Prince Chatan and the Iron Priest

Posted on December 7, 2023 by Andreas Quast

In the list of items housed in the Okinawa Prefectural Museum, there is item #1030, a short sword. The description adds,

“Legend has it that Ufumura Ōji [=Prince Chatan] killed Priest Kurogane with this blade.” (Note 1)

What kind of story is this?

It is said that once upon a time, during the reign of King Shō Kei (r. 1713–1751), there was an evil priest who used sorcery to seduce his female followers. The evil priest is Kurogane Zasu, literally “The Iron Priest.”

When this rumor reached the ears of King Shō Kei, he ordered his younger brother, Prince Chatan, to end this. Prince Chatan investigated the case, and it turned out that the rumor was true. So, Prince Chatan invited Kurogane Zasu, and said, “Let’s play a game of Go.” The prince was planning to take advantage of a break in the Go game and kill the Iron Priest, but the priest saw through his murderous intent.

So the Iron Priest suggested, “Let’s not make it just a game of Go, but a competition. If you lose, I will receive your topknot, which is the life of a samurai. If I lose, I will present you my ear, which is my pride, ok?”

The prince accepted the priest’s proposal, and the match became even more heated. As the situation gradually turned favorable for Prince Chatan, the priest tried to escape, but Prince Chatan pulled out his sword and slashed the priest’s face and cut off his ear. Hating to be defeated, the Iron Priest died cursing Prince Chatan.

After that, the priest’s ghost began to appear in Prince Chatan’s home, and every time a son was born to him, they continued to die young. Therefore, when a baby boy was born in the prince’s household, they chanted, “A great girl has been born,” to avoid being haunted by the Iron Priest.

This anecdote eventually became a folk song and was said to be sung throughout the Ryūkyūs, and even today there is a YouTube video as a comic story.

The Iron Monk

Background of the story

The Iron Priest, who is generally described as an evil monk, is said to be modeled after the real-life priest Jōkai, the 18th head priest of the Gokoku-ji Temple of the Shingon sect in Naha City. According to the History of Okinawan Buddhism (Okinawa bukkyō-shi), “Priest Jōkai was killed by Prince Chatan because he blamed him for his mismanagement.”

Furthermore, in the Old Records of the Ryūkyū Kingdom (Ryūkyū-koku kyūki), it is written that “The abbot Jōkai requested with a document that a governor monk be established.”

From this it is thought that the priest was aiming to expand the power of Buddhism.

On the other hand, Prince Chatan who appears in the story is said to be Shō Tetsu (1703–1739), the second son of the 12th king of the Ryūkyū Shō clan, King Sho Eki (1678–1712). Shō Tetsu was later adopted by Chatan Ōji Chō’ai to become the 2nd generation of the Ufumura Udun, and became known as Chatan Ōji Chōki.

By the way, it is said that Prince Chatan used the Jiganemaru to cut the priest. It should be noted that item #1030 of the Okinawa Prefectural Museum says the sword is a tantō, while the Jiganemaru is a wakizashi. So I wonder if the Chatan-nakiri would be more fitting instead? In any case, it is a legend, so the reference to royal swords was probably meant to say “royal might destroys evil religion – order restored.”

The Iron Priest (left)

Note 1: Sonohara Ken (Okinawa Prefectural Museum): About the Museum of Local History (Heimat Museum) affiliated to the Okinawa Prefectural Education Association (Okinawa-ken kyōiku-kai fusetsu kyōdo hakubutsukan ni tsuite). Okinawa Prefectural Museum Bulletin No. 28, 2002, p. 46.

Posted in Unknown Ryukyu | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Prince Chatan and the Iron Priest

Reasonable expectations

Posted on December 5, 2023 by Andreas Quast

Previously, I wrote about “The Four Outer Forms of Postures Discovered by Matsumura” as described and taught by the late Kinjō Hiroshi sensei. These Four Outer Forms are the result of Kinjō’s inductive reasoning and empirical argumentation. Obviously, in Okinawa karate history and technique, most of the time there is no proof in sense of “examples of exhaustive deductive reasoning which establish logical certainty.” Rather, in Okinawa karate, most often there are “empirical arguments or non-exhaustive inductive reasoning which establish a ‘reasonable expectation’.” Therefore, keep in mind that the article on the Four Outer Forms is just a snapshot and is the result of Kinjō’s lifelong search and complex derivation. It is therefore difficult to understand it’s derivation without knowing and understanding the various empirical and analytical details that led to it.

After publishing the article, I received various tips and explanations from students of Kinjo’s school about the meaning and practical implementation of the Four Outer Forms. This includes videos with dedicated instructions on the matter. All of them not only make a lot of sense and are convincing, but also show how Kinjō put his interpretation of Suidī’s technical characteristics to practice. Within the limits of his research object, Kinjō’s deduction is logical and coherent, and can be used for the practical interpretation of karate.

As a side note, he also dispels a lot of myths prevalent in modern karate narratives and Kinjō’s book is requisite material in modern karate research. The following is a translated excerpt.

Within the limits of the literature explored so far, there is no positive proof of an indigenous combat sport in ancient Ryūkyū , but there is also no evidence that there was not.

Some say that in the 1300s, because war dawned during the Era of the Three Kingdoms (Sanzan), bare-handed hand-to-hand combat sprang forth and further developed, but I disagree with this theory. As we have seen previously in the history of Chinese kenpō, prior to empty-handed fighting, mankind already had the intellect of using objects for combat. The logic that it was war that allowed for the development of bare-handed combat sport can also greatly doubted.

In group conflict, empty-handed arts are exceedingly inefficient. In the wars of ancient times as well as in modern war, although their scales and contents are completely different, there is no difference in that empty-handed martial arts are completely futile on the battlefields. Having experienced military service myself, I have this strong impression through my own experience. War, while encouraging the development of weapons, by no means contributes to the development of bare-handed hand-to-hand combat.

From the above considerations I cannot agree with the theory of the birth and development of Ryūkyū kenpō during the Era of the Three Kingdoms.

