© 2020 Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies
Vol. 12, February 2020, pp. 105-120
Master s and Doctoral Programs in International and Advanced
Japanese Studies
Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences,
University of Tsukuba

Research Note

A New Analysis of Persian Visits to Japan in the 7th and 8th Centuries
James Harry MORRIS
University of Tsukuba, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Assistant Professor

This research note describes the biographies of Dārāy and Ri Mitsuei, two Persians whose visits toJapan in the 7th and 8th Centuries are recorded in the Nihon Shoki and Shoku Nihongi. The research note
outlines and critically engages with contemporary research, and seeks to suggest that much of the current
knowledge regarding the biographies of the two figures is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the researchnote seeks to provide new starting points for the analysis of the two figures. Whilst it argues that little canbe known about the figure of Dārāy, the research note seeks to interact and add to debates regarding his
name, nationality, rank, and the roles of other people who are often mentioned alongside him in scholarly
works. Turning to Ri Mitsuei, the research note adds to previous research undertaken by the author
revising some of the conclusions that he drew elsewhere.
Keywords: Persian-Japanese Relations, Ri Mitsuei, Shoku Nihongi, Nihon Shoki, Dārāy

The classical Japanese histories, the Nihon Shoki 日本書紀 , completed in 720CE, and the Shoku Nihongi
続 日 本 紀 , completed in 797CE, refer on numerous occasions to the visits of foreigners from distant lands
including Tocharoi, Kosalans, and Persians.1 Whilst these figures and their visits have received attention
in Japanese language scholarship, they are yet to be explored extensively in the English language. There islittle scholarly consensus on the biographies of these figures, who receive only a cursory mention in Japanʼshistorical record. Furthermore, many theories lack substantive evidence or are based on outdated scholarship.
Nevertheless, researching the visits of Tocharoi, Kosalans, and Persians2 to Japan is important not only fordeepening our understanding of Japanese history, but for understanding the history of trade, immigration,and the journeys of travellers on the Silk Road and Maritime Silk Road. This research note will assess andproblematize some of the hitherto popular theories regarding the visits of two Persians to 7th and 8th Century
Japan and will seek to explore the veracity of these theories and their usefulness or lack thereof. The researchnote, moreover, offers some new interpretations and analyses of these figures, which may be used as a starting
point for future research on the topic.
1 Itō Gikyō, Perushia bunka torai k : Shirukor do kara Asuka e (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1980), 1-30.
2 In this paper, the term Persian refers to peoples from the Sasanian Empire (224-651CE) and its pre-Islamic

successor states. Contemporaneously, the Chinese referred to Sasanian Persia as B s 波斯 and its people as B s rén
波斯人 , and these terms are usually translated into English as Persia and Persian. Edwin G. Pulleyblank notesthat from the early 8th Century until 755CE the term referred to a Chinese puppet state in the region of the easternborders of Afghanistan (Bactria). See: Edwin G. Pulleyblank, Chinese-Iranian Relations i. In Pre-Islamic Times,
Encyclopedia Iranica, 2011.

105

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 12 / February 2020

The Figure of Dārāy
According to Itō Gikyō, the first reference to a Persian in the Nihon Shoki appears in the reign of Empress
Saimei (J. Saimei Tennō 斉 明 天 皇 , 594-661CE) in 660CE.3 In classical English translations of the piece suchas William Astonʼs famous Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A.D. 697, the term
Kenzuhashi Dachia, Kenzu Fasi Datia, or Kenzuhashi Tatsua 乾 豆 波 斯 達 阿 (C. G n dòu b s dá ) is often
presented as a personʼs name as is illustrated in the following passage:
Again, the man of Tukhāra, Kendzuhashi Tatsua, desired to return to his native country, and asked for anescort officer, saying:̶ I intend later to pay my respects to the Court of the Great Country, and therefore,
in token of this, I leave my wife behind. Accordingly, he took the way of the Western Sea with several
tens of men. 4
The passage notes that the figure is from Tokharistan (Bactria) through its use of the contemporaneous
Chinese term, D huòluórén 覩 貨 羅 人 5 (J. Tokara no hito, E. Tocharoi), however, the ensuing passage often
taken to be the figureʼs name contains an additional two place names. Firstly, the term Kenzu 乾豆 , a possible
Sinicized version of the Persian word Hind g or Hind g n (India) or a reference to the place name Kunduz, andsecondly the Sino-Japanese term Hashi 波斯 (C. B s ) which refers to Persia.6 Itō argues that these place names
should be understood as prenominal descriptions of a person called Dachia 達 阿 (C. Dá ) likely a Japaneseversion of the name Dārāy.7 Itō, therefore, posits two possible ways to translate the text dependent on whether
the term Kenzu 乾豆 refers to India or Kunduz; either Man from Toxārestān: Persian Dārāy who had remainedin or come from Indiaʼ8 or Man from Toxārestān: Persian Dārāy of/from Kunduz.ʼ9 Okamoto Kenichi who
accepts the same premises as Itō argues that the term Kenzu 乾豆 is a reference to Samarkand, and therefore
that Dārāy is a Tocharoi Persian from Samarkand.10 A similar position is also taken by Imoto Eiichi who argues
that Kenzu likely refers to a city within Persia.11 Itōʼs, Okamotoʼs, and Imotoʼs arguments are convincing as
it is highly unusual to find a surname built from two primarily geographic terms. Nevertheless, as noted by
Nishimoto Masahiro the use of the term B s 波 斯 as a name is not uncommon in contemporaneous Chinese
3 Itō, Perushia bunka torai k , 14-17.
4 William Aston, trans., Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A.D. 697, Two Volumes in One(Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing, 1972), 266. In the original text:
又覩貨羅人。乾豆波斯達阿。欲歸本土。求請送使曰。願後朝於大國。所以留妻爲表。乃與數十人。入于西海之路。(Nihon Shoki, Page 1574, Paragraph 5).

5 The term D huòluóguó 睹貨邏國 is used to refer to the region in Xuánzàngʼs 玄奘 (602-644), Great Tang Records

on the Western Regions (C. Dà táng x yù jì 大唐西域記 ) completed in 646CE (Xuánzàng, Dà táng x yù jì, Volume 1,
Paragraphs 54 and 85).
6 Itō, Perushia bunka torai k , 14-15.
7 Ibid., 14-15; Itō Gikyō, Zoroastrians Arrival in Japan (Pahlavica I), Orient 15 (1979), 58. Some scholars havenoted the possibility that the name may be derived from the Sanskrit Datta, but have generally rejected thispossibility, see: Itō, Zoroastrians Arrival in Japan (Pahlavica I), 55-63; Imoto Eiichi, Kodai no Nihon to Iran(Tokyo: Gakuseisha, 1980), 21. While the name Dārāy has, therefore, received widest acceptance, it appears tome that the Middle Persian name D d from the Old Persian D ta is also a potentially valid origin for the name,
although it would have likely been Sinicized in a different way.
8 Itō, Zoroastrians Arrival in Japan (Pahlavica I), 59.
9 Ibid., 60.
10 Okamoto Kenichi, Nihon ni Kita Seiikijin, Higashi Ajia no Kodai Bunka 17 (1978), 62.
11 Specifically, Imoto suggests the city of Kando or Y rukato, but I have not been able to trace either of these place
names. He also notes that Samarkand and other locations are potential alternatives. Imoto, Kodai no Nihon to Iran,
23-24.

