p. 20:  The possibility of a “megalithic” culture in the Far East has often been discussed, by O. Menghin, R. Heine-Geldern, Cheng Te-k’un, Ling Shun-sheng and others.  Megaliths occur mainly in South-East Asia, southern China, Korea and Japan.—­Teng Ch’u-min and others believe that silk existed already in the time of Yang-shao.

p. 21:  Kuo Mo-jo believes, that the Shang already used a real plough drawn by animals.  The main discussion on ploughs in China is by Hsue Chung-shu; for general anthropological discussion see E. Werth and H. Kothe.

p. 22:  For the discussion of the T’ao-t’ieh see the research by B. Karlgren and C. Hentze.

p. 23:  I follow here mainly Ch’en Meng-chia, but work by B. Schindler, C. Hentze, H. Maspero and also my own research has been considered.

p. 24:  I am accepting here a narrow definition of feudalism (see my Conquerors and Rulers, Leiden 1952).—­The division of armies into “right” and “left” is interesting in the light of the theories concerning the importance of systems of orientation (Fr. Rock and others).

p. 25:  Here, the work by W. Koppers, O. Spengler, F. Han[vc]ar, V.G.  Childe and many others, concerning the domestication of the horse and the introduction of the war-chariot in general, and work by Shih Chang-ju, Ch’en Meng-chia, O. Maenchen, Uchida Gimpu and others concerning horses, riding and chariots in China has been used, in addition to my own research.

p. 26:  Concerning the wild animals, I have relied upon Ch’en Meng-chia, Hsue Chung-shu and Tung Tso-pin.—­The discussion as to whether there was a period of “slave society” (as postulated by Marxist theory) in China, and when it flourished, is still going on under the leadership of Kuo Mo-jo and his group.  I prefer to differentiate between slaves and serfs, and relied for factual data upon texts from oracle bones, not upon historical texts.—­The problem of Shang chronology is still not solved, in spite of extensive work by Liu Ch’ao-yang, Tung Tso-pin and many Japanese and Western scholars.  The old chronology, however, seems to be rejected by most scholars now.

Chapter Three

p. 29:  Discussing the early script and language, I refer to the great number of unidentified Shang characters and, especially, to the composite characters which have been mentioned often by C. Hentze in his research; on the other hand, the original language of the Chou may have been different from classical Chinese, if we can judge from the form of the names of the earliest Chou ancestors.  Problems of substrata languages enter at this stage.  Our first understanding of Chou language and dialects seems to come through the method applied by P. Serruys, rather than through the more generally accepted theories and methods of B. Karlgren and his school.

p. 30:  I reject here the statement of classical texts that the last Shang ruler was unworthy, and accept the new interpretation of Ch’en Meng-chia which is based upon oracle bone texts,—­The most recent general study on feudalism, and on feudalism in China, is in R. Coulborn, Feudalism in History, Princeton 1956.  Stimulating, but in parts antiquated, is M. Granet, La Feodalite Chinoise, Oslo 1952.  I rely here on my own research.  The instalment procedure has been described by H. Maspero and Ch’i Sz[)u]-ho.