native american martial arts

[Jordan]

do native americans have any empty handed or armed styles? :confused:

[inthespirit]

The info I found at National Geographic’s Genographic project suggests that Native Americans and almost all indigenous Americans both north and south originated from the same group of people whom crossed the former land mass called Bernigia from Siberia in to Alaska around 15,000 years ago. So considering that these peoples ancestors were central and north east Asia, it may be worth looking at the martial arts of these groups of people. Though, of course 15,000 years is plenty of time to create a new martial art too. Plus taking in to account the new physical, social and spiritual conditions brought by their migration, it is likely that these peoples would have had plenty of influence for new ideas. So, to sum it all up, I’m just guessing and don’t really know. :D

Good Luck! Will be interesting to see what comes up!

[disgruntled]

It would really depend on how we want to define MA. because they use weapons, like bow and spears and a throwing thing.... can't remember name!! they did not train specifically in hand combat. or at least i have never ever seen any reported ethnographies or acconts of this. the closest thing i can think of that would be more a combat technique and not a weapons technique would be counting coup, but that is a real stretch

[slipthejab]

Hilarious there InTheSpirit. :p

At any rate... I think that people when looking for any martial arts by Native Americans tend to look for some sort of martial art defined as a codified set of rules and techniques that can be drilled by repetition under the watchful eye of a master to achieve some sort of consistancy and perfection of technique and application.

I don't really know that the sort of definition of MA's applies to Native Americans.
Most of what I've seen or heard of regarding Native American MA's looks suspect at best. There have been many charlatans over time who have tried to pass of their own funky brand of whatever as Native American martial arts.

No doubt Indians were familiar with wrestling. If I remember correctly it was very much a part of pow wows and get togethers. But on another level - I don't think you're going to find any manuals or anything like that. Native Americans were massive in their diversity. There were literally hundreds of languages... most of them with no written script. Much of the history of Native Americans is handed down orally from one generation to the next. Native Americans... even today tend to be very wary of outsiders... that means anyone non-Native American - and usually anyone not from their tribe in particular.

Many Native American tribes were heavily involved in raiding and warfare. They had many of the weapons that we know of today...the war club, the tomahawk, the spear, the bow and arrow. When they came into contact with westerners they didn't waste any time in taking up the gun and the horse as a means of conducting raids and war on each other.

Another note is that although most peoples definition of Native Americans means what is today America.... but in reality includes the native tribes of North, Central and South America. We're talking a massive amount of people prior to the Europeans arriving. People are often shocked when they find that there are still many 'indians' living in Mexico - that's exactly what the Yaqi people are... the indigenous people that were their prior to the Spaniards and other Europeans arriving. So it pays to bear in mind we are talking about a group of people that is massive and linguistically diverse. Ranging quite literally over thousands of miles and of all types of different environments and climates.

So I would be highly skeptical of anyone claiming to know much if any Native American martial art.

Here's an interesting read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_fighting_styles

[inthespirit]

So I would be highly skeptical of anyone claiming to know much if any Native American martial art.


Indeed... except this guy of course... you can tell he's kosher by his name -

Harley "Swiftdeer" Reagan :D

http://www.ten-no-kishi.com/aifaa.htm

http://www.ten-no-kishi.com/article_1_page2.htm

chulukua combines elements of traditional Native American
techniques with jujitsu moves, forging them into an unbeatable system

:yeleyes:

[Jordan]

so how much is jiu jitsu and how much is the native arts?

[Langenschwert]

I'm sure that many native tribes had very effective MA systems, since some of them were very warlike. Any culture that is in constant conflict will develop fighting skills quickly or be destroyed. I have heard of the odd teacher of NA MA in Canada, but finding someone who has retained the original arts would extremely difficult, and hard to verify.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Mei Hua]

I ran into a Native American some time past who was researching this exact same topic.

NA MA's were basic wrestling/striking/weapon skills.

It has become more common now a days to find MA's from China/Japan/etc included in the Native American cultures and retooled as being solely Native American.

[Davey Bones]

so how much is jiu jitsu and how much is the native arts?

There is no real recorded martial arts tradition within the Native American cultures. Although some tribes did have some form of wrestling as a sport, most of what they did was geared towards warfare, and just about all of it involved weapons. Anything that "Swiftdeer" is claiming as such is at best a reconstruction of any Native American arts, at worst a sham.

[Lame Leopard]

You might find the following links interesting. You might call it Indigenous Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. This is a form of grappling practiced by a tribe in Brazil.

http://www.socioambiental.org/pib/ep...awalapiti.shtm

http://www.wrestlingsbest.com/photos...tstyles01.html

[Polar Bear]

There is no real recorded martial arts tradition within the Native American cultures. Although some tribes did have some form of wrestling as a sport, most of what they did was geared towards warfare, and just about all of it involved weapons. Anything that "Swiftdeer" is claiming as such is at best a reconstruction of any Native American arts, at worst a sham.

Yeah your right. Kinda hard to have a real recorded martial arts tradition when you have no written language and various invading peoples practicing cultural and physical genocide on you.
I think we just have to accept that if there were any they are lost in history.

Still could be worst we could forced to watch tubby yanks prancing around in leather loin cloths and waving tomahawks as opposed to the modest Gi. Although some of their names might amuse, "Dances with Donuts".

The Bear.

[slipthejab]

...

Still could be worst we could forced to watch tubby yanks prancing around in leather loin cloths and waving tomahawks as opposed to the modest Gi.

The Bear.

LOL! :D
As if the UK was a country full of fit and slender good looking people.
Pot meet kettle. :p

[Polar Bear]

LOL! :D
As if the UK was a country full of fit and slender good looking people.
Pot meet kettle. :p

Yeah but our native martial arts are kebab throwing and the prehensile beer spew. Bellys are a sign of competence and I am EXPERIENCED.

The Bear.

[slipthejab]

Having just finished 2 kebabs myself (1 lamb 1 chicken)...
I know all about it being kebab 'o clock any time of the day. :D

[Polar Bear]

Having just finished 2 kebabs myself (1 lamb 1 chicken)...
I know all about it being kebab 'o clock any time of the day. :D

Your certainly on the way to becoming a British Martial Arts legend slip.
All you need to do now is knock up a girl called Tracey in the back of a ford capri and be able to drink 10 pints and urinate 11. Then you will confirm your Shihan status.

The Bear.

[Stolenbjorn]

The only thing I know about North American warfare is that prior to the european invation, they were into symmetrical warfare, where raiding for cattle, and the abilty to perform athletical and daring feats were more importaint than killing the opponent. Some tribes got feathers in their headgear for every opponent they managed to "touch" with a stick in a battle (i.e -not very lethal, but impressive all the same).

In order to achieve this (touching the opponent) while the opponent might be busy trying to kill you indicates that dexterity, and other martial factors must have been trained to a high degree?
I cannot remember my sources for this, it might be from a radio-program or a book, so I cannot verify the thruthfulness of this claim. It's a known fact that many close-to-nature-cultures practise this kind of warfare -but it's allso a known fact that other close-to-nature-cultures practise very hostile (and lethal) attitude towards strangers.

[disgruntled]

The only thing I know about North American warfare is that prior to the european invation, they were into symmetrical warfare, where raiding for cattle, and the abilty to perform athletical and daring feats were more importaint than killing the opponent. Some tribes got feathers in their headgear for every opponent they managed to "touch" with a stick in a battle (i.e -not very lethal, but impressive all the same).

In order to achieve this (touching the opponent) while the opponent might be busy trying to kill you indicates that dexterity, and other martial factors must have been trained to a high degree?
I cannot remember my sources for this, it might be from a radio-program or a book, so I cannot verify the thruthfulness of this claim. It's a known fact that many close-to-nature-cultures practise this kind of warfare -but it's allso a known fact that other close-to-nature-cultures practise very hostile (and lethal) attitude towards strangers.

yes they did do that..... counting coup

[disgruntled]

oh i forgot to mention they also were considered brave if they charged into battle and ran across the attacking party, not attacking them but dodging them. they even did this up against the europeans with guns.
they might not have been developed MAist, but they were excellent in warfare. i still think that crazy horse was buy far the best military commander.

[Polar Bear]

they might not have been developed MAist, but they were excellent in warfare. i still think that crazy horse was buy far the best military commander.

Not that good, he lost. Great Military Commanders win wars not battles.
Look at George Washington he couldn't win a battle if he fell over it. Won the war though.


The Bear.

[Hannibal]

oh i forgot to mention they also were considered brave if they charged into battle and ran across the attacking party, not attacking them but dodging them. they even did this up against the europeans with guns.
they might not have been developed MAist, but they were excellent in warfare. i still think that crazy horse was buy far the best military commander.

Cochise was far better...and more successful IMO

[disgruntled]

Not that good, he lost. Great Military Commanders win wars not battles.
Look at George Washington he couldn't win a battle if he fell over it. Won the war though.


The Bear.

how can you win a war by doing anything but winning the battles you are in charge of? i mean look at Custered, they won the war but he was horrible. he once shot his own horse in the head while aiming for a buffalo. and he lost battles against the natives who had no guns while he had tons.

maybe i am just using the wrong ranking term.

[fire cobra]

knock up a girl called tracy! he he he lmao polar bear! :D

[Pitfighter]

I'm sure that at least regarding unarmed combat Native Americans did wrestling. Read most articles on Catch wrestling and you'll see that some of it was influenced by Native Americans at least as any other ethnic group in the America.

I used to be a boy scout and scouting does burrow some authentic traditions from Native Americans. I learned a style of wrestling that involved locking our lead hands and ankles and trying to knock the other down. Don't recall what tribe it was from. I'm sure though wrestling styles varied from tribe to tribe and had different rule sets.

As far as Crazy Horse goes. He was in fact a brilliant general IMO but he wasn't a great political leader. In fact if anything that has always been the downfull of Nativa Americans and their struggles with Manifest Destiny. They rarely had leaders who could unite the various tribes against growing European/American populations and armies.

Some chiefs did like Crazy Horse, Tecumseh, Pontiac, etc. but unfortunately they did not have strong successors who could keep various tribes united. I mean it really isn't all that surprising name any continent besides Australia that is composed of a united political entity. You gotta remember every tribe was like a seperate nation, maintaing alliances between them would be just as hard as say unifying Europe.

[slipthejab]

As far as Crazy Horse goes. He was in fact a brilliant general IMO but he wasn't a great political leader. In fact if anything that has always been the downfull of Nativa Americans and their struggles with Manifest Destiny. They rarely had leaders who could unite the various tribes against growing European/American populations and armies.

I think if you do a bit more research you'll find that one of the major problems for Native Americans was actually disease - many of which Europeans brought with them which wiped out vast amounts of Native Americans and the intentional introduction of diseases like small-pox into the Native American communities by the U.S. Cavalry. Disease decimated the Native American population in a way that the American army could have only have dreamed of.

So much of what many Americans have come to believe as the 'history of the west' is nothing more than propaganda - and poorly written propaganda at that.

[Polar Bear]

I think if you do a bit more research you'll find that one of the major problems for Native Americans was actually disease - many of which Europeans brought with them which wiped out vast amounts of Native Americans and the intentional introduction of diseases like small-pox into the Native American communities by the U.S. Cavalry. Disease decimated the Native American population in a way that the American army could have only have dreamed of.

So much of what many Americans have come to believe as the 'history of the west' is nothing more than propaganda - and poorly written propaganda at that.

Absolutely right slip, cultural and physical genocide. The Native Americans didn't understand the cultural weight sitting behind the invaders by the time they realised they were already beaten. European Imperialist machine was too experienced and well trained at conquering indigenous peoples all over the world. The Native Americans made the fatal mistake of fighting fair.

The Bear.

[Louie]

I have read an account of a native american ability to 'touch' certain areas of their opponents body either with the hand or a stick which could cause faintness or even death. Similar to the Hawaiian kahuna and oriental martial art 'death touch' stories.

This may have been down to the power of suggestion rather than martial ability similar to the 'trick' performed by hypnotists and certain religious/martial art groups who touch a person and they collapse into a heap.

Louie :Angel:

PLEASE KEEP THE DISCUSSION ON THE SUBJECT OF MARTIAL ARTS AND THE QUESTION IN HAND. CHEERS!!!!

[Polar Bear]

how can you win a war by doing anything but winning the battles you are in charge of? i mean look at Custered, they won the war but he was horrible. he once shot his own horse in the head while aiming for a buffalo. and he lost battles against the natives who had no guns while he had tons.

maybe i am just using the wrong ranking term.

Read about the American Revolutionary War. The number of battles actually won by the Americans were few but their tenacity and fighting spirit (not to mention a MASSIVE helping hand from France) won the war.
Something Americans of today should remember when toting terms like "cheese eating surrender monkeys" about. If not for France no United States of America. Sprinkle that on your "freedom" fries.

The Bear.

[Stolenbjorn]

Just to supplement and to stay go off topic as well; this is why USA lost the vietnam war despite winning all the battles except one that was a draw, and this is why they will loose in Iraq. When you fight people that not only doesn't care if they die, but who actually know that THEY WILL DIE, you will loose the war. Now; USA isn't (officially) trying to conquer Iraq but I was not aiming at starting a discussion on americas post WW2-politics here, just mentioning two examples of wars where one side keeps winning the battles, but loose the war -just as the english fighting the americans in the war of independence some 300 years ago.

[Stolenbjorn]

THis post duplicated itself due to a little disagreement between the MAP-server and the computer at work

[Polar Bear]

PLEASE KEEP THE DISCUSSION ON THE SUBJECT OF MARTIAL ARTS AND THE QUESTION IN HAND. CHEERS!!!!]

Sorry Louie. I think we answered in initial question and the discussion moved on to discussing why there are no native american martial arts. Which is a broad subject though I feel is still within a martial art context. i.e. why some martial systems die out. An issue that is very close to your own heart.
Since there are no documents to work from like Hope's treaty on the highland broadsword we would run out of something to say very quickly on the subject if we didn't broaden the subject. I for one would prefer people were posting rather than not.

