From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Calendar (Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars)
Date: 24 Mar 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36f9693a.1971975@news.yale.edu>
References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$qi0$1@whisper.globalserve.net> <369F52FE.2B6@sbu.ac.uk> <77rc86$auj$1@brokaw.wa.com> <36A444B3.F3B70F1C@alum.mit.edu.-> <7827sb$269$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36A52D70.9E372DD2@alum.mit.edu.-> <36A556AB.9927BD29@montclair.edu> <36a63533.58309714@news.yale.edu> <7866ud$i9m$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36cdb21e.883120019@news.wxs.nl> <36A7FCC8.79790A6B@earthlink.net> <36d77e23.1000882888@news.wxs.nl> <36a8d455.81661202@news.yale.edu> <78pl3c$84o@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b0dc2f.3434839@news.yale.edu> <78v30o$vl6@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b34d7c.60430113@news.yale.edu> <794e84$4iq@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3744d12a.1873763068@news.wxs.nl> <796m95$eq2@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <375c0ea6.1954957123@news.wxs.nl> <79fo99$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36f597c8.18429910@news.yale.edu> <7d546l$1ev@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36f85cea.1078314464@news.yale.edu> <36F92889.C8987948@alum.mit.edu.->
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:02:29 GMT, Tak To <takto@alum.mit.edu.-> wrote:

>Cluster User wrote:
>CU> [...]
>CU> I assume that the apparent poistion of jupiter does too. now it
>CU> would indeed be unreasonable to expect their calenders to be
>CU> following the apparent position of jupiter two millenia
>CU> *later*. the chinese calender still continues because people
>CU> have forgotten about it, just as contemporary (I can't call it
>CU> "modern") horoscopes depend on the apparent position of the sun
>CU> in babylonian times (such things like the "age of aquarius"
>CU> refer to the precession phenomenon).
>
>Uh?? I have not been following this thread and I am confused.
>Does the above says that the Chinese calendar is (still) based
>on the movement of Jupiter?  Well, it is not.

the animal cylce seems to have originally represented the
constellation that jupiter is in. if it is not now, it is due to the
fact that errors have crept in since juoiter does not have exactly a
twelve year period.

>
>CU> [...]
>CU> apparently the new year starts when the sun enters pisces.
>CU> thus the calender is siderial (i.e. dependant on the zodiac).
>CU> one has to take into account precession as well as the orbital
>CU> motion of the earth. this is the chinese calendar as well and
>CU> apparently the chinese were celebrating the new year based
>CU> upon the sun's entry into pisces since 260 BCE (this does not
>CU> seem to be the current practice of "chinese new year, vietnamese
>CU> "tet" etc., I'll have to clear up this point). I assume that
>CU> this was based upon the fact that the vernal equinox, the
>CU> beginning of spring was in pisces at the time, as it still is.
>
>Uh? At vernal equinox 260 BCE, the sun should be in the
>constellation of Aries.

I'll have to check it. brittanica said that the sun entered pisces
march 3, 78 CE.

>
>The Chinese lunisolar calendar is not based on the constellations
>but on 24 solar terms (<jie2qi4> big5:節氣）, of which the solstices
>and equinoxes are 4.  (Does this make the Chinese calendar sideral?)

the equinoxes and solstices are not siderial based, they are solar. I
don't know what the other "items" are. if they involve the sun being
in a certain position relative to the stars, then they are siderial.
those times will eventually change relative to the equinoxes and
solstices.

>Although the definition of the new year varies throughout history,
>it is always in the form of "three months before vernal equinox"
>or "two months after winter solstice", etc.  As such, the Chinese
>new year is not "affected" by the zodiac precession.
>
>CU> I am however partially taking back my comment about precession.
>CU> this calender would not be affected by precession, but the
>CU> luni-solar calendars of the near-east would.
>
>Vassil Karloukovski wrote:
>VK> [...]
>VK> [The starting year of the bulgar calendar was also probably was
>VK> that of somor (mouse), as the turkic s@chkan and the chinese
>VK> shu were, and they correspond to [...]
>
>CU> the starting year of chinese calendars (at least civil ones)
>CU> was simply the year corresponding to the beginning of the
>CU> emperor's reign.  the animal cycle provided continuity. this
>CU> may be the bulghar calendar as well, based upon the way the
>CU> nominalia is worded.
>
>I think it would be clearer to say that the Chinese year has
>two sets of nomenclature: a civil one which comprises a sequential
>number following a "reign name" chosen by the Emperor/government;
>as well as an astrological one which has a 60 year cycle.  The
>Emperor can change the "reign name" at any time.
>
>The astrological name is in the form of <T><D>, where <T> is
>one of the 10 <tian1gan1> (big5:天干) or celestial stems, and
><D> is one of the 12 <di4zhi1> (big5:地支) or earthly branches.
>Note that in China, the usage of the 12 animals associated with
><di4zhi1> for calendrical references was much less wide spread
>than among the Tibetans and Altaic cultures.  (Actually, I have
>always been bothered by the supposed Sinitic origin of the 12
>animal cycle.)
> 

interesting.

>VK> [...]
>VK> And in the chinese variant of the saka calendar the year of
>VK> 2637 BC was taken as the starting point of the cyclic chronology
>VK> (it was connected with the legendary emperor Cin Shi-Huandi).
>
>Uh? <Qin2 shi3huang2di4> (big5:п宎銘著) or The First Emperor
>of <Qin1> did not rule until third century BCE.  In any case, the
>date of 2637 BCE IMHO is probably not a reliable historical fact
>but only a wishful thinking of later calendar designers.
>
>Tak
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tak To                                            takto@alum.mit.edu.-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
>[taode takto ~{LU5B~}]       NB: trim the .- to get my real email addr