Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:35:13.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Astronomical Dates in Shang and Western Zhou

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2015

David W. Pankenier
David W. Pankenier*
Affiliation:
Department of Asian Languages, Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports the discovery in the Bamboo Annals of verifiable accounts of the general conjunctions of planets witnessed by Shang and Zhou dynasty observers, which occurred in 1576 and 1059 B.C. Besides exploring the connections between the planetary phenomena and mythologized accounts of the same events in Zhou and Han texts, the significance of these astronomical dates is discussed in reference to the events surrounding the Zhou Conquest of Shang and the founding of the Shang dynasty. The investigation proposes that the Shang and Zhou astrologers were astute observers of the motions of the planets and that there are a number of Zhou traditions, such as those concerning visitations of the Phoenix, which are intimately associated with certain planetary periods. In addition, it is suggested that the concept of the Mandate of Heaven as a physical manifestation of Heaven's will and that of its transfer to virtuous rulers at 500 year intervals both derive from the period of the so-called Triple Conjunctions accurately recorded in the Bamboo Annals.

Type
Articles
Information
Early China , Volume 7 , 1981 , pp. 2 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Study of Early China 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. The present article is an expanded and revised English version of a paper in Chinese entitled “Auspicious Omens Presaging the Conferral of the Mandate on Wing Wen of Zhou and the Conquest of Yin by King Wu” which is forthcoming in Chinese Paleography.

2. My interest in this topic grew out of my participation in Professor David S. Nivison's seminars on archaic Chinese inscriptions at Stanford University in 1979 and 1980. In research on the problem of dating Western Zhou bronze inscriptions and the founding of Zhou which Professor Nivison presented to his seminar in 1979, he argued that the Bamboo Annals is not a late forgery, and that it deserves to be taken seriously as a source for the history of the period. In papers presented to the American Oriental Society in San Francisco in April, 1980, and to the New York Metropolitan Museum's Symposium on the Great Bronze Age of China in June, 1980, Professor Nivison used clues in the Annals and inscriptions to argue that the Conquest occurred in 1045, a view he still holds. In his seminar in the autumn of 1980, he presented arguments that Wen Wang claimed the Mandate in 1058, and that this was his 42nd year; and that he died in 1050; and further, that Wu Wang's first campaign was 1048. At the same time, he called attention to the conjunction recorded in the Annals under 1071, and tried unsuccessfully to date it.

I am in an unusual position in respect to this work of Professor Nivison's. I was dependent on it for getting started in my studies of Zhou chronology and astronomy, though my subsequent work is wholly my own and depends on clues in the literature available to anyone; most notably, Wang Guowei's interlinear comments on the Annals, Liu Xin's analysis of the astronomical observations in Guoyu, and Herbert Chatley's study of planetary cycles. At first I accepted Professor Nivison's Conquest date and his arguments; I soon came to doubt the arguments; and finally, to doubt the date, concluding on the basis of my own discoveries that it must have been 1046, not 1045. From the first, I have accepted his reevaluation of the Bamboo Annals, though not without certain reservations about some of his main original arguments for this reevaluation (which depend indirectly on Wang Guowei's analysis of lunar phase terms). I did not at first accept Professor Nivison1s dates 1058, 1050 and 1048, though I do accept them now, having found them to be consistent with my own reconstruction based on the astronomical record. In regard to the chronology of the conquest period, the main conclusion we disagree about is whether the final campaign started in late 1047 (the year after the first campaign--my own view), or in late 1046 (two years after--Professor Nivison's view).

Although we do not always agree, I have benefitted greatly from Professor Nivison's studies of the chronology of Western Zhou, and from his perceptive criticism of my own work. My conclusions and opinions are my own, however, and for them I bear sole responsibility. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Gordon Emslie, Lecturer in Astronomy at Stanford University, for his help in writing the computer program used the calculating the stellar coordinates, and Dr. E. Myles Standish of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology, for recomputing the locations of the planets in 1059 B.C. using the JPL Long Export Ephemeris.

3. The latter date 1s based on a quotation from the Bamboo Annals in Pei Yin's (ca. A.D. 420) commentary Shiji jijie: “From King Wu's extinguishing Yin down to King You was a total of 257 years” . See Shiji (Beijing, 1982), ch. 4, p. 149. The total 257 years for Western Zhou when added to the last year of King You, 771 B.C., yields 1027 B.C., counting inclusively, as the date of the Conquest.

4. At least three of the communications presented at the Fourth Annual Conference on Chinese Paleography (September 14-23, 1981) in Taiyuan , Shanxi , either directly or indirectly concerned this issue. Liu Qiyi presented a paper entitled “Lunar Phases in Western Zhou Bronze Inscriptions and Dated Bronzes of the Gong He, King Xuan and King You Periods” in which he reiterated his arguments for interpreting each lunar phase term as referring to a particular day. Ma Chengyuan read a paper entitled “Researches on the Lunar Phases in Bronze Inscriptions” in which he interpreted them as periods of several days. David S. Nivison presented a comprehensive review of his researches on Zhou chronology entitled “The Dates of Western Zhou” in which he adapted the interpretation of Wang Guowei who identified the four terms as lunar quarters. Scholars are roughly divided into two schools of thought. Both schools essentially agree that ba or po (the preferred form in jinwen texts) refers to the bright area of the moon; there, however, the agreement ends. The view championed by Liu Xin , which is quoted in Han shu (Beijing, 1962) ch. 21B, p. 1015, based on the “genuine” month, lunar phase, and ganzhi dates for the year of the Zhou Conquest from the old text version of the “Wu Cheng” chapter of Shang shu, maintained that siba, “dying brightness” referred to the shuo or new moon and shengba “growing brightness” referred to the full moon. By and large this has been the orthodox view ever since. In this interpretation, “after” implied completion () of the process, i.e., when the moon 1s completely dark or full. The opposing view, for which there is also considerable evidence in literary sources, holds that “growing brightness” refers to the first appearance of the new moon crescent and that “dying brightness” denotes the detectable waning of the full moon. In this interpretation “after” clearly implies “after beginning” the process of decline or growth, so that here we have the crucial difference. Because he favored the symmetry of a four quarter interpretation and his own dating of certain vessels, some of which are still in dispute, Wang Guowei identified jishengba as the 8th or 9th of the month (i.e., the 1st quarter) and jisiba as the 23rd of the month (i.e., the 3rd quarter). He also argued that the terms occasionally denoted the period of 6-7 days following these days of the month. See his Guantang jilin ch. 1. In addition to the evident contradictions between the two basic interpretations, the confidence Invested by some scholars in the authenticity of the “Wu Cheng” dates may be misplaced. Most adherents of the “four quarter” interpretation of Wang Guowei tend to dismiss out of hand Liu Xin's definitions of the lunar phases. As Tung Tso-p1n pointed out in Yinli pu (Sichuan, 1945), vol. 1, 4.2a-4b, however, his extensive research on the chronological problem revealed that at least as early as the 4th century B.C. the so-called “Yin calendar school” had already calculated 1070 B.C to have been the date of the Conquest “on the basis” of the same ganzhi dates and lunar phase definitions as Liu Xin. Because Tung accepted Liu's definitions, he himself failed to see that the dating assignments in the Yinli chronology may have been determined by other means and that, for this reason, the possibility exists that the “Wu Cheng” day dates and/or the lunar phase notations (examples like jipangshengpo are unattested in bronze inscriptions) could be Yinli constructions. There is strong evidence that the Yinli date of 1083 B.C. for the beginning of the Zhou Mandate was astronomically determined by using the late Zhou approximation of 20 years for the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction period and 24 years for the Jupiter-Venus conjunction period. (A full discussion of the Yinli chronology will be the subject of another paper.) Given this date, the year 1070 B.C. for the Conquest may simply have been derived on the basis of the “13th year” Conquest tradition, which I shall discuss more fully below. When the “Wu Cheng” dates are tested on the calendar for 1070 B.C. they fit exactly, if one assumes (with Liu Xin) an intercalary month between the 2nd and 4th months, a two-day error in calculating the dates of new moons due to the 1/4 day per 76 year error which the formulas then in use are know to have generated, and the same lunar phase definitions employed by Liu Xin. Although the evidence is not conclusive, it seems to me sufficiently worrisome that, given a choice, one would be well advised not to rely on the “Wu Cheng” dates as solid evidence. There are doubtless those who would disagree. However, until such lingering doubts are resolved I prefer not to accept the “Wu Cheng” dates as genuine.

5. For a general review of the literature and problems in the chronology of the early period, see Creel, Herlee G., The Origins of Statecraft in Ancient China, “Appendix B: Problems of Chronology” (Chicago, 1970), vol. 1, pp. 487–92Google Scholar. See also Barnard's, Noel exhaustive study of chronology, “[Book Review of] Chou Hung-hsiang, Shang-yin ti-wang pen-chi,” Monumenta Serica 19 (1960):488–515Google Scholar, Fa-kao, Chou, “Chronology of the Western Chou Dynasty,” Journal of the Institute of the Chinese University of Hong Kong 4.1 (1971):173–205Google Scholar, and Chih-chang, Kwang, Shang Civilization (New Yaven, 1980), pp. 322–329Google Scholar. More recently, David S. Nivison has done extensive research in the dating of Western Zhou bronze inscriptions and the chronology of the entire period. His “Dates of Western Chou” is forthcoming in the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. For a review and criticism of the scholarship in Chinese, and Japanese to 1960, which encompasses seventeen different “solutions” to the problems of the early chronology, see Tso-pin, Tung, Zhongguo nianli zongpu (Hong Kong, 1960), vol. 1, pp. 22–42Google Scholar. The most recent studies in Chinese concerning the founding of Zhou, interpretation of lunar phase terms, and general methodology include Guangxian, Zhaos, “Deducing the Date of King Wu's Attack on [Shang] Zhou from Celestial Phenomena,” Lishi yanjiu 1980.10:56–61Google Scholar; Mengyuan, Rong, “A Tentative Discussion of the Chronology of Western Zhou,” , Zhonqhua wenshi luncong 1980.1:1–21Google Scholar; Youqi, He, “The Problem of the Date of King Wu of Zhou1s Attack on [Shang] Zhou,” Zhonqshan daxue xuebao 1981.1:64–70Google Scholar; Baoquan, Huang and Yuaxin, Chen and , “An Investigation into the Date of King Wu of Zhou's Defeat of Yin” , Zhongguo lishi wenxian yanjiu jikan 1980.1:125–28Google Scholar; Yuzhe, Zhang, “Evolutionary Trends in the Orbit of Halley's Comet and Their Ancient History” , Tianwen xuebao , 19.1 (1978):109–118Google Scholar. (The dates assigned to the Conquest in the last five studies are 1057, 1055, 1039, 1029, and 1057, respectively.) This list is by no means exhaustive. Other studies are cited elsewhere in the notes.

6. SSPY ed., 3.18a. The astronomical record is adduced by the Musicologist Zhoujiu in a rambling reply to King Jing's questions about the success of a new casting of a set of bells, which evidently was a failure. Zhoujiu's lecture on the calendar and harmonics is actually a homily on the theme of “harmony” the lack of which is implied as the cause of the failed casting. As an example of the theory of correspondences, Zhoujiu quotes the astronomical record and discusses the pitchpipe tones associated with the timing of the Conquest campaign. His interpretation of the astronomical record focuses on the supposed connection between the asterisms concerned and the Zhou heritage; however, his zeal for “categorizing” in terms of the “five phases” appears to have led him to misconstrue the record at several points.

7. Prediction of the precise locations of the planets even over a relatively short term requires detailed knowledge of variations in their orbits. There is no indication that the Han Chinese astronomers possessed such knowledge, as Nathan Sivin has pointed out in Cosmos and Computation in Early Chinese Mathematical Astronomy (Leiden, 1969), p. 24Google Scholar. Mean values for the planetary periods arrived at by the later Han dynasty were quite accurate; nevertheless, Liu Xin miscalculated the location of Jupiter in 1123-22 B.C. by five years --to take just one example-as a result of the 0.5% error in the constant he used (11.92 years) for the sidereal period of Jupiter. The modern value is 11.86 years. The Mawangdui ms. incorporating the ephemerides of Jupiter for the 3rd tp 2nd centuries B.C., which I discuss in Part 2.3, still employed the relatively crude figure of 12 years. Neglecting the effects of secular acceleration on the motions of the sun, moon, Mercury, Venus, and Mars will also introduce significant error in calculations over several centuries in the past. The secular acceleration of the moon, first discovered by Edmund Hal ley in 1693, if not taken into account will product an error on the order of -5° in 2,000 years. In the case of Mercury, the error will be -1.5° in 1,000 years. See Ahnert, Paul, Astronomisch-chronologisehe Tafeln für Sonne, Mond und Planeten (Leipzig, 1960), pp. 7–8Google Scholar. Therefore, given sufficiently precise observations of lunar and planetary positions in ancient texts, particularly when two or more bodies are involved, modem verification of their accuracy should remove any doubt as to their authenticity. See my discussion in Part 4.

8. Unless otherwise indicated, references to the Bamboo Annals will be to the Yiwen yinshuguan edition of Guowei's, WanJinben zhushu jinian shuzheng (Taipei, 1974)Google Scholar.

9. Youzheng, Zhu, Jizhong jinian cunzhen (1846; reprint ed. Taipei, 1959)Google Scholar.

10. Guowei, Wang, Guben zhushu jinian jijiao , Yiwen, ed. (Taipei, 1974)Google Scholar. This edition, reprinted in a single volume with the “current” version of the Bamboo Annals, although very convenient, contains occasional misprints and should be used with caution. These deficiencies have been remedied in Fang Shiming and Xiuling, Wang, Guben zhushu jinian jizheng (Shanghai, 1981)Google Scholar, which also contains Wang Guowei's Jinben zhushu jinian shuzheng.

11. See Keightley, David N., “The Bamboo Annals and Shana-Chou Chronology,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 38 (1978): 423–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This study raises questions that anyone contemplating working with the Bamboo Annals needs to consider. In what follows I endeavor to provide the sort of “touchstones” necessary to establish the veracity of the Bamboo Annals which Professor Keightley found lacking in the text.

