This article was downloaded by: [University of Maastricht]On: 30 June 2014, At: 07:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The International Journal of theHistory of SportPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fhsp20

The Historical and Cultural Identityof Taekwondo as a Traditional KoreanMartial ArtJeong Deok Ahn a , Suk ho Hong b & Yeong Kil Park ca Korea Science Academyb Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)c Gyeongsang UniversityPublished online: 15 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: Jeong Deok Ahn , Suk ho Hong & Yeong Kil Park (2009) The Historical andCultural Identity of Taekwondo as a Traditional Korean Martial Art, The International Journal of theHistory of Sport, 26:11, 1716-1734, DOI: 10.1080/09523360903132956

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523360903132956

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

The Historical and Cultural Identity ofTaekwondo as a Traditional KoreanMartial ArtJeong Deok Ahn, Suk ho Hong and Yeong Kil Park

Taekwondo’s cultural identity is considered in the light of the controversy over its

historical origins. After reviewing several existing theories, the meaning and developmentof taekwondo as a Korean martial art is explored. There are two conclusions: first,taekwondo is a fusion of several different sources; second, taekwondo is essentially a

martial art that focuses on foot skills, and this distinguishes it from Japan’s karate andChina’s wushu, which are primarily based on hand skills. The fact that all terms are

rendered into pure Korean words shows the essence of Korean localization. Thustaekwondo incorporates a distinct identity as a Korean martial art.

Introduction

Traditionally, oriental martial arts were regarded as both techniques of offence and

defence for the survival of a country and individuals. Martial arts were also seen as anexpression of physical and intellectual culture, distinguished from physical activities

such as playing on swings and seesaws, or participating in a game of chukguk, anancient form of Asian soccer. However, as modern civilization has developed, allsectors have been commercialized and become specialized, causing oriental martial

arts to adjust their traditional principles and take the form of competitions for profit.This conversion into sport, which started with Japanese martial arts such as judo,

kendo and karate, has extended to other martial arts – namely Korean taekwondo,Thai muay thai and Chinese wushu – but taekwondo has flourished to become the

most successful martial sport in the world. [1] According to Kukkiwon statistics, 184countries of the world are registered with the World Taekwondo Federation, showing

the fame of taekwondo around the globe. Taekwondo as a sport has become

Jeong Deok Ahn, Korea Science Academy; Yeong Kil Park, Gyeongsang University; Suk ho Hong, KoreaAdvanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST). Correspondence to: ajdhwang@lycos.co.kr

The International Journal of the History of SportVol. 26, No. 11, September 2009, 1716–1734

ISSN 0952-3367 (print)/ISSN 1743-9035 (online) � 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09523360903132956

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

recognized globally. At the same time, it has been established as Korean, securing acultural identity that provides Korea with the opportunity to be acknowledged as the

originating country of taekwondo.However, despite this undeniable success, there is constant controversy over

taekwondo’s cultural and historical identity. This arises from the fact that theformation of modern taekwondo occurred under the direct influence of Japan’s

karate, beginning during the Japanese occupation period (1910–45), whicheffectively suspended Korean culture for 36 years. Because of this, Kang Gyung

Hwa has suggested that although taekwondo is a modern martial art and despitebeing seen as a Korean martial art, it is not a traditional one. [2] Kim Yong Okalso proposed a framework for the philosophical reconstruction of taekwondo,

stating that taekwondo should be acknowledged as a martial art native to Korea,even though it does not originate from Chosun, because it underwent creative

transformations by Koreans, and is a martial sport recognized around the world.[3] These claims admit that students who studied in Japan under the Japanese

occupation brought back karate with them and operated gymnasiums under namesof ‘Tang Soo Do’, ‘Karate’, and ‘Kwonbub’, where later taekwondo was founded.

Nonetheless, they argue that modern taekwondo is a cultural heritage recreated inKorea. Another view is that Korean people’s own bare-handed martial arts, namely

‘sunbae’ from Goguryoe, ‘hwarang-do’ from Silla, ‘subak’ from Chosun, evolved intothe taekwondo we know today. [4] A similar view also states that Korean bare-handed martial arts were influenced by Japan’s karate techniques as a result of the

cultural suppression policy during the Japanese imperialistic period; however,Korean martial arts also succeeded in preserving their traditions. [5] The two

perspectives above appreciate the fact that taekwondo as a martial art is part of thesplendid culture of Korea, but they differ greatly on the origins of this art form.

Moreover, Jeong Kyeong Hwa states that mural paintings on Goguryeo’s (37 BC–668 AD) Anak Tomb no. 3 and the Geumgang Yeoksa-sang of Silla (57 BC–935 AD)

show similar positions to those used in taekkyeon’s offence and defence, and, infact, depict the movements of taekkyeon. Jeong therefore claims that the supportersof taekwondo have distorted the truth to claim the legitimacy of being the heir of

traditional Korean martial arts. [6]Still, it is wrong to think taekwondo has no cultural identity. Japanese karate has

been passed down through generations in Okinawa, as a form of the Chinese TangDynasty’s barehanded martial art called Tang Soo, until 1879 when Okinawa was

annexed by Japan. After 1929, when Funakoshi Gichin, often called the father ofmodern karate, displayed karate in the Old Martial Arts Exposition held by the

Ministry of Education, its popularity began to spread. Karate had its first gymnasiumfounded as late as 1939 by Funakoshi, 16 years before the term ‘taekwondo’ was

coined, after going through cultural transformations from a southern Chinese martialart to an Okinawan one, then finally to karate.

Okinawa, known as the place of origin of karate, is located 300 miles north of

Taiwan, 300 miles south of Japan, and 400 miles away from the East Asian continent.

Taekwondo as a Traditional Korean Martial Art 1717

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

[7] Because of these geographical features, Okinawa was largely influenced by China,Japan, and the Korean peninsula in political, cultural and religious ways; a little

influence also came from south-east Asia. [8] Apparently the Okinawan civilizationwas based on the culture of the ‘Southern’ cultural sphere, totally different from

mainland Japan, making karate a non-Japanese martial art in a strict sense. [9]Furthermore, before 1922, karate was not known to Japan, and martial arts meant

judo and kendo at that time. Training in judo and kendo was used as a discipline forJapanese troops at that time, whereas that was not the case for karate. Similarly,

although the US military government, which occupied Japan, banned the practice ofjudo and kendo after the Second World War, it did not ban karate, perceiving it asharmless dance or mere exercise. [10] These facts show that karate was not

considered by the Japanese people to be a main martial art in the same way as judoand kendo were, but rather to be a minor one. Also, the post-war period saw no

specific documents about the movements of karate, which were passed downunsystematically by oral and corporeal practices. [11] Kevin Tan notes that since

credible documents about the history of karate at that period do not exist, karate’shistory, as we now know it, has more ambiguity than clarity, and that we should

make inquiries of the origin of karate carefully and analytically. [12]As suggested above, if we judge culture by its origin, karate cannot be considered a

traditional Japanese martial art, and, indeed, most parts of Asian culture could becredited as the culture of India and China. However, karate is not considered aChinese cultural heritage, and taekwondo is definitely not considered as Japanese

culture. Nevertheless, the presence of ambiguity about taekwondo’s cultural identitysymbolizes the need to establish a new philosophical paradigm.

