Hohen Soken Hakutsuru

[P.A.L]

Finally watched a full white crane kata by Hohen Soken. there is a clip on youtube showing him doing pieces of a Hakutsuru kata which is mostly known as Hakutsuru Dai. this new one was different less complicated and pretty simple but complete. I am amazed by so much controversy around Matsumura Seito Shorin Ryu. I guess the direct link between Hohen Soken and Mtsumura ( although they never met) fascinates people. I personally love to know if there are any direct students of Hohen Soken in Argentina and how they do shorin ryu katas. I have searched a lot but never found anything solid on the net.

[MatsuShinshii]

Finally watched a full white crane kata by Hohen Soken. there is a clip on youtube showing him doing pieces of a Hakutsuru kata which is mostly known as Hakutsuru Dai. this new one was different less complicated and pretty simple but complete. I am amazed by so much controversy around Matsumura Seito Shorin Ryu. I guess the direct link between Hohen Soken and Mtsumura ( although they never met) fascinates people. I personally love to know if there are any direct students of Hohen Soken in Argentina and how they do shorin ryu katas. I have searched a lot but never found anything solid on the net.

Hohan Soken O'Shinshii's lineage comes by way of Matsumura Sokon to Matsumura Nabe to him. Having said this, and even though I am a practitioner, I must state that Hohan Soken O'Shinshii studied under others as well.

It pains me to say this as a practitioner of the art due to the constant controversy on the web and those that seek to tear down the art and Hohan Soken's credibility, but being honest and based on my own personal research and that of others (that provide documentation rather than speculation); Hohan Soken O'Shinshii taught Kata that Matsumura did not pass down. Conversely there are Kata that historically we know Matsumura knew/passed down that are not taught by Hohan Soken O'Shinshii. Based on the Kata that he taught that Matsumura did not teach my best guess is he studied under Itosu or one of Itosu's students. I do not say this to light addition fires for the skeptics out there on the web but merely to be honest in what I have found.

But again I have no real facts to support this PERSONAL theory.

The controversy that is most common by so called experts out there lurking on the web proclaim themselves as experts and claiming to have knowledge of this and that without being able to provide any substantial proof one way or the other is that of the Hakutsuru Kata.

I'm a practitioner and can honestly say that the largest controversy that I have come accross more times than not concerns the Hakutsuru Kata. I will admit that I have issues with the fact that the Kata is named with the Japanese pronunciation rather than the Uchinaguchi (Hogan) or Chinese pronunciation. However since I was not alive nor was I born in Okinawa nor was I born with the name Matsumura, I can not comment with facts, just like the rest of the so called experts out there. Is it possible that the name was changed later by Nabe or Soken? Absolutely.

However some seem to think that the only possible explanation is that Hohan Soken learned it from Gogenki. Well if this is true where is the documentation to prove it? Where are the so called facts to support this claim? We know that Matsumura studied under Bai He Quan masters so why is it not probable that he learned Hsing from them and created this Kata from those Hsing?

The experts point to the fact that he did not teach it to Itosu or any of his other students. Is this a good fact to base history on? Well if you look into the common practice back then of keeping the families secrets for the family and teaching others a washed down version then yes it makes perfect sense.

For some reason the so called experts dismiss this convenient fact and tend to push this to the foreground while pushing the Gogenki theory.

The whole Gogenki theory is based on the fact that Hakutsuru resembles or has similarities with the other Kata taught by Gogenki. If you bother to look at these other Kata they all have some similarities. Does that mean they are all come from the same person? Or could it be possible that because there are similar techniques within the art of Bai He Quan that it's coincidence that the Kata are somewhat similar? Furthermore could it be remotely possible that the same or similar Hsing was taught to Matsumura and then later to Gogenki?

Prove it. Any of it. Without documentation it's impossible. Again back to speculation, theories and personal opinion.

To me there is no controversy. There are facts and there are personal opinions and theories. I choose to believe the history that is passed down until I find facts to support a different history.

