Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
4,575
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 61:
Line 61: + +
Talk:World History Lecture Three (view source)
Revision as of 01:31, February 17, 2009
, 01:31, February 17, 2009→Earliest Chinese archeological findings
:::I can see the point about there being a difference between finding artifacts like musical instruments versus evidence of an active civilization. However, it's not the age of an item that make it significant - it's the importance of that item towards improving our understanding of the world and its history that counts. I would also doubt that the Metropolitan Museum would publish findings unless there was some corroboration, and don't see why the date claims are implausible. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:47, 16 February 2009 (EST)
:::I can see the point about there being a difference between finding artifacts like musical instruments versus evidence of an active civilization. However, it's not the age of an item that make it significant - it's the importance of that item towards improving our understanding of the world and its history that counts. I would also doubt that the Metropolitan Museum would publish findings unless there was some corroboration, and don't see why the date claims are implausible. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:47, 16 February 2009 (EST)
::::I agree. There is archaeological evidence of villages and (in China's case) millet and wet-rice cultivation going back millenia before the advent of writing, just as there is in the Middle East, Egypt and the Indus valley. I am just saying that Chinese culture ''as we know it'' dates to about 1700 B.C. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:31, 16 February 2009 (EST)