# Subforum description / questioning the supposed 2000 year old lineage



## Chrisoro (Aug 10, 2015)

This subforum has the following description:



> Tang Soo Do is a Korean martial art which teaches empty hand and foot fighting, fighting forms, self-defense, and weapons. Tang Soo Do also teaches people to live a healthy and harmonious life. This ancient martial art traces its lineage back 2,000 years to the Korean peninsula.



I may be kicking a hornets nest here, but considering that most, if not all, of the early Tang Soo Do instructors had dan ranks in karate, and allmost oll of the early forms were more or less identical to forms taught in Okinawan and Japanese Karate at the time, I'm curious as to how one can realistically argue that Tang Soo Do is an ancient Korean martial art, and not primarily a Korean variant of Karate, with some influences from native chinese and korean martial arts?

I mean, the various official governing bodies of Taekwondo used to make similar claims, but even high ranking members of the Kukkiwon has since admited that the primary influence in the development of Taekwondo as it is today, was the Karate background of most of its founders.


----------



## Chrisoro (Aug 10, 2015)

Here is an apparently well researched article I found on the subject with a heavy use of references where applicable, and a full reference list at the bottom. While it focuses on the development of Taekwondo, it is also relevant to the history of Tang Soo Do, as the schools that eventually decided to use the name Taekwondo, used the general terms Tang Soo Do or Kong Soo Doo for describing their art, before switching to using Taekwondo.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The Evolution of Taekwondo from Japanese Karate*
November 17th, 2008
By Eric Madis[1]



Taekwondo (_t’aegwondo_, kicking and punching way/art) is a Korean martial art and combative sport distinguished by kicks, hand strikes, and arm blocks. Its sanctioned history claims that taekwondo is 2,000 years old, that it is descended from ancient _hwarang_ warriors, and that it has been significantly influenced by a traditional Korean kicking game called _taekyon_. However, the documented history of taekwondo is quite different. By focusing solely on what can be documented, the following essay links the origins of taekwondo to 20th century Shotokan, Shudokan, and Shito-ryu karate, and shows how the revised history was developed to support South Korean nationalism.

[Moderator Edit to comply with Fair Use]


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 10, 2015)

Yeah, I don't know that anyone here buys into the myth of the ancient Korean origins of TKD/TSD. Probably when the site was first built whoever created the subforums (Bob?) just copied and pasted the description from some random website.


----------



## Chrisoro (Aug 10, 2015)

So, the question is wether or not one should continue to base the subforum description on what is proven to be false history, or change it into something more in line with what can actually be documented. I mean, as it is now, it can instill wrong knowledge into new practitioners of Tang Soo Do, anyone else not interested in questioning it as it stands.


----------



## zzj (Aug 10, 2015)

Any claim of lineage exceeding a few hundred years should be viewed with a large dose of skepticism. Most martial arts are built on existing knowledge of their time, and in that sense you can trace influences back in time almost indefinitely, but to claim a direct lineage would be really stretching it.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 10, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, I don't know that anyone here buys into the myth of the ancient Korean origins of TKD/TSD. Probably when the site was first built whoever created the subforums (Bob?) just copied and pasted the description from some random website.



This is probably close to true, although I suspect he would have copied from whatever the "official" story said. 


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Not TapaTalk. Really.


----------



## TSDTexan (Aug 11, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, I don't know that anyone here buys into the myth of the ancient Korean origins of TKD/TSD. Probably when the site was first built whoever created the subforums (Bob?) just copied and pasted the description from some random website.




Yeah, I know I don't. The second school I attended, and the one I spent the longest at was called "Action-Karate MooDukKwan"

My master said (paraphrased) "I teach a traditional Korean Martial Art... Think of it as being Korean Karate...same thing as Okinawan but with pretty and powerful kicks from a Korean art called Taekyon"

Koreans emphasize the high kicks, while Japanese and Okinawan Karate-Do generally does not.

We weren't a subahkdo artform school, cause that wasn't in our lineage. The New Forms that Hwang Kee brought out that are very Chinese flavored. Soft, flowing circular...

We knew nothing of this. Ours was an older more primeval Tang Soo Do.

We dont know how old Taekyon is. It could go way back 2000 years, and Hwang Kee could have told the truth about learning it.

We dont know enough to say it is absolutely false.

I say I would vote to let it remain as is.


----------



## TimoS (Aug 11, 2015)

zzj said:


> Any claim of lineage exceeding a few hundred years should be viewed with a large dose of skepticism.


Especially in karate, I would put the late 1800's as a line beyond which really healthy doses of scepticism are needed. Some Japanese arts can, I believe, reliably trace their lineage to 15th century, but not many and even those that can, probably have changed quite a lot during their history.