What seems so wrong to me is the domino effect. One person reads something on the web and takes it as fact and then passes it along as such. Another reads both and takes it as fact because two people are saying the same thing and so on and so on.

Just because someone with a," pedigree, title, rank", says something on the web does not make it fact. I really wish more people would do their own research rather than blindly following so called experts just because they have a recognizable name and have whatever title/rank.

Let me end with this; I find it funny that so many other instructors of the art have studied under other teachers and have incorporated the Kata from those arts into theirs but nothing is controversial about them or their arts. If fact many of the so called experts study these arts that are basically hybrids.

The you have Hohan Soken O'Shinshii. I agree and am of the opinion that he did not just study under Matsumura Nabe. Whether he actually studied under others of picked up Kata really doesn't matter. In the end I feel he did what most did. Incorporate what they liked into their art.

This practice goes back to the beginning. First there was Ti and Tegumi, then they incorporated Muay Boran, Then Quan Fa and the elements of Jiao Li, Chin Na, Dim Mak, Dishu and Gao Quan, and so on. The Okinawan people are martial arts sponges that soak up anything useful. So why is it a controversy for one particular man and one particular art?

Maybe these so called experts should look long and hard in the mirror before throwing stones. They might just find out their own lineage is less than pure.

Do I think that the art it 100% pure as Matsumura passed it down? In methodology, yes. Has Kata been added to the art? IMHO yes. Have Kata been taken out of the art? Again IMHO yes. Do we practice the same Kata in our branch of the art? No. We choose to not teach the Itosu type Kata and instead teach what we feel was the Kata that Matsumura knew and/or passed down. Does it matter one way or the other. IMHO NO!

There's my 2 cents.

[DaveB]

Hello, I have heard the suggestion that Okinawans included Mauy Born once before. Can you explain from where this idea comes please?

[Spartacus Maximus]

It might not be documented fact but considering the history of Okinawa it is highly plausible that Okinwans had the opportunity to learn or at least be exposed to martial arts such as Muay Boran.

Okinawans were and have always been a nation of sailors and fishermen. Wealthy and noble Okinawans who also happen to be the class of people who could train in martial arts, had many opportunities to travel. Ryukyuan ships sailed to all ports of China, Japan and as far as Indonesia and possibly even India.

It is well known and documented that Ryukyu had very intimate diplomatic and political ties to China. Siam and Annam(the region where Muay Boran originates) are not far off. It is likely similar exchanges took place with those countries at some point.

[OneKickWonder]

It might not be documented fact but considering the history of Okinawa it is highly plausible that Okinwans had the opportunity to learn or at least be exposed to martial arts such as Muay Boran.

Okinawans were and have always been a nation of sailors and fishermen. Wealthy and noble Okinawans who also happen to be the class of people who could train in martial arts, had many opportunities to travel. Ryukyuan ships sailed to all ports of China, Japan and as far as Indonesia and possibly even India.

It is well known and documented that Ryukyu had very intimate diplomatic and political ties to China. Siam and Annam(the region where Muay Boran originates) are not far off. It is likely similar exchanges took place with those countries at some point.

This is a solid post. And does well to highlight that when considering lineage, sadly, we must also consider politics.

Having direct, documented ties to Okinawa, gives a style a big load of credibility points. But Okinawa is now (and has for a long time been) part of Japan. In fairly recent history, Japan went through a bit of an identity crisis. Basically the Japanese tried to claim ownership and origin of everything. Gichin Funakoshi for example knew he'd never succeed in promoting an Okinawan martial art in Japan, let alone a mixed system with influences from China and elsewhere, so tang te (China hand) became kara te, and it was all packaged up neatly as a Japanese system. Completely separate to that, but as an example of what I'm on about, during the Japanese occupation of Korea, they tried to eradicate Korean culture and heritage, including its martial arts.

