Sexgenary cycle dates
Laurie Berman
use the sexegenary cycle to identify the day. I feel I should know
this by now, or at least be able to find examples, but I've been
coming up empty. How does one handle the day component of the date in
such citations? Here is a typical one:
『朝鮮世宗実録』23年６月己丑
Laurie Berman
Alan Siegrist
You wrote:
I don't know much about this, but Wikipedia has a nice article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagenary_cycle
In the table, 己丑 is given as the equivalent of the number 26, so I guess "
６月己丑" is "June 26."
To do a quick check to see if this is reasonable, I did a search on 世宗実
録. I found this:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/応永の外寇
『世宗実録』では6月26日の襲撃で
Assuming this refers to the same historical event (you don't say what it
is), at least the month and day seem to match up.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Carmel, CA, USA
Herman
> Hi Laurie,
>
> You wrote:
>
>> The document I'm translating cites old Chinese and Korean annals that use
>> the sexegenary cycle to identify the day. I feel I should know this by
> now, or
>> at least be able to find examples, but I've been coming up empty. How does
>> one handle the day component of the date in such citations? Here is a
> typical
>> one:
>>
>> 『朝鮮世宗実録』23年６月己丑
>
> I don't know much about this, but Wikipedia has a nice article here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagenary_cycle
>
> In the table, 己丑 is given as the equivalent of the number 26, so I guess "
> ６月己丑" is "June 26."
"26th day of the 6th month" would be more accurate, since this is a
lunar calendar in which ６月 does not exactly correspond to June.
Herman Kahn
Laurie Berman
On Sep 13, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Herman wrote:
>>
>> In the table, 己丑 is given as the equivalent of the number
>> 26, so I guess "
>> ６月己丑" is "June 26."
>
> "26th day of the 6th month" would be more accurate, since this is a
> lunar calendar in which ６月 does not exactly correspond to
> June.
Yes, I agree, and I am translating the month in that manner. But I am
still puzzled about what to do with the days, because from what I can
make out, the names just continue through the cycle of 60 branches
and stems or whatever they're called, and then start over, regardless
of where one is in the month. Now, maybe my info is incorrect,
because it does seem like a totally stupid system, but the first such
day name I looked up corresponded to 49, and we know there were not
49 days in a month. If that's the way it works, there's no point
using a number, because people wouldn't know where to start counting.
So, all I can think of doing is to either (1) transliterate the name
of the day (but in what language?), which does not seem too helpful
either, or (2) ignore it. (I suppose I could also go to the source
and find the entry and conceivably figure out a way to identify it by
number, but I'm not being paid enough for that.)
Laurie Berman
Herman
You are correct, the days in the sexagenary cycle are counted
independent of the month.
Your could say e.g. "49th day of the [sexagenary] day cycle in the 6th
month" or "month 6, day 49". Somebody familiar with the sexagenary
calendar system would be able to figure it out from that, and somebody
not familiar with it would at least know that some different calendar
system is being used here.
Herman Kahn
Herman Kahn
Alan Siegrist
> >> In the table, 己丑 is given as the equivalent of the number 26, so I
> >> guess "
> >> ６月己丑" is "June 26."
> >
> > "26th day of the 6th month" would be more accurate, since this is a
> > lunar calendar in which ６月 does not exactly correspond to June.
>
> Yes, I agree, and I am translating the month in that manner. But I am still
> puzzled about what to do with the days, because from what I can make out,
> the names just continue through the cycle of 60 branches and stems or
> whatever they're called, and then start over, regardless of where one is in
> the month. Now, maybe my info is incorrect, because it does seem like a
> totally stupid system, but the first such day name I looked up corresponded
> to 49, and we know there were not 49 days in a month. If that's the way it
> works, there's no point using a number, because people wouldn't know
> where to start counting.
> So, all I can think of doing is to either (1) transliterate the name of the day
> (but in what language?), which does not seem too helpful either, or (2)
> ignore it.
I am not sure what the purpose of your translation is, but if you are dealing with historical events, you might forget about the Chinese/Korean day naming conventions altogether and simply give the equivalent dates in the Western calendar.
This will take some effort in doing the date conversions, but it ultimately would be much more understandable to an English-speaking audience that would presumably be unfamiliar with these day name conventions, no matter how they are presented.
