Talk:4th millennium BC

message: * The belief that heads of state represented God on Earth began.
How do we know it? 203.162.3.147 05:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There must be some more convincing evidence. Can you substantiate what you said above? Wikipeditor 18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Writings from this era have substantiated that heads of state were considered to be divine. As I've said, if you have any evidence that prior to this millennium there were civilizations with a head of state considered divine go ahead and take it out and put it in that millennium. It was a very important event because it influenced and justified the power heads of state had over their people and I think it needs to be mentioned. Richard Cane 09:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  heads of state 

message: Can we change "in India" to "in the Indus Valley Civilization" (which, as it seems, was largely in modern Pakistani territory)? Wikipeditor 18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early drainage and sewerage system 

message: A question I myself have been trying to figure out. In Judaism, by the way, the world was created in the fall, so the March date is out. The Hebrew month of Nisan (March-April) being the "first month" only comes as a result of the Exodus. Now seeing as the Hebrew date is currently one full month into the year 5767 and that our common era is counted as a couple of months left in 2006. I think we can say from 5767-2006=3761 that the world was created in 3761 BCE, sometime in September or October assuming the same 12 month calendaring system for the civil calendar and the same lunisolar calendar for the Jewish (as there was obviously no metonic intercalation system in place. I would go for the 3761 date as the civil calendar has always been 2 or 3 months behind the Hebrew calendar in terms of the New Year. The first of tishrei would have been in the Autumn of the year 3761 BCE. Valley2city 05:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3761 or 3760 

message: I feel that this should be removed, since there is no citation of this link, and in addition Sargon is from 3000 BC, accoriding to his page.
I will leave it to the experts to do the actual removal, and send a comment to the person that made the original reference. CodeCarpenter 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this is indeed nonsense. Sargon dates to the late 3rd millennium. dab (𒁳) 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nimrod/Sargon under significant people? 

message: I believe that nothing can be compared to Egyptian palettes (Palettes with jackals,lions,Narmer's palette). They are so finely performed comparing to another, rude and primitive art of the same epoch.  These probably should be included in the list as examples of "landmarks" in art of the 4th millennium. These palettes are as impressive (considering their age) as the famous (later made) pyramides! QuestPc 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking of examples of fine art 

message: A) Is Ötzi the Iceman the oldest mummified human we've found?
B) Is Tiu, Thesh, Hsekiu, Wazner, Ro, Serket or Narmer the oldest person whose name we know? Is there someone older? 
Kingturtle (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  oldests 

message: it was put back in because it is a widely held belief. Widely? And do beliefs really belong in EVENTS? Kingturtle (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. There is another "belief" in the article c. 3100 BC – According to the legend, Menes unifies Upper and Lower Egypt, and a new capital is erected at Memphis. Will check 5th millennium BC for comparison. rossnixon 02:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  *c. 4000 BC - [[God]] creates the universe including [[Adam and Eve]] according to a literal reading of the [[Hebrew Bible]]'s [[Torah]]. 

message: Crude oil use (f.e. in mummification)? Fossilic Coal use? Or was it earlier? 80.186.181.23 (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest 

message: First Direct Evidence of Chalcolithic Footwear from the Near Eastern Highlands
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010984
...a date range of 3627–3377 Cal BC (95.4% confidence interval)
 Tadchem (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should add the invention of leather shoes  

message: I love the look of this "Religion and Mythology" section! Do you think we can extend this from 40th century BC all the way to 26th century BC?LutherVinci (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved those entries to the pre-existing, level-two section.  We don't need a "Religion and mythology" subsection for every section; just the one section should do here, don't you think? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, although in some circumstances it could get confusing, understanding "persons" from "events", and so forth.LutherVinci (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it will be clear enough. :) Like I say, too, the date of Creation could go in there, really your preference I suppose because those other "Calendars and chronologies" entries at present also could really go in either place as well. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

text: It looks like Arthur Rubin removed the names from the Bible, because no specific source was cited.  I don't think that is necessary.  By being in that section, the don't need to be real people with real, hard dates.  Was that your objection?  That they are Biblically placed around this time as a religious belief seems fine for this section to me. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, no specific source was given for Krishna or Korean mythology, either; probably for the same reason.LutherVinci (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I also don't think we should listen to User:Arthur Rubin. He just reverted our Religion and Mythology section in the 39th century here. Right after I undid Pmandersons' revert here .LutherVinci (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't need to be real people with real, hard dates.  They can be unreal people with real, hard dates.  Something we don't have, here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 3874 BC (130 AM) seems pretty real to me, unless you feel yourself entitled to invent the definition. In any case, there is no "hard date" for Krishna either, but I feel that they belong there as well.LutherVinci (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the birth of Seth? There's no consensus that Seth was a real person; there's no consensus that he was born in 130 AM (the Septuagint disagrees, and it is the oldest text); and there is no consensus that 130 AM = 3874 BC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)Please remember to verify your sources. The Dead sea scrolls predates the Septuagint, by almost 200 years, and copies of them are probably mush older. These documents affirm, as stated in "Annals of the World", that year 1 AM was 4004 BC, thus making the birth of Seth in 3874 BC (Annals of the World, page 18). How many times do I have to tell you this, before you actually start reading my arguments and sources? Unless you are going to once again contradict yourself, there does not have to be any evidence for these people, so long as they are mentioned in a separate "Religion and Mythology" section.LutherVinci (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Don't talk nonsense. The Dead Sea Scrolls (which have multiple texts) were written between "150 BCE and 70 CE", as our article says. The Septuagint was made for Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who died in 246 BC (while the other books may well be later, the date of the Torah is what counts here). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Septuagint article says it was written around 132 BC, (and we must remember that it wasn't published until the Apocrypha was also included, and the Apocrypha wasn't written until 135 BC) while the Dead sea scrolls was written at a time as old as 250 BC, and had to predate Jesus, who was born around 5 BChere, but that's just the first ref I found among many.. But that's all beside the point, as you said, it's the Torah we are talking about. The oldest fragment of the Hebrew Torah (as opposed to the Septuagint, which was in Greek) is as old as 600 BC. As for the Dead Sea scrolls, here is another link which, starting on the eleventh line, puts the Dead Sea scrolls as old as 250 BC, and explaining why 150 BC is too late. LutherVinci (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

text: No, our article says it wasn't complete (that is, including both the Protestant OT and the Apocrypha) until 132 BC; but anybody who argues about "publication" has no idea what a manuscript book culture was like. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please save us all some time and stop inventing facts. It clearly states in the first paragraph of the Septuagint Article that it was completed in 132 BC. Period. LutherVinci (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And it also says, and is correct, that the Torah was completed (and quoted) in the middle third century BC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ", and is correct,"? Who made you the author and finisher of faith?LutherVinci (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The dates were never clear; and the differences can be more than a thousand years. What's wrong with Biblical chronology, which is made to discuss these differences? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideas for format (as opposed to debate)

message: Shouldn't the Kali Yuga, Gregorian and Mayan calendar stuff be in the Chronology section, not Events? Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So you agree to place myth in a separate section, rather than removing them entirely? LutherVinci (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Non sequitur. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarifying, calendars are not myths -- hence Arthur Rubin's comment. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. LutherVinci (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology and events sections 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Sumerian 26th c Adab.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 4th millennium BC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news-about-space.org/story/2409.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426075606/http://www.hvk.org:80/articles/0904/29.html to http://www.hvk.org/articles/0904/29.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified