1,720,965 research outputs found

    “Your Kung Fu is very good, Master Fiore!” Asian and European fight books in comparison

    Full text link
    The phenomenon of the fight book is not restricted to the European tradition. Similar artefacts, usually combining text and image to describe the techniques of close quarter combat with and without weapons, exist also in various Asian cultures, in China, Japan, Korea, and India. In the article, the question shall be raised in how far and to which end fight books of different cultures can be taken into one perspective, and be compared. To do so, similarities and dissimilarities between European and early Chinese fight books will be pointed out, and preliminary areas for comparison will be introduced. The aim of the article is to raise awareness for the topic, and to lay the ground for further discussion between specialists on the respective European and Chinese fields

    Fighting and the combat arts in medieval Iceland

    No full text
    Inhalt 1. Vorüberlegungen Der isländische Freistaat und die Gewalt Sozialer Status und kriegerisches Selbstverständnis Europäischer Kontext und Waffentechnologie 2. Fragestellung der Arbeit Wie wurde im mittelalterlichen Island gekämpft? Wurde der Umgang mit Waffen im mittelalterlichen Island trainiert? 3. Methode 4. Isländische Perspektive Historisch-literaturwissenschaftlicher Zugang Archäologischer Zugang Osteoarchäologischer Zugang 5. Außerisländische Perspektive Ethnologischer Zugang Experimentalarchäologischer / praktisch-fechterischer Zugang 6. Antworten und Ausblick Bedeutung für die Disziplinen Hoplologie

    Book review: P. Bowman, Mythologies of Martial Arts

    No full text

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore