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 <st day, back through time bu: subtract =>’s (count counter-clockwise). (=B< BC, ;.<=guisi (=B).) From =B< BC, back D bu to EF=: =B F< <D < D Back DB bu, no change. Back F bu more to D=F=: <D == FE <F =G F; < D = E F 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<EF Yao < of <BB D<EF (Tao Hongjing, Zhen gao) (D<FE) Zhi < of > < of > (Di wang shiji / Taiping yulan) (DD<;) Di Ku < of G= < of G= (Luo Bi, Lu shi) (DD>F) Zhuan Xu < Of ;N < of ;N (Di wang shiji / Taiping yulan) *(D=BD) Zuo Che < of ; (Lu shi) Huang Di < of <BB (DEBD) (Di wang shiji / Taiping yulan) (D=F=) Huang Di FB “FBth year,” etc. (Song shu “Fu Rui Zhi”) minus <>BB (=<BB zhang, = DB+F bu) =EF= *EF= Zhao, Han and Wei destroy Zhi Bo (Shiji suoyin) 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.