# If Korean Art



## terryl965 (Feb 26, 2007)

was based off of other art then why do we have korean art, here in america karate is still Japanese routed and Kung Fu is still chinese routed so why in Korea is the art korean and not given it proper due for the founding art that it came from.


----------



## Laurentkd (Feb 27, 2007)

terryl965 said:


> was based off of other art then why do we have korean art, here in america karate is still Japanese routed and Kung Fu is still chinese routed so why in Korea is the art korean and not given it proper due for the founding art that it came from.


 

Do you think karate came from Japan with no influence from anywhere else? Same question for kung fu. Korean arts where most definitely influenced by other arts, but I think the same thing can be said about EVERY art.  I think we have to simplify, and trace an art back to it's logical roots and just stop there. Taekwondo was named in and a core curriculum (poomse) was developed in Korea, hence it is a Korean art.  Otherwise I would say every martial art is REALLY from the first caveman who hit another caveman who was trying to take his cave woman. 

Of course, I think it is important to be HONEST with ourselves that Korean arts aren't strictly Korean, and give credit were it is deserved (something that always seem to be sorely lacking with Korean arts), however my eyes just start swimming when people try to prove EXACTLY where each came from.

Maybe I am just not as interested in history as others though... in fact I know I am not, I have always been more of a biology person to tell you the truth.... I'll talk biomechanics with you all night long if you want!


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 27, 2007)

Laurentkd said:


> Do you think karate came from Japan with no influence from anywhere else? Same question for kung fu. Korean arts where most definitely influenced by other arts, but I think the same thing can be said about EVERY art. I think we have to simplify, and trace an art back to it's logical roots and just stop there. Taekwondo was named in and a core curriculum (poomse) was developed in Korea, hence it is a Korean art. Otherwise I would say every martial art is REALLY from the first caveman who hit another caveman who was trying to take his cave woman.
> 
> Of course, I think it is important to be HONEST with ourselves that Korean arts aren't strictly Korean, and give credit were it is deserved (something that always seem to be sorely lacking with Korean arts), however my eyes just start swimming when people try to prove EXACTLY where each came from.
> 
> Maybe I am just not as interested in history as others though... in fact I know I am not, I have always been more of a biology person to tell you the truth.... I'll talk biomechanics with you all night long if you want!


 

Laurentkd I know karate was derieved from somewhere else and that was from someplace else but mainly they give credit at times for there taken from other venues while Koreans try to put it under the table, for the most part anyway


----------



## exile (Feb 27, 2007)

Well, the way I see it, Terry, there were several factors unique to Korea. Chinese MAs have been in China so long no one remembers `where' they were from, if indeed they came from anywhere else; in Japan too, there were many indigenous martial arts (or at least, arts that were there for so long, no one remembered where they came from). It's true that the karate is usually described as an importation from Okinawa, but even there the historical record shows that things worked in both directions: as Iain Abernethy reports in _Bunkai-Jutsu_,

_many of the Minimoto samurai took Okinawan wives and remained upon the island for the rest of their days. The bujitsu of the Minimoto samurai had a large influence on the fighting methods employed by the Okinawan nobles. One part of Minimoto bujitsu that had an influence on the development of karate was the idea that all motion is essentially the same. Whether striking, grappling or wielding a weapon, the Minamoto samurai taught that all combative methods relied upon similar physical movements... the results of this combat philosophy can still be seen in modern day karate._

(p.6) So the karate which went to Japan from Okinawa with Gichin Funakoshi was _itself_ a partly Japanese product, along with Chinese elements and native Okinawan tuite techniquesa complex synthesis.  And this is in general the pattern for Asian MAsexcept for Korea! You know what my take on TKD history is; the fact is that from the outset, as the documentary record I assembled in that little essay I sent you shows repeatedly, Korean MAs were essentially taken over from classical Chinese fighting arts; and as a result of disinterest in combat skills in the later Yi dynasty, these arets fell into disuse for several hundred years prior to the Japanese occupation of Korea at the end of the 19th c. And when that occupation began, the skills that Koreans were exposed to at first were distinctly Japanese artskendo and jujutsu, as per the references in that essay. And when the next wave of Korean MAs rolled in, it was distinctly Japanese(/Okinawan)kong su do, better known as Shotokan karate (with a bit of Shudokan and Goju-ryu in a few instances). 

In other words, the whole stamp of Korean MA was Japanese in the early 20th c., and this was also the time of the Koreans' own `trail of tears' under the horribly oppressive Japanese military regimewe all know the brutality of the Korean occupation by this point. So you have two facts pair: (i) a very, very specifically foreign-derived MA as the `national MA' of Korea, and (ii) terrible social disruption and abuse of the Korean people by the _source_ of that MA. It's no wonder that many Koreans have gone out of their way to deny the documented history of the striking MA systems. 

But not all Koreans buy into this denialS. Henry Cho in his book _ TKD: Secrets of Korean Karate_, Gm. Kim intervied by Master Robert McLain in our own MT magazine, and many other acknowledge their debt to Japan; the founder of the Song Moo Kwan named his school with the Japanese cognate of Shoto Kan, where he was trained by Funakoshi (both schools' names = `pine tree house (of training)'. I think there are good reasons for the denial of Japanese contribution, but there are better reasons, at this age and stage, to set the record straight...


----------



## rmclain (Feb 27, 2007)

I'd like to add a historical note about the Jido-Kwan instructor/founder, Yoon Ui-byung (Yoon Kwe-byung). As you know, the Jido-Kwan was one of the early kwans in S. Korea prior to the unification of the kwans.

He actually opened a dojang in Japan before the end of WWII.  He called his school, Hanmoo-Kwan, meaning, "People of Korea Martial Art School." He even published a book in Japan on Bong sul (Bo Jitsu), including several Bong Hyung. - Most senior Jido-Kwan Masters these days don't even know this.  I've seen a copy of this book for myself.

R. McLain


----------



## zDom (Feb 27, 2007)

Well, to use a couple sports analogies:

Baseball came from cricket, but is without a doubt an American sport, even though its roots are British. We put too much of our own stamp on it and it became something else.

(American) football came from rugby, but is without a doubt an American sport, even though its roots are British. We put too much of our own stamp on it and it became something else.

Soccer isn't an American sport; we know it came from somewhere else (Europe) but we decided to name it something else, just because  A lot of Americans play soccer using different terminology and a different name. But we haven't really changed this sport into something else. It is still pretty much the same game.

So I maintain, Koreans put enough of a stamp on things like TKD and TSD that they have indeed become Korean martial arts, despite their Japanese roots.


----------



## matt.m (Feb 27, 2007)

zDom is a genius.  Really, to put into perspective....when you old masters that started in the 60's and early 70's was it not important to claim the heritage of the art?  Karate for japanese or okinawa; hapkido and tae kwon do for Korea.

Do we not do this with cars.  It is more of an accepted rule of "quality" I would think than anything.  Afterall, there are a ton of borrowed techniques across all systems.  Gee doesn't karate, tae kwon do, kung fu, and wushu as well as kenpo all have a side kick?

