Huang Di to Zhi Bo: A Problem in Historical Epistemology
Abstract: I was invited to a conference in Beijing scheduled for October 2003, on “Xia-Shang-Zhou chronology.” (Background: a PRC-sponsored five-year Project to ascertain Three Dynasties dates had been about to publish its “final” results, but in August 2002 the Project’s “Committee of Experts” unexpectedly objected, and decided to invite open criticism through an international conference.) The SARS epidemic has caused an indefinite postponement. I am now making avail- able on request the paper that I had already prepared. 1 At our WBAOS (Western Branch of the American Oriental Society) meeting, I want to amplify one key argument in the paper. The Bamboo Annals was a crea- tion of the ancient state of Wei around 300 BC. Combining information from both the disputed “Modern” Text and supposedly authentic “Ancient” Text, I deduce 2402 BC as the intended first year of Huang Di. In his 50th year we read “7th month day gengshen (57), phoenixes came, and the emperor sacrificed by the Luo River.” The year has to be 2353, which is 100 zhang (1900 years) before 453, the date of the victory over Zhi Bo that created Wei. It is impossible that this is a record, and unlikely that it is an “off the wall” invention. If it was calculated to celebrate Wei’s beginnings, the intended date is probably the first of the month. By using the ancient zhang system I have discovered what I think must be the calculation, which I will explain carefully. It seems to me that this establishes the authenticity of the disputed “Modern” Text beyond reasonable doubt. I often use arguments of this kind. I have found that some scholars find these arguments immediately compelling, but others are quite indifferent to them, or even seem baffled that I should offer them as arguments at all. I want to engage the audience in this problem, and discover if I can why there such different reactions.
== Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Branch of the American Oriental Society, October 10–12, 2003
Open Access. © 2018 Nivison/JAS, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505393-016
6 Huang Di to Zhi Bo: A Problem in Historical Epistemology
“Huang Di 50, 7th month [first day], gengshen (57)” Why is it gengshen?
0/60
For cycle number of ;th month Therefore in theory D=F=.;.< = gengshen (F;) This diagram is merely for the reader’s convenience. Is my whole argument a good one? Most historians seem to pay no attention to me when I use arguments like this; or else they scoff. (For example, consider the Nivison-Pang article in Early China 15 (1990).) Should they pay attention? Or should I just stop it? Why? If I am right, one must look at ancient Chinese history anew. The three years’ mourning is prehistoric. Jie is imaginary, Yao is real, Shen and Yi Yin were vil- lains, Wu Wang was not a conqueror. It matters. Current Text Bamboo Annals, Huang Di 50: “Autumn, 7th month, day gengshen (57): Phoenixes came; The Emperor sacrificed at the Luo River…” Why gengshen??? Huang Di to Zhi Bo: A Problem in Historical Epistemology 6 Current text Bamboo Annals Other sources (*Ancient Text Bamboo Annals) D The Zhang-Bu System: 1 year = 365¼ days 1 zhang = 19 years, = 6939¾ days 1 bu = 4 zhang = 76 years, = 27759 days, = 462 cycles of 60 days, r.39 20 bu = 1 ji= 1520 years = 9253 cycles, no remainder 5 bu = 380 years, = 2313 cycles, r. 15 Solution to the gengshen problem: Assume that the zhang-bu system was being used, that the day of the month intended is most probably the first day, and that the Bamboo Annals text was being finalized around 300 BC. 2 bu after 453 BC = 301: The Bamboo Annals’ last date is 299 301, 1st of 7th month = guisi (30) 453.7.1 = 30 minus (2 × 39) = 12, = yihai 1 ji (20 bu) earlier than 453, 7.1 = yihai (12) 5 bu still farther back = 2353; so 2353.7.1 = 12 minus 15, = gengshen (57). Q.E.D. Significance: (1) The deduction above must be Warring States reasoning. Moreover, of the two texts, only the Ancient Text has the Zuo Che interval and the 453 event, which a forger would not have omitted. So the Current Text is not a forgery. Further- more, the dates in it after 2145 BC have to be dates that make 2145 be Yao 1. (2) Thus, the chronology in the Current