Matsuro Koku – Overlooked gateway in the Wajinden?

This is a fascinating perspective on the “logistics” of the Wajinden (the account of the Wa people in the Records of the Three Kingdoms). You are essentially arguing that if the “front door” (Matsuro-koku) is hung on the wrong hinge, the entire architectural structure of the journey to Yamatai including Ito-koku and Fumi-koku inevitably sags or collapses.

The Domino Effect: What Collapses if Matsuro-koku is Misplaced?

By Utsatsuhiko Kiyotomo

I. Why is Matsuro-koku Often Overlooked?

When discussing the Wajinden, most attention gravitates toward the location of Yamatai itself, or perhaps the identification of Ito-koku, Na-koku, and Fumi-koku. Consequently, Matsuro-koku is often treated as a mere “passing point”, simply the first land seen after crossing the sea from the Korean Peninsula.

However, Matsuro-koku is not a minor detail. It represents the first point of contact for the Wei envoys entering the land of Wa; it is the gateway where maritime transport transitions to internal connectivity. If this entrance is misidentified, our understanding of the subsequent journey becomes systematically distorted. To discuss Yamatai based only on the latter half of the text while the “entrance” is broken is to build a house on a failing foundation.

II. The Functional Role of Matsuro-koku in the text

In the Wajinden, Matsuro-koku is not just a coastal name. It is the node where the sea route meets the land-side infrastructure.

The text moves from Matsuro-koku to Ito-koku, which is described as a high-functioning hub:

“North of the Queen’s land, a ‘Great Inspector’ (Ichidairatsu) is stationed to examine the various countries… When the King’s envoys or those from the [Wei] Commandery arrive, they always go to the port for inspection to transmit documents and gift items to the Queen, ensuring there are no errors.”

If Ito-koku served as this central administrative and logistical checkpoint, Matsuro-koku—its immediate predecessor must have been a gateway that connected to it naturally. It is not enough for Matsuro-koku to simply “exist” somewhere; it must have been a place where envoys and goods were received and logically funneled toward the next hub, Ito-koku.

III. The Failure of the “Karatsu” Hypothesis

The long-held theory identifying Matsuro-koku with Karatsu creates several structural contradictions:

• Directional Inconsistency: It is natural to assume the envoys moved southeast (or at least south) into the archipelago. Karatsu is located to the west of Northern Kyushu. Starting there forces the envoys to pivot back toward the east to reach Ito-koku and beyond, breaking the flow of the entry route.
• Logistical Redundancy: If Matsuro is Karatsu and Ito is Itoshima, why land at Karatsu at all? If Itoshima (Ito-koku) was the primary maritime hub for inspections and gifts, it would be far more efficient to sail there directly. Identifying Matsuro as Karatsu reduces it to a “random landing spot” and forces Ito-koku to handle both the entrance and the hub duties, making the distinction between the two countries unclear.
• The Chain Reaction: When the connection between Matsuro and Ito is strained, the link to Fumi-koku also suffers. This leads to a “warped” reading of the entire route where directions are ignored, distances are hand-waved, and the text is treated as a flexible document to be forced into a predetermined conclusion rather than a record of actual transport.

IV. Why has this Misplacement Persisted?

The error likely stems from “overwriting” by later historical records. In the Nihon Shoki (Account of Empress Jingu), place names were rearranged to fit the political and geographical order of the time they were compiled. Modern readers often view the Wajinden through the lens of these later, “standardized” place names. To re-examine Matsuro-koku is to peel back these later layers and return to the actual maritime traffic patterns of the 3rd century.

V. The Significance of a Correct Identification: The Munakata Theory

Correctly placing Matsuro-koku means restoring the maritime structure to the reality of the terrain and archaeology.

The Taguma-Ishihata Site in Munakata is a heavy hitter in this context. It was a powerful settlement in the mid-Yayoi period with moats and elite burials. Crucially, the Munakata region was historically a network of lagoons and ancient shorelines. This area was not an isolated inland village; it was a node where water transport met regional authority.

Looking at Matsuro-koku as a maritime node related to Munakata makes geographical and archaeological sense. It allows for a natural flow of movement into the heart of Wa, connecting the dots between Ito-koku, Fumi-koku, and eventually Yamatai without the “geographical gymnastics” required by the Karatsu theory.

Conclusion

Matsuro-koku is the “keystone” of the Wajinden. By placing it correctly, the roles of the subsequent countries and the path to Yamatai finally align with the physical reality of the Japanese landscape.

My Thoughts

The “Domino Effect” argument is quite compelling. In logistics, ancient or modern, the path of least resistance usually wins. If Ito-koku was the “Customs and Border Protection” of the 3rd century, having an entrance (Matsuro-koku) that requires a counter-intuitive U-turn (like Karatsu to Itoshima) doesn’t make much sense from a navigator’s perspective.

The Munakata/Taguma-Ishihata angle is particularly interesting because it shifts the entire “starting line” of the land journey. By moving the entrance point, you aren’t just changing a map coordinate; you’re changing the entire trajectory of the Wei envoys’ mission.

If we accept the Munakata/釣川 (Tsurikawa) basin as the likely location for Matsuro-koku, how does that specifically change your interpretation of the “number of days” or “distances” recorded in the Wajinden for the subsequent legs of the journey?