106

James Harry MORRIS, A New Analysis of Persian Visits to Japan in the 7th and 8th Centuries

sources,12 and therefore it remains a possibility that Kenzuhashi 乾豆波斯 is a name rather than a geographic
description. Furthermore, Itōʼs first suggested translation is problematic since the passage lacks the relevant
verbs to suggest that this man had sojourned in India. His second translation or the one provided by Okamotoprovide mere geographic specificity (Dārāyʼs country, region, and city of origin), and because that specificity
makes logical geographic sense (he is from Tokharistan – Kunduz in Persia),13 the second translation or
Okamotoʼs alternative is, in my opinion, likely accurate. Indeed, although it is not possible to specify which cityor geographic locality that the term Kenzu refers to, there is some scholarly consensus regarding Itōʼs assertion
that the passage demarks that the man in question as a Tocharoi man named Dārāy who came from Persia.14
Given the foregoing conclusions we might be able to theorize that other figures described as Tocharoi
who came to Japan were similarly considered to have hailed from Persia, however, due to a lack of textual
evidence such figures cannot be identified. There is debate in regards to the location of Tokara no kuni 吐火羅
國 or 覩貨邏國 in the Nihon Shoki with scholars suggesting that the term may refer to X yù 西域 , the Tokara
islands (J. Tokara rett 吐 噶 喇 列 島 ), the Philippines, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, or Persia.15 Nishimoto
argues that Tokara no kuni cannot be identified with Persia (a popular position accepted by Okamoto and
Takatō Gorō),16 since contemporaneous Chinese sources refer to both regions as separate entities.17 Drawing on
the usage of the term in Chinese sources, he argues that the region is best identified as Tokharistan, situatedin modern day Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.18 Indeed, given the termsʼ usages
in contemporaneous Chinese sources it is not possible to affirm that Tokara no kuni is anywhere other thanTokharistan without abandoning textual evidence in favour of potentially spurious philological arguments.
Whilst I agree with Nishimoto, that the term Tokara no kuni (referring to Tokharistan) should be understoodin contradistinction to Persia given its usage in Chinese sources; Sasanian control, patronage, and influence inthe region during and before the 7th Century19 cannot be dismissed, and it would therefore not be unusual to find
Persians in Tokharistan, Tocharoi in Persia or Tocharoi Persians, like Dārāy.
Since Dārāyʼs leaving Japan was important enough to warrant inclusion in the Nihon Shoki, it is likelythat his arrival was also recorded. Nevertheless, his name is not recorded elsewhere, and therefore the date of
his arrival can only be conjectured from the Nihon Shokiʼs references to the arrival of Tocharoi prior to Dārāyʼsoutbound journey in 660CE. There are two possible dates for Dārāyʼs arrival, either the fourth month of 654CE
during the reign of Emperor Kōtoku (J. Kōtoku Tennō 孝徳天皇 , 596-654CE), when two men and two women

12 Nishimoto Masahiro, Asuka ni Kita Seiiki no Toharajin, Kansai Daigaku T zai Gakujutsu Kenky sho Kiy 43(2010), 6.

13 Kunduz is a part of the area of Greater Khorasan which was under the control of the Sasanian Empire until the
Arab conquest of 647CE, see: Hamid Wahed Alikuzai, A Concise History of Afghanistan in 25 Volumes, Vol. 14(Bloomington: Trafford Publishing, 2013), 110.
14 Okamoto, Nihon ni Kita Seiikijin, 62-63; Imoto, Kodai no Nihon to Iran, 21-24.
15 Nishimoto, Asuka ni Kita Seiiki no Toharajin, 4-7.
16 Okamoto, Nihon ni Kita Seiikijin, 58-63; Takatō Gorō, Asuka to Seiiki, Higashi Ajia no Kodai Bunka 18 (1978),108-117.
17 Nishimoto, Asuka ni Kita Seiiki no Toharajin, 6-7, 11.
18 Ibid., 7-10.
19 Abd Al-Husain Zarrinkūb, The Arab Conquest of Iran and its Aftermath, The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol.
4, The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, edited by R. N. Frye (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1975), 1-53; E. V. Zeimal, The Political History of Transoxiana, The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3, The
Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanid Periods, Part 1, edited by E. Yarshater (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1983), 232-262.

107

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 12 / February 2020

from Tokharistan (J. Tokara no kuni 吐 火 羅 國 ) were driven ashore by a storm,20 or the seventh month of
657CE (during Empress Saimeiʼs reign), when a further two men and four women from Tokharistan (J. Tokara
no kuni 覩貨邏國 ) drifted ashore.21 Itō favours the date of 654CE22 due to his theories regarding Dārāyʼs roleand identity (discussed below), however, I believe that the compilers choice of the characters Tokara 覩 貨 邏
to describe Dārāy, the same characters used to describe the Tocharoi who arrived in 657CE, rather than thecharacters Tokara 吐 火 羅 , used to describe those who arrived in 654CE, indicate that Dārāy was amongst
those who arrived in 657CE. It would, therefore, appear that Dārāy spent around three years in Japan from
657CE to 660CE. On the other hand, if one accepts Itōʼs dating Dārāy spent six years in Japan.
It is difficult to establish a great deal about Dārāyʼs life, role, and position. His inclusion in the Nihon
Shoki, his noted desire to pay respects at the court, the fact that several tens of men left with him, and thefact that he is named in the text, indicate that he was of high social status. The text furthermore notes that
he had a wife or wives. Itō argues that Dārāy was of royal blood, which due to the figureʼs evident high rank
is a possibility, however, Itōʼs argument is unconvincing on several levels. Itō suggests that the name Dārāy,which he believes was derived from the name of legendary king, D rayaw, betrays the figureʼs royal blood.23
Amongst the first group of Tocharoi to arrive in Japan was a person described as Sh wèi nǚ 舎衞女 (J. Shaei
no onna).24 Traditionally this has been translated as a woman from Sʼrâvastî.ʼ25 Itō, however, argues that due tothe absence of the suffix guó 国 (J. koku, E. country) or chéng 城 (J. j , E. castle), which are usually used whenreferring to Shravasti as a place, and because it would be odd to find Indians and Tocharoi travelling to Japan
together, that this term should be understood as a title rather than a place name.26 He then seeks to illustratethat the term is a Japanese transliteration of the Middle Persian, š h duxtag, meaning kingʼs daughter. 27
Following this he argues that Dārāy was Sh wèi nǚʼs father, due to his theory that Dārāy was of royal blood,and his identification of Sh wèi nǚ as the kingʼs daughter. 28 Itō argues that sometime after Dārāy became herhusband, since Sh wèi nǚʼs marriage to a Tocharoi is noted in the Nihon Shoki, 29 and such marriages (between
father and daughter) were not contemporaneously uncommon.30 He then identifies a further figure, Duò luó nǚ
堕 羅 女 (J. Dara no onna), whose name Itō translates as D r y-duxtag or Dārāyʼs daughter, as the coupleʼsdaughter.31 Affirming Dārāyʼs royal lineage, Itō transforms Dārāy into an important figure who assisted Peroz
III during his military campaigns.32
20 The original text states:
夏四月。吐火羅國男二人女二人。舎衞女一人。被風流來于日向。(Nihon Shoki, Page 1538, Paragraph 1).

21 The original text states:
三年秋七月丁亥朔己丑。覩貨邏國男二人女四人。漂泊于筑紫。言。臣等初漂泊于海見嶋。乃以驛召。
(Nihon Shoki, Page 1547, Paragraph 5).

22 Itō, Zoroastrians Arrival in Japan (Pahlavica I), 60.
23 Ibid.
24 Nihon Shoki, Page 1538, Paragraph 1.
25 Aston, trans., Nihongi, 246.
26 Itō, Zoroastrians Arrival in Japan (Pahlavica I), 56-57.
27 Ibid., 57.
28 Ibid., 57, 60.
29 The original text states:丁亥。吐火羅人。共妻舎衛婦人來。(Nihon Shoki, Page 1562, Paragraph 4).

30 Itō, Zoroastrians Arrival in Japan (Pahlavica I), 60.
31 Ibid., 60-61.
32 Ibid., 59.
108

James Harry MORRIS, A New Analysis of Persian Visits to Japan in the 7th and 8th Centuries

