The reading passage proposes that the Lascaux cave painting are created to ensure successful hunts. However, the lectuere challenges the theory, claiming that the evidence provided in the reading is unconvincing and that the true purpose of the painting remain unknown.
First, the reading asserts that the painting mainly depicts large mammals, and some are shown wounded by arrows and spears. The lecturer refutes this by pointing out that many animals in the painting are not hunted. More importantly, reindeers, which are the most important source of food at that time, are completely absent from the painting. Furthermore, the lecturer notes that only a fraction of animals are shown wounded in the painting, casting doubt on the reading’s theory.
Second, regarding the human figures with animal heads, the reading suggests they represtent human hunters in disguise. The lecturer disagrees, explaining that these figures are shown in a horizontal position, more likely to be asleep rather than hunting. As a result, interpreting those figures as hunters in disguise is unsupported.
Finally, the lecturer acknowledges that the painting is likely to have magical significance, but points out that the reading may overlook an alternative explanation. He explains that many cultures believe that spirits of their ancestors reside in animals. Therefore, these paintings might have been used in magical ceremonies in an effort to connect with their ancestors’ spirits rather than to guarantee a successful hunt.
In conclusion, the lecturer effectively casts doubt on the specific claims made in the reading, demonstrating that the “hunting assumption” proposed in the reading lacks sufficient evidence.
