Archaeologists have long thought that an artifact called the pemchint was used by Dodecan people solely as a musical instrument. Pemchints consist of hollowed pieces of bone, shell, or wood that are tied together with long straps. When whirled in the air, the pemchints create pleasant tones. Until recently, pemchints were found only at locations known to be used for Dodecan rituals and celebrations. Additionally, they were always excavated in proximity to other musical artifacts. Recently, however, a pemchint was found along with Dodecan hunters' tools located miles from the nearest known Dodecan settlement, while no other music-related objects were found in the area. Clearly, then, the pemchint was used by Dodecan hunters, who most probably used the sounds to repel dangerous wildlife.
The author suggests that the recent findings of pemchint at locations far away from Dodecan settlement with no other musical instruments nearby is a compelling evidence for its role in hunting. He futher hypothesizes that the sound of pemchint was used for keeping the dangerous wildlife away from the hunters. However, these conclusions are based on presumptions that are not clearly validated.
The takeaways from previous archaeological excavations are dependent on preconceived notions. The logic behind defining a location belonging to rituals and celebrations is missing from the study. One needs to state the factors that are involved in such definition. Earlier hunters celebrated the capture of their wildlife hunts. There is no evidence to prove that these celebrations could not be a part of the Dodecan settlement as well.
In addition to it, the statement that pemchints were only found near other music artifacts is also flawed. Firstly, the author does not provide any light on the basis behind deciding an excavation site. Hence, one can doubt the conviction of the archeologists for excavating only near settlements and most rewarding places. There is no mention about any efforts made by them for excavating at places far away from the Dodecan settlement.Their approach towards consolidating the potential excavation sites is also questionable.
Lastly, the author assumes that the sound of pemchants was used for frightening the dangerous wild animals. However, this assumption cannot be held true without any substantial evidence. There can be a possibility that the sound made by pemchants was just used as a lesiure activity between the hunts. On the other hand, the knowlegde of the effect of this sound on various animals should be more comprehensive inorder to come to a conclusion.
Thus, the conclusions made by the author are ignorant at the best at various levels. Once the different important factors are accounted for, a rather plausible explanation could be found for the recent findings of pemchants far away from the Dodecan settlements. Their connection with the previous studies can also be explored with a better understanding.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 343 350
No. of Characters: 1790 1500
No. of Different Words: 180 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.304 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.219 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.901 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 130 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.053 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.353 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.283 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.526 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.045 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 438, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Their
...es far away from the Dodecan settlement.Their approach towards consolidating the pote...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, however, if, lastly, so, thus, well, in addition, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1834.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 342.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36257309942 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30037696126 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00402275803 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.53216374269 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 566.1 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.4637109977 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.5263157895 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05263157895 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0985975174606 0.218282227539 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0300954349609 0.0743258471296 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0390977743532 0.0701772020484 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0575938365892 0.128457276422 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0417462221006 0.0628817314937 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.51 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.05 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.