Chinese and Indo-Europeans

The question of the origins of Chinese civilization has fascinated scholars for a long time, but, in spite of the great advances that have come from recent archaeological discoveries, we still find extreme divergences of opinion on basic issues. The reasons for this are not far to seek. There are still enormous gaps in the evidence, and to fill in the picture at all one must extrapolate beyond what can be definitely proved. In such circumstances subjective considerations are bound to affect the judgment and what seems no more than an obvious inference to one person will seem wildly speculative to someone else. So it is with the question of indigenous development versus outside influence. To some Chinese scholars brought up within the self-sufficient tradition of their own culture it seems natural to assume that unless there is absolutely overwhelming evidence to the contrary, everything essential in Chinese civilization, including the basic inventions of agriculture, metallurgy, etc., developed from its own creative energies without outside influence. Hypotheses of contacts across Central Asia which cannot yet be documented in the absence of archaeological exploration in the intervening regions are stigmatized as far-fetched, whereas theories, as little based on evidence, about as yet unattested earlier stages of culture within China itself are advanced as matters of logical necessity.