p. 88: According to later sources, one third of the tributary gifts was
used in the Imperial ancestor temples, one third in the Imperial
mausolea, but one third was used as gifts to guests of the Emperor.--The
trade aspect of the tributes was first pointed but by E. Parker, later
by O. Lattimore, recently by J.K. Fairbank.--The importance of Chang
Ch'ien for East-West contacts was systematically studied by B. Laufer;
his _Sino-Iranica_, Chicago 1919 is still a classic.

p. 89: The most important trait which points to foreign trade, is the
occurrence of glass in Chinese tombs in Indo-China and of glass in China
proper from the fifth century B.C. on; it is assumed that this glass was
imported from the Near East, possibly from Egypt (O. Janse, N. Egami,
Seligman).

p. 91: Large parts of the "Discussions" have been translated by Esson M.
Gale, _Discourses on Salt and Iron_, Leiden 1931; the continuation of
this translation is in _Jour. Royal As. Society, North-China Branch_
1934.--The history of eunuchs in China remains to be written. They were
known since at least the seventh century B.C. The hypothesis has been
made that this custom had its origin in Asia Minor and spread from there
(R.F. Spencer in _Ciba Symposia_, vol. 8, No. 7, 1946 with references).

p. 92: The main source on Wang Mang is translated by C.B. Sargent, _Wang
Mang, a translation_, Shanghai 1950 and H.H. Dubs, _History of the
Former Han Dynasty_, vol, 3, Baltimore 1955.

p. 93: This evaluation of the "Old character school" is not generally
accepted. A quite different view is represented by Tjan Tjoe Som and
R.P. Kramers and others who regard the differences between the schools
as of a philological and not a political kind. I follow here most
strongly the Chinese school as represented by Ku Chieh-kang and his
friends, and my own studies.

p. 93: Falsification of texts refers to changes in the Tso-chuan. My
interpretation relies again upon Ku Chieh-kang, and Japanese
astronomical studies (Ijima Tadao), but others, too, admit
falsifications (H.H. Dubs); B. Karlgren and others regard the book as in
its main body genuine. The other text mentioned here is the _Chou-li_
which is certainly not written by Wang Mang (_Jung-chai Hsue-pi_ 16), but
heavily mis-used by him (in general see S. Uno).

p. 94: I am influenced here by some of H.H. Dubs's studies. For this and
the following period, the work by H. Bielenstein, _The Restoration of
the Han Dynasty_, Stockho