What is cultural identity? It may seem like a simple question, yet the problem ofidentity is one of the oldest cruces of metaphysics. For instance, if a cultural heritage

was destroyed then restored, does it share the same culture? If we borrowedforeign culture and sublimated it into our own, is it ours? What is ‘sublimating into

ours’? Books that answer these questions and discuss Korea’s cultural identityinclude those by Choi Jun Sik (1997) and Tak Seok San (2000). Especially, Takexplains identity using three criteria: presence, popularity and independence.

That is, identity is something that exists when it is not a thing of the past, buttakes place now (presence). In addition, it is appreciated by the population

(popularity) and it is accepted independently by most individuals of the culture(independence). [13]

In order to find the historical and cultural identity of taekwondo, we will tracetaekwondo’s origin first, and discuss Korea’s cultural identity, which is apparent in

taekwondo phenomenologically. To do this, we will introduce taekwondo’s culturalidentity through analysing the formation process of modern taekwondo in a

macroscopic and integrated way from four historical perspectives. This research isexpected to propose a theoretical foundation of recuperation, helping to overcomethe problems that have been caused by the absence of history and identity for

taekwondo.

1718 J. D. Ahn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

Four Perspectives on the Origins of Taekwondo

Unfortunately, since taekwondo’s early coaches provided a variety of explanationsabout its origin, a single consolidated theory in the academic world does not yet exist.

The origins of taekwondo can be highlighted by four primary perspectives: the Choi-centric theory: kwan-centric theory; karate inflow theory; and, of course, the

successive traditional martial arts theory.

Choi-centric Theory

The Choi-centric theory is the claim that Choi Hong Hi, the former president of the

International Taekwondo Federation (ITF), created taekwondo alone. This claim ismainly supported by Choi himself, along with the ITF, and is not supported by the

World Taekwondo Federation, Kukkiwon, or other organizations.Choi, in his autobiography, Taekwondo and Me, said that, determined to make a

unique martial art for Korean people, he founded a modern martial art in 1955, afternine years of tough work, beginning from March 1946. On 11 April 1955, this unique

martial art received the name ‘Taekwondo’ written in hanja (Chinese-derivedcharacters). [14] He consulted the Naming Council to make a new name which

would unite the confusing names of existing martial arts such as Tang Soo, karate andKwonbub: that organization ratified ‘Taekwon’ unanimously, because it has apronunciation similar to ‘taekkyeon’ from the history of the Goryeo Dynasty (918–

1392), and therefore is able to establish a historical connection.The first appearance of the term Taekwon emerges at this point. Prior to this, the

name Taekwon did not exist for a martial art. Then how did Choi come up with thename Taekwon? Working as a divisional commander of the 29th Infantry Division, he

made all his troops train in Tang Soo Do to make them stronger, and in September1954, at the inaugural ceremony of 1st Corps, they demonstrated Tang Soo Do, the

pride of his division, in front of President Syngman Rhee. Intrigued, after seeing this,the president remarked: ‘That is taekkyeon that has existed since ancient times in ourcountry. Taekkyeon is good, all troops should learn this.’ [15] This incident has two

important meanings for the origin and development of taekwondo. First, as Choi wastroubling himself with changing and developing karate or Tang Soo Do, which he

learned in Japan, into a Korean martial art, he received praise from the president,who called it taekkyeon, a historical martial art of Korea. This helped provoke the

name taekwon, combining tae (meaning feet) and kwon (meaning fists). Second, atthe time some core generals of the army disliked Choi for teaching his soldiers Tang

Soo Do, because he had learnt it in Japan; but after the president approved it, Choi’smartial art uickly spread throughout the army.

There is no objection to the fact that Choi Hong Hi coined the name ‘taekwondo’and started to use it. However, for the following reasons, we cannot concludedefinitely that the person who thought of the name ‘taekwondo’ was also the creator

of taekwondo itself. First, according to Choi, all of the basic skills and forms were

Taekwondo as a Traditional Korean Martial Art 1719

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

completed and spread by Choi alone. Before Choi came back from Japan and diffusedthe martial art throughout the army, other people, such as Lee Won Kuk, Jeon Sang

Sub, Hwang Gi, Yoon Byung In and Roh Byung Jik were already teaching studentsaccording to their own systems and techniques from 1944–6, and they in turn played

decisive roles in the formation of taekwondo. Their roles were too significant andinfluential to be ignored and so undermine the claim that taekwondo was formed by

one individual, Choi Hong Hi. Secondly, Choi mainly practised karate. Although hewrites that he learned rudimentary taekkyeon movements from his calligraphy teacher

Han Il Dong, the proof is very thin. Also, Choi himself recollects that calling themartial art, which he had previously been teaching under the names of Tang Soo andGong Soo (karate), as ‘taekwondo’ felt very awkward. [16] Hence, if we assume Choi

to be the originator of taekwondo, we will not be able to find any connectionsbetween Subak or taekkyeon, the ancient martial arts of the Korean peninsula, despite

the similar pronunciations. Moreover, there is a risk of losing the identity of Korea’smilitary arts and the philosophy currently associated with taekwondo. Also, it will be

harder to preserve their historical and cultural continuity. Thirdly, the historicalfoundation or evidence of official presence or use of the name taekwondo is unclear.

Although Choi claims that he received the name taekwondo written in hanja fromPresident Rhee in April 1955, there is hardly any proof that the president’s

autographic writing existed (such as a photograph, custody or time record,eyewitness etc) and Choi allegedly lost the original writing. Lee Gyeong Myeongcommented on this that the naming of taekwondo was not the creation of a new

system but a re-christening with a more appropriate name; but still, when, where,who, and how the name was formed remains unknown. [17]

Kwan-centric Theory

The point of the theory that taekwondo was formed by gymnasiums is this: the

origin of taekwondo is the five mainstay gymnasiums established by the elite wholearned martial arts in Japan and China around the time of the defeat of Japan inthe Second World War and the liberation of the Korean people, i.e. from 1944 to

1946. The Chungdokwan of Lee Won Kuk was formed in 1944, the Mudeokkwanof Hwang Gi in 1945, the Chosun Yeonmukwan of Jeon Sang Sub in 1946

(renamed as Jidokwan during the Korean War), while the YMCA martial artsdepartment of Yoon Byung In was formed in 1946 (renamed to Changmukwan

right after the Korean War), and the Songmukwan of Roh Byung Jik in 1946,thereby making the five kwans around at the dawn of taekwondo and the first-

generation elders of taekwondo.These mainstay gymnasiums have a significant meaning in the history of Korean

martial arts. Firstly, it was the first time in Korean history that systematic and officialtraining in martial arts took place in private gymnasiums founded by civilians. Priorto this, it was only accomplished through military organizations and educational

institutions. Secondly, long before the name ‘taekwondo’ was formed and technical

1720 J. D. Ahn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

systems were completed, these mainstay gymnasiums had a system of issuing ‘geup’and ‘dan’ certificates through their own performance tests. Thirdly, the founders of

these mainstay gymnasiums were teaching their martial arts under the names ‘TangSoo Do’ ‘karate’, ‘Kwonbub’, ‘Hwasu-do’ and so on, but they later played crucial roles

in creating the unified name ‘taekwondo’, founding the federation, and buildingtechnical systems. Notably, Hwang has claimed that Subak-do existed as a Korean

martial art since the Gojoseon period (2333–108 BCE) and had been imported byChina and Japan. His martial art, under the name Subak-do, still exists as a form of

martial arts different from taekwondo. [18]The kwan-centric theory is mainly based on the testimony of gym leaders, apart

from Choi, who claimed to have created taekwondo at that time, and it is one of the

established theories of taekwondo’s history that is accepted by many organizationssuch as Kukkiwon, the Korea Taekwondo Association, the World Taekwondo

Federation and the World Taekwondo Research Society. One of these testimonies isan interview with Lee Won Kuk, founder of Chungdokwan, conducted by the

Monthly Joongang in December 1994. In this interview, Lee emphasizes that hefortified karate with enhanced speed and original pumsae (fighting techniques) and

taught it under the name of ‘Tang Soo Do’, which became the taekwondo of moderntimes. He also said that Uhm Woon Kyu, Kukkiwon president, and Jhoon Rhee,

‘father of American taekwondo’, are all his direct students. The name ‘taekwondo’,although not his creation, Lee claimed, was made by his students while he was livingin Japan, in exile because of a false charge that he had conspired to assassinate

President Rhee. [19] However, regarding the kwan-centric theory as the mostcredible theory of taekwondo’s modern formation involves acknowledging the

following basic points of dispute. First of all, most of the leaders of the kwans at thebeginning learned karate; Hwang and Yoon, who learnt martial arts in Manchuria

and China, also spent time focusing on karate. Therefore it has to be admitted thatthe influence of karate in the modern formation of taekwondo was substantial.

Indeed, ample research about the initial development of taekwondo recognizes thesehistorical facts. [20] Next, if we also take these as facts, it is difficult to explain theinteraction between the initial modern taekwondo and Korean traditional martial

arts. That is, it is hard to find a correlation between Subak-hui or taekkyeon, twoexamples of traditional Korean martial arts. Although Hwang himself says that he

entered Subak-gi in 1927, [21] the elders of that time mostly deny this, and thename of Hwang’s first gymnasium was ‘Unsoobu Moohoi Tang Soo Do-bu’, although

the names of Subak-do and Tang Soo Do are both used now. [22] Hwang’s claimseems to be a personal determination to establish legitimacy through inheriting

Subak or Subyeok-chigi dating from Goryeo based on karate and lacks historicalcontext.

Judging comprehensively with all these points in mind, it is certain that the initialmainstay gymnasiums were in at the beginning of the Korean history of moderntaekwondo, but this theory seems to possess some limitations that make it difficult to

take it as the sole determining theory for the origination taekwondo.

Taekwondo as a Traditional Korean Martial Art 1721

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

Karate Inflow Theory

The karate inflow theory argues that karate, which was spread around mainland

Japan starting in 1922 by Funakoshi, is the root of taekwondo in Korea. These claimsare based on the fact that, as mentioned previously, the leaders of kwans, whocontributed greatly to the formation of modern taekwondo, and Choi, who coined

the name taekwondo, learned karate in Japan and then opened gymnasiums in Koreaaround the time of its liberation.

To understand the background of the karate inflow theory, we need to examine thesocial environments of the barehanded martial arts, from the Chosun Dynasty to the

occupation period. During the Chosun era the social climate attached importance toliterature and disdained military arts, even though many invasions occurred during

its 500 years of existence. Furthermore, the development of explosives as weaponsafter the Japanese invasions of Korea from 1592 to 1598 led to the diminution of thesignificance of Subak, a barehanded martial art, in the Chosun armed forces; rather,

soldiers started to officially learn Kwonbub, which had more systematic forms. [24]Subak, removed from the regular army, remained as the not-so-systematic Subyeok-

chigi, [25] then in the late Chosun Dynasty it appears as ‘takkyeon’, a general term forall barehanded martial arts, [26] or as a play-like form of taekkyeon concentrating on

foot skills in the Seoul and Gyunggi area. [27] The Korean people’s barehandedmartial arts decayed because of the cultural oppression policy during the Japanese

occupation period, barely remaining in existence with taekkyeon athletes in the orderof Ho Lim, Deok Gi Lim and then Han Seung Shin. In addition, Subak-hui or

taekkyeon had been passed down without any illustrations or records about the skillsor Yeonmu line, but solely through a number of individual movements. Therefore,after 36 years of Japanese imperial rule, such barehanded martial arts were virtually

eliminated. These phenomena can be easily inferred by looking at Hwang Gi’s

Table 1 Notable gymnasiums between 1944 and 1956 [23]

Gym name Founders When foundedCity oflocation Source of influence

Chungdo-kwan Lee, Won Kuk August 1944 Seoul KarateMudeok-kwan Hwang, Gi November 1945 Seoul Karate, Subak-giChosun Yeonmu-

kwan (Jido-kwan)Jeon, Sang Sub March 1946 Seoul Karate

YMCA Kwonbub-bu(Changmu-kwan)

Yoon, Byung In 1946 Seoul Kwonbub, Karate

Songmu-kwan Roh, Byung Jik 1946 Gaesung KarateOdo-kwan Choi, Hong Hi

Nam, Tae Hee1954 Gangwon Chungdokwan, Karate,

TaekkyeonJeongdo-kwan Lee, Yong Woo 1954 Seoul ChungdokwanGangdeok-kwan Hong, Jeong Pyo

Park, Chul Hee1956 Seoul YMCA Kwonbub-bu

Hanmu-kwan Lee, Gyo Yoon 1956 Seoul Chosunyeonmu-kwan

1722 J. D. Ahn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

perception of taekkyeon. In contrast, Japanese martial arts, which had beenmodernized, considered the place of practice to be sacred, as if it was a place of

religious ritual. They called it Dojo and made all pupils follow codes of conduct,making a means for mental culture in a philosophical sense, and introduced physical

education to organizations and schools. Korean students had been practising modernmartial arts which were well equipped with systemized training and a refined mental

goal; however, now they openly adopted Japanese martial arts that they thought weremodern without even knowing the relevance of Subak or taekkyeon. Even though it is

extremely difficult to access or find credible information about this, it seems that, as aresult, the modernization process of taekwondo took the form of Japanese martialarts, bringing up questions of legitimacy. [28]

The karate inflow theory is supported by taekwondo’s first-generation coaches, thekwan leaders who had founded their gymnasiums from 1944 to 1946, but the Korea

Taekwondo Association rejects this theory, bearing the ethnic tradition in mind. Inrecent years, however, Yang Jin Bang (1986), Kim Yong Ok (1990), Kang Gyeong

Hwa (2005) and Song Hyeong Seok (2005) have supported the karate inflow theorywith historical perceptions based on facts. [29]

According to Yang, Hwang said that he adopted foot skills from taekkyeon.Furthermore, Choi claims to have studied taekkyeon and Tang Soo, which were

introduced in Japan, to develop them into the taekwondo known today; however,there are no skills or terms from taekkyeon in Hwang’s and Choi’s martial arts.Rather, Yang writes that these martial arts had only minor differences of content

when compared with Japanese instructional books of karate and Tang Soo. [30] Thushe mentions modern taekwondo was created with Tang Soo migrating from Japan,

without adopting or referring to traditional martial arts or other martial arts. Suchopinions have had a fresh impact on taekwondo society and are known to have

brought the necessity of establishing taekwondo’s identity to people’s attention.Also, while Kim (1990) argued in favour of the karate inflow theory with regard to

the origin of taekwondo, he completely denied that taekwondo is related to thetraditional martial arts of the Korean peninsula, for example taekkyeon. He claimedthat taekwondo’s hyeong and karate’s kata had some similar movements, directions

and formations; both even had the same names – Pyeongan (Heian), Gongsang-gun(Kusanku), Gwangong (Kanku) – and even the names of the kwan had their origin in

Japan’s first karate gymnasium, Shotokan (Song-do-kwan), from which ‘Chung’do’kwan’ and ‘Song’mukwan’ took one character. He went further to say that we had to

admit that every martial art that we call taekwondo had their formations ‘made inJapan’, so there was no problem in finding the identity of taekwondo. This claim

threw taekwondo’s society into confusion, and the debate over the legitimacy oftaekwondo as a traditional martial art founded in Korea has not stopped since. [31]

On the other hand, Kang remarked that integration between taekkeyon andtaekwondo could not take place because modern taekwondo coaches did not evaluatetaekkyeon rightfully, and sought to establish legitimacy by claiming that only

taekwondo was the orthodox martial art. The tradition of taekwondo started, from

Taekwondo as a Traditional Korean Martial Art 1723

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

a nationalist perspective, to gain originality and orthodoxy, but this nationalisticperspective lacks scientific research. [32] Therefore, getting too hung up on Korean-

like things could lead to historical distortions. What Kang claims is that althoughmost of the martial arts that appear in current Korean society are from Japan or

China, except for taekkyeon, Korean martial arts all claim to be traditionally Korean;this we have to accept as fact, for Tang Soo takes place in the modern formation of

taekwondo, in a perspective of ‘correct reading.’ [33] Also, Song said that we have toaccept that taekwondo’s only starting-point was karate from Japan, and points out

that taekwondo has the task of gaining historical originality and proving that it hasadditional technical characteristics when compared to karate. [34]

Karate inflow is undeniably carved into the process of modern taekwondo

formation. Although this fact is solid, to jump to the conclusion of Tang Soo seems tobe making the vital fallacy of not seeing the forest for the trees. A culture takes on

new shapes after rising and falling, changing and fusing. Martial arts in the Koreanpeninsula went through a period of unilaterally accepting Japanese modern martial

cultures during the 36 years of cultural control during the colonial period. Thatperiod of rapid change and chaos in Korean society caused modern taekwondo to

completely differ from the karate of Japan. Moreover, Japanese karate itself did nothave a unified tradition and identity according to one ideology, and even now a

variety of ideologies exist, depending on the teacher. Nowadays, as the taekwondo ofKorea is settling into a definite identity, karate is not doing as well. [35] It does notseem convincing that taekwondo is an epigone of karate and originated from karate.

Continued Traditional Martial Arts Theory

Continued traditional martial arts theory argues that taekwondo was formed in

succession to traditional martial arts in the Korean peninsula such as Sunbae (thesystem of Goguryeo, a barehanded martial art that Silla’s Hwarang practised), Subak

of Goryeo, and taekkyeon of the late Chosun Dynasty. Most early taekwondodocuments emphasize this theory. For example, in the taekwondo guidebookpublished in 1972, it is written that ‘taekwondo is a native traditional martial art that

comprises of ancestors’ wisdom and spirit, and receives its history from Goguryeomural paintings in Gakjeo-chong to the Chosun Dynasty’s Muyedo Botongji and has

been ascertained to be that of a national sport’. The most recent taekwondoguidebook from Kukkiwon also writes that taekwondo succeeds the history of

Goguryeo’s ‘Sunbae’, Silla’s ‘Hwarang’, Goryeo’s ‘Subak’ and Chosun’s ‘taekkyeon’.[36] In addition, most taekwondo guidebooks, when discussing its origin, give

taekwondo legitimacy as the modern heir of traditional Korean martial arts.The claim that taekwondo has evolved from traditional martial arts was brought to

the attention of first-generation taekwondo coaches after liberation, because it was animportant issue to ensure the legitimacy of taekwondo. In fact, the person who hasthought more about this matter and acted quicker than anyone else is Choi Hong Hi.

He strongly asserted in his books Taekwondo Guidebook and Taekwondo Education

1724 J. D. Ahn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

Book that Changhun-ryoo (a taekwondo pumsae of his making) has been developedfrom taekkyeon, which is from Silla and consists mainly of foot skills, and Tang Soo,

introduced in Japan with a focus on hand skills. He continues to add that histaekwondo is the same martial art as ‘Subak’ and ‘taekkyeon’ and it has inherited the

fine heritages of its ancestors. In the 1970s, centring around Kukkiwon and KTA,attempts to globalize taekwondo through first localizing it to Korea and designating it

as a national sport were made widely and more systematically; at this time, successivetraditional martial arts theories seemed to lay the foundation for scientific support.