The Bear.

[Louie]

Since there are no documents to work from like Hope's treaty on the highland broadsword we would run out of something to say very quickly on the subject if we didn't broaden the subject. I for one would prefer people were posting rather than not.

The Bear.

Hi Bear

As your probably aware the MAP 'powers that be' will pull the plug on discussions (if I don't) which have the potential for decending into flame wars & negativity, already we've went from a simple question on Indian fighting to the wars of Independance, Vietnam & Iraq.


Stolenbjorn
It doesn't seem that any native american MA have survived, and as the native americans originate from the east, this thread should have been posted in an EMA-related subforum

hi Stolenbjorn
Yes, I thought about this before seeing how it would develop, :woo: :bang: :cry:
obviously you have a culture who had not been influenced by karate, kung fu or Indian MA but may have had some influence from western arts - from the earliest viking settlers & Scots and French in the North. The Spanish in the South and the later European influences before and after the wars of independance.

As to it not surviving, weren't N.American techniques taught to American rangers during the wars (or have I been watching too many John Wayne films)

Louie

[disgruntled]

I think if you do a bit more research you'll find that one of the major problems for Native Americans was actually disease - many of which Europeans brought with them which wiped out vast amounts of Native Americans and the intentional introduction of diseases like small-pox into the Native American communities by the U.S. Cavalry. Disease decimated the Native American population in a way that the American army could have only have dreamed of.

So much of what many Americans have come to believe as the 'history of the west' is nothing more than propaganda - and poorly written propaganda at that.

thank you because you said it better than i would have! :p

[disgruntled]

Read about the American Revolutionary War. The number of battles actually won by the Americans were few but their tenacity and fighting spirit (not to mention a MASSIVE helping hand from France) won the war.
Something Americans of today should remember when toting terms like "cheese eating surrender monkeys" about. If not for France no United States of America. Sprinkle that on your "freedom" fries.

The Bear.

how does this answer my question?? if anything it supports my claim that they weren't good military leaders and that it was the circumstances that bailed them out

[disgruntled]

As to it not surviving, weren't N.American techniques taught to American rangers during the wars (or have I been watching too many John Wayne films)

Louie

it was my understanding that it was mostly survival skills that were taught, not fighting techniques.

one problem with the question that started this thread is how we conceptualize MA. personally i think of it as a peasant fighting system that was developed to combate a dominate ruling class that controled weapons. granted i do not know enough about the history of MA, and i don't think that my statement would be true for the Ninjas. but i am inclined to put a class like the samurai who used weapons and were government run in the class of military and not MA. and if that is the case, classifying any Native fighting system as MA is hard. for the most part, in North America, their were few tribes that had any kind of ruling class that people would need to learn to fight against. if they did not like the person in charge they just left and lived with a new band, or ostrasized the disliked person until they left. thus, any fighting system they had was run by the leaders and therefore i would classify it as warfare/military and not MA.

but then again my history of MA is not strong. hopefully someone who knows more will explain to me why i am wrong :p

[Polar Bear]

Defining what a martial art is, is probably one of the most difficult things to do. However your idea of a peasant fighting system is an extremely narrow definition and would only fit a very small number of modern martial arts. I like to think of martial arts as any skill taught specifically for fighting other humans. It may be broad but it describes how I see it.

The Bear.

[disgruntled]

Defining what a martial art is, is probably one of the most difficult things to do. However your idea of a peasant fighting system is an extremely narrow definition and would only fit a very small number of modern martial arts. I like to think of martial arts as any skill taught specifically for fighting other humans. It may be broad but it describes how I see it.

The Bear.

fair enough. then do you define military trainning like navey seals and the like as MA? or combat trainning with weapons?

[Langenschwert]

one problem with the question that started this thread is how we conceptualize MA. personally i think of it as a peasant fighting system that was developed to combate a dominate ruling class that controled weapons.

No offence, but this is an overly narrow, moreover a grossly inaccurate definition of Martial Arts. The word martial, as defined in dictionary.com:

1. inclined or disposed to war; warlike: The ancient Romans were a martial people.
2. of, suitable for, or associated with war or the armed forces: martial music.
3. characteristic of or befitting a warrior: a martial stride.

[Origin: 1325–75; ME < L Mārtiālis of, belonging to Mars, equiv. to Mārti- (s. of Mārs) + -ālis -al1]

Note the origin, derived from Mars, the Roman god of War. In the English language, the first literary use of the term "Martial Art" was in the 17th Century rapier manual called "Pallas Armata", which refers to the "noble Martial Art of fencing". Previous to that, the combat arts were referred to as the "Arts of Mars". So by extension, using a firearm is certainly a Martial Art. So is using a bow, or a fighter jet. They're just modern martial arts. You know, I think I'll just make a form reply to post in order to rebut someone who defines martial arts as "unarmed asian fighting arts". :D

Best regards,

-Mark

[Langenschwert]

fair enough. then do you define military trainning like navey seals and the like as MA? or combat trainning with weapons?

Absolutely, without hesitation.

-Mark

[disgruntled]

thanks Mark... i figured i was wrong, but you have to say your opinion before you can figure out where you went wrong! :p

with your definition then the Native definately do have a traditional MA. so how do we define it?

[Langenschwert]

thanks Mark... i figured i was wrong, but you have to say your opinion before you can figure out where you went wrong! :p

with your definition then the Native definately do have a traditional MA. so how do we define it?

No prob. ;) I hope I didn't sound harsh.

Yeah, I'm positive the Natives had indigenous MA. I don't know if we can define those that are no longer extant. For instance, in the European MA, we don't have any manuals on how to use a full sized shield. We know they had MA for it, but we don't know how it worked exactly. We can infer from later sword and buckler traditions, and duelling shield traditions, and accounts from the sagas, but that's it. The best we can do is use the principles of fighting with swords (which are practically universal) and try to use the shield to the greatest effectiveness and see what happens. Great strides can be made that way.

Martial Arts that were used in real combat are very similar all over the globe. For example, when the Potuguese went to Japan, they saw the Samurai in action. Westerners are very ready to borrow anything that works in combat, but none of the Japanese techniques were imported to Europe while there was an extensive swordsmanship tradition there. Why? Because the Portuguese didn't see anything they didn't already know. German Ringen and jiu-jutsu are nearly identical, though they were developed separately, and the list goes on.

Using that principle, I think the best bet is to find extant tribal cultures that use similar weapons to native North Americans, and see how they fight. Chances are the techniques would be very similar, since people are smart and find out how to best kill each other very quickly. :)

-Mark

[Pitfighter]

I think if you do a bit more research you'll find that one of the major problems for Native Americans was actually disease - many of which Europeans brought with them which wiped out vast amounts of Native Americans and the intentional introduction of diseases like small-pox into the Native American communities by the U.S. Cavalry. Disease decimated the Native American population in a way that the American army could have only have dreamed of.

Never did dismiss this fact. Merely pointing out that most wars/battles won by Native American by the encroaching foriegn Europeans or U.S. were won typically by chiefs/generals whom united various tribes, in some cases tribes that were traditionally enemies.

Sorry Louie. I think we answered in initial question and the discussion moved on to discussing why there are no native american martial arts. Which is a broad subject though I feel is still within a martial art context. i.e. why some martial systems die out. An issue that is very close to your own heart.
Since there are no documents to work from like Hope's treaty on the highland broadsword we would run out of something to say very quickly on the subject if we didn't broaden the subject. I for one would prefer people were posting rather than not.

The Bear.Did we really get off topic? I mean armed combat/martial arts is usually focused just as much around strategy and battle tactics as it about weapons techniques.

[Mista-X]

I remember reading about this "Red Warrior":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Warrior

But it seems it is reconstruction and largely Karate based. So, I think most people here are right, it is really hard to tell if something of that sort is authentic.

There is also "Kapu Kuialua", the Hawaiian MA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lua_%28martial_art%29

But I also remember the practitioner getting his ass handed to him by Tank Abbot in UFC.

[Polar Bear]

fair enough. then do you define military trainning like navey seals and the like as MA? or combat trainning with weapons?

I class military training as martial arts. Not everyone does and your perfectly entitled to your opinion. We're all happy to hear them. At one time I possibly held a similar opinion though I always included archaic weaponry.

The Bear.

[Raskulv]

Hi guys! just wanted to post the adress to randall browns homepage

randall brown claims to teach Isuna Nika, a native american martial art he was thaught by Wind Painter a comanche native. Read about it on the homepage:

http://www.akumu.com/inaboutus.html

[Polar Bear]

Hi guys! just wanted to post the adress to randall browns homepage

randall brown claims to teach Isuna Nika, a native american martial art he was thaught by Wind Painter a comanche native. Read about it on the homepage:

http://www.akumu.com/inaboutus.html

Yeah it was all going so well until -

"I Have Exactly ONE Secret "Instant
Death" Package Set Aside For You
Here... And I Am Risking My Life
Just Letting You Know It Exists!"

Yeah the American Indians were superhuman fighting machines apparently.

If you believe this please send cash, small used bills to the Govan Polar Bear sanctuary contact me for details.

The Bear.

[Stolenbjorn]

In the french movie "Le Pacte des loups" (clan of the wolves), there is an indian that practices "native north american MA" (but he actually does something looking like Savate goes kick-boxing)...

As of my oppinion on the last posts; I personally differentiate between Martial Sports and Martial Arts. Martial sports is a martial system adapted for scoring points and winning, whereas Martial Arts is a system meant for killing the most effectively. (That's my definition of Martial arts)

I'm quite sure that there's no way of resurrecting authentic historical north-american-native MA, as the indians didn't write manuals, and as what might be taught by TMA'ers can be very tainted by WMA (as Louie is mentioning). So any native-american-ma-specialist will at best be a re-constructor/re-enactor.

Langenschwert talks abit about how we resurrect/re-construct WMA's, and all I can say is that the moment we move away from the manuals and into vauge references in other manuscripts (like the Norse sagas, Beowulf, etc), we're on thin ice.

Ressurection = taking a manual with 2d.drawings and explenation below, trying to copy it, and ALLWAYS trying to stick to the explenation and drawings

Re-constructing = taking a weapon, making an exact copy, try to apply the manual that is closest + reading more or less accurate manuscripts that mentiones combat in the given society and timeframe; and see where 21th century-logics can make out of it. 100% of so called "Viking martial arts" is what I call Re-constructing, and that's why viking-fighting is called re-enactment-fighting in europe. I can take the I-33 manual from late 1200's, swap the 1h.sword with a vikingsword and swop the buckler with a viking roundshield, see which of the techniques that works and which that doesn't work, and then present this as "this is how the vikings fought with sword and shield", or I can say "we don't know how the vikings fought with sword and shield, we never will, but this is how I think they might have done it"

I have absolutely no problems with re-enactors, re-enactment, re-construction. I do this myself on migration-period and the viking-age. WHAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ARE PEOPLE THAT DOES THIS AND CLAIMS IT TO BE THE REAL THING (like the so called norse quarterstaff-system "stav" which is somthing I cannot write on this forum) :bang:

[Angelus]

do native americans have any empty handed or armed styles? :confused:
I know the Iroquios had their own form of wrestling.....
But their war arts have not really been looked into....

[Langenschwert]

Langenschwert talks abit about how we resurrect/re-construct WMA's, and all I can say is that the moment we move away from the manuals and into vauge references in other manuscripts (like the Norse sagas, Beowulf, etc), we're on thin ice.

I agree 100%. I don't do anything that isn't based on the manuals, but that's just me. If someone wants to try to figure out how Vikings fought with sword and shield, more power to 'em. Given my Scandinavian heritage, I'd be interested in seeing it. But that's about it. I know I can learn authenic techniques in longsword, rapier, and sword & buckler, and that's good enough for me. At least for now. :)

-Mark

[disgruntled]

I'm quite sure that there's no way of resurrecting authentic historical north-american-native MA, as the indians didn't write manuals, and as what might be taught by TMA'ers can be very tainted by WMA (as Louie is mentioning). So any native-american-ma-specialist will at best be a re-constructor/re-enactor.

you can use knowlege from oral histories and use those as a "manual". you would be only going back less than 10 generation to find out what their lives were like pre/post-contact and therefore the information has not had that much time to distort. i know here in Canada we consider oral histories legal histories.

[Polar Bear]

you can use knowlege from oral histories and use those as a "manual". you would be only going back less than 10 generation to find out what their lives were like pre/post-contact and therefore the information has not had that much time to distort. i know here in Canada we consider oral histories legal histories.

10 Generations of oral history!

OK here's a wee test.
What did your Great Great Grandfather do for a living?

Now thats 4 Generations.

What was his Great Great Gandfather's name?

8 Generations.

I bet you have no idea.

So imagine the possibility of accurately recreating a martial art from 10 generations ago. It would be virtually impossible.

The Bear.

[dormindo]

In the french movie "Le Pacte des loups" (clan of the wolves), there is an indian that practices "native north american MA" (but he actually does something looking like Savate goes kick-boxing)...


Yeah, that was the actor Mark Dacascos--of Phillipino descent--in that film. He actually does, iirc, several Asian martial arts and not any 'native american martial arts'--hence the 'kickboxing look of the fight scenes. He even trained in a little bit of Capoeira for the film Only the Strong.

