Having read John Steele’s review of our East Asian Archaeoastronomy in the December 2001 issue of Physics Today ( Physics Today 0031-9228 54 12 2001 56 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1445556 page 56 ), we are compelled to respond to certain misstatements and disparaging remarks.
After characterizing the book as “presumably” aimed more toward astronomers than historians, Steele dispenses with its usefulness to astronomers in a single paragraph, only to criticize the book for not including more extensive translation and contextual discussion that would have rendered it more useful to historians of science. In fact, we state explicitly that “the records have been specially chosen because of their potential to advance modern research in astronomy, astrophysics, and chronology.”
Patently false is Steele’s charge that “selective quotation by the authors, and their failure to provide any information about the various sources from which the records are taken, prevent[s]” guarding against pollution of the data set. In fact, we discuss the original sources and their usefulness at some length, both in the introduction and, more specifically, in the introductory discussion preceding each chapter. Furthermore, for the first time in a work of this kind, we provide appendixes that reproduce every translated record in classical Chinese, with detailed reference to the precise location in the original source.
As for “selective quotation,” Steele’s criticism is wrong on two counts. First, unlike most such compendia, we spell out in precise detail our selection criteria for each category of phenomena. It was not our purpose to verify every record, but the criteria were designed to eliminate clearly spurious or ambiguous observations. Whenever potentially significant variants occur, all are provided. Yet Steele conveys the impression that we simply lumped together observational records indiscriminately, with no effort to sort wheat from chaff. Second, the sources we searched, whose history and reliability are well known, generally provide no more data than we have translated.
Finally, there is the issue of the reliability of the observational records, and here Steele resorts to the timeworn red herring of “fakery” in the Chinese sources. This is a charge repeated in the West since the early days of Sinology, usually by those who have only a superficial familiarity with the sources. On the whole, the Chinese records are remarkably reliable, especially as regards the kinds of reports collected in East Asian Archaeoastronomy . To take just one example, of the 37 solar eclipses recorded in Zuo’s Commentary for the period 721–481 BC, 32 are identifiable and verified by modern computation, 3 remain unidentified, and only 2 are considered “impossible.” 1 Given that the 5 misses could reasonably be attributed to other causes besides false reporting, Steele’s claim that “[m]any early eclipse records, for example, do not correspond to real events” is a gross exaggeration. Surviving records from the Han Dynasty (206 BC–AD 220) on are usually even more accurate.
We take for granted that no responsible astronomer or historian would approach these ancient records with the kind of naivete that Steele presumes in counseling “great caution” in using the book. Nevertheless, our own work with these records has reaffirmed Joseph Needham’s conclusion of nearly 50 years ago: “[I]f they [the Chinese records] were not more accurate than would appear from some of their severest critics, it would have been impossible to find known periodicities in them, as has in fact been done, e.g. in the case of the sun-spot cycle.” 2