Returning to Matsumura Sōkon, from the information Kinjō had gathered throughout his life, he created an outline of the fundamental principles of the techniques of Suidī, albeit noting that “the specific contents were not handed down.”

As regards the background and process of the birth of Suidī, Kinjō describes Matsumura Sōkon as a pragmatist who was dissatisfied with the repetitive practice of conventionalized kata adhered to in Chinese kenpō, and he was also dissatisfied with the monotonous practice methods of Jigen-ryū, which did not involve leg work.

Like this, in a very abbreviated manner, Kinjō defines the fundamental principles of Suidī as created by Matsumura Sōkon as thus:

  1. Prefer speed above anything else.
  2. Use fast footwork to capture moving objects.
  3. There is a total of four outer forms of postures.
  4. Attack the opponent from the outside.
  5. The principles of procedure of torite.
  6. In your fighting posture, use your rear hand to control your opponent’s attack, and use your front hand to counterattack. Defend and counterattack in one move.

This sounds like a reasonable expectation of what Matsumura might have improved to create Suidī. There also remain a number of questions. For instance, when did Kinjō begin to claim torite? In the 1950s, when he was editor of Monthly Karate-do magazine, he didn’t mention torite at all. Therefore, seemingly, he didn’t know about it back then.

Just like this, it is a characteristic feature of Okinawa karate kobudō that it relies heavily on “reasonable expectations,” and these expectations cumulate over time.

I asked Google, “What are your reasonable expectations of karate?”
Posted in New Developments, Postwar Okinawa Karate, Prewar Okinawa Karate, Terminology, The Technique of Okinawa Karate and Kobudo, Theories of Historical Karate in Comparative Perspective | Tagged , | Comments Off on Reasonable expectations

Tsuken was neither known for Tsuken-bō nor Jigen-ryū, but for horsemanship

Posted on December 3, 2023 by Andreas Quast

As mentioned before, today Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku is considered the originator of Tsuken Bō and an expert in Jigen-ryū swordmanship. Even an English Wikipedia entry says he “was good at riding horses and Jigen-ryū,” presenting the Kyūyō as the source. The Kyūyō is an official history of the Ryūkyū Kingdom compiled between 1743 and 1745.

However, neither Tsuken-bō nor Jigen-ryū are mentioned in the Kyūyō. This said, the Wikipedia entry including its footnote are erroneous and misleading. In all primary sources, Tsuken was only noted for his horsemanship. The earliest source known so far is Majikina Ankō’s Okinawa Issen-nen Shi of 1923. According to it, Tsuken “handed down a staff fencing method called Tsuken-bō, which had a striking resemblance with the sword style of Jigen-ryū.”

Below is the translation of the entry in question from the Kyūyō for your reference.

Kyūyō, Appendix Vol. I-17: In the twenty-seventh year of King Shō Nei’s reign (1615), Tsuken Seisoku slandered the minister Yuntanza Uēkata Seishō, who was degraded to a commoner.”

Tsuken Seisoku was skillful in horseback riding and skillful in the method of taming horses, so much that his name was known even in Satsuma. The new Lord (of Satsuma) invited him and watched it, and said it resembled a rare treasure. For that reason, Tsuken was extremely ambitious and arrogant, insulted and ridiculed the royal subjects, but since he had great power and authority, no one dared to go against him.

One day, Tsuken visited Yuntanza Uēkata Seishō and petitioned to become administrator of the feudal territory of Tsuken Island. Yuntanza objected, and angrily said, “Since ancient times, we have yet to hear of any one person exclusively occupying an entire island. Be silent and don’t repeat it!” Tsuken was so ashamed he wanted to die.

Arriving in the year of the Wood Rabbit (1615), Tsuken requested tools to clear away obstruction and dredge Taba Harbor as a harbor for Japanese ships to stay. His Majesty the King granted the request and ordered Tsuken to act as his magistrate (bugyō), and with good luck, construction started. At that time, Yuntanza’s firstborn son, Uezu Pēkumi Seishō, served as the general estate-steward (sō-jitō) of Gushikawa. In other words, he went to Taba and then went on to fulfil other duties.

It then so happened that Uezu accidentally contracted a poisoning, went home, and stayed in the house, sought medical attention, took medication, and healed himself for ten days, and afterwards returned to Taba Harbor again. Tsuken scolded him, saying, “You sickened yourself and hung around your house, and did not fulfill your duty for the king! You are what is called a ‘person of undeserved reward’!” When Uezu heard this, he became very angry. However, since Tsuken had a lot of power, there was no way that Uezu could argue. He immediately returned home and resigned from his office as estate steward.

Tsuken provoked Yuntanza’s eldest son and accused him of neglecting his royal duties. Slandering him in front of the king, Yuntanza was finally imprisoned. Although the chief jailer was deeply aware of the situation, he feared Tsuken’s power and did not dare to speak out. In the end, Yuntanza was demoted from his office. Claiming that he had spoken ill of the people of Sueyoshi Village, his eldest son Uezu was exiled to Aguni Island. With this, Tsuken took avenge for his grudge of not being given command over Tsuken Island.

In the summer of the year, the three ministers sent a letter to Satsuma, but because he had been demoted, Yuntanza’s signature was missing on that letter. Noting this, to get to know of what crimes were going on, the lord of Satsuma, Shimazu Iehisa (reigned 1602–1638), sent his vassals Hirata, Sawatari, and others to Ryūkyū. After investigating the matter, they did not dare to decide. Instead, they returned to Satsuma, bringing Tsuken and Yuntanza with them. At that time a decision was made, according to which Yuntanza Uēkata Seishō was reinstated in his original office [as minister] again.

