PLANTEAMIENTO DE LAS SESIONES DE MEDIDA 51 !

There has been much research on excavated rishu 日書 [daybooks] and common

religion. Many scholars have tried to clarify the cultural difference between the Chu and Qin found in daybooks and to trace the origin of daybooks, explain popular beliefs, or

elucidate the cosmology underpinning certain daily omens.64

                                                                                                                63 _{Ibid., 339-41.}

64 _{I am hesitant to go through research concerning cosmological studies in daybooks because it requires}

specialized knowledge that scholars outside this particular field cannot easily attain. Instead, I refer anyone interested to Ethan Halkness’s dissertation. Although his work is about a Han dynasty daybook from Kongjiapo 孔家坡, the underlying cosmological discourse mostly overlaps the Chu and Qin daybooks. See Ethan Harkness, “Cosmology and the Quotidian: Day Books in Early China.”

Cultural difference and the origin of daybooks

Li Xueqin 李學勤 was one of the first scholars to explore differences between the Chu

and Qin cultures as revealed in the Shuihudi daybooks.65 Not only did he sort the

different titles for hemerological calendars, such as the “Chu 除” calendar for Chu and

the “Qin chu 秦除” for Qin, but he also examined the contents of daily omens. He

especially focused on commentaries that describe bondservants or slaves and pointed out that there are no records concerning this class of people in the Chu hemerological calendars from the Shuihudi daybooks; although the Chu silk manuscript from Changsha

Zidanku 長沙子彈庫 contains a comment about not taking a slave, comments regarding

slavery are rare in Chu excavated slips compared to the Qin sources. This difference reflects the deeply rooted system of slavery in the Qin state.

Liu Lexian, Yan Changgui 晏昌貴, and Hu Wenhui 胡文輝 compared daybooks and

explained the similarities and differences of the hemerological calendars of the Chu and Qin cultures. By comparing the month names and the twelve “deity names” from the Jiudian Chu daybook and the Shuihudi Qin daybook, Liu Lexian divided the hemerological calendars into different calendric systems with different methods, such as

the jianchu 建除, congchen 叢辰, and xianchi 咸池, and explained how each of the

calendars took shape and how each should be read. 66 While Li Xueqin focused on the

cultural and social differences shown in the Chu and Qin daybooks, Liu Lexian articulated how the Chu hemerological calendar from Jiudian was the theoretical basis of

65 _{Li Xueqin 李學勤, “Shuihudi Qin jian Rishu yu Chu, Qin shehui 睡虎地秦簡《日書》與楚, 秦社會,”}

Jianghan kaogu, no. 4 (1985).

66 _{Liu Lexian, “Comparison of the Chu and the Qin Art of Selection,” in Time and ritual in early China ed.}

the Qin calendars from Shuihudi by comparing the similar month and deity names. Yan Changgui and Hu Wenhui confirmed Liu Lexian’s findings by comparing the daily omens of the hemerological calendars and other omens on various topics, such as

detaining an escapee, making clothes, construction, and others.67 Among the excavated

daybooks, the Jiudian Chu daybook is the earliest; thus, both Liu Lexian and Yan Changgui agree that if the later Qin daybook has similar daily omens and the hemerological calendars are similar, it succeeded the earlier Chu daybook. But Yan Changgui also explained, by comparing similar daily omens, that the Qin omens are more complicated and have more content than the simpler Chu omens, another reason that scholars believe the Qin daily omens and surrounding religious culture derived from the Chu culture.68

Popular beliefs

Some scholars, such as Poo Mu-chou 蒲慕州 and Liu Tseng-kuei, focused on the

popular beliefs of the early Chinese and the practice of those beliefs described in daybooks, mostly from Shuihudi. Poo defined religion as a “belief in the existence of extra-human powers,” a belief that extra-human agents “exerted certain powers over

individual human beings.”69 Thus, people tried to manage their relationship with such

agents for the sake of their own welfare on earth. The daybooks reveal the attitudes of

67 _{Yan Changgui 晏昌貴, Wugui yu yinsi: Chu jian suojian fangshu zongjiao kao 巫鬼與淫祀: 楚簡所見方} 術宗教考 (Wuchang: Wuhan daxue chubanshe, 2010), 48-67; Hu Wenhui 胡文輝, Zhongguo zaoqi fangshu yu wenxian congkao 中國早期方術與文獻叢考 (Guangzhou: Zhongshan daxue chubanshe, 1999), 74-87.

68 _{Yan Changgui, Wugui yu yinsi: Chu jian suojian fangshu zongjiao kao, 53.}

69 _{Poo Mu-chou, In Search of Personal Welfare: A View of Ancient Chinese Religion (Albany: State}

people toward such mundane matters as marriage, childbirth, farming, etc., having functioned as a manual or guide for them to follow. One valuable argument raised by Poo is that the daybook users were concerned not with constructing or having a comprehensive and logical model of the universe but with “solutions to practical

problems on a limited basis.”70 Therefore, conflicts between different daily omens or

hemerological calendars were not a problem as long as a user could still find a suitable solution.

Recently, Liu Tseng-kuei provided a more detailed argument about daily taboos found in both transmitted and excavated texts from the Qin and Han dynasties. He categorized them into three groups: taboos concerning mundane life, gods or spirits, and the

universe.71 Liu basically argued that taboo days, or daily omens, affected much of the

population, from commoners to officials, and provided guidance in choosing auspicious days for everyday activities. One interesting argument of Liu is that daily taboos from hemerological calendars reflect a belief in the regularity of the auspicious and inauspicious time cycle and that the names of each day provides the user with an idea of

its nature, pointing out which kinds of activities were advisable.72 The taboo culture of

the Qin and the Han explains the religious life not only of ordinary people but also of the elite.73