Doesn't jiujitsu, judo, hapkido and aikido have a shoulder throw?  I think it is the application of the technique that makes it different.

In Scott's last post does he not ask about break falling for Daito Ryu Aiki Jiujitsu?


----------



## Laurentkd (Feb 27, 2007)

terryl965 said:


> Laurentkd I know karate was derieved from somewhere else and that was from someplace else but mainly they give credit at times for there taken from other venues while Koreans try to put it under the table, for the most part anyway


 
oook, now I understand what you were asking originally.

My opinion... it is largely due to the brutal Japanese occupation.  My grandmaster was a little kid when this occured and he can't stand to look at a Japanese flag.  I don't think any of us can understand the hatred Koreans (at least the older generations) have for the Japanese.  Based on my experiences with this specific person at least, it seems to be a large factor.

Not saying they are correct in denying the roots of Korean martial arts, but I think it helps to understand WHY they are doing it (as I am sure you were hoping to examine on in this thread).  Hopefully as the hatred cools over time this is something that will be corrected.. I think we are already heading in this direction (probably due to so many non-Koreans now practicing the arts).


----------



## chrismay101 (Mar 19, 2007)

I was under the impression that kung fu was created by a monk visiting a Chinese tempal from india. seeing all the fat lay about monks he devised this system from seeing animal actions! so they could fight the flab!


----------



## Blindside (Mar 19, 2007)

chrismay101 said:


> I was under the impression that kung fu was created by a monk visiting a Chinese tempal from india. seeing all the fat lay about monks he devised this system from seeing animal actions! so they could fight the flab!


 
That is a very loose interpretation of a legend, of course the related legends of Damo say that he meditated for nine years in a cave, got POed because he fell asleep meditating and therefore he ripped his eyelids off.  

I'm just as cautious about the origins of kung fu as I am about TKD being an ancient Korean art.

Lamont


----------



## IcemanSK (Mar 19, 2007)

Koreans tend to make everything Korean. That's why there is still a Korea. They've been invaded many times & yet prevailed. Judo was taught to them, but they called it Yudo, made it their own & it's a nation triumph when a Korean beats a Japanese judo player in competition.

Don't know how it got here, but it must be Korean.


----------



## exile (Mar 19, 2007)

Blindside said:


> I'm just as cautious about the origins of kung fu as I am about TKD being an ancient Korean art.
> 
> Lamont



Very wise, Lamont! Exhaustive analyses of the available documentationwhich is actually quite limited, conveniently enoughmake it clear that anything `anciently Korean' was derived from Chinese sources, and that this ancient connection to CMAs died out well before the turn of the 20th c., and its place taken by Okinawan/Japanese fighting systems. I've got in the works  a compilation of what hard evidence there is about the origins of modern KMA (which I hope to submit it to our MT Magazine in the near future), and on the basis of the best evidence we have, your skepticism is 110% justified...


----------



## Blindside (Mar 19, 2007)

exile said:


> Very wise, Lamont! Exhaustive analyses of the available documentation&#8212;which is actually quite limited, conveniently enough&#8212;make it clear that anything `anciently Korean' was derived from Chinese sources, and that this ancient connection to CMAs died out well before the turn of the 20th c., and its place taken by Okinawan/Japanese fighting systems. I've got in the works a compilation of what hard evidence there is about the origins of modern KMA (which I hope to submit it to our MT Magazine in the near future), and on the basis of the best evidence we have, your skepticism is 110% justified...


 
Hey, I'm a kenpoist, we can't even agree on our lineage pre-1945.... and I'm completely serious about that.  I've got a hard time believing the truth has been neatly passed down with no embellishment for thousands of years.

Lamont


----------



## exile (Mar 19, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Hey, I'm a kenpoist, we can't even agree on our lineage pre-1945.... and I'm completely serious about that.  I've got a hard time believing the truth has been neatly passed down with no embellishment for thousands of years.
> 
> Lamont



But waitthere's _more!_ (as they say on those late night TV ads where everything, no matter what, costs $19.95 with a bunch of `freebies' supposedly thrown in if you'e one of the next 50 (million, lol) to call). The _exact_ same thing is true of the KMAs. No one really knows at this point exactly what the Kwans were teaching in the period from the immediate pre-Korean War through the early 1960s. How the hell can anyone presume to say what was happening on the Korean peninsula ten, fifteen or twenty centuries ago when we can't even agree on what was happening in Seoul a mere fifty _years_ ago???

As I say... skepticism and a demand for serious corroboration should be our response to _any_ claims about ancient MA practice...


----------



## Last Fearner (Mar 20, 2007)

exile said:


> The _exact_ same thing is true of the KMAs. No one really knows at this point exactly what the Kwans were teaching in the period from the immediate pre-Korean War through the early 1960s. How the hell can anyone presume to say what was happening on the Korean peninsula ten, fifteen or twenty centuries ago when we can't even agree on what was happening in Seoul a mere fifty _years_ ago???...


 
Since everyone is expressing their views on this topic, I will offer my dissenting opinion.

I have stated before that I believe the key difference is in what it is that you are calling "Taekwondo." There is no doubt, and I do not believe any serious argument, that the period of Japanese Occupation of Korea (1910-1945), attempted to replace Korean language, culture, and history with that of Japan's. There is no doubt that those Korean individuals who lived during that time were greatly influenced, if not inundated with all things Japanese. For those Korean Martial Artists who studied during the occupation, learned from Japanese run schools in Korea, or lived and studied in Japan, what they learned was, without question, Japanese Martial Art.

Now, if you take that as it appears on the surface, and add nothing else into it, and call *that* "Taekwondo," then you would be correct that Taekwondo is a reformation of Japanese Karate. I believe you would be in error if that is how you define "Taekwondo," but the term is defined only by its usage. Many words have multiple uses.

There are those who research the background of the early Kwan leaders (1944 - 1955), and acknowledge their study of Japanese Martial Art, then point out that unique Korean skills were added, and the Art changed to make it Korean. However, this definition still attributes the "roots" and "origin" of Taekwondo to be from Japanese Martial Art. This is a different definition of Taekwondo than what I use.

"Taekwondo" by the definition I use, is first and foremost a label to give a name to the collective skills, and Martial Art philosophy that existed in Korea from the three Kingdoms period. I believe there is sufficient physical evidence to show that "unarmed combat skills" were known and studied by the early inhabitants of the Choseun peninsula. I believe that there is recorded history that the soldiers of Koguryo, and Silla used weapons and unarmed skills, and this is how Silla unified the kingdoms, then drove out the Chinese armies.

In my opinion, there is sufficient reason to conclude that Korean people of ancient times practiced blocking, punching, kicking and grappling for self defense as well as sport. I believe that early Korean Martial Artists lived by a code of honor, as evidenced in the later teachings of the Hwarang, and this is a key element of Martial Art, above and beyond the technical curriculum. What do we call those methods used by early Koreans to survive - - Subak, Taekyon, Hwarangdo, Hapkido? What difference does it make? It existed, and it was as much a unique development of Korean culture as any other Martial Art philosophy and technique in Asia. This is what, in 1955, the Korean people, with the official support of the Korean government re-named "Taekwondo." This is what I call Taekwondo.

