Jiao Li (角力) and Shoubo (手搏) are often discussed together in modern scholarship because they appear within the same historical framework of early Chinese unarmed combat. Researchers such as Stanley Henning note that both terms are tied to martial skills practiced by trained fighters and that both appear in periods where physical combat played an important role in military preparation. However, any comparison must remain cautious. The surviving sources are limited, and the available descriptions often use general terms that require interpretation rather than offering detailed technical accounts.
Jiao Li appears earlier in the historical record. References associated with the Zhou era describe it as a physical practice used by soldiers and nobles. These accounts emphasize contests or strength trials. Early texts mention gripping, lifting, and throwing. Archaeological materials from the Warring States period show human figures locked in holds or off-balancing positions. Researchers point out that such imagery supports the existence of structured grappling, but it does not provide technical manuals. Because of this, descriptions of Jiao Li as wrestling are based on broad contextual clues from texts and imagery; there is no direct evidence of striking being part of Jiao Li.
Shoubo appears in some Han-period writings, but these texts do not explain its methods. The Zhouli refers to physical training but does not mention Shoubo. The Hanshu describes unarmed contests but does not use the term. Because of this, the exact methods of Shoubo remain unknown.
Some Han texts refer to seizing, holding, or striking within the context of physical training or military preparation. These references are brief, but they use a wider range of terminology than the earlier descriptions of Jiao Li. This has led historians to describe Shoubo as a broader system that includes grappling, joint manipulation, and striking. However, researchers emphasize that these labels are based on interpretive analysis. The terms used in early Chinese writing often carried multiple meanings, and the surviving material does not present structured methods.
A key distinction between the two systems is their documented purpose. Jiao Li appears mainly in descriptions of contests or trials. Shoubo appears in military-related contexts in Han-period texts, suggesting it may have been linked to practical combat training, though no text explicitly mentions candidate examinations. This suggests that Shoubo may have been linked to more formal state training. Several scholars note that this formal role could explain the broader range of skills implied by the textual terminology. But it is important to state that the sources do not outline a direct developmental path and do not explicitly identify Shoubo as an expansion of Jiao Li. The connection is based on similarities in purpose, time period, and functional needs, not on uninterrupted documentary evidence.
Another factor to consider is regional variation. Ancient China was not culturally uniform, and martial practices could differ from one region to another. Archaeological finds show variability in clothing, posture, and depicted method. Some scenes clearly depict grappling; others are more difficult to interpret. These differences make it difficult to assign a single, unified technical identity to either Jiao Li or Shoubo. Researchers often caution that both terms may have been used differently depending on the location or social context.
The strongest consistent point across the evidence is continuity of principle rather than exact method. Both systems involve close-range engagement. Both were used by trained fighters in periods when unarmed combat held practical importance. Both appear in military settings. Because of these shared characteristics, some historians propose that Shoubo could represent a later expression of the same general tradition from which Jiao Li emerged, but that is just a theory. This interpretation is possible, but not conclusively proven. Scholars emphasize that the scarcity of detailed manuals and the interpretive nature of the surviving imagery limit any firm statement about technical evolution.
Overall, a direct comparison shows both continuity and uncertainty. Jiao Li appears earlier and is associated with tests of strength and grappling contests. Shoubo appears later, with textual hints of a broader range of skills and a closer relationship to formal military preparation. The archaeological and written evidence supports these distinctions, but the gaps in the historical record require a careful, measured approach.
Additionally, it is noteworthy that both the Hanshu (Book of Han) and the Zhouli (Rites of Zhou) do not contain detailed descriptions of close-combat methods such as wrestling or similar martial practices. Their focus remains on the organizational, ritual, and moral aspects of military and societal discipline rather than on specific combat methods. This absence underscores the emphasis on strategic, hierarchical, and virtuous principles in ancient Chinese military thought, rather than on hand-to-hand combat methods.
So why do researchers reference the Hanshu and Zhouli for insights into ancient Chinese combat?
These texts provide context about military and societal practices in early China. While they lack detailed manuals or step-by-step descriptions, they reference martial roles, physical training, and unarmed contests, showing that close-combat skills were recognized and valued within the martial culture. Archaeological findings, ancient illustrations, and later martial arts traditions support these references, allowing scholars to reconstruct the principles and methods of early Chinese martial practice even without explicit technical instructions.
In essence, the Hanshu and Zhouli serve as contextual frameworks that clarify the environment in which Jiao Li and Shoubo developed, bridging historical evidence with interpretive reconstruction of early Chinese unarmed combat.
Thanks for reading
Cheers, Gert
Share this article
