The dissemination of Chinese calendar in East Asia has its multifold significance and the compound influence. The academic circle has, however, long over-emphasized its effect on the scientific and technologicallevel, while unduly underestimating its political and cultural importance. As a matter of fact, before modern times, the Chinese calendar was adopted by nearly every country in East Asia, not only as a way of learning advanced astronomical knowledge, but, more importantly, as a symbol of their compliance with orthodox calendar to seek cultural identification. On the basis of the above viewpoint, this article aims to explore the impact exerted upon Japanese politics and culture by the Chinese calendar in the background of cultural linkage in East Asia, while tracing the process of the dissemination of the Tang calendar in Japan, with Baiji, Xinluo, and Bohai also brought into the study. Meanwhile, in the light of the achievements already made by my forerunners, 1 will focus particularly on the following problems: I. Theearliest time in, and the initial approach through, which the Chinese calendar was disseminated into Japan. In A.D.554,Wang-Baosun, a doctor of calendar in Baiji, set out for Japan to impart knowledge about calendar, and in A.D.602,Guanle, a monk in Baiji, passed the almanac, together with calendar (Yuanjia Li from the Liang State during the Southern Dynasty), to Tama-furu, which testifies to the fact that even before the 7th century, the systematic calendar of the Southern Dynasty had already been imported into Japan. II. There are two sayings concerning the time when Japan began to adopt the Chinese calendar: one is the introduction of Yuanjia Li by Guan Le in A.D.604; another is the simultaneous importation of Yuanjia Li and Yifeng Li. Personally, I believe that the calendar used in 604 was the one introduced from Baiji, while the one used in 690 was made natively by Japanese on the basis of Chinese calendar. III. The enigma of Yifeng Li. For a long period of 73 years, Japan had followed Yifeng Li, which, as generally acknowledged by academics, is the alternative name for Linde Li. Yet, no evidence has ever been found in both Chinese and Korean literatures to prove this hypothesis. In accordance with the record in the chapter ‘Linde Li the Eighth Volume, Yifeng Li the Third Volume’ in “Nihonkoku Genzaisyo Mokuroku”, the two calendars actually belonged to different volumes, and there might have been three volumes of Yifeng Li in Chinese history.