▶ Your Answer :
The reading passage and the lecture are
both about petroglyphs. The author of the reading suggests their purposes such
as a communication method and such (미완성 문장입니다). However, the lecturer rebuts the claims
made in the passage. He believes that, in fact, petroglyphs would have had different
purposes but at least the ones mentioned by the author of the reading passage (역시나 동사가 없는 미완성 문장입니다)
First, the lecturer contends that petroglyphs
have nothing to do with inter-tribal communication. Tribes back then were not
in cooperative relationships, which means they did not have to do anything that
would benefit each other. In addition, it turned out that the same images
actually have different meanings in each tribe. This casts doubt on the reading
passage’s claim that petroglyphs served as a communication method that included
much information.
Next, the lecturer insists that the feature
of petroglyphs does not tell that they were related to religions. The remains
that had religious purposes actually had been made quite elaborately. On the
other hand, petroglyphs rather have simple figures. They would have been more
interesting and precise if they had had a relation to any supernatural things
such as ceremonies. This counters the reading passage’s assertion that
petroglyphs were used in religious ceremonies.
Finally, the lecturer argues that they did
not have any entertaining function. Back in the past, what people did for fun
was usually linked to their daily lives. For example, young boys played war
games for the purpose of practicing for fighting and hunting which were necessary
for them to be good at to survive. This refutes the reading passage’s
suggestion that people used to draw petroglyphs out of boredom because they had
nothing but rocks and basic tools to crave. |