Final answer:
Aziz Ahmed Panjshiri's comment implies that the 500-year-old skull is not considered old relative to other historical artifacts.
Step-by-step explanation:
Aziz Ahmed Panjshiri's comment that the 500-year-old skull is not considered old implies that there are other objects or artifacts that are much older than this skull. The comment suggests that in the context of history, the age of the skull may not be considered significant. For example, there could be archaeological sites or artifacts that date back thousands or even millions of years, making a 500-year-old skull relatively recent.
Learn more about The significance of age in historical context