As to Native American fighting arts, I would imagine that, much like African and South Asian fighting arts, they would run the gamut from grappling to striking to weapons and would vary from region to region (obviously). As was mentioned/inferred earlier in the thread, Central and South America may be better places to look for these things--as there are still indigenous groups in significant numbers. There may be some traces still here in North American--after all, there has been some looking into traces of African fighting arts here--but I would be wary of any workshops, etc claiming to teach such, as this country has a long history of new agey and frontier fascinated 'indians'.

paz,

dormindo

[Stolenbjorn]

you can use knowlege from oral histories and use those as a "manual". you would be only going back less than 10 generation to find out what their lives were like pre/post-contact and therefore the information has not had that much time to distort. I'd wish that was true, but IMHO it isn't so; unfortunately. 100 years ago there were like 2-3 katana-traditions in Japan, now, there are over hundred sub-styles, etc. Many of the Traditional martial arts were actually stuff taught to weasterners some 50 years ago by more or less honest opportunists from korea, china, japan.... The fact that some indian claims to be what his father taught him, taught by his grandfater, that was taught it by his great-grand-father; we have no way of knowing wether what that great-grand-father was a pit-fighter doing wma...
i know here in Canada we consider oral histories legal histories. Does that count for historians as well? In Norway, we try to be rather critical towards "stories" about the Vikings. Now, the vikings lived over 1000 years ago, but all the written stuff about the vikings (Edda, the kings mirror, icelandic sagas, Heimskringla, etc.) were written in the 11th, - 14th century; 200 - 500 years after the viking-age, and we know that we cannot take those stories as legal stories. People have allways been biased, and allthough oral traditions like songs and poems have a little stronger survivability, they too change as dialects, culture and context changes.

I would not believe someone that would claim that he was going to show me authentic native american Martial techniques from the 1700's. If he told me that he wanted to show me what his grandfather claims is authentic native american Martial techniques, that's more honest IMHO; that doesn't give me any illutions, and I can make up my own oppinion on whether what he shows is accurate or not.

[disgruntled]

It would be unfair to use my understanding of my history to judge how valid oral histoies are because i am not from a culture that uses oral histories. and i would like to point out that MA has been around for longer than writing, so originally it would not have been written and it would have be taught generation by generation. so should we question the validity of any MA that was developed before writing?????

as far as the question about histories and how you treat Viking "stories", i would like to remind you that history is merely the collection of stories to reconstruct the past. it would be like saying that any history before writing is just a story. Natives are not stupid, it is not just like they say this is the story and that is how it is. it is back up with artifacts and archaeological evidence just like any of our history. we have just made the acknowledgement here that because there is no written record we must use what ever means availible to reconstruct the past.

In addition, it is the winners that write the history book, so if we want to get into the vaildity of history and historical accuracy, then our discussion is not limited to oral histories.

[Stolenbjorn]

It would be unfair to use my understanding of my history to judge how valid oral histoies are because i am not from a culture that uses oral histories. Me neither, and I'm just an amateur, just so we both are open with our competence i would like to point out that MA has been around for longer than writing, so originally it would not have been written and it would have be taught generation by generation. Yes should we question the validity of any MA that was developed before writing????? we cannot question it, we can actually not say anything about it, as we will have no ways of knowing what it would look like. The oldest MA I know of are wrestelingpositions painted 2d on walls in egyptian gravetombs that are 5000 years old. We can comment on that, as there's somthing to comment on.

as far as the question about histories and how you treat Viking "stories", i would like to remind you that history is merely the collection of stories to reconstruct the past. it would be like saying that any history before writing is just a story. Natives are not stupid, it is not just like they say this is the story and that is how it is. it is back up with artifacts and archaeological evidence just like any of our history. we have just made the acknowledgement here that because there is no written record we must use what ever means availible to reconstruct the past. I'm not sure if we understand eachother here: You say that (written) history can be as false as (oral)history. To this, I totally agree. My point is that I do not trust EITHER written nor ORAL history when it comes to reconstruct traditional MA's I only trust manuals with pictures (and hardly that).

That said, I have no problems with people that tries to re-construct a martial system with no drawn descriptions of the techniques/positions supplemented by explanitorial texts, I just want them to be honest about the fact that there is no way of knowing for sure wether the re-constructed system is autuhentic or not -it can only be a subjective interpretation. As long as people are open about that, I love to discuss possebilities and theories :)

[KuKulzA]

I know the Iroquios had their own form of wrestling.....
But their war arts have not really been looked into....
yeah I heard that they had a very 'spartan' lifestyle of many of the men, they had a lot of wrestling, bow shooting, and general war trainign since a young age... combine that with their later use of european weapons and the fact that for awhile they were a powerful nation, I am sure their martial training was very good..

however... it is similar to Indian wrestlings and African stick-fighting and other native american martial arts... many are lost or very obscure... and it is very unfortunate... :(

[Polar Bear]

It would be unfair to use my understanding of my history to judge how valid oral histoies are because i am not from a culture that uses oral histories. and i would like to point out that MA has been around for longer than writing, so originally it would not have been written and it would have be taught generation by generation. so should we question the validity of any MA that was developed before writing?????
No, just the validity of the systems that are sold today as authentic.

as far as the question about histories and how you treat Viking "stories", i would like to remind you that history is merely the collection of stories to reconstruct the past.
Wrong, Stories are a part of history but there is much more to it than that. Tax records, Land registers, Births, Death and Marriages. The Guild Records. I'm afraid the study of history is alot more complicated than you think

it would be like saying that any history before writing is just a story. Natives are not stupid, it is not just like they say this is the story and that is how it is. it is back up with artifacts and archaeological evidence just like any of our history. we have just made the acknowledgement here that because there is no written record we must use what ever means availible to reconstruct the past.
I'm afraid it mainly is. We can only get the most basic information but beyond that it's pure conjecture.

In addition, it is the winners that write the history book, so if we want to get into the vaildity of history and historical accuracy, then our discussion is not limited to oral histories.
No true. France lost the napoleanic wars but we still have a wealth of history that tell the French side of events.


I don't want to sound down on you but I think you would benefit from going along to some lectures on history and reading a good load of historical texts. Then you'll understand that even the veracity of accounts of the recent Gulf War are disputed where many people are still alive who were there. You soon realise that history isn't about absolutes it's about interpretation and in alot of cases best gueses. Now look at oral history of a community under extreme cultural and physical pressure. Even under the best circumstances it is almost impossible to accurately transmit a full martial system, the situation of the American Indians complicated the problem a thousand times. I'm sorry but in all likelihood the original martial systems of the American Indian are effectively dead.

The Bear.

[Lame Leopard]

Here's my 1/2 cents worth. I have Adrian Roman's Tushka Homa on tape. He is a good teacher and martial artist. I have his 1st Degree Black Belt Certificate. I do not claim black belt status in this system, and will never claim black belt status in this system, until I learn the art. So far, I have not done that to my satisfaction. I believe this is the honor system that Grand Master Roman is talking about. When he says he has drawn from several Native American arts, I will not be the one to question him. He is heavily influenced by American Kenpo because that is his main style.

On the bigger question of "Native American Arts" I truly believe that there is as many approaches to warfare as there are tribes. Probably some tribes just had they warriors make clubs, tomahawks, and spears and they would sic their enemy in the best way they could. There may have been systematic approaches to hand to hand combat that were passed on from elder warriors to young ones, that have been lost to antiquity.

I would venture to guess that certain Native American arts still exist, but no one who is not a member of the tribe will be able to get any information about them. The only way that this may be remotely possible is for someone to spend a long time building trust and respect among the tribe, seeking to learn their culture, and then perhaps some martial information might be taught. Any one seeking to do this has to get the commercialized approach to martial arts completely out of their mind.

There is much disrespect on these forums towards others arts. This venture would call for a completely different mindset. As soon as it was conveyed in any way, shape or form that "this is Native American McDojo crap", a stone wall would be run into very quickly.

I would like to hear from a Native American who is privy to the cultural ways of his tribe, to either confirm my notions or set me straight. Unless I am persuaded differently, I will stand by my comments.

[KuKulzA]

considering many martial arts have been discovered in obscure or remote places and peoples... it is not unlikely at all for all the aboriginal people of the Americas to have martial art systems... seeing as how as a whole, almost all their societies had warrior-cultures of note...
I mean there are NewZealander (Maori) staff fighting arts as well as staff-fighting arts of some African tribes... Indian wrestling is said to have influenced Southeast Asian martial styles, such as Silat, which is said to have originated in Sumatra...
I think a continent of people, with war as an important part of their culture generally would have developed martial arts as warring had been going on for long enough that osme sort of approach and style should've developed...

however, if these indigenous martial arts still exist... well then, they would probably be held secrets of the tribes as LameLeopard said before me...
and gaining the trust of tribal people is not easy... I mean outsiders had pushed their people to extinction and ruined their ancestor's lives and now come to learn martial arts and secrets?

but if anyone has concrete evidence or is a practitioner please step up, we'd love to hear about the art

[Stolenbjorn]

On the bigger question of "Native American Arts" I truly believe that there is as many approaches to warfare as there are tribes. Probably some tribes just had they warriors make clubs, tomahawks, and spears and they would sic their enemy in the best way they could.
That would still be a martial art. The only way you can say there is no martial art is when you never fight, never have trained to fight, and then find yourself in a fight.

I would venture to guess that certain Native American arts still exist, but no one who is not a member of the tribe will be able to get any information about them. And my (unqualified) guess is that you are wrong. Certain Native American arts do not exist the way it was exercised 200 years "IMHUQO". There might be some FRAGMENTS OF NANMA's than have survived via dances, and references in songs (dances and songs are better at preserving content; aboriginal paint-rituals have been little altered over the course of 20 000 years) -but only fragments, or mixed into modern ma's, mixed ma's etc -nothing that can claim to be a complete system.

I would like to hear from a Native American who is privy to the cultural ways of his tribe, to either confirm my notions or set me straight. Unless I am persuaded differently, I will stand by my comments. Me to, this we agree on. This is one of the topics I've been discussing where I would love to be wrong, but I think I'm right, unfortunately.

I think that the viking wresteling-system "Glima" can be compared to a best-case-scenario for Native North American MA: Glima is still practiced on Iceland, Glima have several references in old manuals, and with theese two sources (modern living tradition + old written sources) it have been possible to make qualified GUESSES on how Glima worked in the Norse nations some 1000 years ago. BUT NOBODY CAN CLAIM TO SAY THAT THEY KNOW THE ART OF VIKING WRESTELING :cool:

[slipthejab]

Here's my 1/2 cents worth. I have Adrian Roman's Tushka Homa on tape. He is a good teacher and martial artist. I have his 1st Degree Black Belt Certificate. I do not claim black belt status in this system, and will never claim black belt status in this system, until I learn the art. So far, I have not done that to my satisfaction. I believe this is the honor system that Grand Master Roman is talking about. When he says he has drawn from several Native American arts, I will not be the one to question him. He is heavily influenced by American Kenpo because that is his main style.

Interesting. Since I'm not one of his students or was even aware of his stuff until you posted it... I'd be the first to question him. I'd be curious to know where he learned the alledged native American arts he speaks of.

Needless to say... I'm highly skeptical.

On the bigger question of "Native American Arts" I truly believe that there is as many approaches to warfare as there are tribes. Probably some tribes just had they warriors make clubs, tomahawks, and spears and they would sic their enemy in the best way they could. There may have been systematic approaches to hand to hand combat that were passed on from elder warriors to young ones, that have been lost to antiquity.

I think you're right in the way you're looking at it. I think the key word is 'maybe'. To date all we have on any codified system of martial arts (as in hand to hand combat via a codified training regimen etc.) is best guessing.

I would venture to guess that certain Native American arts still exist, but no one who is not a member of the tribe will be able to get any information about them. The only way that this may be remotely possible is for someone to spend a long time building trust and respect among the tribe, seeking to learn their culture, and then perhaps some martial information might be taught. Any one seeking to do this has to get the commercialized approach to martial arts completely out of their mind.

I would sincerely doubt that there are. My father was born and raised for the early part of his life on an Indian reservation. We've gone over this several times - he's said that nothing to his knowledge existed at least not in the way we've come to think of martial arts. I'm not even so sure about the whole going 'native' approach to learning them... if they do in fact exist.

There is much disrespect on these forums towards others arts. This venture would call for a completely different mindset. As soon as it was conveyed in any way, shape or form that "this is Native American McDojo crap", a stone wall would be run into very quickly.

Yeah there is a predilection with Asian martial arts that's for sure. But again I think that to date the best we have is speculation doesn't really make it any more palatable by the rest of the MA community.

I would like to hear from a Native American who is privy to the cultural ways of his tribe, to either confirm my notions or set me straight. Unless I am persuaded differently, I will stand by my comments.

For what it's worth... I'm Native American from the Jicarilla Apache tribe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jicarilla

http://www.jicarilla.net/

http://www.jicarillaonline.com/

My family on my fathers side is heavily involved in the Jicarilla community and all are married within that community. I'm not because I'm not married yet and because I live in China and not New Mexico. :p Though, of note is my sister who is married to another Jicarilla and has two children and an adopted daughter who is Navajo. There has always been much interaction between the Jicarilla Apaches the Navajo's and the Ute's.

My father comes from a family of thirteen brothers and sisters - he himself was born on a Ute reservation (our family was forcibly relocated there). We were raised with a Spanish surname even though ethnically we are not Spanish. My fathers great grandmother was an indian slave owned by a Spanish family. Often times slaves ended up carrying the name of the family that owned them. As is common with many Native Americans - we were raised with Spanish as our first language and raised knowing almost nothing of the Jicarilla language. This is rather common throughout the southwest of the United States.

The main form of connection and involvement in the Jicarilla means more than just having Native American blood enough to get a BIA card (Bureau of Indian Affairs). It means being present at powwows and actually living the culture. This includes but isn't limited to the songs and dances of the Jicarilla and the ability to speak the language. Since I live in China... you can pretty much guess that I don't attend many pow wows and that I speak Chinese means that Jicarilla isn't on the top of my list of useful everday languages. Perhaps that's unfortunate for me.

In conversations over the years with my uncles and aunts (all twelve of them), grandfather, and father conversations much like the one we're having now have come up. They've always reflected that many things like Native American martial arts have pretty much been wiped out - a sad reminder of the cultural marginilization of our people. i've always figured that the genocide by the Spanish and European settlers was the main cause of this.

But again... my father and relatives would be the first to point out... that is if there was ever something that existed much in the same way that we view Asian martial arts.