12. One noteworthy exception to the consensus on the Bamboo Annals is Aleksy Debnicki who accepts the Bamboo Annals as a credible source for the history of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou. See his “Chu-shu-Chi-nien” as a Source to the Social History of Ancient China (1956; reprint ed., Westport), 1981, pp. 40–53Google Scholar. On the date of the Zhou Conquest see Keightley, David N., Sources of Shang History (Berkeley, 1978), pp. 171–76Google Scholar; David S. Nivison, “The Dates of Western Chou” , presented in mimeographed form at the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Chinese Paleography Association , Taiyuan, Shanxi, The People's Republic of China, September 14-23, 1981. (Revised version dated August 26, 1981 of a communication presented to the Symposium on the Bronze Age of Ancient China, Metropolitan Museum of Art New York in June, 1980).

13. Guowei, Wang, Jinben zhushu jinian, p. 83Google Scholar.

14. “Zhou benji” (Shiji, ch. 4, p. 119) and “Wuyi” Chapter of Shangshu both say King Wen reigned for 50 years. Lüshi chunqiu (SPPY ed., 6.7b) says King Wen reigned 8 + 43 = 51 years, which, counting inclusively, is actually 50 years. According to the Bamboo Annals, King Wen died in Zhou Xin's 41st year; therefore, Zhou Xin's 32nd year corresponds to the 41st year of King Wen.

15. Diwang shiji (jicheng, Congshu ed.), p. 28Google Scholar.

16. An earl 1er entry in the Bamboo Annals (p. 81) associated with King Wen's accession to the throne in Zhou says that “a Phoenix alighted on Qishan” . The original coninent to this entry identifies this as King Wen's First Year . As we shall see, this augury and the one concerning the Red Crow refer to the same event, which occurred in the First Year of the Mandate. (The former entry was placed in its present location during reconstitution of the text as a result of a misreading of a passage in Shangshu; see notes 7 and 50 to Table 2.) In an article entitled “Der Beginn der Dschou-Zeit: Ein Beitrag zur Geistesqeschichte der Han-Zeit,” which has been reprinted in Sternkunde und Weltbild im alten China (Taipei: Chinese Materials and Research Aids Service Center, 1970), p. 309Google Scholar. Wolfram Eberhard makes several important points with regard to the symbol ism of the Red Bird. As I have translated it, Eberhard writes that “the accounts vary here, but it is clear that it is a question of a red crow. In addition, several ancient texts relate the preference of the Zhou for the color red. In the five element theory red is associated with the south and the sun, just as white is associated with the moon and the west, and the moon alone is further associated with the north. The crow is the sun animal, the three-legged Sun-crow frequently represented in Han relief sculpture. These lines of association indicate that the Zhou were related to the sun and that the Yin, in the same way, were brought into relation with the owl and the moon. Thus, this development was already nearly completed before the Han period; the struggle of the Zhou against the Yin became, in accordance with the thinking of the five elements theory, a struggle of the light against the darkness, the male against the female.” In Pacing the Void (Berkeley, 1977), p. 163Google Scholar, Edward H. Schafer comments on the same bird: “A close cousin of the three-legged crow (no great figure in literature, unhappily) was the red crow, a lucky bird whose history goes back to classical pre-Han times. One such birrd--described as ‘essence of yang,’ and plainly an authentic sunbird--delivered a sceptre to the future founder of the Chou dynasty----Like the rather ludicrous three-legged crow, the handsome fire-red crow has turned up in reliable historical records from time to time. The most famous specimen turned up ‘like a god or numen,’ before the gratified eyes of Sun Ch'üan, ruler of Wu, in A.D. 238, in recognition of which the inauguration of a new cosmic era was declared, to which the name ‘Red Crow’ was given.” The Mu tianzi zhuan suggests that the Red Bird may have had a totemic significance for the royal Zhou lineage. In my translation from Mathieu's, Rémi “Le Mu Tianzi Zhuan: Traduction annotée, étude critique,” Mémoires de l'Institut des Hautes Études Chinoises 9 (Paris, 1978), pp. 33–34Google Scholar, we read that “on the clay renshen, the Son of Heaven marched toward the west. On day jiawu, he arrived in the domain of Qi , (chief) of the Chiwu tribe. He (Qi) presented to the Son of Heaven 1000 measures of wine, 900 fine horses, 3000 cattle and sheep, and 100 carts of parceled millet…. The forefathers of the Chiwu descend from the royal lineage of Zhou. Taiwang Danfu (grandfather of Keng Wen) first opened up these western regions. …”

17. Mozi, Harvard-Yenching index ed. 33/19/44. Guoyu (SPPY ed., 1.11b) says, “When the Zhou arose, a Yuezhuo sang on Qishan” . According to various commentators, yuezhuo is another name for the Phoenix. See also ode #252 Juane, an air in celebration of the receipt of the Mandate, in which the King is likened to a jade sceptre, in Karlgren's, BernhardThe Book of Odes (Stockholm, 1950), p. 210Google Scholar: “You are great and high, like a kuei sceptre, like a chang sceptre, with good fame…fine to look at.” Phoenixes also appear in #252 where they “sing on the high ridge” and “touch heaven” in their soaring flight. The simile of the jades becomes clearer in ode #254 Ban , p. 213: “Heaven's guiding the people is like an ocarina, like a flute, like a chang jade, like a kue jade; it is like taking hold of them, like leading them by the hand and nothing more.” Karlgren comments, p. 214, that “it is mildly persuasive, like guiding people by the sound of mild music or by the sight of fine insignia of authority--not by violence or force.”

18. Lüshi chunqiu (SPPY ed), 13.4a. Accounts of this and other auguries concerning this bird in Han apocrypha identify it as a kongque “peacock,” or simply que--for example, Chunqiu yuanmingbao, “fire came down in the form of a peacock” , quoted in Guohan, Ma, , Yuhan shanfang jiyishu, 1871; reprint ed., Taipei: Wenhai chubanshe, n.d., vol. 4, p. 2113Google Scholar. The Liang dynasty astrological treatise Rui-ying tu, quoted in Kaiyuan zhanjing (siji, Siku zhenben ed), 115.2aGoogle Scholar, has the following: “As for the Red Peacock, when a true King moves Heaven to respond, then it comes clasping a Writing in its beak” . According to a comment attributed to Zheng Xuan (A.D. 127-200) on the Chunqiu yuanmingbao passage cited above, the “Cinnabar Writing” and the famous “Luo Writing” are one and the same; see zhenghi, Maoshi, Shisanjing zhushu, vol. 1, p. 503.2Google Scholar, subcommentary to “Wen Wang” The term “Cinnabar Writing” is particularly interesting since it calls to mind both the Shang practice of applying reddish pigment to display inscriptions and the Warring States custom of smearing inscribed texts of solemn obiigations (so-called mengshu) with the blood of a sacrificial victim. This suggests that such writings all partake of the same contractual character involving the participation of unseen powers.

19. According to Van Shigu (A.D. 581-645) in the Han shu, ch. 56, p. 2500, the passage containing the augury is from the new text version of the “Taishi” chapter of Shangshu. See also Shiji, ch. 4, p. 119.