What happened in Korea in recent times (the entire 20th century), can be called Taekwondo as well, but that would be a limited definition, and a narrow perspective. Some will acknowledge the "ancient skills" of Korea, but say that it all died off before the 20th century, thus lacking any credible link to today's Taekwondo.

First of all, do you know that it *ALL* died off? Would it be more accurate that the early skills fell from popularity, went into obscurity, but was still practiced by some? Perhaps no one knows who, or how many, but if the ancient skills were maintained to some degree (probably influenced and modified over the centuries), but still handed down from generation to generation, then it was never completely lost, and there is a link.

While it is easy to research recent history, and stop there, more truth exists beyond the Japanese occupation. I have asked this question before, and would be interested in hearing from anyone who could answer it one way or the other. General Choi, whose obvious involvement in Shotokan contributed to his Chang-hon forms, his Oh Do Kwan, and his system of "Taekwon-Do," also claimed that he studied "Taekyon" as a boy. The simple question is, from whom did his Calligraphy teacher learn Taekyon?

From Choi Hong Hi's book on Taekwondo (1965)
"Taekwon-Do is a modern version of the ancient Korean art of self-defense known as T'ae Kyon."

"His father sent him to study calligraphy under a well-known teacher Mr. Han Il-Dong."

"Mr. Han, a great calligrapher, was also a veteran of the ancient T'ae-Kyon."

Ok, so Mr. Han had to learn Taekyon from a Taekyon teacher. Who was that person, and who did that teacher learn from? Each teacher of Taekyon had to be a student at one time, and had to learn from another teacher before him. Who were they? Even if that lineage is lost forever, it was still there at one time. Was this the only lineage of the old Taekyon? Isn't it likely that there were others throughout small remote villages of Korea of whom General Choi had never met? What about subak, hwarangdo, and other Korean skills? Is it not likely that some number of descendents of those early warriors passed on their knowledge, even within their own families? At this point, this is just speculation, but I believe there are answers out there.

In any case, if you are comparing the exact curriculum of General Choi's Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo, then you will obviously see the "connection" to his Shotokan training and assume that the term "Taekwon-Do" that he used comes from that. However, his own book denotes a mixture of ancient Korean kicking to the hands of Karate, thus even his version is not a pure descendant of Japanese Martial Art. If you see the "proof" of Japanese roots in the "Hyungs," then you are misjudging the full content of Taekwondo. Forms are just a tool for practicing the movements.

If you see the "proof" of Japanese roots in the movements that "look similar," then you must realize that all unarmed combat, from any country is going to have similar movements and techniques because that is the discovery of nature and how the human body works. Borrowing of this technique or that one, and subtle influences through observation of other country's Martial Art over the centuries is going to naturally progress more toward similarity, but who influenced whom. One did not come from the other.

Ancient Korean Marital Art existed. It does not matter exactly what specific techniques were in the curriculum, the concept of striking, throwing, and holding was obviously there in the 1st century B.C. Regardless of what Chinese influence existed early on, Koreans developed their own cultural Art from centuries ago, and that is what we call Taekwondo. Today's influences are simply a study in comparison, and modern adaptation to refine the skills, and keep them current. Japan's involvement in Korea was nothing more than a tear in the fabric of Korean Martial Art. Mend the tear, and it will still be there, but the history of what came before is carried over, and life goes on.

CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## Blindside (Mar 20, 2007)

So if I import a Mercedes, peel the decals off, slap on some Michelin tires, tint the windows, add a turbo blower, and stick an American made spoiler on the back, can I call it an American car?  The US has a long history of car making regardless of what the Germans have done....

I was trying to find a JAMA article on taekyon, and while this article does not corroborate what I remember, its a pretty dang good article:

http://www.goviamedia.com/Korea-DB.pdf?PHPSESSID=f0994fe4e5c5d34558f418a3be83a9c4


----------



## zDom (Mar 20, 2007)

Blindside said:


> So if I import a Mercedes, peel the decals off, slap on some Michelin tires, tint the windows, add a turbo blower, and stick an American made spoiler on the back, can I call it an American car?  The US has a long history of car making regardless of what the Germans have done....



Nope.

And the differences between Korean martial arts and Japanese martial arts are more than cosmetic.


----------



## exile (Mar 20, 2007)

zD, there is nothing in the whole archealological and documentary record which allows us to make a single specific inference about the content of Korean MA from the whole Three Kingdoms period and earlier, other than that it was clearly heavily influence by China. There is no record of any unique Korean fighting system at any point. There is _no_ archaelogical evidence that actually clearly portreys unarmed _combat_ in Korean prehistory, let along a unique Korean fighting art. Taekkyon is a 19th c. invention, and attempts to link it to references in ancient records involve, as Stanley Henning has shown, a mistransliteration of the characters for takkyyon `push-shoulders', very likely a set of grappling/unbalancing techniques having nothing to do with foot/leg combat. There is not a single shred of evidence for ancient, or even historically very old, fighting systems on the Korean peninsula. There is no evidence whatever for any line of transmission of any ancient art that the Kwan founders were aware of which could possibly have been a native substratum of MA technique that they then fused with their Shotkan/Shudokan  karate training. Gen Choi is a demonstrably unreliable witness on the subject of taekkyon, having changed his original story about the role of karate in the formation of TKD several times _in print_, and with other contemporary TKD grandmasters attesting that he only began telling stories about taekkyon much later on, in the 1960s, as part of his increasingly nationalistic construal of Korean MA history.

I can and will document every one of these statements; I have already done so on several other threads, and once I've taken care of several hours' worth of business I need to deal with today, I will later on this evening draw this material, from peer-reviewed journals of MA history and technique and historically well-documented research together (again!) and send a followup to this post stating the historical evidence base on which I base these statements. And anyone who wishes to controvert them is welcome to post the contrary documentation and physical evidence. 

More later....


----------



## zDom (Mar 20, 2007)

Exile, FWIW, I'm not going to try to make a case for a significant contributions from ancient Korean fighting systems &#8212; as you've pointed out there is no real documentation.

(Doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't exist, however. It could be ancient Koreans were too busy dealing with wars from both within and without to sit around documenting something they were using on a daily basis ..)

What I WILL make a case for is: Korean influence on Japanese arts (such as Shotokan) in the 1940s-1960s WAS significant enough that arts like Tang Soo Do and Taekwondo are now Korean arts. Not necessarily influence from ancient indigineous fighting systems, but there was without a doubt SOME sort of significant influence &#8212; they altered the arts (and I think, for the better ...)

To go back to my previous analogy, you don't have to argue that there were ancient indigineous stick-and-ball sports in North America to come to the conclusion that baseball is a different sport than cricket and that it is indeed an American sport despite its roots in British cricket.


----------



## exile (Mar 20, 2007)

zDom said:


> What I WILL make a case for is: Korean influence on Japanese arts (such as Shotokan) in the 1940s-1960s WAS significant enough that arts like Tang Soo Do and Taekwondo are now Korean arts. Not necessarily influence from ancient indigineous fighting systems, but there was without a doubt SOME sort of significant influence  they altered the arts (and I think, for the better ...)



