The Equinoxes-Precession Postulate
Conceived by the Pre-historical Chinese Eight Millennia Ago
byZhang Jin
(Foreign Languages School, Henan University, Henan, China 475001)
Yan Yinli
(Physics & Electrical Engineering School, Anyang Normal College, Henan, China 455002)
ABSTRACT: A systematic comparative study has been made of both the profusely collected pictures of decorative designs, patterns, and motifs found on the surfaces of cultural relics excavated in China and the Mesopotamian mythology-inspired, clay-tablet literature. One of the findings from the study indicates that a portion, or an ethnic community, of the prototypal ancestry of the Chinese nation, which, going by the name of “Goulong Houtu” (勾龙后土), constituted the first generation of the“Shennong” (神农)ethnic group, succeeded in the 6th millennium BCE in formulating some postulates in the field of equinoxes precession. Such “postulates” strongly suggest a typically Sinitic way of philosophic cogitation. Therefore the finding specified above should be indisputably counted as a significant discovery in the field of research into the history of world civilization. This paper focuses on setting forth in detail the research process that has led to such a significant discovery and is intended for eliciting constructive critiques or comments from the international academic community as well as scholarly circles in China.
Keywords: the first generation of the “Shennong”ethnic group Sinicism-inspired equinoxes-precession postulate
※ ※ ※
It is during the course when we were pushing ahead with our analytic and comparative study made of both the profusely collected pictures of decorative designs, patterns, and motifs found on the surfaces of cultural relics excavated in China and the mythology-inspired literature set down on the clay tablets unearthed in archaeological excavations in Western Asia that it dawned upon us that an equinoxes-precession-related postulate had been formulated by the primeval population in China. It is simply inconceivable that such Sinicism-inspired and equinoxes-precession-related formulations were recorded by dint of a peculiar system of decorative patterns which come out in the shapes of varied concentric circles on the surfaces of various cultural relics originating with the first generation of the “Shennong” ethnic group that flourished in China approximately eight millennia ago. Although there were definitely no languages, spoken or written, in any part of the world in the 6th millennium before the Common Era or before the Christian Era, and although the theory of precession is per se stunningly abstract and complicated as an astronomical posit, yet some primal ethnic groups living in China had succeeded in demonstrating equinoxes-precession-oriented calculations by means of systems of concentric circles. From this, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the people belonging in the first generation of the “Shennong” ethnic group were unusually intelligent and ingenious.
Here we would like to go so far as citing some relevant examples simply for the purpose of elucidating our points. A large quantity of sets of clay tablets, on which were transcribed mythology-related archives, have been discovered in archaeological excavations. The archives recorded on them date back to the historical period of Akkadian Empire in Sumer, and the empire existed about 5,000 years ago. These tablets keep a record of reign lengths of diverse kings of Sumer from either Sumerian or foreign dynasties, including the ten (or eight) antediluvian rulers whose kingship was at that time believed to have been handed down by the gods. And the reign lengths of the antediluvian kings in particular were believed to have invariably exceeded tens of thousands of years. At the beginning of the 3rd century BC, Berossus (alsoBerossosorBerosus) who was a priest of Bel and anastronomer coincidentally set forth also in his famous work Babyloniaca“a list of the reign lengths of the ten antediluvian kings”. According to Berossus, none of the reign lengths of the said kings but was way beyond ten thousand years. Findings from researches conducted by a number of archaeologists in the Western World into the clay tablets of the Akkadian Empire boil down to the inference that such clay tablets keep a record of a system of the then prevailing equinoxes-precession postulates. However such an inference has met with some controversy, indeed. In China we have made a point of involving, in our in-depth comparative study, both an immense collection of pictures of decorative designs, patterns, and motifs found on the surfaces of cultural relics excavated in China, which are relevant to the development of an equinoxes-precession-related postulate ever conceived by China’s primal population, and the mythology-related, cuneiform literature yielded by the clay-tablet sets unearthed in archaeological excavations in Western Asia. And our comparative study has led us to bring forward the following four deductions:
(1) The inference that the archives or manuscripts written in cuneiform on the Sumerian clay tablets record a version of equinoxes-precession theory can be duly vindicated.
