Stuart: What did you do last night then? Did you work all night?
Judy: Yes, I did some work (Yes) but erm ... I watched a bit of TV ... (Uh-huh) got to relax, you know.
Stuart: Did you watch the football?
Judy: No, no I didn't. I can't bear football.
Stuart: Really?
Judy: Yes. I really hate it. (Yes) Well, actually, just before the football came on, I switched over (Yes) just to ... just to protest.
Stuart: What did you see then?
Judy: Well, I saw the programme before ... just the end of a film (Uh-huh) that was on before the football. It looked quite good actually. It's a shame I didn't erm ... switch on earlier. It was some kind of love story ... with Dustin Hoffman, you know, the erm ...
Stuart: The Graduate?
Judy: That's it. The Graduate.
Stuart: Yes. I know. I've seen that. (Yes) Yes, good ... good film.
Judy: Yes, and nice music. (Mm-mm) And then, when the football came on I turned over.
Stuart: Terrible, terrible!
Judy: I hate it! I really can't stand it.
Stuart: It was a great game!
Judy: Yes? (What did) Who was playing?
Stuart: England of course. (Oh) What did you see then that was more important than football?
Judy: Foxes. Yes, a good programme on foxes. (Uh-huh) Yes, they spent ages watching these foxes in a house. (Yes) They were watching them all night and these little baby foxes ... it was tremendous.
Stuart: Yes, sounds all right.
Judy: Yes, it was good; better than football ... and then, then I turned over, back to the other channel (Mm-mm) to see who won the football, but I missed it and I just saw the beginning of the News and packed up and went to bed.
Stuart: Well, I'm sorry you missed it. It was a good game.
Judy: Yes? Who did win?
Stuart: England, of course. Who do you think? (Ah) Six nil. (Yes) Yes.
Judy: Must have been quite good then!
Stuart: Yes, it was good, actually. It was very good. (Mm)
Commentator: It's Carter to serve—he needs just one more point. He serves. AND SMITH MISSES! WHAT A GREAT SERVE! ... So the championship goes to 19-year-old Harry Carter. Who d've believed it a week ago? Poor old Smith just shakes his head in bewilderment. Well, well! What a way to finish it off! ... And now I'll hand you over to Peter Plumber, who's on court waiting to interview the two finalists.
Plumber: Thank you, David. Well Harry, congratulations on a marvellous victory. You were on tremendous form.
Carter: Thank you, Peter. Nice of you to say so. You know, well, I think I won because, well, I just knew all along I was in with a good chance.
Plumber: Yes, you certainly were pretty convincing today, but what about the earlier rounds? Any nervous moments?
Carter: Well, you know, I was a bit nervous against Jones when he took the lead in the second set, but then ... er ...
Plumber: Yes, that was in the quarter-finals, wasn't it? And of course you met Gardener in the next round, didn't you? Er ... the score was ... er ... 6-4, 7-5, wasn't it?
Carter: Yes, that was quite a tough match, I suppose, but ... er ...
Plumber: Anything else you'd like to add?
Carter: Well, I would like to say how sorry I am for John Fairlight not making it past the quarter-finals. He's unbeatable, you know, on his day, and ... er ... I'd also like to say what a terrific job the officials here have done you know, the ballboys and linesmen and umpires and so on. You know ... er ... lots of players have been complaining, but ... er ...
Plumber: Well, that's great. Harry, Well done again. And now let's have a quick word with the runner-up to the title, Mark Smith. If you just stand over here, Mark ... that's right ... Well, bad luck, Mark. It wasn't really your day, was it? I mean, what a terrible final set! Anyway, the less said about that the better, as I'm sure you'll agree.
Smith: Yeah, but you know, I did pretty well to beat Hutchins in the semis and ... er ... what's his name? ... Brown in the quarter-finals. And, I mean, what a terrible umpire, eh? I mean, half of Carter's points were on ... er ... doubtful decisions, weren't they?
Plumber: Well, that's probably a bit of an exaggeration, but anyway it's time for us to leave the tournament now at the end of a tremendously exciting week, and I hand you back to the studio in London.
Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, I declare the meeting open, and I take it you all have a copy of the agenda, so we'll take the minutes of our last meeting as read and get straight down to business. Now, the proposal before you is that we should see if we can reduce the size of the Olympic Games in any way and thereby ease the burden placed on the host city. We all know that each time we hold the Games this burden increases because of the vast undertaking it is to host them. Today, however, I only want to sound out your opinion of this proposal, so this is really no more than an exploratory meeting.
Mrs. Armstrong: Could I say something straight away, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman: Yes, Mrs. Armstrong.
Mrs. Armstrong: I can't accept your proposal at all on the grounds that I feel that to reduce the size of the Olympic Games would seriously damage their character, detract from their universal appeal and penalize certain countries if we start arbitrarily throwing things out before ...
Herr Müller: Yes, Mrs. Armstrong, if I may interrupt you for a moment. I think we all sympathize with your point of view, but we mustn't overlook the main point of this meeting put forward by the Chairman, which is to see if we can cut down the programme a bit, without in any way damaging the overall appeal of the Games, so let's not reject the proposal out of hand before we've had a chance to discuss it.
