Ed,
You make some good points about purpose of the art of Ti, indeed was it passed down as part of a family trdaition for its own sake to preserve it. I think that looking at the two main schools of so called Ti today that this art has not been passed down from generation to generation unchanged. If we look at Motobu Udun Ti of Seikichi Uehara, I agree with Meik Skoss on this.

See Skoss, M (1998) Questions and Answers. Ryukyu Kobudo vs Nihon Kobudo. In The Iaido Newsletter Vol 10/12 #97 Dec 1998 Where he states the following:
�The last ten years of so, Uechi Seikichi of Motobu-ryu udundi (that's how it's said in Okinawan dialect, the characters read quite differently) has done a number of demonstrations that involve all manner of weapons. The major problem is (I'm looking at it from a Japanese weapons arts-trained point of view) though, that it looks really lame. Maybe they *did* actually train with a sword, glaive, spear like that. But if that were so, they sure never faced a trained warrior. If they had, the Motobu family line would've been nipped in the bud. The second problem is that there's very little historical evidence to back up his party line that it's a legitimate system that's been passed down over the years.� (Skoss 1998).

We now have some evidence that Seikichi Uehara has had some study of Hakko Ryu in December 1962 also, there are clear commonalities between certain aspects of these two arts, but there are also differences. What was passed down via Shian Toma's Seidokan organisation as Go Ten Te, that Shian Toma learnt from Uehara, has been subject to being passed down in an organisation with some formerly senior Hakko Ryu practitioners in it, who used the Hakko Ryu system to classify techniques.

We have no written records of the Motobu Udun di being passed from Choyu Motobu to Seikichi Uehara in terms of a scroll passing on the lineage. Though we do know that Seikichi Uehara did train with Choyu and that the Motobu family had a martial arts tradition, but whether what we have now is what was original is impossible to tell. Examples of this are the Anji no Mekata, the highest teaching of that school, it was never passed to Uehara, but Motobu Choyu knew it. According to Higaonna of Goju Ryu and his history of Okinawan Karate, Choyu Motobu taught the kata Unsu to those who wished to learn Ti, this was not passed on to Uehara either and is not taught as part of the Motobu Udun di tradition.

Next considering the Bugeikan, which is the di of Seitoku Higa, whilst there was a line from Takemura (a Kohai of Bushi Matsumura)which is allegedly passed to Soko Kishomoto and then on to Seitoku Higa and Shukimune we find that Shukimune developed Gensei Ryu and Taido, moving further away from the original art. As for Seitoku Higa, he had trained with various people and did various arts and preserved some of the Kata he got from Kishomoto, but these are called Takemura versions. Fortunately some of these kata have been passed on. For example I am aware that at least one Gensei Ryu Sensei has actually learnt these kata and that within both Gensei Ryu and Taido that there are some aspects which are older. We have also had some contact with people who over the years have been to the Bugeikan and brought back some material including photographs and video footage (More than a few seconds) even though it is clear that some of the material that has been brought back has been mistakenly labelled as Ti when in fact some of it is definitely Aikido or aspects incorporated into Seido from other sources. However when it comes to the Bugeikan itself there has been the incorporation of various other arts including Motobu Udiun di (and consequently whatever influences there have been on that!?) as well as the Karate of Hanashiro Chomo, but that is not all, there has also been an Aikido influence and the more recent development of the art of Seido, which although preserves some Ti dynamics it is not ti. So again we can say that the Bugeikan line has been changed as well.

As for the Chinese element incorporated in to Ti, that is a very good point, you would certainly have to go back a very, very, very long way to avoid any Chinese influence on Okinawan Martial Arts. We have to at the end of the day consider certain aspects such as Nationalism and independence and the forging of unique cultural identities and all that entails. Let me give an example from Korea, where Shamanistic practises were at one point outlawed but which are now popularised through Korean Shamanistic dances, which provide a clear symbol of Korean, especially Southern Korean national identity (for publications on this aspect of Korean National Identity through dance see some of the following: http://mercury.soas.ac.uk/users/kh/publications.htm). Thus we can draw a clear analogy with the Okinawan situation. To further confirm this Dr. Stephen Chan went to Okinawa and noted that Shian Toma, Seiki Toma and Seikichi Uehara all called their Dojo's Seidokan and indicated that there was an element of national/regional Okinawan identity. We can again tie this national/regional identity issue in with the connection between Kumi dori (Okinawan traditional Dances) and the parallels with ti. As for the Japanese aspects and claim of a Japanese link to Okinawan arts (though this is not to be ruled out) we again have to ask is this the same as the symbol for Tang/Tou being changed to Kara in Karate? The empty of the empty hand made to tie in with the idea of Japanese Budo philosophy and denial of Chinese links at a time when links with China were not popular.

