Variable Earth’s Rotation Speed in the 14th to 16th Centuries: New ΔT Constraints from Chinese Eclipse Records
Open accessAbstract
Total solar eclipses are not only astronomical spectacles but also great astrophysical laboratories. Their historical records are particularly helpful for assessing the past variability of the Earth’s rotation speed. Chinese records played a key role for such analyses. However, Chinese eclipse records from the Míng period have not been used for ΔT reconstructions, partially because most of the contemporaneous eclipse reports are found not in official histories but in local treatises. This study examines eclipse records in the (quasi-)contemporaneous local treatises, concentrating on what explicitly mentioned eclipse totality on the day of a total solar eclipse and what were compiled during the Míng Dynasty. On their basis, our study revised the ΔT constraint in 1361 to − 408 s ≤ ΔT ≤ 601 s and set new ΔT constraints of 277 s ≤ ΔT ≤ 890 s in 1514, −328 s ≤ ΔT ≤ 332 s in 1542, and − 1762 s ≤ ΔT ≤ 1091 s in 1575, respectively. We also revised most of the existing ΔT constraints in the 14th to 16th centuries, using the ephemeris data of the NASA JPL DE 441. Overall, our ΔT constraints generally tighten the ΔT variations more than what M + 21 fit for their ΔT spline curve, requiring downward modification and upward modifications for the ΔT reconstructions around 1361 and 1542, respectively. Our results suggest that the ΔT decrease between 1514 and 1567 was slightly steeper than previously considered.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
- Authors
- Hayakawa, H., Sôma, M., & Li, N.
- Affiliations
- Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (GB)
- National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (JP)
- Nagoya University Institute for Advanced Research (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Hayakawa, Hisashi
- Venue
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2026-04-09
- ISSN
- 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2966
- OpenAlex
- W7153489528
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics
- Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
- National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (25H00635, 25K17436)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Historical Astronomy and Related Studies
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › History and Developments in Astronomy
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
- Keywords
- Earth rotation rate, total solar eclipse, Ming dynasty, eclipse totality, 14th-16th centuries
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review