Research on taekwondo history by Jo Wan Mook and Chung Chan Mo showed, byuncovering the origin and developments of taekwondo before modern times, thatmodern taekwondo had historical grounds for being regarded as a traditional martial

art, [37] while Na Hyun Seong writes that although it is uncertain if Subak is a kindof martial arts thought of as the prototype of modern taekwondo, judging from its

forms, it would not be wrong to say so. [38] Also, Kim and Kim (2003 have suggestedthe link between taekwondo and taekkyeon by writing that Subak of the Three

Kingdoms Period and Goryeo, called taekkyeon in late Chosun, was developed intotaekwondo by mixing it with China’s Kwonbub, after the issuance of the Muyedo

Botongji (an illustrated manual of martial arts) in the eighteenth century, but becauseof the martial arts suppression policy and the foreign martial arts that were taken in

without care by students who studied in Japan during the Japanese occupation therewas some confusion. [39] Since taekkyeon was a martial art in which one aims to kickhigh so as to kick the other’s topknot or force them to topple over, the interpretation

is that taekwondo developed into a sport focusing on foot skills because oftaekkyeon’s influence, whereas wushu and karate are evaluated to have their focus on

hand skills.Several problems have been raised about these claims. To begin with, first-

generation coaches were only interested in securing the cultural legitimacy oftaekwondo as a traditional martial art, and did not try to study the martial art and

improve skills to build a new system for taekwondo. In other words, the lack ofcreativity in making old things new brought on the historical and philosophicaldebates. Choi claims that the Changhun-ryoo that he created is a synthesis of

taekkyeon and Tang Soo, but in its skill system takkyeon’s basic skills are nowhere tobe found; in fact, it is said to comprise only Japanese Tang Soo. Critics claim that by

calling it a traditional martial art he made it harder to understand or revive theoriginal traditional martial arts. [40] Another issue is the confusion about cultural

identity of taekwondo and taekkyeon. At present, Kukkiwon and KTA have a clear andstrong opposition to the karate inflow theory. If we look at Kukkiwon’s 2006

Taekwondo Guidebook, it finds taekwondo’s legitimacy in taekkyeon, and avoidsdiscussing the situation related to Tang Soo inflow at all. On the other hand, the

Taekkyeon Association claims that taekkyeon follows in the footsteps of Goguryeo’sSunbae, Silla’s Hwarang, Goryeo’s Subak and Chosun’s Subyeok-chigi, and that thetaekwondo party is distorting these legitimacies as if it were their own. Moreover,

Kyeong Hwa Jeong, a taekkyeon master, presents in the name of taekkyeon the same

Taekwondo as a Traditional Korean Martial Art 1725

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

historical evidence that the taekwondo side speaks of as a sound argument, makingthe situation more confusing. [41] This debate over the legitimacy of taekwondo and

taekkyeon is one of the main causes for the confusion among many students bothinside and outside Korea who are studying and practising taekwondo and have an

interest in Korean traditional martial arts.

An Investigation of Taekwondo’s Cultural Identity

The first problem that comes up when discussing taekwondo’s cultural identity is aboutthe origin of taekwondo. Because of Japanese colonial rule, Korea suffered 36 years oftraditional and cultural subjugation, and during this period the first generation or

formative coaches of modern taekwondo localized and settled on karate, which they hadmostly learned in Japan as students. As mentioned before, this became the basis for the

philosophical confusion that taekwondo is not a traditional martial art that hasinherited Korean barehanded martial arts. There is a misconception that only origins

can assure the identity of a culture. It is a wrong perception that for taekwondo toestablish a cultural identity as the traditional martial art of the Korean people it has to

start from the Korean people so that its originality as Korean culture and culturalidentity can be secured. A culture’s originality is not a matter of origin, but a matter of a

culture’s characteristics and uniqueness. [42] That means that no matter where it startedand who started it, if Koreans put in their own characteristics and uniqueness, it can betheirs. [43] If we set up place of origin as the most important yardstick for originality, the

vast portion of human civilization would be merely an imitation of the civilizations ofChina, India, Mesopotamia and Egypt. The French philosopher Paul Ricoeur and

British sociologist Anthony Giddens, who are spoken of as representative scholars thathave advocated a new cognition of identity by generalizing modernistic definitions and

postmodern thought, consider identity not as an unchanging, closed Eigen system but avariable, intricate and open system that dynamically recomposes according to time-

space events. [44]Then what culture sufficiently connotes Korean identity and is a Korea-like

cultural heritage? Tak presents three factors of ‘presence’, ‘popularity’ and

‘independence’ for that determination. Presence means that we have to start findingthe identity from investigating the phenomena that are taking place in Korea now,

not the ones of the past. Nowadays taekwondo has settled down as the most learned,beloved and enjoyed national sport of Koreans. [45] Each town has at least one

taekwondo gymnasium, and several gymnasiums are in competition near bigapartment complexes. Moreover, taekwondo is practised in numerous middle and

high schools in the country for students’ ethnic and physical promotion. It iscommon for all students in a school to train in taekwondo. From the 1950s to the

present, almost all the Korean military forces have taught taekwondo for the trainingof their soldiers. This popular and widespread phenomenon seems to meet therequired criteria of presence and popularity for taekwondo to have an identity as a

national martial art that represents Koreans.

1726 J. D. Ahn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

Independence, another important standard, describes the attitude and conscious-ness towards that phenomenon. This can be investigated from two perspectives: With

what attitude and consciousness do Koreans see taekwondo? And how much ofKorean cultural mentality is dissolved into taekwondo? First, as a straightforward

example that speaks for Koreans’ attitude and consciousness, in 2002, when theMinistry of Culture and Tourism, based on experts’ opinions and surveys of public

opinion, picked ten cultural images that represent Korea best, taekwondo wasselected along with kimchi and Korean dress. This shows that people consider

taekwondo as the most popular traditional martial art and one that speaks fortheKorean people’s dynamic and strong qualities, rather than Ssireum, taekkyeon,archery and royal court martial arts.

Next, to address the question of how much of Korea’s mental and culturalcharacteristics, along with nature, is present in taekwondo, we will have to examine to

what extent the cultural images of Korea, which represent most Koreans’ mentality,thoughts and behaviours, are involved in taekwondo.

The first of the essential Korea-like images inherent in taekwondo are the termsthat are all native to Korea. For instance, the Kuk-ki Taekwondo textbook (2006, a

very creditable textbook for its field, shows that most movements use an unchangedform of the original Korean name, for example: naranhiseogi, juchumseogi,

hakdariseogi and kkeokki. Although names of the pumsae are in hanja, such astaeguk, goryeo, geumgang, taebaek, pyeongwon and sipsu, these words have been usedby Koreans for over a thousand years, and as a result, Koreans are familiar with them,

and the official command words use Korean tongue, as in ‘charyeot’, ‘gallyeo’, ‘baro’,‘swieo’ and ‘geuman’, reflecting cultural subjectivity. A second piece of evidence is

that taekwondo mirrors the Koreans’ fighting qualities of placing great value on footskills. One of the Korean barehanded martial arts’ characteristics is using one’s feet

more frequently than the hands, which can be inferred from the fact that taekkyeonwas a sport that aims to kick the topknot with feet. The fact that taekwondo, unlike

karate, hapkido or kung fu, has established itself as a martial arts sport that focuses onfoot skills is not irrelevant to the characteristics of Korean barehanded martial arts. Athird area of investigation is the colours of the fighters’ trunk protectors, blue and

red, which resemble those of the Korean people’s favourite symbolic colours – thecolours of five directions. This was the first use of colour in a martial sport, setting an

original and creative example. Moreover, the mentality in the organization ofpumsaes is evaluated to constitute systems that have interiorized the taeguk doctrine

and orthodox ideas of Confucianism, Buddhism and Zen sects, which are theideologies that represent the Korean people’s mental culture. [46]