Sure, no question, zD. S. Henry Cho emphasizes this very point in his landmark 1968 book _Taekwondo: Secrets of Korean Karate._ My conception of it is something like this: TKD is the Korean version and development of an art which also possesses an Okinawan version and a Japanese versionor, in each case, more properly a _set_ of versions. It's the local flowering and specialization of a rootstock that in Okinawa and Japan took somewhat different forms, and developed subspecializations independently. I would never, ever dispute that position. My only point is that we _have_ to leave out of the mix the claim of a pre-existing Korean `substratum' of technical elements that shaped this specialization, and the reason we have towhatever we might like to thinkis that we have no reason to believe that such a substratum actually existed. 

My concern though is with what we allow ourselves to believe to be true, or believe to be most _likely_ to be true. I'm particularly concerned about the way in which legends are passed off as history, without having to meet the burden of proof we expect when assertions about what actually happened are made. I believe it's very important that we demand sufficient evidence before granting plausibility to what we're told. 

I want to assemble the material I mentioned earlier here, in one place, just to give my position some substance, so that any further argument and discussion can use it as a point of departure, whether to support or to challenge, as the case may be...


----------



## exile (Mar 20, 2007)

This post is a continuation of my earlier reply to zDom and my second post to him on the issue of the relationship between TKD/TSD, on the one hand, and the Okinawan/Japanese combat systems grouped together under the generic label `karate', on the other, and is intended to respond to Last Fearner's long post earlier in this thread. LF and I have exchanged our very different perspectives on this question a number of times, in different threads. My response isn't really intended so much to persuade him as it is to convince an undecided spectator to the debate that there really is no warrant at all for LF's main contention about the current Korean striking arts: that they represent the synthesis of an imported O/J combat system with a robust, well-developed palatte of native Korean fighting techniques transmitted continuously from ancient times, possibly as long ago as the Three Kingdoms phase. What I want to argue is that there is no evidence whatever, either physical or documentary, to support the existence of this Korean `substratum', and that, on the contrary, all evidence strongly suggests that Korean martial practice up till the late 19th century was largely derived from Chinese practice. As noted in Dakin Burdick's seminal papers `People and events of Taekwondo's Formative Years', the first in the 1997 volume of JAMA, and the extended version at http://budosportcopelle.ml/gesch.html,

_Of course, most literature on taekwondo describes the art as `thousands of years old', but this is simply not so. Most of the martial arts practiced in Korea before the nineteenth century were merely reflections of Chinese martial arts. The three most common pieces of evidence for the antiquity of taekwondothe tomb murals of Koguryo Kingdom, the statue of Kumkang-Yuksa, and the Muye dobo tongji (Illustrated Manual of Martial Arts)actually show that early Korean martial arts were largely derivative of Chinese martial arts(my emphasis) _

I'll divide my discussion into the physical evidence on the one hand and the literary evidence on the other.

*Physical evidence:* So far as the archaeological evidence goes, Burdick points out that the Koguryo tomb murals, which depict (among other martial activities) groups of men seemingly engaged in empty-hand combat, actually constitute no evidence at all bearing on ancient Korean martial art, because, as he puts it in an earlier study,

_none of the Koguryo tomb murals can be definitively identified as the practice of a kicking and striking art. The murals on the ceiling of the Muyong-chong are said to show `two men practicing a sort of Taekwondo'. They actually show two menboth with goatee, moustache and long hairwearing loin cloths. They are at least four feet apart (their outstretched hands are a foot away from each other). The positions could be stretching, dancing or possibly wrestling Mongolian style, but they certainly do not resemble modern Taekwondo stances or techniques.'_

The joke, as it happens, is that, according to Burdick `the martial arts depicted in Koguryo tomb murals closely resemble those in the tomb murals of the Eastern Han, located in what is now eastern China. This suggests that the form of Koguryo era martial arts emerged because of Chinese cultural influence, rather than independent development by the future Koreans'. 

Of the second-most-often cited piece of material evidence bearing on the existence of an ancient Korean combat system which contributed tothe current MAs TKD/TSD, Burdick comments that `the statue of Kumkang-Yuksa at Sokkuram, which is often cited as the figure of an ancient warrior practicing taekwondo, is in fact a Buddhist guardian figure found throughout East Asia, and thus cannot be said to be unique to Korea either.'  Stanley Henning's 2000 JAMA article `Traditional Korean Martial Arts' echoes this observation, noting that `these guardians are in the style common to contemporary Tang China (618907), on which they were most assuredly modeled. Even some reputable Korean sources refer to these figures as `wrestlers' rather than `boxers', but they are most commonly called `strong men' (lishi in Chinese or ryuksa in Korean).' (p.10; my emphasis).

It might be of interest that the first and most insistent voice proclaiming these completely indeterminate items of evidence as support for ancient TKD/TSD/whatever comes was Tatashi Saito, who (i) was _Japanese_, not Korean and (ii) had no martial arts background whatever that would have enabled him to comment authoritatively on technical elements of any MA supposedly portreyed in a visual art. His monograph _Study of Culture in Ancient Korea_ states, with not a single argument in support, that the paintings in question are representations of TKD. The WTF has been complicit in this unsupported identification of ancient figures with TKD practice, claiming, as Burdick points out, that `the ceiling of Sambo-chong show[ing] a man in deep horse stance who apears to pushing the walls apart' is an instance of `Poomse practicing of Taekwondo'a claim, Burdick drily observes, `that would be hard to determine from a single figure, and certainly not the simplest explanation of the position'.

*Literary documentation:* The primary source for any claim about the content of ancient indigneous KMAs is the massive late 18th c. Korean martial arts manual Muye dobo tongji, supposedly an encyclopaedia of native Korean combat techniques. But this massive tome turns out to be, as Burdick notes, `nearly identical to the _Jixiao Xinshu (New Book for Effective Discipline)_... by the Chinese General Qi Jiguang (15281587)', written nearly two and a half centuries earlier. (The translation and transliteration task involved, as Burdick notes, would have been well within the capabilities of the Muye dobo tongji's author, `a scholar famed for his erudition in classical Chinese'). Henning, in the 2000 JAMA paper crucial to this topic offers a detailed breakdown of the sources of the techniques discussed in the _Muye dobo tongji_, noting the separate weapons and techniques itemized there.

Burdick's conclusionthat `the three pieces of evidence most often cited as supporting the existence of an ancient form of taekwondo actually support the _opposite_ viewpoint and demonstrate that Korean martial arts imitated Chinese martial arts until at least 1800'should pour some much-needed cold water on zealous claims, made by partisan advocates of an `ancient' avatar of TKD, that evidence exists that could stand up in court for at least some components of the modern Korean national MA deriving from early, strictly native sources. The somewhat surprising truth of the matter is that, as Henning reminds us in his 2000 _JAMA_ overview, `there are no descriptive Korean references to the martial arts prior to the _Koryo History_', a 15th c. ms. (p.10). The `reach' of the _Koryo History_ is supposedly from the 10th to the end of the 14th c., but given the sparsity of the documentary record, it's likely that the reliability of this chronicle decreases significantly in proportion to the antiquity of its coverage. Based on this and subsequent work, however, it is possible to conclude with some confidence that Korean and Chinese military weapons and arts were extremely similar.