----------



## Chrisoro (Aug 11, 2015)

TSDTexan said:


> We dont know how old Taekyon is. It could go way back 2000 years, and Hwang Kee could have told the truth about learning it.
> 
> We dont know enough to say it is absolutely false.
> 
> I say I would vote to let it remain as is.




Considering that the earliest existing written source mentioning Taekkyeon is the book _Jaemulbo_ (also _Manmulbo_), written by Lee Sung-Ji during the reign of Jeongjo (1776–1800), saying that Taekkyeon "could" co back 2000 years, is at best pure speculation. And I don't think pure speculation is what one should base the supposed history (or description) of a martial art.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 11, 2015)

Chrisoro said:


> Considering that the earliest existing written source mentioning Taekkyeon is the book _Jaemulbo_ (also _Manmulbo_), written by Lee Sung-Ji during the reign of Jeongjo (1776–1800), saying that Taekkyeon "could" co back 2000 years, is at best pure speculation. And I don't think pure speculation is what one should base the supposed history (or description) of a martial art.



Not to mention that even if Taekkyeon _did_ stretch back 2000 years (highly unlikely) and _did_ have an actual influence on TSD (unproven), that influence would be relatively small compared to the majority of the art which was directly derived from Karate.

Hmm ... now I want to go through the other subforum descriptions and see what other martial art history myths are lurking there.


----------



## reeskm (Aug 11, 2015)

Interestingly enough, this idea isn't exclusively Korean. I believe this "2000 year old art" is a rehash of one that started in the Japanese Karate community. Or, it occurred at about the same time.

It seems to have started innocently enough as a way to say "look, on a basic level, empty hand fighting has been around as long as man" and ballooned and took a nationalistic turn during the 1960s and 70s.

Let me see if I can't dig up some examples... I'll get back to you guys.
I think this myth is easy to dispel. It deserves an article on Snopes.com!


----------



## reeskm (Aug 11, 2015)

3000 year old claim from a Kyokushin (admitedly with Korean influence) school.
Admitedly they don't say "Karate is 3000 years old" or some such.

Heres some good stuff from IOGKF spain mentioning tomb murals in ancient Egypt as being "karate"-like.

This article is close the Japanese "3000 year old" myth that I often see, trying to refer to Ancient Egypt, Greece tomb murals etc.
In contrast, the Koreans try and do the same thing but with tomb paintings found 2000 years ago in Korea.

Here's a shotokan school that says:
"Karate originated in India and was introduced to China 3000 years ago." and then some blah blah blah about Bodhidarma. I love Bhodhidarm actually. I have a daruma doll in my house, and it's my favorite nick nack of all the nick nacks I have. But honestly I have to admit that I haven't met him, and haven't met his friends. Who knows what he was really doing in China all those years ago! We have to rely on some pretty cool stories, that are probably more legend than reality.

Shima Karate Dojos has the same copy paste history, by and large.

_I am still trying to locate an older source to this "Karate is 3000 or 2000" years old myth. I'm pretty sure it dates back to the 1950s, or earlier, from a very old text book._

_These ideas are not necessarily wrong if you consider that "karate" is just an pan-asian word or concept for empty handed self defence, in which sometimes you pick up a sword or a stick..._


----------



## Chrisoro (Aug 11, 2015)

Yes, there are plenty of other examples of false history claiming ancient origins in martial arts. Probably helps selling them to people who don't know any better. 

Considering that the so called history of karate listed above states that Bodhidarma lived about 1000 year earlier than what is commonly believed based on principal sources, they have allready disqualified themselves completely as historians.

Also, they place the origin of martial arts with Bodhidarma, while Ignoring that the Greeks had a living and well documented martial culture well over a 1000 years before his time. I guess Bodhidarma must have been a time traveler.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 11, 2015)

Trying to place the "origins" of martial arts is futile. "Martial Arts" originated when Og showed Ook that you could hit harder by holding a stick.


----------



## TSDTexan (Aug 11, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Trying to place the "origins" of martial arts is futile. "Martial Arts" originated when Og showed Ook that you could hit harder by holding a stick.



Or when Cain took Able out to a field and dis-abled him, maybe with a rock.


----------



## Chrisoro (Aug 12, 2015)

TSDTexan said:


> Or when Cain took Able out to a field and dis-abled him, maybe with a rock.



If we are going_ there_, I think we can safely place it even earlier, such as when Odin and his brothers slew the frost giant Ymir with their bare hands, and set about constructing the world from his corpse. They probably learned quite a bit about the weak spots of frost giants, and no doubt taught this to the other aesir, which then probably taught the techniques to the ancient Koreans.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 12, 2015)

TSDTexan said:


> Or when Cain took Able out to a field and dis-abled him, maybe with a rock.