I am not convinced by these arguments. Itō does not reference necessary textual or extra-textual evidence
to support his claims and there is no reason to assume that Sh wèi nǚ is a title. To the contrary within thecontext of the sentence, which lists people arriving in Japan according to their place of origin and their gender,
it is more reasonable to assume that Sh wèi 舍 衞 refers to a place, such as Shravasti, as has been theorizedby other scholars.33 Indeed, the fact that the term Sh wèi nǚ is followed by the counter Y rén 一人 (J. Hitori)
meaning one person indicates that Sh wèi is more likely a place of origin than a name. If Sh wèi nǚ werea name, the text would likely follow standardized patterns by which a figureʼs nationality precedes their name,as was the case with the passage concerning Dārāy explored above. Accepting Itōʼs argument that the term isa name would mean that information indicating Sh wèi nǚ ʼs nationality and gender are absent from the text,
which is unusual. In addition, all other figures referred to in the passage in question are identified by theirnationality and gender, whereas their names are not provided.34 The concept that it is odd for a place name tolack qualifying suffixes such as the term country is also problematic. Not only does it nullify Itōʼs argumentthat Dārāy is from Kunduz or India and Persia (terms which lack the relevant suffixes in the passage), but othergeographic areas such as the country of Baekje (J. Kudara or Hyakusai 百濟 ) are frequently referred to without
such qualifiers throughout the Nihon Shoki. Neither is it a rarity to find people from multiple countries on thesame voyage; a passage explored later in this research note records a Persian arriving alongside Chinese andJapanese.35 Imoto argues that Sh wèi may be the name of a city in the Tokharistan region, suggesting that it
may refer to Kashgar or Saveh.36 However, accepting this notion would beg the question as to why four of theparty are referred to as Tocharoi, whereas a further figure is identified as coming from a specific city within thesame region. Given the context of the sentence and the usage of the term Sh wèi to refer to Shravasti in othertexts, it doesnʼt appear that there are issues with affirming that the term Sh wèi nǚ means a woman from
Shravasti. One potential problem arises when it is noted that Xuánzàng 玄奘 in his Dà táng x yù jì 大唐西域記 (646CE) records that the city had been deserted, although there were still some people.37 Therefore, there isa potentiality, as Imoto suggests, that Sh wèi may refer to a separate location. Nevertheless, Itōʼs use of Sh
wèi nǚ as evidence for Dārāyʼs royal lineage cannot be maintained. Whilst the historical record notes that thiswoman married one of the Tocharoi, it is unclear whether this was Dārāy since the text does not provide herhusbandʼs name. By the same logic that I used to suggest that Dārāy came to Japan in 657CE, it would appear thatthe woman from Shravasti was married to someone from the first group of Tocharoi visitors since her husband
is described using the characters Tokara 吐 火 羅 rather than Dārāyʼs Tokara 覩 貨 邏 . Nevertheless, Imoto
and Nishimoto both concur with Itō in suggesting that the woman from Shravasti and Dārāy were a married
couple,38 although neither provide further evidence to make this case. As for Dārāyʼs potential daughter, Duò luó
nǚ, other scholars have argued that the term Duò luó 堕羅 is an alternative transliteration of the term Tokara39
as is noted in the Nihon Shoki s annotations.40 Since the Dà táng x yù jì refers to a country by the name of Duò
luó b d guó 墮羅缽底國 (J. Darahatsutei no kuni, E. Dvaravati),41 which shares the characters Duò luó 堕羅 ,it might be possible to argue that the term refers to this country instead. However, to accept such an argument
33 Notably by: Imoto Eiichi, Perushiajin no raichō to urabonkai, Daih ron 大 法 論 45, No. 9 (1978), 48. Itō argues

that Sh wèi cannot be a place name, since the place names from whence other members of the group hailed are notmentioned, however, this is simply not factual since other members are referred to as hailing from Tokharistan. Itō,
Zoroastrians Arrival in Japan (Pahlavica I), 57.
34 Nihon Shoki, Page 1538, Paragraph 1.
35 Kuroita Katsumi and Kokushi Daikei Henshūkai, eds., Shoku Nihongi: Zenpen (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1979),
141.
36 Imoto, Kodai no Nihon to Iran, 24.
37 Xuánzàng, Dà táng x yù jì, Volume 6, Paragraph 6.
38 Imoto, Kodai no Nihon to Iran, 24; Nishimoto, Asuka ni Kita Seiiki no Toharajin, 3.
39 Nishimoto, Asuka ni Kita Seiiki no Toharajin, 3.
40 Nihon Shoki, Page 1548, Paragraph 1.
41 Xuánzàng, Dà táng x yù jì, Volume 10, Paragraph 30.

109

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 12 / February 2020

we would need to prove that the Nihon Shoki s definition of the term is incorrect, that the Nihon Shoki scompilers had poor geographical knowledge, or that the term Tokara refers to Dvaravati. Again, the context ofthe sentence, which lists people according to their place of origin and gender or title, suggests that rather thana name the term Duò luó nǚ refers to a woman from Tokharistan. 42 Moreover, there is nothing in the sentence
which suggests that this figure is the daughter of the woman from Shravasti or Dārāy. In summation, there are
numerous issues with accepting Itōʼs argument regarding the personage of Dārāy. Many of his theories rely on
textual and extra-textual assumptions which lack sufficient evidence to establish a burden of proof.
In lieu of the accuracy of Itōʼs argument, there is little we can say about Dārāy beyond that which isrecorded in the text. He was a Tocharoi from Kunduz in Persia or a Tocharoi Persian from Samarkand, he wasmarried, and was of sufficient social status to be recorded in Japanʼs imperial histories and to have a retinueof men who left the country with him. We may affirm, as Nishimoto does, that Dārāy was somewhat of aleader amongst the Tocharoi in Japan due to the presence of this retinue.43 He left Japan for his home country
travelling via Táng 唐 dynasty (618-907CE) China44 in 660CE leaving his wife (or wives) there, after having
likely arrived in 657CE. As for religious affiliation, which Itō argues was indisputably Zoroastrian,45 nothing canbe conclusively established. Whilst Imoto thinks that there is a potentiality that Dārāy was a Zoroastrian,46 healso suggests that Dārāy may have been a Buddhist. He notes that if the term Kenzu 乾豆 refers to India it may
indicate a Buddhist religious identity, which causes him to translate the term Kenzuhashi Dachia as Dārāy, aBuddhist from Persia. 47 In itself this argument is unconvincing due to the issues associated with linking Kenzu
to India, however, Imoto also notes that the Nihon Shoki records the Tocharoi participating in the festival of
Urabon 盂蘭盆48 shortly after the arrival of the second group (of which I have argued Dārāy was a member) in
657CE.49 Moreover, Dārāyʼs petition to leave Japan in 660CE was presented the day following Urabon on the 16thof the 7th month.50 Whilst this is far from conclusive as a plethora of religions flourished in contemporaneous
Persia and Tokharistan, as noted by Imoto it may be the case that Dārāyʼs connection to Urabon is far from
accidental.51
We do not hear of Dārāy again in the Nihon Shoki; there is no record of what happened to him after heleft Japan in 660CE or if he ever returned. Itō creates an imaginative scenario linking Dārāy to the escape andsubsequent campaigns of Peroz III following his father, Yazdgerd IIIʼs death in 651CE. He writes:
For the then about 15-year-old prince Pērōz, to cope with the difficulty was too hard and exacting without
42 The original text states:
四年春正月丙午朔。大學寮諸學生。陰陽寮。外薬寮。及舎衛女。堕羅女。百濟王善光。新羅仕丁等。
捧薬及珍異等物進。(Nihon Shoki, Page 1713, Paragraph 3).

43 Nishimoto, Asuka ni Kita Seiiki no Toharajin, 3.
44 Ibid.
45 Itō, Zoroastrians Arrival in Japan (Pahlavica I), 61.
46 Imoto, Kodai no Nihon to Iran, 35.
47 Ibid., 26.
48 The original text states:辛丑。作須彌山像。於飛鳥寺西。且設盂蘭盆會。暮饗覩貨邏人。[ 或本云。堕羅人。] (Nihon Shoki, Page
1548, Paragraph 1).

49 Imoto, Kodai no Nihon to Iran, 26.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid.
110

James Harry MORRIS, A New Analysis of Persian Visits to Japan in the 7th and 8th Centuries

assistance from someone else with whom I should like to identify 達阿 (Dārāy). The campaign must have
set in while Yazdgerdʼs stay still in Khorāsān, but having heard the death of the king of kings, Dārāy
escaped from the army-and-troop with his lord, Pērōz, and other followers among whom was found mostprobably his own daughter ( 舎衞女 ) to seek refuge in Zh ng- n.52
This story, used by Itō to support his theory that Dārāy was a royal, cannot be substantiated and seems
unlikely given the problems of dating that would arise if it were accepted. Pērōz III did not arrive in Chángʼān
長安 until the early 670s.53 Although Dārāy had returned to the mainland meaning that it was possible that hetravelled to Chángʼān, Sh wèi nǚ remained in Japan into the 670s with a reference to her personage appearing
in the first month of 676CE.54
Despite our limited knowledge of Dārāy, he is an important figure for understanding early Japanese,
foreign relations. Although the testimony of Nihon Shoki indicates that a whole community of Tocharoi were
present in Japan, it is only Dārāy, a probably high-ranking Tocharoi from Kunduz in Persia, who is demarked
by name. Ultimately, little can be known of the potential influence that Dārāy, as an individual, had oncontemporaneous Japan, although we may concur with scholars such as Itō and Imoto, that the Tocharoi may
have influenced some Japanese religious and secular practices.55 The interesting historical episode of which
Dārāy was a part elucidates some of the ways in which early Japanese foreign relations were conducted andthe sort of interactions which occurred between foreigners and Japanese at court. Nevertheless, following thecollapse of the Sasanian Empire in the 650s, Tocharoi-Japanese relations appear to have come to an end with no
Tocharoi receiving mention following the final appearance of Duò luó nǚ in 676CE. It is likely that the Tocharoi
community eventually became amalgamated with the Japanese through intermarriage. While scholarship on
the figure of Dārāy has often proven problematic, I believe that the conclusions made here may provide newstarting points from which the figure and related topics can be researched.
The Figure of Ri Mitsuei
A second Persian is recorded as coming to Japan in the Shoku Nihongi. The text notes that in the eighth
month of 736CE, Nakatomi no Nashiro 中臣名代 (?-745CE), the returning vice-envoy to the Táng, led a groupof three Chinese and one Persian to have an audience with Emperor Shōmu (J. Shōmu Tennō 聖武天皇 , 701756CE).56 In the 11th month, Nakatomi no Nashiro and others were given promotions in rank in an audience
with the Emperor.57 During the same meeting, the Chinese, Kōho Tōchō 皇甫東朝 (C. Huángfǔ Dōngcháo), and

