In the sixth month of a year the sources give as 238 or 239, envoys from a country the Chinese called Wa arrived at Daifang, a Chinese commandery on the Korean peninsula, and asked to be sent on to the emperor. The Grand Administrator gave them an escort. They carried four men and six women and two bolts of patterned cloth, and they came on behalf of a ruler the record calls the queen of Wa, Himiko [1].
That request is the first dated act of her life that anyone wrote down, and the writing was done in China. Everything known about Himiko from her own century comes from a foreign court’s account of a distant people. The account sits in the San guo zhi 三國志, the history of the Three Kingdoms compiled by Chen Shou late in the third century; the section on Wa runs to perhaps two thousand characters [1]. The Chinese historian had not seen her country. He was working from reports that came back through the commandery.
What he set down is unusually specific for a description of a far people, and unusually thin about the person at its centre.
Wa, the record says, lies in the great sea to the south-east. It had once been divided among more than a hundred countries; thirty were in communication with the Chinese court. There had been a long disorder, with the countries attacking one another for years, and it ended when they set up a woman as ruler together. Her name was Himiko [1].
The description of her rule is a handful of sentences. She served kidō 鬼道 and could sway the multitude. She was grown and had no husband. A younger brother assisted her in governing the country. After she became ruler, few saw her: a thousand female attendants waited on her, and one man brought her food and drink and carried words in and out. Her dwelling had a palace, towers and a stockade, with armed guards always standing watch [1].
That phrase kidō is where translation turns dangerous. It is usually rendered “the way of the spirits”, and it is worth saying plainly that it is the Chinese recorder’s word, not hers, and not a term from inside her own country. English versions reaching for “sorcery” or “demon worship” import a judgement the Chinese character carries in one context and not another. Modern Japanese scholarship has read the same term several ways, as Monta Seiichi’s survey of 2017 lays out: as an import, since the same word is used in the same history of a Chinese healing movement; as something nearer the spirit-cults the histories record among neighbouring peoples; and as a local development that grew up under Chinese ideas without being a Chinese cult. The book this note accompanies keeps the phrase and declines to settle it.
The rest of the dated record is diplomatic. The Wei court granted her the title “King of Wa, Friend of Wei” with a gold seal and a purple ribbon, and sent back a counted inventory: brocades and silks by the bolt, eight taels of gold, two swords, a hundred bronze mirrors, pearls and red lead [1]. In 240 an officer brought the seal and the gifts as far as her country, and a memorial of thanks went back. A second embassy went out in 243. In 245 a yellow banner was granted to the grandee who had led the first mission. In 247 she reported that her country and its neighbour to the south, Kuna, were attacking one another, and an officer came with the banner and a proclamation [1].
Then the record says she died. It gives no cause, no year and no place. A great mound was raised, more than a hundred paces across, and more than a hundred bondservants followed her into the grave — the term the history uses does not itself settle whether they were killed. A man was set up as king; the country would not accept him; and a girl of her kin, thirteen years old, was set up in his place [1].
Set beside what a reader usually wants, the account is mostly absence. There is no description of her face, her dress, her age at death, or a single thing she is recorded as saying. There is no account of what serving the way of the spirits involved — no rite, no implement, no words. Her mound is given a size and nothing else: no site, no shape, no direction from anywhere.
Even the successor’s name is unstable. The printed Wei text writes it in a form romanised as Iyo; the Liang shu 梁書, the Bei shi 北史 and the Han yuan 翰苑, copying the account centuries later, write a form read Toyo; the tenth-century encyclopedia Taiping Yulan 太平御覽, quoting the same passage, appears to read a different character again and gives a different age [2][3][7][4]. The later texts are not independent witnesses. They are copies of one account, and the differences between them are the history of that copying.
The distances are the same kind of problem. The histories give twelve thousand li from the commandery frontier to the queen’s country, but they count from different frontiers, and the individual legs the record measures do not reach that total [1][5]. The last two stages are given in days and in one direction — south. Whether that road ends in Kyushu or in the Kinai region, some five hundred kilometres east, has been argued since the eighteenth century and is not settled. Keeping the directions puts the queen’s seat in the west; keeping the distances requires reading a south as an east. No reconstruction has ever preserved both, and no mound anywhere has been shown to be hers.
The Nihon Shoki 日本書紀, completed in 720, does not contain the name Himiko. The phrase “queen of Wa” occurs in it exactly twice, both times in small notes set into the text under the reign of the Empress Jingū, and both notes are quotations from the Chinese record [6].
That is a fact about a document, not a conspiracy, and it is worth keeping the two apart. The chronicle was compiled nearly five centuries after the embassy, by compilers who plainly had the Chinese account in front of them and set it beside a reign of their own. What they did not do is give her a name in their own narrative.
The gap was noticed early. From 1693 Japanese scholars began identifying Himiko with Jingū outright; the identification was argued over, elaborated, attacked, and eventually taken apart on the ground that the Chinese record and the chronicle cannot be made to agree about the same decades. By 1910 the question had shifted among professional historians from which woman of the chronicle she was to where the record’s road went. One Korean source stands slightly apart: the Samguk sagi 三國史記 of 1145 records, under a year corresponding to 173, that the queen of Wa sent an envoy to Silla, writing her name in a variant form [8]. It is an envoy notice of the same kind the Chinese histories give, and it adds a single line.
It would be easy to read the thinness as loss — as though a fuller Japanese account once existed and was destroyed. The evidence does not support that, and the book is careful about it: there is no record of an order, an excision or an intention, and the earliest Japanese writing about her is a quotation from abroad.
A simpler explanation is that her country had no writing of its own that survives, and that the people who did write about her were foreign officials with a specific interest — tribute, titles, the security of a frontier. They recorded what fell inside that interest. The rest, including nearly everything a modern reader would call her life, fell outside it.
What remains is a woman set up by countries that had been at war, who was seldom seen, who sent word across a sea and received a seal, who reported a war, and who died and was buried under a mound whose location is unknown. That is a small number of sentences to have carried a name for seventeen centuries. The looking has been going on long enough to have a history of its own — and that history, more than the eight or nine sentences at its origin, is what most people now mean when they say Himiko.
Also consulted: Sui shu 隋書, compiled 636, Account of Wa 倭國傳, for the first surviving identification of the Wa capital of its own day with the Yamatai of the Wei record. Wikipedia
Found an error? Write to kwaidanote@gmail.com — corrections are made on this page and dated.