As you can tell, I didn't research the history that far back. Thanks for the corrections.
Looking now into the history of the Chinese calendar, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_calendars#China says:
> Before the Spring and Autumn period (before 770 BC), the Chinese Calendars were solar calendars. In the so-called five-phase calendar, the year consists of 10 months and a transition, each month being 36 days long, and the transitions 5 or 6 days. During the Warring States period (~475-220 BC), the primitive lunisolar calendars were established under the Zhou Dynasty,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_calendar#Earlier_Chine... elaborates:
> Before the Zhou dynasty, the Chinese calendars used a solar calendar.
> According to Ancient Chinese literature, the first version was the five-phases calendar (traditional Chinese: 五行曆; simplified Chinese: 五行历), which came from the tying knots culture. ... The second version is the four-seasons calendar ... The third version is the balanced calendar ..
> In Zhou dynasty, the authority issued the official calendar, which is a primitive lunisolar calendar.
The Shang dynasty came before the Zhou dynasty, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_bone_script says that "The vertical columns of text in Chinese writing are traditionally ordered from right to left; this pattern is found on bronze inscriptions from the Shang dynasty onward."
This would seem to mean that the Chinese calendar had a right-to-left writing system and a solar calendar, before switching to a solilunar calendar, yes?
Does that not invalidate your thesis?
In any case, I don't see why there should be any connection. If there are only a few data points, then it's very easy to get coincidental correlations.
What difference does it make?