52 Itō, Zoroastrians Arrival in Japan (Pahlavica I), 59.
53 Matteo Compareti, Chinese-Iranian Relations xv. The Last Sasanians in China, Encyclopedia Iranica, 2009.
54 The original text states:
四年春正月丙午朔。大學寮諸學生。陰陽寮。外薬寮。及舎衛女。堕羅女。百濟王善光。新羅仕丁等。
捧薬及珍異等物進。(Nihon Shoki, Page 1713, Paragraph 3).

55 Imoto, Kodai no Nihon to Iran; Itō, Perushia bunka torai k .
56 The original text states:
八月庚午。入唐副使從五位上中臣朝臣名代等率唐人三人波斯人一人拜朝。(Kuroita and Kokushi Daikei
Henshūkai, eds., Shoku Nihongi: Zenpen, 141).

57 Kuroita and Kokushi Daikei Henshūkai, eds., Shoku Nihongi: Zenpen, 141.
111

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 12 / February 2020

Persian, Rimitsuei 李 密 翳 (C. Lǐ Mìyì), were presented with ranks according to their social status.58 Scholars
have argued that the Persian identified as Rimitsuei and the Persian referred to as having had an audience with
the Emperor several months earlier were the same person.59 This seems evident given the presence of Nakatomi
no Nashiro in both passages and the context of the passages. As such, it is also evident that Rimitsuei had
accompanied Nakatomi no Nashiro (alongside the three Chinese) to Japan during the latterʼs return from his
post as vice-envoy.60
Various theories have emerged regarding Rimitsueiʼs personage, and popular amongst these are the conceptthat he was either a doctor or a Syriac Christian missionary, or both. I have been critical of these positions
elsewhere.61 The theory that Rimitsuei was a Syriac Christian missionary first appeared in the work of Peter
Yoshirō Saeki. In his Keiky hibun kenky 景敎碑文研究 , he argues that because the term B s 波斯 acted asa prefix which linked terms such sì 寺 (temple) or jiào 教 (teaching) to Syriac Christianity in contemporaneous
Chinese, that the term B s rén 波斯人 (E. Persian person) should be understood to identify Rimitsuei as an adherentof Syriac Christianity.62 Such usage of the word B s rén is not present in other contemporaneous texts where it
exclusively means Persian person rather than Syriac Christian.”63 Moreover, it would be unusual given thecontext of the sentence, which describes visitors to the court with reference to both their nationality and theirname, to find one of these figures demarked by their religious identity rather than their nationality. In his The
Nestorian Monument in China, Saeki provides different evidence to identify Rimitsuei as a Syriac Christian. He
suggests that the common Chinese name, Lǐ Mì 李密 , used to refer to Rimitsuei in the Shoku Nihongi derived
from a scribal error.64 Rather, Saeki believes that the name should have been rendered as Mìlǐ 密李 , which would
correspond to the Persian name Mīlis or Mīles.65 If Rimitsuei was in fact a Persian named Mīlis, Saeki suggeststhat he may have been the priest Mīlis, father of Yazdbōzīd/Yazbōzēd, the man who erected the Nestorian
Stele (C. Dàqín J ngjiào liúxíng Zh ngguó b i 大秦景教流行中國碑 ).66 This is problematic since no link can beestablished between Mīlis and Rimitsuei other than a potential similarity of names and the fact that they had

58 The original text states:
十一月戊寅。天皇臨朝。詔授入唐副使從五位上中臣朝臣名代從四位下。故判官正六位上田口朝臣養年富。紀朝臣馬主並贈從五位下。准判官從七位下大伴宿祢首名。唐人皇甫東朝。波斯人李密翳䒭授位有差。
(Kuroita Katsumi and Kokushi Daikei Henshūkai, eds., Shoku Nihongi: Zenpen, 141).

59 Yano Kenichi, Kentōshi to rainichi Tōjin Kōho Tōchō o chūshin toshite, Sensh Daigaku Ajia Sekai Kenky
Senta Nenb 6 (2012), 133; Mori Kimiaki, Ri Mitsuei, in Asahi Nihon rekishi jinbutsu jiten, edited by Asahi
Shinbunsha (Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha, 1994), 1802.
60 Mori Kimiaki, Nakatomi no Nashiro, in Asahi Nihon rekishi jinbutsu jiten, edited by Asahi Shinbunsha (Tokyo:
Asahi Shinbunsha, 1994), 1199; Mori, Ri Mitsuei, 1802.
61 James Harry Morris, The Case for Christianity in Japan prior to the 16th Century, Oriens Christianus 98 (2015),
109-137; James Harry Morris, The Figures of Kōho and Li-mi-i, and the origins of the case for a Christian
missionary presence in Tenpyō Era Japan, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 27, No. 2 (2017), 313-323; James
Harry Morris, The Legacy of Peter Yoshirō Saeki: Evidence of Christianity in Japan before the arrival of
Europeans, The Journal of Academic Perspectives 2016, No. 2 (2016), 1-22; James Harry Morris, Rereading theevidence of the earliest Christian communities in East Asia during and prior to the Táng Period, Missiology: An
International Review 45, No. 3 (2017), 252-264.
62 Saeki Yoshirō, Keiky hibun kenky (Tokyo: Tairō Shoin, 1911), 16.
63 Morris, The Legacy of Peter Yoshirō Saeki: Evidence of Christianity in Japan before the arrival of Europeans,
7-8.
64 Peter Yoshirō Saeki, The Nestorian Monument in China (London, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,1916), 62.
65 Ibid.
66 Ibid.

112

James Harry MORRIS, A New Analysis of Persian Visits to Japan in the 7th and 8th Centuries

both been present in the Táng capital of Chángʼān.67 Moreover, as noted by Max Deeg, it would be unusual torender Mīlis (Mîlês) as 密李 in Middle Chinese.68 If Rimitsuei was a Syriac Christian monk or priest, we would
also expect to find a title such as s 僧 (C. S ng) demarking him as such,69 as is the case when Syriac Christianmonks and priests are referred to in contemporaneous Chinese documents.70
Elsewhere, I have argued that since Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Manichaeism, Buddhism, and Christianity
were all present in contemporaneous Persia, Rimitsueiʼs religious identity will remain a mystery.71 Whilst I
maintain that Rimitsueiʼs religious identity cannot be established with certainty, Ishihara Tsutomu provides
important evidence for estimating Rimitsueiʼs potential religious affiliation. He argues that Manichaeism had
been outlawed in Táng China since 732CE meaning that it would have been nearly impossible for Nakatomi no
Nashiro to receive permission from the Chinese authorities to bring a Manichaean to Japan.72 This appears to bea misunderstanding on the part of Ishihara, since other sources note that the laws to which he refers permitted
the practice of foreign religions, but banned the preaching of those religions to the Chinese. 73 Ishihara also
notes that no references to Rimitsuei appear in contemporaneous Buddhist texts unlike contemporaneous
foreign, Buddhist visitors.74 Indeed, since Rimitsuei is not mentioned alongside Buddhist visitors, Dōsen 道璿 (702760CE) and Baramon 婆羅門 (alternatively known as Bodaisenna 菩提僊那 704-760CE), two other membersof Nakatomi no Nashiroʼs embassy75 who graced the court without the other embassy members shortly after
Nakatomi no Nashiro first introduced his whole party to the Emperor,76 it seems unlikely that he was a Buddhist
priest. Finally, Ishihara notes that Zoroastrians rarely made attempts to spread their religion to the Táng or
beyond.77 Although these pieces of evidence are potentially useful, they rely on the assumption that Rimitsuei
visited Japan for primarily religious purposes, something which has not been proven. In the case that Rimitsuei
did visit Japan for religious purposes, I believe that Ishiharaʼs thesis may be used as an interesting starting
point to explore Rimitsueiʼs religious affiliation, however, in the case that Rimitsuei visited for secular purposes,
Zoroastrian, Manichaean, Buddhist, or Christian religious affiliation all remain equally plausible. In summation,
there is insufficient evidence to suggest that Rimitsuei was a Syriac Christian missionary and insufficientevidence to identify his religious affiliation.
Saeki also recorded the possibility that Rimitsuei was a doctor, due to an alternative version of the final
character of his name.78 The alternative version of Rimitsueiʼs name, Rimitsui 李密醫 (C. Lǐ Mìyī), contains the

67 Morris, The Figures of Kōho and Li-mi-i, and the origins of the case for a Christian missionary presence in Tenpyō
Era Japan, 317.

