http://ryukyu-bugei.com/?p=3930&fbclid=IwAR2fU8faziOGDfZQYqqKg__vK8Cyg_H7RBDas-NUDedxeIRXcBudgXM0Fag
Nakahara Zenshu: Character
and Weapons of the Ryukyu Kingdom (5)
In this 5th and last part of his article on the character
and weapons of the Ryūkyū Kingdom, Nakahara discusses early karate and
kobudō sources from the kingdom time. Although quite short, still
today no earlier written usage of the term tōdī (karate)
has been identified than that used in the 1867 martial arts program of the
Kume Village School. However, it is simply a composite word
and although referring to a pre-karate-like martial art, and although
related to it, it has to be viewed in its thematic relevance. It cannot be
ruled out that the term was later simply re-chosen due to its historical
significance, and maybe it was later even changed due to its historical
implications, i.e. of Chinese heritage, and specifically due to its unequivocal
connection to Kume only. It might even have been coincidence. A homonymous
term can simply have many meanings, especially when used in specialized
terminology in contrast to common language.
\It was Arakaki Seishō who performed martial
arts at the said martial arts demonstration of 1867, in front of the Chinese
investiture envoys at the royal tea villa (Ochaya-udun) in Shuri
Sakiyama. In the rank of a Tsūji Pēchin at the time, Arakaki Seishō
performed Sēsan, Shisōshin, Bō vs. Tōdī, Tinbē
vs. Bō, as well as and unarmed hand-to-hand fighting called Jiaoshou.
And this martial arts presentation was a part of the festival of school arts
hosted by the Kume village school. The fact remains that the sole written proof
for the use of the term tōdī – and besides actual kata names
of “Naha-te” – during kingdom times refers to this martial art of Kume village,
and nothing else. Another fact that remains is that there is
no proof for the use of tī that even comes close to 1879. Quite
on the contrary. Though it can be used to validate basically any technical
content that people wish for, it was and still is nothing but a 20th
century working theory.
Cut my flesh, but I cut your bone.
I cannot answer the question whether the theory of tī was
simply an attempt to construct proof for the existence of an
a) indigenous,
b) unarmed martial arts that is
c) older than the import of Chinese kenpō
d) and whose techniques have been handed down of over
hundreds of years.
But hitherto I didn’t come across even one watertight
reasoning by anyone that was able to proof the existence of tī in
the above sense and under this name. Therefore, at least for me, both
perspectives are likewise possible. Since decades following the 1867
demonstration the terms “Shuri-te”, “Tomari-te”, and “Naha-te” were used, it
was stated “Naha-te” is younger because tī existed. I repeat:
there is no evidence for this, quite on the contrary. All over the tip
of the iceberg known as the internet, confessions
of belief are spread by the various supporting groups, relying
exactly on this fallacy.
As regards Kūsankū: who can tell if there
was an actual personal tradition of a kata by the same name since
the coming of this person in 1756? Here again it is impossible to exclude
the possibility that the name was simply chosen as a retrospective reference to
a historical incident related to the import of martial arts. Fact is: Kūsankū
in the meaning of a kata was nowhere mentioned during
kingdom times; only in retrospective reference.
The ONLY reference to kata demonstration during
kingdom times refers to the 1867 demonstration of the Kume school.
Saying that something is true because it is possible is a
very bad choice, simply because it always, forever, and
concurrently allows for the complete opposite opinion. This is true
for martial arts history.
Be that as it may: don’t get me wrong! You can still
count me among the greatest fans of Okinawan martial arts. I am just allergic
against quibbling “in the name of…”. And yes, from the extant sources we
can also indirectly derive the existence of other Okinawan martial
arts. It’s a question of primary and secondary sources. But primary sources
have the lead.
No comments:
Post a Comment