So the history books would largely paint a picture of Japanese influence and origin. Okinawa gets in there because Okinawa is part of Japan and that's all well documented, even in Japanese official records. The Chinese influence is recorded and acknowledged to a lesser extent, but only because martial artists of the day wrote of it. It's less well documented in 'official' records. And anything further afield is kind of pieced together by scholars largely based on indirect evidence.

But let's further complicate matters. We talk of the Chinese influence. But where did the Chinese martial arts come from? I find it very hard to believe that after centuries of international trade in the region, and fighting, that the Chinese didn't take influence from the Japanese, Okinawans, Siamese etc. In fact there is a well recognised but highly dubious legend of a man named Boddidharma that brought martial arts to China from India. The story itself is full of holes but the fact that such a legend exists is strong evidence for widespread mixing of styles between regions.

So I think the whole lineage thing and controversy around it, is at least partially an issue of propaganda. There's one thing I think we can be sure of when deciding whether or not our respective late grandmasters were credible. That is that whatever happened in the past, our styles must be half decent. The fact that the style exists after being peer reviewed by multiple generations of students must surely say that it's OK.

[Hoshin]

Having direct, documented ties to Okinawa, gives a style a big load of credibility points. But Okinawa is now (and has for a long time been) part of Japan. In fairly recent history, Japan went through a bit of an identity crisis. Basically the Japanese tried to claim ownership and origin of everything. Gichin Funakoshi for example knew he'd never succeed in promoting an Okinawan martial art in Japan, let alone a mixed system with influences from China and elsewhere, so tang te (China hand) became kara te, and it was all packaged up neatly as a Japanese system. Completely separate to that, but as an example of what I'm on about, during the Japanese occupation of Korea, they tried to eradicate Korean culture and heritage, including its martial arts.

So the history books would largely paint a picture of Japanese influence and origin. Okinawa gets in there because Okinawa is part of Japan and that's all well documented, even in Japanese official records. The Chinese influence is recorded and acknowledged to a lesser extent, but only because martial artists of the day wrote of it. It's less well documented in 'official' records. And anything further afield is kind of pieced together by scholars largely based on indirect evidence.

But let's further complicate matters. We talk of the Chinese influence. But where did the Chinese martial arts come from? I find it very hard to believe that after centuries of international trade in the region, and fighting, that the Chinese didn't take influence from the Japanese, Okinawans, Siamese etc. In fact there is a well recognised but highly dubious legend of a man named Boddidharma that brought martial arts to China from India. The story itself is full of holes but the fact that such a legend exists is strong evidence for widespread mixing of styles between regions.

So I think the whole lineage thing and controversy around it, is at least partially an issue of propaganda. There's one thing I think we can be sure of when deciding whether or not our respective late grandmasters were credible. That is that whatever happened in the past, our styles must be half decent. The fact that the style exists after being peer reviewed by multiple generations of students must surely say that it's OK.

in your middle paragraph you mention that there is a Chinese influence on Okinawan karate but only acknowledged to a lessor extent?? i am not sure what you mean. did i understand you correctly?

there is a direct link to the Chinese and it is very obvious one. its not a hidden fact today. it was down played during WWII but its never been a secret.

i find it very unlikely that there is a Thailand influence to Okinawan karate.

as far as where did Chinese kung-fu come from..well there is a theory that it traveled over the silk road from India. that the Budhidharma legend was probably many people traveling over many years. the Chinese leaned from the Indian fighting styles which had Yoga like forms. In turn it is believed that the Indian culture picked up combative fighting from the Greeks. Alexander the Great and his men who practiced Pankration when not in battle made it all the way to the edge of India. it is well known that many of his men stayed and the Greeks had a practice of assimilation into the other cultures rather than dictate its own culture upon those that it conquered. while many laugh and mock at this idea it is the most probable lineage.