CXT
As you have said there is undoubtedly some possible Japanese Bu Jutsu influences on at least one school of di, the Motobu Udun di, especially given the Japanese weapons that appear in it. Both Motobu Udun di and the Bugeikan use these weapons. Whether what is in the Bugeikan came from Seikichi Uehara or whether some of this was there before however is another question. But one could equally pose the question if you need to defend yourself against a particular weapon it is helpful if you know something about it. The issue of cross pollination not just between Japan, China and Okinawa exists but also between various Ryuha in Okinawa and where they got what they cross pollinated from originally. How much influence is there of Bugeikan on what Seikichi Uehara does and how much influence of Motobu Udun di was there on Bugeikan? Hence why the Gensei Ryu material in terms of Waza, Kata and writings is so important now, although not without its problems, given the Shotokan background of Tosa Sensei who heads the Gensei Ryu style now. There are some aspects of Bugeikan Ti as practised by Seitoku Higa that look very Ju Jutsu like and show what appears to be a strong Japanese influence, hence why we need to know more about Takemura (Born 1800?), a Kohai of Bushi Matsumura and the teacher of Kishomoto who taught Seitoku Higa. apparently . Takemura had a son who was sent to Kagoshima to learn Judo (this could have been Ju Jutsu) and supposedly introduced this Judo to Okinawa (Source: Ryukyu Shinpo January 17, 1914) We need to know what else is known. i.e.

a. Who was Takemura's sons teacher,
b. At which Dojo and under whom did he train?
c. How long did he study there?
d. Is there any records in Jigen Ryu of a Takemura ever having studied with in that Ryuha?

As to Victor's points, is an old art really better?
Personally I have never held to this and feel that any functional combative system must be just that and adapt to the times in which it exists, the types of weapons and strategies change as time moves forward. Soldiers simply do not use Muskets any more, although once they did. I most certainly agree with the point that:

1. If you see someone using the art and it works, that proves exactly that, not that an early art is better.

Clearly all arts and various schools within those arts have their strengths and weaknesses depending upon a particular situation.

2. Unless you live in Japan and/or Okinawa, and have access to serious groups in that art, or unless you're local to a practioner (and most of the world is no), you can't get more involved than that they exist.

That is definitely the problem with what I call a lot of poorly researched background on di/ti/te, there have been only a limited number of westerners who have been to the Bugeikan and Motobu Udun di (though more to the latter more recently) and certainly even fewer that have studied at these places for any reasonable length of time. But they do exist and they have taught others, but there are still questions as to what they have been taught and what they choose to teach others. Lets take Mark Bishop for example who spent a substantial amount of time at the Bugeikan but freely admits that 'My own style of ti is naturally a synthesis of the Okinawan schools at which I had trained extensively, along with a detailed study of Chinese boxing and classical Okinawan dance' (Bishop 1999).

3. If you find such an art, you can't get it from visits, clinics or any way but the old fashioned one, you have to spend years and years with a qualified instructor. If you do so you are what you can do, period.

Rarely will you pick up enough from any clinics, and as you say many who have been involved in those arts do not hold these clinics anyway. The most you can do is as you say go there, but if its an art in the past tense, which with di I am sure it is there may be problems as the art may have moved on (Seido at the Bugeikan being an example of this) or you train with someone who has been there for years or someone who has trained with them and then the issue is what is it that you are really getting? (See comments to 2 above as an example of this)

Only by comparing sources and finding commonalities can you get anywhere near as to what di/ti/te might have been and then you can only do this for a particular line of di and that can only be done if you have enough sources and people involved in specific arts that are realted to the original line that is being studied in order to make any reasonable comparisons. As Ed said earlier its 'your hand' to which I tried to qualify the ti is the hand of the person presenting or doing it. For example whilst the Bugeikan line comes from Takemura to Kishomoto to Higa and the kata's of that line are called Takemura, we are comfortable with the comparisons between Shukimune and Seitoku Higa to speak of Kishomoto's ti. Where as with Motobu Udun di I personally would prefer to talk of Uehara's di or the Motobu Udun di of Seikichi Uehara.

Jude33 what you said about: 'If a person trains in a trad based okinawan dojo, has a decent teacher, and is listening to instruction then the techniques and principles of ti are there. All a person has to do is observe'. Is IMHO so true.

Regards

Chris Norman