Again - there are a vast number of tribes all with their own characteristics... but over the years I've yet to see anything that is even remotely convincing that there exists a codified set of rules and training regimens for something that would amount to a Native American martial art in the sense of hand to hand combat.

Personally I find the whole concept of attempting to befriend a tribe/people in an attempt to learn their ways and be accepted and hopefully learn some supposed Native American martial art completely absurd.
It sounds very much like some quaint Victorian notion of Red Indians... perhaps about the same as Orientalism (ref. Edward Said).

[Polar Bear]

Well said slip.

The Bear.

[KuKulzA]

hmmmm....

maybe.... maybe Native Americans in general never had a codified form of martial arts but maybe each tribe had a certain style to fighting (which is very believable) and perhaps some had style of hand-to-hand combat.... but maybe not actual systems....

good thing and bad thing is... we'll never know for sure :) :(

[disgruntled]

I don't want to sound down on you but I think you would benefit from going along to some lectures on history and reading a good load of historical texts. Then you'll understand that even the veracity of accounts of the recent Gulf War are disputed where many people are still alive who were there. You soon realise that history isn't about absolutes it's about interpretation and in alot of cases best gueses. Now look at oral history of a community under extreme cultural and physical pressure. Even under the best circumstances it is almost impossible to accurately transmit a full martial system, the situation of the American Indians complicated the problem a thousand times. I'm sorry but in all likelihood the original martial systems of the American Indian are effectively dead.

The Bear.

the point you made about about history being open to interpretation is the point i was trying to make. i think that it is great that history is open up to debate. and i think that that should be kept in mind when we look at oral histories. no they should not be taken as fact, but they should not be dismissed either. when that is the only record of history that we have then let's not dismiss it out right. and i do agree that most likely the original system of martial arts is dead, we can't know that for sure until we invesigate the hisotry which is a false start if someone rules out oral history for the start. yes oral histories should be regarded with caution, but not dismissed.


good post clip, espeically the orientalism reference. unfortunately anthropology does still suffer from that.

[Langenschwert]

and perhaps some had style of hand-to-hand combat.... but maybe not actual systems....

System is in the eyes of the beholder. Some sport fencers and Asian martial artists claim that medieval and renaissance European MA have no "system", but those that practice them know better. Where does one draw the line between style and system, and aren't they rather synonymous?

-Mark

[KuKulzA]

System is in the eyes of the beholder. Some sport fencers and Asian martial artists claim that medieval and renaissance European MA have no "system", but those that practice them know better. Where does one draw the line between style and system, and aren't they rather synonymous?

-Mark
I guess so....
but by oriental standards maybe the Native Americans may not have had martial arts... though that can be disagreed upon for sure... and I do hope... I mean it just shows a human tendancy to master and make an art of something that canbe taken into depth... like fighting... and so.. martial arts...

[Stolenbjorn]

I guess so....
but by oriental standards maybe the Native Americans may not have had martial arts... though that can be disagreed upon for sure... and I do hope... I mean it just shows a human tendancy to master and make an art of something that canbe taken into depth... like fighting... and so.. martial arts...

It all depends wether you accept the modern asian MA communtiy's definitio of what it takes to be a "proper" martial art. You must remember that if you go 100 years back, asian MA and European MA was quite similar, and that Modern Asian MA is a trademark guarded by the ones sitting in the power positions of the different MA-confederations around the world. The myth that asian MA is somewhat supernatural is a gold-mine; created by more or less honest asian/weastern individualists migrating to the west over the past 90 years, and it have been enhanced by Hollywood and Hong Kong. The ones earning money on naive weasterners with thick wallets and a stern belief in "Chi" and "rip-out-heart-technique" will defend this myth at all costs.

This is at least my oppinion on the topic and now that you know my wiewpoint, it's perhaps not so surprising that I really don't care what the established asian "T"MA-community must think of European/Native american MA

...and if anybody manages to read some sort of racism into my post, I can asure you that I don't think all Asian TMA is crap, or that all Asian MA "masters" are crooks. I allso can assure you that crooks like this allso exist in the European Martial Ats-community.Unfortunately "Viking MA-schools" are established in North America, and a Norwegian who practice "Stav" have done more damage to the WMA image in Norway than all the Hollywood viking/ conan-movies together :bang:

[Langenschwert]

I guess so....
but by oriental standards maybe the Native Americans may not have had martial arts... though that can be disagreed upon for sure... and I do hope... I mean it just shows a human tendancy to master and make an art of something that canbe taken into depth... like fighting... and so.. martial arts...

Well, a martial art is any systemized set of combat techniques. Since what defines a "system" is nebulous at best, once you've figured out how to fight, you've got a martial art. It doesn't have to be mystical, spiritual, or asian. It just has to be martial.

So what's more of a martial art: a (hypothetical) formulaic system from asia that practices forms only, without resisting opponents, sparring or weapons, or a combat art that uses the same principles that make it more likely you will actually survive a fight, especially on the battlefield, using everything one can muster to defeat one's enemy? They're both arts, but only one is actually "martial".

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it's still fun. :)

-Mark

[KuKulzA]

hehe, well looks like we can all agree :)

[rubberband]

As a martial artist and primitive skills enthusiast native american martial arts is something I have looked deeply into... So I would like to share what I have learned... Native American warfare was primarily hit and run in nature and based around group assault and or stealth... for the most part native americans faught as they hunted by direct ambush or by spooking their prey into an awaiting ambush or into a position where they were at the mercy of the ambushers... hand to hand fighting seemed to be a last resort...

now that is not to say that all tribes didn't develop systems of individual combat... Most North american tribes utilized hunting implements for warfare such as the Bow and arrow, atlatl, lance, knife, etc... and most tribes used body armor made of bone or folded raw hide, and/or shields... also many tribes utilized special war clubs for close in fighting... commonly called ball clubs these where designed to deliver very powerful blows that could crack a skull or break an arm... generally It seems techniques of early native american warfare was direct and very often involved one individual being killed or captured by a group of the enemy... I think it is safe to consider that since the native americans had the ability to fight over some distance with bow and arrow or similar weapon that they would have prefered to do so instead of risking death at close quarters... of course that is not to say that a minority of groups like the dog soldiers didn't prefer close quarters battle but there was a mystical and spiritual element to their technique... and one should also consider that some terrains would make projectile weapons less useful... however, in the lack of better evidence to the contrary and with the emphasis on defense and mobility it would seem that close in fighting was a exception rather than a rule...

Also when thinking about native american warfare one should consider the time periods before and after European encroachment... After the initial co-mingling in Eastern North America and the associated devistation of disease which led to war with its retribution against those who sided with the French... during these times the native americans were learning from the Europeans about guns and metal... trade axes and knives became more involved in native american warfare and eventually guns entered the mix... at first in the hands of Europeans who had treaties with certain tribes and eventually among individuals of tribes themselves... however the tactics of warfare persisted... stealth and group tactics played a key role... it was either shoot from a distance or stalk and strike... The native americans understood the protection of invisibility and distance...

These tactics were used to overthrow England and a new country evolved that officially saw Native Americans as obstacles to its growth... to make a long and sad story short lets just say that the fledgling "Democracy for white men" enslaved and or killed off many of the native americans... eventually "Removed" many and pushed west cutting a genocidal path of "Assimilation of the Native" until all things native were neat and tidy tucked away in concentration encampments... so if there were codified systems of fighting ther were either out moded by the evolving enemy the native american had to face and were replaced by european models or the keepers of that knowledge were simply killed...

anyone who has a interest should should read "Native American Hunting and Fighting Skills" by Colin Taylor... The book "Mystic Warriors of the Plains" by Thomas E. Mails also discusses some warfare tactics...

[KuKulzA]

thank you for your input :)
I must agree... sometimes I fear that my english isn't good enough to express what you said

[wudangfajing]

Staying out of it! What ever.

[Stolenbjorn]

I would say none of you are Indian from the sound of it the martial is in there spiritual practices.
I have never claimed to be indian
Thank you for saying they are hethans..If you're not sarcastic, that was just a weird centence. If you are sarcastic, what else should we call them? If you're objectively about it (and unless you're a Mormon), claiming that the indians weren't hethens before they were influenced by weastern culture, means that Jesus must have had a detour after before returning to his father...

Pounding the grass is not just pounding the grass why have war chiefs?.
Could you elaborate?
Why would they fight using just a stick an go up an touch there enemy's?Go and ask an anthropologist. There is more than one culture in the world if you haven't noticed. Allso note that nobody claims that this is true, it's just something we have read in books by people that could be wrong for all we know.

Why would they be stabed in the back when they were called in to make a peace treaty?Could you elaborate?
If they knew no martial why did they try to kill everone of them of using blankets with Pleagu?I agree with you that native north americans knew MA, but I don't like your tone. Europeans have a quite impressive merit-list of killing people intentionally or unintentionally using all kinds of warfare against both peaceful and hostile cultures, so your blanket-story is no argument for indians having known MA. (The fact that they fought eachother like crazy in the sout america BEFORE the europeans entered the scene is evidence; to post hostile sentences about european blankets is not :bang: )

Was it system yes in the the Religious practice? I don't understand this question... Either it's me that is stupid, or it is you ;)

[Polar Bear]

I would say none of you are Indian from the sound of it the martial is in there spiritual practices.
Thank you for saying they are hethans.
Pounding the grass is not just pounding the grass why have war chiefs?
Why would they fight using just a stick an go up an touch there enemy's?
Why would they be stabed in the back when they were called in to make a peace treaty?
If they knew no martial why did they try to kill everone of them of using blankets with Pleagu?

Was it system yes in the the Religious practice?

wudang,
This makes so little sense I am unsure of your meaning.

The Bear.

[slipthejab]

Ditto.
His post is all so sarcastically cryptic that is sounds like rantish mumbo-jumbo. :p

[wudangfajing]

Decide not to rant here dont think you will ever figure out the Indian Martial that exist it is like not know some style of martial, an think you can know it an see! THat is that i did not mean to be so sarcastic but i am a sarcastic person. WHen talking about American Indians. So i think i will remove my slf from this discussion. If this still Pisses you of then delete me from the system is what i suggest.

[Langenschwert]

I can't possibly be the only one here who didn't understand a word of his posts on this thread. I'm having trouble finding the grammatical waypoints to even get a jist of what he's trying to express. I think he's upset about something, and it's apparently related to this thread. Is he upset because he thinks we're not giving natives enough credit for their martial accomplishments, or too much credit? I am genuinely confused.

-Mark

[Polar Bear]

I'm with you Langenschwert, I have no idea what the hell he is saying. It reads like one of those automatic language translators.

Wudang, we don't want to exclude you but we cannot discuss unless we understand what you are saying.

The Bear.

[Stolenbjorn]

i think that it is great that history is open up to debate. and i think that that should be kept in mind when we look at oral histories. no they should not be taken as fact, but they should not be dismissed either. when that is the only record of history that we have then let's not dismiss it out right. and i do agree that most likely the original system of martial arts is dead, we can't know that for sure until we invesigate the hisotry which is a false start if someone rules out oral history for the start. yes oral histories should be regarded with caution, but not dismissed.Just going a bit off topic, pounding the oral traditions a little more, I have to share with you somthing I read on the train today about oral traditions on Iceland, the land of the sagas, and 90% of what we know about the vikings.

The book is called "Hörg, Hof and church" and is about Norse religious sites in pre-christian iron age. In a chapter, the author was trying to verify the oral tradition on Iceland conserning which farms had had religious "shrines". The author basically pichs any reputation oral history has to pieces: By comparing farm-books from 1710 and up till the end of the 19th century, he could see that in 1710, 5 farms were said to have had pagan shrines, whereas this number by the mid 1800's had grown to allmost 100 farms... When comparing theese manuscripts, a farm that -acording to the farmers from 1710 were sheep-pens, had, by 1850 become ancient traces of a pagan shrine. In one speciffic case, the 1710 manual specifies that the owner of the farm have named a barn "the shrine", and by the 1800-manuals, this is now an established thruth; "this farm had a shrine" -an unike peak into oral myth in the making :D

[aikiwolfie]

Indeed... except this guy of course... you can tell he's kosher by his name -

Harley "Swiftdeer" Reagan :D

http://www.ten-no-kishi.com/aifaa.htm

http://www.ten-no-kishi.com/article_1_page2.htm



:yeleyes:
LMAO!!! Love the use of "Soke"!

[Malcolm Sheppar]

No offence, but this is an overly narrow, moreover a grossly inaccurate definition of Martial Arts. The word martial, as defined in dictionary.com:

Note the origin, derived from Mars, the Roman god of War. In the English language, the first literary use of the term "Martial Art" was in the 17th Century rapier manual called "Pallas Armata", which refers to the "noble Martial Art of fencing". Previous to that, the combat arts were referred to as the "Arts of Mars". So by extension, using a firearm is certainly a Martial Art. So is using a bow, or a fighter jet. They're just modern martial arts. You know, I think I'll just make a form reply to post in order to rebut someone who defines martial arts as "unarmed asian fighting arts". :D

Best regards,

-Mark

This is a highly misleading claim. Prior to the 20th Century, "martial art" was a rarely used poetic term for bravery and was succeeded by the term "martial ardour" in literature and preceded by the classical term Arete. The Pallas Armata's instructional text does not in fact use the term, and it is only used once in the entire book, in a poem where it is talked about as a quality one gets by learning the skills therein.

"Arts of Mars" was never used in English and never commonly used.

I recently read an amusing thread where John Clements tried to give a group of linguists the same line that you're repeating verbatim (and probably got from him) and was beat down for it.

[Malcolm Sheppar]

Oki Chi Taw fulfills three requirements one might have for a legitimate tradition:

1) Its history is honestly transmitted, including where the teacher altered it.

2) It is an accepted practice in a First Peoples organization.

3) It is taught by a recognized member of that community.

