I always find the labels ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ misleading because something that’s current and popular, like Brazilian Jiujitsu, is actually quite old in comparison to some of the martial arts we would call traditional, like Aikido or Taekwondo. But even recently created martial arts are built on older traditions, so where do we start dating a martial art from? From the day it was named, or from the arts the proceeded it? If it’s the later then all martial arts are the same age and have existed (potentially) forever.
Another way of differentiating between traditional and modern is using the self defence vs sporting dichotomy, however so many martial arts exist in a grey area between the two – take Muay Thai for example, that I don’t think that’s a good way to do it either.
Here’s something I saw written by Alexander Ewlad on the Martial Arts Studies Facebook group in a comment:
“For me, one of the best, i.e. concise and precisely written and kind of encompassing scholarly starts on traditional martial arts was and is the following by Moenig & Kim (orig. 2018; republished as a book chapter 2021):
“[T]he expression ‘traditional martial arts’, which has become very fashionable, is one of the most misrepresented and misused terms in the general discourse. ‘Traditional’ projects an image of a long history and of continuity throughout history, without change. In reality, most modern Asian martial arts are only a few hundred years old or are an evolutionary product of the twentieth century. On the other hand, some western combat sports, such as boxing and wrestling, actually have traditions as long as, or longer than, most modern, popular Asian martial arts, and nobody would ever classify them as ‘traditional martial arts’. The term ‘traditional’ seems wholly reserved as a reference to Asian martial arts. However, to the contrary, many present-day East Asian martial arts developed only recently, and are not ‘traditional’ by most definitions. Most traditional martial art proponents do not consider sports as having any philosophical aspects, as being mostly irrelevant, and as ‘merely’ a physical activity without any spiritual merits. Surveying the available literature on martial arts reveals that leaders and practitioners of traditional martial arts have often monopolized the discussion about philosophy, educational values, and realism in martial arts training; labelling the sports aspect inferior regarding educational benefits in addition to being unrealistic for real combat“ (Moenig & Kim in: Hong & Li, 2022: 43).
Original reference
Book reprint/republishing
You might also like to listen to the lecture, Inventing Traditional Martial Arts a lecture by Prof. Peter Lorge from one of the Martial Arts Studies conferences.
The 2024 Martial Arts Studies conference will happen in June in Cardiff, UK.
The Tai Chi Notebook 
I’ve been thinking about, as you mention in your blog, the demarcation line, for traditional Chinese martial arts, which is the only type of martial arts I can address. Traditional is certainly a malleable term, like many descriptors.
Historically, when Wushu came out in the 1980s, it was clear that it was something different from previous Chinese martial arts. In the US, it was called Contemporary Wushu. Conversely, martial arts from Taiwan and other countries took on the descriptor “Traditional.” I think this is probably the primary source of popularization for this term.
Of course, Wushu in many ways modeled itself after the Kuoshu movement earlier in the century. Except where the Kuoshu movement sought to help Chinese martial arts emerge from the back rooms and esoteric training and back into public knowledge, Wushu sought to create an art strictly for performance.
The demarcation for traditional martial arts could go further to pre-modernization of the Chinese military about 1895 to 1905. This is what I usually think of, though not exclusively, but I am probably in the minority once again.
The seed of this thinking is no doubt my first teacher who taught, “In T’ai Chi Ch’uan the five elements are also represented: the dao is metal; the staff is wood; the jian is water; the spear is fire; while the regular t’ai chi form without weapons is earth.” Later, with such ideals as Chen Yanxi and Liu Yunqiao, it was natural for me to see barehand martial arts as preparation for weaponry, and weaponry, potentially including archery and horsemanship, as preliminary for military arts and not completely distinct.
My first teacher also introduced me to the notion that taijiquan originated with Zhang Sanfeng watching a snake and crane fighting nearly a thousand years ago, and later my interest in Chen Style led me to the origin stories of Chen Wangting in the mid-seventeenth century. I can make a fair argument that Chen Bu brought most of the elements that compose Taijiquan from his native Shanxi in the mid-fourteenth century.
However, I don’t think the notion of traditional has to go back this far. Lorge points out in Confucian cultures, the more innovative something is the more ancient it often claimed to be. Traditional can be a matter of degree, a method older than a new way, but not necessarily ancient or even old.
Traditional archery is a good example of this. Basically, any archery where a compound bow (1966) is not used. That leaves a wide margin for many gradations.
LikeLike
Yes, I think “martial arts” equates to Asian martial arts in most people’s minds. In the US, among the general public, everything is Karate. TKD is karate. Kung fu is fancy karate. T’ai Chi is slow-motion karate. While judo and jujutsu have name some recognition, they are really just karate wrestling. I’ve had several people over the years tell me to just put “Karate” on my school sign and my classes would fill up. I could never bring myself to do it.
I had a friend teaching Indonesian and Filipino martial arts who put up signs “Karate Workshop” and a phone number. He filled the space to capacity, even after explaining what the workshop was.
LikeLike
Richard, there’s a good argument that by “martial arts” most people usually mean Chinese martial arts, since they entered the popular consciousness via Bruce Lee. Or at least they are referring to only Asian martial arts.
LikeLike
It took me a while to make time to get through Lorge’s lecture.
Nomenclature is always a topic worth considering, if for no other reason than to clarify one’s own thinking. I have recently found that my working definition of “martial arts” is much broader than most. Yet, I don’t think much about martial arts outside of Chinese martial arts.
LikeLike