Traditionally viewed as the mindless defamations of mutinous teenagers, graffiti has rarely been the subject of serious scholarly inquiry. Fortunately, the discovery of graffiti on the walls at the archeological site of Pompeii has been the impetus for a wholescale reconsideration of the relevance of graffiti to archeological and historical studies. Yes, graffiti is (and probably always was) mostly done by hormone-addled teenagers, and yes, the concise nature of graffiti does not lend itself to the type of exegesis to which most academics are inclined. But graffiti, especially graffiti on the walls at a cherished historical site, can lend insight into the powerless voices that would otherwise have been censored by most ancient societies. By examining a culture's graffiti, we can understand the discontents of that culture in a more organic context—one free of the posturing that is all too pervasive in preserved historical documents. Perhaps graffiti will not tell us the purpose of a law or the mischievous family dramas of ancient governments, but, perhaps more than any document can, it provides us with an unfiltered view of how society at large reacted to forces that were largely out of its control.

The passage is primarily concerned with

A. explaining the appearance of graffiti
B. arguing that scholars should take graffiti more seriously
C. suggesting that graffiti was censored by ancient societies
D. indicating the hypocrisy of contemporary archeology
E. evaluating a scholar's position



As used in the context of the passage, "exegesis" most nearly means

a. explanation
B. debate
C. pronouncement
D. illumination
E. deliberation



The author's attitude toward graffiti as a subject of scholarly study can best be described as

A. ambivalent
B. repentant
C. enthusiastic
D. confused
E. disapproving