As mentioned before, neither Tsuken Bō nor Jigen-ryū have been mentioned in relation to Tsuken Seisoku. It should therefore be considered that the historical reference to Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku is a much later invention of tradition, and that Tsuken Bō in fact is much younger. Actually, it has been considered that it was a certain Tsuken Akan’chū who handed down Tsuken Bō. According to Katsuren Moritoyo, this Tsuken Akan’chū lived at least 200 years after Tsuken Seisoku. A realistic timeframe to look for the origin of Tsuken Bō would therefore be from the 19th century to the early 1900s.

Story of Tsuken Uekata Seisoku in my “Karate 1.0” (2013)
Posted in Bojutsu Kata Series, kobudo, Kyūyō, Matayoshi Kobudo, Postwar Okinawa Karate, Prewar Okinawa Karate, The Technique of Okinawa Karate and Kobudo, Translations, Tsuken | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Tsuken was neither known for Tsuken-bō nor Jigen-ryū, but for horsemanship

Tsuken Akan’chū and the impossibility of a direct personal instruction by Tsuken Uēkata

Posted on December 2, 2023 by Andreas Quast

In my previous article I shared the story of Tsuken Uēkata. At the end of that story, Tsuken Uēkata was interned in Kagoshima after his political intrigue was discovered. So, how, and when did he create Tsuken-bō, and how was it supposedly handed down?

According to legend, after being released from Satsuma, Tsuken Uēkata traveled to Tsuken Island and lived out the rest of his life in a secluded cave situated in the northeastern part of the island. The cave came to be referred to as Pēkū-gama or Pēkū Cave.

As I said before, on Tsuken Island itself, Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku was referred to as either Chikin Uēkata or Chikin Pēkū. Of course, Chikin is the dialect pronunciation of Tsuken, and Uēkata is a high rank within the royal government. As regards Chikin Pēkū, it might be a short form of Pēkumi, which is the way of pronouncing the title Pēchin only when the bearer is a fief holder. That is, both designations refer to him as either the general estate-steward (Uēkata) or the assistant estate-steward (Pēkumi) of Tsuken Island.

Assuming this is the case, Pēkū-gama means nothing but “the cave of Tsuken Pēkumi,“ or otherwise, “the cave of Tsuken Uēkata.”

Within the folk tradition of Tsuken Island, Tsuken-bō was handed down when Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku taught bōjutsu to a person called Tsuken Akan’chū at Pēkū Cave.

Tsuken Island has a long history of carrot cultivation, so much so that it is also known as “Carrot Island.” Even the ferry toward Tsuken Island has a pair of carrots drawn on it. Now, carrots can tan your skin if you eat a lot of them. This is because if the body has enough vitamin A, it no longer converts the beta-carotene, but instead stores it in the outermost layer of the skin, which gives it an orange-ish to brownish tone. Since Tsuken Akan’chū literally means “Red Man from Tsuken,” I thought, “Hmm, maybe he was a carrot lover with carotenosis, and therefore the nickname?”

What a funny idea, isn’t it?

“Eat carrots, my friend!” Bruce Lee

In any case, having studies the details of the matter in detail, Katsuren Moritoyo concludes that there was a 200-year difference in time between Tsuken Uēkata and Tsuken Akan’chū, and that a direct teacher-pupil relationship was impossible (see, Okinawa Bō-odori, 2019).

How did Katsuren establish the life dates of Tsuken Akan’chū? Since I have never heard it before, I believe the following to be new information. Let me explain. On Tsuken Island there was an extended patrilineal kinship group (monchū) called Akan’chū. This means that Akan’chū was kind of a clan name, albeit an unusual one. The former houses of the Akan’chū clan were situated somewhat far from the head house (mutuya) located in the center of the village. Since the head house is the one first established, and houses of each new family were always positioned slightly further away from the head house, representing distance in time of origin in relation to the head house, Akan’chū is considered to be a relatively young clan (read about the development of villages and monchū here). In fact, some people say that the Akan’chū is a branch of the Asato clan.

In any case, from all that has been researched so far, Tsuken Akan’chū lived at least 200 years after Tsuken Uēkata, and therefore, a personal tradition and instruction of techniques is impossible.

In short, while martial arts techniques of Tsuken Uēkata might have existed in the 17th century, it is unclear how they supposedly have reached the person Tsuken Akan’chū around 200 or so years later. Even if the stories about Tsuken Uēkata and Pēkū Cave are true, wouldn’t it be more realistic to consider one or several of the ubiquitous bō-odori to become Tsuken-bō, Tsuken no Kon, Tsuken Sunakake, Tsuken Akan’chū or the like within the general trend of bujutsu-fication in early 20th century Okinawa?

Nakamura Kame (82 years old) of Tsuken Island. Photo taken March 11, 1961, by Miyagi Tokumasa, published in Okinawa Kenshi: Vol. 5, 1975.

Here again I would like to remind the reader that in the original description of Tsuken-bō by Majikina Ankō in 1923 it is said that “Tsuken-bō is a method handed down by Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku, and it closely resembles Jigen-ryū swordsmanship.” While it can be that Tsuken Uēkata learned Jigen-ryū, especially when considering the impossibility of a direct personal instruction of Tsuken Akan’chū, where in todays Tsuken kata family – Tsuken-bō, Tsuken no Kon, Tsuken Sunakake, Tsuken Akan’chū – can be found any hint to Jigen-ryū?

The Jigen-ryū, which originated in Satsuma, is characterized by fierce slashing attacks with the long sword, by emphasizing the first attack in an encounter, and from there by continuous follow-up techniques. It has a practice method of slashing violently left and right against a standing vertical wooden log (tateki-uchi) and the “dragonfly posture” is also mentioned regularly when it comes to historical claims regarding Tsuken-bō.

Make up your own mind and watch the “dragonfly posture” and log striking of Jigen-ryū below. What do you think?

Btw, among the many traditions of the Tsuken-bō, there is also Shubukan no Gusan, a kata with a short stick called Gusan in Okinawa. While the name and weapon sounds unique, the kata is exactly Tsuken-bō of Inoue-Taira lineage, with occasional sliding thrusts (nuki-zuki) as add-ons probably taken from Shirotaru no Kon. I am telling you this only because it is impossible for most people to figure out, even on Okinawa.