20. Yu, Su, Chunqiu fanlu yizheng (Hunan, 1909; reprint ed. Taipei: Heluo tushu chubanshe, 1974), 13.6bGoogle Scholar.

21. “Biography of Dong Zhongshu” ch. 56, p. 2500.

22. Quoted in Jiegang, Gu, ed., Gush bian (1926–1933), vol. 3, p. 27Google Scholar.

23. Wang Chong , Lunheng, passim.

24. Song shu: “Treatise on Talismans and Auguries” ch. 27, p. 765.

25. The account of the event in Shiji associates the augury with the inconclusive campaign which preceded the successful attempt to overthrow Shanq Zhou, as does Huan Tan's Xinlun. This is discussed in Part 4. Song shu (ch. 27, p. 765) very clearly identifies the appearance of the Red Bird with the fording of the Yellow River immediately before the victorious campaign. For an explanation of the confusion of these two expeditions, see Part 3.2.

26. Jizi was the virtuous minister of Shang Zhou whose remonstrances were rewarded with imprisonment. After Shang Zhou's defeat King Wu ordered his release (Shiji, ch. 4, p. 126), but Jizi refused to recognize Wu as anything but a usurper. Eventually, we are told, he was persuaded to impart the principles of good government embodied in the “Great Plan” chapter of Shangshu to the new Son of Heaven. Here the augury is clearly associated with the victorious campaign.

27. Bamboo Annals, p. 93. The appearance of the Phoenix and the settling of the cauldrons at Luo is recorded under the 18th year of King Cheng. Shiji (ch. 4, p. 133) also mentions the installation of the nine cauldrons at Luo but, in this case, immediately after the government is restored to King Cheng. In addition, “Zhonghou luoshimou” (Yuhan shanfang jiyishu, vol. 4, p. 1990)Google Scholar, in its account of events surrounding the beginning of King Cheng's personal rule, also suggests that the appearance of the Phoenix and the ceremony at the Yellow River were contemporaneous with Cheng's assuming power. This would date the event in the 8th year of Cheng's reign rather than in his 18th. The evidence is inconclusive, however, so that I will not insist on identifying both events as having occurred in the same year.

28. Song shu, ch. 27, p. 765. I take (GSR 843d ) “glorious” to be (GSR 843a ) “dazzling,” yingxing being one of several designations for Venus. See Zhang Shoujie , Shiji zhengyi, quoted in Shiji, ch. 27. p. 1322. In contrast, yinghuo “Sparkling Deluder” (to borrow Edward H. Schafer's term) refers to Mars. Mars is not visible before sunset, however.

29. Chatley, Herbert, “The Cycles of Cathay,” JRAS/NCB 65 (1934):36–54Google Scholar.

30. Stahlman, , William, D. and Gingerich, , Owen, , Solar and Planetary Longitudes for Years -2500 to +2000 by 10-day Intervals (Madison, 1963)Google Scholar.

31. The “Ghost” in the “Carriage” is of course the open cluster M44, Praesepe, also known as the Beehive Cluster.o It contains some 200+ stars with an aggregate visual magnitude of about +4.

32. Tso-pin, Tung, Zhongguo nianli zongpu , 2 vols. (Hong Kong, 1960)Google Scholar.

33. The account of the Conquest campaign in Lüshi chunqiu (15.16b) has King Wu pressing his troops to the limit against the remonstrances of his officers in order to reach Huye by the date jiazi previously agreed upon. I am grateful to David Nivison for quickly pointing out to me that May 28, 1059 B.C. was in fact a jiazi day. The recent discovery of the Ligui inscription, “When King Wu attacked Shang it was on day jiazi” has confirmed the traditional account identifying the date of the battle at Muye as day jiazi. See Wenwu 1977.8:1–12Google Scholar.

34. youzeng, Zhu, Yi Zhoushu jixun jiaoshi (1846; reprint ed. Taipei, 1962), p. 61Google Scholar. I am grateful to Professor David S. Nivison for reminding me of this passage, whose veracity we both then verified using Ahnert's tables.

35. Baolin's, Liu “Table of Lunar Eclipses B.C. 1500-B.C. 1000,” Chinese Astronomy 3 (1979):179–96Google Scholar gives for the time of maximum eclipse -1064 March 13 JDN 133 2504 dingchou (day 14), 3:01 local time at Anyang (2:35 at Qishan), which reduces to UT 19:24. Newton's, R. R.Canon of Lunar Eclipses for the Years -1500 to -1000 with Conditions for Determining Visibility at Anyang, Research Report CP 054, The Johns Hopkins University, (Laurel, 1977), p. 54Google Scholar gives -1064, March 13 0DN 133 2504 dingchou (day 14), 3:52 local time at Anyang (3:26 at Qishan), which reduces to UT 20:15. The difference between the two results is explained by the more pessimistic estimate of the error coefficient used by Newton in extrapolating beyond the available data, i.e., for times before -600. Both Newton and Liu take Anyang time as reference standard and advance the Julian day number, calendar date, and ganzhi at midnight. Tung Tso-pin followed the older convention which took Greenwich time as reference standard and advanced JDN at Greenwich noon, calendar dates at midnight, and ganzhi at dawn. This explains why his figures are all one day earlier than Newton's and Liu's. The eclipse could not have been seen before midnight at Qishan; therefore the date given for the event in Yi Zhoushu, bingzi (day 13), should be understood to include the hours of darkness from sunset (on March 12) to sunrise (on March 13). This supports Tung Tso-pin's contention that the Shang (and pre-dynastic Zhou) counted one day from daybreak to daybreak, the so-called “Babylonian day.”

36. The account in Song shu cited above in note 24 is particularly interesting in this respect. It states that “in the 6th 10-day week from (of?) early spring the five planets gathered in House (#4)? Later a Phoenix clasping a writing in its beak roamed about King Wen's capital” . Song shu is the only source I have been able to discover which actually dates the conjunction to the month. While most of the information in the “Treatise on Auguries and Talismans” on portents and prodigies was culled largely from Han apocryphal works--the present passage, minus the date, is from Chunqiu yuanmingbao--and Jin dynasty astrological treatises, Shen Yue's source for the actual date of the event remains a mystery. We do know that Shen wrote a commentary on the Bamboo Annals, in which his remarks are prefaced by “[I, Shen] Yue, note”; however, neither here nor in the “Treatise on Astrology” does he attribute the Annals as his source for the material on planetary conjunctions. See note 111 below. This does not of course preclude the possibility that the Annals original1y dated the event in the spring. Interestingly, the timing of the event in Song shu is precisely correct if one begins counting the days from the vernal equinox on March 31, 1059 rather than from the first day of the first month of spring (ideally) 45 days earlier. Nevertheless, a conjunction of all five planets in Scorpius one month before the summer solstice is a physical impossibility. The maximum angular separation of Mercury and Venus from the sun cannot exceed 28° and 46°, respectively, and the lodge House #4 was located at 197° in 1059 B.C. Since the sun would have been at about 60° one month before the solstice, the contradiction is apparent, or at least should have been. This confirms that the location House #4 assigned to the conjunction was not the result of any observation. Astrology played a role, however, as we shall see. One can only speculate as to how Shen Yue accounted for the evident contradiction.

37. (1810; reprint ed. Taipei : Yiwen yinshuguan, n.d.), vol. 1, p. 205.

