Wow, in Karate 1.0 it appears that our thoughts that the weapons ban by both the Okinawan Royalty and the Satsuma Samurai did not ban weapons in the manner that left the common populace disarmed. I want to go back and read that again but it appears that most of the ban was about allowing weapons, firearms, to be sold outside Japan and Okinawa. I will clear this up a bit more as I take another look at what I read. I don't want this to become something that I misinterpreted but I wanted to get some interest going toward the book and its importance or its lack of importance.
There is more within those pages that discuss the possibility that karate, the empty hand system within martial arts, didn't come from the need of the locals to defend themselves against the Samurai of Satsuma. Apparently, the Satsuma took charge of defending the Okinawans against pirates, etc. The commoners were not striped of their weapons such as those that slash or stab, etc. It was more about firearms and controlling weapons aboard the shipping vessels that went to China, etc.
I plan on sitting down when I am done with my first study of this book and write a post that will provide a possible alternative to what some believe is the history and stimulus for the practice of empty handed martial arts.
Look at this entry as a "teaser" for another post and the need to at least consider this book and its role in understanding the culture and beliefs of Okinawan Karate.
Addendum did Monday April 21, 2014 at 12:35 hours:
After reviewing the materials, i.e. Karate 1.0, provided by Andreas Quast I agree with his conclusions thus,
“Ut us true that Ryukyu never in her history had been disarmed.”
For those who would argue that only Ryukyu Royalty were armed Quast Sensei shows through out his evidence that the commoners of Ryukyu were never disarmed of “cut and thrust” weapons and bows and arrows, etc.
Quick Reference, i.e. the actual references to those mandates concerning arming or disarming of weapons throughout Japan and included Ryukyu.
HS/1643, HS/1646, HS/1613-01, HS/1613-02, HS/1639, HS/1657-01 and HS/1657-02. He has the actual details written in his book.
Note: The existence and management of firearms within Ryukyu was shown to be a primary effort of Japan and is proved by Quast Sensei’s evidence. It was based more on import/export with emphasis the borders (external threats) of Ryukyu ere protected by the Satsuma while internal protection by Ryukyuans and maritime protection by arms loaned out by the Satsuma controls.
Addendum dtd Friday May 16, 2014 at 10:32hrs:
It is also interesting to note that the original perception that karate was born of the "weapons ban" on Okinawa is false and that it was more a "mistaken interpretation" of an order of prohibition in 1670 that actually came about because of "A Nocturnal Masked Person" walking at night carrying a Bo and Sword where the constabulary felt it would be a threat to peace, security and safety of the people of the Ryukyu kingdom.
Because of this mistaken interpretation and its later publication in the first book on karate by a noted leader and teacher of karate it spread as if it were fact. It is only today, because of the hard work of various dedicated historians of karate that the truth has surfaced. I give special credit to Andreas Quast for his work in his book, "Karate 1.0," where it states in part:
"1670, A Nocturnal Masked Person, Starting Point of a Karate Theory:
In 1670 a prohibition order was issued. The order related to an event that took place in the night of the 16th day of the 1st month of this year, when in the light of a lantern a person was seen carrying Bo and sword with his face covered up. The order forbade such conspiratorial behavior and instructions were given to capture any such person who infringed on the provisions of the order. It was historian Higaonna Kanjun who interpreted this even as evidence for the prohibition of all weapons and furthermore as the trigger for he development of unarmed karate. He provided this theory in his forward to the first karate book ever printed, in 1922, namely Funakoshi Gichin’s “Ryukyu Kenpo Karate.” Naturally, transported in this influential work and embraced by Funakoshi himself, this notion had been carried on, extended to the prohibition of all weapons as well, and further developed into the idiosyncratic perception of an unarmed historical karate.
However, the actual circumstances of the above order under no circumstances can be interpreted as a general prohibition of weapons. The order was solely aimed at “masked persons” carrying “weapons” during the night time that would constitute a threat to peace and security in the kingdom. The written order must be considered evidence for the existence and acceptance of both Bojutsu and swords in the kingdom following the 1609 Satsuma takeover."
Addendum dtd Friday May 16, 2014 at 10:32hrs:
It is also interesting to note that the original perception that karate was born of the "weapons ban" on Okinawa is false and that it was more a "mistaken interpretation" of an order of prohibition in 1670 that actually came about because of "A Nocturnal Masked Person" walking at night carrying a Bo and Sword where the constabulary felt it would be a threat to peace, security and safety of the people of the Ryukyu kingdom.
Because of this mistaken interpretation and its later publication in the first book on karate by a noted leader and teacher of karate it spread as if it were fact. It is only today, because of the hard work of various dedicated historians of karate that the truth has surfaced. I give special credit to Andreas Quast for his work in his book, "Karate 1.0," where it states in part:
"1670, A Nocturnal Masked Person, Starting Point of a Karate Theory:
No comments:
Post a Comment