Shared by Karate-Club Conthey on Facebook
Posted in Bojutsu Kata Series, kobudo, Matayoshi Kobudo, Postwar Okinawa Karate, Prewar Okinawa Karate, Terminology, The Technique of Okinawa Karate and Kobudo, Theories of Historical Karate in Comparative Perspective, Tsuken | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Tsuken Akan’chū and the impossibility of a direct personal instruction by Tsuken Uēkata

How to wrap a sāji or headband

Posted on December 2, 2023 by Andreas Quast

Ever wondered how to wrap a sāji or headband for eisa, or bo-odori etc.? I translated below description from el-okinawa.com.

Posted in Equipment, Misc, Terminology, Translations | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How to wrap a sāji or headband

Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku

Posted on November 30, 2023 by Andreas Quast

In the previous article, I wrote about Tsuken no Kon. This kata is said to be one of the oldest bōjutsu of Okinawa, dating back to a certain Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku.

According to historian Majikina Ankō (1923), Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku handed down a staff fencing method called Tsuken-bō, which had a striking resemblance with the sword style of Jigen-ryū. According to this, Tsuken-bō must have existed in the 1920s, including a historical story to it. Majikina explains that the Okinawan bō was either six or three feet in length, with the first representing the method of the lance, and the latter representing the method of swordmanship. Finally, he says that this spear and staff method of the early 1600s are considered the origin of bōjutsu in Okinawa.

Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku was a historical person. The following information came to light.

Year of birth and death unknown. His Chinese-style name was Zen Kōsei. Due to his excellent qualities as a horseman, he won the favor of military commander Shimazu Yoshihiro of the Satsuma Domain, and by this he instantly gained power and influence. According to the Ryūkyū-kuni Yuraiki (1713), he seems to have acquired the skill of horseback riding during his stay in Satsuma.

In 1615 he proposed the creation of a trading port for Japanese ships in Taba Gushikawa district (in today’s Uruma city at Kin Bay). Together with Goeku Chōshu he was appointed magistrate to pursue this matter. Uezo Seiso, as the temporary chief administrator (sōjitō) of Gushikawa district was also involved in the planning of the construction work. His father was minister Yuntanza Seishō. At the time of the Shimazu hostile takeover, Yuntanza was Minister of Commerce (Osasu no Soba-kan) and participated in the peace negotiations (See Kyūyō Fukan, article 3). Yuntanza also once repulsed an application submitted by Tsuken Seisoku to be employed as the territorial administrator of Tsuken Island. Harboring a grudge over this rejection, Tsuken defamed Uezo’s working methods until the latter had to resign from office. Tsuken also defamed Uezo’s father, minister Yuntanza, until the latter also lost his office. As a result of these events, Uezu was sentenced to banishment to a remote island, and Yuntanza was demoted to the status of a commoner.

In 1617, Lord Shimazu Iehisa ordered a re-examination of the case and dispatched an inspector with two clerks. As a result of the investigation, Tsuken was identified as the real offender. Uezu’s banishment was repealed and Yuntanza returned to his original position as minister (sanshikan). Tsuken Seisoku lost his position of power. His hereditary fief of Tsuken was confiscated and he was interned in Kagoshima. The construction works of the planned trading port came to a halt and were never finished.

Btw, on Tsuken Island itself, Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku was referred to as Chikin Uēkata or Chikin Pēkū. Of course, Chikin is the dialect pronunciation of Tsuken, and Uēkata is a high rank within the royal government. As regards Chikin Pēkū, it might be a short form of Pēkumi, which is the way of pronouncing the title Pēchin only when the bearer is a fief holder. That is, both designations refer to him as either the general estate-steward (Uēkata) or the assistant estate-steward (Pēkumi) of Tsuken Island.

In addition, in the Okinawan play “The Legend of Loyalty and Bravery of Ufu-Aragusuku,” Tsuken is depicted as a traitor who was involved in the succession to the throne after King Shō Sei’s death, but this story is pure fiction.

Bōjutsu on Tsuken Island

There is a sūmachi-bō on Tsuken Island, which refers to a group of bō bearers usually walking in spirals to the rythm of gongs and horns during festivals. On Tsuken Island, it includes flag bearers, music, dances, historical costumes of the kingdom era, and so forth. It is a lively community activity attended by all ages, from little children to old seniors. It seems that it was held in 2013, but dates are unclear. I remember my colleague Walt Young, who also researches the tradition Tsuken Bō, told me he tried in vain to get someone to film the festival.

Anyway, in the past a crowd of about 200 men is said to have gathered at the community space called Shikirunchimā and performed the sūmachi-bō in two formations. It also includes bō kata as well as two-person kumibō.

On Tsuken Island, the originator of the Tsuken-bō is said to be Tsuken Akan’chū (Red Person). As an eminent figure, he has even been featured in comic books, and although some of his stories of bravery are exaggerated, the story of Tsuken Akan’chū has been generally passed down from generation to generation on the island as follows.

He was 180 cm tall, strong and agile, and was a strong sumō wrestler. He learned bōjutsu from Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku but was so skilled that he surpassed his master. During a fishing trip, he was swept away by a strong wind to Korea, where he killed a tiger.

Like this, according to tradition, Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku taught bōjutsu to Tsuken Akan’chū, and the latter surpassed his teacher in skill. Of course, as everyone knows, there is the famous paddle kata called Tsuken Akan’chū no Uēku-dī.

