The doctoral research thesis presents an analysis of the relation between traditional Japanese martial arts culture (koryu bud) and its modern correspondents (gendai budo). The analysis is based on the idea of putting the ryuha to the list of the UNESCO’s intangible cultural heritage, as a Japan’s oldest martial cultural asset. The initial proposals were made in the last decade by some Japanese martial arts organizations, e. g. Nippon Budokan, especially by its division for koryu legacy. Ritual-like and pattern-like formalism of the Japanese modern and traditional budo legacy is being interpreted, especially in the context of Japanese nationalist history after the Meiji Restoration. Emphasis is therefore put on the structures of movements that pre-exist in ritual practices of the classical budo culture, and are still present in modern martial arts systems, thus because of their hereditary and pre-formalized performativity. Far-Eastern martial arts and combat disciplines (especially Japanese, Korean, Filipino, Vietnamese, or Chinese) are nowadays widely known in western societies, although they have stopped gaining popularity in the last couple of decades. Even Japanese society has lost its interest in both, modern and ancient martial ways (bujutsu, budo): nowadays they may seem as being too complex, they gained some aura of esotericism, mysticism, unperceivable in the rationalist milieu of the contemporary Japan, they did not manage to establish a clear stance towards their nationalist and militarist heritage, etc. Many martial arts were forbidden during the control period imposed by the Americans after the World War II. After the controlling American forces left the Japanese soil in 1952, some modern martial arts were included in the educational systems or physical activity curriculums in Japan, but also in some other, western countries (Australia, America, Europe), either because of pedagogical values they promote or sportivecompetitive nature they contextualize, either because of the rich cultural background and the important role they have had in preserving national heritage. Some of the martial arts have 10 transformed their legacy in westernized sports and leisure activities. About half a century ago some became members of the Olympic family of sports and different national or international organizations, like judo, kendo, karatedo, subsequently kyudo, sumo and aikido. In 1977, some thirty years after the occupying allied United States forces imposed a ban on practicing budo, nine of the dominant Japanese national martial arts federations decided to establish Nippon Budo Kyogikai, with the main purpose of preserving Japanese budo as important and even constitutive element of the Japan’s cultural heritage, thus adhering to the pre-war efforts of the kind, undertaken by organizations such as Dai Nippon Butokukai. Given that during the war – from the European and Anglo-American standpoint, such efforts have been strongly associated with the propulsive militarism and newly born Japanese nationalist ideologies, it took almost half a century to decontaminate traditional Japanese budo from this imposed semantics. During the 1960s many scholars, but mainly anthropologists and ethnologists, recognized a need for scholarly approach to all aspects of classical Japanese martial culture. Many top universities took this opportunity to establish new budo culture faculties, academic circles, or to promote journals and congress meetings all around the globe. Today many top universities in Japan specialize in ryuha culture – as a part of the broadly perceived national cultural history. Connections between literary culture, arts and budo culture are inherited from the past. Samurais, feudal noble warriors, were to be perceived as well educated and highly sophisticated military class, usually oriented towards bunburyodo, a social concept and a political philosophy emphasized by the shogunate during the Tokugawa period, or even afterwards, that can be summarized as taking the path of cultural learning and the martial was as well. Consequentially it had evolved in two directions: first one leading towards the idea of cultification of the samurai class (in a way, it could be interpreted as samurai humanism) and the second one, on the other hand, leading to the ideology of pacifism. In this research I focused on some elements of the Japanese tradition by scrutinizing them against the background of the UNESCO’s definition of 11 the intangible cultural heritage. For the intangible cultural heritage, it is thus necessary to incorporate three elements: a traditional, contemporary and a living component (UNESCO, Article 1-3). Thus, in this doctoral research the Japanese koryu styles is presented as a martial culture system with its strong traditional or essential historic (kobudo) background, as well as its living, contemporary correspondent in different modern or modernized (gendai) martial arts systems. Secondly, it is necessary that the intangible cultural heritage is inclusive and has been passed from one generation to another, thus evolving in response to the social environment, by providing the sense of identity and continuity, a link from the past to the present and into the future. Hereditary principle of ryuha (iemoto) is thus examined in this doctoral research as one of its central components. Thirdly, it is important that intangible assets are representative in the context that communities provide for them and that they depend upon those whose knowledge of traditions, skills, techniques, and customs is passed on to community, from generation to generation or to other communities. This representative status of koryu is emphasized in the context of its performativity, in the concluding segments of the doctoral research. Finally, the intangible cultural heritage can be recognized as such by the communities, groups or even individuals that create, maintain, and transmit it. A short history of the institutional background of ryuha culture is thus be presented. In this context, the following emerges as central to this doctoral research: (1) koryu (or kobujutsu) styles should be perceived as the Japan’s intangible cultural heritage, because they have all the components of the UNESCO’s definition of the intangible cultural heritage assets; (2) one of the main components examined in this doctoral research is the koryu budo ritual-performative structure; (3) this part of the Japan’s oldest martial traditions is therefore examined from the standpoint of its performativity or structuredmovement-strategies in this performativity’s background; (4) the changeable circumstances in which martial culture in Japan has evolved is discussed against the institutional background of tradition (or different institutions dedicated in preserving and re-examining its legacy); (5) the evolution of modern budo system, in all of its diversity, is presented as a logical consequence of demilitarization of koryu styles; (6) finally, this legacy is thus be put in the militarist context of the Meiji era regime, that subsequently explains why most of the Japanese institutions have had some inner inhibition in promoting and codifying budo as a national cultural heritage. In general, it should be stated that other cultures did not face the same problem in praising their respective legacy. Japanese cultural policy recently managed to include on the UNESCO list a variety of rituals, festivals, crafts, dance, or theatre facets, etc., but martial arts traditions were just recently considered to be included, even though there was a strong pressure by the Okinawan (or Ryukyu) prefecture cultural heritage representatives to push classical Okinawa styles on the list, wherein karatedo is just one of the most recognizable traditions (arts). to the world’s athletic, as well as performative-aesthetic or festive intangible (cultural) heritage, while some consider budo as one of the most prominent Japanese cultural exports. There could be several reasons underlying the almost habitual bringing of the budo legacy into some sort of relation to Japan, some of them being sociocultural (in the case of Nikkeijin, the Japanese descendants, or newly settled immigrants in attempt to keep contact with their heritage, e.g. Brazilian and Hawaiian), and/or economical (marketing or advertising strategies on the West are often based on the superficial interpretations of the so called samurai code precepts), even military-historical (there are number of Japanese martial arts schools on the West whose founders claim that they were introduced in the Japanese budo through the occupation army military service after the World War II). Indeed, to learn budo, for many Japanese during the 1930s, before the war, usually meant to learn how to be patriot and a militarist, in accordance to regime’s propaganda. At that point precisely, the old-school budo (as well as all its more modern equivalents) managed to re-enter Japanese primary and secondary education system and to get a lot of new members. On the other hand, for many American soldiers, soon after Japan was defeated, to study Japanese martial arts culture, on Japanese territory, although in highly controlled circumstances, meant to acquire a certain piece of living Japanese heritage. Marcel Mauss uses the term bodily technique in a way that encompasses the effective and traditional act of doing something. If there is no tradition, some symbolic order or even a religious context, the concept of technique, at least in a Maussian sense, does not really exist. Japanese term jutsu refers precisely to this ritualistic and thus maximum-efficiency-oriented technique. The main role of a jutsu student was to acquire skills necessary for him to survive on the battlefield, in an uncomfortable war environment, whether these are spearmanship, swordmanship, swimming skills, combat tactics, strategic procedures or close-encounter drills. On the other hand, transformation to do could be seen as an appropriation of the old traditions, just like in the case of jujutsu to judo transformation. When commenting on jujutsu, bare-arms techniques in the classical Japanese martial arts, Jigoro Kano stated that he does not necessarily believe all traditional training methods are valid, but that with some reformation, bujutsu [or old-school martial arts] training could very well become an effective means for nurturing the individual’s intellect, physique, and morality. Many Japanese martial arts succeeded in this transformation, either with a strong institutional support of Nippon Budokan, like sumo, either with some help of a founding figure, like Jigoro Kano and Morihei Ueshiba, or a strong bujutsureformist personality, like Kenzo Awa. It seems there were at least three strategies at work in this transfer. I have called them demilitarization, demystification, and cultural appropriation. Military context of ryuha culture was not appropriate for modern time martial arts culture, rooted in the pacifist ideas. Traditional martial culture thus had to transform its own fieldcombat-oriented heritage towards more general, even modern ideas of self-development and physical conditioning, (kin)aesthetic and performative values, etc. Subsequently, this usually led to the mystification of budo, wherein it was often interpreted as an utmost appropriate mean for achieving spiritual stability, etc. Many western practitioners assisted in this mystification or spiritualization processes. There is no doubt that these processes helped spreading Japanese martial arts in Europe during the 1960s and 1970s to a great extent. The third concept, cultural appropriation, is maybe the most problematic one. Japanese martial arts, while being selfmodernized/reformed by a few founding figures, appropriated their legacy, in order to be more acceptable to non-Japanese practitioners. Consequently, modern budo schools started to be incorporated in the international physical activities and sport organizations (measurement of grade-progress seems to be a Western requirement, although this is not clear enough), being even studied through western educational pedagogies. Competitive, rivalry-oriented western sport culture thus made an impact on traditional values of the Japan’s most prominent cultural export. Although this brought several positive western values in the world of modern Japanese budo, especially while it was being interconnected with the original Olympic ideals, some of its original values got lost on the way. On the other hand, sociocultural heritage of the pure non-competitive bodily techniques of budo is revitalized today in many ways. In the history of Japanese martial arts styles or culture of budo in general there is a strong division between modern martial arts, usually called gendai budo, and, on the other hand, traditional martial arts heritage, denominated by the terms koryu budo, koryu bujutsu, bugei or kobudo. Modern budo has its roots in the classical systems, codified from the end of Heian period, but strategies of continuation were elaborated in detail, through the Tokugawa period onwards. One of the first category of combat traditions developed in the early Heian era was mounted archery (kyuba jutsu), and one of the oldest sword routines was the one belonging to Kashima tradition. It is very important to mention that all the traditions of ryuha were so called technically composite or integrative traditions (sogo jutsu). Due to realities of war the feudal soldier was obliged to educate himself in various combat skills, armed or unarmed techniques, horsemanship, swimming strategies, military tactics, etc. Broadly taken, ryuha repertoire could be categorized in the following (heterogeneous) groups: bujutsu or horsemanship, kyujutsu or archery, kenjutsu or swordsmanship, sojutsu or long-spearmanship, naginatajutsu or glaive techniques, bojutsu or long staff techniques, kamajutsu or sickle techniques, jujutsu or unarmed and small-armed close combat techniques, suijutsu or tactical swimming, and hojutsu or musketry techniques. History of classical Japanese martial arts is, thus, full of reconstructive procedures. Not many written evidence, besides technical or kinaesthetic ones, have survived. It is evident that during the Tokugawa period the number of styles suddenly increased, reaching at one point close to one hundred known ryuha. By the end of 1800s, mystical aura surrounding budo was already created, mainly interconnected with neo-Confucian philosophy from China, different traditions of esoteric Buddhism and Shinto religious rituals, etc. This aura is related to Oriental martial arts even today, although it is useless to analyze them only in this manner, as Zen-arts, as some do. The increase of ryuha can be perceived pragmatically: Japanese military history demanded different patterns of physical education, especially in the domain of field-combat systems. During the Meiji period, before the World War I escalated, samurai class system was dismantled. After the Meiji Restoration in 1868, some of the traditional martial arts styles almost disappeared. There were some efforts to preserve ryuha as an important aspect of Japan’s classical cultural heritage. Commercial martial arts shows and demonstrations (gekken kogyo), for example, were often being performed to promote the historical values of bushido, in all its interpretations, and ryuha legacy. Furthermore, in 1895 the Great Japan Association of Martial Virtue (Dai Nippon Butokukai) was established in order to preserve ancient martial ways. Butokukai was founded in Kyoto by a small group of enthusiasts willing to conserve classical martial art traditions, those which had not disappeared after the Meiji Restoration. In 1899 the group had built the Hall of Martial Virtue (Butokuden) next to Heian shrine in Kyoto. Main mission of the group was, unfortunately, to prepare young generations of Japanese for war, especially by putting budo into obligatory education by the end of 1911. Japanese, their patriotic feelings and the national ideal were thus brought into lasting relationship and dynamic interaction with one another, by using nothing more than a metaphor of budo – standing for a unique national body. However, this is an extreme example, as I have tried to show, of the misemployment of national heritage. Since 2009, the Nippon Budokan acknowledges seventyeight ryuha, with clear lineages and traceable history, that have been affiliated to Nippon Kobudo Kyokai. Surprisingly, as a central organization for all Japanese martial arts, both modern and traditional, Nippon Budokan was founded and then reopened in the occasion of the westernized sporting event, in the 1964, for the Tokyo Olympics. Modern educational theories influenced a lot the main mission and all the activities of the Budokan. Today, researchers in the field of interconnections between modern and traditional martial arts systems play an important role in most of the Japanese Universities and Faculties specialized in the field of physical education, anthropology of structured movements and cultural history. Many dozens of ryuha that are still alive, transmitting their knowledge to more and more decreasing audience, are thus, of course, considered to be Japanese national heritage precisely because of the efforts of the mentioned institutions. Most of koryu budo schools has strongly influenced modern budo, but influences are visible vice versa as well. These traditions are even today being studied, not only in a practical manner, but also as a subject of ethnographic interest. On many occasions, during different hono embu, votive martial arts demonstrations and festivals, koryu bujutsu culture is shown to the public in all its technical and aesthetical diversity. The most important exhibitions are performed in a ritual context of Shinto shrines, including Katori, Kashima, Meiji and Ise Jingu and Yasukuni Jinja, to name just a couple of them. Technical repertoires of the modern martial arts are extremely wide-ranging and interesting enough to be analyzed from various standpoints. Contemporary scholars of modern budo often overlook the fact that there is a vast field of knowledge, technical, tactical, and strategical skills, hidden somewhere beneath the surface of these modernized systems/lists of techniques (waza). Being deeply inscribed in modern martial arts techniques, but also, for many different reasons, in modern Japanese perception of their own tradition or cultural heritage, this knowledge asks for a thorough sociocultural research. My analysis fit into what may be termed, in the broader sense of the word, an ethno-kinesiological research, first and foremost due to an overall attempt to encompass the pre-structured, pre-ritualized and formalized movements on the background of many complex budo systems. Comparing traditional martial arts systems with the modern ones resulted in discovering some of the movement structures that lie beneath the modern budo technical surface. This idea can thus be researched on from various sides and by employing different disciplinary positions, whilst here I decided for an approach that will enable me to trace these movement (or technical) structures within the ritualization process visible in koryu budo. These ritualized and formalized or pre-existent structures of movements I refer to can be defined in the following ways: (1) as movement structures that can be found in military and physical education practices of classical systems and were employed mainly on the battlefield as pragmatic or unconventional physical practices; (2) as movement structures that are deeply implemented in the Japanese society, as norms, conventions, customs, in Maussian words – as bodily techniques, and can be found in some other physical activities, such as traditional dance rituals, tea ceremony (sado, chado), Kabuki performance and No-theatre practice, etc.; (3) as movement structures that are conventional, standardized, kinaesthetic or formative, including pre-arranged sets of techniques and special skills to be acquired/transmitted by hereditary line (iemoto). All the mentioned specificities, as I explained in the introduction lines, can be found in the UNESCO Articles 1-3 regarding the intangible cultural heritage. But they can be grasped in an ethno-kinesiological sense if budo is pre-defined as a concept constructed from five distinctive but interrelated characteristics: (a) combative (bujutsu-sei), because it evolved from attacking and killing techniques into a way of self-cultivation (shugyo) or introspection; (b) religious (shukyo-sei), because, at one point, it became associated with the folk religion and rituals, especially with Shinto; (c) aesthetic (geido-sei), because it was closely connected with arts and humanist education (bunburyodo); (d) educational (kyoiku-sei), because during the peaceful Tokugawa period principles of warrior-gentlemen (bushido-shido) were codified; (e) competitive (kyogi-sei), because some disciplines were transformed into modern competitionoriented sports. Ritualistic components, nevertheless, emanate throughout these elements and they have already become international trademarks of budo tradition. There are dozens of ritual-like movements that are traceable in budo culture, including the following ones: specific way or style of walking (namba aruki); pattern structures learning procedures usually called kata, etc.; corporal differences between inside and outside of the body posture or uchi/ura and soto/omote sides; the position of awareness usually called kamaeru; fully seated position of the body for combat purposes (suwari); incorporation of armed techniques (buki) in pre-arranged sequences of unarmed combat; military correspondence between execution (waza), distancing (ma) and tactics (heiho), etc. The ritual-oriented nature of Japanese martial arts is evident on first sight. All these characteristics were typical for the transformation processes between koryu and gendai, as it was previously elaborated. So, when applied to martial arts history, rituality functions rather as a cybernetic multivariate system than structural or functionalist-oriented one. Japanese martial heritage was often analyzed in-between two extremes, biomechanical analysis of the combat systems on one side, which is only one small part of the encompassing technical repertoire of the modern budo, and their utmost esoteric and mystical aspects on the other side. First pattern of analyzing martial arts is somehow reasonable because they have slowly been transformed towards competition-oriented physical activities. But the second one, mystic or esoteric pattern of analyzing the Japanese budo heritage is the most dangerous one – because it subdues the complexity of the relationships between traditional and modern budo to Zen-philosophy, Buddhist mysticism and other religious/contemplative practices that became a part of the curriculum very recently. The objective of the doctoral research was thus different, to show that modern Japanese martial arts inherited a lot of elements from the ancient styles, as well as that most of the movement structures used in modern budo come from the ryuha heritage, either by direct lineage or by indirect influences. Although this continuity is not so linear and systematic. It is more divergent and polistructural. Koryu budo, consequently, should be perceived as a ritual and aesthetic phenomenon that once had deep ritualistic meaning, whilst the traces of this ritual-based-performative-knowledge are still visible on many levels, from the technical to the contextual ones. Its public display or embu emphasizes this ritual based component, of course in the precise form of Shinto embu. Rituals in public, as some researchers put it, often do this – they emphasize their own rituality, either by emerging from extra-daily practices (ryuha is often considered as strange, peculiar, even esoteric for contemporary Japanese), either by creating spontaneous shrine-like or temple-like pseudo-ceremonial and pseudo-religious contexts, as in sumo, shorinji or kyudo competitions. The modernization of koryu, on the other hand, started in the nineteenth century and reached its peak after the Tokyo Olympics in 1964. A complementary process of sportification of both traditional and modern budo legacy reached its top in the last decade of the twentieth century. Today ryuha lineage and all its assets are endangered. Maybe the best way of preserving them is to institutionalize them: (a) either by placing them on the UNESCO list or (b) by showing their explicit emanation towards all modern Japanese martial culture disciplines, etc. As I mentioned in the introduction of this doctoral research, all styles should be perceived as Japan’s intangible cultural heritage because they preserved all of the components of the UNESCO’s definition of the intangible cultural heritage assets: (1) they are traditional, contemporary (and modern) and living at the same time (expressed in the trinity of koryu, gendai and embu); (2) they are inclusive and hereditary, which is evident in their ritual-performative structure (mainly expressed in the kata-pattern-form-hereditary and iemoto principle); (3) they are above all representative and community-based, always included in some wider Shinto ceremonies, etc.; (4) finally, this legacy has a long tradition of institutionalization, first in the militarist, warshiporiented context of the Meiji period regime (that explains why most of the Japanese institutions had some inner inhibition in promoting koryu as a national cultural heritage), and subsequently, after the World War II, in the context of modern heritage-(re)oriented research institutions like Nippon Budokan or Kokusai Budo Daigaku.