3 ms·
I'm talking about actual Japanese coverage[1] which includes stuff like "古代の日本が予想よりも国際色豊かだった可能性" ('It appears Ancient Japan was more international than expected
by Steko 10y ago
I'm talking about actual Japanese coverage[1] which includes stuff like "古代の日本が予想よりも国際色豊かだった可能性" ('It appears Ancient Japan was more international than expected') not strikingly that different from the Japan Times headline.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%B8%A1%E8%BE%BA+%E6%99%83%E5%AE%8F&safe=active&biw=1278&bih=958&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A10%2F4%2F2016%2Ccd_max%3A10%2F20%2F2016&tbm=#safe=active&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:10%2F4%2F2016%2Ccd_max:10%2F20%2F2016&q=%22%E6%B8%A1%E8%BE%BA+%E6%99%83%E5%AE%8F%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%B8%A1%E8%BE%BA+%E6%99%83...
- mikekchar 10y agoMy google results do no match yours. Mainichi has a story and does not include that quote (or any other). Nikkei as well. There is a Youtube video of the story which describes it, but includes no quotes. It mentions that there is an exhibition where you can go and see the artefacts. I could not find the story in the Japanese version of the Yomiuri newspaper from google, but I found another site that linked to it. When I followed the link, it was dead. The focus of the articles I've read seems to be that this is the oldest written evidence of Persians coming to Japan, which I agree is very interesting.