What's in a name? Part II

Lastly the notion of Okinawan dance, especially those referred to as Mēkata 舞方, containing secret karate techniques is highly unlikely. Firstly, the first evidence found of such a claim is by Funakoshi and Fuyu in the early 20th century with popularity reaching an apex in the 1950s (Quast, 2013). Ironically, said dances were all but obsolete by the 1950’s. This could suggest that the rising popularity of karate in the post-war was utilised to revive a dying cultural heritage by making a connection between the two. Secondly as most of these dances originated with the lower classes they would have little, if any, knowledge of the upper classes self defence techniques. If such techniques were openly know their effectiveness would be moot. Indeed this popular dance connection seems to derive from the above notion that karate was well known by the populace of Okinawa - it wasn't.  Most likely what occured is a simple process of reverse engineering and once karate kata became widely known people romantically looked to a plebian dance and made a connection. That there is a similarity between the outward moves are quite possible as the culture, clothes and traditions both karate and dance share originate from the same locale. To claim however that dance deliberately hid karate techniques is simply without historical proof. 

When China Hand Became Empty Hand
As students of karate we are often left floundering for answers to question regarding the ‘ancient’ art of karate. Perhaps by tracing the roots of ‘karate’ in its modern guise we can gleam a more accurate picture? “Karate” was first accepted at the famous meeting of the Okinawa masters in 1936. For it was in that year that Okinawa adopted the kanji for ‘empty’ (空) to replace the more traditional ‘tou’ (唐){i.e.,Qing, China}. Mainland Japan’s Butotoukai had assumed the character a few years previously, and Funakoshi had been using it a little longer (Hokama, 2007). It was also at the 1936 meeting that the gi, belt and dan system were adopted to align with the mainland’s push for the unification of budo (i.e., Japanese martial arts) as initiated by the judo and kendo communities (Funakoshi, 1975; McCarthy, 2018; McKenna, 2009). 

Indeed the call to eradicate the use of the ‘tou’ fell in line with the mass militarisation that was taking place in Taisho (1912-26) and early Showa (1926-89) period. These were years of chaos for Japan both internally and externally. Internally Japan was seeking to catch up with the ‘western’ powers through rapid social, economic and educational change. The period was marked by a number of political assassinations and a rising power of the military. The great Hanshin Earthquake (1922) exacerbated the situation as the capital lay in ruins. Externally Japan had been disappointed with its treatment at the Treaty of Versailles where it had expected better rewards, in terms of territory, from the Allied Powers who it had fought with. 

The tension created by a desire to be held in high esteem by other world powers, a dire lack of natural resources, a booming population and a rising militarism unfolded in the Manchurian Crisis (1931-33). This crisis witnessed Japan flex is imperial muscle and ultimately leave the League of Nations in protest of its call for Japan to remove itself from China.  During and after the crisis Japan began to publicly devalue and distance itself from a Chinese connection. In numerous public statements of this period the Chinese were presented as an underdeveloped people and culture in need of the enlightened guidance and control of the benevolent Japanese. Such a view is not uniquely Japanese and indeed China had a similar view of the entire world during its Ming and Quing periods. Closer to home, for this author, is the relationship between the British Empire and Ireland. That a similar perspective was a driving force in Japan and its move to eliminate the ‘tou’ and replace it with the more esoteric ‘kara’ kanji is well documents (McCarthy, 2018; Hokama 2007).

Moreover, the formal annexation of the Ryukyu Islands by mainland Japan in the late 1890s had led to a political divisions in Okinawa between those who wanted closer ties to Japan, those who wanted to keep its ties to imperial China, and those who wanted to remain independent. However, given the poverty of Okinawa and the proximity of Japan, the former group held sway. That so many young Okinawa’s of means left Okinawa to pursue their fortune on the mainland is a testament to this assertion. Indeed the migration of the second generation of karate pioneers such as Funakoshi, Motobu and later Mabuni, Miyagi and Chitose was in line with their social, gender and economic positioning (Okinawa Prefecture). 