Text Bamboo Annals is probably the ear- liest chronology available. Its dates before 841 are mostly wrong; but any the- ory of chronology claimed to be correct must explain these dates. If it can not, that theory must be admitted to be very doubtful. (3) The PRC’s Xia-Shang-Zhou Project has ignored the Current Text Bamboo An- nals altogether. The Project’s chronology therefore is far too doubtful to jus- tify the claims being made for it. 6 Huang Di to Zhi Bo: A Problem in Historical Epistemology One can see from the Bamboo Annals that the three years mourning institution was prehistoric. Annals evidence shows its requirements on kings to have been most severe in the Xia, least severe in Western Zhou, with no signs of impact after that—as implied in DSN’s publications on the Bamboo Annals (below). DSN pre- sented a full argument in his H.G. Creel Lecture at the University of Chicago, 12 April 2002 (not yet published). For the arguments that Jie of Xia was an early Warring States invention re- quired by chronological puzzling, that Yao probably actually lived and reigned (2026–1969, i.e., 58 years), and that Shun and Yi Yin were not moral exemplars but scoundrels, see DSN’s monograph “The Key to the Chronology of the Three dynasties: The “Modern Text” Bamboo Annals,” in Sino-Platonic Papers 93 (1999). (A revised version of this is available in a Chinese translation by Shao Dongfang: “Sandai Niandaixue zhi Guanjian: “Jinben” Zhushu Jinian” 三代年代學之關鍵: “今本” 竹書紀年 in Jingxue Yanjiu Luncong 10 (Taipei, 2002), pp.223–309.) As for the hypothesis that Wu Wang of Zhou did not actually conquer the Shang: DSN’s argument (not yet published in full) is that Wu Wang’s victory at Muye was not decisive. There probably was a powerful Shang army still in the field farther east, under the command of Lu Fu, the son of Di Xin (Zhou Xin, = Shou). Lu Fu had probably been named heir-king by Di Xin, perhaps in 1068 (probably hou yuan year for Di Xin, beginning with a geng day), at that time being given the royal name “Wu Geng,” by which he was known posthumously. (See DSN’s articles above.) The collage of early narratives about the Zhou victory at Muye and post-victory celebrations in Zongzhou, provided in the “Shi Fu” chap- ter (#37) of Yi Zhou shu, does not mention Lu Fu. If he had been at the scene at the time, he would have been an important part of the story, and almost certainly would also have been killed in the fight or sacrificed afterward. The Bamboo Annals says that Wu Wang “raised” him [to the position of ruler] after the “capture” of Di Xin, and received history has it that this was a magnan- imous act by Wu Wang to allow continuation of the Shang ancestral sacrifices. This may indeed have been what Wu Wang told his people back in Zhou. But be- tween the Annals’ record of the demise of Di Xin and the statement about the “raising” of Lu Fu, we read this: Sui fen Tian zhi ming 遂分天之明 Almost all commentators and translators have understood “ming” 明 as “ming ming” 明命, “glorious Mandate” of Heaven (Tian)—supposing that “ming” 命 “Mandate” has accidentally dropped out; or perhaps have understood “Tian ming” 天明 (literally “Heaven’s intelligence”) as in effect synonymous with 天命. To avoid having the Annals say something unthinkable, some propose that “fen” 分 Huang Di to Zhi Bo: A Problem in Historical Epistemology 6 should be read as “ban” 頒 “proclaim” (or is a slip for “shou” 受 “receive,” sug- gested by the account in the Shiji). E. Biot, however (Journal Asiatique, May 1842 p. 381) embraces the unthinkable and takes the line as saying “Then he (Wu Wang) divided (and shared: 分 “partagea”) Heaven’s Mandate,” i.e., he found himself forced to make a deal with Lu Fu, recognizing him as co-ruler with himself. Thus, each in effect was to have the status later termed tianzi, “Son of Heaven.” DSN cautiously agrees with Biot. On the other hand (contra DSN), both Wang Guowei and the quotation in Li Daoyuan’s Shui jing zhu seem to assume a sentence break after “fen Tian zhi ming.” The matter needs more discussion. Outline of Nivison’s paper for Beijing conference originally scheduled Oct. 2003: “Zai Tan Jinben Zhushu Jinian yu Sandai Niandaixue” First: It is a mistake to “standardize” a chronology (or any set of statements