As many gallons of ink have been spilled in trying to define “martial arts” as
have gallons of blood in the genuine practice of martial activities. In this place I
will not spill more ink. On the other hand, I do not contend that the efforts of
those who try to develop such definitions waste their time. My only contention
is that these definitions are inevitably focused by time, place, philosophy, poli-
tics, worldview, popular culture, and other cross-cultural variables. So focused,
they are destined to be less than universal. The same is true, however, of any at-
tempt to categorize phenomena that, while universally human, are inevitably tied
to worldview, to mindset, and to historical experience.
Many of the attempts to determine the boundaries of the martial arts draw
on the model of the Japanese “cognate arts” by distinguishing between bujutsu
(from bu, “warrior,” and jutsu,also romanized as jitsu,“technique” or “skill”)
and budô(from “warrior” and dô, “way”). Those forms that are considered bu-
jutsus are conceived to be combative ancestors of those that are considered part
of budô, and the latter are characterized as disciplines derived from the earlier
combat forms in order to be used as means of self-enhancement, physically, men-
tally, and spiritually. Bugei (“martial methods,” used to refer collectively to the
combat skills), itself, is commonly compartmentalized into various jutsu,yielding,
for example, kenjutsu (technique or art of the sword), just as each way has its own
name, in this case, kendô (way of the sword).
Such compartmentalization was a product of Japanese historical experience
in the wake of Pax Tokugawa (the enforced peace of the Tokugawa shogunate—
A.D. 1600–1868), and it gained widespread acceptance with the modernization of
Japan in the late nineteenth century. Even in the twenty-first century, however, such
segregation is not universal, as demonstrated by the incorporation of various mar-
tial skills (striking, grappling, and an arsenal of weapons) in the traditional ryûha
(schools or systems) of contemporary Japan (see Friday 1997).
Outside the contemporary Western popular context and the influence of the
Japanese model, it is clear that a vast number of the world’s martial systems do
not compartmentalize themselves as armed as distinct from unarmed, as throw-
ing and grappling styles rather than striking arts. Grappling and wrestling “at
xvIntroduction