Following on from recent threads I thought it might be interesting to see what people think on this one. Lets keep it very relevant strategic, technical elements of the kata (as opposed to Channan theories, symbolism etc).
I haven't been able to spend much time on this but if we take the kata embusen as the following link describes-
You will see Pinan 1 and 2 have a different embusen from 3,4 and 5.
Granted 3 and 5 have the same embusen, so based on this alone the evidence to my theory is weak.
Without going into real detail, as I haven't prepared that the techniques executed generally in Pinan 1 and 2, in my mind are very simple- Jodan Uke, Gedan Uke, Soto Uke, Uchi Uke, Shuto Uke, Gyaku Tsuki, Nukite (with Osae Uke granted), Mae Geri, 1 hip stack, Otoshi Uchi, Oi Tsuki, Moroto Gedan Shuto Uke etc.
Pinan 3,4 and 5 deliver more complex techniques.
Again based on this alone, my theory is still weak.
My final component is our oral history states Hohan Soken did not get Pinan 3,4 and 5 from his teacher Nabe Matsumura (Kise Sensei bought these into the public system with Hohan Sokens blessing sometime in the 1960's).
I think that is about it for now, i do realise the version of Pinan 1 and 2 I practice is a little different from the later developed Japanese systems, but generally it's the same. For instance we do not have Neko Ashi Dachi, Kokutsu Dachi etc.
My gut feeling is Pinan 1 and 2 did not originally have a significant overall application strategy, but were the basic delivery system of a Chinese Long Fist system- if you like Kihon in a kata. (Sure they can be applied and very well).
Heres an article by Joe Swift Sensei relevant to Itosu Sensei, Pinan and Channan-
I have not been to Okinawa, but my Sensei has, many times and the family system doesn't bother with Pinan 1 and 2 after a while, it's all about Naihanchi and the following kata.
And Iain the CAPTCHA system is very tough to get right...............LOL