Consider the following excerpt: "Far from a nuisance, Troy'...
Próximas questões
Com base no mesmo assunto
Ano: 2025
Banca:
UNIVALI
Órgão:
Prefeitura de Luiz Alves - SC
Prova:
UNIVALI - 2025 - Prefeitura de Luiz Alves - SC - Professor de Língua Inglesa - Edital nº 15 |
Q4037198
Inglês
Texto associado
O texto seguinte servirá de base para responder à questão.
We can learn a lot from Troy's trash
Beneath the epic tales of heroes and gods, Troy's true
story is written in something far less glamorous − its
rubbish.
When we think of Troy, we imagine epic battles, valiant
deeds, cunning tricks and the wrath of gods. Thanks to
Homer's Iliad, the city is remembered as a stage for
romance and heroism.
But long before Paris stole Helen and Achilles raged on
the battlefield, the people of bronze age Troy lived
ordinary lives − with extraordinary consequences. They
built, cooked, stored, traded and, crucially, threw things
away. And they did it right where they lived.
Today, waste is whisked away quickly − out of sight, out
of mind. But in bronze age Troy (3000−1000BC), trash
stayed close, often accumulating in domestic dumping
grounds for generations.
Having spent more than 16 summers excavating and
analysing the bronze age layers of Troy, I've learned to read the city's history this waste.
Hundreds of thousands of animal bones from cattle,
sheep, fish − even turtles − were found alongside vast
quantities of pottery shards, ash, food scraps, and human
waste. Sometimes, these layers were reused to level
floors or build walls, showing how closely intertwined
daily life and refuse management were.
This wasn't laziness or neglect, it was pure pragmatism.
In a world without rubbish trucks or sanitation systems,
managing refuse was neither chaotic nor careless, but a
collective, spatially negotiated − and surprisingly strategic
− effort.
The excavations I have worked on as part of the
University of Tübingen's Troy Project, which has been
going on since 1988, have revealed just how deliberate
these routines were. Where people chose to dump, or not
to dump, speaks volumes about status, social roles, and
community boundaries. Waste is the diary no one meant
to write, yet it records the intimate rhythms of daily life
with unfiltered clarity.
Far from a nuisance, Troy's waste is an archaeologist's
treasure trove.
Over nearly 2,000 years, Troy ended up with 15 meters
of built-up debris. Archaeologists can see nine major
building phases in it, each made up of hundreds of thin
layers, which formed as people lived their everyday lives.
These layers act like snapshots, quietly recording how
the city changed over time. Some capture hearth
cleanings, others record the rebuilding of entire city
quarters.
By analysing the layers and their ratios of bones to
pottery, ash concentration, presence of storage jars,
grinding stones, or production debris, specific spaces of
activity become visible: kitchens, workshops, storage
areas, rubbish pits. What appears chaotic turns out to be
a carefully structured map of everyday routines −
showing where meals were prepared, tools made, and
discarded objects left behind.
The story these remains tell is one of profound
transformation. Troy began as a modest agrarian
settlement, shaped by the steady rhythms of farming,
herding, and small-scale craft. Over time, it grew into a
thriving regional centre.
The archaeological record, rich in refuse, traces this long
arc of change. Exotic imports fashioned from stones such
as carnelian and lapis lazuli begin to appear, revealing
distant trade connections. Specialised metalworking tools
emerge alongside monumental architecture. some
buildings stretched nearly 30 metres, signalling growing
ambitions and expanding capabilities.
This rise unfolded gradually, reflected not just in grander
buildings, but in shifting tools, trade, and how people
dealt with what they left behind. Waste management
became more organised, with designated areas for
different types of waste. This reflects broader shifts in
how the community structured space and managed its
economy.
Yet this ascent was interrupted. By the mid-third
millennium BC, signs that things were becoming smaller
appear. Architecture simplifies, household inventories
shrink, production debris declines suggesting economic
slowdown or political instability.
Still, Troy endured. By the mid-second millennium BC,
the city revived. Refined ceramics, luxury imports and
evidence of social complexity marked a new chapter of
recovery and reinvention. This splendid settlement later
became the stage for Homer's Trojan War where Greek
warriors faced the daunting task of climbing towering
mounds of debris built up over centuries just to reach the
palaces.
