Any art that claims to be "ancient" is 1) lying and 2) wrongly assuming older=better. I read an article recently about finding a 100 year old FMA, and the author seemed to infer that such a school doesn't exist. I assume the same is largely true for all martial arts probably with a few exceptions. Sure arts exist that came from older arts but, is the name unchanged? Curriculum changed? Has anything been added or modified? I think it's probably less common than many people think to find a 100 year old art that is the same today as it was 100 years ago or longer when trained by "samurai" or on "ancient battlefields". It seems only in martial arts do people consider older better. People were more isolated and traveled less in generations past and you probably didn't have your pick of any martial art you choose. If you had any training you were probably better off than most. But now where cultures mix and compete more often you have the opportunity to test and refine techniques against other fighters. An art that doesn't change or evolve is a dead art. An ancient fighting method is no more valid than a modern one when it comes to application. However, if cultural tradition is what you're after, lineage should be all that matters concerning authenticity of an art trained for the purpose of cultural preservation. In many cases such as Japanese schools lineage is well documented and it shouldn't be a problem to ask for documentation (of course you'll need a translator, but in many cases the work is already done). Anyone who takes offense to questioning of lineage and providing documentation is suspicious imo.