On the mainland the message was clear, adapt to the belief in the superiority of the Japanese race or get left behind was only too enforced by its propaganda, education system and declining democracy. Thus ‘tou’, which can also be pronounced as ‘kara’, was dropped and replaced by the more acceptable and esoteric ‘sore/kara’. The addition of ‘michi’ (道) reinforced this pseudo-religious alignment of martial arts to the development of the self and ultimately the nationalistic tendencies encouraged by the central government and in particular the Ministry of Education (McKenna, 2009; McCarthy, 2018).  Indeed, karate fundamentally shifted during this age from a closely guarded system of self-defence that was passed down orally to one of mass participation sport where testing one’s fighting spirit in the development of a Japanese spirit was the goal. It is from this root that most of what we consider modern karate took root.

Indeed for this modern birth of karate, there is a volume of written materials. Starting during the late Meiji and the call for Itosu to introduce karate to the Okinawan school system there is a plethora of information which can be cross-referenced and used to uncover the roots of karate. However, pre 1880s the waters are far murkier. We do know there was a civil self-defence system in place which was often referred to as ‘tou-di’ or simply ‘ti’ but what exactly it was, has thus far not been identified through historical research. There are some historical references to the fighting system as far back as the early 1600s and demonstrations made for public dignitaries such as that given before the 27th Sappushi in 1683 (Hokama, 2007). 

Much has been made of the direct line of karate to China and in particular Fuken-sho or Fujian province. While there is indeed some pollination of Chineses Quanfa pre-Meiji at present it would appear to be haphazard rather than a direct, consistent flow. What is also worth remembering is the Qing government (that is the one referred to by the ‘tou’ kanji) banned the practice of Chinese boxing and burned the Shaolin temple to the ground in 1727 (Hokama, 2007). Indeed there is an irony here for the very kanji which some Okinawa’s used to tie themselves to a Chinese martial past represents the dynasty that leveled the Shaolin temple. 

Moreover, the mass failure of the Boxer Rebellion 1899-1901 sent shock waves through the martial arts community as the utter failure of Chinese boxing in light of modern warfare was only too clear. That the ‘tou’ kanji was continued to be used in Okinawa was perhaps more a testament to a romantic notion of the past rather than a clear assessment of the direct origins of karate. Indeed the activity of pirates, typhoons and choppy seas ensured that the economic, social and cultural connection to China was always a tenuous one. 

Another plausible source contributing to historical origins or influence on karate lies in Jigen Ryu. A koryu (i.e. traditional martial art as opposed to a civil self-defence system), Jigen Ryu has its origins among the samurai of the Satsuma clan in what is modern-day Kagoshima. Starting in 1609 the Satsuma first invaded and then set up a strong influence in the independent Ryukyu Kingdom. As part of an outlier of the newly established Bakufu, or centralised Japanese military government, the Satsuma could not officially take control of the neighbouring kingdom. However, on behalf of the Bakufu, they maintained a ‘significant influence’ in Ryukyu. Officially the kingdom was considered part of the Satsuma domain, although they kept their king and outward trappings of independence such as their king and local government. Moreover, under the Satsuma, for the second time in its history the Okinawan government banned all weapons in an effort to ensure rebellions, such as that led by Christinas in nearby Kyushu in 1837-38, did not occur. 

Jigen Ryu’s influence on karate may be suggested by its stance of hasso kamae, its emphasis on first strike and its developed two-man drills. Its kiai, although in line with practices in other koryu, is generally of a higher pitch and arguably reflected in the kiai of karate, which of course Chinese martial arts do not have. However, at present, the evidence for the influence is still very much at the conjecture level. 

Reinforcing the ban on weapons after Satsuma invasion, the number of weapons in Okinawa were recorded as ‘300 muskets, 100 swords and armour with helmets’ (Hokama, 2007, p. 19) not a particularly large number considering the military might of the Satsuma and the considerable length of the Okinawa archipelago. Farmers were banned from moving into the districts of Shuri, Naha, Tomari and Kume, places where ‘ti’ was actively taught. Lastly, between this proclamation and the formal annexation of Ryukyu in the late Meiji, there were very few uprisings by Okinawa’s against their mainland counterparts. Given the hefty annual tribute Okinawa had to pay to the Satsuma and the banning of all tarde for Ryukyu except with China and Japan may seem to suggest that the situation was fertile for such a revolt. Perhaps the Okinawa’s were tempered by the fact that their only foreign trading partner, China, was is disarray during the late Qing dynasty? Likewise, the island benefitted as it was a loophole under Japan’s closed country policy (鎖国) that permitted China and Japan to trade (Hendrickx, 2007).  Perhaps this historically documented fact will finally dispel the myth that Karate and Kobudo were developed by farmers to help fight against the tyranny of Japanese samurai. There again, probably not as the myth makes for a very romantic marketing campaign. 

