In the reading passage, the author proposed three possible theories to explain the usage and meaning of ancient carved stone balls found in Scotland. Nevertheless, the lecturer disagreed with these theories for several reasons.
First, while the author maintained that the carved stone balls could be weapons for ancient people, the lecturer considered this inconvincing. If those stones were equipments used in fighting or killing animals, like the arrow heads or axes commonly used in Neolithic period, there would have been some marks or prints on the stones, and it was possible to find the stones in broken pieces too. However, none of the evidence shows the characteristics mentioned above. So this theory is unlikely to be true.
Second, the author stated that perhaps these stone balls were used as a tool of measurement. Yet the lecturer argued that according to the archeological finding, the stone balls vary in quantity. They are made of stones of different density. For example, they are consisted of sand stones, green stones, and so on. This contribute to the different masses despite of the same volume they have. Owing to this, they are probably not used in weighing things.
Third, eventhough the author claimed that the stone balls may serve as an symbol of social status of a particular person, the lecturer doubted this because the patterns on the stones are too simple. If this theory was true, the carvings on the stone balls should be much more complicated. Moreover, ancient British people liked to bury the dead people along with their personal pocessions. But archeologists haven't found any carved stone balls in tumbs or graves. Therefore, the lecturer didn't believe in this theory.
In the reading passage, the
author
proposed three possible
theories
to
explain
the usage and meaning of ancient carved
stone
balls found in Scotland.
Nevertheless
, the
lecturer
disagreed with these
theories
for several reasons.
First
, while the
author
maintained that the carved
stone
balls could be weapons for ancient
people
, the
lecturer
considered this
inconvincing
. If those
stones
were equipments
used
in fighting or killing animals, like the arrow heads or axes
commonly
used
in Neolithic period, there would have been
some
marks or prints on the
stones
, and it was possible to find the
stones
in broken pieces too.
However
, none of the evidence
shows
the characteristics mentioned above.
So
this
theory
is unlikely to be true.
Second, the
author
stated that perhaps these
stone
balls were
used
as a tool of measurement.
Yet
the
lecturer
argued that according to the archeological finding, the
stone
balls vary in quantity. They
are made
of
stones
of
different
density.
For example
, they
are consisted
of sand
stones
, green
stones
, and
so
on.
This contribute
to the
different
masses
despite of
the same volume they have. Owing to this, they are
probably
not
used
in weighing things.
Third,
eventhough
the
author
claimed that the
stone
balls may serve as
an
symbol of social status of a particular person, the
lecturer
doubted this
because
the patterns on the
stones
are too simple. If this
theory
was true, the carvings on the
stone
balls should be much more complicated.
Moreover
, ancient British
people
liked to bury the dead
people
along with their personal
pocessions
.
But
archeologists haven't found any carved
stone
balls in
tumbs
or graves.
Therefore
, the
lecturer
didn't believe in this
theory
.