Conclusion

Records about the Korean people’s barehanded martial arts, unfortunately, areidentified only as late as 1170 CE, from the Goryeo period. It is certain that before,

during the Three Kingdoms period of Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla, barehanded

Taekwondo as a Traditional Korean Martial Art 1727

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

martial arts existed, but as an analogical inference from interpretations of silhouettesof martial art movements drawn in earthenware or tomb murals. The documents of

the Korean people from the Three Kingdoms period are lamentably notcontemporary ones. The two most popular ones are Samguk Sagi (1145) [47] and

Samguk Yusa (1283) [48] which were actually written during the later Goryeo period.It is presumed that the history books written in the days of Goguryeo, Baekje, and

Silla were incinerated to ashes in buildings burnt in time of war.Taekwondo is the pride of Korean culture, and a martial art sport enjoyed by

people all around the world. It is also true that, although Koreans feel proud andprivileged about taekwondo, because of a lack of certainty over its origin and identity,there is some confusion. We need to see both the spread of karate, from the opening

of the first karate gymnasium in mainland Japan (1939) up to the 1960s, thenexpanded in the United States by Yeong-ui Choe, and that of taekwondo, which

started to globalize in the 1970s after establishing itself as a sport, quickly becomingmore popular than karate, as a contemporary process of recent history. [49] Despite

this need to escape from the narrow trap of nationalism that only focuses on itsorigin, still the controversies over taekwondo’s identity are being raised. [50]

Researchers have highlighted the origins of taekwondo from four perspectives toinvestigate taekwondo’s cultural identity. Each of the perspectives contains not only

historical evidence but also blind spots or logical leaps. Firstly, the theory oftaekwondo originating from Choi Hong Hi, despite the clear fact that the nametaekwondo was created by him, is controversial in some aspects. As he mentions

himself, the martial arts that he learned are definitely karate. If Choi is seen as theorigin of taekwondo, there would be limited pride in taekwondo as a Korean

traditional martial art and in preserving the historical cultural continuity. The kwan-centric theory is correct about the process of unification, but it is difficult to find

consistent and pervasive evidence that early gym leaders of kwans put their forcestogether and recreated taekwondo. That is, the critics’ reproach is that no kwan

leaders tried to find an agreement on movements, technical terms and forms ofpumsae, but rather clung to each movement style to the end, and continued to followkarate’s forms and shapes. Notably, Hwang pieced together ‘Subak-do’ independently

and is now insisting that his martial art is the heir to the roots of Korean traditionalarts. The karate inflow theory is accurate when observed in a historical context, but it

is hard to accept that modern taekwondo originated from what only started to spreadaround Korea in the late 1940s, because it is a perception too confined and

disconnected. The reason is that the history of Korean barehanded martial arts,estimated to be thousands of years old, is too prolonged and deep. Finally, the

successive traditional martial arts theory, supported as the established theory byKukkiwon, KTA, the Ministry of Culture and Sports and Tourism of Korea, does not

even mention the inflow of karate during the Japanese occupation. It does, however,consistently assert self-centred opinions that only emphasize taekwondo as a nationalsport of Korea. This has caused the theory to face controversy over its legitimacy

from taekkyeon organizations, and criticisms that it has caused confusion of identity

1728 J. D. Ahn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

to scholars. For example, Kim claimed that taekwondo was developed by Koreans tostrengthen their culture, but at the same time, since he was not able to explain the

intrinsic interests and the kinetic principles of its movements, it is hard to classifytaekwondo as a traditional martial art. [51] Hence we researchers have arranged the

origins of taekwondo into a synthetic point of view in Table 2.Taekwondo therefore went through a fusion combining Choi, the karate inflow

period of cultural separation during the Japanese occupation, the first kwan leadersand traditional Korean martial arts. This process of disorder and cultural

reproduction continued until 1955, when the official name ‘taekwon’ was approved.In 1959 the ‘Korea Taekwondo Association’ was founded, and taekwondo was

Table 2 Taekwondo’s origin and forming process

Taekwondo as a Traditional Korean Martial Art 1729

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

modified as a Korean barehanded martial art. Whether taekwondo has evolved into amartial art that conserves the identity of Korean traditional martial art has been

discussed against the criteria of presence, popularity and independence. Presence andpopularity mean focusing more on the present state from a phenomenological

perspective, rather than the origin or beginning of a culture, to determine an identity.In other words, it is based on the fact that culture keeps evolving and is continuously

forming a new identity. Additionally, independence is an approach as to how muchKorean mentality and behaviour has influenced the organization and movement

techniques of taekwondo. By summing up these discussions, we can conclude asfollows.

First, modern taekwondo has to be seen as a recreation of a modern civilization that,

in its origins, has been affected together by Choi Hong Hi, karate, kwans and traditionalKorean barehanded martial arts. Certainly, each of the four origins has its limitations if

one tries to consider it as the sole origin of taekwondo, but it is certain that all of themhave made major contributions to the formation of taekwondo. Therefore it is asserted

that there needs to be a single theory that is a fusion of these four theories and, throughfurther research, we can nullify the protest of opposing theories.

Second, taekwondo is a martial art sport enjoyed not only by Koreans but by peopleall over the world. This sufficiently fulfils the characteristics of presence and popularity,

factors of cultural identity. Moreover, it has essentially inherited and developedmovements from Korean barehanded martial arts, which lay stress on foot skills. Thisdistinguishes it from Japan’s karate and China’s wushu, which are based on hand skills.

Furthermore, the trunk, groin protectors and helmets are blended remarkably withtaegeuk patterns and the traditional ‘colours of five directions’. All technical terms being

written using pure Korean words shows the essence of Korean localization.Now taekwondo has been clearly identified as a traditional Korean martial art that

has secured the most exciting and stable modes of sport and has grown into the mostglobalized of all the cultural heritages of Korea. Moreover, it continues to evolve to

this day. Tradition is not isolated or stagnating, but rather it is something that iscontinuously recreated and transformed in changing socio-cultural environments.The culture of taekwondo as a traditional martial art has been developing as it

adopted and combined a variety of characteristics. Therefore, Koreans shouldendeavour, along with trying to overcome an exclusive nationalism as to taekwondo’s

country of origin, to build a new paradigm of establishing an identity as amulticultural and global martial art sport that captures the uniqueness and values of

each locale and creates a suitable code of conduct and style.

