The reading passage asserts that Nazca lines provided three possible explanations; however, the lecturer totally refutes the passage, by stating that no one virtually knows the real purpose of the Nazca lines.
First of all, the lecturer argues that the evidence failed to prove celestial calendar. The reading passage explains that Nazca employed the lines to foretell celestial events such as the season and constellation. In opposition to this hypothesis, the lecturer indicates that only 20 percent of the lines matched to astronomical phenomena, meaning that it is simply coincidence.
Next, the lecturer claims that the Nazca lines did not function as art. The reading passage explains that the lines were used in an artistic way of spreading their ideas to nearby people. On the contrary, the professor states that the lines should be viewed from the air because the Nazca lines were illogically immense. As a result, Nazca people had no way to look at the lines from the ground.
Finally, the lecturer does not agree with the reading passage that the Nazca lines served a purpose of navigation in the desert. However, the lecturer points out that the theory in the passage is implausible. For example, some of the lines were circular and led people to nowhere. Consequently, the lines were considered as the spiritual and ritual than pragmatic travel.
|