Excerpt of traditional bojutsu on Tsuken Island

Sources:

  • Quast, Andreas: Karate 1.0 – Parameter of an Ancient Martial Art. 2013.
  • Genealogy of Goeku Uēkata Chōshu, 5th generation of the Princly Shō-clan, House Wakugawa.
  • Dana Masayuki, in Okinawa Daihyakka Jiten, Vol. 2. 1982
  • Higa Shigezaburō: Records of Tsuken Island. 1990.
Posted in Bojutsu Kata Series, Terminology, The Technique of Okinawa Karate and Kobudo, Theories of Historical Karate in Comparative Perspective, Tsuken | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku

Tsuken no Kon

Posted on November 30, 2023 by Andreas Quast

(Note: The following is the translation of the abstract of Yoshifumi Hayasaka’s “Martial arts of the Satsuma Domain that influenced the martial arts of Ryūkyū (Tsuken no Kon)” presented at the 55th Conference of the Japanese Academy of Budo in 2022.)

Preface

As regards Okinawa’s martial arts, since Okinawa was ruled by the Satsuma domain during the era of the Royal Dynasty of Ryūkyū, the martial arts of the Satsuma domain had a great influence on the samurai of Ryūkyū. Among them, Jigen-ryū and Ten-ryū were most influential on ancient Okinawan martial arts such as bōjutsu (techniques of the staff), kaijutsu (techniques of the paddle), and kuwajutsu (techniques of the hoe).

Tsuken no Kon, which I learned when I was a student, is the oldest Okinawan bōjutsu. I want to pass on this martial art of Okinawa and its history, as I have studied so far, to future generations.

Tsuken no Kon

1. Founder Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku

Birth and death dates are unknown (estimated between 1558 and 1629). He was a member of the Shuri samurai class (shizoku), his rank was Uēkata, he was the originator of Tsuken Bō, a pioneer of horseback riding, his name was Seisoku, his Chinese-style name was Zen Kōsei. He excelled in horseback riding, and his name was known as far as Satsuma.

“In the Keichō period (1596–1615), there was a spear-staff-method (sōbōhō; The Tradition of Jiryō). There was also a staff method (bōhō) handed down by Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku as Tsuken Bō, which was very similar to the swordsmanship of the Jigen-ryū. Ryūkyū bōjutsu was divided into six-foot-staff (rokushaku) and three-foot-staff (sanshaku, AKA shaku-gwā). At the end of the Edo period (–1868), Tsuken Bō was passed down from the fishermen of Tsuken Island in Katsuren Village to Bushi Agena Chokuhō [transl. note: AKA Gushikawa Tērā-gwā], and was learned by Matayoshi Shinkō. This is the Tsuken no Kon as currently performed.

(Kyūyō, Appendix Volume 1; Okinawa Issen-nen Shi)

2. Techniques of Tsuken no Kon

The content of the performance is solo kata. In the performing line (enbusen), there are virtual enemies on all sides. The techniques include a strike (uchikomi) from the posture of carrying the bō on one’s shoulder, followed by a sliding thrust with the bō (nukibō), and a “prey drop”( emono otoshi) followed by a thrusting technique (tsuki-waza). It consists of techniques that combine strikes (uchikomi) and thrusting techniques (tsuki-waza), a rear thrust (ushiro-zuki), a reversed harai-uke followed by a butt-end thrust, and a variation of a naginata technique called “five consecutive strikes” (gorenda).

Martial arts of the Satsuma Domain that influenced martial arts of Ryūkyū

1. Jigen-ryū swordsmanship

The Jigen-ryū style of swordsmanship, which is representative of the Satsuma domain, was founded by Tōgō Shigekata (1561–1643), and has been passed down from generation to generation in the Tōgō family. For several years since 1609, Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku stayed (in the Satsuma Domain), and completed Tsuken Bō between 1617 and 1625, after he had returned to Ryūkyū.

The shaku-gwā (sanshaku-bō) or jōjutsu passed down in Okinawa include the form of striking from a dragonfly posture (tonbo no kamae), and it is inferred that the sword was transformed into shaku-gwā (sanshaku-bō) or jōjutsu.

2. Ten-ryū

The Ten-ryū of Satsuma has been passed down from generation to generation by the Ijichi family, whose founder was Ijichi Matazaemon Muneaki. Ijichi became a disciple of Saitō Denkibō (1550–1587), a resident of Hitachi [in today’s Ibaraki Prefecture) [and founder of Ten-ryū]. Ten-ryū is a comprehensive martial art that includes methods such as the sword and naginata.

The Ten-ryū had a great influence on Ryūkyū’s bōjutsu (techniques of the staff), kaijutsu (techniques of the paddle), and nagakama (techniques of the pole sickle), and encompasses excellent naginata techniques. It has been handed down to the present day as a unique form of martial arts of Okinawa.

Conclusion

I once saw the last will of Ryūkyū samurai Aka Chokushiki, in which he mentioned about “a scroll of the Jigen-ryū, a scroll of the Ten-ryū spear (yari) and naginata” which he “kept as a family heirloom and passed it down” to his descendants. By this, I learned that these martial arts (bugei) had already been practiced in Ryūkyū during the Kyōhō era (1716-1736). In addition, after reading Katsuren Moritoyo’s book “Okinawa’s Staff Dance,” I learned that the bōjutsu developed by Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku has been passed down to the present day as Tsuken no Kon under the guidance of the late Matayoshi Shinpō Sensei.

Translator’s addendum

Tsuken no Kon is a great kata with great technical variety. It seems to be rooted in the culture of Okinawa and I made a short video about the starting posture, which is an intruiging detail. Another interesting point is that there are several versions of the kata, which all claim the same or a similar history. So there is the question: Which is the real one? Is there more than one real one? Or, are they all modern 1950s / 60s creations?

Due to my inquisitive nature, I have a few questions which I will direct toward the above article. However, the same questions may be asked towards any other tradition of Okinawa kobudō. Please be benevolent.