68 Max Deeg, Die Strahlende Lehre: Die Stele von Xi an (Vienna: LIT Verlag, 2018), p. 20, no. 39.
69 Morris, The Figures of Kōho and Li-mi-i, and the origins of the case for a Christian missionary presence in Tenpyō
Era Japan, 318.

70 See for instance descriptions of Syriac Christian priest, Adam (Jǐngjìng 景淨 ) as Dàqín sì b s s ng J ngjìng 大秦寺

波斯僧景淨 (E. The Persian monk Adam of the Syriac Temple) in contemporaneous Chinese documents: Zhēnyuánxīndìng shìjiào mùlù juǎn dì shíqī, CBETA Hànwén dàzàng j ng CBETA, T55, no. 2156, 756; Dàtáng zhēnyuán xù
kāiyuán shìjiào lù juǎn shàng, CBETA Hànwén dàzàng j ng CBETA, T55, no. 2157, 892.
71 Morris, The Figures of Kōho and Li-mi-i, and the origins of the case for a Christian missionary presence in Tenpyō
Era Japan, 318-319.
72 Ishihara Tsutomu, Nara jidai ni rainichi shita Perushajin Rimitsuei (Ri Mitsu) kō, Higashi Ajia no Kodai Bunka
18 (1978), 32.
73 Samuel N. C. Lieu, Manicheism vi. In China, Encyclopaedia Iranica, 2002.
74 Ishihara, Nara jidai ni rainichi shita Perushajin Rimitsuei (Ri Mitsu) kō, 32.
75 Mori, Nakatomi no Nashiro, 1199.
76 Kuroita and Kokushi Daikei Henshūkai, eds., Shoku Nihongi: Zenpen, 141.
77 Ishihara, Nara jidai ni rainichi shita Perushajin Rimitsuei (Ri Mitsu) kō, 32.
78 Saeki, Keiky hibun kenky , 15-16.

113

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 12 / February 2020

character, i 醫 , which refers to medical practitioners.79 The other spelling for Rimitsueiʼs name used thus far inthis research note in which the final character ei 翳 is present lacks any such connotation.80 This version of thename appears to be more popular in modern reprints of the text,81 and according to Saeki Ariyoshi and Itō was
original to the text.82 In my own exploration of older copies of the Shoku Nihongi, I have found that the name
Rimitsui and the use of characters which suggest a role in medicine to be more prevalent.83 P. Y. Saeki argues
that given the presence of this alternative final character that Rimitsueiʼs name should be translated as Mīlis,the doctor.84 On the other hand, Matsuki Akitomo, who accepts the thesis that Rimitsuei was a doctor, but rejects
the concept that his name is incorrectly rendered, argues that the man should be thought of as Rimitsu, thedoctor.85 Indeed, the fact that Emperor Shōmu was engaged in reforming Japanese medical practices86 perhaps
lends to the case that Rimitsuei was a medical practitioner. Scholars such as Arthur Lloyd, Junjirō Takakusu,
and Joseph Needham have all argued that he was a physician active within these reforms.87 Identifying
Rimitsuei as a doctor is, however, problematic. Itō notes that if the character i 醫 indicates that Rimitsuei wasa doctor, grammatically it should precede his name so as to read i Rimitsu (C. Yī Lǐ Mì).88 Additionally, Rinoie
Masafumi illustrates that there are no references to a doctor named Rimitsu in contemporaneous documentsfrom Chángʼān.89 Due to the paucity of textual evidence from Chángʼān and on a grammatical basis, it istherefore problematic to assert that Rimitsuei was a doctor. The suggestion that Rimitsuei was a doctor is often
used to strengthen the argument that he was a missionary due to a perceived link between medicine and Syriac
Christianity,90 however, although Syriac Christians did practice medicine it would be misleading to suggest thatthey monopolized the trade.91
Elsewhere I wrote that:...we should also conclude that Li-mi-i [Rimitsuei] visited in a secular rather than religious capacity as aphysician. Such a conclusion...[suggests] that Li-mi-i had a purpose in one of Emperor Shōmuʼs projects,
most likely his medical reforms.92

79 Ibid.
80 Morris, The Legacy of Peter Yoshirō Saeki: Evidence of Christianity in Japan before the arrival of Europeans,
8-10.

81 Ibid., 9.
82 Saeki Ariyoshi, Z ho Rikkokushi (Tokyo: Meichō Fukyūkai, 1988), 259; Itō Zoroastrians Arrival in Japan(Pahlavica I), 63 n. 25.

83 Morris, The Legacy of Peter Yoshirō Saeki: Evidence of Christianity in Japan before the arrival of Europeans,
9-10.

84 Saeki, The Nestorian Monument in China, 62.
85 Matsuki Akimoto, Kinmeichō ni Rainichi shita Kudara no ishi Ōyuryōda ni tsuite, Nihon Ishi Gaku Zasshi 29, No.
4 (1983), 448.

86 William Wayne Farris, Population, Disease, and Land in Early Japan, 645-900 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1995), 50-73.

87 Arthur Lloyd, Shinran and his work: studies in Shinshu theology (Tokyo: Kyo Bun Kwan, 1910, 171-172; Arthur
Lloyd, The Creed of Half Japan: Historical Sketches of Japanese Buddhism (London: John Murray, 1911), 222-223;
Junjirō Takakusu, Le Voyage de Kanshin en Orient (742-754), Bulletin de l École français d Extrême-Orient 28(1928), 7-8; Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China, Volume 1, Introductory Orientations (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1954), 188.
88 Itō, Perushia bunka torai k , 28.
89 Rinoie Masafumi, Tenpy no kyaku, Perushiajin no naji: Ri Mitsei to Keiky hi (Tōkyō: Tōhō Shoten, 1986), 65-74.
90 Saeki, Keiky hibun kenky , 15-16; Ishihara, Nara jidai ni rainichi shita Perushajin Rimitsuei (Ri Mitsu) kō, 31-32.
91 Morris, The Legacy of Peter Yoshirō Saeki: Evidence of Christianity in Japan before the arrival of Europeans, 9.
92 Morris, The Figures of Kōho and Li-mi-i, and the origins of the case for a Christian missionary presence in Tenpyō
Era Japan, 319.

114

James Harry MORRIS, A New Analysis of Persian Visits to Japan in the 7th and 8th Centuries

