| |
| |
In the reading passage there is ample support for the author’s claim that we know why the developed city Maya had been collapsed. However the professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author’s point. First, the professor contends that the breakdown resulted from revolt is not likely to happen. Although Maya had a enhanced writing method, there was no record about devastation. And each states in the Maya had their own government which prevented scattering rebellion. This casts doubt on the reading passage’s claim that social turmoil made the city fail. Even though there were some evidences which indicate the Maya declined. Next, the professor insists that there were no correspond with change to the trade routes. He says that at some time, the routes had significant role. But as time gone by, it had become weak making the city’s economy ruin. Also the routes had gotten down its responsibility prior to the Maya’s decline. This counters the reading passage’s assertion that rapid fluctuation of trade routes of the region could be explanation about collapse of Maya economy. Thus the citizens went away their area. Finally, the professor argues that epidemics cannot provide a clear basis for demise of Maya. Diseases such as yellow fever and malaria prevailed in central of America. In addition archeologists could not find a variety of graves and documents of death. This refutes the reading passage’s suggestion that it is plausible that plague has responsibility for devastating of the Maya. It is so powerful because the urban cities were densely populated. |