‘Oral truths’ are the means of any folk Art’s transmission. As Craig accurately explains, when Karate invented for itself a way to transmit the Art en masse to the public starting at the turn of 20C, it had to invent terms, structure and uniformity. The Art went from being taught with one instructor and just a few students – each student having a customized and personalized version of what the instructor had to offer. How do we know this? corroberated oral truth. for example, it’s widely accepted thru independant accounts that Higashionna/Higaonna taught one or two kata to each student – but they were not the same kata for every student. The kata were selected by him based on the strengths and capabilities of each student.
The way this ties in and is important to the research is that, imagine how an Art would change if it went from one-on-one instruction to ‘mass production’. Karate history and it’s changes of the past 100 years or so fits that model. I could give a bunch more specific examples of how oral truths can help illuminate the transition of karate from a vagely named folk art to an Art geered for public consumption.

That ties in with my second point…’need’. What purpose has Karate served? I think is another key question to examine. Today, it largly serves a niche part of the health&fitness industry and competition sport. Pre-WW2 it served a small part of Japan’s war machine, by providing a niche within it’s youth health/fitness programs. conformity was the order of the day and custom instruction would have been unthinkable. It was also during this time that the ‘Fukyugata’ and ‘Gekisai’ kata were created. These kata differ from the ‘classical’ kata in that they are much more linear, easier for a beginner to learn, and contain basic principles of movement which are later built upon. They are simply training kata, not kata designed to ‘fight larger opponents’ or other such non-supported myths.
But prior to Karate making it’s public debut (