根据下文,用英语写出你是否同意他的观点,并简要说明为什么同意或不同意
根据下文,用英语写出你是否同意他的观点,并简要说明为什么同意或不同意
24.The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.
“The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the pots were spread.Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them; others believe the pots were spread
By trade and their makers remained in one place.Now,analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle the debate:high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood.Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element .Therefore,it must be that the pots were spread by migration,not trade.”
24.The following report appeared in an archaeology journal.
“The discovery of distinctively shaped ceramic pots at various prehistoric sites scattered over a wide area has led archaeologists to ask how the pots were spread.Some believe the pot makers migrated to the various sites and carried the pots along with them; others believe the pots were spread
By trade and their makers remained in one place.Now,analysis of the bones of prehistoric human skeletons can settle the debate:high levels of a certain metallic element contained in various foods are strongly associated with people who migrated to a new place after childhood.Many of the bones found near the pots at a few sites showed high levels of the metallic element .Therefore,it must be that the pots were spread by migration,not trade.”
赞 夏明霞 幼苗
共回答了19个问题采纳率：100% 举报
At first glance,the new discovery does appear to support the hypothesis that pots migrates with the pot makers,however,further analysis suggests just the contrary.
First,it is reasonable to assume that compared to the entire population,migrating pot makers represent only a small percentage.Secondly,after migrating to a certain area,a pot maker is bound to spread pots,and thus ingested metals to that area.Lastly,pottery-making,like all other technology,must spread.It is difficult to assume that a prehistoric tribe would let a pot-maker go,since pots would doubtlessly generate a lot of profit in trade when other tribes do not have such technology.
With these assumptions,if pot makers migrated and brought the technique with them,the new tribe would gain such a technique,and thus all children in said tribe would ingest heavy metals since early childhood,and thus be no different in terms of bone-metal density than the pot makers,and thus the people who migrated to a new place after childhood would not have a significantly higher metallic element in their skeleton than those that did not migrate.On the other hand,if these immigrants came from pot-making tribes,but when traded to tribes without pots,it is natural that their bones would have a significantly higher metal content than average in that area.
Moreover,bones with high metallic contents found near pots can only indicate that pots are the cause of high metallic elements in the human skeleton,but does nothing to unveil the source of these pots.Whether they were traded or made,as long as the pots are present,so would the high metallic components.
Thus,the discoveries above support the hypothesis that pots were spread by trade,not migration.
First,it is reasonable to assume that compared to the entire population,migrating pot makers represent only a small percentage.Secondly,after migrating to a certain area,a pot maker is bound to spread pots,and thus ingested metals to that area.Lastly,pottery-making,like all other technology,must spread.It is difficult to assume that a prehistoric tribe would let a pot-maker go,since pots would doubtlessly generate a lot of profit in trade when other tribes do not have such technology.
With these assumptions,if pot makers migrated and brought the technique with them,the new tribe would gain such a technique,and thus all children in said tribe would ingest heavy metals since early childhood,and thus be no different in terms of bone-metal density than the pot makers,and thus the people who migrated to a new place after childhood would not have a significantly higher metallic element in their skeleton than those that did not migrate.On the other hand,if these immigrants came from pot-making tribes,but when traded to tribes without pots,it is natural that their bones would have a significantly higher metal content than average in that area.
Moreover,bones with high metallic contents found near pots can only indicate that pots are the cause of high metallic elements in the human skeleton,but does nothing to unveil the source of these pots.Whether they were traded or made,as long as the pots are present,so would the high metallic components.
Thus,the discoveries above support the hypothesis that pots were spread by trade,not migration.
1年前
5
xiuxiuaiwo 幼苗
共回答了3个问题 举报
I disagree with his opinion.
First of all, the correlation between metallic element and people who migrated is not well developed. The author tells nothing about the mechanism of gaining metallic ...
First of all, the correlation between metallic element and people who migrated is not well developed. The author tells nothing about the mechanism of gaining metallic ...
1年前
0
可能相似的问题
-
1年前2个回答
-
1年前1个回答
-
1年前1个回答
-
1年前4个回答
-
1年前2个回答
-
1年前1个回答
-
1年前2个回答
你能帮帮他们吗