These insights allow us to see Troy not just as a city of
walls and towers, but as a living organism shaped by
daily routines, unspoken norms and social negotiation.
The waste left behind is a remarkably honest archive of
bronze age society − beneath myths, stones, and poetry.
Troy's trash heaps are the bronze age's search history.
To know what mattered 4,500 years ago, don't ask poets
− ask the garbage. From broken tools to shared meals,
from imported luxuries to scraps, this waste reveals the
pulse of everyday life and society's evolving structure.
Ironically, these mundane refuse layers preserved the
bronze age world for us. Without them, we'd know far
less about early Troy's people. Their depth and
composition trace changes in economy, technology, and
social structure. From scraps to towers of pottery shards,
waste archaeology is key to understanding early urban
complexity.
So next time you picture Achilles storming Troy's gates,
remember: the heroes might have been divine, but their
city smelled very human.
https://theconversation.com/we-can-learn-a-lot-from-troys-trash-260613
Consider the following excerpt:
"Far from a nuisance, Troy's waste is an archaeologist's treasure trove. Over nearly 2,000 years, Troy ended up with 15 meters of built-up debris. Archaeologists can see nine major building phases in it, each made up of hundreds of thin layers, which formed as people lived their everyday lives."
An English teacher preparing reading comprehension activities for intermediate Brazilian students analyzes this passage to identify vocabulary and conceptual challenges. Regarding lexical comprehension, idiomatic expressions, and the relationship between linguistic form and archaeological content, which pedagogical analysis is accurate?
"Far from a nuisance, Troy's waste is an archaeologist's treasure trove. Over nearly 2,000 years, Troy ended up with 15 meters of built-up debris. Archaeologists can see nine major building phases in it, each made up of hundreds of thin layers, which formed as people lived their everyday lives."
An English teacher preparing reading comprehension activities for intermediate Brazilian students analyzes this passage to identify vocabulary and conceptual challenges. Regarding lexical comprehension, idiomatic expressions, and the relationship between linguistic form and archaeological content, which pedagogical analysis is accurate?
Gabarito comentado
Confira o gabarito comentado por um dos nossos professores
Gabarito: D
Fundamento decisivo: O trecho decisivo é "Far from a nuisance", por trazer a expressão idiomática que orienta a leitura do contraste no enunciado.
Tema central: compreensão lexical e idiomática
Análise das alternativas
A
Errada
Está errada porque absolutiza ao dizer que não há qualquer desafio lexical e que o texto serviria até para iniciantes sem scaffolding. A base aponta dificuldades reais para nível intermediário, como "nuisance", "treasure trove", "built-up debris" e "building phases", além da presença de metáfora e idiomatismo.
B
Errada
Está errada porque transforma a análise em mera tradução literal de "building phases" e presume compreensão automática de um conceito técnico. A base é expressa ao afirmar que, mesmo sendo possível uma tradução literal, isso não dispensa mediação contextual nem garante entendimento do termo no registro arqueológico.
C
Errada
Está errada porque afirma impossibilidade de compreensão por estudantes brasileiros e conclui que o texto autêntico deve ser evitado. A base rejeita esse extremo pedagógico: vocabulário técnico ou metafórico não torna o texto automaticamente inadequado; o correto é prever apoio e exploração guiada.
D
Certa
A alternativa D acerta porque identifica a oposição semântica entre a avaliação negativa de "waste" como incômodo ("nuisance") e sua valorização arqueológica como fonte preciosa de informação ("treasure trove"). Além disso, reconhece corretamente que "far from" funciona idiomaticamente como negação enfática, com sentido de "not at all". Essa é a análise adequada porque relaciona forma linguística e conteúdo arqueológico.
Pegadinha da questão
A confusão real era tratar o trecho como simples vocabulário técnico ou tradução literal, quando a chave estava na combinação entre idiomatismo, conotação e metáfora. A questão também explorava extremos falsos: dizer que não há dificuldade nenhuma ou que o texto deve ser descartado.
Dica para questões semelhantes
- Quando a questão mencionar compreensão lexical, verifique se há expressão idiomática ou metáfora antes de aceitar leitura literal.
- Não confunda tradução possível de termo técnico com compreensão automática do conceito; análise pedagógica exige considerar necessidade de mediação.
Clique para visualizar este gabarito
Visualize o gabarito desta questão clicando no botão abaixo
Conheça nossos planos