  • Where kaijutsu (techniques of the paddle) and kuwajutsu (techniques of the hoe) really martial arts practiced in the 18th century?
  • In his story of Tsuken no Kon, the author mentions Jiryō, and then Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku. Then he continues the lineage with Agena Chokuhō and Matayoshi Shinkō, and says, “this is the Tsuken no Kon as currently performed.” Only after this paragraph he presents the Kyūyō and Majikina Ankō’s Okinawa Issen-nen Shi as the sources for it. However, while the Kyūyō and Majikina do mention Jiryō and Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku, they neither mention Agena Chokuhō nor Matayoshi Shinkō. Therefore the question arises when and who exactly made the connection between Matayoshi’s Tsuken no Kon and the historical source.
  • Neither the Kyūyō nor Majikina called the technique Tsuken no Kon, but Tsuken Bō, and here it must be noted that Tsuken Bō exists as an individual kata. Couldn’t it be that despite the same name Tsuken no Kon and Tsuken Bō are two different things?
  • It remains unclear what technical feature is supposed to qualify today’s Tsuken no Kon as a tradition influenced by Jigen-ryū. How does it represent any specific method of the Jigen-ryū
  • This tradition of Tsuken no Kon has been established in Matayoshi Kobudō for quite some time and already appears in the Matayoshi Shinkō memorial publication of 1999. Then, I think it is still difficult to establish the connection to Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku simply by the name Tsuken, because there are so many kata named Tsuken, such as Tsuken Bō, Tsuken no Kon, Tsuken Shitahaku no Sai, Tsuken Hanta-gwā no Kon, Tsuken Sunakake no Uēku, Tsuken Akan’chū no Uēku, and probably others. Wouldn’t it, therefore, be in the best interest of Matayoshi Kobudō stakeholders to research historical material to clarify the origin and transmission?
  • The written acounts on Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku existed long before Tsuken no Kon appeared as a kata. Why?
  • Even after reading the technical description, it remains unclear what technical feature is supposed to qualify today’s Tsuken no Kon as a tradition influenced by Jigen-ryū. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how and why this kata is traced back to Tsuken Bō of Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku some hundred years back.
  • It is typical for Okinawa karate and kobudō to mix self-created traditions with actual historical facts. What’s wrong with someone simply taking a village bō and Matayoshi-izing it?
  • Even more confusing, while Tsuken Bō of Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku was originally said to have been similar to the swordsmanship of the Jigen-ryū, the technical description has suddenly become one to include naginata techniques. Why?
  • It is said that Tsuken Uēkata Seisoku completed Tsuken Bō between 1617 and 1625. This wording seems insinuate that a solo kata was already created by that time, which came to be handed down under the name of Tsuken Bō, or otherwise as Tsuken no Kon. Wouldn’t it be more realistic to assume that a kata was created in a village much later, and became the kata of Tsuken no Kon as seen today only in the 20th century?
  • As regards nagakama (techniques of the pole sickle), while technology and techniques of Japanese martial arts existed in Ryūkyū, there was no such tradition found in the Matayoshi lineages so far, isn’t it? When, how, and by whom did these specific techniques and weapons supposedly have entered the Matayoshi lineage?
  • Aka Chokushiki handed down scrolls of Jigen-ryū swordmanship and Ten-ryū spear (yari) and naginata. However, when exactly, how, and by whom was any of these traditions supposedly handed down in Okinawa from the 19th to the 20th century?
Learn all about the real Ryukyu Samurai, Aka Chokushiki, and his martial arts.
Tsuken no Kon by Indishe Senanayake. Is this the real one?

Tsuken Bo by Charles Garrett, via Hohan Soken. Is this the real one?
Tsuken Bo, full description in: Inoue Motokatsu: Ryukyu Kobujutsu Vol 3. 1982. Is this the real one? This kata has absolutely nothing to do with either Hohan Soken’s version nor with Tsuken Bo or Matayoshi’s Tsuken no Kon. Where there so many different versions?

Tsuken Bo of Taira-Inoue lineage, performed by Maarten van Bloois. Is this the real one? This kata has absolutely nothing to do with either Hohan Soken’s version nor with Tsuken Bo or Matayoshi’s Tsuken no Kon. Where there so many different versions?

Source: Yoshifumi Hayasaka (Kobudō Kenkyūkai): “Martial arts of the Satsuma Domain that influenced the martial arts of Ryūkyū (Tsuken no Kon)” (in Japanese). In: 55th Conference of the Japanese Academy of Budo (Budō Gakkai). Abstracts of Research Presentations. Date: September 3 and 4, 2022. Venue: Tōin University of Yokohama. Page 51.

Posted in Equipment, Matayoshi Karate Kobudo - Written sources translated, Matayoshi Kobudo, Postwar Okinawa Karate, Translations, Tsuken | Comments Off on Tsuken no Kon

Was Matsumura a student of Sakugawa?

Posted on November 27, 2023 by Andreas Quast

In Okinawa karate theory and history, there is a train of thought that connects the persons Kūsankū, Sakugawa, and Matsumura Sōkon in sense of an unbroken personal tradition of skill, or of a teacher-student relationship. Like this, you will find genealogies such as Sakugawa à Matsumura à Itosu à modern Shurite.

How did this idea develop and is there any proof for it?

First, there s no karate kata bearing the name of Sakugawa. There is a bōjutsu kata by the name of Sakugawa. This bōjutsu kata includes a half-kneeling posture that is quite similar to the same posture in various versions of Kūsankū kata. There are also other bōjutsu kata that include the same posture, such as Chatan Yara no Kon. This similarity in postures might be reason for people to believe that there must have been a personal relation, or a master-student relationship between Kūsankū and Sakugawa, or Kūsankū and Chatan Yara, or both.

Of course, it would be nice for the historical claims of Okinawa Karate if a direct personal transmission of the technique from master to student could be established in this way. However, so far, it seems to be just a postwar story and largely a supposition without any proof or even hints. It is characteristic of Okinawa Karate that one does not comment on problems that could question and jeopardize the foundations of their own “Okinawa Karate theory”.

Kūsankū posture of ura-gamae.

Let’s look at a theory by one of the greatest Okinawa Karate researchers of all times, Kinjō Hiroshi Sensei. Kinjō is an Okinawa. Born and raised in Shuri, he learned karate since his youth. In the postwar era, he published karate magazines and researched the history and techniques of Okinawa Karate all his life. In his last work, which is of eminent importance for modern karate research, he presents the story how he finally discovered the evidence for the master-student relationship between Sakugawa and Matsumura. The following is a translation of his reasoning.