(2) The conceptual prototype of the Sumerian version of equinoxes-precession theory did originate with the first generation of the “Shennong”ethnic group in ancient China. And the said conceptual prototype was conveyed jointly by some branches of both the “Shennong” ethnic group and the “Chiyou” (蚩尤) ethnic group into Western Asia as a result of their migration there. And in due course the said conceptual prototype was perpetuated in the form of a version of equinoxes-precession theory which found its expression in the mythological archives or manuscripts recorded on the Sumerian clay tablets.
(3) It can be affirmed that the equinoxes-precession postulates developed by the first generation of the “Shennong” ethnic group were evidently at variance with the version of equinoxes-precession theory advanced in the 2nd century BC by Hipparchus, a Greek astronomer. Therefore we deem it proper to name the said postulate as the “Sinicism-inspired postulate of theprecession of the equinoxes”.
(4) Since it is only within the scope of the Mesopotamian mythology-related clay-tablet sets that we have been able to ferret out the core traces of the Sumerian version of equinoxes-precession theory and since we have not been able to comb through such segments of the Mesopotamian clay-tablet literature as deal with Babylonian astronomy and astrology for evidence to support our findings, it would be groundless, so we believe, to jump to the thesis that the then Babylonian astronomers were in a position to thoroughly comprehend the esoteric implication of the equinoxes-precession conceptualization harbored by their remote ancestors. Consequently we are of the opinion that in the minds of the then Babylonian astronomers the impact of the Sinicism-inspired equinoxes-precession postulate could evoke even less than a barely palpable ruffle.
Below is presented a detailed account of our study primarily for providing a vindication of the four deductions specified above, which can be duly regarded as the destinations our study has arrived at and secondarily for demonstrating the methodology our study has been induced to adopt by the specific research circumstances to the new generation of researchers in the field of Chinese culture and civilization so that they can be blessed with an enhanced insight into their prospective fields of study.
Specifically speaking, the entire process of our study did fall into the following four stages:
(1) The 1st stage was dedicated to demystifying the import of a figure which contains “a regular octagram”[1]. The figure is on a relic excavated at Tangjiagang, Hunan province, China.
(2) The 2nd stage was dedicated to identifying and demystifying the import of the figure composed of a set of ‘decorative’ concentric circles. The figure falls, in terms of phase of a culture, under the “Banshan (半山) phase [of the Majiayao (马家窑) culture]” and was drawn on the surface of a relic excavated in Gansu province, China.
(3) The 3rd stage was dedicated to a scrupulous investigation of such relics as fall under the “Banpo (半坡) phase [of the Yangshao (仰韶) culture]”. And this led us to the discovery that the numbers of decorative patterns on the surfaces of two of suchlike relics are the same. In other words, either relic has the same number, which is 48, of decorative patterns on its surface. Basing ourselves on this discovery, we have succeeded not only in establishing a specific method for calculating numerical values of suchlike sets of concentric circles but in drawing up “The Table Listing the Numerical Values of Various Numbers of Concentric Circles”.
(4) The 4th stage was dedicated to doing an analytic study of “reign lengths of the ten (or eight) antediluvian Sumerian kings”. And this led us to the discovery that most of the numerals used for indicating their respective reign lengths are such figures as have already been listed—pursuant to a mode of calculation devised by us—in the “The Table Listing the Numerical Values of Various Numbers of Concentric Circles”. And, thanks to the inspiration and encouragement bestowed us by the said discovery, our research effort succeeded in retrieving the “Sinicism-inspired postulate of equinoxes precession” from underneath the historical shroud of oblivion.
Below is an elaboration on the four stages we experienced in our study.
( I ) The 1st Stage of Our Study
In the first stage of our study our research effort was concentrated on demystifying the import of the figure of “a regular octagram” found on a relic excavated at Tangjiagang, Hunan province, China. The figure dates back about seven millennia and is composed of intricate patterns arranged in five concentric and circular strips
(A) At the center of the five concentric circular strips is a sign which, being penned within a square, looks roughly like the English letter “X” and is in bas relief. This sign, we believe, stands for “Fu Xi’s eight trigrams”.
(B) Within the circular strip directly enclosing the sign “X” at the center of Fig. 1 is placed the regular octagram specified above. And the octagram stands for “Fu Xi’s 64 hexagrams”. (The octagram does not at all symbolize “Fu Xi’s eight trigrams”. Why? The reason will be expatiated on below.) Actually every four sides of a regular octagram’s 16 sides form a sign which looks like the capital letter “M”. Therefore the octagram carries altogether 4 signs of “M”. According to “the hexagram’s linear-segment computation technique used in ancient Chinese I-Ching-based divination”, each “M”sign is formed of four linear strokes. And each of such linear strokes can be conceived as to be identical in shape to a diminutive rectangle and to have been endowed with the attribute of a rectangle. Since a rectangle is formed of four linear segments, a linear stroke in this case can duly claim to have four linear segments, too. By the same train of reasoning, each sign that is like an “M” in shape can duly claim to have 4 X 4 X 4 = 64 (linear segments). Within the circular strip directly enclosing the sign “X” at the center of Fig. 1, there are eight triangular spaces beyond the perimeter of the above-mentioned regular octagram. In each triangular space is an emblem, but not two of such emblems look exactly alike.
Fig. 1 The figure of a regular octagram on
the relic excavated at Tangjiagang[2]
Now let us come to examine a reproduction, as it is shown here as Fig. 1, of the aforementioned octagram. Lodged in the four triangular spaces—including the top, the bottom, the due right, and the due left triangular spaces in the circular strip directly encompassing the “X” sign at the center of Fig. 1—are varied representations of the emblem of the ethnic community of “Gonggong” (共工). The prototypal form of the emblem is said to be a mysterious animal bearing vague similitude to a constrictor and went by the name of “feiyilong” (肥遗龙). A “feiyilong” was believed to have two bodies governed by one head. Such a conformation of “feiyilong” was conceived to serve the purpose of imparting the purport of the well known dictum from I Ching, which says: “The Grand Terminus (太极) yields the twin Elementary Forms (两仪).”[3]
Interspersed between any two of the four triangular spaces specified in the above paragraph are another four triangular spaces, in each of which there is invariably a graphic representation showing a bird hovering over an observatory. The bird has been identified as an owl which served as the emblem of the ethnic group of “Xianniao” (咸鸟). And the “Gonggong” ethnic group was composed of the direct descendants of the “Xianniao” ethnic group.
Inside the octagram there are altogether four graphic representations. They are placed separately above, below, to the right of, and to the left of the “X” sign. And they look roughly alike. The message such graphic representations were intended to convey is that they stand for the 3-tiered structure inherent in “Fu Xi’s 64 hexagrams”. The graphic representation placed directly above the “X” sign stands for a linearized emblem of the “Goulong” (勾龙) ethnic group. In other words, the said graphic representation displays a linearized (ormetamorphosed?) form of the prototypal emblem of the “Goulong” ethnic group. Actually the prototypal emblem of the “Goulong” ethnic group is none other than either of the S-shaped twin curves of “Grand Terminus”. Either of the said twin curves stands for the Chinese mythical animal of “LONG” which is the transliteration of the Chinese character “龙”. A pair of the prototypal emblems of the “Goulong” ethnic group stands for a union of a “yang” LONG (阳龙) with a “yin” LONG (阴龙).
(C) The pattern the circular strip which encompasses, at one remove, the sign “X” at the center of Fig. 1 consists of a series of round marks, each round mark being roughly in the shape of the numeral 0 (zero) and in bas relief. There are altogether, within the said circular strip, eight assemblages of round marks. The numbers of round marks falling in the eight assemblages are respectively 3, 3, 3, 3, 14, 18, 21, and 21.
3+ 3 + 3 + 3 = 12 (Here the numeral 12 refers to the number of months in a solar-calendar year.)
3 + 3+ 3 + 3 + 14 + 18 + 21 + 21 = 86 (Here the numeral 86 refers to the total number of round marks in the circular strip. In other words, all the round marks are numerically on a par with the numeral 86.)
Since every round mark in the circular strip has a hollow inside, since the hollows in all the round marks are uniformly rectangular, and since a rectangle invariably contains four linear segments, a round mark in this case should be regarded as being numerically on a par with the numeral 4.
86 x 4 = 344 (The numeral 344 is what all the round marks in the circular strip numerically amounts to.)
360 – 344 = 16 (The numeral 360, according to I Ching, refers to the number of days in an average year.)
The numeral 16 is an epitome of the “genetic mechanism”, by dint of which “Fu Xi’s 64 hexagrams” were originally conceived and contrived. When two objects are involved in an impingement, such a circumstance is termed “duiji” (对极). From “duiji”, the four Emblematic Symbols (四象)3 would originate. From the Emblematic Symbols, the 16 trigrams would sprout. From the 16 trigrams, the 64 hexagrams would be spawned.