Chrisoro said:


> If we are going_ there_, I think we can safely place it even earlier, such as when Odin and his brothers slew the frost giant Ymir with their bare hands, and set about constructing the world from his corpse. They probably learned quite a bit about the weak spots of frost giants, and no doubt taught this to the other aesir, which then probably taught the techniques to the ancient Koreans.



Og and Okk predate either of those mythos.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 12, 2015)

zzj said:


> Any claim of lineage exceeding a few hundred years should be viewed with a large dose of skepticism.


I feel the same way.  Martial art styles are developed so any martial art style from the beginning is probably very limited.  If you look at how swords were made and how some went from a straight blade to a curved blade and how the metal that was used changed, then you can understand that fighting styles would change in a similar way.  The fighting style would improve with the technology.

Takeyon is not a kicking game and it's older than Taekwondo.  Sounds like the resource that was quoted is flawed.


----------



## Chrisoro (Aug 13, 2015)

Which resource? And in what way? It is customary to specify why and how a statement backed up by references is flawed, and then provide better references than the one you are critizising in order for your statement to be taken as anything else than pure, personal opinion. 

In either case, the earliest mentioning of Taekkyeon is just a little more than 200 years old, so this is still quite thin if used as proof that TKD/TSD has "ancient" origins. Whatever the cavepaintings often used as proof of TKD in ancient Korea shows, it is not TKD/TSD/Taekkyeon, as there has been proved  no actual historical connection.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 13, 2015)

TKD History Sources
"Taekwondo is a martial art that in "todays" form of self defense has evolved by combining many different styles of martial arts that existed in Korea over the last 2,000 years and some martial arts styles from countries that surround Korea" Taekwondo History
This article says that it was created from many different styles of martial arts that existed in Korea over the 2000 years.  The different martial arts styles existed in Korea not Taekwondo.  

"The first Taekwondo school (Kwan) was started in Yong Chun, Seoul, Korea in 1945"  This seems to be very late for something that has existed for 2000 years.

TKD History Source
History
They constantly refer to Taekkyon through their site.  Then they try to make it seem that Taekkyon is the same as Taekwondo but they are different.
"The martial art Taekkyon (Taekwondo) had been secretly handed down only by the masters of the art until the liberation of the country in 1945."

This is the history of Taekkyon





Here's another source:
"During Korea’s Yi period (900-1050), the Chinese introduced two more martial arts to Korea: _subak,_ eventually renamed _taekyon;_ and _kwonbeop,_ which became the standard art for Korean warriors. _Taekwondo_ arose in the 1950s when several Korean martial artists combined Japanese karate with taekyon."
Korean Martial Arts History - Black Belt

The sources that I listed are why I would question a 2000 year old lineage.  The other thing is that martial arts develop over time and never stay the same as the original root. For a martial arts fighting system to be 2000 years old would be really rare.  Those who master a martial arts styles are always seeking to make their style better and in the process the style is changed and often times this changes results in a new name and a new fighting system. That has roots in an older fighting system.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 13, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, I don't know that anyone here buys into the myth of the ancient Korean origins of TKD/TSD. Probably when the site was first built whoever created the subforums (Bob?) just copied and pasted the description from some random website.



I don't recall when we added the section, but most of the early art forum descriptions were based on available info in the rec.martialarts FAQ as it was at the time, or later distilled from Wikipedia entries.    A few were updated, modified or totally replaced based on member input over the years.


----------



## Chrisoro (Aug 13, 2015)

JowGaWolf said:


> TKD History Sources
> "Taekwondo is a martial art that in "todays" form of self defense has evolved by combining many different styles of martial arts that existed in Korea over the last 2,000 years and some martial arts styles from countries that surround Korea" Taekwondo History
> This article says that it was created from many different styles of martial arts that existed in Korea over the 2000 years.  The different martial arts styles existed in Korea not Taekwondo.
> 
> ...



The problem with all those sources, is that they equate any trace of earlier forms of martial arts in Korea with Taekwondo, and make it sound as if TKD has some sort of connection with the earlier styles or that it in some way evolved from them, even though it has been proven time and time again that the main inspiration of Taekwondo was Karate.

Those sources are also claiming things they have no basis for. Take this example:



			
				http://www.worldtaekwondo.com/history.htm said:
			
		

> During the Silla dynasty (A.D. 668 to A.D. 935) Taek Kyon was mostly used as a sport and recreational activity.



How can they possibly know this when the the earliest existing written source mentioning Taekkyeon is the book _Jaemulbo, _written just a little over 200 years ago?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 13, 2015)

Chrisoro
That's my point.  Multiple source with multiple histories about TKD.  When something is definite then the sources say the same thing with the exception of a couple of sources.  Take for example the history of Jow Ga.  If you look it up the history of Jow Ga Kung Fu the history of it is the same.  You may find that it's called different things based on dialect or based on the on the root of it, but it all has the same history with the same timeline, same founder, and same lineage as it relates to the founder.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 14, 2015)

Here's the thing,  in my opinion.  There are so many claims and fuzzed lines in just about every art that we can't really audit of prove the history claims. To me. You should realize every forum description should be read with a caveat of "they say" or "according to some sources..." or something similar.