38. Bamboo Annals, p. 89, and Lüshi chunqiu, 14.7b-8a, both locate the Conquest in King Wu's 12th year. Liu Xin's analysis in Han shu, ch. 21B, p. 1015, has the victorious campaign beginning in the fall of the 12th year after the receipt of the Mandate and culminating in the Battle of Muye in the 13th year. Zhang Shoujie, quoted in Shiji, ch. 4, p. 120, cites the “Taishi” Chapter of Shangshu, which dates the Conquest in the 13th year. Liu Xin in Han shu, ch. 21B, p. 1015, also quotes the “Hong Fan” Chapter of Shangshu, which dates King Wu's interview with the newly liberated Jizi in the 13th year. There will be more to say about this confusion of dates in Parts 3 through 3.2, where the two campaigns are discussed. For the moment it is sufficient to note that by late Zhou and Han, not only was it unclear whose reign these years belonged to but also which alternative, 11th/12th years or 12th/13th years, for the final campaign was correct.

39. Xiang IX/564 B.C. translated by Couvreur, Seraphin, Tch'ouen Ts'iou et Tso Tchouan: La Chronique de la Principauté de Lou (Paris, 1951), vol. 2, pp. 235–36Google Scholar. My translation is a modification of Couvreur's.

40. On the seasonal locations of the two asterisms see Part 2.1. According to Zuozhuan (Zhao XVII/525 B.C.), “when the Fi re Star appears, it is the 3rd month in the Xia calendar, it is the 4th month in the Shang calendar, it is the 5th month in the Zhou calendar. The Xia system accords with Heaven“

41. Guoyu, 10.3a.

42. Han shu, ch. 21B, pp. 1013-14. The astronomer Yi Xing interpreted the tradition in the same manner in the Tang dynasty (Xin Tang shu, ch. 27B, p. 630).

43. See Yuhan shanfang jiyishu, 4:2113Google Scholar.

44. As de Saussure, Léopold conclusively demonstrated nearly fifty years ago in “La Chronologie chinoise et l'avènement des Tcheou,” T'oung Pao 23 (1924):299–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar, all this is quite obvious from the manipulations Liu Xin was obliged to perform on the reign lengths of the kings who ruled Zhou before 841 B.C. in order to push the date of the Conquest back to 1122. This was also how Liu derived the fiqure 46 years for the reign of Bo Qin (Han shu, ch. 21B, p. 1017), second Duke of Lu, since Sima Qian (Shiji, ch. 33, p. 1524ff.) only supplies enough figures to deduce that Bo Qin's last year must have been 999 B.C.

45. Han shu, ch. 21B, p. 1015. Although Liu Xin's calculation of the date of the Conquest was far off target, his understanding of the relative chronology of events surrounding the receipt of the Mandate and the Conquest was exactly right. From his assertion, “From King Wen's receiving the Mandate to this (i.e., the Conquest) was 13 years; Jupiter was again in Quail fire” , it is evident that he had deduced that Jupiter was in Quail Fire 12 years before the Conquest and not in Great Fire.

46. This star map, dating from about A.D. 940, is in turn based on the map of stars and constellations, together with explanation and astrological commentary, made by Chen Zhuo (fl. ca. A.D. 310).. According to Sui shu (ch. 19, p. 504) Chen based his work on the catalogues of stars of Shi Shen, Gan De and Wu Xian , the great 4th and 5th century B.C. astronomers. For a discussion of the history of celestial cartography and a translation of the relevant passage from Sui shu, see Needham, Joseph, Science and Civilization in China, vol. 3 (Cambridge, 1959), pp. 264–71Google Scholar. The Dunhuang ms. has been published in Wenwu 1966.3:27–38Google Scholar. The explanations accompanying each region of the sky are also found in Kaiyuan zhanjing 64.1a-11a.

47. A recent thorough study of the identifications and perlodization of the determinative stars of the 28 lunar lodges by Pan Nai , “An Investigation of Ancient Observations of Our Country's 28 Uinar Lodges and their Dates” , Zhonqhua wenshi luncong 3 (1979):137–82Google Scholar, has confirmed the 5th century B.C. date of the system of Shi Shen.

48. See Yuhan shanfang, 4:1998Google Scholar. When this precise location is not intended the asterism Red Bird as a whole (conventionally all 7 lodges from Well #22 through Axletree #28) is simply denoted “Quail.” In Zuozhuan (Xi V/655 B.C.) both usages occur in a rhymed passage whose astronomical indications are reminiscent of the Guoyu passage quoted in the Introduction. In the one context in Zuozhuan the constellation is called “Quail” and the specific location in that asterism that culminated near dawn in late autumn, namely Quail Fire, is called “Fire.” Given the role of the Red Bird asterism as a harbinger of spring and the returning yang force, the phonological similarity of “quail” (GSR 464j ) and “spring” (GSR 463a ) suggests that the choice of “Quail” as another designation for the asterism is unlikely to have been purely coincidental.

49. Shiji, ch. 27, p. 1303. Pan Nai, on p. 166 of the article cited in note 47, points out that the name “Beak” (and perhaps “Neck” and “Crop” as well) derives from the system of Gan De--i.e., the tradition of Qi--and that this nomenclature is preferred in astrological contexts in Shiji and Han shu.

50. Han shu, ch. 26, pp. 1277-78.

51. Erya, Congshu jichenced. vol. 2, p. 283, says that “Beak is called Willow” , and glosses liu as “flock together” . Then it says that “Willow is “Quail Fire” .

52. Keightley, David N., Sources of Shang History, p. 88Google Scholar; Needham, Joseph, Science and Civilisation, vol. 3, pp. 242–44Google Scholar.

53. Zhu Kezhen, “A Discussion of the Use of Precession of the Equinoxes to Determine the Date of the Four Medial Asterisms in ‘Yaodian’ Chapter of Shangshu Kexue 11.12 (1927); reprint ed. in Zhu Kezhen wenji (Beijing, 1979), pp. 100–107Google Scholar.

54. In 1059 B.C. the Fire Star, Alpha Scorpii, was located at R.A. 13h 35m as indicated. According to the Astronomical Almanac, civil twilight at the latitude of Xian (34° N) on the summer solstice occurs at 19:45. The location of the sun among the stars on that date may be calculated using the simple equation , where is the right ascension of the star, HS is the hour angle of the star (the hour angle being reckoned west from the meridian or 0 hours), is the right ascension of the sun, which we wish to find, and is the hour angle of the sun, i.e., hours west of the meridian or noon. The equation becomes this: 13.58 + 0 =+ 7.75 and = 5.83 or 87.5° in longitude. Thus if the Fire Star were observed to culminate on the meridian 1/2 hour after sunset it would identify the location of the sun at solstice (90°) to within 2.5° at the position of Delta H!!ydrae (87.5° in 1059, B.C.), the determinative star of Willow #24 or “Beak.” The same equation may be used to determine the location of the Bird Star which would have culminated at dusk on the vernal equinox (18:35) by assuming the right ascension of the star to be unknown and by supplying the other data. The equation becomes this: + 0 = 0+ 6.58, and is thus 98.7°. This is 5.1° from the computed location of Alpha Hydrae in 1059 B.C. (103.8°). Since 4 minutes variation in the time of observation will produce a 1° variation in the result, both solutions must be considered surprisingly accurate. In any case, we have “bracketed” the location of the portion of the Red Bird known as Quail Fire in the range 87.5° - 98.7° approximately in mid-11th century B.C. The range occupied by Willow #24 or “Beak” in 1059 B.C. was 87.5° to 103.8°.

