While the passage talks about three various theories about the usage of carved stones that were found around Scotland and their dating goes back to the Neolithic time, the lecture expresses a different type of view about theories.
First, the passage explains that these incised rocks were used for hunting or fighting. It proves this fact by the holes that are available on the stones. However, the lecture states that since there is no damage or crack in the surface of rocks, therefore, this theory cannot be correct and logical. It also mentions if people used these rocks to throw them away for a target we could see some rocks break into pieces, but there is no phenomenon like this as well.
Second, the passage argues that all stones had the same diameter around 70mm which makes it suitable options for measuring food and grains and balancing scales in trades. This contradicts the lecture which mentions those rocks were made of various kinds of rocks and despite their equal diameters, they had varied weights. So, two balls that seemed to have the same size, had a different mass based on their unlike components.
Third, the passage expresses that the details on these rocks were representing the position of their owners in society. However, the lecture states that curvings on these stone balls were mostly simple, so, they could not be a sign of social level in the first place. Also, in ancient days it was common that when someone died, all his possessions buried with him in the grave, but none of the ball rocks were found in tombs, so, the last theory is rejected by the lecturer.
While the
passage
talks about three various theories about the usage of carved
stones
that
were found
around Scotland and their dating goes back to the Neolithic time, the
lecture
expresses a
different
type of view about theories.
First
, the
passage
explains
that these incised
rocks
were
used
for hunting or fighting. It proves this fact by the holes that are available on the
stones
.
However
, the
lecture
states that since there is no damage or crack in the surface of
rocks
,
therefore
, this theory cannot be correct and logical. It
also
mentions if
people
used
these
rocks
to throw them away for a target we could
see
some
rocks
break into pieces,
but
there is no phenomenon like this
as well
.
Second, the
passage
argues that all
stones
had the same diameter around
70mm
which
makes
it suitable options for measuring food and grains and balancing scales in trades. This contradicts the
lecture
which mentions those
rocks
were made
of various kinds of
rocks
and despite their equal diameters, they had varied weights.
So
, two balls that seemed to have the same size, had a
different
mass based on their unlike components.
Third, the
passage
expresses that the
details
on these
rocks
were representing the position of their owners in society.
However
, the
lecture
states that
curvings on
these
stone
balls were
mostly
simple,
so
, they could not be a
sign
of social level in the
first
place.
Also
, in ancient days it was common that when someone
died
, all his possessions buried with him in the grave,
but
none of the ball
rocks
were found
in tombs,
so
, the last theory
is rejected
by the lecturer.