Part 2.
China. The new chronology and conception of Chinese history. Our hypothesis.
Introduction.
There are many preconceptions concerning the history of China. It is presumed to be exceptionally ancient, a lot more so than European history, and its datings are said to be perfectly reliable. The basics of Chinese chronology are believed to be so firm that it serves as a classical example of an indubitably ancient and reliable chronology. There is the popular misconception about Chinese chronology being based on the “ancient Chinese” astronomical records, which permit to date the events of the “ancient Chinese” history without any ambiguity whatsoever.
This example makes it difficult to believe that the history of Europe, Egypt and Asia Minor is as brief as the New Chronology claims it to be.
Moreover, one must naturally wonder about the possible reasons why the documented history of China begins thousands of years ago, remaining reliable nonetheless, whereas the much shorter history of Europe contains so many errors. Could it really be that the Chinese have maintained the chronology and history of the last six thousand years unbroken and distortion-free, whereas the history of every other nation is a millennium old at best, and filled with errors?
Basically, Chinese history looks like a perfect paragon that makes it hard to imagine the Scaligerian version of documented European history to be erroneous to such a tremendous extent.
We shall proceed to give a brief description of the real situation with Chinese history and chronology as opposed to whatever is advertised. The work on the reconstruction of Chinese history has only just begun.
Chapter 4.
Astronomical events in the “ancient” Chinese chronicles.
1. The actual astronomical events described in Chinese chronicles.
The astronomical events recorded by the Chinese were studied by N. A. Morozov in the 6th volume of his oeuvre entitled Christ ([544]). We shall begin our analysis with quoting some of his observations, and then add some of our more recent considerations thereto.
The Chinese have left us records of comet observations, which have reached us as the two primary comet catalogues considered “ultra-ancient” today.
“The major historical tractate entitled ‘Annals’ . . . begins its narration with the year of 2650 B.C. It is supposed to have been started by a certain ‘Master of the Horse’ around 97 B. C. and continued until 1644 A. D. by different historians. Some of its parts are concerned with nothing but astronomy, and contain the observations of the sun, the moon, and five of the planets, as well as stellar coverings and comets. The Anglo-Shanghai pronunciation of the word ‘Annals’ is She-Ke, which is how this oeuvre is usually referred to by the Europeans.
The “Encyclopaedia of the Forest Horse” . . . contains a whole volume with comet descriptions. This “Forest Horse” (Ma-Tuan-Lin) is said to have lived around 1232 and recorded all the observations of comets made between 611 B. C. and his own epoch – just whence those revelations came to him remains unclear. The rest of the encyclopaedia covers the period up to 1644, or the exact same time when the records in the ‘Annals’ of the ‘Master of the Horse’ cease, likewise the records of the European cometographers. Let us recollect that Lubieniecki’s famed Cometography came out in 1681, preceded by the European compilations of the early XVII and the late XVI century. We see the simultaneous nascence of voluminous cometographic works in the Western Europe and in China in the period between the XIII and the XVII century; it is highly dubitable that they could have come into existence independently from each other.
A shorter ‘History of China’ (comprising a mere 100 volumes), which covers the period between the antediluvian epoch and 1367 was translated into French by the Catholic missionary named Mailla, and it contains the descriptions of several comets that cannot be found in either of the two earlier sources” ([544], Volume 6, pages 58-59).
Thus, the final edition of the primary Chinese sources took place as recently as in the XVII century A. D.
N. A. Morozov points out that the Chinese possess no manuscripts whatsoever that would predate the XVII century ([544], Volume 6). The absence of earlier manuscript is usually explained by historians as follows: the Chinese only wrote on paper, whereas the Europeans of the XIV-XV century used parchment, or specially treated leather, which is naturally more endurable than paper – the latter disintegrates very fast. At any rate, let us keep in mind the important fact that there are no Chinese texts dating from before the XVII century in existence.
Let us quote from Morozov again: “As I have already mentioned, the Chinese do not have any manuscripts that would predate the XVII century, which is when the chronicles of She-Ke and Ma-Tuan-Lin were compiled – possibly, with the assistance of the Catholic missionaries who were in charge of the Chinese observatories back then, and even built them for the Chinese” ([544], Volume 6, page 119).
