Oldest known versions of Kata

Heath Stray wrote:

This issue of "original" versus changed or newer, surfaces from time to time on martial arts forums. I think it probable that many students learn from their teachers that their dojo teaches "original" (translation - very old) versions of kata, and that other schools teaching variations teach "changed" (translation - newer) versions of kata. This also spills over into versions of specific techniques found in kata, such as Shuto. Which one is older, or original, which one is newer, or changed is very common.

Outside of the oral histories we learn in our dojos, we should all recognize that there is a fundamental lack of any documentation that sheds light on this thorny issue. The unfortunate truth is that we have virtually nothing in actual historical references that is in any way detailed enough to show references to the origins of the specific variations we practice today.

We can argue that we have been told, that each of our own versions are the old ones. But unless we have documentation showing that certain versions are "older" or more original, there often isn't much to back it up.

This whole topic of kata origins is off-thread, and if you like I will take it to a new thread. I am interested in the origins of Kyudokan kata, such as Chinte, Unsu and Tomari Passai.

But if you do so happen to have access to historical references that show that Higa's Chinte is in some way original, but that Funakoshi's Chinte is changed and therefore not original, I would be very appreciative. In fact, even if you could provide the source of Higa's Chinte would be great. Higa was one of three students of Chibana. (He also studied under others, but I am not aware of documentation regarding what non-Chibana kata came from whom.), Chibana was a student primarily of Itosu. (He did continue training with Itosu's top two students Hanashiro and Kentsu for a few years after Itosu's death in 1916 when Chibana was 30.) What's interesting regarding the source of Chinte is that Chibana had 3-4 primary students. In the Nakazato and Miyahira systems that have been handed down, there is no Chinte in the kata curriculum.

Bishop's book sheds a bit of light on some sources of Higa's kata.

Funakoshi has written that Jutte, Jiin and Chinte are sourced to the same shipwrecked Chinese sailor who passed down Chinto. Perhaps Akimine learned them all, and was able to teach him Chinte as well. However, Bishop interviewed Higa and while he stated his sources for Jutte and Sochin, he does not mention Chinte as well.

Regarding Kokuba, a potential source of the Chinte kata, this might well have been Kosei Kokuba, ten years his senior, and a descendant of royalty, who trained with Motobu as a young man, and moved to Osaka in 1940, where he had an opportunity to train with Mabuni, 12 years his senior, and considered a reknowned authority on kata.

The Kyudokan Chinte [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHNi1q1nSVc"]Kyudokan Chinte[/ame] and Mabuni Chinte (done at teaching speed) [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2HBPXRVwdM"]Mabuni Chinte (done at teaching speed)[/ame], do have many, many similarities, and but a few differences. The big difference I see is that Kyudokan does blocks with the inside of the arm (palm up) and ****o Ryu uses a shuto.

-Mike Eschenbrenner
Kaishu Budo
(Formerly Cayuga Karate)

 

That's why I wrote """""""originals""""""" (you get it? ). It is true that Kata are different with almost every master, but I still think that the Katas practised in okinawan styles are more similar to the originals, or at least, they followed the same track of evolution. As every other aspect of Karate, Shotokan Katas were "japanized" by the JKA. I practise and love Shotokan Karate with all my heart, but I am also the first to recognize that Shotokan is japanese Karate, not worse nor better than okinawan Karate, but something completly different.

 

Heath Stay wrote:

Is there any chance you could provide any kind of example. How about the common kata called Bassai Dai in Shotokan. There are similar versions in other Itosu lineages such as Chibana's offshoots and Mabuni's offshoots. Toyama, another student of Itosu has a similar kata.

Parts of a Hohan Soken version are similar, but the beginning of his Passai dai kata is quite different. The versions that come down from Kyan are quite different, (and within that family, the opening of Nagamine's is distinct from the rest.) Shigeru Nakamura has another version of Passai. And Kyudokan has a distinct version called Tomari Passai. There are two versions of Passai that survive in the Shukumine lineage. Chibana taught a "Matsumura Passai", and there is a distinct family of passai kata that are called Bassai sho in Funakoshi and Mabuni systems.

How does one go about determining which of these "are more similar to the originals", as compared to the Funakoshi versions.

We could do the same for Kusanku, for which there are over a dozen distinct versions.

-Mike Eschenbrenner
Kaishu Budo

 

My favorite kata happens to be Itosu's rendition of the passai (bassai) kata. It used to be called Itosu's passai in my style, but now it's passai sho.

It doesn't really matter what the original is, katas are changing and growing libraries of knowledge.

 

In the technique application thread Cayuga Karate asked questions about tracing older versions of Kata. To avoid topic drift I have created a new thread for this.

 

and

 

I'll take this one step further back. Based on the whole "shipwrecked Chinee sailor" folklore, can anyone trace Okinawan karate to southern Chinese kung fu? (Using the term "kung fu" in it's modern tense for "Chinese martial arts" of course.)