Tōdī Sakugawa and his relation to Matsumura Sōkon

Wanting to know a little more about Tōdī Sakugawa, I examined the name register of the Ryūkyū royal government, but the name Sakugawa was not to be found in it. Maybe his Chinese-style name was used. However, as regards the fact that he studied in China, it was found that he traveled to China more than once as a member of the entourages of Ryūkyūan tribute missions. Within my various investigations, I made a great discovery. That is, the fact that Matsumura Sōkon – who might also be called Ryūkyū’s unparalleled Saint of Boxing – has been a disciple of Sakugawa Kanga.

Here, themartial artsgenealogy of karate originator Itosu Ankō in a straight line leads from China to Sakugawa, from Sakugawa to Matsumura, and to Itosu. Of course, this doesn’t mean that only Chinese kenpō of Sakugawa Kanga would have existed in the town of Shuri. Besides Sakugawa’s Chinese kenpō, it is indispensable to also consider earlier kenpō that has had already become Ryūkyū-ized “tī”.

I would now like to write about details of the teacher-student relationship between Sakugawa Kanga and Matsumura Sōkon. While researching Sakugawa Kanga, I was able to catch sight of the theory that Sakugawa died abroad in Beijing, was buried at the foreign cemetery located outside of Beijing, and in later years his mortal remains were returned to his native land of Ryūkyū by the hands of Matsumura Sōkon. According to the tradition of folk belief of Ryūkyū, if a person comes into physical contact with the mortal remains of a deceased person who was not a blood relative, that person will enter a time of terrible misfortune. Even today this kind of superstition of our regional character remains.

That is, I hypothesize that because one hundred and seventy years ago Matsumura, who was not a blood relative of Sakugawa, brought back Sakugawa’s mortal remains, there must have undoubtedly been a deep teacher-student relationship between the two, isn’t it so?

If this hypothesis would be proven, I thought that the martial art of Itosu Ankō, the inventor of “school karate,” is linked in a single straight line to Matsumura and further to Sakugawa, and therefore, it is also linked to Chinese kenpō of Beijing. Both Sakugawa and Matsumura studied Chinese kenpō in Beijing. However, the story that both were in a master-student relationship has never been heard.

I was lost in thought, wondering if the hypothesis of a master-student relationship between Sakugawa and Matsumura would end up being just a hypothetical problem without any chance of proving it.

Accidentally, I received a letter and a copy of an illustration from Miyagi Tokumasa. By means of this letter and illustration, I was able to prove the teacher-student relationship of Matsumura and Sakugawa.

Thanks to the support of Miyagi Tokumasa (1939–), the hypothesis of a master-student relationship between Sakugawa and Matsumura has been demonstrated. However, the fact that I wasn’t able to demonstrate the hypothesis by myself, but only by borrowing the support of another authority, is indeed ironic. Furthermore, in later years, by a record of Sakukawa’s funerary urn, it was found that the theory of Sakugawa dying abroad in Beijing turned out to be mere rumor, a glamorizing fable.

By substantiating the teacher-student relationship of Sakugawa and Matsumura, karate for school education becomes a genealogy leading from Beijing → to Sakukawa → to Matsumura → to Itosu, and can be understood as what became the “tī” of the age of Matsumura.

This “tī”, which molted from the Chinese kenpō of Matsumura, represents an extremely important point within the history of karate technique. Because without the existence of Matsumura’s “tī”, the creation of “school karate” would have been impossible. Nonetheless, it should not be forgotten that besides Matsumura many masters and experts of tōdī or ti, respectively, were also variously active.

Illustration: This is one sheet of a booklet about atemi and ukemi (striking of and receiving with the body), originally bound from 16 sheets in total and presented to Matsumura Sōkon by Tōdī Sakugawa. The original booklet was lost during World War II. Only this one sheet remains as a copy (provided by Miyagi Tokumasa).

Translator’s addendum

It took me a number of years to locate the original source of the diagram. In fact, it was only when I went to Okinawa and met colleague and friend John Lohde, who brought along the extremely rare original source. I described the drawing here.

Here are some points to consider:

  • According to Miyagi Tokumasa, around 1995 it was still not confirmed whether the meridian diagram really belonged to an original of 16 bound papers, and whether these were really given by Tōdī Sakugawa to Matsumura Sōkon and then handed down by someone. However, the theory was “tentatively accepted.”
  • Is there any ongoing research of the theory?
  • Such meridian charts have been available anywhere since the Ming era, and always look the same. What qualifies it as an atemi chart?
  • While there are esoteric kyusho methods that use meridian theory, atemi waza uses many specific points and body regions not defined by esoteric meridian theory. Why would anyone use such an impractical method?

Posted in Book Reviews | Comments Off on Was Matsumura a student of Sakugawa?

The Mice Athletic Meet – Reality Check on Okinawa Karate Anecdotes

Posted on November 27, 2023 by Andreas Quast

This is about a story from Kinjo Sensei’s last book. It is a rich book with lots of great insights, theories, technical descriptions, thoughts, attempts at classification, personal experiences and so forth. I particularly liked a story from Kinjo’s youth seemingly unrelated to karate. It is the story of the Mice Athletic Meet.

“In Okinawa, even when it comes to our age, there were awfully many mice. At night-time, mice were running around in the gap of the intermediate ceiling and in the kitchen as if they owned the place.

In my childhood years, during night-time, when the mice ran around in the gap of the intermediate ceiling, we would say ‘And once more the Mice Athletic Meet began,’ and start laughing together. In such a living environment, what would happen if you left one straw bag of rice in the corner of the kitchen for so long that dust piles up? It would be devoured by the mice.

So how was rice stored? Rice that was used every day was stored in a lacquered, round barrel-shaped rice bin about 45 centimeters high and 30 centimeters in diameter. Rice that was stored a little longer was stored in a large wooden box covered with a lid to prevent it from being harmed by mice. When I was a child, I remember well that our home had a lacquered rice bin that had been passed down from my great-grandfather’s generation.“

The history and characters of Okinawa karate are often accompanied by hero stories. You start wondering how many of them are true and how many are mere barbershop gossip. It seems that the less is actually known about a person, the more stories there are. Such anecdotes tend to be exaggerated more and more, as in Chinese whispers. On the contrary, “important truths are sometimes not handed down,” Kinjo writes, saying that he has a “feeling that many of these stories are similar to fiction,” such as the following anecdote surrounding Matsumura Sōkon.

“It was said that night after night a mysterious boxer appeared, who challenged young men who took pride in their skills, and easily defeated them all. Finally, it was Sōkon’s turn. The first bout ended in a draw, but in the next bout Sōkon was victorious.

But wait, what? His opponent was a woman named Tsuru! So, Sōkon fell in love with her, and they got married.

Not only that. There’s a sequel to it. The story is that his wife was such an incredibly strong person that, when doing the cleaning, she lifted a bag of rice with one hand while sweeping the dust from under the bag with the other hand. This is also a cock-and-bull story, isn’t it?“

In short, Kinjo questions the veracity of the story and gives it a reality check. It means that it is unlikely that anyone would place a bag of rice on the ground in Okinawa at the time.

Kinjō Hiroshi: Tōde kara Karate made (From Karate to Karate). Nihon Budōkan, Bēsubōru Magajin-sha, Tōkyō 2011. 439 pp. 20cm. ISBN: 9784583104294.
Posted in Book Reviews, Prewar Okinawa Karate, Theories of Historical Karate in Comparative Perspective, Translations | Tagged , | Comments Off on The Mice Athletic Meet – Reality Check on Okinawa Karate Anecdotes

Kinjo Hiroshi and Motobu Choki – Deception is also Part of the Skill

Posted on November 26, 2023 by Andreas Quast

(The following is an episode translated from the stories of the late Kinjo Hiroshi Sensei himself, found on his website)

There was a famous master of the fist named Motobu Chōki. Even among the younger generation, those who are training in karate probably know his name.

It would be appropriate to describe my encounter with Motobu Chōki as a coincidence. As I will write about in detail in the following, I first met him through a hole in a paper sliding door when I was six years old.

One of my childhood friends, who was one or two years older than me, was Tomiyama Gorō. Although he died young due to childhood tuberculosis, he always wanted to stand over me no matter what. Not only because he was older, but also because my face always looked pale and I coughed a lot, and I was a little underdeveloped and not physically confident, so with the wisdom of an elder, it was obvious that he always wanted to lead me.

One day, Gorō came to call me. He told me that Motobu Sārū was coming to his house and that he would show him to me. Gorō’s house was the third next door. He hurried along and told me that Motobu Sārū was in the front parlor and that I should peek through the hole in the paper sliding door. Even as a child, I felt some resistance and hesitation at the idea of peering through the hole. However, with the joy of being able to see the face of the great pugilist I had always admired, I gathered my courage and peeked into the parlor through a hole in the paper sliding door, following Gorō’s instructions.

In the middle of the front parlor was a middle-aged man with a stern face, sitting cross-legged with his arms crossed. My first impression was that he had a slightly scary face and he didn’t seem cheerful. Even though we met through a hole in the paper sliding door, Motobu had no idea who we were. I think he probably thought of it as nothing more than a child’s prank. However, this was very satisfying. Later, I would tell my friends that I had met Motobu Sārū.

Thirteen or fourteen years after this encounter, I happened to meet Motobu Sārū again at my maternal grandfather’s house, and had the opportunity to have a conversation with him for the first time. It appears that my maternal grandfather and Motobu Sārū knew each other, and although my maternal grandfather was older, he spoke to Motobu in courteous language. At that time, I was a senior in middle school, a member of the karate club, and had been practicing karate for over ten years. However, I don’t remember him talking much about karate.

What I do remember is that he made a one-knuckle-fist with his right hand and said, “Let’s strike the pillar with a one-knuckle-fist. It will make a dent in the pillar!” Generally speaking, a one-knuckle-fist is one with the middle finger held up, but Motobu’s one-knuckle-fist had the index finger stick out. This unexpected matter left a strong impression on me. However, neither my grandfather nor I wanted him to perform striking the pillar with his one-knuckle-fist.

After that, about two years later, on October 20, 1938, I had a rare opportunity to attend the dedication demonstration at the Okinawa Shrine Festival. I had heard from my maternal grandfather that Motobu was said to be an unparalleled great master of the fist, but that he was actually a coward and that half of his victories were achieved due to deception.

There was a rumor that he had won against many opponents by deception, so I decided to check it out. I asked him timidly and modestly if this was true, and he he spat out at me that it was the fault of those who were deceived. At the time, I could not agree with those words. I thought he was just the man as the rumors had said. However, about half a century later, I came to realize that he had deceived me. So, he showed off his deception skills by saying “It’s the fault of those who are deceived,” while this is actually an expression of “deception is also part of the skill.”

Translator’s addendum

I have a few questions here.

  • Was the alleged cowardice a story of tactics and strategies, such as described by Jesse here, when Motobu was already 72 years old, facing a mad attacker with a butcher knife?
  • Did it change Kinjo’s interpretation of karate after he finally understood the importance of Motobu’s lesson 50 years later?
  • If Sun Tsu famously said “All warfare is based on deception,” and Miyamoto Musashi also used trickery, why is it considered wrong?
  • Kinjo traced his karate theory back to Matsumura Sokon, but never considered Motobu Choki, a direct student of Matsumura, even tough “Watashi no Karatejutsu” became public in the 1990s. Why?
Deception is also Part of the Skill
Posted in Theories of Historical Karate in Comparative Perspective, Translations | Comments Off on Kinjo Hiroshi and Motobu Choki – Deception is also Part of the Skill