- 精华
- 105
- 积分
- 110865
- 经验
- 110865 点
- 威望
- 10928 点
- 金钱
- 14997 ¥
- 魅力
- 12855
|
三、如果根据某套研究方法啊还是什么的发现不是这么一回事
四、有个哥们研究发现了一个新的现象superimpose什么的,然后就提出了一个新的说法
“他觉得:是因为这些后来的艺术家为了与先前的艺术家在石头上取得一些联系和呼应。而不是,此处用了rather than,而不是为了破坏之前的创作(有题,问哪个不对,选重叠是为了破坏前人的创作)。考古学家因此可以在这些重叠上做文章,研究历史年代。”最后一句,这哥们自己支持了自己,说在非洲有种石头也是重叠在别人之上的。(有题大家仔细读最后一句就好了)
by tpyc A f-ing long article abt Mesolithic and Neolithic pple
This one is extremely long, basically the article can be broken down into a couple parts:
1st Paragraph: introducing the idea that Mesolithic pple of the Ib-something penisula could be influenced by the Neolithic pple from other places.
2nd paragraph: further detailed 1 hypothesis that how Neolithic pple could be influenced by Mesolithic pple because of stone arts discovered: Macro Schematic, Schematic and Levatine types. There is a relationship described in these 3 types of stone arts. Something like Macro lead to the development of Schematic (or vice versa) and then both lead to Levatine...
3rd paragraph: Introduced a DIFFERENT idea that based on the evidence, Macro-schematic and Schematic develop at the same time (if i rememebr it correctly), therefore negate the 2nd paragraph.
4th paragraph (god damn it, so frigging long man!!): A researcher provided an alternative, saying that the stone arts develop by 1 single cultural group, in chronological order (or something like that), that the developments of these different types of stone arts could be due to that these types are used for different purposes…and that evidence has shown that Macro-Schematic is often superimpose on Schematic ones… and that Levatine is also found to be superimpose on macro-schematic ones (I think)…
lastly, this research also provided another example by the San pple from Africa, that superimposition was believed to allow these art stones to gain power… END |
|