Notes

[1] ‘Karate’ is a Japanese word rendered as gong soo do in Korean, and both words basically havethe same meaning. In this article only the term ‘karate’ is used. Also, the Korean word TangSoo Do, literally Tang Hand, is the word for karate in Okinawa.

[2] Kang, ‘The Study of Modern Taekwondo’s Identity’, 4.

1730 J. D. Ahn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

[3] Kim, Principles Governing the Construction of the Philosophy of Taekwondo, 29.[4] The term ‘Subak’ is seen first in China’s Book of Han, Yiwenzhi, chapter byungseobu,

byunggigyo, where a book on martial arts called ‘Subak six parts’ is introduced, and can also beseen in the records from year Janggong 12 (Spring and Autumn Annals), vol. 8. ‘TheCommentary of Gongyang’, a book from the Eastern Zhou dynasty (768–662 BCE), specificallysays ‘Jangman, a subject of Gungong, was offended and so twisted Mingong’s neck withSubak’. A description of Subak in Chinese documents appears limited to the Qin, Han, andSong dynasties. It is explained in Lim Baek Won’s ‘Ancient History of Chinese PhysicalEducation’ how Subak was addressed and how it changed in China. In Korean documents,books on Goryeo such as ‘Goryeo History’ and ‘Goryeo History Jeolyo’ and Siloks of the earlyChosun dynasty, and many books ever since those mentions Subak, including Jaemulbo(1798). Given that Koreans and Chinese have interacted in many cultural ways, it is possiblethat Koreans imported the term from China, but it is the standard view to think that ChineseSubak and Korean Subak are completely different.

[5] Kim and Gwack, ‘A Study for the Philosophical Thesis of Taekwondo Spirits’; Kim and Kim,‘The Historical Comparative of Korean Taekwondo and Japanese Karate’; Kim and Choi, ‘AComparative Study on the Old History of Taekkyon and Taekwondo’; Korea TaekwondoAssociation, Taekwondo Textbook.

[6] Jeong, Principles of Taekkyeon, 65.[7] ‘Ryukyu Islands’, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2009.[8] Kerr, Okinawa; Lebra, Okinawa Religion, as cited by Tan, ‘Constructing a Martial Tradition’.[9] Kim, Principles Governing the Construction of the Philosophy of Taekwondo, 101.

[10] Draeger and Smith, Asian Fighting Arts.[11] Haines, Karate History and Traditions.[12] Tan, ‘Constructing a Martial Tradition’.[13] Tak, Identity of Korea, 103–17.[14] Choi, Taekwondo and Me, vol. 1, 343.[15] Taek-kkyeon: another expression of taekkyeon. In Jaemulbo (Lee, 1798) or Haedong Jukji

(Choi, 1925) it is shown as takkyeon, in Ahn, Heroic Stories of Chosun Warriors, as taekkyeon;in Korea Games (Culin, 1895) as taekkyeon-hagi (literally doing taekkyeon); in Kim Taek-soo’s(1935 ‘Bak Taryeong’ [Five Comprehensive Songs] as chakkyeon, and in Grand Dictionary ofOur Language (1938 as gyeollyeon-taekkyeon. After being proclaimed No. 76 of ImportantIntangible Cultural Properties in June 1983 as ‘taekkyeon’, the various names were unified.Now taekkyeon organizations have branched out into the Preservation of Original KoreanTaekgyeon Association, the Korea Taekkyon Association, the Kyulun Taekkyun Association andthe Korean Traditional Taekkyeon Association among others, and these organizations are in astruggle for leadership.

[16] Choi, Taekwondo and Me, vol. 1, 36 and 347.[17] Lee, Taekwondo’s Yesterday and Today, 43.[18] Hwang, Subak-do Encyclopaedia, 47.[19] Kwon, ‘Originator of Taekwondo Driven Out by his Country’.[20] Yang, ‘A Study on the Development Process of Modern Korean Taekwondo’; Kim, Principles

Governing the Construction of the Philosophy of Taekwondo; Kang, ‘The Study of ModernTaekwondo’s Identity’.

[21] Hwang, Subak-do Encyclopaedia, 9.[22] Kang and Lee, The History of Our Taekwondo, 40.[23] Ibid., 34–53.[24] Heo, History of Our Martial Arts Customs From Old Paintings, 245.[25] Choi, Haedongjukji.[26] Ibid. See also Jaemulbo: Manmulbo by M.Y. Lee.

Taekwondo as a Traditional Korean Martial Art 1731

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

[27] Ahn, Heroic Stories of Chosun Warriors.[28] Yang, ‘A Study on the Development Process of Modern Korean Taekwondo’.[29] Yang, ‘A Study on the Development Process of Modern Korean Taekwondo’; Kim, Principles

Governing the Construction of the Philosophy of Taekwondo, 65–70; Song, Lecture onTaekwondo’s History; Kang, ‘The Study of Modern Taekwondo’s Identity-Focused on theHistory and Culture of Korean Martial Arts’.

[30] Ohya, Ways to Learn Karate; Kanken, Karate.[31] Kim, Principles Governing the Construction of the Philosophy of Taekwondo, 70.[32] Kang, ‘The Study of Modern Taekwondo’s Identity’, 68.[33] Ibid., 67.[34] Song, Lecture on Taekwondo’s History, 215.[35] Lee, Modern Taekwondo History and New Controversies, 95.[36] Kukkiwon , Kuk-Ki Taekwondo Textbook (rev. edn).[37] Jo, ‘Research of Taekwondo History’, 1–3; Chung, Korean Taekwondo History; ‘A Study of

Taekwon (Subak) in the Koryo Dynasty, 21–8.[38] Na, ‘The Study of the History of Korean Physical Education’.[39] Kim and Kim, ‘The Historical Comparative of Korean Taekwondo and Japanese Karate’.[40] Yang, ‘A Study on the Development Process of Modern Korean Taekwondo’.[41] Jeong, Principles of Taekkyeon, 64.[42] Jo, Searching for Korean Thoughts, 275.[43] Tak, Identity of Korea, 86.[44] Ricoeur, Soi-meme comme un autre, 167–75; Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity, 186–98.[45] Ibid.[46] Lee, Modern Taekwondo History and New Controversies, 113.[47] Samguk Sagi [‘Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms’], the first history book to be written by

officials, was edited by Kim Bu-sik along with 11 scholars, focusing on the political rise andfall of Silla, Goguryeo and Baekje in 1125 (Goryeo period), commissioned by King Injong.This work comprises nine books, 50 volumes. This book is regarded as the most valuablehistory book for carrying out research into Korean history, including the unified Silla period.