(D) The graphic representations populating the circular strip which encompasses, at two removes, the sing “X” at the center of the octagram are a bevy of “bingfeng” birds (并封鸟). A “bingfeng” bird was conceived as a bird with dual heads. And either head was imagined to have dual bills. Thus a “bingfeng” bird was supposed to have altogether four bills. A “bingfeng” bird was believed to be an embodiment of the I Ching dictum that “the Grand Terminus (太极) yields the twin Elementary Forms (两仪) which proceed to bring forth the four Emblematic Symbols (四象).”
In the circular strip specified in the above paragraph, there are altogether six clusters of “bingfeng” birds. The numbers of such birds in these clusters are respectively 3, 3, 4, 13, 13, 17, 18.
3 + 3 + 4 = 10 [The numeral 10 refers to the ten months a solar-calendar year contains.]
13 + 17 + 18 = 48
48 x 4 = 192 [The numeral 192 refers to the total number of the“qian” (乾) divination chips employed in a “Lianshan” (连山) divination practice.]
360 – 192 = 168 [The numeral 168 refers to the total number of the“kun” (坤) divination chips employed in a “Lianshan” (连山) divination practice.]
3 + 3 + 4 +13 + 17 + 18 = 58
(E) 86 (in the circular strip encompassing, at one remove, the sign “X” at the center of the octagram in Fig. 1) + 58(in the circular stripencompassing, at two removes, the sign “X” at the center of the octagram in Fig. 1)= 144 [The numeral 144 refers to the total number of the “kun” divination chips employed in a “Great Expansion” (大衍)[4] divination practice.]
360 – 144 = 216 [The numeral 216 refers to the total number of the “qian” divination chips employed in a “Great Expansion” divination practice.]
(F) The graphic representations appearing in the outermost circular strip of the octagram are altogether 44 graphic symbols forming a circular series of crenels alternated with merlons. Such a graphic symbol is actually a modified form of the symbol of “solar disc” which stands for the “Eight-Wind Calendar” (八风历). The “solar disc” is a symmetric configuration, its one half being identical with its other half. And either half is apt to be linearized.
⊙ → →
Thus, 44 x 8 = 384 [Here the numeral 8 refers to the “Eight-Wind Calendar”. And the numeral 384 refers to the sum total of both the total number of “yang lines”—or “undivided lines” (阳爻)4—and thatof “yin lines”—or “divided lines” (阴爻)4—residing in “Fu Xi’s 64 hexagrams.]
To sum up, the message imparted by the octagram painted on the relic excavated at Tangjiagang canbe epitomized in the following two statements which,we think,should be deemed as indisputable:
(1)The said octagram should be claimed as infallibly symbolizing “Fu Xi’s 64 hexagrams”.
(2)The said octagram is a design originating with the “Shennong” ethnic group.
Then is it plausible that, apart from revealing to us the two statements specified above, the said octagram tends to shed light on the possibility that at the height of the Tangjiagang culture both the divining practice bearing the hallmark of the “Great Expansion” divination scheme and that bearing the hallmark of the “Lianshan” divination scheme were already making appreciable headway? The answer is “Not really!” Why? Because some definite historical evidence has plainly indicated that the earliest evidence in history bespeaking veritable dissemination of “divination practice based on numerically-oriented trigrams or hexagrams” dates way back to the time when the “Songze culture” (崧泽文化), existing from 4,000 to 3,200 BC, was in prevalence. Forty-nine relics were excavated from Tomb No. 4 in Huiguan Hill, including 1 broad battle-ax (made of jade) and 48 broad battle-axes (made of stone). They belong to the Liangzhu culture (良渚文化) which existed from 3,300 to 2,000 BC. Judging from the 49 relics, it can be justifiably said that the maturing process of the “Great Expansion” scheme of divination was bound to have happened 5,000 years (or 4,000 years) ago, but not later. Accordingly we cannotbut adopt a skeptical approach to the possibility that both the “Great Expansion” scheme of divination and the “Lianshan” scheme of divination ever budded throughout the period of time when the Jiangjiagang culture lasted. Moreover we do admit that we have so far remained consistently in the dark about the cardinal purport which the regular octagram on the relic excavated at Tangjiagang was originally intended to convey.