- UID
- 992812
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2014-3-26
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
The reading passage explores three explanations about the purpose and meaning of the carved stone balls. The professor in the lecture deals with the same topic. However, what she thinks contradicts the content of the reading .She uses three specific reasons to substantiate her view.
First of all, even though the reading passage states that carved stone balls were hunting weapons, the professor in the lecture argues that the different features of surface reveal that they cannot be used as weapons. This is because common Neolithic weapons, such as arrows, usually display signs of wrecks and should preserved as cracks or pieces off, in contrast, carved stone balls not only own flat surface but also were well preserved and present no signal of damage. and present no damage. Obviously, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
Furthermore, contrary to the reading passage that carved stone balls were served as a weighing system, the professor contends that the considerable mass of carved stone balls make them difficult to be employed as a standard weights. The balls are made of different stone materials, some are grain stones, others are sandstone, thus have distinctive densities and weights. Although balls have uniform sizes, the uniform weights strongly determinate that carved stone balls cannot be a part of weighing system.This is another point where lecture rebuts the reading.
Finally, the reading passage points out that carved stone balls might reflect social status. On the contrary, the professor argues that it is totally unconvincing. On one hand, the elaborate designs on the surface are too simple to be a standard design make the balls looks like a symbol. On the other hand, no carved stone balls were found in tombs and graves, where usually buried social status presents after high-ranking person died. |
|
[复制链接]
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2015-1-23 04:03:45
