The determination on the exact year of the beginning to the Chou Dynasty is the keyissue to trace Chinese early ages in Chronology. Since it was not pointed out by Shih Chiz(史記S), many later estimations are unreliable. Only source in highly trustfulness should befound from the statement in Chu-shu Chi'non (竹書紀年) as an identification in the currentsystem 1027 B.C. Most western scholars agree with this selection under the logicalstandpoint. But there rises other problem showing the failure to coincide with the year 1027 B. C.at the 60 day's circle system with the first year of Chou from the quotation of Ku-wenShang-Shu (古文尚書) in Lu-li Chih ofHan Shu(漢書律歷志) To evade this troubleProfessor Tung Tse-pin (董作賓) switched it to 1111 B. C., as an alternative print based onthe suggestion of Monk Yi-hsing (一行) in the T'ang (唐) period. Unfortunately, this ideawas also depended upon the incredible foundation, and had even influenced to ProfessorTung's outstanding works in the researches of oracle bones. In this paper the writer indicates the year 1025 B. C. qualified to the substitute for1027 B. C. It would be the only possible way to revise the contradiction beside the truth ofthe assumed "1111 B. C. System" not from one direction only, but many directions.