Dr. Rush,
Thanks for taking the time to ask questions about my study. I will answer all but one in the post, and save one for a later post.
You wrote:
I am by no means a hyung/kata/form historian, but the majority of the forms that I practice Pyung Ahn (Peinan/Heian), Jin Do(Chinto), Kong Sang Koon (Kushanku/Kanku) were all developed either after or near the end of this tribute system.
Historical sources are the key to understanding the development of these arts. Regarding the origins of the movements of both Chinto and Kushanku, I have seen some of the claims, and am eager to know the sources of them. I did read your history of the Kusanku kata, "and it was he (Sakugawa) who created the Kong Sang Koon Hyung (Kusanku kata) as a record of his teacher’s fighting method." I would be interested in feedback from any MT reader regarding the historical source of this statement. I am not doubting it outright. I am just curious of the lineage. I wonder to what extent, over time, the concept of Sakugawa as the source of a version of Kusanku, may have evolved to Sakugawa as the originator of that version. In support of this I think it productive to compare his version to that of Chatan Yara, who was believed to be be another of Kushanku's students. Though there are many differences, the two kata also have much in common. Perhaps the full forms both trace back to forms taught by Kusanku.
Regarding the known documentation, there is reliable documentation that a Chinese by the name of Kushanku taught Okinawans fighting movements in the late 1700s. Funakoshi describes him as a Military Attache. I have seen other sources describe him as a Chinese sailor. Nagamine makes references to him, describing in detail his exploits battling pirates on a tribute vessel, and his ordeal in escaping death after the Chinese captured him and other pirates and concluded that he too was a pirate. Funakoshi wrote an article in the early 1900s for an Okinawan newspaper that refers to Matsumura (and quite possibly Matsumora) as being dispatched to the countryside to coax Chinto out of his cave. I would be most interested to understand what historical documentation describes Sakugawa further. I am most interested to learn the sources of further claims about this key historical figure.
As to whether Sakugawa was the originator of his version of the Kusanku kata, sources state he created a kata based on movements he learned from Kusanku. In the event that he did, the question remains, who is the source of the movements taught by Kusanku? The movements could have been of Kushanku's design, never taught to him by others. Or quite possibly he could have learned them from others. If so, it is entirely possible that they could predate him by hundreds of years. I would make the same argument regarding the sources of the movements found in the kata that descend from Chinto and his students. Chinto is the source of the movements, but we can never know whether he taught his personally developed movements, or rather that he shared with the Okinawans lessons he had been taught. We can never know.
I would make a somewhat similar argument for the development of the Pinan, though this subject is more complex. There is some evidence (from Motobu, e.g.) that some of the Pinan kata are based on Channan kata. I do not believe there is any historical record regarding the origins of these Channan kata, other than they may have had Chinese origins. Also, a review of Pinan finds many movements are quite similar, if not identical to movements found in the Passai and Kushanku kata variants, as well as Jion (Jutte, Jiin), Naihanchi, and Chinto. There is no doubt that many Pinan movements do not appear in kata that have survived until the present.
While we do know that Itosu created these kata, I do not believe there is any historical record stating which movements within these kata Itosu developed himself. It is quite possible, and based on the similarities to some kata movements, I find it quite likely, that Itosu drew extensively, perhaps almost exclusively, on movements he had learned over the course of his life studying these arts. Itosu may well have been the originator of many movements. However, it is also quite possible that he was more of a conduit to the past, to teachings that had long preceded him. If the latter were true, we are again faced with the question; what are the origins of the movements?
(On a separate note, this topic of comparative analysis has long intrigued me and sometime in the future, I will do a post on my blog that will dissect Pinan kata movement by movement for comparisons with movements found in other kata. This was inconceivable just ten years ago. Thank goodness for youtube.)
I am not as familiar with the dates of origin of Bassai or Naihanchi (Tekki) forms, but i also practice these forms.
Passai is often defined as an art regarding a fortress. Some say defending a fortress, some say penetrating a fortress. While it is true that the Ryukyu king built a castle in Shuri modeled on Chinese patterns, fortresses or castles were not that prevalent in Okinawa. They certainly were in China. The Ming engaged not only in massive castle building, but also the vast expansion of the Great Wall, which could be viewed as the longest fortress in the world.
Regarding the origins of Naihanchi, there really isn't much literature. I find it quite intriguing that many Wado Ryu dojos have an interesting definition of the term. Some sources say that Ohtsuka, in addition to training with Funakoshi and Mabuni, also trained with Motobu, who spent some years in Tokyo, and that he studied Naihanchi with Motobu. Maybe Motobu is the source of this definition, we will never know. But there are Wado schools that define Naihanchi as "battlefield" kata. (see page 9 at
http://issuu.com/publishgold/docs/cjkkaratekatas). And many other sources point to the Naihanchi stance and recognize its similarity to that found by calvary soldiers. Funakoshi even renamed his kata "Iron Horse".