[OneKickWonder]

Having direct, documented ties to Okinawa, gives a style a big load of credibility points. But Okinawa is now (and has for a long time been) part of Japan. In fairly recent history, Japan went through a bit of an identity crisis. Basically the Japanese tried to claim ownership and origin of everything. Gichin Funakoshi for example knew he'd never succeed in promoting an Okinawan martial art in Japan, let alone a mixed system with influences from China and elsewhere, so tang te (China hand) became kara te, and it was all packaged up neatly as a Japanese system. Completely separate to that, but as an example of what I'm on about, during the Japanese occupation of Korea, they tried to eradicate Korean culture and heritage, including its martial arts.

So the history books would largely paint a picture of Japanese influence and origin. Okinawa gets in there because Okinawa is part of Japan and that's all well documented, even in Japanese official records. The Chinese influence is recorded and acknowledged to a lesser extent, but only because martial artists of the day wrote of it. It's less well documented in 'official' records. And anything further afield is kind of pieced together by scholars largely based on indirect evidence.

But let's further complicate matters. We talk of the Chinese influence. But where did the Chinese martial arts come from? I find it very hard to believe that after centuries of international trade in the region, and fighting, that the Chinese didn't take influence from the Japanese, Okinawans, Siamese etc. In fact there is a well recognised but highly dubious legend of a man named Boddidharma that brought martial arts to China from India. The story itself is full of holes but the fact that such a legend exists is strong evidence for widespread mixing of styles between regions.

So I think the whole lineage thing and controversy around it, is at least partially an issue of propaganda. There's one thing I think we can be sure of when deciding whether or not our respective late grandmasters were credible. That is that whatever happened in the past, our styles must be half decent. The fact that the style exists after being peer reviewed by multiple generations of students must surely say that it's OK.

in your middle paragraph you mention that there is a Chinese influence on Okinawan karate but only acknowledged to a lessor extent?? i am not sure what you mean. did i understand you correctly?

there is a direct link to the Chinese and it is very obvious one. its not a hidden fact today. it was down played during WWII but its never been a secret.

Yep. I said that.

[DaveB]

Having direct, documented ties to Okinawa, gives a style a big load of credibility points. But Okinawa is now (and has for a long time been) part of Japan. In fairly recent history, Japan went through a bit of an identity crisis. Basically the Japanese tried to claim ownership and origin of everything. Gichin Funakoshi for example knew he'd never succeed in promoting an Okinawan martial art in Japan, let alone a mixed system with influences from China and elsewhere, so tang te (China hand) became kara te, and it was all packaged up neatly as a Japanese system. Completely separate to that, but as an example of what I'm on about, during the Japanese occupation of Korea, they tried to eradicate Korean culture and heritage, including its martial arts.

So the history books would largely paint a picture of Japanese influence and origin. Okinawa gets in there because Okinawa is part of Japan and that's all well documented, even in Japanese official records. The Chinese influence is recorded and acknowledged to a lesser extent, but only because martial artists of the day wrote of it. It's less well documented in 'official' records. And anything further afield is kind of pieced together by scholars largely based on indirect evidence.

But let's further complicate matters. We talk of the Chinese influence. But where did the Chinese martial arts come from? I find it very hard to believe that after centuries of international trade in the region, and fighting, that the Chinese didn't take influence from the Japanese, Okinawans, Siamese etc. In fact there is a well recognised but highly dubious legend of a man named Boddidharma that brought martial arts to China from India. The story itself is full of holes but the fact that such a legend exists is strong evidence for widespread mixing of styles between regions.