But what about Taekkyon, the allegedly ancient Korean foot/leg combat art that is commonly invoked by `nativist' advocates of roots in the distant past for contemporary striking KMAs? What about the testimony of Gen. Choi himself that he based the technical content of TKD at least in part (a larger and larger part as the interview date distance from the Korean War increases, as I'll document in my next post) on taekkyon? What about all those supposed references to taekkyon, subak and other allegedly indigenous fighting `systems'? It turns out that these have no more substance than the archaeological and literary claims I've already discussed. On to the next post...


----------



## exile (Mar 21, 2007)

This post is a continuation of my previous comments on the putatively ancient Korean substratum that Last Fearner, and a number of authors of TKD technical manuals, claim to underlie relatively late and supposedly superficial Okinawan/Japanese add-ons imported by the Kwan founders returning from their karate training in Japan during the 1930s. A primary piece of supposed evidence on behalf of this position is something called _taekkyon_, identified in these sources as the modern legacy of an ancient Korean form of foot fighting, which was somehow transmitted to the Kwan founders from ancient Korea over scores of generations. Comments by Gen. Choi are frequently invoked, as in LF's post, on behalf of this connection. So what's the actual value of this testimony? 

 Proponents of sources in deep antiquity for contemporary Korean MAs like to invoke a supposedly ancient, uniquely Korean martial art transcribed as _taekkyon_ in various sources. A typical example comes from Whang et al.'s l999 _Taekwondo: the State of the Art'_: 

_Taekwondo's history stretches back to the annals of ancient Korea, long before anything resembling the two nations we now know had come to exist. It is thought that Taekwondo originated as a  martial art first called tae kyon and later called soo bak, and that it was practiced by soldiers of the Koguryo kingdom before being passed on to the famous hwarang of Silla.' _

(p.1) No references whatever are given to document this details sequence of assertions, and it turns out that every one of them is dubious in the extreme. I've already summarized in my preceding post the evidence from the most two most authorative KMA historians that there is absolutely no contemporary evidence for Taekwondo, or anything even remotely like it, in the `annals of ancient Korea'&#8212;said `annals' never identified, and understandably so, since, as just quoted from Henning's work, there are no references to Korean MAs until the 15th c., centuries after the end of the Three Kingdoms period. We are not told by _by whom_ `it is thought' that TKD derives from some ancient MA called tae kyon, but what Henning has to say may be of considerable interest here:

_It is possible that a combination of Chinese boxing and seizing techniques similar to those shown in [General Jiguang] Qi's manual
influenced {\it takkyon}, a nineteenth century Korean sport described as employing `flying foot' and grappling techniques... The term  takkyon or `push the shoulders' (not taekkyon), which appears to be based on lack of knowledge of the Chinese characters or an attempt to dissociate it from possible foreign origins) infers [sic] a technique possibly similar to that used in tsuppari, paizhang and shoupai... when takkyon is referred to as a distinctive fighting sport like subak, the term originally may have only been meant to describe a specific subak or kwonbop technique to put an opponent off balance.
_

(p. 11) where _shoupai_, a form of Chinese boxing, appears to have been the source of both the Korean borrowing _subak_ and the skill it labelled, and _ paizhang_, based on _pai_ `above', i.e., torso and shoulders, is a reference to strikes on the upper body. So it turns out that, in the first place, there _was_ no `ancient' martial art _taekkyon_&#8212;the word, on Henning's examination of the form that actually appears in earlier documents, is a kind of `folk etymology', as in the case of e.g. `sparrowgrass', an Ozark rendition of the word `asparagus', or `shame-faced' based on `shamfast', from `shame' + `fast' (bound, as in `held fast', `fastened') = `bound by shame'. And in the second place, the source of this folk etymology, _takkyon_, very likely referred to a particular unbalancing technique, rather than anything remotely like an actual combat system (I return to this point directly). Finally, the passage in question refers to the hwarang of Silla as exponents of this mythical early form of TKD, in spite of the fact that, as Henning observes in connection with the Hwarang's military training, `we have few specifics' (p. 10). The fact is,
almost nothing is known for certain about the hwarang or their martial skills, and what _is_ known should give no comfort to nativist advocates: Burdick states that `the hwarang are often described as the finest warriors in Korean history, but they trained in kwonbob, a Chinese martial art'. Kwonbop is the Korean loan pronunciation of Mandarin chuan fa, a somewhat generic term for Chinese empty-hand fighting techniques of considerable antiquity, as reflected in the aforementioned _New Book of Effective Discipline_ by the mid-16th c. Ming General Jiguang Qi. It's therefore overwhelmingly likely that the Hwarang, whatever else they may have practiced, were using a very well-developed _Chinese_ fighting system as the basis for their empty-hand combat technique.\medskip

Thus, the entire passage from Whang et al. 1999 cited above has the status of a romantic fantasy. I mention it only because it is entirely typical, and apparently, if a fable is repeated often enough, it attains the status of a self-evident (or at least deeply well-supported fact). 

But what of the supposed early documentation of such terms as taekkyon and subahk, supposedly establishing a link between modern MAs describing themselves in these terms and ancient forerunners? A note of hard reality comes from Marc Tedeschi in his monumental 2003 encyclopaedic volume _Taekwondo: Traditions, Philosophy, Technique_: 

_
During [the Three Kingdoms period], Korean martial arts did not possess a single umbrella name. Instead, it is believed that specific skills were grouped into technique areas, which were labelled with generic terms. Some of these terms include:

Su bak (punching and butting)
T'ae Kyon (kicking)
Kag Ju (throwing)
Kung Sa(archery)
Ki Ma Sa Bop (horse archery)
Kom Sul Bop (sword skill)\\
Su Yong Bop (fighting in water)

Note that these are not the names of specific martial arts or systems, although they are often used incorrectly in this context._


(p. 27) Tedeschi himself falls into the trap of equating _taekkyon_, a 19th c. innovation, with _takkyon_ that Henning cautions against, but his larger point remains important: the names in this list simply refer to certain skills whose exact content&#8212;to the extent that they deviate from contemporary Chinese arts described elsewhere in the historical record&#8212;we have no way of recovering. The point is, these were names of martial actions which are simply part of any method of fighting. What they actually consisted in is something we have no evidece for, one way or another.

So what is the actual status of taekkyon?

It is certainly true that a Korean form of physical competition called _ aekkyon_ existed in the period leading up to the emergence of  Taekwondo. It equally certainly was not ancient; as Burdick (1997}) observes,

_Taekkyon appeared in the early 1800's, about the same time that the Chinese martial arts became less popular, and in its modern form is an art emphasizing circular kicking, leg sweeps, and leg trapping followed by a throw.
_

This observation is in effect expanded upon in Steven Capener's 1995 on-line paper (http://www.eagletkd.com/images/STUDENT FORUM from Korea Journal.pdf), in which he observes that

_The first reference to t'aekkyon comes from a book called the Chaemulbo written by Yi Song-gi during the reign of King Chongjo
(1776-1800)... in the mid 1800s, an artist of the royal court named Yu Suk (1827-1873) painted a mural called the Taek'oedo in which t'aekkyon and ssirum are being contested as folk games in the midst of much smoking and drinking.

