Friday, September 22, 2023

Nakahara Zenshu: Character and Weapons of the Ryukyu Kingdom (5) part 1

 



http://ryukyu-bugei.com/?p=3930&fbclid=IwAR2fU8faziOGDfZQYqqKg__vK8Cyg_H7RBDas-NUDedxeIRXcBudgXM0Fag

 

Nakahara Zenshu: Character

and Weapons of the Ryukyu Kingdom (5)

Posted on by Andreas Quast

 

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, vs. Tōdī, Tinbē vs. , 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 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 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 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: