Consider The Following

" ... In ancient times the martial arts were referred to as "Ti" and were practiced in great secrecy. Each system was passed down to one person only, the student who was considered by the teacher to be his most trusted and brilliant pupil. If no student was considered worthy to receive the complete teachings of a particular style, that art would end with the last teacher." ~ Chojun Miyagi, 1888 - 1953

If this statement is true and the source is Miyagi Sensei then its meaning is relevant to today's practice of karate. 

First, I have see enough evidence in periodicals to believe that the indigenous system of empty hand fighting was referred to as "Ti," Ti is hogen or uchinaguchi dialect meaning, "hand." Other terms were also used but the essence of this system was "Ti."

Second, there is enough material out there in the world to support the belief that karate was practiced in secret. Since the early edict from Okinawan royalty along with the Japanese at a later time that banned weaponry there came a need for Ti for self-defense. But, other sources also speak of karate or Ti being practiced only by certain persons within a certain class so that the ordinary peasant Okinawan may not have been exposed to Ti. This is speculation as there are no English written sources the will validate any of this theory or model. 

Third, the passing down to only one person seems difficult to believe and to prove. It gives us the idea that the indigenous system of self-defense, Ti, was a variety of styles where in my perceptions "styles" didn't become a system designation until the very late eighteen hundreds and early nineteen hundreds. If the indigenous system of self-defense was simply referred to as Ti then what styles would they be in reference to. It is believed by this author that Ti later became three systems or styles as seen by the village or prefecture or town to which the master of that Ti lived, i.e. Tomari, Naha and Shuri Ti. I am waiting for a new publication that is understood to provide a more concrete history of karate in Okinawa. We shall see what that says to my questions. 

Fourth, if the art or system or style ended if there were no "one student" qualified to take up the reins of the system, etc. then how could karate have flourished to this day. If the current history, as convoluted and spotty it is for the 1800's and after, is true then there were more than one person who carried on the system, style of Ti of yesteryear. Especially with WWII, where many died during the battle for Okinawa as well as serving for the Japanese outside the island not to lessen the deaths by Okinawan's moving about the arena trying to live and survive. 

Lets also add in the Japanese influences to have karate in the school systems to train the warrior spirit for the upcoming WWII conscriptions, etc. Now Ti, that become Karate (China Hand) that then became Karate (empty hand) is in the school systems with a more watered down version felt to best suit the age and maturity of younger students where before we assume students were closer to full adult age or adult age to practice and train with a leading proponent of Ti, the empty handed system indigenous to Okinawa. 

Lets also add in the influences of Okinawan culture and beliefs. These were changing because of the influences of other cultures, ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs, economic status, upbringing and hundred of cultural differences due to perceptions, context and personal beliefs of all martial artists, i.e. Japanese, Chinese, etc. 

This influences how one or more persons categorize things, how they judge things and the influence on their decision making and their deeply held personal beliefs about the nature of the self, etc. as influenced also by things like Taoism, Buddhism, Zen, etc. 

How do we, today, judge such things and how do we determine the "true, accurate, factual and provable" history of the martial arts? How are today's sources influenced by group dynamics and the underlying group harmony needed as a cultural requirement. How is such group, cultural and belief pressures to influence the responses or answers received in certain situations regarding the gathering of facts, etc.? If harmony is required for all groups as a cultural belief system strongly influenced by Samurai style edicts that are shown through "shikata" models then these influences would change the truth to what is necessary for group harmony, etc. Is this possibly why we get differing responses depending on who is asked, when asked and it what group dynamics?