterious game of Liubo, we may come to realize that the whole of humanity is related not just by its urge to play, which is common to many creatures, but to play in accordance with those structured sets of rules that we call games. In order to form a just estimation of the character of any particular people, it is absolutely necessary to investigate the sports and pastimes most generally prevalent among them. War, policy, and other contingent circumstances, may effectually place men, at different times, in different points of view; but, when we follow them into their retirements, where no disguise is necessary, we are most likely to see them in their true state, and may best judge of their natural dispositions [42].
	Back to square 1