Lepine does say that he's integrated the material with other things and devised his own structure. AFAIK, he teaches it as an integrated program with taekwondo.

http://www.ncct.on.ca/martialartsprogram.html

[Stolenbjorn]

This is a highly misleading claim. Prior to the 20th Century, "martial art" was a rarely used poetic term for bravery and was succeeded by the term "martial ardour" in literature and preceded by the classical term Arete. The Pallas Armata's instructional text does not in fact use the term, and it is only used once in the entire book, in a poem where it is talked about as a quality one gets by learning the skills therein.

"Arts of Mars" was never used in English and never commonly used.

I recently read an amusing thread where John Clements tried to give a group of linguists the same line that you're repeating verbatim (and probably got from him) and was beat down for it.Interresting. My question then is: Is it us "Martial artists" or the Linguists that are preaching lost causes? If the linguists you refer to are right, but the consept of martial art -based on the wrong sources- today means what langenschwert (and I) believe most people associates it with, isn't it still a valid convention today -even if this convention is based on misreading sources?

-Anyway; in Floss Duellatorum, an italian MA-manual from roughly 1410, the word art is used for describing fighting. I don't think the term martial art is used, though; rather things like "the art of wresteling", "the art of fencing", etc.

The funny thing is that languages and words change, and the meaning we put in words change. In norway today, for instance, many linguists are mad about the fact that the sound "kj" is disappering from the norwegian sound-systen, beeing replaced by the "sj"-sound. The funny thing is that 800 years ago neither sound existed in norwegian, so what today seems like hardliner norwegian-traditionalists actually defend a sound that 800 years ago was regarded as a degeneration of the norwegian language by the hardlinder norwegian-traditionalists back then :topic:

[Langenschwert]

I recently read an amusing thread where John Clements tried to give a group of linguists the same line that you're repeating verbatim (and probably got from him) and was beat down for it.

I'm not quoting John Clements. I'm quoting the introduction of Pallas Armata, a 17th Century Rapier manual:

Not for thy love, or kindnesse showne to me
Doe I commend this Booke, or yet praise thee;
For though I know thou art a friend of mine,
I praise this for its own sake, not for thine,
Thou herein to the Reader dost impart
In a plaine way that famous Martiall art
Of fencing, which by charge and toylesome paine
Thou hast attain'd, and striv'st to make us gaine
By thy great labour, and hereby dost prove
That th'art not onely full of skill but love
Of th'common good, for which thy name shall be
Both lov'd of us and our posteritie.

Jo. Sotheby
Of Greyes-Inne.

Best regards,

-Mark

[Malcolm Sheppar]

I'm not quoting John Clements. I'm quoting the introduction of Pallas Armata, a 17th Century Rapier manual:

Best regards,

-Mark

You're paraphrasing John Clements' claim that "martial arts" was a term in the same sense it is now using the Pallas Armata -- specifically, using a poem that was not written by the author and furthermore, one that demonstrates that "Martiall art" doesn't mean that, because "Martiall art of fencing" is a redundant term in 17th Century English, because "fencing" was already a general term for martial art. "Martiall art" means the quality of bravery. Otherwise, the couplet is senseless, like uttering, "I study the martial art of fighting system."

[slipthejab]

I recently read an amusing thread where John Clements tried to give a group of linguists the same line that you're repeating verbatim (and probably got from him) and was beat down for it.


BWHAHAHAHA!!!

Beat down by linguists eh...
Now there's a misappropriation of a term if there ever was one. :D

Pot meet kettle.

[Malcolm Sheppar]

Interresting. My question then is: Is it us "Martial artists" or the Linguists that are preaching lost causes? If the linguists you refer to are right, but the consept of martial art -based on the wrong sources- today means what langenschwert (and I) believe most people associates it with, isn't it still a valid convention today -even if this convention is based on misreading sources?

-Anyway; in Floss Duellatorum, an italian MA-manual from roughly 1410, the word art is used for describing fighting. I don't think the term martial art is used, though; rather things like "the art of wresteling", "the art of fencing", etc.

Fencing was a more general term then and was used as a general term for close range fighting systems, along with its brother' "Defence." Art? Certainly.

"Martial arts" certainly is a valid usage for WMA today. I just wish ARMAteers and WMA enthusiasts would stop trying to hard in the "me too! Me too!" vein whnever it comes to any situation where Asian martial arts have been predominant in the 20th Century. For one thing, the arete/martial art connection has some philosophical depth that is distinctly European, but that's been missed in attempts to push the term's modern usage back in time.

[Stolenbjorn]

As a WMA'er, I'm potentially touchy on this subject, but if I read your post right, I agree with you that moden-historical-WMA is a resurrected affair, whereas the EMA'ers of today (excluding the imposters) can trace a line backwards over several centuries.

IMO, and from what I've heard from one of the guys that have been doing WMA for a very long time; Colin Richards; I'd say that moden-historical-WMA (excluding boxing, wresteling and olympic fencing, etc, etc) emerged in the 1980's, first as a romantic tolkien goes vikings, kind of way, but gradually incorporating more and more fassination for old european martial manuscripts that had been preserved around the world.

Acording to Colin, there seems to have been a similar wave in europe, roughly 100 years ago, but it all died out in the trenches of WWI (There exists pictures from Norway, from around 1880 showing knight-reenacters re-enacting jousting :love: )

[Devon]

There definitely was a revival of interest in (and practice of) "antique" European martial arts especially around the turn of the 1900s. This was part of what was known as the "Gothic revival", a cultural movement that affected art, literature and architecture and eventually filtered down to sport and martial arts training.

Aside from the reconstruction of Medieval tournaments (jousting, etc.), which happened throughout Europe, people were also reviving the ancient Greek Olympic competitions ( http://ejmas.com/jmanly/articles/2003/jmanlyart_inkersley_0503.htm ) - in fact, this movement is the origin of the modern Olympic Games.

In Paris and London during the late 1800s and early 1900s, a number of fencers were actively researching and practicing earlier forms of swordplay, including the two-handed sword, rapier and dagger, etc. Most notable were Egerton Castle, Captain Alfred Hutton and Carl Thimm in London and George Dubois in Paris, but there were many others.

Unfortunately, as Stolenbjorn noted, these efforts did not survive the trenches of WW1 and it took another seventy or eighty years before the "second revival" got underway.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/BL/1893twoHanders.JPG

http://www.thearma.org/essays/BritLegacy.htm

[Malcolm Sheppar]

The odd thing there is that during WW1, soldiers actually used older tools and methods on the battlefield. I've seen maces and shields on display from that period in the War Museum in Ottawa.

[windtalker]

while browsing over different forums and threads earlier today i ran across this one and have read all the posts for thread with great intrest. subjects concerning the native americans have always fascinated me.

there are numerous reasons for my wanting to learn more about the native american peoples. some of my descendents were from the cherokee tribe found in this area. there is a common love for the outdoors and related skills that include hunting and survival methods. the native americans having some form of martial arts or not is something i have been researching along with the other areas for over two decades.

before going there i would like to point out some questionable statements made in earlier posts.
1. inthespirit-the navajo peoples maintain thier oral history teaches native american tribes came here from south america by foot and asia by using primitive boats. although scientists prefer the bering strait theory some evidence has surfaced recently to substantiat those claims.
2. disgruntuled-custer did not lose the battle even though his calvary troops had superior weaponry. the spensers used by the calvary were notorious for jamming while the native americans were armed with some winchesters. the better reliability and greater firepower were not in custors favor.
3. louie-dim mak in native american fighting? was that a joke?

now about those martial art claims. have seen the advertisements for native american martial arts. including those by adrian roman (sorry thats kenpo). none of those claims has ever been verified by any native american peoples to my knowledge. most of the material resembles some recycled asian martial arts technique in a different package. the earlier posts that suggested the native americans had fighting skill just not in an orginized manner sounds far more likely.

nothing i have ever read or heard from various native americans suggests martial arts. if they did exist it seems the knowledge was lost somewhere or never existed in the first place. my bet is for the latter. were native american martial arts available not to mentioned could be verified i would be first in line to be a student.

[Stolenbjorn]

I have a suspicion that we define MA a little different, windtalker. As the Indians did fight, they must have in some form of MA(at least the way I define MA) (or perhaps they only poisoned their enemies, or bored them to death with silly jokes :p )


So personally, I think that the indians had their MA; perhaps not like korean/japaneese/chineese MA's are described in Hong-Kong-movies, but some sort of teaching/training of martial skills mus have existed (one example is the tradition of beeing able to touch an enemy without killing him, earning the right to have a feather as a trophy; provided that this example is based on actual fact, not romantic fantasies by immigrants from Europe :rolleyes: )

I must say that I don't know anything about indians, but as I have a theory that modern indians' attempts to ressurect/re-discover/theorise on their ancestors' MA, resembles europeans attemts to ressurect/re-discover/theorise on their ancestors' MA; I think that indians could learn from "our" 20 years of making errors, jumping to conclutions, etc. :)

Just because a 50 year old norwegian living in England claims to know a quarterstaff-fighting-system used by the vikings, that have been orally passed through the generations in his family, ending with him, doesn't make it right.... and I guess people seriously interrested in the Indians MA should be aware that such imposters probably exist in the Indian community as well (as windtalkers post indicates with his comments on indian ma's really beeing EMA-systems dressed in indian staffache)

[windtalker]

hello stolenbjorn,
didnt mean to be gone from thread for so long. nor to suggest that native americans had no form of martial arts. these days i see a lot of martial arts that were supposed to come from some exotic location. from ancient greek to celtic era fighting skills. from native american to scandanavian combat methods.

back in high school the history teachings were among the few things in the way of classes that appealed to me. otherwise my efforts were directed to chasing girls or hunting. anyway i have always been interested with history in general and ancient cultures in specific. the efforts to learn about fighting skills from days past does intrest me. and i can understand the desire that people have to investigate thier roots.

these days i have become jaded and very skeptical toward claims of the older combative methods being found. these claims usually have false pretense to make cash in mind as opposed to research and developing what once had significance. more often than not what i see are recycled asian or european martial arts.

from what i gather after speaking with various native american tribes is that fighting skills both existed and there were established training methods. for example i was given the opprotunity to learn how that some ancient weapons had been made. and i often hear about native american wrestling. the reason given for the latter varies. wrestling for native americans was supposed to be a form of entertainment and build confidence. also to settle disputes without bloodshed and maybe grappling against weapons.

they also practiced a great deal with thier weapons. from using archery while on horseback to throwing spears. according to my limited sources the latter avalability of firearms diminshed the intrest of using time honored weapons. and learning about firearms became necessary to be on equal ground with the white invaders. with a lot of effort those skills could be learned again yet unlikely ressurected.

despite having been criticized and ridiculed for my trouble some effort has been made on my part to combine jeet kune do with outdoor skills and in turn do something resembling what native americans might have. maybe that does lack practicality yet has been an enjoyable adventure. besided hunting and martial arts are both something i love doing.

[Stolenbjorn]

despite having been criticized and ridiculed for my trouble some effort has been made on my part to combine jeet kune do with outdoor skills and in turn do something resembling what native americans might have. maybe that does lack practicality yet has been an enjoyable adventure. besided hunting and martial arts are both something i love doing.

I sounded perhaps a little bombastic in my prevous post.
Just to clarify:
I have no problem with people mixing jeet kune do with outdoor skills; doing somthing that might resemble what native americans might have done, if the drafting-poster on the wall reads:

"In this class, you will learn to perform jeet kune do mixed with outdoor skills, to be able to do something that might resemble what native americans might have done"

Not a poster like this:
"In thiss class, you will learn to fight like the Indians did"

In my vocabulary, I use the following terms:

Resurrected MA = Re-awaking a MA-system based on written/drawn manuals from the actual time. Allthough the principes might be lost, the founder; if ressurected should at least be able to recognize the basic stances and cuts.

WMA's as Students of Liechtenauer and Fiore di Liberi can stand as examples.

Interpretated MA = By quallified GUESSWORK based on archeologial finds and claims in sagas/non-martial written sources +MA-manuals from previous/later periodes or from other cultures using similar weaponry; trying to demonstrate possible uses/techniques by any given culture.

Performers of "Viking re-enactment", can stand as an example.

Traditional MA = Performing katas as taught by the current "masters", passed on through the generations (and alledgedly changed little). Performers of Shinten Ryu Kenjutsu can stand as an example.

Martial sports = Performing a martial system within given rules; not primarely to kill the opponent, but to declare a winner. Karate and Boxing can stand as examples.

If I were to try create an interpretation of Indian-pre-17th-century-MA, I'd perhaps look to following sources?
-actual indian weapons; their weight, balance, etc + any MA-system in the world that allso use such weapons; perhaps like paccific "stone age" cultures; like aboriginies/maori; as their cultural level (pre-metal) could give an indication on what weapons were used and how.
-Escimo/indian/northeast-asian-nature-people's oral traditions
-If it was a horse-using indian tribe; perhaps some mongol/pakistani horse-tribe games/martial systems (if any still exist)
-Written sources from the first immigrants to "the new world"
-Any given MA-system that cover basic body mechanics-wresteling/striking(perhaps allso kicking)

If 100 people were to make an "indian mix" from theese sources; I'm sure we'd end up with 100 different interpretations; and non of them would probably be correct (and we'll never know anyway). -But for a "Indian market", where we were to demonstrate an "indian MA-show"; I'd might try to go along theese lines, but I would ensure the audience that it was an interpretation, not the facit. -Probably, the organisers of an indian market would prefere the Hollywood-cliché, with indians on horseback with winchesters, howling and galloping around some settlers' wagons :p

[windtalker]

hey there stolenbjorn,

nice to here someone offering positive remarks about my endeavor to mix jeet kune do with outdoor skills. the effort is made to blend my love of martial arts and hunting (not to mention camping, hiking, etc.) for a functional stlye that could apply to both.

there never has been any intention on my part of creating a new 'stlye' for the purpose to open a school of in the future. nor will you ever read about my having 'discovered ancient fighting skills of native americans' or any such nonsense. this is a personal goal. although i would share my ideas with interested parties yet not in a class setting.

have gathered some material from different sources concerning weapon skills. first i began with the tommahawk and used material from the cold steel dvds along with fma. then i began researching knife skills which is currently a blend of hunting skills (dressing out game and the like) with more fma. this could change in the future.

the fighting stick is a tough one. because im tempted to use fma there as well yet have reservations based on wanting to keep the material simple yet effective. have been looking into numerous sources for those skills. another big problem is the spear. had no luck whatsoever finding good base methods for a spear. looked at cma yet decided it was a bit to much.

far as the empty hand material goes have been training more in freestyle wrestling to better approximate what i think native american fighting might have resembled. and using a little muay thai. have a lot of work ahead of me and realize it probably will only vaugly resemble what existed in the past.

hope this post did not bore you. never had the chance to speak with any other people that might appreciate my efforts. and i also dislike how native americans have been depicted in the past. movies like 'dances with wolves' or 'into the west' might give others a different perspective on tribal culture.