Minoru Mochizuki
As to 己丑, you should first understand that the combination of the two Chinese characters represents the year 26 according to an ancient Chinese sexagesimal calendar system. (The sexagesimal system itself is not as stupid as you might think because you are counting up to 60 seconds before you turn to a new minute and up to 60 minutes before you turn to a new hour in your own clock system.) The Chinese sexagonal system consists of a group of 10 干 characters and 12 支 characters. The particular Chinese system is much older than the Gregorian calendar which was adopted by Britain only in the 15th century.
The relation between the Gregorian calendar and the particular Chinese calendar is that the year of己丑 (jizi in Pinyin, or つちのとうし in Japanese) represents a group of years cyclically occurs every 60 years. The simple rule is that any year X according to the Gregorian calendar that leaves 29 when divided by 60 (e.g., 2009 = 60 x 33 + 29) is an year of 己丑.
In the meanwhile, 世宗 was a famous king of Li Dynasty in Korea, who reigned from 1418-1450 A.D. The year of己丑 closest to and prior to the coronation of世宗 is 1409 A.D. Let us suppose 23年 in the original text means the year 23 of世宗. Then it is 1418 + 23 = 1441, while 1441 - 1409 = 32. So, it does not compute. If 23 was a typo for 32, then the original text is saying that the year 32 of 世宗大王 (세종대왕、セジョンデワン)is the year of己丑.
The following two Japanese Wikipedia articles may be of interest to you:
On己丑, http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B7%B1%E4%B8%9
On 干支, http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B9%B2%E6%94%AF
As to transliteration, you may wish to chose a transliteration based on Korean pronunciation since it is a Korean history document, but I suppose you may wish to use a transliteration based on Japanese pronunciation as I believe you are doing J2E translation rather than K2E translation. I suppose the original Japanese document is citing朝鮮世宗実録 as a reference document. Said document is used by Koreans who claim that Tsushima currently under the control of Japan was originally a Korean territory as a proof of their claim.
I am wondering if this has anything to do with an incidence in June 1419, where the army of世宗 attacked Tsushima with 227 ships and 17,285 soldiers destroying 20 ships, burning down 1939 houses and killing 104 islanders. The Korean force was eventually defeated, however. The attack was said to have been planned as a revenge against the Japanese private pirates prior to it.
On the other hand, 世宗 is said to have invented hanguel, Korean phonetic characters, as well as a rain gauge and a calendar system of his own (in 1441), which infuriated the incumbent Chinese emperor.
Perhaps a little bit of disclosure of the contents being translated may shed some lights on the debate.
Minoru Mochizuki
Laurie Berman
On Sep 13, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Minoru Mochizuki wrote:
> I am wondering if this has anything to do with an incidence in June
> 1419, where the army of世宗 attacked Tsushima with 227 ships and
> 17,285 soldiers destroying 20 ships, burning down 1939 houses and
> killing 104 islanders. The Korean force was eventually defeated,
> however. The attack was said to have been planned as a revenge
> against the Japanese private pirates prior to it.
It has to do more generally with Wokou, so-called Japanese pirates,
and the source material is being cited to back up claims that author
himself says are controversial among Korean and Chinese scholars. The
exact dates (to respond to Alan) are not important IMO because the
passages cited are generalizations about the Wokou, not specific
incidents. To my mind, the main thing is to provide a citation that
allows people to locate the passage (especially since it is being
translated twice, heaven help us!).
> As to 己丑, you should first understand that the combination of
> the two Chinese characters represents the year 26 according to an
> ancient Chinese sexagesimal calendar system. (The sexagesimal
> system itself is not as stupid as you might think because you are
> counting up to 60 seconds before you turn to a new minute and up to
> 60 minutes before you turn to a new hour in your own clock system.)
I'm afraid you have put yourself to a lot of trouble responding to
questions I did not pose and comments I did not make. I do appreciate
the thought, though.
Laurie Berman
Jeremy Whipple
Your could say e.g. "49th day of the [sexagenary] day cycle in the 6th month" or "month 6, day 49". Somebody familiar with the sexagenary calendar system would be able to figure it out from that, and somebody not familiar with it would at least know that some different calendar system is being used here.
Mark Spahn
Concerning 『朝鮮世宗実録』23年６月己丑:
As to 己丑, you should first understand that the combination of the two
Chinese characters represents the year 26 according to an ancient Chinese
sexagesimal calendar system. ... The Chinese sexagonal system consists of a
group of 10 干 characters and 12 支 characters. The particular Chinese system
is much older than the Gregorian calendar, which was adopted by Britain only
in the 15th century.
