TPO 33: Carved stone balls

The lecturer argued each of the theories developed to explain the use of carved stone balls dated around 4,000 years ago. Since the only part of the archaeological evidence was been employed in those assumptions, neither of them are convincing. The following statements explain why.

First, carved stone balls cannot be the weapons for hunting or fighting, because they are all perfectly preserved. “The weapon theory” was developed by the evidence that those balls have grooves and holes on them, thus, some archaeologists believe they were designed for military use. Yet this assumption sounds convincing, it still lack of evidences. Archaeologist only found perfect preserved balls. If they were used in military, researchers should find some cracked or wrecked balls as proof.

Second, carved stone balls cannot be the primitive system of weights and measures, because they made by different type of stone which means the density is vary. It is easy to understand that a ball made by iron and a ball made by sand can have different weights, even if they are in the same size. The variety of density make the weights and volumes different.

Finally, carved stone balls cannot served a social purpose as the social status, because some of them are too simple to tell the specialty. Furthermore, this theory also lack of evidence. If the balls were used as symbol of status, archaeologists should find them in tomb. As we know, it was common that people in higher ranking brought special possessions in their tomb, but researchers did not find any. Therefore, to say that the balls were social purpose is inadequate.