[Stolenbjorn]

another big problem is the spear. had no luck whatsoever finding good base methods for a spear. Have you tried european medieval manuals? The parts where people fight in armor is perhaps a little of-topic, but most of the spear is pretty basic. You could browse through some basic spear online on theese pages?
(This page have an english translation + italian, but the pictures are reserved for members, me thinks: http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/getty/spear.html )

In this PDF document: http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/liberi/flos_dellaSpada.pdf -finally a link to pictures, but in italian only, slow to load, be patient!
-On page 31-34 (polearms without armor)
Page 55-57 (poleaxes in armor; not so relevant, perhaps)
Page 57-62 (lance/spear on horseback)

I know that there are other online pics out there from german traditions as well, perhaps Langenswert or other WMA'ers on this forum can provide links.

[Devon]

There are specific anthropological and 19th century historical records of various Native American wrestling sports, spear throwing (training) games, etc.; EJMAS links to some of them.

I've heard that the sport of lacrosse originally included a system of body checks and tripping techniques, but I've never seen them detailed.

Devon

[windtalker]

the largest problem with learning what kind of skills the native americans had back in the day relates to misconceptions. the movie industry did thier part and these martial arts instructors claiming to actually teach native american fighting skills are doing thier part of misrepresentation. if you think about it theres really no difference between them. both attempt to sell an product that is largely for entertainment value. neither do any research or make the slightest effort to portray the native americans in a accurate manner. the end result is the same being money.

where to start learning about authentic native american skills is to imo just overlook what has been done. the advanced level of technique is a good indication something is wrong. native american skills did not remotely even begin to resemble technique of most asian martial arts. and there is the best place to start. by seperating what native american skills might look in further advanced stages as compared to how they actually were.

some might and probably will disagree with me about this. the model i have been using for native american fighting skills is the filipino martial arts. and the effort to seperate what fma has evolved into from how it used to be done in the past. from my understanding (limited as it may be) the fma styles favor weapons first then disarms and retention. and those skills pave the way for empty hand work.

right now the general idea for how native american skills might have looked is broken down in this manner. weapons first. practice with the weapons being second. fighting to keep your weapon or take away the opponents third. and i was thinking native american wrestling starts there. and finally empty hand work again from basic wrestling and striking. not kickboxing and aikido. thats too much.

the sources mentioned were never considered before. although i did look into asian martial arts for some indication how certain weapons might have been used (like any relationship between kama and tommahawk technique). the european martial arts were never seriously considered because i had never seen a lot of fighting there with spears.

from what i have read based on the given references that might be a good place to start. also im trying to learn about the work burton richardson did with african martial arts. the idea here is not to over-enginear the skills into something as it might have progressed to now. because i think (just my opinion) the native americans would have kept it simple to preserve basic effectiveness.

anyway thanks for all the help and any other advice would be welcome.

[Devon]

As Stolenbjorn mentioned, "reconstructing" a style for which there are few, if any detailed technical records is no easy task. It requires serious, dedicated research into what historical records there are, combined with an honest anthropological approach in choosing appropriate secondary sources. In this case, martial arts from similar (i.e. pre-literate, pre-metallurgical, tribal) cultures would probably be the best starting point.

You can come up with some very reasonable hypotheses in terms of how particular weapons were used through trial and error training. I'd strongly suggest finding detailed, accurate replicas of the original weapons and then creating safe training versions; in combination with appropriate body armor and realistic pressure testing in the form of sparring, drills etc., the form of the weapon often provides a good notion of its function. Bear in mind the type of armor, or lack of armor, that the weapons would have historically come up against, as well.

The Jeet Kune Do approach would be a good "base" for this project as it's all about figuring out the technical/tactical connection points between various MAs, via experimentation. Directly appropriating, say, kama technique for the tomahawk would work up to a point in that the weapons are similar in form, but again, armor is an issue and the posture, "body language" etc. of the various techniques would obviously be rather different, given the differences between Native American and Okinawan cultures (transmission by kata vs. "training games", etc.

You might want to get in touch with the Historical Maritime Combat Association. They've undertaken a similar project, developing training /fighting systems for several historical weapons (including the tomahawk, bowie knife etc.) that were never recorded in detailed instruction manuals. The HCMA website is at http://www.historicalmaritimecombat.com/ .

You should also check out the American Heritage Fighting Arts Association:

http://ahfaa.org/

Also on the tomahawk, see Col. Dwight McLemore's book:

http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Tomahawk-Dwight-C-McLemore/dp/1581604416

He does a lot of work with the HMCA and AHFAA guys and they have a good, non-nonsense approach to the task of reconstructing these "forgotten arts".

Devon

[windtalker]

the weapons have to be modified for safety and effectiveness. using a recurve made of modern laminates (or wood) with carbon arrows is much safer and functional than just a primitive bow using wooden arrows and flint arrowheads. (have tried both). having a tommahawk and knives made of steel is better than using rocks (including obsidian). have made various weapons the 'old-fashioned' way and used them a little.

the key here is having safe, durable and functional weapons that can be used for outdoor activities. the historically accurate knives look good and provided a great learning experience to make. yet they are best kept at home while a moden counterpart makes it to the woods. dont get me wrong as i enjoy learning about the original designs including making/practicing with them. just that using such weapons during a regular outdoor activity (especially hunting) doesnt seem that great of an idea.

just finished crafting a gunstock club. thats not something i would use in the woods. yet learning how to make/fight with them will be nice.

[Kogusoku]

System is in the eyes of the beholder. Some sport fencers and Asian martial artists claim that medieval and renaissance European MA have no "system", but those that practice them know better. Where does one draw the line between style and system, and aren't they rather synonymous?

Sorry for entering in late in the game guys.

Mark,

I guess that may be true with a lot of sportive martial arts systems and al least for a number of modern Japanese martial systems.

However, I don't think that koryu bujutsu (Classical Japanese martial traditions) would hold the same viewpoint though. Their's would be very much along the same lines as yours for the most part. Every feudal school of military science is based upon very different theories and experiences related to each founder. Some schools specialize in the use of just one weapon while others will train in all infantry weapons of the period (i.e. spear, halberd, sword, shortsword, etc.) and each school has a specific ideology, scientific theory and "flavour" in how things are done.

Quite a number of koryu teachers I have had the privelige of meeting and training with in Japan have had this kind of mindset, or at least something similar.

[Stolenbjorn]

I agree with both of you :love:
Yes, drilling with weapons that lie as close as possible to authentic form, shape, balance and weight is important.

-But when I do "viking"-reenactment, I don't do full contact show fighting with a folded-blade, gold/silver-inlay-sword worth $2000++

For test-cutting, I use stripped down, sharp replicas made by modern means, but having a shape, durability, structure and balance as close as possible to "the real thing"

For full-contact-sparring, I use a modernly made sword, with a blade perhaps stronger than the original ones (and with a 2,5mm blunt edge)-for safety-reasons.

For feeling the real thing, I visit museums and ask to be able to hold an original, or (when I'm full of money) I order a replica of an original.

[Devon]

the weapons have to be modified for safety and effectiveness. using a recurve made of modern laminates (or wood) with carbon arrows is much safer and functional than just a primitive bow using wooden arrows and flint arrowheads. (have tried both). having a tommahawk and knives made of steel is better than using rocks (including obsidian). have made various weapons the 'old-fashioned' way and used them a little.

the key here is having safe, durable and functional weapons that can be used for outdoor activities. the historically accurate knives look good and provided a great learning experience to make. yet they are best kept at home while a moden counterpart makes it to the woods. dont get me wrong as i enjoy learning about the original designs including making/practicing with them. just that using such weapons during a regular outdoor activity (especially hunting) doesnt seem that great of an idea.

just finished crafting a gunstock club. thats not something i would use in the woods. yet learning how to make/fight with them will be nice.

It sounds like you're on a good track there, but I should probably clarify that I was talking about using safe facsimile weapons - trainers - in developing your fighting system(s) with these weapons. The problem with using full-weight replicas in training is that you constantly have to slow down and be careful for the sake of safety, which can lead to some very unrealistic techniques that can only really be performed with a co-operative training partner.

Returning to the HMCA approach to tomahawk fighting, they use relatively lightweight 'hawk trainers and body armor (including fencing masks, hand protectors, groin cups etc.) and do a lot of "freestyle" full-contact training to pressure-test their techniques and strategies. The theory is that if you can consistently make a technique work against a non-cooperative opponent in sparring, then it's more likely to represent the way the weapon was historically used in battle.

The HCMA guys use both commercially made trainers - http://www.woodlandarchery.com/Tomahawks.htm - and home-made. The latter are sturdy but relatively lightweight, wood or aluminum "blades" with a line of heavy felt or rubber along the points and edges.

There are some good points made and links offered in this thread about Native American martial arts - http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34700 .

[Stolenbjorn]

The problem with using full-weight replicas in training is that you constantly have to slow down and be careful for the sake of safety, which can lead to some very unrealistic techniques that can only really be performed with a co-operative training partner. I totally agree that trainingweapons with realistic weight can be a problem, and I forgot to mention in my last post that we allso use wooden "waisters", rubber-daggers and modified "shinai"'s

The dilemma is that using too light weapons can cause equal faults in technique, so doing a bit of both is probably the best.

[Devon]

I totally agree that trainingweapons with realistic weight can be a problem, and I forgot to mention in my last post that we allso use wooden "waisters", rubber-daggers and modified "shinai"'s

The dilemma is that using too light weapons can cause equal faults in technique, so doing a bit of both is probably the best.

I find that this is less of an issue with very short, single-handed weapons like tomahawks than with two-handed weapons like longswords. We're on the same page, though; to get a clear idea of how Native American warriors would have used tomahawks, you'd need to practice with full-weight replicas as well as light trainers.

Just to reinforce the point, the light trainers are for improvised contact sparring and pre-arranged contact drills against a padded training partner, to pressure-test technique and strategy; full-weight replicas would best be used for test cutting/chopping against suitable (inanimate!) targets, and possibly for controlled (non-contact) pre-set exercises with a partner.

[slipthejab]

to get a clear idea of how Native American warriors would have used tomahawks, you'd need to practice with full-weight replicas as well as light trainers.

lol... it ain't rocket science... aim tomahawk and skull and swing.
Pretty much all there is to it. :D

[Devon]

lol... it ain't rocket science... aim tomahawk and skull and swing.
Pretty much all there is to it. :D

What if he blocks your swing?

[Stolenbjorn]

What if he blocks your swing?

And how does he swing it? "Research" on Viking-axes, the variety of bladedesigns from the same period and finds on helmets** suggests that they could have had several different ways of using them:
*Thrusting, using the tip of the edge arc to pierce/smash.
*Draw-Cutting with the edge to make huge gashes in an unprotected body.
*Choping/cleaving with the edge to smack through padding/flesh to break bone beneath.
*Smashing with the lower "tip" of the edge to pierce helmets**
*Hooking shields/weapons/arms/neck/knee with the lower side of the blade.

[slipthejab]

What if he blocks your swing?

I think you guys are way over thinking the angle here. I can understand the desire to delve into training with particular weapons and trying to get at what people were using in terms of technique... but that being said... Humans don't necessarily have to have a set of codified techniques in order to be able to smash someones skull in during combat. Humans are not entirely helpless if they run into something like a blocked swing in a fight or for that matter a missed swing. People can and do react on the fly and are amazingly adaptable under stressful situations... why would Native Americans be any different? :confused:

I've yet to see any records showing techniques of Native American martial arts... if you know of some then by all means please post them - I'd be interested to check them out.

[Devon]

The skills/techniques of tomahawk fighting may well not have been codified, but the historical record suggests that they were often effective; hence the process of experimental archaeology applied to how these skills were likely transmitted and how they might have been employed.

To extend your example, perhaps Native American MAs were largely based on improvization and adaptability, honed by years of training in games such as lacrosse, wrestling sports, etc. Many advanced and effective physical skills are transmitted and mastered without any formal curriculum of "techniques". The trick for Windtalker, then, will be to learn through historical research and practical experimentation the "what" and "how" of the use of weapons such as the ball club and tomahawk.

As far as references go, I haven't looked into this area very closely but there is a thesis, ""War clubs and falcon warriors : war club use in southeastern native American chiefdoms" by Dr. Wayne Van Horne of Kennesaw State University. An excerpt is available in the excellent "Combat, Ritual and Performance: Anthropolgy ogf the Martial Arts", edited by David E. Jones.

[windtalker]

lol... it ain't rocket science... aim tomahawk and skull and swing.
Pretty much all there is to it. :D

would you say the same thing about using say a katana or escrima stick? there are safety considerations besides learning how to attack/defend with any kind of weapon. how many people have been injured attempting to use weapons they know nothing about? when dealing with a sharp weapon like a tommahawk or sword the risk is considerable. besides would you not agree that people who dont know how to use a weapon are more likely to have the weapon taken away from them? sometimes there are students that swing an escrima stick too wide and either miss or let someone get inside. and the number of times that ive seen a stick get stripped or trapped is numerous.

honestly my take here is not to be using weapons that a person has no experience with. for that very reason i might look at swords even pick one up to admire the craftmanship yet have no intrest hurting myself or anyone else by attempting to use the weapon. attempting to use a weapon before having some training and taking steps to ensure safety is reckless.