of fact). At most, it is reasonable to publish a set of dates describing it as what most scholars accept, if there actually is a consensus. It is especially dangerous for an institu- tion or government enjoying or needing public trust to try to promote a “stand- ard” chronology. If advances in scholarship show that what was published as “standard” is wrong, many people will have been misled, and the institution’s reputation will have been needlessly damaged. In particular, the PRC government risks misleading the public and damaging its own prestige, if at the present time it endorses a chronology of the Three Dyn- asties. At the very least, a consensus must first be reached as to the authenticity of the “Modern Text” Bamboo Annals, and as to the usability of this text for ascer- taining correct dates. (The Xia-Shang-Zhou Project has ignored this text.) Second: This risk is not trivial, because (1) there is a reasonable probability that all of the dates in the “Modern Text” are the dates in the original, i.e., they are authentic; and (2) there is also a reasonable probability that if they are authentic, they can be used to infer correct dates that are very different from or other than dates pub- lished by the PRC’s Xia-Shang-Zhou Project. 233 6 Huang Di to Zhi Bo: A Problem in Historical Epistemology As for (1), consider the date in the Annals of rites on day gengshen (57), 7th month, year 50, of Huang Di. A date as precise and as far back as this must be a calculation (i.e., neither a record nor an arbitrary invention). I work out the cal- culation, following Annals usage indicating the date should be the first day of the month: a) The “Modern Text” and “Ancient Text” together date Huang Di’s rites on gengshen (57) to 2353 BC. b) 2353 is 100 zhang (1900 years) before 453, when the “Three Jin” defeated Zhi Bo, gaining independence. c) In the zhang-bu system, to get the cycle-day 20 zhang earlier than a given date, one counts back 15 days. d) The 1st of the Xia 7th month of 453 was yihai (12); so the 1st of the 7th month of 2353 must be gengshen. My precise calculation is almost certainly correct, and if correct it almost cer- tainly shows that all of the “Modern Text” dates are authentic. As for (2), as an example I use data in the “Modern Text” to get a complete chro- nology (to the exact day) for Xia reigns, with four astronomical confirmations (conjunctions, an eclipse, and first days of lunar months): a) Pankenier has shown that the conjunction of 1953 dates Shun’s transfer of power to Yu in Shun 14. b) The Annals says that on the 1st of the 9th month of the 5th year of Zhong Kang the sun was eclipsed. c) The Zuo zhuan puts the eclipse in Fang, and implies it was not in Xia but near enough to be reported. d) Using Annals reign lengths and making interregnums (for mourning) 2 years, the date is 16 Oct 1876. e) On that date there was a solar eclipse, north of Xia but reportable. The sun was in Fang at the time. f) The same calculation shows that the first day of the reign of the 14th king Kong Jia was 17 Feb 1577. g) This day was a jiazi day (1st in the 60-day cycle), explaining why the king was called “Kong Jia.” h) Pankenier has shown that the last year of Xia was 496 years before the con- junction of 1059, i.e., 1555. i) The same count (Annals reign lengths, 2-year gaps) gives 1555 as the last year of Fa, next-to-last king. j) So Di Gui (= “Jie”) must be an invention. There is abundant evidence for this judgment. Huang Di to Zhi Bo: A Problem in Historical Epistemology 6 23 The Project merely offers approximate dates for the beginning and end of Xia, without dates of reigns. I then show how two implications from (2) can be applied to Annals data for Shang and Western Zhou, to recover probably correct dates, very different from the Project’s dates: (a) While the Annals doesn’t indicate gaps between reigns in Shang and Western Zhou, gaps can be assumed, and must have been long enough for completion of mourning. (b) In Shang, first days of reigns determined gan names of kings. Conclusion: Even my critics must see that fixing reign dates for the Three Dynasties is at best too risky at present. We should instead be trying to agree on how to evaluate and use the “Modern Text” Bamboo Annals.