“Having cited the complete roster of comets that were first filed by Mailla and Gaubil, as well as some later European authors, I cannot refrain from expressing . . . a certain lack of trust in the purity of this roster’s Chinese origins. It was . . . included in Pingré’s ‘Cometography’, albeit edited and abbreviated. Then, in 1846, Biot published the comet rosters from the ‘Annals’ (retaining the Shanghai name ‘She-Ke’) and the almost identical rosters from the ‘Encyclopaedia’, or ‘Ma-Tuan-Lin’, as it was called in Shanghai, in his oeuvre entitled ‘Connaissance des Temps’ . . . Both rosters are much more detailed than the original roster of Mailla and Gaubil, although they reveal obvious traces of borrowing from each other” ([544], Volume 6, page 42.
N. A. Morozov has thus discovered that the allegedly ancient Chinese comet rosters were substantially expanded by someone in the XVIII-XIX century. This happened in Europe. We shall soon see find out the identity of the responsible parties, as well as their motivations, and demonstrate that the comet roster was almost certainly expanded after 1759.
Furthermore, it turns out that the Chinese sources do not contain any descriptions of astronomical instruments, and there are no traces of the ancient astronomical observatories anywhere on the territory of China ([544], Volume 6, page 132). This is very odd indeed, if one is to believe that the Chinese have been conducting meticulous astronomical observations for several thousand years.
European astronomical observations of that period are believed to be greatly inferior to the Chinese – nevertheless, the Europeans have preserved detailed descriptions of instruments, observation techniques etc. It suffices to recollect the “ancient” astronomical work of Claudius Ptolemy – the Almagest. Could it be that it had never occurred to the Chinese, despite many centuries of observing the sky, to relate their exact methods and provide some sort of a description of the instruments that they used for this purpose?
Our opponents will naturally say that the Chinese had “kept their methods secret”. We shall refrain from arguing here, because we shall soon cite much more substantial evidence to prove that the real Chinese astronomical observations started in the XVI century the earliest. Apart from the comet rosters, Chinese chronicles mention eclipses. N. A. Morozov also managed to discover the sole existing horoscope.
We shall deliberately tackle the comet issue somewhat later. However, we can already formulate the results of our own research. They are as follows.
1) The only comet that could confirm the correctness of the Scaligerian chronology of China is Comet Halley. Other comets are of zero utility insofar as the issue of dating is concerned.
2) All reported observations of Comet Halley before the XV century are utter disinformation, and were fabricated in the XVIII-XIX century. This isn’t even a hypothesis – it is a strict assertion, which shall be proven in Chapter 5 of CHRON5. We do not claim every Chinese report associated with Comet Halley today to be a forgery – one or two turned out quite sufficient for that end. This forgery is most likely to date from the period between 1759 and 1835.
The descriptions of eclipses as found in Chinese chronicles are very vague, lacking such vital details as the phase of the eclipse, the observation site etc. N. A. Morozov was perfectly correct to note that such nebulous reports can by no means be used for the purposes of historical dating, since one can find an eclipse of some sort in every decade, observable from some point and possessing some phase value. If we are to assume that the Chinese only described distinctly manifest (or total) eclipses, these descriptions will fail to correspond with reality in any way at all. For instance, the Chinese “History of the Khitan State” by E. Lun-Li (Moscow, Nauka, 1979) reports eclipses in the years of 992, 994, 998, 999, 1002, 1004, 1007 etc. Total (or at least distinctly observable) solar eclipses cannot happen with this regularity and be visible from the same territory.
Corollary. Chinese eclipse observations can neither confirm nor refute any chronology of China at all, be it veracious or erroneous.
The situation with horoscopes is even worse. N. A. Morozov claims that his study of the Chinese chronicles did not yield a single ancient horoscope compiled in China – at the very least, he didn’t manage to find any of those.