That the upper Pechin classes in Okinawa practised, Jigen Ryu is documented (McCarthy, 2018; Swift, forthcoming) and known as is the oral tradition and some scant written documentation that Chinese martial arts were present, albeit, haphazardly in Okinawa from at least the 1600s (McCarthy, 2018; Hokama, 2007; McKenna, 2009). That such systems were practised to fight against the Japanese bears no historical merit. In fact the origins of karate may be, and again here we are dealing with plausibility and theory rather than facts, a practice developed to police the ports, provide some assurances against pirate or actions in the ports (such as drunk and disorderly activity in and around the various red-light districts). There is also the possibility that it was practised as a means of protecting the king. However, attacks on this position do not seem to be commonplace.  

Drawing on the anthropology of the region where the indigenous fighting systems of the Maori, Indonesia and Hawaiian peoples it is not such a stretch to believe that the Okinawa’s also had a pre-historical fighting system. Indeed Funakoshi (1950) who notes of the tegumi wrestling of his youth may unknowingly be referencing part of what had been and continues to be a connection with this prehistoric past. However, this is pure speculation and to assert that it is ‘truth’  and is embodied in a unique ‘ti’ system is to do a disservice to the pioneers of karate both early and modern.

So where does that leave us? It would appear that karate has its origins in a mixture of Jigen Ryu, the only officially sanctioned martial art in Ryukyu, a haphazard influx of Chinese boxing and the ingenuity of an upper class who were responsible for keeping the peace without having legal access to the usual arms associated with such an expectation. The claims of an independent system of ‘ti’ and/or a direct, consistent lineage to China are simply without historical merit. From a historical perspective, we are on sound ground when studying karate from the late Meiji to the present but before that evidence is scant. Perhaps the work of anthropologist will be able to delve deeper into the quagmire that is karate and offer a keener insight. However, for the present, we should continue to study what we have been left and continue to, as Basho stated, ‘seek not to copy the old masters but rather to seek what they sought’.

Postscript:
There may be a need to better define what is meant by 'ti'. If Ti generally refers what developed in Okinawa as a result of combining internal grappling arts, Chiniese Quanfa, kobudo and JigenRyu then s are simply using the name 'ti' to represent what most historians refer to as 'traditional karate'. While what was exported to Japan's universities was a limited version of what was generally called TouDi or simply 'te/ti' to argue that 'ti' is a distinct marial art, outside of karate is misleading.

Moreover, 'ti' is meant to be yet again another secret art that was not passed beyound a few and was never exported to the mainland or beyond then there is simply no historical evidence  other that that which forms a root of modern karate. Simply adding another mytical, mysterious 'ti' to a self-defence system already conflated with mysticism and 'inner secrets' is disengenious, historically inacurate and potentially ethically suspect.

I liken the current mysticism surriounding Ti to that which launched the Boxer Rebellion. The Boxers believing in the secret teachings and power of 'ti' launched themeselves against professional armies armed with modern implements. Sadly over 70,000 boxers learned that hand-to-hand technqiues and "qi' were not equipped to deal with modern warefare.
 

Selected Bibliography
Funakoshi, F., 1975. Kararet0Do: My Way of Life. Kodansha International Press: Tokyo. 
Hendrickx, Katrien (2007), The Origins of Banana-fibre Cloth in the Ryukyus, Japan, Leuven University Press, Belgium
Hokama, T., 2007. Timeline of Karate History: Pre-History to 2000. Joe Swift (trans). Ozatao Print Co. : Okinawa.
McCarthy, P. 2018. Legend of the Fist: Vol. #1. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: USA
Quast, A., (2013). Mekata and Ti = Okinawan Pogo or Dancefloor Wingchun? Ryukyu Bugei 琉球武芸. http://ryukyu-bugei.com/?p=1525 (accessed March 15, 2019)
 Uehara, Sekicihi., (1997) Interview located at: https://youtu.be/m5o7x5SHdu8 , accessed March, 9th, 2019.
Various. 2013. Challenges for Japan-China Relations and Okinawa. Okinawa Prefecture Government.
Various. 2009. An Overview of Karatedo.  Mario McKenna (trans). Independently Published: Vancouver.

Various. 2015. The Essence of Naha-te. Joe Swift (trans). Joe Swift. Lulu Press: Tokyo.