The relation between the Gregorian calendar and the particular Chinese
calendar is that the year of己丑 (jizi in Pinyin, or つちのとうし in Japanese)
represents a group of years cyclically occurs every 60 years. The simple
rule is that any year X according to the Gregorian calendar that leaves 29
when divided by 60 (e.g., 2009 = 60 x 33 + 29) is an year of 己丑.
==UNQUOTE==
Thank you very much, Minoru, for this clear explanation of the relationship
between Gregorian and 干支 (kanshi, a.k.a. eto) year numbers. Those who have
a copy of "Kanji Dictionary" by Hadamitzky & Spahn (Tuttle calls it "The"
Kanji Dictionary, which is ずうずうしい) will find in the back, on pages 1670-71,
an explanation of the ten calendar signs, the twelve horary signs, and the
sixty-year cycle, along with a table of the kanshi kanji-pairs for years
1984 to 2043. (But there is a typo: The last kanji in the "eto" table on
page 1670 should be without a kusa-kanmura. 恥ずかしい！)
==QUOTE==
In the meanwhile, 世宗 was a famous king of Li Dynasty in Korea, who reigned
from 1418-1450 A.D. The year of己丑 closest to and prior to the coronation
of世宗 is 1409 A.D. Let us suppose 23年 in the original text means the year 23
of世宗. Then it is 1418 + 23 = 1441, while 1441 - 1409 = 32. So, it does not
compute. If 23 was a typo for 32, then the original text is saying that the
year 32 of 世宗大王 (세종대왕、セジョンデワン)is the year of己丑.
==UNQUOTE==
If year 1 of the Li reign is 1418 A.D., then year 23 should be 1417+23 =
1440 A.D. That is, to convert the years you use the number of the year
*before* year 1. The Heisei era began in 1989, so 2011 is Heisei 2011 minus
1988 (not 1989) = Heisei 23.
-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
Andreas Rusterholz
> If year 1 of the Li reign is 1418 A.D., then year 23 should be 1417+23 =
> 1440 A.D. That is, to convert the years you use the number of the year
> *before* year 1. The Heisei era began in 1989, so 2011 is Heisei 2011 minus
> 1988 (not 1989) = Heisei 23.
> -- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
Andreas Rusterholz
> 1440 A.D. That is, to convert the years you use the number of the year
> *before* year 1. The Heisei era began in 1989, so 2011 is Heisei 2011 minus
> 1988 (not 1989) = Heisei 23.
> -- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
Andreas Rusterholz
Richard VanHouten
> The particular Chinese system is much older than the Gregorian calendar which was adopted by Britain only in the 15th century.
>
>
>
Slight correction... the Gregorian calendar was developed, and adopted
by Catholic countries, in the 15th century... the British continued to
use the older Julian calendar (dating from the 1st century BC) until the
18th century.
Richard VanHouten
Simon Varnam
Thank you all for sharing.
---------------------
I had expected to be able to reply at the website as usual, but can see no "reply" buttons. In fact NO buttons except "report spam"!
Has the website changed, or has my status been altered?
Simon Varnam
hun
Ordinarily you would consult a calendar conversion chart to convert dates between the Western and Chinese calendars, but most ones online don't go back that far! The only published references I've seen that might be of use are musty dog-eared geomancy almanacs used by fortune tellers in places like Hong Kong or Taipei, where the precise hour and date of birth are essential for their purposes. And you would need a fairly detailed one if you were looking up creepy ancestors from the 15th c.
I've looked through my references for events in Korea during the sixth month of the 23rd year of King Sejong's reign, namely June 1441. The only things of note that pop up consistently are the calendar system, alphabet, and rain gauge, mentioned by Mr. Mochizuki, and nothing pertaining to wokou. But I don't have an extensive collection on flag-waving.
The sexgenary system can be used to count both days or years, and its not always clear what is intended hence much confusion. To assign a numeric value to any of these two-character combinations, consult a 干支歴位表 . Google has one on both its English and Japanese pages on sexgenary cycles. The example you gave 己丑 corresponds to 26. If the first day of that month was a 甲子 (ie, 1), you could assume the day in question was the 26th. But failing that, you need a reference point, a known day circa that time which can be identified in both calendars in order to work backwards or forwards in multiples of 60 days.
