The article and the lecture both deal with the originality or fakeness of a silver coin dating to the 11th century, which was found in Maine, in the US and brought by the European explorers called Norse. The author states that the archaeologists have proved that this coin is not a genuine piece and is there to mislead people. On the other hand, the lecturer disputes the same by giving voice to the other side of the coin. She mentions that there have been found many shreds of evidence based on the coin's genuineness which makes the idea of the writer redundant. Further, I will be talking about three major arguments discussed by both the writer and the lecturer.
Firstly, It is mentioned in the reading that there is a great distance between the place of the coin being discovered and the Norse settlements. Due to the findings of their existence, it was proposed that they settled in Eastern Canada which was 1000 kilometers away from the Maine site.
Hence, there was no bridge formed between the coin and the Norse. On the contrary, the speaker gives voice to the idea that the Native American travelers not only brought the coin to North America instead, other valuables were also found that were brought by them.
Furthermore, the essayist puts forth the thought that other than this one coin, there was no other coin that was found. It states that there was only one single coin that was made visible in the North American settlements of the Norse.
Conversely, the lecturer deals with the point that as the settlements of the Norse were not permanent, they might have taken all the other coins back with them, leaving behind just one.
Last but not the least, the writer highlights that the Norse would have known that these silver coins are useless here in North America. The Norse, being the experienced explorers knew that the Native Americans won't consider the silver coin as money and thus, there was no value of the coin here.
Whereas, the lector expresses that as aesthetic beauty is appreciated by us today, the coin would have acted as a piece of art for the Native Americans at that time. They would have melted it to be used to make necklaces and other jewels. In any case, the Norse could have used the coin to trade with the Native Americans.
To sum up, both the author and the speaker take the opposite stance on the topic of the originality of the coin dating to the 11th century due to the above-mentioned reasons.
The article and the lecture both deal with the originality or
fakeness
of a silver coin dating to the 11th century, which was
found
in Maine, in the US and brought by the European explorers called Norse. The author states that the archaeologists have proved that this coin is not a genuine piece and is there to mislead
people
. On the
other
hand, the lecturer disputes the same by giving voice to the
other
side of the coin. She mentions that there have been
found
many
shreds of evidence based on the coin's genuineness which
makes
the
idea
of the writer redundant.
Further
, I will be talking about three major arguments discussed by both the writer and the lecturer.
Firstly
, It
is mentioned
in the reading that there is a great distance between the place of the coin
being discovered
and the Norse settlements. Due to the findings of their existence, it
was proposed
that they settled in Eastern Canada which was 1000 kilometers away from the Maine site.
Hence
, there was no bridge formed between the coin and the Norse.
On the contrary
, the speaker gives voice to the
idea
that the
Native
American travelers not
only
brought the coin to North America
instead
,
other
valuables were
also
found
that
were brought
by them.
Furthermore
, the essayist puts forth the
thought
that
other
than this one coin, there was no
other
coin that was
found
. It states that there was
only
one single coin that
was made
visible in the North American settlements of the Norse.
Conversely
, the lecturer deals with the point that as the settlements of the Norse were not permanent, they might have taken all the
other
coins back with them, leaving behind
just
one.
Last
but
not the least, the writer highlights that the Norse would have known that these silver coins are useless here in North America. The Norse, being the experienced explorers knew that the
Native
Americans won't consider the silver coin as money and
thus
, there was no value of the coin here.
Whereas, the lector expresses that as aesthetic beauty
is appreciated
by us
today
, the coin would have acted as a piece of art for the
Native
Americans at that time. They would have melted it to be
used
to
make
necklaces and
other
jewels. In any case, the Norse could have
used
the coin to trade with the
Native
Americans.
To sum up, both the author and the speaker take the opposite stance on the topic of the originality of the coin dating to the 11th century due to the above-mentioned reasons.