I have practiced both Japanese and Okinawan karate, two styles of tae kwon do (ITF and WTF), and northern kung fu. So while I feel like I have seen a wide variety of martial arts, I don't have personal experience in what I feel is the missing link, and that is some form of southern Chinese martial art that coould closely link to karate.

It should be interesting to note that while modern Tae Kwon Do certainly borrowed from Shotokan, that there was pre-Japanese occupation Korean martial art. As Korea is a penninsula off of southern China, their older martial arts could have sprouted up from a completely different seed than the above mentioned shipwrecked Chinese sailor.

 

Well both Okinawan karate and wing chun are supposed to have lineages tracing back to crane. I can tell you I can certainly recognize common elements between the two. They have developed to use certain hand shapes slightly differently but the commonalities are evident.

 

We have essentially no detailed information on the origins of kata. Funakoshi and Nagamine in their texts write of Chinese origins. Nagamine specifically mentions Chinese origins of kata. Funakoshi merely names the Chinese military authorities (likely of the early-to-mid-19th century) who trained Okinawans in combative arts. In Bishop's text, there are several mentions of Chinese origins, especially from Nakama, and Nakaima.

It is Motobu and Funakoshi that mention specific kata as being of Chinese origin. Motobu listed around 12 (I don't have his text in front of me), and Funakoshi attributes two of those 12 and two others to a shipwrecked Chinese sailor, who appears to have been stranded in the early-to-mid-1800s.

We should have good confidence that at least some of the Goju kata (Sanchin, Sanseru, Seisan and Suparenpei) were learned by Higaonna in China. There is disagreement as to whether he learned any others in China, or whether any of the five kata comprising the the remainder of the curriculum handed down by Higaonna (Kururunfa, Shisochin, Saifa, Seinchin, Seipei) were brought back from China or whether he learned them in Okinawa. In fact, we are not completely certain if he taught all of these, or whether some were learned by Miyagi in Okinawa from other local sources.

We also should have good confidence the both the Ryue-Ryu kata and the Uechi ryu kata that are attributed to have been brought back from China were likely developed there.

Also we have at least two kata families that are attributed to other Chinese men present in Okinawa. One is Kusanku, who Funakoshi describes as a military attachee, and was in Okinawa sometime around 1750. The other, Wanshu, is attributed to a Chinese diplomat (Sappushi) who traveled to Okinawa, possibly in the late 1600s.

We can thank youtube for helping us understand the remarkable variety of kata that have common names. Kusanku, Passai and Rohai have great variety. Others such as Chinto and Seisan, have a bit less variety. Sometimes you find a kata like Unsu which has completely different patterns in the version Mabuni passed down as compared to that handed down by Higa of Kyudokan.

But Kusanku and Passai, without question, have the greatest surviving variety.

I would argue that we simply have no way to determine "originality" of kata. It is quite common for karate-ka to be taught that their way is the original way. Or the old way. But for the 25-odd versions of Passai or the dozen+ versions of Kusanku, there is no historical record to review that describes any relationship between these kata whatsoever. There is nothing that describes what might be new, or what might be old.

Those that know of my own rather unique perspective (which I am not not inclined to review here) might anticipate that I have my own beliefs as to why we have all of these versions. But that is a subject for another day.

However, every once in a while the whole topic of "originality" surfaces again, and I think it beneficial to separate what karate-ka have been taught at their schools, what they believe to be the case, and what views they have that are supported in historical documentation.

I look at kata and see consistency. Schools practice today versions much like they were practiced 50 years ago. Today's Shotokan Tekki is not all that different from that of Funakoshi's videos from over 80 years ago.

Based partly on that information, I view all kata as arguably very old (hundreds of years) and relatively unchanged along the way. There is no real evidence to support this, as there is no evidence to support arguments for substantial changes in the past 100 years.

The biggest quandary I have in my mental model is the challenge of distinct stylistic differences among students of a single teacher. Mabuni, Toyama, Chibana and Funakoshi all trained under Itosu, but all have lots of small differences in their kata. (This extends to Ohtsuka variations, and it is arguable that Mabuni and Funakoshi both had influences, and others may have as well.)

Perhaps Mabuni found the need to blend the influences of Higaonna (shorter cat stance rather than longer back stance, e.g.) and perhaps Funakoshi was taught many kata a specific way from Azato, and adapted Itosu's kata to that model.

It is also possible that Itosu had learned a number of different stylistic models (specific ways of doing blocks and stances) and passed them down to his various students differently, perhaps as a way to preserve the variety he had learned. We do know from Funakoshi that Gusukuma was Itosu's primary instructor, but that he also trained with Matsumura. And it is likely he had access to a lot of other material from numerous instructors. (For example, Nakama states he learned the Channan from a Chinese man in Okinawa.)