Following further consideration, I do not believe that it is possible to affirm that Rimitsuei was a physician
since this is grammatically and terminologically problematic, and lacks support in Chinese sources, although
it remains a possibility. Nevertheless, I abide by my conclusion that he came to Japan for primarily secularpurposes. Kōho Tōchō, the man with whom Rimitsuei received rank from the Emperor, is featured extensively
in the Shoku Nihongi.93 Kōho was involved in the office of court music and later became a Vice-Governor.94 Yano
Kenichi argues that he was brought to Japan to perform at the opening ceremony of the Nara Daibutsu 奈良大
仏 and in order that his expertise might be used in the country.95 Since Kōhoʼs name is listed prior to Rimitsueiʼs,
Rinoie argues that it is possible to conjecture that Rimitsuei was the younger of the pair (below the age of
18 or 19) or of lower rank.96 In any case, while the following is potentially the product of crude reasoning, I
would suggest that the Shoku Nihongi illustrates that the foreigners who returned to Japan with Nakatomi no
Nashiroʼs were categorized by their roles as either secular or religious. As noted, after the whole of Nakatomi
no Nashiroʼs group had an audience with the Emperor, Dōsen and Baramon, who had explicitly religious roles,
met with the Emperor alone.97 Following this Kōho, whose role was primarily secular in nature, and Rimitsuei,
met with the Emperor without Dōsen and Baramon.98 This suggests that the foreigners were categorized bytheir roles, with those involved in religious professions meeting the Emperor at one point, and those involved insecular positions at another. This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that there are very few instancesof religious figures receiving rank from the Emperor in the Shoku Nihongi, and under Emperor Shōmu nomonks or priests received imperially awarded rank.99 Since Rimitsuei met the Emperor separately from Dōsen
and Baramon, and since he received a rank from the Emperor, it would appear that he came to Japan in a secular
capacity. Some scholars have suggested that Rimitsuei may have been involved in the field of music due to his
featuring alongside Kōho in the text,100 however, as with his potential role as a doctor this remains unclear in thesource material. Indeed, Rinoie argues that Rimitsuei could not have been a musician since he does not appear
alongside Kōho and his family at later points in the text.101 Despite all this, since Dōsen, Baramon, and Kōho all
had a role (religious, scholarly, musical or political) to play in Tenpyō 天 平 era (729-749CE) and post-Tenpyō
era Japan,102 it is highly likely that Rimitsuei was also brought to Japan due to some service that he was able torender to Shōmuʼs government.
Whilst Yano notes that the year of Rimitsueiʼs birth, and details regarding his life once in Japan arecompletely untraceable,103 I believe that it may be possible to make some estimations regarding Rimitsueiʼspersonage. From the text, we know that he is a Persian who received rank from the Emperor according to his
social status,104 and (as discussed above) it seems likely that he came to Japan in a secular role. Furthermore, his
receiving of a low rank105 and his mention in the Shoku Nihongi suggest that he held a fairly high social status.
Like other scholars, I believe that Rimitsueiʼs name may point to details about his personage. Itō suggests

93 Yano, Kentōshi to rainichi Tōjin Kōho Tōchō o chūshin toshite, 129-141.
94 Ibid. 129-141; Morris, The Figures of Kōho and Li-mi-i, and the origins of the case for a Christian missionary
presence in Tenpyō Era Japan, 314-315.

95 Yano, Kentōshi to rainichi Tōjin Kōho Tōchō o chūshin toshite, 129-141.
96 Rinoie, Tenpy no kyaku, Perushiajin no naji: Ri Mitsei to Keiky hi, 105.
97 Kuroita and Kokushi Daikei Henshūkai, eds., Shoku Nihongi: Zenpen, 141.
98 Ibid.
99 Ibid., 97-202.
100 Ishihara, Nara jidai ni rainichi shita Perushajin Rimitsuei (Ri Mitsu) kō, 34-25; Mori, Ri Mitsuei, 1802.
101 Rinoie, Tenpy no kyaku, Perushiajin no naji: Ri Mitsei to Keiky hi, 103.
102 Ishihara, Nara jidai ni rainichi shita Perushajin Rimitsuei (Ri Mitsu) kō, 34-35.
103 Yano, Kentōshi to rainichi Tōjin Kōho Tōchō o chūshin toshite, 131.
104 Kuroita and Kokushi Daikei Henshūkai, eds., Shoku Nihongi: Zenpen, 141.
105 See discussion in: Rinoie, Tenpy no kyaku, Perushiajin no naji: Ri Mitsei to Keiky hi, 104-106.
115

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 12 / February 2020

that the name Rimitsuei may be derived from the Persian name Rāmyār.106 This seems unlikely since Lǐ 李 (J.
Ri) was a Chinese surname popular amongst Persians contemporaneously.107 Although Ishihara agrees thatLǐ is Rimitsueiʼs surname, he notes the difficulties associated with translating the characterʼs first name into
contemporaneous Chinese, and therefore argues that the name Mitsuei 密翳 was likely constructed in order toencapsulate some sort of meaning rather than according to phonetics.108 As such, he favors the rendering Mitsui密醫 , allowing him to suggest that Ri Mitsuei was a doctor.109 Nevertheless, as discussed above there are issues
with accepting not only the spelling Mitsui, but also the concept that it betrays some sort of meaning related
to medicine. On the other hand, Imoto notes that the name is likely derived from Persian.110 He argues thatsince the character Mitsu 密 was used to transliterate foreign phonics such as mir, mur, or mihr into Chinese,
the name Mitsuei was likely originally a Persian name such as Mihr-ay, Mihr-ey or Mihr-ag.111 Building on thework of Philippe Gignoux, Deeg has also suggested the Middle Persian name R v-Mihr as a potential point oforigin.112 Rinoie, who explores Mitsueiʼs name at length proposes mi-wei or miwai.113 Following Imoto and Deeg,
I would also suggest that Mihr-d d, Mihr- d, or perhaps even a derivative of the Sogdian Miši are potential
origins for the name Mitsuei. Nevertheless, on the whole I believe that Imotoʼs suggestions of Mihr-ay and Mihrey resemble the Japanese, Mitsuei, more closely than Mihr-ag, Mihr-d d or Mihr- d. The concept that Rimitsuei
had a Sogdian name is unlikely, although artefacts containing both Sogdian and Middle Persian inscriptions
have been discovered in the Tenpyō era capital, Nara.114 These names are all theophoric in nature, consistingof the theonym Mihr (E. Mithra)115 and some additional phonic(s). Israel Campos argues that theophoric names
have a religious meaning which represent either:an act of religious devotion by the individualʼs progenitors or...a personal option of the person, whochooses this name in a certain moment of his adult life.116
Since names containing the theonym, Mihr, were popular amongst Zoroastrians and Manichaeans,117 it isreasonable to assume that Ri Mitsueiʼs parents were Zoroastrian or Manichaean. Unless, Ri Mitsuei converted toanother religion he too was likely Zoroastrian or Manichaean. Itō, who believes that other Tocharai and Persian
visitors to Japan were Zoroastrian, suggests that because Ri Mitsuei is not mentioned further in the Shoku
Nihongi, he must have been a Manichaean who fell victim to the slander of his Zoroastrian countrymen.118
Although this is a possibility, there appears no way at present to determine which of the two religions he
106 Itō, Perushia bunka torai k , 28.
107 Matsuki, Kinmeichō ni Rainichi shita Kudara no ishi Ōyuryōda ni tsuite, 449; Ishihara, Nara jidai ni rainichishita Perushajin Rimitsuei (Ri Mitsu) kō, 31.

108 Ishihara, Nara jidai ni rainichi shita Perushajin Rimitsuei (Ri Mitsu) kō, 31.
109 Ibid.
110 Imoto Eiichi, Ky kai Saishi k kan (Tokyo: Hirakawa Shuppansha, 1985), 170.
111 Imoto Eiichi, Mihrak ( 弥勒 ) and other Iranian words, Orient 18 (1982), 131.
112 Deeg, Die Strahlende Lehre: Die Stele von Xi an, p. 20, n. 39. See also: Philippe Gignoux, Iranisches Personennamenbuch(hrsg.v. M. Mayrhofer u. R. Schmitt), Band II: Mitteliranische Personennamen, Faszikel 2: Noms propres Sassanides
en moyen-Perse épigraphique (Vienna: Verlag der Östereichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1986), p. 154, Nr.
812.
113 Rinoie, Tenpy no kyaku, Perushiajin no naji: Ri Mitsei to Keiky hi, 75-97.
114 Morris, The Case for Christianity in Japan prior to the 16th Century, 125-126.
115 Rüdiger Schmitt, Personal Names, Iranian V. Sasanian Period, Encyclopedia Iranica, 2005.
116 Campos Israel, Theophoric names as a matter of faith, 2009.
117 Philippa Adrych, Robert Bracey, Dominic Dalglish, Stefanie Lenk and Rachel Wood, Images of Mithra (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2017), 94-95; Samuel N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in Central Asia and China (Leiden: Brill,1998), 194; Michael Allen Williams, The Immovable Race: A Gnostic Designation and the Theme of Stability in Late
Antiquity (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985), 68.
118 Itō, Zoroastrians Arrival in Japan (Pahlavica I), 63 n. 25.