[windtalker]

I think you guys are way over thinking the angle here. I can understand the desire to delve into training with particular weapons and trying to get at what people were using in terms of technique... but that being said... Humans don't necessarily have to have a set of codified techniques in order to be able to smash someones skull in during combat. Humans are not entirely helpless if they run into something like a blocked swing in a fight or for that matter a missed swing. People can and do react on the fly and are amazingly adaptable under stressful situations... why would Native Americans be any different? :confused:

I've yet to see any records showing techniques of Native American martial arts... if you know of some then by all means please post them - I'd be interested to check them out.

theres a real problem with over-enginnering in many endeavors including the martial arts. the longer i practice jkd the more apparent it becomes that simple techniques which dont require a high degree of fine motor skill usually prove more likely to work in slow practice or sparring.

granted humans certainly dont need any kind of formalized training for starting or ending conflict. look at the number of fights that occur every day between people without any martial arts experience. theres a lot to be said for natural reaction. it seems unlikely to me that a person would not throw up thier arms in defense or throw a punch without having training in boxing.

yet the effort to learn more efficent and effective ways to fight has been going on since the beginning of time. because there have been and still are opponents that have superior attributes including thier physical size and fighting skills. how many people could realistically wrestle around with say rorin gracie or chuck liddel with much success with no training? the same goes with trading punches with lennox lewis or another well trained boxer.

if we dont need any strategy including technique and sparring why do any of us take any measure of time practicing in martial art classes for? we need to keep our technique simple and be adaptable yet have formalized training methods like sparring. just suggesting that we can think and do without some kind of training is under-thinking the problem.

[Stolenbjorn]

I think you guys are way over thinking the angle here. I can understand the desire to delve into training with particular weapons and trying to get at what people were using in terms of technique... but that being said... Humans don't necessarily have to have a set of codified techniques in order to be able to smash someones skull in during combat. Humans are not entirely helpless if they run into something like a blocked swing in a fight or for that matter a missed swing. People can and do react on the fly and are amazingly adaptable under stressful situations... why would Native Americans be any different? :confused:

I've yet to see any records showing techniques of Native American martial arts... if you know of some then by all means please post them - I'd be interested to check them out.

Well, swinging a tomahawk wildly would in my book allso be defined as martial arts, and if it's done with the intent to kill, it's far more relevant than many sport-systems that are called martial arts, but who really is about scoring points and wearing pyamases :p

We might be overthinking, but I think you're underthinking. Any culture that have a triadition for making warfare would have done some thinking in martial direction. To suggest otherwise would be as naive as thinking that a hunter-people never think about where to put the trappings, how to approach the game, just grabbing some random implements of hunting and flailing about in the woods :rolleyes:

But you make a very importaint point, slipthejab:
We'll never be able to say exactly how the "indians" fought, and what kind of systems they had, there seems to be too little reliable sources left for that.

-but by going to their weaponry, we can explore the possebilities, and present theese interpretations/possebilities to an audience, that are willing to listen :)

This is where I -when I dress up in viking-costume and shows tourists/audience my gear; -am very careful to allways making clear which parts of my "lecture" that are interpretations, and which parts that are solid facts.

[slipthejab]

Good points by everyone. Partially my post was in jest... and partially not.
I can see the need for exploring techniques further or what might have worked further. To an extent it reminds me of how WMA's and sword techniques were viewed by so many (sadly many still view them that way)... the classic:

'What western martial arts techniques? They didn't have techniques it was just two blokes in armer hacking away at one and other!'

I've no doubt you've come across that attitude - perhaps some of you even much more than I have. One point about that is that at least for WMA we have a surprising amount of documentation around in terms of techniques and even images, documents, languages and artifacts to be able to start figuring some of the stuff out.

I don't think there exists anywhere near as much data for those wishing to go back in and start recreating Native American martial techniques... if they even ever existed in a manner that can be called similar to western techniques.

I guess in many repsects... I think of the times I've been to places where a machete is a daily part of life - most of the people in these places don't have the time nor the interest to train martial arts... yet often times these places are violent... and the main weapon is often the machete... and yet even without any codified system of technique... they have no shortage of people being attacked and killed with machetes. Meaning that humans don't require a codified set of techniques to be able to exhibit martial behavior. It's not all that hard to kill another person.

Not that I stand in the way of anyone endeavoring to dig deeper into Native American martial arts... I don't want to be the crash test dummy for a tommahawk... :D
But I think that as is often the case... people spend a lot of time looking for systems that are parallel with the white pajama social hour that so many view martial arts as these days.

[Devon]

You're absolutely right - this is what I was trying to get at with the earlier post about uncodified, but still very effective, physical skills.

Every martial art is, to some extent, a microcosm of the culture that produced it. The highly formal, ritualized movements and training procedures you'd find in a feudal Japanese dojo or Renaissance Italian fencing school reflected the way those cultures conceptualized "combat training". It would be a classic mistake to assume that a pre-literate tribal society such those of the pre-European contact Native Americans would approach fighting, or training to fight, in the same way. Hence, the process of research into how fighting/training did happen, at least insofar as these were reliably recorded by European observers.

It's pretty well established that Native American societies integrated their "training" into daily life - children learned and continued to practice "warrior games" to develop the attributes of strength, agility, cunning, endurance etc. throughout their young lives. Augment those attributes with serious and honest pressure testing based on the ergonomics of the weapons themselves, the armor they had to oppose, the environments in which they were used, etc. and you'll probably arrive at a decent representation, or at least a solid hypothesis, re. how they were originally used.

[windtalker]

hey slipthejab- during last post there was mention of people looking for styles/sytems that were similar to what you refered to as the 'white pajama social hour'. and i would like to address that subject.

there NEVER will be a day anyone hears that im advertising a (insert words like secret or deadly) native american martial art that was recently (again insert favorite line such as re-discovered or taught) brought to light. this is not about opening a school then creating some kind of ciriculum. nor about having unique types of uniforms and using native american terminology for students to learn.

what i have been attempting to do over many years is figure out how to incorporate outdoor and fighting skills into something functional. military skills might seem feasable yet they dont use the same kinds of weapons used for hunting. maybe rifle material could be adapted yet what about using a bow for hunting or knives in a non-combat way? does the military issue hatchets or tommahawks?

there could be similarities between military and hunting/outdoor skill. for example the use of camo. and military surplus does provide excellent products for hiking, camping and the like. still what the military does and the tools used by them doesnt necessarily translate into the best way to hunt, camp, fish, hike etc. and thier combatives (is that right) have little to do with the same.

somehow the native americans did manage to combine hunting/outdoor and fighting skills with sucess. most likely i will never know exactly what they done or how for that matter. yet what they did and what i want to do seem to be along the same basic lines. how did they use a hatchet/tommahawk for utility purpose and fighting? although i would intend to use the tool for more of the former it might not hurt to figure out the latter.

the weapons i use to hunt with could also serve as protection. and the know-how seems to have been with the native americans. any usefull outdoor skills they had could prove benificial as well. somehow the native americans managed to blend all this into one package and that is a model worth building from.

the 'bottom line' here is that im not a historian making an effort to start with re-creations of native american skills. what i am is the avid hunter and martial arts student that wants to combine my two favorite pastimes into a realistic method. there is research material and many of the weapons the native americans used still exist. some of them are very common to hunters. would it be possible to resurect the native american fighting skills? no. would it be possible to study what they did and apply that to my outdoors/fighting skills? maybe.

theres no effort here to sell anybody on native american martial arts. and no effort to create a 'style'. that is useless to me and has nothing to do with my current endeavors. the blend of skills that i could use outdoors is my effort no more or less.

[slipthejab]

I think you misunderstood what I posted. I'm not pointing the finger at you... it was more of a reference to the whole phenomena that I see pretty much anytime when Native American martial arts is brought up.

Rhetorical questions aside I agree with what you've posted and find it interesting.

[windtalker]

those kind of liars that claim to be teaching some kind of ancient martial art have always irritated me as well. and i wasnt suggesting that you were accusing me of the same. just attempting to explain what my efforts were and were clearly not. that kind of nonsense about celtic or native american martial arts being taught as they used to be is shamefull behavior and those kins of people need to be pointed out for what they are frauds.

[Louie]

that kind of nonsense about celtic or native american martial arts being taught as they used to be is shamefull behavior and those kins of people need to be pointed out for what they are frauds.

Hi Windtalker....
Thought I'd better point out that unlike those with a Native American background wanting to study native american martial practices, many instuctors who are teaching/researching celtic forms of MA from both Ireland and Scotland do so using illustrated period manuals, there are also a lot of written accounts regarding techniques and of course some arts like traditional celtic wrestling, martial dance, Highland games and weaponry such as singlestick have survived to the present day.

Not to say that there aren't a few who have mixed bits and pieces from their knowledge of eastern arts and western arts and labelled it as 'celtic' or WMA

Louie

[windtalker]

hey louie- maybe i wasnt being fair to some authentic instructors with the best of intentions in mind. it was completly wrong of me to put all in the same group. and if anyone that represnts honest efforts is reading this please accept my apology.

there are just so many frauds out there ive become maybe too suspicious of claims being made. and ive been a little jaded when my efforts to learn what they offer are wasted on something thats a scam. its good to know that some people are making an effort to do otherwise.

btw, there was a specific example of a fraudulent celtic martial art that i had in mind there. and ive seen way to many excuses for native american fighting skills. maybe there are some legitimate schools that i havent run across yet and someone here knows of.

[KuKulzA]

many points have been brought up...
it's been a good discussion so far I think

here are just some thoughts and I hope they add to the discussion

every culture that has war, has a way to fight in war...

imagine, a veteran warrior with a few less experienced ones... and the older trooper is explaining a few techniques he developed that work... he says punching like this (when you lost your weapon) hurts the head most... he says kicking like this is effective... he says it's best to slip behind the enemy like this to choke them... his buddies all practice this to some degree so that should they drop or lose their weapons in a fight, they can have a chance to taking out the opponent and either getting a weapon or getting the hell outa there...
this could happen to a bunch of Mayans, Chinese, Zulus, British, Arabians... just about anyone who has a particular factor in life - violence

but this doesn't have to happen.... being good with X-weapon can have the same result as being brutal and striking quickly/strongly with X-weapon. But somewhere along the line people begin to specialize a bit, and when people can spend time to be more technical about fighting... I think that is the root of turning it into an art.... so that veteran delves into his past experiences, and passes his fighting knowledge onto his students who continuously perfect it... with live combat experience

it's definitely possible that some Native American groups developed martial arts... it is safe to assume that there was some exchange of techniques between individuals in any warrior-society...
but in general, around the world, martial arts had their greater emphasis on the use of a weapon... because that hatchet or that lance hurts hell of a lot more and is more likely to kill than that punch...

so I think it is entirely possible, and we know many Amerindian peoples had very rigorous training for their warriors ranging from sports, dueling, taking younger ones on raids, etc. and was often part of life for those involved...
for the part-time warrior, part-time hunter/father/tribesman it was integrated into how a male in the society lives... in another case, for example Mayans, it was both integrated into how males lived, which is where troops were levied from, but also there was a class/career of men called holkanob (braves/warriors) and they could devote their time to learning how to fight. I feel the best source of Native American martial arts would be from these sort of warrior-societies. And they could be found in almost every tribe and people.

But as we all know, much of what was is lost... :(

[Stolenbjorn]

I guess in many repsects... I think of the times I've been to places where a machete is a daily part of life - most of the people in these places don't have the time nor the interest to train martial arts... yet often times these places are violent... and the main weapon is often the machete... and yet even without any codified system of technique... they have no shortage of people being attacked and killed with machetes. Meaning that humans don't require a codified set of techniques to be able to exhibit martial behavior. It's not all that hard to kill another person.I see your point.

For anyone starting to do interpretive(?) testing of indian weaponry, should have what you say in mind, and their first question should be:

Have this tool been made primarily for warfare, or is it a tool?
Secondly: If it is a war-tool, was it used by a culture that had organized warfare as a way of solving political disputes?

I'm not going to provide even a hint of an answer to theese questions, as I have absolutely no knowledge of indian warfare byind "Hoppalong Cassedy" cartoons from the 50's that my father bought when he was a kid :p

The reason why I involve myself in this discussion, is because I see some similarities between those trying to explore "viking"(dark middle ages)-battle-techniques, as there's very little sources for actual techniques but plenty of myths, just as it is with the indians :)

[windtalker]

defining between a tool and weapon seems difficult at best. for example a tommahawk was considered a weapon. yet it might have been used as a tool for chopping wood and the makeshift hammer. the bow would be considered by most as a weapon yet it was a tool in the sense it was used to put food on the table?. it would be tempting to suggest that weapons/tools served in a multi-use capacity.

and i understand where slipthejab is coming from. there doesnt have to be some kind of form involved with learning how to use a weapon. anybody could pick up a knife and kill another person without training. yet there does seem to be a significant difference between those skilled with a weapon as opposed to not. considering the reputation of the native american peoples they were highly skilled with thier weapons and could employ them well in conflict. does that not suggest training?

honestly i cant say if the native americans taught striking techniques or places to hit. maybe they had enough real world experience to fight with a tommahawk in one hand and knife in another. did they pass on those kinds of skills? the only thing i feel certain of is they used alive training.

[Polar Bear]

and i understand where slipthejab is coming from. there doesnt have to be some kind of form involved with learning how to use a weapon. anybody could pick up a knife and kill another person without training. yet there does seem to be a significant difference between those skilled with a weapon as opposed to not. considering the reputation of the native american peoples they were highly skilled with thier weapons and could employ them well in conflict. does that not suggest training?


