| 19 Feb 2026
Analysis of the Relationship between Official Rain-Praying Rituals and Droughts in China over the Past 2000 Years
Abstract. Official rain-praying rituals, as an institutionalized cultural response to drought in ancient China, offer a crucial window into the evolution of state governance logic and disaster relief responses during climate crises. In this study, 1,825 official rain-praying records from the Western Han to the Qing dynasties were collated on the basis of the Twenty-Four Histories and the Qing Shigao, resulting in the construction of a long-term sequence with a ten-year resolution and a high-resolution annual sequence for the Ming and Qing periods. Sliding window correlation analysis was employed in combination with historical drought sequences to investigate long-term patterns of change. Functioning as a cultural disaster response indicator, this sequence, when integrated with other socioeconomic proxy indicators, enables a more comprehensive characterization of the climate change–impact–response process. The findings reveal that official rain-praying rituals exhibit a four-phase fluctuation pattern of low-high-low-high, with a significant nonlinear relationship between drought occurrence and such rituals. During the Han and Tang dynasties, rain-praying primarily constituted a direct response to environmental stress. In the Song and late Qing periods, confronted with crises of legitimacy amid internal turmoil and external threats, rulers favored high-frequency rain-praying to proclaim the mandate of heaven and pacify public sentiment, resulting in a strong correlation between rain-praying and drought. Conversely, during the Yuan and late Ming dynasties, influenced by ethnic cultural differences or the collapse of state administrative efficacy, a decoupling emerged whereby disasters occurred without corresponding rain-praying. Moreover, the Qing dynasty established systems of regular rain prayers and confidential memorials, transforming rain rituals from reactive disaster relief into proactive administrative routines. These rituals even exhibited a temporal lead over drought outbreaks, becoming institutionalized. During periods of relative fiscal abundance, state disaster responses prioritized substantive relief measures – such as opening granaries for distribution and tax reductions – over reliance on ceremonial rain prayers. As rulers' focus shifted from celestial principles to pragmatic grain storage for famine relief, the frequency of rain-praying rituals also declined markedly. Research findings indicate that ancient Chinese official rain-praying rituals were not determined solely by climate but constituted a complex political process regulated by state capacity, demands for political legitimacy, and institutional sophistication.
This paper investigates the long-term development of rain-praying rituals as a cultural response to climate extremes. The topic is both interesting and relatively underexplored, and the author’s attempt to address it is commendable. The study draws on a large body of historical documents and employs a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis. The results contribute to a better understanding of how specific social and cultural systems shape decision-making and adaptation strategies in response to climatic stress. At the same time, several issues would benefit from further clarification and discussion.
(1) The manuscript frequently refers to Chinese dynastic periods as temporal anchors. For international readers unfamiliar with Chinese history, it would be helpful to provide the corresponding Gregorian years or centuries. This also applies to Figure 2.
(2) What does “era” refer to in Section 3.1.1? Does it correspond to a decade, a year, or another author-defined time unit?
(3) In the Results section, three different units are used to report the frequency of praying rituals: times/10a (e.g., lines 336 and 398), years/10a (e.g., lines 374 and 387), and records/10a (e.g., line 420). Why are these units mixed rather than using a single unit?
(4) Lines 445–454 suggest that during turbulent periods with limited human and material resources, the government tended to prioritize practical measures rather than rain-praying rituals. However, lines 614–619 state that when fiscal constraints prevented the implementation of measures such as conservancy projects and disaster relief, the government relied more on rain praying. These statements seem somewhat inconsistent.
(5) In Figure 4c, what do the three bars in different colors represent? The same question applies to Figure 5c.
(6) The paper mainly focuses on rain-praying activities initiated by the government. Were there also other forms of rain praying, such as those initiated by local communities or organized through religious institutions? A brief supplement would be helpful.