116

James Harry MORRIS, A New Analysis of Persian Visits to Japan in the 7th and 8th Centuries

belonged to.
Since Ri Mitsueiʼs surname, Lǐ 李 , was popular amongst Persians in Táng China it is difficult to ascertaina great deal from his surname. There were some 4,000 foreign families residing in Chángʼān by 787CE.119 Ye
Yiliang notes that most Persians in Táng China were merchants although some were employed as administrators
or in the military.120 Statistically the likeliness that Ri Mitsuei was a merchant is therefore high, and this may
explain why there are no further references to him in Japanese sources. Nevertheless, the Shoku Nihongi rarely
mentions merchants (J. Sh nin 商人 ), and rarely refers to them by name. Due to his status, which I believe is
illustrated by the fact that he is named in the document, he may have been related to other high ranking, Persian,
Lǐ mentioned in contemporaneous Chinese texts. Nevertheless, there is no possible way to link Ri Mitsuei to theseother figures. Prominent Lǐ include descendants of the Sasanian line, such as Lǐ Sù 李素 who was a Christiancleric and a court astronomer,121 as well as poets and medical experts such as Lǐ Xún 李珣 .122 The recent discovery
of a mokkan 木簡 (E. a document recorded on a piece of wood) from 765CE,123 may also shine some light on Ri
Mitsuei. The mokkan notes the employment of a Persian called Hashi no Kiyomichi 破斯清通 at the Imperial
university known as the Daigaku ry 大学寮 .124 Whilst few have conducted research into the figure, Watanabe
Akihiro of the Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties (J. Nara Bunkazai Kenky sho 奈良文
化 財 研 究 所 ) has suggested that Hashi no Kiyomichi may have been Ri Mitsuei, a member of his family, or
someone else with links to the figure.125 If true, this suggests that Ri Mitsuei or his family integrated into Japan,
and that they were involved in the field of education.
Like his predecessor Dārāy, Ri Mitsuei is a mysterious figure about which little is known, but much isconjectured. Classical scholarship which has viewed Ri Mitsuei as a Syriac Christian missionary or doctor
cannot be maintained. Since he visited the Emperor and received rank it is unlikely that he came to Japan in a
religious role, rather it seems most likely that he was engaged in a secular field perhaps linked to education, oras Rinoie suggests that he possibly died shortly after having come to Japan.126 Moreover, because his name isrecorded in the Shoku Nihongi and because he received rank, he likely held high social status. Such is the lackof knowledge that surrounds the figure that even his original name is debated. This research note argued that
his surname was likely the common Sino-Persian, Lǐ, whereas his first name was likely derived from a Mithraic

119 Ye Yiliang, Introductory Essay: Outline of the Political Relations between Iran and China, Aspects of the
Maritime Silk Road: From the Persian Gulf to the East China Sea, edited by Ralph Kauz (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz
Verlag, 2010), 4.
120 Ibid.
121 Chengyong Ge and Matteo Nicolini-Zani, The Christian Faith of a Sogdian Family in Changʼan during the Tang
Dynasty, Annali. Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli f64 (2004), 181; Domenico Agostini and Sören Stark,Zāwulistān, Kāwulistan and the Land Bosi 波斯 – on the question of a Sasanian Court-in-Exile in the Southern
Hindukush, Studia Iranica 45 (2016), 25.
122 Zheng Jinsheng, Nalini Kirk, Paul D. Buell and Paul U. Unschuld, eds., Ben Cao Gang Mu Dictionary, Volume 3,
Persons and Literary Sources (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2018), 274.
123 Miyata Osamu, Isuramu yu tsu no kib no kuni Nihon (Tokyo: PHP Kenkyūsho, 2017).
124 The following is a rendering of the text. Backslashes mark the separation of sentences, whilst the character □demarks illegible characters. It states:
大 学 寮 解 申 宿 直 官 人 事 ／ 員 外 大 属 破 斯 清 通 ／ 天 平 神 護 元 年 □ □ □ □ . (Sankei West, Heijōkyū niPerushajin no yakunin ga hataraitera!! 765 nen mokkan ga shōmei kokusaiteki chishiki de tōyō ka tosenmonka, 2016).

125 Sankei West, Heijōkyū ni Perushajin no yakunin ga hataraitera!! 765 nen mokkan ga shōmei kokusaiteki chishikide tōyō ka to senmonka, 2016.

126 Rinoie, Tenpy no kyaku, Perushiajin no naji: Ri Mitsei to Keikyōhi, 107.
117

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 12 / February 2020

theonym, Mihr, with the addition of a further phonic. If this is the case, it is highly likely that Ri Mitsuei was a
Zoroastrian or Manichaean. Ri Mitsueiʼs visit to Japan, like Dārāyʼs before him, helps to further demythologize
the commonly held conception that Japanʼs early foreign relations were limited to relations with Táng China andthe Three Kingdoms of Korea (Baekje, Silla, and Goguryeo). Although, the episode illustrates that relations with
non-East Asian nations were often facilitated by Sino-Japanese interaction, it also suggests that the nationals ofother foreign nations influenced and interacted with early Japan.
Conclusions
In this research note, I have sought to offer some thoughts on early Persian visitors to Japan, and some ofthe potential issues with hereto accepted scholarly opinion on the topic. Previous scholarly attempts to deal withthe biographies of the figures explored in this research note have often been based on outdated scholarship or
have lacked sufficient evidence to ratify. This research note has attempted to provide a new starting point fromwhich to study these figures based on new analyses and past interpretations that seem to hold some credence.
While we can ascertain that Persians visited Ancient Japan and can garner limited information on these people
from contemporaneous sources, there is very little that we can concretely say about these figures beyond thatwhich is recorded in the source texts. It appears that early Persian visitors to Japan mentioned in the Nihon
Shoki and Shoku Nihongi were of a high social status. Dārāy sought permission to leave Japan with a retinueof men, leaving behind his wife and promising to return in the future. Ri Mitsuei arrived as part of a returning
Japanese embassy to Táng China and received rank from the Emperor. However, neither figure receives mention
in Japanʼs classical histories after their initial appearance. Our limited knowledge of these figures does notmean that their visits were insignificant. On the contrary, the episodes elucidate the ways in which foreigners
met with Japanʼs Emperors and the ways in which Japanʼs foreign relations with non-East Asian nations
occurred. Moreover, the episodes illustrate that Japanʼs early foreign relations were not limited to relations with
the Táng and the Three Kingdoms of Korea as is commonly assumed. As a closing thought it must also be
noted that the figures explored in this research note were not necessarily the earliest Persians to arrive in Japan.
Some scholars such as Matsuki Akimoto have contended that Persians arrived even earlier,127 although thisdoesnʼt seem to have gained widespread acceptance.
References
Adrych, Philippa, Robert Bracey, Dominic Dalglish, Stefanie Lenk & Rachel Wood. 2017. Images of Mithra.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Agostini, Domenico & Sören Stark. 2016. Zāwulistān, Kāwulistan and the Land Bosi 波斯 – on the question ofa Sasanian Court-in-Exile in the Southern Hindukush, Studia Iranica, Vol. 45: 17-38.
Alikuzai, Hamid Wahed. 2013. A Concise History of Afghanistan in 25 Volumes, Vol. 14. Bloomington: Trafford
Publishing.
Aston, William (trans.) 1972. Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A.D. 697, Two Volumes
in One. Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing.
Compareti, Matteo. 2009. Chinese-Iranian Relations xv. The Last Sasanians in China, Encyclopedia Iranica.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/china-xv-the-last-sasanians-in-china (Accessed July 26, 2018).
Dàtáng zhēnyuán xù kāiyuán shìjiào lù juǎn shàng 大唐貞元續開元釋教錄卷上 . CBETA Hànwén dàzàng
jīng CBETA 漢文大藏經 , T55, no 2157. http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T55n2156_001 (Accessed May 8, 2018).
Deeg, Max. 2018. Die Strahlende Lehre: Die Stele von Xi an. Vienna: LIT Verlag.
127 Matsuki, Kinmeichō ni Rainichi shita Kudara no ishi Ōyuryōda ni tsuite, 447-453.
118

James Harry MORRIS, A New Analysis of Persian Visits to Japan in the 7th and 8th Centuries