The only horoscope related to Chinese history survived in the chronicles of Eastern Asia ([544], Volume 6, page 50). Morozov conducted a study of this horoscope, which is associated with the reign of the grandson of the first Chinese emperor Huang Di “The Yellow” (could it be Emperor John, or Juan as pronounced in Spanish?)
Modern historians date the beginning of this emperor’s reign to the first half of the third millennium before Christ. Emperor Huang was “a contemporary of Noah, moreover – we are told that this name wasn’t a real name, but rather a ‘post mortem alias’, since the Chinese buried the emperor’s name with the emperor and gave him a new name after his death” ([544], Volume 6, page 43).
It turns out that “in the reign of the Yellow Emperor’s grandson, in the springtime of the year, on the first day of the first month, all five planets converged underneath the Alpha and Beta of Pegasus – in Aquarius and partially in Capricorn” ([544], Volume 6, page 50).
This horoscope is dateable perfectly well, and so N. A. Morozov performed this operation. Apparently, in the third millennium before Christ, which is the period that the Yellow Emperor’s reign is dated to by historians (ditto the reign of his grandson), “there was nothing remotely resembling the convergence of five planets near Aquarius – this event only happened once, on 9 February 1345, and in a very spectacular manner at that” ([544], Volume 6, page 54).
We have verified the calculations of N. A. Morozov with the aid of modern astronomical software and found another solution for this ancient Chinese horoscope: 15 February 1108 A. D. This solution turned out to be even better than Morozov’s. See for yourselves. Firstly, all five planets did in fact converge in Capricorn, and were clearly visible before dawn. Secondly, the moon was new, which corresponds to the first day of lunar month as indicated in the Chinese texts. Finally, the solution is vernal, since the event took place in the middle of February. Another excellent solution for this horoscope dates from 6 February 1524 A. D. Other solutions that we have found were much worse than the two excellent solutions of 1108 and 1524 as mentioned above – the planets were either at too great a distance from the Alpha and the Beta of Pegasus, or could not be observed simultaneously.
It is therefore very likely that “the grandson of the Yellow Emperor” lived in the XVI century, but definitely not in the third millennium before Christ – that period doesn’t contain a single solution for the “first Chinese horoscope”.
One might wonder whether any attempts of dating the horoscope were made before Morozov. They were; the account of just how this was carried out is most edifying indeed. Let us quote it after N. A. Morozov.
“How could Bailey ‘confirm’ this antediluvian pseudo-Chinese chronology saying that the convergence of the five planets really happened on 20 February 2448 B. C? Very simple. He assumed that the Chinese anticipated the unnatural mediaeval astrological equality of the planets, the sun and the moon, as well as the 19-year Meton’s cycle (some twenty-five hundred years before the European Meton, no less), but suddenly decided to exclude the two most important planets from this list – namely, Jupiter and Saturn, replacing them with the Sun and the Moon. Things instantly became simple – since the geocentric conjunctions of the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus and Mars occur once in each constellation every 15 or 17 years, Bailey could instantly locate this event within the 77 years of the alleged reign of the Yellow Emperor’s grandson, relieved from the necessity to fit the larger planets into his equation” ([544], Volume 6, page 50-52).
If one is to confirm Scaligerian chronology in this manner, Chinese history definitely ranks as “well-confirmed”.
We see a vivid example of how certain scientists committed actual forgeries striving to confirm the Scaligerian history of China – possibly guided by “best considerations possible”.
4. The “ancient” Chinese 60-year cycle and its origins.
Many people are aware of the cycle in question, and follow the Chinese zodiac meticulously, taking into account the sign of the current year and asking each other about their Chinese signs (Dog, Pig, Monkey or Rooster?), believing themselves to be in touch with the ancient wisdom of the grandeval Orient, where the mysterious calendar cycles that rule our destinies were discovered in antediluvian times. What makes this theory particularly appealing is, of course, its alleged unbelievably ancient age.