I couldn't find such a reference point. However, Sejong died on May 18, 1450, 11 days after his 53rd birthday. If you could work out which of the sixty pairings corresponds to this key date - which might be mentioned on a site glorifying his memory - you could work back the required months and years. (Are they paying you enough for that?) To be fair, reputable Korean studies scholars don't seem all that bothered with citing exact dates when quoting venerable sources like the "Veritable Records of Sejong", provided they get the year right. They seem content to leave it vague, perhaps precisely because of the problems you've encountered. Unless its crucial to know the precise date, I suggest you follow that practice.
Norman Hu
Amsterdam
Steven P. Venti
> I had expected to be able to reply at the website as usual, but can see no
> "reply" buttons. In fact NO buttons except "report spam"!
>
> Has the website changed, or has my status been altered?
Not that I know of. Perhaps it was just a temporary glitch due to congestion
somewhere in the Internet.
If the problem continues, please contact the moderators at the address below.
Steve Venti, on behalf of
---------------------------------------------------------
Pam Ikegami, Stephen Carter, Steven Venti
Administrators of the Honyaku mailing list
Honya...@yahoogroups.com
https://sites.google.com/site/honyakumailinglist/
---------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Rusterholz
> I had expected to be able to reply at the website as usual, but can see no "reply" buttons. In fact NO buttons except "report spam"!
>
> Has the website changed, or has my status been altered?
>
> Simon Varnam
Andreas Rusterholz
Laurie Berman
On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:37 AM, hun wrote:
> To be fair, reputable Korean studies scholars don't seem all that
> bothered with citing exact dates when quoting venerable sources
> like the "Veritable Records of Sejong", provided they get the year
> right. They seem content to leave it vague, perhaps precisely
> because of the problems you've encountered. Unless its crucial to
> know the precise date, I suggest you follow that practice.
Ahh, that's what I like to hear! ;-)
Laurie Berman
Dale Ponte
> Your could say e.g. "49th day of the [sexagenary] day cycle in the 6th
> month" or "month 6, day 49". Somebody familiar with the sexagenary
> calendar system would be able to figure it out from that, and somebody
> not familiar with it would at least know that some different calendar
> system is being used here.
"in the twelfth month, on a chia-hsu day (of the sexagenary cycle), a
comet was seen in the star-group."
http://books.google.com/books?id=jfQ9E0u4pLAC&pg=PA430&lpg=PA430&dq=%22day+of+the+sexagenary%22&source=bl&ots=7pqOW5DAHb&sig=0SsoyQHNNAbZAwlnIPFT5Pa_wAw&hl=en&ei=ajJxTrbcBbHWiALYlpHJAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22day%20of%20the%20sexagenary%22&f=false
Notice the "on *a* chia-hsu day." This cleverly and discreetly
achieves fidelity. Inserting "of the sexagenary cycle" seems quite
possibly okay to me, as a kind of paraphrase, not distracting or
anything and potentially worthy of being called informative, and I can
regard its fidelity as a kind of compensation for the unattainable
Gregorian dating. In the sentence above, perhaps the day number could
go in the parentheses before "of", as "on a chia-hsu day (49th of the
sexegenary cycle) a comet... "? For me the questions brought up by
these sexagenary worms would depend largely on what the dates _are
doing_ i.e. their function, in each individual case, in the text
itself, and what audience/purpose is anticipated for the translation.
For present or future reference, here's _Japanese chronological
tables: showing the date, according to the Julian or Gregorian
calendar, of the first day of each Japanese month, from Tai-kwa 1st
year to Mei-ji 6th year (645 A. D. to 1873 A. D.) With an introductory
essay on Japanese chronology and calendars._ as a Google E-book:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Japanese_chronological_tables.html?id=9jKgVty_XFoC
Were the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese sexagesimal calendars uniform,
always?
Are the words "sexagenary" and "sexagesimal" perfectly
interchangeable?
Dale Ponte
hun
> "in the twelfth month, on a chia-hsu day (of the sexagenary cycle), a
> comet was seen in the star-group."
> Notice the "on *a* chia-hsu day." This cleverly and discreetly
> achieves fidelity. Inserting "of the sexagenary cycle" seems quite
> possibly okay to me, as a kind of paraphrase, not distracting or
> anything and potentially worthy of being called informative....
