Carved stone balls are a curious type of artifact found at a number of locations in Scotland. They date from the late Neolithic period, around 4,000 years ago. They are round in shape; they were carved from several types of stone; most are about 70 mm in diameter; and many are ornamented to some degree. Archaeologists do not agree about their purpose and meaning, but there are several theories.
One theory is that the carved stone balls were weapons used in hunting or fighting. Some of the stone balls have been found with holes in them, and many have grooves on the surface. It is possible that a cord was strung through the holes or laid in the grooves around the ball. Holding the stone balls at the end of the cord would have allowed a person to swing it around or throw it.
A second theory is that the carved stone balls were used as part of a primitive system of weights and measures. The fact that they are so nearly uniform in size – at 70 mm in diameter – suggests that the balls were interchangeable and represented some standard unit of measure. They could have been used as standard weights to measure quantities of grain or other food, or anything that needed to be measured by weight on a balance or scale for the purpose of trade.
A third theory is that the carved stone balls served a social purpose as opposed to a practical or utilitarian one. This view is supported by the fact that many stone balls have elaborate designs. The elaborate carving suggests that the stones may have marked the important social status of their owners
Both reading and lecture discuss the usage of carved stone balls. In this set of materials, the author strongly postulates that there are a lot of theories to explain the purpose of carved stone balls, a suspicious piece of art found in Scotland. However, the speaker states that the points mentioned in the reading are not convincing and gainsays each of the arguments.
First and foremost, the author states a theory that carved stone balls were used as some kind of weapon for multiple purposes and explains that the stones were found with holes and grooves in them. So, it was thought that by inserting a string or wire in a hole, it could be used to hit a person. On the contrary, the professor denies this claim by stating that if stone balls were used as weapons as mentioned in the reading, not only their structure would have shown this kind of use but also, the stones were found as broken pieces or with cracked surfaces.
Secondly, the professor further explains that the shapes, sizes, materials, and densities of the stones were different which indicates, it could not have used as weights for a scale. This claim refuses the author's second theory. The professor tells us that the equal size of stones was extracted of approximately 70mm in diameter. So, archaeologists assumpted that these were used as weights for a measuring balance for trade.
Ultimately, the article wraps its argument by asserting the third theory that specific symbols were carved on the stone balls to represent the position of high-rank officials. The author further elaborates, the designs were kind of distinct. However, the speaker in the listening completely refutes this point by showing the inaccuracy of the author that the marks on the stones were very simple to be a stamp. Moreover, in the late Neolithic period, the belongings were buried with the dead person and there is no evidence of carved stone balls in graveyards, So archaeologists should not believe that the patterns on stones are markers.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, third, kind of, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1671.0 1373.03311258 122% => OK
No of words: 339.0 270.72406181 125% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92920353982 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57637152588 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498525073746 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 507.6 419.366225166 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.8932464254 49.2860985944 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.357142857 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2142857143 21.698381199 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.71428571429 7.06452816374 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.1919763985 0.272083759551 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0703470798062 0.0996497079465 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0588251524353 0.0662205650399 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125277083134 0.162205337803 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0462738780387 0.0443174109184 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.61 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.