55. Schafer, Edward H. in Pacing the Void, p. 163Google Scholar, has noted that “the ornithological associations of the glorious sun as it flies across the sky have seemed self-evident to many peoples. For the Greeks, the quail was the forerunner of the returning sun (Gk. ortyx “quail,” hence Ortygia, where the bird's cult was celebrated), and its Sanskrit namesake vartika was also a solar emblem.”

56. Many years ago, Léopold de Saussure pointed out the correlation between the line texts of the hexagram Qian in the Book of Changes and the appearance of the constellation Spring Drag”, a huge expanse from the “Horns” Arcturus and Spica to the “Tail” in Sagittarius, as it emerged from beneath the horizon and rose progressively higher in the evening sky through the spring and early summer. By the time Antares in the “Heart” of the Dragon (lodge #6) was on the meridian near the solstice, the dragon would have appeared to have taken wing, soaring full length into the sky. This is also the image evoked by the ruling and highly auspicious 5th line of the hexagram, in which the yang influence is said to achieve maximum expression. See de Saussure, Léopold, “Les Origines de l'astronomie chinoise: la règle des cho-ti,” T'oung Pao 12 (1912), p. 350Google Scholar; reprjnt ed. in Les Origines de l'astronomie chinoise (Paris, 1930), p. 378Google Scholar. See also Han shu, ch. 2lA:961.

57. Yoke, Ho PengBingyu, He trans., The Astronomical Chapters of the Jin Shu (Paris, 1966), pp. 122–23Google Scholar.

58. See Joseph Needham, op. cit., p. 402; Sima Qian makes the same point in Shiji, ch. 27, p. 1341.

59. Chunqiu fanlu, 13.6b.

60. This is evident from the discussion in Han shu, ch. 26, pp. 1289-90, in which Shi Shen and Gan De's systems are compared with the Han scheme. In all of them Jupiter is said to appear first at dawn in successive chronograms. See also Shiji, ch. 27, pp. 1313-16, and the discussion of the behavior of the planet in Han shu, ch. 21B, p. 998.

61. Wenwu 1974.11:28–39Google Scholar. The civil year which began after Jupiter's previous dawn appearance was given the same designation as the station in which the planet appeared. Because Jupiter sui or twelve month periods of visibility frequently straddle two civil years, the term Quail Fire year is not the same as Quail Fire sui. For example, the 7th year of Qin Shihuangdi (the civil year began in late October of 240 B.C.) was identified as a Quail Fire year after Jupiter was observed to reappear at about the longitude of Alpha Hydrae the preceding July.

62. Cosmos and Computation, pp. 15-16. There is evidence that this Jupiter/solar year conversion was still unknown at the time the Tai Chu calendar reform was promulgated in 104 B.C. See Tan, LiuThe Recording of Years According to Jupiter and the Year Star in Chinese Antiquity (Beijing, 1957), pp. 25–26Google Scholar.

63. Pacing the Void, p. 216.

64. The results of this study were first presented in a paper entitled “Analysis of Guoyu: “Zhouyu Astronomical Record of the Conquest Campaign,” prepared for the Western Conference of the Association for Asian Studies in Berkeley, California, November 6, 1981. For further discussion of the evidence bearing on the authenticity of this passage the reader 1s referred to Pankenier, David W., “Early Chinese Positional Astronorny: The Guoyu Astronomical Record,” in Archaeoastronomy, The Bulletin of the Center for Archaeoastronomy, University of Maryland, 5.3 (1981)Google Scholar. A detailed study of the passage and its context will be found in the author's dissertation “Early Chinese Astronoiny and Cosmology: The ‘Mandate of Heaven’ as Epiphany” for the Department of Asian Languages, Stanford University (in preparation).

65. “La Chronologie chinoise (Pt. 2)” TP 29 (1932):312Google Scholar.

66. Shiji, ch. 4, p. 122.

67. Shiji, ch. 33, p. 1515; ch. 32, p. 1480.

68. SPTK ed., 2.6b. 4.5b.

69. On this passage see the instructive comment by Cui Shu (1740–1816) quoted in Shiji, preface, p. 3.

70. Shiji, ch. 4, p. 119.

71. SPTK ed., 4.6a.

72. Quoted by Zhang Shoujie, Shiji, ch. 4, p. 120.

73. Congshu jicheng ed., p. 28; Yi Zhoushu, SPPY ed., 3.4b.

74. Han shu, ch. 21B, p. 1015.

75. Shangshu: “Zhonghou” Chapter (Yuhan shanfang jiyishu, 4:1989)Google Scholar dates the sacrifie to the 4th month. According to Yi Zhoushu (SPPY ed., 3.4b) King Wen died at the end of spring in what must have been 1050. if the three year mourning period (actually 27 months) was observed, something that both Liu Xin and S1ma Qian assume, then King Wu could have contemplated resuming his official duties by May or June of 1048 B.C., i.e., in the 6th month of that year. Since King Wen was buried at Bi the ceremony that took place there in the 4th month is identifiable with the da xiang sacrifice to which Liu Xin refers (Han shu, ch. 21B, p. 1015) marking the conclusion of 25 months of mourning.

76. I do not believe there is any astrological explanation for this “fish story.” Its color (white) and associated element (water) are clearly intended to symbolize the Shang--so too is its use as a sacrificial offering to Heaven. The metaphysics of “five phase” theory evidently required some sort of earthly counterpart to the Red Bird omen sent by Heaven. See Huan Tan's account of the same events in Part 4. This conjecture is also supported by the fact that Han apocrypha contain stories about Tai Gong Wang (i.e., Lü Shang) having fished a jade huang out of the Wei River, ostensibly in response to the Red Bird augury witnessed by King Wen. On the jade was a message that explicitly conferred the Mandate on the Ji lineage, just as the writing on the fish did in certain accounts. See, for example, “Zhonghou” Chapter of Shangshu in Yuhan shanfang, 4:1988–1989Google Scholar.

77. Shiji (quoting Shi Shen), ch. 27, p. 1312. In Zuozhuan (Zhao 32/510 B.C.) we read that “Yue has the Year Star and [still] Wu attacks it. Wu will certainly suffer the evil consequences [of such action]”

78. According to Wang Chong (A.D. 27-97), the very name Mengjin “Ford of Sworn Alliance” commemorates this event: “King Wu and 800 lords all made a pact of alliance there, therefore it is called ‘Ford of Sworn Alliance’” See Zhongwen da cidian, 23553.8.