An elegant write-around, should this level of detail be required!
Norman Hu
Amsterdam
Dale Ponte
> An elegant write-around, should this level of detail be required!
citation should tend to give wide berth to precision? With an elegant
write-around at hand, or presumably available, if requiring a bit of
research, just what, by Jove, is the stronger case for expunging the
dates? but alas, with our scantly knowledge about the text these
dates inhabit, any attempt at further exploring the question of right
translation quickly becomes moot. O well..
It is well observed that the exclamation point is essentially musical
notation, ehy :-)
Spacily I wondered:
> Were the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese sexagesimal calendars uniform,
always?
it had started ticking in China, ""the consequence being that the
Japanese could not well start with the number of the contemporary
Chinese cycle, as all the previous cycles would be missing in their
historical records; nor could they commence a new series, by numbering
their own first cycle 1, because the discrepancy thus arising between
the numbers of the Chinese cycles and those employed in Japan would
likewise at once display the much later origin of Japanese history, a
fact which the Japanese dislike to allude to." (Bramsen)
(RIP, Professor Bramsen, your book lives on.)
Dale Ponte
Herman
>> Were the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese sexagesimal calendars uniform,
> always?
>
> O~~f course not. The sexagenary cycle reached Japan 2000 years after
> it had started ticking in China, ""the consequence being that the
> Japanese could not well start with the number of the contemporary
> Chinese cycle, as all the previous cycles would be missing in their
> historical records; nor could they commence a new series, by numbering
> their own first cycle 1, because the discrepancy thus arising between
> the numbers of the Chinese cycles and those employed in Japan would
> likewise at once display the much later origin of Japanese history, a
> fact which the Japanese dislike to allude to." (Bramsen)
> (RIP, Professor Bramsen, your book lives on.)
>
> Dale Ponte
>
I think that citation is somewhat erroneous and ahistorical.
The sexagenary cycle, said to have been invented by the Yellow Emperor
(黄帝), was originally applied to counting days, and is first attested
in that usage in the Shang dynasty oracle bones. Later, in the Han
period, the sexagenary cycle was also applied to years. By the time it
reached Korea and Japan, the cycle (in terms of what day/year in the
cycle is it now) was definitely well established and uniform. As to the
number of cycles since such cycles started being used, that is a matter
that gained currency only in the 20th century, at the time of the Xinhai
Revolution (Xinhai (辛亥) being incidentally one of the positions in the
sexagenary cycle, corresponding in this case to the year 1911). As part
of its reform program, the new government declared that year to be 黄帝
紀元4609年 (other calendar activists suggested 4622 or 4402), but then
abandoned the scheme and declared the following year to be 中華民国元年.
Perhaps the notion of 黄帝紀元 was influenced by the adoption of 神武紀
元 in Japan during the Meiji era, which itself was no doubt inspired by
the use of キリスト紀元 in the West. Prior to that, in China, Japan and
Korea, years were counted with reference to a regnal era name (年号), as
is still often the case in Japan.
The years 2697 BC and 2637 BC are most commonly given as the year when
the sexagenary cycle was allegedly first started by the Yellow Emperor,
but as the lack of agreement on this point attests, the sexagenary cycle
was not used historically to count how many years or days have elapsed
since some epoch, so that matter is unlikely to have piqued some sort of
inferiority complex for the Japanese when they adopted the sexagenary
cycle as part of their calendar system.
The Chinese lunisolar calendar system itself, apart from the sexagenary
cycle, underwent various reforms at different times, some of which may
have propagated to Japan at a later date, so that system was not always
uniform. This calendar system is characterized by months of varying
length and variable leap months, so there may at times be a discrepancy
of one day or one month between the lunisolar calendars that have been
used in China and Japan.
Herman Kahn
Minoru Mochizuki
The use of the quoted sexagenary (or sexagesimal, whichever you may prefer) system to denote a day of a month is found as early as in the writings of 亀甲獣骨文字 (the forerunner of 漢字 ever found scribed on turtle mails assumed to be used in fortune telling ceremonies by ancient Chinese kings, possibly as old as 17th century before Christ).
Minoru Mochizuki
Dale Ponte
off the top of your head?!
That the sexagenary cycle prevailed in China for nigh three thousand
years! (quite conceivably longer) before passing over to Kyushu..