----------



## Chrisoro (Aug 14, 2015)

Then why don't just change it to say that, instead of bombastic statements such as "This ancient martial art traces its lineage back 2,000 years to the Korean peninsula."?


----------



## reeskm (Aug 20, 2015)

Yes, agree that we have the ability to change the description. You just have to get everybody to agree to it! Good luck with that! LOL

What I did for our description for our school, is this:
(old description was similar to this forum's description)

_Tang Soo Do is a traditional martial art. It became popular in Korea in the 1940s, but it's philosophy and techniques are thousands of years old. The art of Tang Soo Do is a method of hand and foot fighting, based on scientific use of the body for self defense._

This way, you are not lying. TSD does incorporate techniques and ideas that are thousands of years old. This statement also avoids picking a nationality on purpose: you don't say that it is based on Japanese or Chinese arts or others. You refer only to the period where it became popular in Korea.

But since we have some of the best eyes and experts here in this forum I invite you all to critique my description. Any issues with it? Is this an improvement, and does it go far enough to fixing the issues of the "2000 year old martial art from Korea"?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 20, 2015)

Reeskm
I like the discription that you showed.


----------



## Chrisoro (Aug 24, 2015)

reeskm said:


> Yes, agree that we have the ability to change the description. You just have to get everybody to agree to it! Good luck with that! LOL
> 
> What I did for our description for our school, is this:
> (old description was similar to this forum's description)
> ...



I like this description a lot better than the one that currently describes this subforum. The only thing I have some minor issues with, is the claim that it incorporates techniques that are thousands of years old. Which techniques is that, and how do you date them? And if you by this mean such things as generic straight punches, since examples of these are found in other arts that can be documented to have been in existance in ancient times(such as in old roman boxing and pankration) then why mention it in the first place, if it cannot be reliably traced to, or be proven to have influenced, modern Tang Soo Do? But this is minor issues, and nitpicking on my part.


----------



## reeskm (Sep 2, 2015)

Chrisoro said:


> The only thing I have some minor issues with, is the claim that it incorporates techniques that are thousands of years old. Which techniques is that, and how do you date them? And if you by this mean such things as generic straight punches, since examples of these are found in other arts that can be documented to have been in existance in ancient times(such as in old roman boxing and pankration) then why mention it in the first place, if it cannot be reliably traced to, or be proven to have influenced, modern Tang Soo Do?



Chrisoro,
I very precisely chose the word influence, because this is exactly what I am claiming. I am not suggesting by the description that what we do today is the exact same "martial art" or style as what was done thousands of years ago.

So philosophies found in the warrior cultures of China, Korea and Japan should be taught in the classroom, to appeal to the western and modern generation. These include strategy, meditation, the warrior spirit, the martial way, concepts of the tao te ching, etc, the song of the sip sam seh (13 influences), internal and external power, ki/chi, etc.

Zen Buddhism is one example. It came to Japan between the 4th and 6th centuries AD. It has influenced Karate and Tang Soo Do as they are the same art, in different languages. Therefore, this influence is "thousands of years old" (measured in units of at least 1000, in this case 1.4 - 1.6 thousand years.)


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 2, 2015)

reeskm said:


> It came to Japan between the 4th and 6th centuries AD.



Just a minor thing not a criticism but a suggestion, (it's used in British schools now) but valid I feel for a scholarly article, rather than use 'AD' perhaps 'CE'  especially when discussing non Xtian civilisations, and when discussing with non Xtians. 
Common Era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## reeskm (Sep 2, 2015)

Tez3 - seems more of an attempt to be politically correct than anything. I am not a religious person but am 1/2 brit myself and baptized Anglican.

I learned AD/BC in school and old habits die hard. Personally, I think you could use either one and it would be obvious what you mean. By all means use CE/BCE if it suits your fancy.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 2, 2015)

reeskm said:


> Tez3 - seems more of an attempt to be technically correcty correct than anything. I am not a religious person but am 1/2 brit myself and baptized Anglican.
> 
> I learned AD/BC in school and old habits die hard. Personally, I think you could use either one and it would be obvious what you mean. By all means use CE/BCE if it suits your fancy.



It's a very old system actually and far from being politically correct it's 
use is tecnically correct. It's not a fancy at all and has nothing to do with being British at all but just as children here no longer use or know what imperial measurements are they will soon like their European counterparts not know what AD and BC is so no it's not quite as obvious as you think. It will be considered old fashioned in just a few years, thought you might like to keep what you have written up to date.


----------