So I think the whole lineage thing and controversy around it, is at least partially an issue of propaganda. There's one thing I think we can be sure of when deciding whether or not our respective late grandmasters were credible. That is that whatever happened in the past, our styles must be half decent. The fact that the style exists after being peer reviewed by multiple generations of students must surely say that it's OK.

in your middle paragraph you mention that there is a Chinese influence on Okinawan karate but only acknowledged to a lessor extent?? i am not sure what you mean. did i understand you correctly?

there is a direct link to the Chinese and it is very obvious one. its not a hidden fact today. it was down played during WWII but its never been a secret.

i find it very unlikely that there is a Thailand influence to Okinawan karate.

as far as where did Chinese kung-fu come from..well there is a theory that it traveled over the silk road from India. that the Budhidharma legend was probably many people traveling over many years. the Chinese leaned from the Indian fighting styles which had Yoga like forms. In turn it is believed that the Indian culture picked up combative fighting from the Greeks. Alexander the Great and his men who practiced Pankration when not in battle made it all the way to the edge of India. it is well known that many of his men stayed and the Greeks had a practice of assimilation into the other cultures rather than dictate its own culture upon those that it conquered. while many laugh and mock at this idea it is the most probable lineage.

The Indians defeated Alexander the Great's armies, they clearly had their own martial culture and a civilisation that predates Ancient Greece. I think the attempt to trace MA back to the Greeks is dubious at best and a bit sinister at the worst.

I think it is unlikely that Muay Boran influenced karate through anything more than a passing glance. I just don't see it in anything that has survived to the present.

That being said I would love a look at Ti. I am curious as to whether Karate was meant to be an advancement from a base of Ti, or just an alternative for the upper classes. [/b]

[OneKickWonder]

Having direct, documented ties to Okinawa, gives a style a big load of credibility points. But Okinawa is now (and has for a long time been) part of Japan. In fairly recent history, Japan went through a bit of an identity crisis. Basically the Japanese tried to claim ownership and origin of everything. Gichin Funakoshi for example knew he'd never succeed in promoting an Okinawan martial art in Japan, let alone a mixed system with influences from China and elsewhere, so tang te (China hand) became kara te, and it was all packaged up neatly as a Japanese system. Completely separate to that, but as an example of what I'm on about, during the Japanese occupation of Korea, they tried to eradicate Korean culture and heritage, including its martial arts.

So the history books would largely paint a picture of Japanese influence and origin. Okinawa gets in there because Okinawa is part of Japan and that's all well documented, even in Japanese official records. The Chinese influence is recorded and acknowledged to a lesser extent, but only because martial artists of the day wrote of it. It's less well documented in 'official' records. And anything further afield is kind of pieced together by scholars largely based on indirect evidence.

But let's further complicate matters. We talk of the Chinese influence. But where did the Chinese martial arts come from? I find it very hard to believe that after centuries of international trade in the region, and fighting, that the Chinese didn't take influence from the Japanese, Okinawans, Siamese etc. In fact there is a well recognised but highly dubious legend of a man named Boddidharma that brought martial arts to China from India. The story itself is full of holes but the fact that such a legend exists is strong evidence for widespread mixing of styles between regions.

So I think the whole lineage thing and controversy around it, is at least partially an issue of propaganda. There's one thing I think we can be sure of when deciding whether or not our respective late grandmasters were credible. That is that whatever happened in the past, our styles must be half decent. The fact that the style exists after being peer reviewed by multiple generations of students must surely say that it's OK.

in your middle paragraph you mention that there is a Chinese influence on Okinawan karate but only acknowledged to a lessor extent?? i am not sure what you mean. did i understand you correctly?

there is a direct link to the Chinese and it is very obvious one. its not a hidden fact today. it was down played during WWII but its never been a secret.

i find it very unlikely that there is a Thailand influence to Okinawan karate.

as far as where did Chinese kung-fu come from..well there is a theory that it traveled over the silk road from India. that the Budhidharma legend was probably many people traveling over many years. the Chinese leaned from the Indian fighting styles which had Yoga like forms. In turn it is believed that the Indian culture picked up combative fighting from the Greeks. Alexander the Great and his men who practiced Pankration when not in battle made it all the way to the edge of India. it is well known that many of his men stayed and the Greeks had a practice of assimilation into the other cultures rather than dictate its own culture upon those that it conquered. while many laugh and mock at this idea it is the most probable lineage.

