PDA

View Full Version : Interesting ryuha census: 1843



John Lindsey
1st December 2003, 20:49
I originally posted these figures long ago, but I think the message thread was sadly lost during a server crash. So, I would like to post it again for your comments.

The following information came from the book documenting the lectures given during the 1976 Token Taikai held in San Francisco.

Benjamin Hazard, PhD from San Jose State University gave a lecture titled: The Evolution of Tactics and Weapon Systems: From the Mound Period to the Satsuma Rebellion.

Dr. Hazard noted the following :

Watatani and Yamada in their Bugei Ryuha Daijiten (dictionary of schools and branches of martial arts) catalogue something in the order of 7,00 schools and sub-schools of Japanese martial arts. This does not mean that all 7,000 existed at once, but rather is the total developed over the centuries. Some indication of the number of schools or ryu popular toward the end of the Tokugawa periods is a partial listing in 1843:

Kenjutsu 61
Iai 5
Firearms 29
Archery 20
Jujutsu 19
Horsemanship 9
Naginata 2

I assume he meant styles, and not a count of dojo…

Interesting figures to say the least.

CEB
1st December 2003, 21:01
Were schools that practiced a sogo bugei, counted more than once in the inventory ( once in each category they taught) or just once in what is deemed as its primary discipline or are they not counted at all?

W.Bodiford
4th December 2003, 02:09
Dear John:

I am not sure exactly what data Benjamin Hazard used for the figures you give. The scholar who did the most detailed work on this topic was the late Professor Imamura Yoshio of Tokyo Kyoiku Daigaku. Professor Imamura trained most of the scholars who first developed the field of martial art history in Japan. He also published the most detailed and reliable statistics on martial art instruction in premodern Japan as part of his massive book: Jukyu seiki ni okeru Nihon taiiku no kenkyu (Studies in Nineteenth-Century Japanese Physical Education). First edition, 1967. Corrected edition. Tokyo: Daiichi Shobo, 1989.

All of Imamura's figures are tentative because they are based on incomplete and difficult to decipher sources. Below I will summarize a few of his most widely quoted and most often repeated figures.


1) First (pp. 339-344), Imamura compared 6 different historical chronicles and compilations published between 1716 and 1912. Together, these 6 works identify by name approximately the following numbers of ryuha in each of these categories:

heigaku (military studies) = 54; of which only 3 are named by all 6 sources

kyujutsu (archery) = 45; only 9 are named by all 6 sources

bajutsu (equestrian skills) = 61; only 2 are named by all 6 sources

kenjutsu (fencing) = 620; only 11 are named by all 6 sources

sojutsu (spear) = 121; only 8 are named by all 6 sources

hojutsu (gunnery) = 173; only 2 are named by all 6 sources

jujutsu (grappling) = 167; only 5 are named by all 6 sources

The above figures are approximate because in many cases the same ryuha might be known by more than one name or the same name might be used by different ryuha. The above figures do not represent the countless minor ryuha that never attracted the notice of the authors of the 6 works examined by Imamura.

The fact that only a few ryuha are named by all 6 sources seems to indicate that all of the numerous other ryuha actually originated as branches or variations of a very small number of early prototypes.


2) Second (pp. 345-349), Imamura examined the documents contained in the compilation known as the Nihon kyoiku-shi shiryo (Historical documents for the history of Japanese physical education). This compilation provides data regarding the curriculums of education provided at the domain academies (hanko) for 58 domains (han) during the Tokugawa period.

Note: At this time there existed about 240 separate domains, but complete data exists only for the 58 examined by Imamura. This data does not pertain to ryuha taught in private academies or taught as family traditions.

In these 58 domains, Imamura reports that the following numbers of ryuha were taught:

heigaku (military studies) = 20; of which, 10 were taught within 2 or more domains and 6 were taught within 5 or more domains. Western military studies (English, French, or Dutch) were taught instead of Japanese traditions within 12 domains.

kyujutsu (archery) = 22; of which, 6 were taught within 5 or more domains.

bajutsu (equestrian skills) = 26; of which, 3 were taught within 5 or more domains.

kenjutsu (fencing) = 114; of which, 6 were taught within 5 or more domains. Most domain schools (62 out of ca. 100 for which data exists), though, taught only 1 style of kenjutsu which was available only within that domain's academy.

sojutsu (spear) = 66; of which, 8 were taught within 5 or more domains.

hojutsu (gunnery) = 93; of which, 5 were taught within 5 or more domains.

jujutsu (grappling) = 67; of which, 4 were taught within 5 or more domains and 1 (Kitoryu) was taught in 12 domains.


3) Third (pp. 349-351), Imamura examined other data for about 240 separate domains and reports that the following numbers of ryuha were taught only within a single domain (as that domain's own special knowledge):

heigaku (military studies) = 9

kyujutsu (archery) = 8

bajutsu (equestrian skills) = 15

kenjutsu (fencing) = 62

sojutsu (spear) = 48

hojutsu (gunnery) = 64

jujutsu (grappling) = 54


4) Fourth (pp. 462-467), Imamura examines the numbers of instructors employed in the domain academies to teach each subject. He shows that these numbers changed over time to reflect new social conditions. For example, during the period 1848-1859 approximately 21% of the instructors taught kenjutsu, 20% taught gunnery, and 12% taught jujutsu. By 1860-1868, though, 32% taught kenjutsu, 38% taught gunnery, and only 3% taught jujutsu. In other words, as gunnery and Western military tactics became more widely taught, domain academies gradually abandoned instruction in jujutsu. The idea of unarmed combat no longer seemed realistic in the face of Western military might.

Interestingly, once the public wearing of swords was prohibited in 1876 jujutsu again became credible. Other scholars have shown that after 1876 the number of kenjutsu instructors rapidly declined while jujutsu enjoyed a boom in popularity.

Finally, it is too complex a subject to discuss here, but we should keep in mind that all Japanese martial arts underwent rapid change and development during the 19th century in reactions to social changes within Japan and to new threats from abroad. Some domains dismissed their hereditary instructors and replaced them with new teachers selected via duels. Other domains began training commoners. Yet other domains banned secrecy. Meanwhile, urban centers witnessed many contradictory developments, such as: (a) martial art training enjoying new popularity as a form of "safe" recreation and sport and as a new form of terrorism (i.e., assassinations of public figures); or (b) public demands for "practical and realistic" skills accompanied by increased publication of fantasy fiction in which the heroes rely on magical martial art skills.

Because of these many changes, statistics such as the ones developed by Imamura can provide only a very limited and static insight into what was a rapidly changing social environment.

I hope this information helps.

ghp
4th December 2003, 02:58
Holy-moley Dr. Bodiford!! You don't post often; but when you do, you sure make it memorable!

Thanks for the valuable thumbnail analysis.

Regards,
Guy

glad2bhere
4th December 2003, 15:56
OK, time out. Bruce has to print off yet another of Dr. Bodifords' excellent contributions. You don't have to worry about me plagurizing it, though. Your posts are always so well written nobody in their right mind would confuse your skills with mine in a million years! :-)

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Bustillo, A.
4th December 2003, 17:28
Originally posted by W.Bodiford
Dear John:

I am not sure exactly what data Benjamin Hazard used for the figures you give. The scholar who did the most detailed work on this topic was the late Professor Imamura Yoshio of Tokyo Kyoiku Daigaku. ....
.....





Great info.

thanks.