In 1889 an archaeologist named Cresson presented to the public what appeared to be an ancient Native American carving of a woolly mammoth on a fragment of shell. Its two small holes suggested that it was worn as a pendant around the neck. While some experts suspect the object might be a forgery (a fake), others believe that it is genuine and proves that ancient Native Americans once lived alongside woolly mammoths. The experts who believe that the pendant was truly created by ancient Native Americans use the following arguments.
First, the carving on the pendant is similar to other ancient carvings of mammoths. The stylistic similarity to other ancient carvings supports the pendant's ancient origin.
Second, Cresson claimed to have found the pendant alongside a number of genuine old items produced by Native Americans. These items included stone tools and arrowheads. If the pendant was discovered alongside genuine old items, it is likely that the carving itself is genuine as well.
Third, the pendant has uniform weathering. Weathering is the damage to all old objects caused by long exposure to water, soil chemicals, and other environmental factors. If someone created the pendant as a modern forgery by carving an image of a mammoth on a piece of old shell, the carving would show little weathering, while the rest of the shell surface would be highly weathered. But that is not the case-the carving and the rest of the shell as a whole show the same degree of weathering, which suggests that both the carving and the shell date to the same, ancient time period.
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific arguments presented in the reading passage.
The reading passage and the lecture present conflicting viewpoints regarding the authenticity of a mammoth pendant allegedly discovered by archaeologist Cresson. While the reading argues that the pendant is genuine, the lecture systematically refutes these claims by highlighting critical flaws in the evidence.
First, the reading emphasizes stylistic similarities between the pendant’s carving and other ancient mammoth carvings as proof of its authenticity. However, the lecture counters this by pointing out that the pendant’s design is suspiciously identical to a damaged French mammoth carving. Notably, both the French carving and Cresson’s pendant lack depictions of the mammoth’s feet, despite ample space for such details. This unusual similarity strongly suggests that Cresson copied the French carving, which had already been damaged, rather than creating an original ancient work.
Second, the reading asserts that the pendant’s discovery alongside genuine Native American artifacts, such as stone tools and arrowheads, supports its legitimacy. The lecture challenges this by revealing a chronological inconsistency. The pendant is claimed to be thousands of years old, whereas the associated artifacts date back only a few hundred years. This mismatch implies that Cresson likely fabricated the claim of their coexistence to deceive others, undermining the credibility of the pendant’s alleged origin.
Finally, the reading cites uniform weathering on the pendant’s surface as evidence that the carving and shell are equally ancient. The lecture refutes this by explaining that genuine ancient objects buried for millennia in chemically harsh environments would exhibit far more severe weathering. The pendant’s relatively minor damage contradicts the expected effects of prolonged exposure, suggesting it was artificially aged in modern times rather than naturally weathered over centuries.
会员福利内容准备中，丰富答题思路即将上线