The Indians defeated Alexander the Great's armies, they clearly had their own martial culture and a civilisation that predates Ancient Greece. I think the attempt to trace MA back to the Greeks is dubious at best and a bit sinister at the worst.

I think it is unlikely that Muay Boran influenced karate through anything more than a passing glance. I just don't see it in anything that has survived to the present.

That being said I would love a look at Ti. I am curious as to whether Karate was meant to be an advancement from a base of Ti, or just an alternative for the upper classes. [/b]

Karate was absolutely certainly not meant to be the reserve of the upper classes. It was Gichin Funakoshi that coined the term Kara Te Do that we've since abridged to simply karate. His goal was very openly to take his style to the masses. He tried to get it included in schools as part of the physical education programme. He tried to get it into the military, most notably the navy, as a fitness training programme. He wrote letters and to and tried to organise demos for many institutions. Even the name kara te do was carefully chosen to make it more palatable to ordinary Japanese citizens, and he pushed it as physical training requiring no equipment, self defence, and spiritual betterment.

Funakoshi's karate is not a replacement of early systems of to de, or te, shuri te, naha te etc, and tang te and whatever other local names applied to local style variants. It was simply the consolidation of organisation of what Funakoshi had learnt of such styles. He knew that the only way to get karate to be widely accepted was to ditch the culture of relative secrecy, and local cliques, and introduce a formal structure. Even the kata he selected to be in his style were carefully selected from several styles so as to include what Funakoshi considered to be the most useful core of all the styles he'd practiced. He even renamed a load of them to make them more palatable and less obscure, and broke up and rearranged some to make them easier to learn. Most notably with pinnan / pyung ahn being split into 5 and renamed heian.

I'm not sure you'd find the older styles these days. Good luck in your search though. I suspect they'll have been lost, effectively swallowed up by the styles we know today. What you might find interesting though is if you look at styles like aikido and some of the Chinese styles, while superficially they look quite different, after a little while I think you'll see that they share a great deal in common, but just have slightly different teaching methods.

[JR 137]

Having direct, documented ties to Okinawa, gives a style a big load of credibility points. But Okinawa is now (and has for a long time been) part of Japan. In fairly recent history, Japan went through a bit of an identity crisis. Basically the Japanese tried to claim ownership and origin of everything. Gichin Funakoshi for example knew he'd never succeed in promoting an Okinawan martial art in Japan, let alone a mixed system with influences from China and elsewhere, so tang te (China hand) became kara te, and it was all packaged up neatly as a Japanese system. Completely separate to that, but as an example of what I'm on about, during the Japanese occupation of Korea, they tried to eradicate Korean culture and heritage, including its martial arts.

So the history books would largely paint a picture of Japanese influence and origin. Okinawa gets in there because Okinawa is part of Japan and that's all well documented, even in Japanese official records. The Chinese influence is recorded and acknowledged to a lesser extent, but only because martial artists of the day wrote of it. It's less well documented in 'official' records. And anything further afield is kind of pieced together by scholars largely based on indirect evidence.

But let's further complicate matters. We talk of the Chinese influence. But where did the Chinese martial arts come from? I find it very hard to believe that after centuries of international trade in the region, and fighting, that the Chinese didn't take influence from the Japanese, Okinawans, Siamese etc. In fact there is a well recognised but highly dubious legend of a man named Boddidharma that brought martial arts to China from India. The story itself is full of holes but the fact that such a legend exists is strong evidence for widespread mixing of styles between regions.

So I think the whole lineage thing and controversy around it, is at least partially an issue of propaganda. There's one thing I think we can be sure of when deciding whether or not our respective late grandmasters were credible. That is that whatever happened in the past, our styles must be half decent. The fact that the style exists after being peer reviewed by multiple generations of students must surely say that it's OK.

in your middle paragraph you mention that there is a Chinese influence on Okinawan karate but only acknowledged to a lessor extent?? i am not sure what you mean. did i understand you correctly?

there is a direct link to the Chinese and it is very obvious one. its not a hidden fact today. it was down played during WWII but its never been a secret.

i find it very unlikely that there is a Thailand influence to Okinawan karate.

as far as where did Chinese kung-fu come from..well there is a theory that it traveled over the silk road from India. that the Budhidharma legend was probably many people traveling over many years. the Chinese leaned from the Indian fighting styles which had Yoga like forms. In turn it is believed that the Indian culture picked up combative fighting from the Greeks. Alexander the Great and his men who practiced Pankration when not in battle made it all the way to the edge of India. it is well known that many of his men stayed and the Greeks had a practice of assimilation into the other cultures rather than dictate its own culture upon those that it conquered. while many laugh and mock at this idea it is the most probable lineage.

The Indians defeated Alexander the Great's armies, they clearly had their own martial culture and a civilisation that predates Ancient Greece. I think the attempt to trace MA back to the Greeks is dubious at best and a bit sinister at the worst.

I think it is unlikely that Muay Boran influenced karate through anything more than a passing glance. I just don't see it in anything that has survived to the present.

That being said I would love a look at Ti. I am curious as to whether Karate was meant to be an advancement from a base of Ti, or just an alternative for the upper classes. [/b]

Karate was absolutely certainly not meant to be the reserve of the upper classes. It was Gichin Funakoshi that coined the term Kara Te Do that we've since abridged to simply karate. His goal was very openly to take his style to the masses. He tried to get it included in schools as part of the physical education programme. He tried to get it into the military, most notably the navy, as a fitness training programme. He wrote letters and to and tried to organise demos for many institutions. Even the name kara te do was carefully chosen to make it more palatable to ordinary Japanese citizens, and he pushed it as physical training requiring no equipment, self defence, and spiritual betterment.

Funakoshi's karate is not a replacement of early systems of to de, or te, shuri te, naha te etc, and tang te and whatever other local names applied to local style variants. It was simply the consolidation of organisation of what Funakoshi had learnt of such styles. He knew that the only way to get karate to be widely accepted was to ditch the culture of relative secrecy, and local cliques, and introduce a formal structure. Even the kata he selected to be in his style were carefully selected from several styles so as to include what Funakoshi considered to be the most useful core of all the styles he'd practiced. He even renamed a load of them to make them more palatable and less obscure, and broke up and rearranged some to make them easier to learn. Most notably with pinnan / pyung ahn being split into 5 and renamed heian.

I'm not sure you'd find the older styles these days. Good luck in your search though. I suspect they'll have been lost, effectively swallowed up by the styles we know today. What you might find interesting though is if you look at styles like aikido and some of the Chinese styles, while superficially they look quite different, after a little while I think you'll see that they share a great deal in common, but just have slightly different teaching methods.

There are 2 Okinawan schools/ryuha that claim to be quite old/true to their old was - Ryuei Ryu and To’on Ryu.

Ryuei Ryu is allegedly the karate as taught by Ryu Ryu Ko, one of the Chinese masters that taught a few of the Okinawan fathers of karate. The name Ryuei Ryu Somehow means Ryu Ryu Ko’s school.

To’on Ryu was founded by a senior student of Kanryo Higashionna. Higashionna was also Chojun Miyagi’s (Goju Ryu founder) teacher. To’on Ryu some how translates to Higashionna’s school. To’on Ryu claims the karate they teach is exactly as it was taught by Higashionna, in contrast to the changes Miyagi made with Goju Ryu.

There’s not a lot of information out their on either system. Ryuei Ryu didn’t leave Okinawa nor have any public showing until the last 20 years or so. To’on Ryu’s founder was allegedly asked to head up or play a significant role in Goju Ryu after Miyagi’s death, but declined on the basis that Goju wasn’t willing to let go of Miyagi’s additions and changes, and they wouldn’t call it To’on Goju Ryu. That was according to Meitoku Yagi, the karateka chosen to lead Goju Ryu by Miyagi’s family.