'The Issue with Chinese Astronomy' is that it just can't serve anymore as solid foundation of 'ancient' Chinese History. It looks that 'ancient' China is a miunderstanding at best. There are many preconceptions concerning the history of China. It is presumed to be exceptionally ancient, a lot more so than European history, and its datings are said to be perfectly reliable. The basics of Chinese chronology are believed to be so firm that it serves as a classical example of an indubitably ancient and reliable chronology.
There is a popular misconception about Chinese chronology being based on the “ancient Chinese” astronomical records, which permit to date the events of the “ancient Chinese” history without any ambiguity whatsoever. This example makes it difficult to believe that the history of Europe, Egypt and Asia Minor is as brief as the new chronology claims it to be. Moreover, one must naturally wonder about the possible reasons why the documented history of China begins thousands of years ago, remaining reliable nonetheless, whereas the much shorter history of Europe contains so many errors. Could it really be that the Chinese have maintained the chronology and history of the last six thousand years unbroken and distortion-free, whereas the history of every other nation is a millennium old at best, and filled with errors? Basically, Chinese history looks like a perfect paragon that makes it hard to imagine the Scaligerian version of documented European history to be erroneous to such a tremendous extent.
The authors give a brief description of the real situation with Chinese history and chronology as opposed to whatever is advertised. The authors are far from claiming that their reconstruction is complete. The work on the reconstruction of Chinese history has only just begun.