On Sep 16, 2:01 am, Herman <s...@lmi.net> wrote:
> By the time it reached Korea and Japan, the cycle (in terms of what
> day/year in the cycle is it now) was definitely well established and uniform.
a single fact can speak volumes and panoramas.
> As to the
> number of cycles since such cycles started being used, that is a matter
> that gained currency only in the 20th century,
> 紀元4609年 (other calendar activists suggested 4622 or 4402), but then
> abandoned the scheme and declared the following year to be 中華民国元年.
> Perhaps the notion of 黄帝紀元 was influenced by the adoption of 神武紀
> 元 in Japan during the Meiji era, which itself was no doubt inspired by
> the use of キリスト紀元 in the West.
with grounding perhaps.
> Prior to that, in China, Japan and
> Korea, years were counted with reference to a regnal era name (年号)
> the sexagenary cycle
> was not used historically to count how many years or days have elapsed
> since some epoch, so that matter is unlikely to have piqued some sort of
> inferiority complex for the Japanese when they adopted the sexagenary
> cycle as part of their calendar system.
Minoru, as well, so generous with interesting input.
> On the other hand, 世宗 is said to have invented hanguel, Korean
> phonetic characters, as well as a rain gauge and a calendar system of his
> own (in 1441), which infuriated the incumbent Chinese emperor.
but feloniously superficial, I must say.) The character 「私」has that
deep history as a pejorative.
That:
> a little bit of disclosure of the contents being translated
> may shed some lights on the debate.
Whew~:
Dale Ponte
PS: Since Fukushima I seem to be more frequently hearing Americans
expressing their own "tsunamis" of overwhelming emotions and such.
Perhaps also, if less often, in second and third person. How
interesting it would be if others could corroborate me on this.
Laurie Berman
On Sep 16, 2011, at 11:33 AM, Dale Ponte wrote:
> That:
>
>> a little bit of disclosure of the contents being translated
>> may shed some lights on the debate.
>
> still requires rehearsing on this list is flat out incredible.
I apologize, Dale. Being busy myself, and knowing that others are
busy and want to get to the point (and don't always read one one has
written in any case), I sometimes err on the side of brevity--
something of which you certainly cannot be accused.
Laurie Berman
Dale Ponte
for the dates. My poor mind was rather in shambles those couple of
days, as splayed vividly in those posts, sorry about that. And I'll
keep at weeding out the pedantry.
Yet just for the archives, Nathan Sivin's opus _Granting the Seasons:
The Chinese Astronomical Reform of 1280, With a Study of Its Many
Dimensions and a Translation of its Records_ offers a trove of hints
for dealing with sexagesimal dates. For example, a scheme that uses
"s.d." for sexagenary dates, as in "
On the 14th of month 11 of that year, s.d. 36, the shadow was
79.4855c long." Whole extraordinary book as .pdf:
http://coaca.ihns.ac.cn/Documents/books/Granting%20the%20Seasons%202009.pdf
And here's a free Android App that displays "On the month table, each
day cell have solar day number which is Gregroian date, lunar month/
day number , sexagenary day unit(日辰 or 干支), star letter of 28
mansions(二十八宿)" covering thousands of years! It seems the developer
is Korean. https://market.android.com/details?id=com.calendar.cal20000
Dale Ponte
PS: Of interest is _The Chinese Sexagenary Cycle and the Ritual
Foundations of the Calendar_ by Adam Smith, PhD, Fellow at Columbia:
http://www.cangjie.info/public/papers/SmithAdam_2010_sexagenary.pdf
Dale Ponte
> a trove of hints for dealing with sexagesimal dates.For example,
I'm *not quite 100% sure* that the book's hundreds of instances of
"s.d." + some number are meant to be read "sexagenary day," for I
couldn't find Sivin introducing this abbreviation as such. But I feel
pretty darn sure about it. Would be grateful for correction if I'm
wrong.
Dale Ponte
Benjamin Barrett
Although too late to help the OP, I found a citation that provides precedence for this approach.
Three Kingdoms: A Historical Novel, abridged edition, attributed to Luo Guanzhong, translated from the Chinese with afterword by Moss Roberts, University of California Press, Berkely and Los Angeles, California: 1999, p. 167
-----
Liu Biao continued to fail. At last, despairing of his heir's arrival, he groaned loudly and passed away in the eighth month of Jian An 13 on the forty-fifth day of the chronological cycle.
-----
Benjamin Barrett
Seattle, WA