It is presumed that the 60-year cycle was adopted by the Chinese at the very dawn of their history, in the reign of the same famed Yellow Emperor, or the alleged year 2638 B. C. ([544], Volume 6, page 43). However, the 60-year cycle is known very well in astronomy – it is the approximate conjunction period of Jupiter and Saturn. Such conjunctions were indeed presumed very important in the Middle Ages. N. A. Morozov came up with the natural hypothesis that such conjunctions provided the basis of the “ancient” Chinese 60-year cycle.
However, the 60-year period between the conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn is approximated – we are therefore given a spectacular opportunity of dating the moment when the 60-year calendar circle was introduced. Indeed, over the course of time the discrepancy between the astronomical conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn and the calendar beginnings of the sixty-year Chinese cycle grows ever greater. It would be interesting to calculate the date when they coincided, which will give us the epoch when the cycle in question was introduced.
It turns out that these coincidences only existed between 1204 and 1623 A. D. By the way, this time interval fully covers the moment encoded in the horoscope of the Yellow Emperor – 1345 A. D., qv above.
Thus, the “ancient” Chinese sixty-year circle was introduced in the XIII century A. D. the earliest; most likely – in the XIV century, the epoch of Huang, or John, the Yellow Emperor, or even later.
5. When did the Chinese invent the telescope?
We are all of the opinion that the telescope was invented by Galileo or his immediate predecessors in the XVII century. He came up with the revolutionary idea of using optical lenses for looking at distant objects, including stars and planets. This invention truly revolutionised many fundamental disciplines, such as navigation, astronomy etc.
However, it turns out that we are under a prodigious delusion about the time when the telescope was invented. In the alleged VI century B. C., the time when many European nations were still nestling in caves, the Chinese already had telescopes and used them widely.
This becomes obvious from the ancient Chinese book entitled “Canonical Verses” (Shi-Chin), which “are said to have been edited anew – presumably, by the great sage Confucius from the [alleged – Auth.] VI century B. C. . . . Chinese scientists believe the ‘Canonical Verses’ to be one of the five books comprising their primary ancient collection of historical verse . . .
The first part of this book is called ‘Highest Emperor’, and it tells about the deeds of the ‘Highest Emperor’ (Yao), who ascended to the throne in the 41st year of the 5th cycle . . . Paragraphs 3-8 of the ‘Canonical Verses’ contain the instruction given by this ‘Highest Emperor’ to his two court astronomers named ‘Plan’ and ‘Draft’ (He and Ho).
In the first paragraph (or Paragraph 3) he orders them to ‘Observe the sky, calculate the calendar and construct an instrument that would represent the 12 signs of the zodiac and the movements of the Sun and the Moon along them’ . . . in Paragraph 8 the Emperor addresses his astronomers as follows: ‘Plan and Draft! You know that the year consists of 366 days! Devise the intermediate months and a hundred religious services to make everything work fine’.
The commentator adds that 366 days stand for the true time of the entire celestial sphere’s rotation, whereas the length of the solar year equals 365 ¼ days. Hence the conclusion that the Julian year was discovered in China by Confucius . . . and that the precession of the climatic year was already known to the Chinese back then, albeit erroneously estimated as greater than it really was” ([544], volume 6, page 57).
Let us emphasise that this level of astronomical knowledge of the “ancient China” would correspond to that of the European astronomy in the XV-XVI century A. D. Modern historians aren’t surprised by this fact, for some reason.
However, this does not exhaust the list of the “ancient Chinese discoveries”.
“The second part of the ‘Canonical Verses’ called ‘Humble Emperor’ (Shun-Di) tells us about the deeds of Emperor Humble, the heir of the Highest Emperor. He ordered to make a ‘looking-glass’ to make the seven mobile luminaries ‘observable daily’. This must be a direct implication that Galileo’s telescope was known to the Chinese four thousand years before the great European scientist . . . Why is it that the ones who believe in the existence of the Julian year, the armillary sphere, the knowledge of the solstices and the equinoxes etc in the Ancient China stop before this final step and identify the ‘looking-glass’ as an astronomical quadrant?” ([544], Volume 6, page 58).
Corollary: such texts cannot possibly predate the XVII century A. D. in our opinion.
Let us once again emphasise that the surviving Chinese manuscripts date from the XVI-XVII century the earliest.
