(Ed. Note: This paper was an adaptation of Section X of my article “The Dates of Western Chou,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 43.2[1983]:482–580. In the article, this section is titled “Numerological Postscript,” and occupies pp. 556–566.)As now revised, this section (with related earlier sections of the article) represents my arguments that pre-Conquest dates in the present Bamboo Annals ([Chin-pen] Chu-shu chi-nien) that are relevant to the beginning of Chou are partly historical and partly numerological. I argue that most of the dates that have historical validity have been distorted in two independent revisions of the original chronicle that were later combined. The first, in the 8th century B.C., moved Chou family dates back 12 years, and indirectly generated the Conquest date 1050, The second, in the late 6th century B.C., moved Shang dates (after Wu Ting) back 6 years, so that in this revision the Conquest was redated from 1045 to 1051. Both dates appear, in different places, in the present Bamboo Annals. This analysis results from my research in October of 1982, dating the Brundage rhinoceros tsun inscription, and thereby proving that the Bamboo Annals' date 1111 for Ti Yi is exactly 6 years early.

中文翻译：

---

23. 先周年表：历史VS。夏商周命理

（编者注：本文改编自我的文章《西周纪事》第十节，哈佛亚洲研究杂志43.2[1983]:482–580。在这篇文章中，这部分的标题是“数字后记”，占据第 556-566 页。）现在修订后，这部分（以及文章的相关早期部分）代表了我的论点，即征服前的日期在现在竹志（[Chin-pen] Chu-shu chi-nien）与周初有关的部分是历史的，部分是命理的。我认为，大多数具有历史有效性的日期在两个独立的原始编年史修订版中都被歪曲了，这些修订版后来被合并在一起。其一，公元前8世纪，迁周氏追溯12年，间接产生征伐纪年1050年；其二，公元前6世纪末，将商朝（吴亭后）迁后6年，故在这次修订的征服从 1045 年改为 1051 年。这两个日期出现在不同的地方，现在竹年鉴. 这个分析是我在 1982 年 10 月研究的结果，与布伦戴奇犀牛约会津铭文，从而证明竹年鉴Ti Yi 的日期 1111 正好早了 6 年。