79. Several of the queries addressed to Heaven by Qu Yuan (ca. 332-295 B.C.) in his Tianwen “Heaven Questioned” refer to this episode: In Hawkes', David translation in Ch'u Tz'u: The Songs of the South (London, 1959), p. 53Google Scholar, which I have modified, we read that “On the morning of the first day we took our oath. How did we all arrive in time? When the geese came flocking together, who was it made them gather? When [Shang] Zhou was attacked, uncle Dan (Duke of Zhou) disapproved. How did he plan, all by himself, to establish the rule of Zhou, so that King Fa sighed in admiration? When he was given the domain of Yin, how was his kingship bestowed?” In his commentary in Chuci buzhu SPPY ed., 3.19a-19b, Wang Yi Quotes as follows from the lost “Liu tao” Chapter of Zhoushu, which 1s possibly the same work referred to in Zhuangzi (H-Y index 65/24/8): “When King Wu went east to attack and reached the banks of the Yellow R-iver, it rained heavily and thundered intensely. Dan, Duke of Zhou, came before the King and said, ‘Heaven does not assist Zhou. The Import is that my lord's virtue and comportment are not without flaw, the people are afflicted and complaining. Therefore Heaven sends down calamities on us. I request to withdraw the army.’ Tai Gong (i.e., Lü Shang) said, ‘You may not.’ King Wu and the Duke of Zhou looked in the distance at the ranks of Zhou [Xin's] troops, drew up the army and halted [the advance]. Tai Gong asked, ‘Sire, why do you not have them charge?’ The Duke of Zhou said, ‘The season of Heaven is not with us. Divination by tortoise and firebrand give no sign. The prognostication by milfoil is inauspicious; it is perverse and unfavorable; what Is more, the changes in the stars are baleful. Therefore, [I] Dan halted them. How could they [be allowed to] advance?” . Given the tenor of many of Qu Yuan's questions about the Way of Heaven and fate, it is not surprising that the retreat from Mengjin would have fallen intc this category of enigmatic events which piqued his curiosity. Perhaps we could give him a satisfactory answer now.

80. Kaiyuan zhanjing, 23.18a. Here, then, we have the explanation of the discrepancy in note 25 regarding the campaign with which the Red Bird augury (and the “Great Harangue”) was actually associated. The true augury associated with Jupiter's entry into the Red Bird asterism actually occurred in late 1047 B.C. and not in the autumn of 1048. But according to the Mandate calendar, 1048 was the 11th year, the year of the “Great Harangue” and the retreat from Mengjin. By the late Zhou, when the Mandate reckoning and King Wu's year count became confused, an 11th year campaign in the latter's reign would natural)y have been taken to be the one that culminated in the victory at Muye early in the 12th year. By the former Han the confusion was so complete that Sima Qian was unable to present a coherent account of the events of the two campaigns, as we saw in Part 3.1. Once it is realized that King Wu's reign could have lasted no more than 9 years and that the events of the 11th, 12th, and 13th years are all dated using the Mandate calendar, the apparent contradictions are easily resolved. See Table 2.

81. Taiping yulan, 329.5a.

82. Sivin, op. cit., pp. 16-17.

83. Shiji, ch. 27, p. 1348; Han shu, ch. 26, pp. 1301-1302. See also Dubs, Homer H., trans., The History of the Former Han Dynasty by Pan Ku (Baltimore, 1938), vol. 1, pp. 151–53Google Scholar.

84. According to Yi Xing's Wuxing yi, as quoted in Xin Tang shu, ch. 27B, p. 628, the period of Jupiter was unique because it changed radically between the Shang and Han periods. In the earliest period he believed the “leap chronogram” interval (i.e., the time required for the planet to “gain” one chronogram in comparison with the nominal 12-year cycle) to have been 120+ years. Under the influence of political events Jupiter speeded up throughout the Warring States and early Han periods, finally settling down to a constant 84-year “leap chronogram” period after the Wang Mang interregnum.

85. Chatley, , “The Cycles of Cathay,” p. 38Google Scholar.

86. Mencius, 7B/38.

87. Chatley, , “The Cycles of Cathay,” p. 40Google Scholar.

88. See note 100.

89. Han shu, ch. 26, p. 1310.

90. Bamboo Annals, p. 85.

91. , Si ku zhenben bieji ed., B.1b.

92. Yinxu buci zonqshu (Beijing, 1956), pp. 211–13Google Scholar.

93. Yinli pu, vol. 1, 4.2a-4b.

94. Bamboo Annals, p. 85.

95. This fact was also deduced by Chen Mengjia (Yinxu, p. 212) and Tung Tso-pin (Yinli pu, 1:4.3a) from the role of the figure 496 years as in the duration of the Shang dynasty in the Yinli chronology. The Yinli chronologists knew that the 496th year was the year before King Wen received the Mandate, however, they fai led to distinguish Cheng Tang's 1st year as Xia Jie's successor from the transfer of the Mandate in Xia Jie's 10th year. As a result they identified 1579 as the 1st year of Shang and 1084 B.C. as its last.

96. This record of a meteor shower is the first of the 147 reports which Zhuang Tianshan has collected from various sources; see “Ancient Chinese Records of Meteor Showers,” Tianwen xuebao 14 (1966):37–58Google Scholar; reprint ed. Chinese Astronomy 1 (1977):197–220Google Scholar. Zhuang misconstrued the Bamboo Annals' “10th year, five stars/planets moved criss-cross” as “15th year, stars moved criss-crosswhich explains how he came up with the date 1575 B.C. for the event despite his failure to identify either the planetary conjunction or the meteor shower.

97. Liu Xin put the length of the Shang dynasty at 629 years. See Han shu, ch. 21B., p. 1014.

98. As we have seen above, even when this important distinction was understood (by the Yinli chronologists, for example, who more or less correctly analyzed the relative chronology of the Zhou Conquest period), the parallel at the beginning of the Shang dynasty was overlooked.

99. The earliest account of the phenomenon involving the five planets and the “contest” between the two suns is the quotation from Diwang shiji in Bei tang shuchao (Yiwen, ed.), p. 42.1bGoogle Scholar. The Bamboo Annals now-has “three suns simultaneously appeared.” Lin Chunpu , however, demonstrates conclusively that “three” is an error; see Gu-shijinian (Beijing: Zhubo shanfang jiake ed., 1837) p. 4.17bGoogle Scholar.

100. Recent research on the effects of planetary aliqnments on the weather in China during the past 3000 years appears to show a significant correlation between unusual temperature changes and the seasons of the planetary alignments. ##### “A Controversial Theory of the Weather,” The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, 03 9, 1981Google Scholar, Jonathan Kwitny cites “a 1980 paper, The Effect of Planet Movement on Changes in Climate, by Ren Zhenqiu of the Peking Meteorological Institute and Liu Zhilin of the Astronomy Department of the Chinese Science Institute” in which 19 past alignments are studied and the calculation is made that during alignments “the radius of the earth's orbit around the mass center of the solar system is 1% longer than normal, extending one or another season according to formulas [provided].” Thus it seems that the ancient Chinese may have got the climatic consequences of a change of the Mandate right as well.

101. Quoted in Chunpu, Lin, Gushi jinian, 4.10bGoogle Scholar.

102. See Ping-Chüan, Chang, Hsiao-t'un ti erh-pen: Yin-hsü wen-tzu: ping-pien (Taipei, 1957), vol. 1, Pt. 1, p. 459Google Scholar.