(For an interesting historical note on the utility of Naihanchi for self protection, the subject of much of what I will debate in the future, this source also mentions that Ohtsuka found Naihanchi Nidan and Sandan to be "almost useless". I also find it intriguing parallel in Shito Ryu. Mabuni, an important student of Itosu, was renowned for his accumulation of a broad cross section of Okinawan kata. Funakoshi says when he first began training with Itosu, 2/3 of his first 10 years were spent in the practice of Naihachi Nidan and Yondan. Despite the centrality of these kata to the older practice of beginners, Mabuni systems that descend from his sons, and from Sakagami, have also pretty much abandoned the practice of Naihanchi Nidan and Sandan. (For evidence, please refer to the kata published by the Shito-Kai (which descends from his son Kenei) (
http://shitokai.com/movies/order.php). The thirty kata conspicuously omit Naihanchi Nidan or Sandan. The same is true for the kata set taught by his son Kenzo. The practice of these kata is rare at best in Demura dojos (a student of Sakagami).
Do you believe that spear kata would have come into existance earlier in the history of tribute system, or do you believe these forms were created as a way to pass this on.
Chinese military attaches were documented by Funakoshi as having been involved in the instruction of Okinawans. In McCarthy's translation of Miyagi's three hypotheses, Miyagi makes a similar statement, with the exception that they were referred to as "security" personnel associated with the Chinese community at Kume Mura in Naha. We will never know the true origins of these movements. My speculation is that they go back hundreds of years, and were not designed by Okinawans, nor by the Chinese teaching the Okinawans, and that they could be much older than the time that they were taught.
Personally I have serious doubts and see some holes in your theory, although I am no historian. If taking your history as the truth, as I am sure you have done your research, it is interesting to me that the spear techniques have been lost while other kobudo weapons have been passed on. This fact is a very interesting question, and I am interested to read/hear what you find in the course of your research.
It is fairly well documented that Okinawan kobudo is a uniquely Okinawan development, made in response to the Satsuma weapons ban, for use by the Okinawan aristocracy, and perhaps other classes, to provide for personal protection. I cannot quote the sources just now, as I am not at home and don't have access to many sources, but they are numerous. It is very well documented that the Satsuma clan banned the carrying of military weapons, spears and swords. There may have been limited exceptions. I find it unlikely that there was no armed military guard of the RyuKyu king, but it is quite possible the ban extended to Royal guard as well. (And while there are references to the study of Matsumura and Azato in Japanese sword arts, it was likely there were limitations on their ability to carry swords in public.) Essentially the weapons ban insured, almost universally, that an Okinawan could not carry a military weapon (a long bladed weapon (aka spear or sword)) in public. I think we all can accept that if a weapon can't be carried, it is of marginal use in personal protection. It's use would at best be limited to the defense of one's home.
The standard history is that in response to the ban of military weapons, the Okinawans adapted non-military objects for personal protection. I divide these objects into two groups. The first are short implements that Okinawans were justified in carrying, and therefore could be carried in the open. And importantly, they could and were carried concealed. These include tonfa (used to turn millstones), nunchaku (used as either part of a horses bridle, or to flail grain), sai/nunti sai (which were attached to long poles for spear fishing), and kama, used to harvest rice and other grains. (These are the prevalent documented uses, and I fully recognize there are others.) I would be interested to learn the extent to which some believe that these these short, (and in most cases blunt) implements were the primary weapons used to defend tribute trade against assailants armed with long bladed weapons.
In addition to these short implements, the Okinawans had a longer implement commonly carried, with obvious personal protection possibilities. The bo was used, as noted above for spear fishing, and probably, with a suitable end attached, in a variety of farming tasks. A related implement, the eku was used as an oar. But the bo was also the common mode of transportation for containers and packages of water, foodstuffs, and other goods and items that needed to be carried. There are pictures in Kerr's text showing this practice. One of my Chinese students has told me that this method is still very common today in rural Chinese communities.
These short and long Okinawan implements were not affected by the weapons bans, and could be carried and therefore used, in personal protection. The Okinawans adapted them in ways uniquely Okinawan. I do not know of any historical documentation that states that kata for these weapons were of Chinese origin. Certainly there are movements with bo/eku/nunti-bo that are common to spear arts, so there is overlap, and there may have been Chinese influence. But again, most references point to Okinawan origins for the kobudo kata, and not Chinese origins.
This contrasts with the empty hand forms, for which some sources state come (or likely come) from Chinese sources.
I expect many to argue that the regarding the protection of tribute ships, the Okinawans would have relied on their kobudo weapons, which were non-military in nature, to repel enemies armed with military weapons. I find this argument, especially regarding the short implements, to be unpersuasive. Nagamine mentions that no expense was spared in equiping ships to be able to withstand pirate attacks. To me it is obvious that this would mean arming sailors and crew with military weapons. Others will of course view this differently than I do, that of course the Okinawans would prefer non-military (non-bladed) weapons to defend tribute ships against assailants armed with military (bladed) weapons.
However, I think many, if not all, of these katas were designed as open handed forms, although techniques of many weapons apply the same principles that we are taught from empty handed techniques. I think that it is from this principle that you will find your correlation between the techniques in these katas and the use of the spear, because many of the movements apply similar mechanics.
I will use a separate post to address this issue. This has been yet another long post and this issue is quite complicated.
Again, thanks for the comments and questions. I hope I was able to provide you and other readers of MT with some useful information and perspectives.
-Mike Eschenbrenner
www.cayugakarate.com/blog/
It comes to us via Itosu/Chibana lineage (along with Naifanchi, Pinan and Jion), whereas the other kata come from Kyan (well, except for Fukyugata 1 and 2)