In 1921, at the age of 70, Ch'oe Yong nyon described t'aekkyon in his book, Haedong chukchi, as a game in which two partners squared off and tried to knock each other down with their feet. He went on to say, `This became a means of exacting revenge for a slight or winning away an opponent's concubine through betting. Due to this, the game was outlawed by the judiciary and eventually disappeared.' _

(p. 5) Capener cites evidence from a variety of contemporary sources in the late 19th and early 20th century that _taekkyon_ had by the turn of the last century devolved into a kind of leg wrestling game, with progressively fewer adherents, in roughly the same league as p'yon ssaum, `an organized rock fighting between two teams, usually two villages.' (p. 5). The picture which emerges, then is that after a very long period in its history when the very names of the various Korean martial techniques reveal their Chinese origin, a period of declining Chinese influence in the 19th c. is accompanied by the emergence of a competitive sport involving leg attacks which became strongly associated with gambling and  isreputable use, and was eventually suppressed. Even here, however, there is room for considerable doubt as to the uniqueness of the techniques in taekkyon; various competitive leg-wrestling and kicking games are familiar from ethnographic studies of Inuit groups, who extend into eastern Siberia, and there is some evidence of such kicking games over large expanses of northern Asia. It seems likely that taekkyon represented a kind of late-developing specialization of these games in the particular context of Korea. But in any case, it is evident from the sources Capener invokes that there was nothing in taekkyon remotely comparable to the elaborate Chinese fighting systems that the ancestors of the modern Koreans had been exposed to for hundreds of years or more. It might be noted btw that Professor Capener, an internationally ranked TKD competitor (first place in the Pan-Am games in 1987, among other achievements), received advanced academic degrees in TKD history in Korea; he currently is Professor of Korean Culture at Ehwa University, and has considerable scholarly credibility). His comments dovetail perfectly with that of the North American TKD pioneer Sihak Henry Cho, whose magisterial 1968 overview of _Taekwondo: Secrets of Korean Karate_ contains the observation that `the modern karate of Korea, with very little influence from _tae kyun_, was born with the turn of the 20th century when it was imported from China and also from Okinawa through Japan.' (p. 17).

But didn't Gen. Choi stress the importance of taekkyon in his own development of TKD's technical content, and who would know better?

The problem with this response is that it assumes a degree of candor onGen. Choi's part that does not stand up to scrutiny. Gm. Kim, cited in Master's Robert McLain's recent interview in MT's own Magazine, and a contempory of Gen Choi who was pressured by the latter into following the Oh Do Kwan line on KMA,  observes in his interview that `in the early days he was teaching the same karate forms as the other kwans such as Pyung Ahn, Bassai Tae, Kon Sang  Kun, etc. Then in the late 1950's he came up with a story about martial art links to Koguryo dynasty, Silla Dynasty, 200 years of tradition, etc.' (p.3). The picture which inevitably emerges from these comments is of a prominent figure in the emerging KMA landscape who consciously introduced a kind of legendary background for his own purposes, a background contradicting his own observed behavior as reported by a very well-informed contemporary.

One might, of course, dismiss this evidence on the grounds that Gm. Kim was clearly not part of Gen. Choi's KMA faction and, as his interview reports in detail, actively resisted assimilation into that faction. _But such a counter is decisively refuted by Gen. Choi's own words._ Consider the following, from Combat magazine, cited in Stuart Anslow's new book (2006) on bunkai for the ITF tuls:

(Interview from the 1970s): `Without karate, there would have been no Taekwondo.'

(Interview from the 1980s):`Karate was simply a reference tool that helped'.

(Interview from the 1990s):`Karate had only a minor or no impact on Taekwondo'

It is difficult to see Choi as a reliable witness, given the revisionism evident in these comments. When Gm. Kim says&#8212;clearly dismissively&#8212;that `Still some people try to make up some mysterious stories&#8212;claim their art is 2000 year old or from a monk in the mountains or something. But, if people are educated about history and linearge, they cannot be fooled. I believe Korea, like many other countries, had some type of martial art being practiced before the 20th century. But after the Japanese occupation of Korea (1909---1945), indigenous martial arts were gone and influences from other places (Japan, Okinawa, China) were being taught' (p. 5)&#8212;there can be little doubt what he is referring to. Under the circumstances, and given the evidence previously referred to, it is very difficult to see taekkyon, in Gen. Choi's handling, as anything other than a convenient excuse to detach TKD from`contamination' of Okinawan/Japanese origins.

I think I've kept my promise: I've given documentation for everything I stated in my reply to zDom's earlier post, and so far as I can tell the evidence base I've assembled is impeccable. Anyone who wants to counter this evidence base is free to do so; but such a counter had better contain either new evidence unknown to the authorities I've cited here, or a detailed account of just why their conclusions are untenable. My own feeling is, anyone who believes that there is no evidence for any ancient uniquely Korean substratum to current KMAs will find great comfort here. And the argument that, well, they kicked and punched and blocked in the Three Kingdoms era, so whatever they were doing then _must_ be part of modern TKD, holds no more water than the argument that since people four thousand years ago in what is now France chewed and swallowed meat and vegetables and very possibly produced alcoholic beverages, it follows that neoclassicial French cuisine and the vinification techniques empoyed by Chateau Margaux _must_ reflect the ancient culinary practices of the current occupants of France. People kick, people punch, people try to block other's blows. That's not what a MA is. Any TMA has a rich technical base and repertoire of combat scenarios, often encoded in formal patterns, that express a strategic base and a specific set of tactical resources. _That's_ what you have to show existed in the Three Kingdoms era and was preserved and incorporated into current practice, if you want to defend the nativist position. I for one would really like to see the evidence...


----------



## Blindside (Mar 21, 2007)

I actually don't have problem with anyone saying "yeah it was Japanese, but we changed it enough so we call it our own."  And most of the people on this thread seem to be in that camp.  My problem is with people who are so caught up in the Korean propoganda they can't admit that truth.  

For those who say "the changes are more than cosmetic, therefore it is Korean."  Other people have altered their arts, but give credit where credit is due, some people call their art American Kenpo, but not Joe Blow's School of Traditional American Fistdueling.  Mr. Parker said that he changed about 90% of the kenpo he learned, and yet he still called it kenpo.  

At what point does something change nationalities?  Would you say that Yudo is Korean?  Or can we just admit it is Judo done on the Korean penninsula?  As an aside bit of silliness, check out the screwed up justification for it being a traditional Korean art from this page:
http://www.usyudo.org/


> What is Yudo? Yudo is a traditional military art. It came to Korea from China as a system of unarmed combat during the Koryo Dynasty. After being introduced to Japan during the time of the Hideyoshi Invasions (1592-97), it became extinct on the Korean peninsula during the latter part of the Choson Dynasty. Yudo was reintroduced to Korea, from Japan, in its modern form as a self-defense system, around 1910.


 
Do we need to change it 10%? 50? 90% before it suddenly changes cultures?  Could an Irishman take Tae Kwon Do as it exists now, spend five years focusing on the punching aspects of it, and then call it Traditional Irish Pugilism?  Seems a little silly doesn't it?

Lamont​


----------



## zDom (Mar 21, 2007)

Blindside said:


> My problem is with people who are so caught up in the Korean propoganda they can't admit that truth.



Me, too.


----------



## Last Fearner (Mar 22, 2007)

exile,

I respect the amount of research you have done, and continue to do with regards to the chronological descending of various interpretations of the Martial Art, their respective names, and technical content. I understand your zeal for the truth, and adamant insistence on a high standard of proof for anyone offering a viewpoint which differs from yours, and those historians with which you place your faith in their research, as well as their interpretation of that research. However, I believe your methods (and theirs), and the focus of attention on this detailed evidence (or lack thereof) is irrelevant for the answer to this question.

In most cases, I would be right there with you, looking to uncover the hard facts, and verifiable, un-refutable evidence which proves, beyond a reasonable doubt that A + B = C. However, what we are trying to establish here boils down to two completely different perspectives about one truth. It could be compared to the optimist/pessimist syndrome: "the glass is half empty or the glass is half full." Both statements are true, provided you are talking about the "water" in the glass. If you take into consideration that air takes up the space where the water is lacking, then the glass is always "full." Much of this depends on a person's perspective, and a mutual understanding of terminology used.

How important is perspective to this conversation?  It means everything! Please indulge me for a moment because I believe this is the only way I'm going to get my point understood, if at all. Mind you, I am not intending to change your mind, or prove you "wrong" - I am just getting others to see a different point of view, and hopefully get them to not come down so hard on people who hold this view as though we were ignorant, stubborn, blind fools with our heads in the sand trying to ignore the evidence (I consider certain comments along these lines to be a bit rude, disrespectful, and drawn from a narrow perspective on the issue).

Consider this analogy. In my Martial Art classes, I will sometimes teach my students about perspective by placing two students at opposite ends of the room. I will place an object on the floor near one of the students, and ask if that object is near or far, The student replies "near." I ask the student at the other end of the room the same question. Their reply is "far." Now, exile, you being a person of high education know where I am going with this, and most readers here will easily understand the message, yet I believe people need to be reminded of this lesson from time to time. It will also help to illustrate my point about the Korean Martial Art. I ask my students, "if both of your answers are different to the same question, who is right?" Most times, they will understand that they are both right, because they are answering from their own individual perspective.

Now, consider this next example further. A person driving a car who looks in their rear-view mirror sees what is behind them; where they have been. However, this picture is viewed if reverse image. A person in the back seat who is looking out the rear window sees the same scene, but sees it differently than the driver. Yet another person, who is miles behind them, sees this same environment, but from the perspective of a person still there.

Next, think about two people on opposite sides of a two-way mirror. On one side the person sees their reflection because it appears to be a mirror. On the other side, the person sees through the tinted glass, and views the first person. People in modern times, looking back upon historical events, will often have a distorted view because of where they are now, what they have seen in their lifetime, and are comparing to modern terminology, philosophy, and accepted facts about historical evidence.  Their perspective is often a reflection of who they are now, not what was true to those who lived back then.  A person has to really be on the other side of the mirror to see beyond the reflection.  You have to place yourself in the perspective of those in the past.

It is difficult for me to put into words an explanation that has taken me nearly three decades to understand, and I realize there are those who have researched this subject for a long time and have not reached this same understanding, but that only indicates to me that they were seeking a different truth, or looking from the different perspective. Not that what they discovered was wrong, but it is irrelevant to the truth about which I am speaking.

This conflict in perspectives might be comparable to religious debates. For example, if I believe in God, and another person does not, they might say their is a "lack of evidence" to support the belief in a supreme diety. Where one can not offer proof that a thing does *not* exist (proving the negative), it is sufficient for them to say there "lacks proof" that it *does* exist. This does not mean that God does not exist, just that I might not be able to prove it. That might not be comfort to those who seek proof of any existence of an ancient Korean Martial Art, or a connection to today's "Taekwondo," but there is a more valid issue in this example.

If we both research organized religions as a mutual interest, and agree that there are many churches with many different faiths, stemming from certain key people and events of the past, we might agree that "Christianity" is directly connected to the birth and life of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Now, weather or not we both believe that Jesus was the Son of God is a different issue at this point. There might be an argument that one could have with me if I say that Christianity existed at the time of the Great Flood with Noah, and in the days of Moses in Egypt.

One might say, "how could Christianity exist so long before Jesus was even born." The reason is that Christianity is a belief in Jesus as the flesh and blood of God - - one part of a Holy Trinity. Thus, it is the contention that this Trinity of God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) existed from the beginning of time. Bear in mind, I am not presenting this analogy to debate religion, or the existence of God. I am suggesting that, according to this faith, Jesus existed before the name "Jesus" was uttered on the face of the Earth.

This analogy's comparison to Taekwondo is that this word, "*Taekwondo*," is known by many people, in modern times, to mean something entirely different than the Taekwondo that I have come to know. There are many people today who go by the name of Jesus (often with different pronunciations). If you know a person with this name, and I say that Jesus lived 2000 years ago, you might argue the point - - if you think I am talking about your friend named "Jesus."

If Jesus Christ was nailed to a cross, died, and was resurrected, then he is beyond the grasp of death as we know it. If He were to appear to us today, in the flesh, and claim to be the messiah - the Son of God, how many people would take him at his word? There are many crazies running around who "claim" to be Jesus. Short of him performing Miracles, it might be difficult to prove (and even then, the skeptics would probably reject him). The only ones who could positively identify him would be those who knew him when he was alive. However, if I say it *is* him, others might ask, "how do you know." My reply might be, I recognize him today, because I knew him from the beginning. For a religious person, to "know" God, or to "know" Jesus is something you grasp within. Once you know Jesus, you know the truth about Jesus, and can recognize the true doctrine of Christianity when it is taught.



exile said:


> People kick, people punch, people try to block other's blows. That's not what a MA is. *Any TMA has a rich technical base and repertoire of combat scenarios*, *often encoded in formal patterns*, that express a strategic base and a specific set of tactical resources. *That's what you have to show existed in the Three Kingdoms era* and was preserved and incorporated into current practice, if you want to defend the nativist position....


(my emphasis added in the above quote)

Herein lies the problem. In your understandable right to demand proof, and evidence of an ancient Korean Martial Art, you have also set the criteria for what *is* or *is not* a "Martial Art." This, I believe, is beyond the scope of most people to do, because I find few who really understand the Martial Art well enough to take upon themselves this authority.

I wake up, I breathe the air, I ponder the day, and the universe. I observe nature, and interact with other living creatures. I learn to appreciate the beauty of the world, and take time to meditate on these things. I express myself artistically with poetry, music, and other forms of artwork. I seek to improve myself, I seek my connection with nature, and I seek spiritual enlightenment (which I have found). I value life, in all its forms, including the lives of those who would identify me as their enemy. I strive to protect, and preserve life, making choices necessary to maintain a proper balance in my life, and the world around me.

~ I am a Martial Artist! ~ (not denying anyone else here, just my perspective about me)

I am a Martial Artist. Not because I can fight, or that I train to do combat. I am a warrior for peace, but my highest priorities are ethics, morality, honor, integrity, and the desire to preserve the positive qualities of God's creation for future generations. That's what makes me a Martial Artist. My preference for peace balanced with my ability, and willingness to apply whatever means I have available to restore that peace should someone choose to disrupt it.

What specific techniques I use at any stage of my training is of no real consequence to this fact, except to remain prepared to perform at my best should I feel the need. History is often distorted by false memories, fanciful legends, and misinterpreted evidence of what really happened. What can be concluded (perhaps disputed) is that the peninsula of Korea was, at one time, void of civilization. At some point (perhaps around 5,000 years ago), people migrated onto the peninsula, taking with them their language, customs, and culture. Since they were immigrants, nothing of what they did was "native Korean."

Much of the early stages of development of these people were influence by interactions with people of China (the Choseon territory is believed to have originally extended throughout much of the mainland of China and Manchuria.) So, at what point do we say that these people became isolated enough, transformed enough by their own environment, beliefs, customs and national culture to be "Koreans" - a people in their own right.

Any forms of combat, self preservation, or repelling of invasions by foreign armies were probably a combination of skills brought with them from the migration period, some first hand observation of foreign soldiers in China, and some trial and error lessons learned on their own. There is no doubt in my mind, that when the three kingdoms were established, the "natives" of this peninsula had a unique culture of their own that likely resembled that of their ancestors in the region of China/Manchuria/Mongolia wherever they might have come from, and borrowed bits and pieces from their current neighbors during the 1st few centuries. What country doesn't do this.

I am equally confident that some of these early inhabitants of Korea banded together, first with the help of Chinese armies to unify the kingdoms, then on their own fortitude to drive the Chinese out of the peninsula. There is not much doubt in my mind that any unarmed skills they used at that time would have been necessary for survival, and most likely were greatly influenced, if not entirely learned from their Chinese neighbors.

These individual techniques of wrestling, kicking, hand strikes, and even various weapons might have lacked a name for any unified system of Martial Art combat curriculum as we know it today, however the skills were practiced, taught to soldiers, and used in combat to prevail. Whatever those skill sets were, and whether or not they had any names at that time or were named hundreds of years later, they were the seeds of combat training for an indigenous people who possessed, in my opinion, the true spirit of what it means to be a "*Martial Artist*" as I described above.

These people believed in their nation, their ideals, and their culture, and fought to protect and preserve it from invasion after invasion. So many people today think they know what the "Martial Art" is. So many believe that they too are "Martial Artists" because they practice a form of fighting that resembles one of the ancient methods of Budo from Japan. You can step into your father's shoes, but that does not make you your father's equal. If your father possessed good character, and strong moral values, then you must possess those also to be his equal. From a Japanese perspective, just because you claim to be a practitioner of "Budo" does not mean you understand "Bushido" or live accordingly.

In 1945, an oppressed people was suddenly freed, but that freedom did not reveal itself immediately, nor completely - - even to this day. Thus, it is inevitable that General Choi, and others would speak their mind more assertively and openly as time distanced them from Japanese occupation (Choi had his own agenda with personal interests, thus some of what he is quoted as saying was likely distorted, but if you say he is not a reliable witness - - who really is).  Can we trust any oral history, or must it all be thrown out, because in some cases, that is all we have due to the destruction of physical evidence.

In 1955, an awakening occurred, and a nation sought to revive its true identity, culture, and heritage. Knowing of their own past triumphs, the moral culture, and their ability to fight as a unified nation, they looked to the warriors of the past for inspiration of what would be the history that brought them from the first days as a unified kingdom, and proud dynasty, to surviving 35 years of oppression, torture, and cultural genocide.

In 1955, this nation called upon its own historians, and modern warriors, to reclaim their own past, shunning the forced doctrines of a murdering, raping invading enemy, and revive the spirit of the true Korean Martial Artist of the past. All knowledge considered, and all past and current technical skills combined, they sought to name their national Martial Art. A Martial Art based solely on their own warriors history, and fighting skills, then expanding to include new knowledge. They chose to call all of the ancient forms of Korean combat and personal spiritual development "TAE KWON DO."

Pure and simple - - this choice was theirs alone, and it was intended to label any, and all things of their own past, therefore no one can rightfully deny that this is what the term represents. No matter how many false messiahs you find saying "This is Taekwondo" or that is not "Taekwondo," only those who truly know in their heart, and in their spirit, what Taekwondo is, and what it represents will understand that this native Korean Martial Art has absolutely nothing to do with modern Japanese fighting skills, "katas" of shotokan or other karate patterns, or any links to recent individuals claiming to have invented this or that.

True Taekwondo transcends all of these things, and is beyond the scope of scientific examination of evidence of who did what when. It matters little as to exactly what type of hand strikes were used in ancient times, what the kicking skills were called (T'ae kyon) or where the wrestling (Subak) came from. Debates about exactly what the Hwarang youth group studied, or where it came from is insignificant compared to the fact that they were Korean warriors defending Korea while developing themselves spiritually.

It does not matter who painted what mural on which tomb, or carved what statue in the likeness and similarity of artwork from China. These cultures were similar, and even related in their far ancient past. The murals and statues of Koguryo and other areas tell a story about a people who lived there. Interpret the story as you will, or deny the plausibility of the interpretation of others. If you choose to seek out proof of specific curriculum and technical content of the past, and where it all originated, then that is your goal. Mine is to understand that they all came from the same source, and the Korean use of nature's forces provided by God became their own art long ago.

One simple truth exists. The Korean people became a native population with a unique culture of their own, and fought to preserve their country. This is all that is need to know that they were Martial Artists in the true sense of the term. Their descendents live today, and are reviving that ancient spirit of the early warrior. They have chosen to call this collective history and skills of their warriors "Taekwondo," thus that is what it is.

Now, aside from my perspective on the definition of Taekwondo, and the history of Korean Martial Art, I am always open to research which might reveal the support of, or proof in opposition of any details surrounding the development of technical skills along the way. After all, knowledge is knowledge, but an education goes beyond history books and encyclopedias.

CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## Humble Student (Jun 9, 2009)

Last Fearner
I could not have said it any better.
I also think that your post could go for all arts of Korea not just TKD.
Its that thing of books only can teach so much. And even that can be subject to the writers point of view on the subject.
Unless we were there at the creation of said arts we will never truly know what really happened.
I think when it comes down to it, no matter what style you train in even if it is TKD, HRD, HKD or even KSW.
Its the school and the people that you train with that matter not. How old it is, or how pure the art is. I have been on many forums and I have learned that if more people spent more time training instead worrying about history of what ever art.
Yes there were would be no MA forums. And the world would be a lot healthier in the long run.

Just a thought
Off to go train


----------

