Classical Japan and the continent26 Suematsu (“Japan Relations with the Asian Continent and the Korean Peninsula (Before 950 A.D.),”
681–684) is one example of a scholar who argued that criticism from the Sui Emperor caused the Jap-
anese to eschew writing additional letters, relying instead on oral greetings. See also Kimiya Yasuhiko,
Nikka bunka kōryūshi; Mori Katsumi, Kentōshi; and Nishijima Sadao, “Nana, hasseiki no higashi ajia
kokusai kankei.” Wang Zhenping (Ambassadors from the Islands of Immortals) was the first to hypothesize
that the Japanese continued to prepare state letters that they kept ambiguous.
27 See, for instance, Tōno Haruyuki, “Kentōshisen no kōzō to kōkaijutsu,” 9 and Kentōshi to shōsōin, 15.
28 Robert Borgen, “The Japanese Mission to China, 801–806,” 11–14.
29 Charlotte von Verschuer, Across the Perilous Sea: Japanese Trade with China and Korea from the Seventh to the
Sixteenth Centuries, 4.
30 See Wang Zhenping, “Speaking with a Forked Tongue: Diplomatic Correspondence between China
and Japan 238–608,” 23–32; and Ambassadors from the Islands of the Immortals, 1–2.
31 For more information, see Nishijima Sadao’s sakuhō system theory as discussed in Chūgoku kodai kokka to
higashi Ajia sekai, and the introduction to Tanaka Fumio’s Kokusai kōeki to kodai Nihon. In English, see
Kitō Kiyoaki, “International Relations in Ancient East Asia,” 2–6; Charles Holcombe also addresses the
issue of the sakuhō system in The Genesis of East Asia: 221 BC – AD 907, 53–60.
32 Wang Zhenping, Tang China in Multi- polar Asia: A History of Diplomacy and War.
33 Faith in the veracity of the early Japanese primary sources also affected the Western historical narrative.
See, for instance, David Murray, Japan and James Murdoch, A History of Japan: From the Origins to the
Arrival of the Portuguese in 1542 A.D.
34 von Verschuer, “Looking from Within and Without,” 538–540.
35 Important new studies of Japan’s relations with non- Chinese states include contributions by Ishii Masa-
toshi (Nihon- bokkai kankeishi no kenkyū), Suzuki Yasutami (Nihon kodai no shūenshi), and Sakayori Masashi
(Bokkai to kodai no nihon), each of whom researched Japan’s diplomatic relations with one or more of the
states of Paekche, Silla, Koguryŏ, and Parhae. For an archaeological perspective on exchanges between
Japan, Koguryŏ, and Parhae, see articles by Korean sociologists translated into Japanese in Association
of Korean Sociologists, Kōkuri, Bokkai to kodai Nihon. See also Yanagida Yoshitaka (Kyūshū shinpojiumu:
ima kōrokan ga yomigaeru) and Arano Yasunori, Ishii Masatoshi, and Murai Shōsuke’s Nihon no taigai
kankei 2: Tsūkō, tsūshōen no kakudai and Nihon no taigai kankei 3: Tsūkō, tsūshōen no kakudai.
36 Ishii Masatoshi, “Shiragi to Bokkai,” 162–165; Yanagida Yoshitaka et al., Kyūshū shinpojiumu: ima
kōrokan ga yomigaeru, 74–75; Tajima Isao, Nihon, Chūgoku, Chōsen taigai kōryūshi nenpyō, 14–15.
37 Tajima Isao, Nihon, Chūgoku, Chōsen taigai kōryūshi nenpyō, 10.
38 Ueda Takeshi and Son Eiken, Nihon Bokkai kōshōshi. Sakayori Masashi and Ishii Masatoshi have also each
made substantive contributions to the field of Japan–Parhae studies with books published in 2001.
Sakayori’s Bokkai to kodai no Nihon included a useful summary of the scholarship already conducted in
the field of Parhae studies, while in Nihon- Bokkai kankeishi no kenkyū, Ishii summarized the problems
facing the Parhae scholars of today, explicating issues of multilateral relations between Parhae, Japan,
and its Korean neighbors.
39 Suzuki Yasutami, “Nantōjin no raichō wo meguru kisoteki kōsatsu” and Kodai ezo no sekai to kōryū, kodai
ouken to kōryū; Yamazato Jun’ichi, Kodai Nihon to nantō no kōryū; Mori Kimiyuki, Kodai Nihon no taigai
ninshiki to tsūkō; Sakayori, “Gagaku shinmakkatsu ni miru kodai Nihon to tōhoku Ajia.”
40 Aleksei Okladnikov, “The Mo- ho Tribes and the P’o-hai State”; Robert Borgen, Sugawara no Michizane;
McCullough, “The Heian Court, 794–1070”; Inoue, “The Century of Reform”; von Verschuer, Across
the Perilous Seas; and Bruce Batten, Gateway to Japan: Hakata in War and Peace: 500–1300.
41 This theory is based on the work of Nishigami Sadao and Ishimoda Shō. (For more, see Ishigami Eiichi,
Kodai higashi Ajia chiiki to Nihon. Kitō Kiyoaki provides an English- language discussion of Ishigami’s
theory in “International Relations in Ancient East Asia,” 1–20.)
42 While many believe that Parhae adopted a subordinate position to Japan, there are no extant records to
indicate how Parhae perceived its relationship with Japan. Wang Zhenping (Ambassadors from the Islands
of the Immortals, 136–138) suggests that both Silla and Parhae acknowledged Japan’s superiority in the
eighth century, but because each country pursued an agenda of mutual self- interest, no country—
China, Silla, Paekche, Koguryŏ, or Japan—played a fixed, dominant role in this geopolitical region.
43 See Yanagida et al., Kyūshū shinpojiumu: ima kōrokan ga yomigaeru, 87.
44 See Fuqua, “The Japanese Missions to Tang China and Maritime Exchange in East Asia, 7th–9th Cen-
turies,” 138–143.
45 Akiyama, Nisshi kōshōshi kenkyū, 208–209; Ishii Masatoshi, “10 seiki no kokusai hendō to Nissō
bōeki,” 341.