Mrs. Armstrong: Very well, Herr Müller, but I'd like to state here and now that I'm totally opposed to any reduction in the number of events in the Games.
Chairman: Your objections will be noted, Mrs. Armstrong, but to get back to the point of the meeting, could I hear from the rest of you what you feel? Sr. Cordoba, for example, what's your opinion?
Sr. Cordoba: Reluctant as I am to alter the composition of the Olympic Games, I can see the point that in terms of space and financial demands, the host city is subjected to a lot of difficulty. The costs seem to soar phenomenally every time we stage the Olympics, so we might be able to make one or two savings here and there. There is, for instance, quite a strong lobby against boxing because of its apparently violent nature so I did wonder if ...
Mrs. Armstrong: But that is one of the most popular sports in the world, and one of the oldest.
Sr. Cordoba: Agreed, but people get a lot of boxing on their television screens all the year round, so I was just thinking that we might be able to drop that from the programme. Football, too, is another thing which already enjoys a lot of television coverage, and as it takes up a lot of space accommodating all the football pitches, mightn't we also perhaps consider dropping that too?
Mrs. Patel: Mr. Chairman ...
Chairman: Yes, Mrs. Patel.
Mrs. Patel: I wholeheartedly endorse what Sr. Cordoba said about boxing and football. In my opinion we should concentrate on some of the more unusual sports which are rarely seen on our screens such as fencing and archery, for a change, since it is on TV that the majority of people watch the Games.
Herr Müller: Perhaps we could cut out hockey along with football because, relatively speaking, that too takes up a lot of space, as measured against its universally popular appeal.
Mrs. Patel: I can see your point, Herr Müller, and as one of the basic tenets of the Olympic Games is individual excellence, I feel we ought to concentrate on those sports which really are a true test of the individual, I, therefore, suggest we cut out—that is, if we go ahead with this idea—the team games such as basketball, volleyball, football and hockey.
Mrs. Armstrong: But then you're sacrificing some of the most interesting items in the programme. People like to watch team games as well as take part in them; it'll be very dull without them.
Chairman: I think Mrs. Armstrong has made a very valid point. We ought to keep some of the team games, although I am inclined to agree with what has been said about football.
Sr. Cordoba: There's one thing I would like to say about this and that is to suggest that we could remove from the programme sports like sailing and canoeing and possibly the equestrian events, where the test is not so much of the stamina of the competitor but of his skill in handling the boat or whatever.
Mrs. Armstrong: What about the pentathlon, then? Riding is one part of that, so we are going to need facilities to cater for that in any case, so why not use them for horse-riding as well—or do you think we should axe that too?
Chairman: Well, let's not get too heated about it, as this is only a preliminary discussion about possibilities and we are not yet in a position to make any final decisions. I will, however, briefly summarize what has been said so far, as I understand it. Mrs. Armstrong is totally opposed to reducing the size of the Games in any way at all. There is one body of opinion in favour of removing from the Games those sports which are already well represented in other international contests and in the media. Another strand of thought is that we should concentrate on individual excellence by cutting out the team games featured in the programme, and Mrs. Patel suggested we ought to focus attention on the more unusual sports in the programme which do not normally gain so much international attention. Sr. Cordoba also brought up the idea that we could drop boxing because of its seemingly violent nature. There was also an opinion voiced that we might exclude events where the skills of a competitor in handling a horse or yacht, for example, were being tested, rather than the stamina of the individual himself, as is the case with, say, athletics. Well, it is quite clear that we shall need to discuss this further, but in the meantime I think we'd better move on to something else ...
1. The houses they lived in were not meant to be permanent dwellings; as a matter of fact, we have no remaining evidence of their houses. Probably in the summertime they lived up on the mesa top near their fields, in temporary structures made of poles and brush. In winter they most likely moved down to the caves in the cliffs for warmth and protection against the snow.
2. People were experimenting and changing their methods of potting; the broken pieces are evidence of the steps in the process.
The first attempt at pottery came as women mixed clay, a kind of dirt, with water to make pots. When the clay dried, however, it crumbled and fell apart. Clearly this would not work.
The second idea was to add extra material to bind the clay together: grass, straw, or pieces of bark. This held the pot together very well until it was set on the fire. Then the binding material burned up, leaving a pot full of holes.
Again the Anasazi women tried to find the secret of success. They added sand or volcanic grit to the clay to make it harder, and they baked the pots before using them. This final step proved to be successful, and it is the basic method which is still used today.
3. The pots which the women made this way were far superior to baskets for carrying, cooking, and storing food and water. Now the people could add beans, a rich source of protein, to their diet. Water could be stored safely over long periods. Life became much easier, and so effort could now be spent on other developments.
4. Their culture developed to its height, and the main improvement was in housing. The earlier pit houses were modified to one-story row houses, made with pieces of stone. Several separate buildings stood near each other like a small village. Some villages were as large as several hundred rooms and could contain as many as a thousand people. The name for this kind of house and for these Indians is "Pueblo", which is the Spanish word for "village".
|