As early as the twelfth century A.D., the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico in the American Southwest were notable for their "great houses," massive stone buildings that contain hundreds of rooms and often stand three or four stories high. Archaeologists have been trying to determine how the buildings were used. While there is still no universally agreed upon explanation, there are three competing theories.
One theory holds that the Chaco structures were purely residential, with each housing hundreds of people. Supporters of this theory have interpreted Chaco great houses as earlier versions of the architecture seen in more recent Southwest societies. In particular, the Chaco houses appear strikingly similar to the large, well-known "apartment buildings" at Taos, New Mexico,in which many people have been living for centuries.
A second theory contends that the Chaco structures were used to store food supplies. One of the main crops of the Chaco people was grain maize, which could be stored for long periods of time without spoiling and could serve as a long-lasting supply of food. The supplies of maize had to be stored somewhere, and the size of the great houses would make them very suitable for the purpose.
A third theory proposes that houses were used as ceremonial centers. Close to one house, called Pueblo Alto, archaeologists identified an enormous mound formed by a pile of old material. Excavations of the mound revealed deposits containing a surprisingly large number of broken pots. This finding has been interpreted as evidence that people gathered at Pueblo Alto for special ceremonies. At the ceremonies, they ate festive meals and then discarded the pots in which the meals had been prepared or served. Such ceremonies have been documented for other Native American cultures.
Both the reading and the lecture are discussing some hypotheses about how the Chao Canyon buildings were used through that time. The author of the reading presents three possible theories that describe the usages of these buildings. Nevertheless, the lecturer finds the putative theories unconvincing and debunks them one by one.
First of all, the writer contends that one theory states that these buildings were residential. It has been mentioned that there were about 100 people living in these houses and the architecture of the buildings supports this idea. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He accentuates the fact that if these buildings were residential, there must have been more fireplaces to support daily cooking for 100 people. However, evidence shows that the fireplaces were only enough to support 10 families, and the idea that these buildings were residential is totally implausible.
Secondly, the reading passage holds the view that these buildings were probably used for storing grains. The author states that at that time, grain maize was the main crop of people and since it could have been stored for long periods and needed large storing areas, the buildings were used to keep these grains. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that this theorem is unsupported by the evidence. Actually, he notes that if these buildings were used for storing the crops, there should exist spoiled maize crops or even grain containers that support this idea. However, due to the lack of the remains of containers and grains, this hypothesis is not supported at all.
Finally, the passage alleges that these houses were used for ceremonies and festivals. It has been stated that there existed a large number of broken pots that supports the idea of holding special ceremonies in the mentioned buildings. Contrary to this, the professor notes that apart from broken pots, there were lots of various materials existing in the buildings. He mentions that archeologists found constructive tools, different materials, and also pots in the buildings which may have been used by construction workers, and these remains of pots and tools are just regular trashes and don't support any ceremonial activities.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-16 | TiOluwani97 | 87 | view |
| 2023-02-12 | zaid | 80 | view |
| 2023-01-18 | theprasad | 81 | view |
| 2022-11-17 | rpinisetti8 | 80 | view |
| 2022-11-14 | Sakib | 73 | view |
- In times of an economic crisis in which area should governments reduce their spending 1 Arts 2 Scientific research 3 Parks and public gardens 70
- Do you agree or disagree It is better to relax through watching a film and reading a book than doing physical exercises 90
- Imagine that you are in a classroom or a meeting The teacher or the meeting leader says something incorrect In your opinion which of the following is the best thing to do Interrupt and correct the mistake right away Wait until the class or meeting is over 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement In the past young people depended too much on their parents to make decisions for them today young people are better able to make decisions about their own lives Use specific reasons and examples to su 73
- Workers are more satisfied when they have many different types of tasks to do during the workday than when they do similar tasks all day long Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 126, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
.... It has been stated that there existed a large number of broken pots that supports the idea of h...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 592, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... and tools are just regular trashes and dont support any ceremonial activities.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, conversely, finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, apart from, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 10.4613686534 210% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 12.0772626932 166% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 22.412803532 187% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1861.0 1373.03311258 136% => OK
No of words: 355.0 270.72406181 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24225352113 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34067318298 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58488119485 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 145.348785872 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501408450704 0.540411800872 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 558.0 419.366225166 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.2558161691 49.2860985944 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.470588235 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8823529412 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.47058823529 7.06452816374 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.116864725843 0.272083759551 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0466488078669 0.0996497079465 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0346215642616 0.0662205650399 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0768306614471 0.162205337803 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0224379909292 0.0443174109184 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.