[48] Samguk Yusa [‘Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms’] is a history book edited by the highBuddhist monk Ilyeon in 1281 (late Goryeo). Three volumes (volumes 3–5) were handeddown, collectively as one book, consisting of 107 chapters and proclaimed a national treasure.Many translations are available.

[49] Kim, Principles Governing the Construction of the Philosophy of Taekwondo.[50] Kang, ‘The Study of Modern Taekwondo’s Identity’.[51] Kim, Korean Traditional Martial Art of Physical Education’s Philosophy, 255.

References

Ahn, Hwak. Heroic Stories of Chosun Warriors, rev. edn. [in Korean]. Andong, Korea: KoreanStudies Advancement Center, 1919.

Choi, Hong Hi. Taekwondo Guidebook [in Korean]. Seoul: Korea: Seonghwa Culture, 1966.Choi, Hong Hi. Taekwondo Education Book [in Korean]. Seoul, Korea: Jeongyeon-sa, 1972.Choi, Hong Hi. Taekwondo and Me, vol. 1: Land of Ordeals, My Homeland [in Korean]. Seoul,

Korea: Daoom, 2000.Choi, Joon Sik. Do Koreans Have Culture [in Korean]. Paju, Korea: Sakyejul, 1997.Choi, Yeong Nyeon. Haedongjukji [in Korean]. Seoul, Korea: Janghak-sa, 1925.Chung, Chan Mo. Korean Taekwondo History (Taekwondo Teaching Materials) [in Korean]. Seoul,

Korea: Ministry of Culture and Education, 1975.

1732 J. D. Ahn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

Chung, Chan Mo. ‘A Study of Taekwon (Subak) in the Koryo Dynasty’ [in Korean]. Journal of thePhysical Education Research Institute of Seoul University 2, no. 2, (1981): 21–8.

Cullin, Stewart. Korean Games. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1895.Draeger, D.F. and R.W. Smith. Asian Fighting Arts. Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1969.Giddens, A. Modernity and Self-identity [in Korean], trans. Gi Don Kweon: Seoul: Saemeulgeul,

1997 [1991].Haines, B.A. Karate History and Traditions. Rutland, VT, and Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle, 1995.Heo, In Ok. History of Our Martial Arts Customs From Old Paintings [in Korean]. Seoul, Korea:

Pureun Yeoksa, 2005.Hwang, Gi. Subak-do Encyclopaedia [in Korean]. Daegu, Korea: Sam Gwang, 1970.Jeong, Kyeong Hwa. Principles of Taekkyeon [in Korean]. Seoul, Korea: Bokyung Culture, 2002.Jo, Ji Hoon. Searching for Korean Thoughts [in Korean]. Paju, Korea: Nanam, 1996.Jo, Wan Mook. ‘Research of Taekwondo History’ [in Korean]. Taekwondo Monthly (Korea

Taekwondo Association)l (1971): 1–3.Kang, Gyeong Hwa. ‘The Study of Modern Taekwondo’s Identity – Focused on the History and

Culture of Korean Martial Arts’ [in Korean]. Unpublished master’s thesis, ChangwonUniversity Department of Philosophy, South Gyeongsang Province, 2005.

Kang, Won Sik, and Gyeong Myeong Lee. The History of Our Taekwondo [in Korean]. Seoul, Korea:Sang-a book Project, 2002.

Kanken, Toyama. Karate [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Tsuru Shobo, 1958.Kerr, G.H. Okinawa: The History of an Island People. Rutland, VT, and Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1965.Kim, Bu Chan. Korean Traditional Martial Art of Physical Education’s Philosophy [in Korean].

Jeonju, Korea: Sin-A, 2006.Kim, Gyeong Ji and J.H. Gwack. ‘A Study for the Philosophical Thesis of Taekwondo Spirits’ [in

Korean]. Journal of Physical Education and Science (University of Gyeong Hee Institute ofSocial-Physical Education) 11 (1998): 27–43.

Kim, Gil Pyeong and Geun Ki Choi. ‘A Comparative Study on the Old History of Taekkyonand Taekwondo’ [in Korean]. The Korean Journal of Physical Education 42, no. 5, (2003): 3–10.

Kim, Joo Hoon and Gil Pyeong Kim. ‘The Historical Comparative of Korean Taekwondo andJapanese Karate’ [in Korean]. Journal of Sport and Leisure Studies 19 (2003): 51–61.

Kim, Yong Ok. Principles Governing the Construction of the Philosophy of Taekwondo [in Korean].Seoul, Korea: Tong Na-mu, 1990.

Korea Taekwondo Association. Taekwondo Textbook (Pumsae) [in Korean]. Seoul, Korea: Sam-il, 1975.Kukkiwon. Kuk-Ki Taekwondo Textbook [in Korean]. Seoul, Korea: O-Sung, 1987.Kukkiwon. Kuk-Ki Taekwondo Textbook, rev. edn. [in Korean]. Seoul, Korea: O-Sung, 2006.Kwon, Tae Dong. ‘Originator of Taekwondo Driven Out by His Country Lee Won Kuk’ [in

Korean]. Joongang Monthly, 1 Dec. 1994: 312–25.Lebra, William P. Okinawa Religion: Belief, Ritual and Social Structure. Honolulu, HI: University of

Hawaii Press, 1966.Lee, Chang Hoo. Modern Taekwondo History and New Controversies [in Korean]. Seoul, Korea:

Sang-A, 2003.Lee, Gyeong Myeong. Taekwondo’s Yesterday and Today: Searching for Taekwondo Culture’s Origin

[in Korean]. Paju, Korea: Omungak, 2002.Lee, Man Yeong. Jaemulbo: Manmulbo. Seoul, 1798.Na, Hyeon Seong. ‘The Study of the History of Korean Physical Education’ [in Korean].

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kyeong Hee University, Seoul, 1974.Ohya, Reikichi. Ways to Learn Karate [in Japanese]. Tokyo: Golden Garden Co., 1957.Ricoeur, Paul. Soi-meme comme un autre [in Korean], trans. Woong Kwon Kim. Seoul:

Dongmoonseon, 2006 [1990].

Taekwondo as a Traditional Korean Martial Art 1733

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014

Song, Hyeong Seok. Lecture on Taekwondo’s History [in Korean]. Daegu, Korea: Lee-Mun, 2005.Tan, Kevin S.Y. ‘Constructing a Martial Tradition: Rethinking a Popular History of Karate-Dou’.

Journal of Sport & Social Issues 28, no. 2, (2004): 169–92.Tak, Seok San. Identity of Korea [in Korean]. Seoul, Korea: Chaek Saesang, 2000.Yang, Jin Bang. ‘A Study on the Development Process of Modern Korean Taekwondo after

Liberation and its Historical Significance’ [in Korean]. Unpublished master’s thesis, SeoulUniversity, 1986.

1734 J. D. Ahn et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

aast

rich

t] a

t 07:

58 3

0 Ju

ne 2

014