Farris, William Wayne. 1995. Population, Disease, and Land in Early Japan, 645-900. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Ge, Chengyong & Matteo Nicolini-Zani. 2004. The Christian Faith of a Sogdian Family in Changʼan during theTang Dynasty, Annali. Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, Vol. 64: 181-196.
Gignoux, Philippe. 1986. Iranisches Personennamenbuch (hrsg.v. M. Mayrhofer u. R. Schmitt), Band II:
Mitteliranische Personennamen, Faszikel 2: Noms propres Sassanides en moyen-Perse épigraphique.
Vienna: Verlag der Östereichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Ishihara, Tsutomu 石原力 . 1979. Nara jidai ni rainichi shita Perushajin Rimitsuei (Ri Mitsu) kō 奈良時代に来日したペルシャ人李密翳（李密）考 , Higashi Ajia no Kodai Bunka 東アジアの古代文化 , Vol. 18:
28-41.
Imoto, Eiichi 井本英一 . 1980. Kodai no Nihon to Iran 古代の日本とイラン . Tokyo: Gakuseisha.
Imoto, Eiichi 井本英一 . 1985. Ky kai Saishi k kan 境界・祭祀空間 . Tokyo: Hirakawa Shuppansha.
Imoto, Eiichi. 1982. Mihrak ( 弥勒 ) and other Iranian words, Orient, Vol. 18: 129-132.
Imoto, Eiichi 井本英一 . 1978. Perushiajin no raichō to urabonkai ペルシア人の来朝と盂蘭盆会 , Daih ron
大法論 , Vol. 45, no. 9.
Israel, Campos. 2009. Theophoric names as a matter of faith. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259442447_
Theophoric_names_as_a_matter_of_faith (Accessed May 8, 2018).
Itō, Gikyō 伊藤義教 . 1980. Perushia bunka torai k : Shirukor do kara Asuka e ペルシア文化渡来考 : シルクロードから飛鳥へ . Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Itō, Gikyō. 1979. Zoroastrians Arrival in Japan (Pahlavica I), Orient, Vol. 15: 55-63.
Japanese Historical Text Initiative, University of California at Berkeley (ed.) Nihon Shoki 日本書紀 . https://jhti.
berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/jhti/select.cgi?honname=1 (Accessed May 8, 2018).
Kuroita, Katsumi 黒板勝美 & Kokushi Daikei Henshūkai 國史大系編修会 (eds.) 1979. Shoku Nihongi: Zenpen
続日本紀 : 前編 . Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan.
Lieu, Samuel N. C. 1998. Manichaeism in Central Asia and China. Leiden: Brill.
Lieu, Samuel N. C. 2002. Manicheism vi. In China, Encyclopaedia Iranica. http://www.iranicaonline.org/
articles/manicheism-v-in-china-1 (Accessed May 8, 2018).
Lloyd, Arthur. 1910. Shinran and his work: studies in Shinshu theology. Tokyo: Kyo Bun Kwan.
Lloyd, Arthur. 1911. The Creed of Half Japan: Historical Sketches of Japanese Buddhism. London: John Murray.
Matsuki Akimoto 松木明知 . 1983. Kinmeichō ni Rainichi shita Kudara no ishi Ōyuryōda ni tsuite 欽明朝に来日した百済の医師王有陵陀について , Nihon Ishi Gaku Zasshi 日本醫史學雜誌 , Vol. 29, No. 4: 447454.
Miyata, Osamu 宮田律 . 2017. Isuramu yu tsu no kib no kuni Nihon イスラム唯一の希望の国 日本 . Tokyo:
PHP Kenkyūsho.
Mori, Kimiaki 森公章 . 1994. Nakatomi no Nashiro 中臣名代 , in Asahi Nihon rekishi jinbutsu jiten 朝日日
本歴史人物辞典 , edited by Asahi Shinbunsha 朝日新聞社 : 1199. Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha.
Mori, Kimiaki 森公章 . 1994. Ri Mitsuei 李密翳 , in Asahi Nihon rekishi jinbutsu jiten 朝日日本歴史人物辞
典 , edited by Asahi Shinbunsha 朝日新聞社 : 1802. Tokyo: Asahi Shinbunsha.
Morris, James Harry. 2015. The Case for Christianity in Japan prior to the 16th Century, Oriens Christianus,Vol. 98: 109-137.
Morris, James Harry. 2017. The Figures of Kōho and Li-mi-i, and the origins of the case for a Christian
missionary presence in Tenpyō Era Japan, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 27, No. 2: 313-323.
Morris, James Harry. 2016. The Legacy of Peter Yoshirō Saeki: Evidence of Christianity in Japan before thearrival of Europeans, The Journal of Academic Perspectives, Vol. 2016, No. 2: 1-22.
Morris, James Harry. 2017. Rereading the evidence of the earliest Christian communities in East Asia
during and prior to the Táng Period, Missiology: An International Review, Vol. 45, No. 3: 252-264.
119

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 12 / February 2020

Needham, Joseph. 1954. Science and Civilization in China, Volume 1: Introductory Orientations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nishimoto, Masahiro 西 本 昌 弘 . 2010. Asuka ni kita seiiki no Toharajin 飛 鳥 に 来 た 西 域 の 吐 火 羅 人 ,Kansai Daigaku T zai Gakujutsu Kenky sho Kiy 関西大学東西学術研究所紀要 , Vol. 43: 1-23.
Okamoto, Kenichi 岡本健一 . 1978. Nihon ni kita seiikijin 日本に来た西域人 , Higashi Ajia no Kodai Bunka
東アジアの古代文化 , Vol. 17: 58-63.
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 2011. Chinese-Iranian Relations i. In Pre-Islamic Times, Encyclopedia Iranica. http://
www.iranicaonline.org/articles/chinese-iranian-i (Accessed October 3, 2019).
Rinoie Masafumi, 李家正文 . 1986. Tenpy no kyaku, Perushiajin no naji: Ri Mitsei to Keiky hi 天平の客、ペルシア人の謎：李密翳と景教碑 . Tōkyō: Tōhō Shoten.
Saeki, Ariyoshi 佐伯有義 . 1988. Z ho Rikkokushi 増補六国史 . Tokyo: Meichō Fukyūkai.
Saeki, Yoshirō 佐伯好郎 . 1911. Keiky hibun kenky 景教碑文研究 . Tokyo: Tairō Shoin.
Saeki, Peter Yoshirō. 1916. The Nestorian Monument in China. London: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge.
Sankei West 産経 West. 2016. Heijōkyū ni Perushajin no yakunin ga hataraitera!! 765 nen mokkan ga shōmei
kokusaiteki chishiki de tōyō ka to senmonka 平城宮にペルシャ人の役人が働いていた !!
765年 木 簡 が 証 明「 国 際 的 知 識 で 登 用 か 」 と 専 門 家 . https://www.sankei.com/west/news/161005/
wst1610050057-n1.html (Accessed May 8, 2018).
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 2005. Personal Names, Iranian V. Sasanian Period, Encyclopedia Iranica. http://www.
iranicaonline.org/articles/personal-names-iranian-v-sasanian (Accessed May 8, 2018).
Takakusu, Junjirō. 1928. Le Voyage de Kanshin en Orient (742-754), Bulletin de l'École français d'ExtrêmeOrient, Vol. 28: 1-41.
Takatō Gorō 高遠五郎 . 1978. Asuka to Seiiki 飛鳥と西域 , Higashi Ajia no Kodai Bunka 東アジアの古代文化 , Vol. 18: 108-117.
Williams, Michael Allen. 1985. The Immovable Race: A Gnostic Designation and the Theme of Stability in Late
Antiquity. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Xuánzàng 玄奘 , Dà táng x yù jì 大唐西域記 . https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb&res=944265 (Accessed May 6,2018).
Yano Kenichi 矢野建一 . 2012. Kentōshi to rainichi Tōjin Kōho Tōchō o chūshin toshite 遣唐使と来日「唐人」皇甫東朝を中心として , Sensh Daigaku Ajia Sekai Kenky Senta Nenb 専修大学東アジア世界史研究センター年報 , Vol. 6: 129-141.
Ye Yiliang. 2010. Introductory Essay: Outline of the Political Relations between Iran and China, in Aspectsof the Maritime Silk Road: From the Persian Gulf to the East China Sea, edited by Ralph Kauz: 3-6.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Zarrinkūb, Abd Al-Husain. 1975. The Arab Conquest of Iran and its Aftermath, in The Cambridge History of
Iran, Volume 4: The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, edited by R. N. Frye: 1-53. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zeimal, E. V. 1983. The Political History of Transoxiana, in The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 3: The
Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanid Periods, Part 1, edited by E. Yarshater: 232-262. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Zheng, Jinsheng, Nalini Kirk, Paul D. Buell & Paul U. Unschuld (eds.) 2018. Ben Cao Gang Mu Dictionary,Volume 3: Persons and Literary Sources. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Zhēnyuán xīndìng shìjiào mùlù juǎn dì shíqī 貞 元 新 定 釋 教 目 錄 卷 第 十 七 . CBETA Hànwén dàzàng j ng
CBETA 漢文大藏經 , T55, no. 2156. http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T55n2157_017 (Accessed May 8, 2018).

120