One challenge we all have is that the incompleteness of the karate histories that have been passed down. With the exception of Nagamine's Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters, and Matsuo's Secret Royal Martial Arts of Ryukyu, the standard texts give us an incomplete and inaccurate history of Okinawa's past. It might surprise many readers here that Okinawa was, in large part, taken over by the Japanese not only for the taxes in grains they could provide to Satsuma, but also for the trade they had with China, which Satsuma could profit from.

The standard texts have very oversimplified (or non-existant) references to the Chinese-Ryukyu relationship, one that lasted 500 years right up until the late 1870s.

By the 1800s, China's tribute trade (trade organized by the Chinese government) had dwindled from dozens of countries to just four. (Korea, Champa (in Vietnam), Siam (Thailand), and the Ryukyu kingdom. In the 1800s, Chinese convoys of three ships were sent to Okinawa every two years, each staying at port in Naha for 6-9 months, waiting for the trade winds to change and allow their return. The ocean passage was threatened by rampant pirate activity. One scholar notes that a single pirate band in the early 1800s had 70,000 men and 2,000 vessels. He also notes that a ship of 500 Fujian sailors accompanies a tribute mission to Ryukyu in the early 1800s as well, presumably to be available to thwart pirate attacks.

These military personnel stayed in Naha for 6-9 months every two years. They had an opportunity to train Okinawans in combative arts. Funakoshi notes three by name that trained Okinawans. All were described as military attachees. (He also mentions Kusanku as a Military attache, and the shipwrecked sailor noted above.)

After the 1609 invasion, it is important to recognize that Satsuma and Okinawa took pains to conceal their true relationship from the Chinese. If the Chinese were to fully learn that the Okinawans were indeed a vassal state of Japan, the Ryukyu kingdom would lose it's priviledged position, and would not be entitled to send tribute missions every other year back to China. Rather it is likely that the period would be extended to 10, or perhaps 20 years.

It was essential, that the Okinawans, which had long been a faithful partner in Chinese trade, remain a Chinese vassal state. The trade with China was of fundamental importance to the Okinawan aristocracy.

Based on this 500 year relationship that lasted into the 1870s, we should all appreciate the many opportunities that Chinese visiting Okinawa, especially the military authorities tasked with protecting the convoys, had to share combative arts with Okinawans. In addition, we know of several Okinawans who were able to travel to China to learn fighting arts.

I noted above that Motobu describes specific kata as being of Chinese origin including Kusanku, Naihanchi, Passai, Rohai, Wansu, Seinchin, Chinto, Chinte, Gojushiho, Seisan, Suparenpei and Sanchin. Funakoshi adds Jitte and Jiin to that list. Nakama adds Channan to that list. Go Kenki, a Chinese tea merchant, taught white crane kata to Mabuni and others. Kyan is said to have learned Anaku from a Chinese man. Higaonna, Uechi and Nakaima all brought kata back from China.

There are some kata that we know are of more recent origin. These are typically introductory kata. Nagamine mentions that the Japanese army wanted easier kata to train recruits in the WWII era, so he created fukyukata. Miyagi created Gekisai. Funakoshi created Taikyoku. However, just because there are a few instances of new kata being developed, primarily for beginners, shouldn't lead karate-ka that this had always been the norm.

We have but a few traces of history. Despite what little we have, it is my belief that the historical record seems pretty consistent that the empty hand kata we practice today, is of Chinese origin. The burden of proof should be upon those that claim recent (Okinawan/Japanese) origins of kata.

-Mike Eschenbrenner
Kaishu Budo

 

Personally I disagree with you on this.

I was actually chatting with a Shotokan Dan grade the other day and discussing how surprised I was at how different Funakoshi's Tekki was from the modern form in both arm and leg movements based on the original description and pictures in Karate Do Kyohan (not the later edition).

The relative lack of change in the last fifty years is normally put down to the Japanisation of Karate and the need to maintain a brand identity following the commercialisation of the martial arts and I see no persuasive arguments against that theory. By contrast every student of Matsumura and Itosu seem to have introduced their own twist on forms (and a significant number set up their own systems), creating numerous variety. I believe that the evidence shows that taking ownership of a form and making it your own in this way after study was part of the Okinawan karate tradition, which in turn points to the fact that most of the varieties we have now are relatively modern.

 

I've highlighted in blue items that I consider to be conjecture rather than fact. I think it is important to distinguish between the two.

I've highlighted the last statement as although Kata may have been taught by or named after visiting Chinese, or learned on mainland China by visiting Okinawans, I think the Okinawan slant that has most likely been imprinted upon them is sufficient to consider them Okinawan.

 

I have no interest in going into the history debate again, nor I suspect does Mike Eschenbrenner. For those of you who missed our last debate on the subject it can be found here:

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106340

Let's get back OT with info on the origins of Kyudokan kata, such as Chinte, Unsu and Tomari Passai.