Actually no it doesn't, atleast not in a formal systemised sense. There could be family based teaching but that doesn't mean there is a formal martial system. Also there would have been plenty of opportunity for hands-on experience from a very young age.

The Bear.

[windtalker]

Actually no it doesn't, atleast not in a formal systemised sense. There could be family based teaching but that doesn't mean there is a formal martial system. Also there would have been plenty of opportunity for hands-on experience from a very young age.

The Bear.

didnt mean to suggest there was a formalized training session as seen in the martial arts today. was thinking there might have been a few prefered techniques passed down and the native americans might have somehow practiced those skills. no classes.

[Polar Bear]

Yeah but without a system none of this will ever have been recorded so unless you find someone who was there and was taught, your up a gum tree and it's out in the fields and trying to see what works I'm afriad.

The Bear.

[windtalker]

since my purpose is more functional than historical would it be possible to learn how to use certain weapons/tools by combining outdoor skill knowledge with concepts/techniques of a martial art style? for example how to clean fish or fight with a knife.

there are weapons/tools utilized by native americans in the past that are very similar to what might be found in use by outdoorsmen today. provided the native american peoples did have multi-purpose use for as much it did seem feasable to use thier skills for a model.

we have some information from reliable history sources to have a good idea about what kinds of weapons the native americans used. and we also know they had some form of wrestling technique. granted theres a great deal of speculation involved with the relationship between them.

now about creating a working model. does the filipino martial arts sound like a reasonable starting point? using theory alone could it not represent anything like what native americans did have? the weapon to weapon grappling to fighting empty handed concept sounds feasable.

following a path like that doesnt mean that ive lost intrest with the amazing culture/skills of the native american peoples. from a more academic based standpoint ill always have significant intrest there. yet maybe attempting to recreate thier skills is not realistic.

[Polar Bear]

now about creating a working model. does the filipino martial arts sound like a reasonable starting point? using theory alone could it not represent anything like what native americans did have? the weapon to weapon grappling to fighting empty handed concept sounds feasable.


No it doesn't. All you are doing there is FMA dressed as an indian.
Have you close contact with any native american tribes. I would suggest going and living with the people. Understand the psychology of the people and watch how they move in daily lifes. Posture of people standing and moving are influenced over long periods by their peers. Then travel to and study artifacts still surviving from the period you wish to study. Once you think you have a grasp of the people then begin to make assumption about martial practices.

The Bear.

[windtalker]

No it doesn't. All you are doing there is FMA dressed as an indian.
Have you close contact with any native american tribes. I would suggest going and living with the people. Understand the psychology of the people and watch how they move in daily lifes. Posture of people standing and moving are influenced over long periods by their peers. Then travel to and study artifacts still surviving from the period you wish to study. Once you think you have a grasp of the people then begin to make assumption about martial practices.

The Bear.

where it possible to spend a long period of time with some of the native american tribes in the area it would be a terrific learning experience. with the responsibilities of work and family living among them would not be possible for those reasons. maybe there could be some understanding of the psycology and daily activities by doing so.

the study of artifacts would also prove beneficial to understanding the culture and practices of the native american peoples. the issue of a specific time period is problematic. how far back would be necessary to establish native american culture before significant influence by settlers in the new world?

most of what is known on my part about native american peoples is from several conversations with regional tribes and academic studies. most of the fiction in books or movies do little to accuratly portray the native americans as they seem to have been. there are more reliable sources of information about the native americans that i have made the effort to learn from.

several years have passed with this endeavor without having made real progress in learning about native american fighting skills. the best i have managed is to learn native american crafts and how to construct some of the weapons used by tribes back in the day. there has been mention of some form of wrestling and the multi-use of weapons/tools as mentioned before.

the bigger problem is that most native americans that i have spoken at lenght with maintain those fighting skill were lost. just as others on this thread have suggested the general feeling is that such information could never be found in enough detail to establish a reasonable conclusion about how native american fighting skills worked.

learning about the culture and practices of the native american peoples is something i have enjoyed and hope to continue doing for years to come. far more than fighting skills intrest me.

[windtalker]

hey polar bear,
during the last post my efforts were to describe the kinds of research that have been done to learn about the native american peoples. which does in part include thier fighting skills.

when you suggested that all i would be doing is practicing fma dressed as an indian the possibility came to mind that you misunderstood the idea behind this endeavor.

the idea here was to blend outdoor and fighting skills. based on what i have learned about native american tribes it appears they managed to accomplish this a least to some degree. yet the idea was to build from whatever could be learned not to re-create as much. the end result is meant to be far more practical than historical.

as mentioned earlier a couple of times earlier here i have learned about what kinds of weapons the native americans had not to mention how to actually make some of them. despite having done as much im not so intrested with using a more primitive design bow in place of my recurve. and there are some native american weapons that i would never use. those have no practical use for current outdoors activities.

if the basic theory developed from research is accurate then it could be suggested that native americans used weapons and tools for a variety of purposes. and the basic structure of thier fighting skills followed the weapon skill to retention skill to empty hand line of thinking. and the closest martial art that i could think of that resembled as much was fma.

using concepts from what i have learned about native american fighting skills which i admit is not so much and some basic fma material could provide what my efforts have been about. the blend of outdoor and fighting skills. not re-creating native american fighting skills as they were. although eventually making that effort someday has appeal.

again the idea here absolutely has nothing to do with packaging a 'stye' to market. no schools, uniforms, or ranking structure. no terminology from native american languages. and never any claims to have re-discovered some long lost fighting art. that is disgracefull to exploit any culture in such a way and people doing so have no dignity imo. nor would i recycle fma and call them by a different name.

[Stolenbjorn]

I just got an idea... how about indian tribes in the Amazons?

OK; 99% of them have been exposed to and integrated into Brazilian civilisation, but non the less, it's shorter time since theese tribes were assimilated than their cousins in North America... Perhaps some of their traditions could have been relevant?

One note here, is of course that "the indians" never considered themselves one culture, just as a Korean would get rather sour if you called him japaneese ;) (But it is still possible to see similarities between korean and japaneese culture)

Do anybody know about martial arts in South American indian tribes, and if so; are they systematized, ritualized or privately passed on from father to son?

[windtalker]

I just got an idea... how about indian tribes in the Amazons?

OK; 99% of them have been exposed to and integrated into Brazilian civilisation, but non the less, it's shorter time since theese tribes were assimilated than their cousins in North America... Perhaps some of their traditions could have been relevant?

One note here, is of course that "the indians" never considered themselves one culture, just as a Korean would get rather sour if you called him japaneese ;) (But it is still possible to see similarities between korean and japaneese culture)

Do anybody know about martial arts in South American indian tribes, and if so; are they systematized, ritualized or privately passed on from father to son?

thats a brilliant suggestion! why had i never considered that before? maybe it was a matter of being one-track minded on my part and studying only the native american peoples. only recently had i even begun to consider looking into african tribal practices. the south american tribes could provide some usefull insight about outdoor/fighting skills. time for becoming broader minded and expanding search parameters.

maybe someone here knows about how to research tribal arts from south america? any information like names of tribes and what region they could be found would be greatly appreciated. also keep hearing that burton richardson did some research into african martial arts with sucess. theres supposed to be an orginization somewhere in africa for martial arts. does anyone here know about that?

will begin looking into south american tribes and report back. depending on the location it may be possible to visit thier region. were it likely that some insight could be gained a trip there would be benificial. considering that i just watched 'apocolypto' the other night how that was missed is difficult to believe. thank you for the observation!!!

[Devon]

Google "esgrima criolla". There's quite a bit online re. South American martial arts in general, just bear in mind that the mania for "rediscovering" ancient tribal martial arts is pretty much ubiquitous these days. Some are genuine, some are such-and-such Asian/European martial art(s) in a poncho, some are a bit of both.

Also, and this is where the history gets tricky, most legitimately old styles from areas that have seen the influx of several diverse cultures reflect that diversity. Esgrima Criolla just means "the fencing of the common people" and it's not systematized to the same degree as are most Asian styles, but it probably includes elements from some very old tribal styles in addition to Spanish fencing, etc.

[Polar Bear]

That was a good idea Stolenbjorn cetainly worth looking into.
Also how about some of the Canadian tribes you could contact them. They may still have some remnants of arts.
I can sympathise completely with the family issue. Kids come first.

Your never going to be sure what your are doing is authentic but the worth in highlighting this important culture and promoting interest, I think is a worthy enterprise.

The Bear.

[windtalker]

several times it has been mentioned by different posters there are numerous claims of 're-discovered' fighting styles. just as devon pointed out during the last post this seems to be a popular trend. from what ive been reading here most of us that have seen examples of these 'ancient martial arts'. and can easily tell most of this is not genuine. the recycled asian martial arts material is probably the most obvious sign.

the reasons behind someone marketing those products have been discussed as well. theres always a financial incentive for offering a 'new' or 'different' martial art. no real effort to provide authentic material by years of research is necessary. just providing something that looks a little different on the surface and making up lineage seems to work. of course theres always talk about how these 'secrets' were revealed and colorfull names fill in the blanks. too bad these frauds arent exposed.

has anyone considered why that people would take intrest with learning the kind of material thats suposed to be offered? to be fair there are individuals that have a sincere intrest of learning more about thier native cultures. and of course there are plenty of material happy students of the martial arts that always wants to learn something else. thats a real problem within our jkd class. students cant wait to learn other things instead of focusing on what they are being taught. the reason behind my efforts has been stated numerous times.

yet could there be another reason? from what i keep reading here on map a fair number of students have become disappointed with the current state of martial arts today. much ado about nothing. the claims of mysticism have worn thin and so has the exotic appeal. when all the glamour is stripped away the lack of substance becomes apparent. however that does seem to be changing albeit slowly.

maybe the current trends in mma have brought about some central truths about martial arts. such as saying and proving are very different. more to a point here mma has reflected a more natural and spontaneous way of fighting. could that be in part what students are looking for today with these alternatives to what is commonly taught? earlier slipthejab made some comments about how there are non-stylized methods of fighting skills that have always existed. maybe thats exactly what people want now. and these efforts to make quick cash by promoting non-stylized material is a good sales tactic.

anyway just a few thoughts. sorry it took so many lines. was just curious about the 'why' behind the appeal of ancient/deadly/secret re-discovered fighting styles of (insert culture here).

[Devon]

Cashing in may be the major motivation in some cases, but IMO they're a small minority and usually the easiest to spot and pigeonhole. In most instances, I think that the motivation is a matter of genuine cultural pride and an interest in ancestral heritage, combined with a strong interest in the martial arts.

Also, just to underscore the points that some rediscovered tribal etc. MAs are exactly what they claim to be, and others are honest, self-proclaimed reconstructions.

By the way, if you're more interested in combining outdoor skills with MA than in a formal reconstruction of Native American fighting styles per se, then check out Tom Brown's "Tracker School" website. I believe that the school offers, or has offered Jeet Kune Do training, which would presumably be something like what you're looking for.

[windtalker]

hey devon,

just last night my son was complaining about his math teacher insisting the students must show thier work not just the answers to problems. what my thoughts were is the process leads to the solution. make any sense?

maybe someone out there has just what im looking for to succesfully blend outdoor and fighting skills. the answer could be found with the material offered by tom brown. and my intention is to look into 'tracker school ' later today. it would be foolish on my part not to.

at the same time there has to be a little reservation shown with just taking what is offered without the learning experience. to me growth in martial arts represents a reflection of the person not what someone else has done. and finding a solution to what im looking for must involve personal effort before knowing thats what im looking for.

thank you sincerly for the advice. the website could offer significant progress toward my endeavors. and i have every intention of looking into what is being done there in a optimistic way.

[Devon]

I read some of Tom Brown's books in the 1980s ... they were great fun but read rather like some of Carlos Castaneda's stuff, very "New Age" and it was hard to tell where the simple recounting of experiences blended with degrees of self-mythologizing.

On the other hand, from what little I've heard and read about the Tracker School training programs, they sound like very good courses in woodcraft, wilderness survival skills etc. Not a major interest of mine but they probably would be worth checking out.

[windtalker]

does anyone know of any native american efforts to research thier earlier fighting skills and somehow preserve them? maybe in the way of teaching as much to future generations and/or re-enactments. the native americans have a beautiful culture and proud history that should be remembered.

[Devon]

I've never heard of such an effort. I met a Native American guy at a martial arts conference in Canada a few years ago and asked him about this, but despite being very "into" his ancestral culture, dances etc. he didn't know much about NA fighting styles and didn't seem all that interested.

[Nojon]

Taken from http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32011&highlight=native+american+martial+arts&page=2
Post #19 by Aaron Cuffee


I'm really good friends with a fiar number of Commanche-one of my teachers, fairly recently deceased, was Commanche; he died when he was 98, had a fairly prominent role in certain matters of their heritage, and this is what he had to say about "Commanche martial arts," (to the best of my memory):


"Yah mean like karate, and that? Nah, maybe some wrestlin', and how to use a lance and a shield, and a bow and arrow-or a knife, but nothin' so fancy. Heck, mostly it was all about counting coup for the longest time-just get close enough to touch someone-Plains Indians wasn't too concerned with killing each other most of the time, and when they did, it was a by the numbers, straight forward, bash their skulls in while they lay sleeping sort of thing. Gins chaged all of that, anyway."

[Lame Leopard]

"Yah mean like karate, and that? Nah, maybe some wrestlin', and how to use a lance and a shield, and a bow and arrow-or a knife, but nothin' so fancy. Heck, mostly it was all about counting coup for the longest time-just get close enough to touch someone-Plains Indians wasn't too concerned with killing each other most of the time, and when they did, it was a by the numbers, straight forward, bash their skulls in while they lay sleeping sort of thing. Gins chaged all of that, anyway."

This guy's honesty was really refreshing. I learned long ago that people are very smart and ingenious. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there have been systemized fighting methods in certain Native American cultures that have been lost to antiquity. This side of eternity we may never know.