103. Zhuang VI/688 B.C.

104. Ai IV/491 B.C.

105. Mencius, 2B/2.

106. Zhuanqzi, H-Y index, 93/33/73.

107. For additional examples with xiri “yesterday” and xisui “last year,” see Dobson, W.A.C.H., A Dictionary of the Chinese Particles (Toronto, 1976), p. 660Google Scholar.

108. Chu ci: “Dong jun” (“Lord of the East”), trans. Hawkes, , Ch'u Tz'u, p. 42Google Scholar; cf. Chuci buzhu, 2.17b.

109. Lüshi chunqiu, 13.4a.

110. Aveni, Anthony F., “Astronomical Tables Intended for Use in Astro-archaelogical Studies,” American Antiquity, 37.4:(1972):531–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111. Song shu, ch. 25, p. 735. Shen Yue gives as his source “surviving writings”

112. As I pointed out in note 3, Pei Yin quoted the Bamboo Annals as stating that from King Wu's destruction of Yin down to King You was 257 years. As Noel Barnard, op. cit., p. 501-15, and others have convincingly argued, this so-called “short chronology” is inconsistent with what is known about the reign lengths of the Dukes of Lu and the Western Zhou kings from other sources. Rong Mengyuan, op. cit., p.19, Zhao Guangxian, op. cit., p. 59, and David S. Nivison, “Dates,” p. 10, have all suggested that the figure “257” resulted from the transposition of the last two digits of the figure “275.” It is now clear that this must be the correct explanation. At some point after the reconstruction of the Bamboo Annals the comment was rewritten to read that “when King Wu extinguished Yin the year was gengyin (i.e., 1051 B.C.); 24 years later the year was jiayin (1027 B.C.) and the tripods were settled at Luo. Down to King You it was 257 years; altogether it was 281 years. From King Wu's 1st year jimao (1062 B.C.) to King You gengwu (771 B.C.) it was 292 years” (p. 111). This construction seems to have come about in the following way: As a result of the two backdatings of the Zhou Mandate and Conquest. initially by 4 years (which I discuss below) and later by 8 more years, two rival chronologies of the Conquest period had beer, formulated by the former Han dynasty--leaving aside for the present the hybrid Yinli School solution and subsequent Han dynasty calculations. The 8th-century B.C. revision of the Bamboo Annals chronology discussed below produced the dates 1580 for the Shang Mandate, 1558 for the 1st year of Shang, 1063 for the receipt of the Mandate by Zhou, and 1050 B.C. for the conquest of Shang. The original summation in the chronicle giving 496 years as the length of the Shang dynasty was unaffected by the “correction” and remained valid (1058 496 = 1063 inclusive). But the comment giving 275 as the duration of Western Zhou was rendered invalid because the last year of King You, 771 B.C., could not be moved back 4 years (1050 - 771 = 279). At this point the figure 275 years began to lose its significance and ultimately became garbled as 257 years.

The subsequent revision of the Bamboo Annals chronology, probably during the late Warring States period before the text was interred, resulted in the additional 8-year backdating of the Zhou Mandate to 1071 B.C. under the influence of the misapprehension that the conjunction witnessed by King Wen had occurred in Great Fire, as discussed in Part 2. As a result of this revision (and emendation of the text of the chronicle) the summary giving 496 years as the duration of the Shang dynasty became invalid. This latest version of the chronology appears to have been widely accepted in the Han dynasty, although the former was undoubtedly not forgotten.

When bamboo slips containing the text of the chronicle were discovered in A.D. 281, there was a concerted effort to restore the Bamboo Annals to their original state. Subsequently, scholars would have attempted to resolve the contradictions which had arisen between the reconstructed text and the end of dynasty summaries and other comments as a result of the repeated recalculation of the dates of the Zhou Mandate and Conquest. The rewritten “257-year” summary quoted above with its superfluous summations and interpolated cyclical year designations is a product of this effort. In addition, the attempt to reintegrate the by now incongruous “496 year” summary for the Shang dynasty necessarily led some scholars to reidentify the date of King Wu's accession as taking place one year earlier, making 1062 the 1st year of King Wu and 1051 B.C. “gengyin,” now his 12th, the year of the Zhou Conquest. By reinterpreting 1062 B.C. as in some sense the 1st year of the Zhou (as had been the case in the 8th century B.C. version of the chronology), the figure 496 years for the duration of the Shang could once again be construed to identify the interval 1558 B.C., Cheng Tang's 1st year as King in Shanq, to 1063 B.C. See Table 1.

This reinterpretation made it necessary to “rewrite” a second comment in the Bamboo Annals, p. 13 in the “genuine” version, which had survived intact the 8-year backdating and which stated that from the Receipt of the Mandate to King Mu was 100 years (the Bamboo Annals date for the beginning of his reign is 962 B.C.), in the following form: “From King Wu to King Mu [Zhou] ruled the state for 100 years (“current” Bamboo Annals, p. 97). Here the now troublesome reference to Mandate has been eliminated (or reinterpreted as its transfer to King Wu by virtue of his succession) and the figures 1062 - 100 = 962 agree. Needless to say, this well-intentioned editorial scheme is contradicted by the text of the chronicle which has King Wu succeeding his father in 1061, not 1062, and by the original “257 year” comment (quoted by Pei Yin) which explicitly states that the said figure identifies the year King Wu extinguished Yin and not the “settling of the tripods in Luo.” In order to distinguish it from the basic chronology of the Bamboo Annals this “reconstruction” has been represented by broken lines in Table 1.

113. The logic of this argument owes much to Professor David S. Nivison's insight that the discrepancy between the Bamboo Annals date for the Conquest and the actual date of the event was probably the result of faulty calculation based on the nominal 12 year Jupiter cycle. My discovery of the record of the conjunction in 722 B.C. confirmed this hypothesis and pinpointed the most likely date for the “recalculation” of the date of the Zhou Conquest in the 8th century B.C.

114. Bamboo Annals, p. 92.

115. Guoyu, 10.3a.

116. Jin shu, ch. 51, p. 1432. This is the original version of the “rewritten” consent cited in note 112; for this reason, the latter is almost certainly a post-discovery construction. It is also worth noting that Shu Xi explicitly states that the Bamboo Annals began with the chronicle of the Xia dvnastv. We may therefore assume that the earl 1er material now attached to the beginning of the Bamboo Annals dealing with the Five Emperors, including Yao and Shun, is the result of accretion.

117. “Sinological Notes,” JRAS/NCB 65 (1934):187–88Google Scholar.

118. “La Chronologie chinoise et l'avènement des Tcheou,” TP 23 (1924):287–346Google Scholar and “La Chronologie chinoise et l'avènement des Tcheou (Pt. 2),” TP 29 (1932):276–386Google Scholar.

119. Science and Civilisation, 3:408Google Scholar.

120. The Zhengzhou samples in question--ZK-177, ZK-178--have yielded radiocarbon dates of 1573 ± 140 and 1598 ± 110. For a discussion of the issues involved see Chang, Kwang-chih, Shang Civilization, pp. 270–71, 323, 343Google Scholar and Keightley, David N., “Shang China is Coming of Age--A Review Article,” in which Shang Civilization is reviewed, JAS 41.3 (1981):552Google Scholar.

121. Lunyu, 9/9.