▶ Your Answer :
In the lecture, the professor argues that
the supposed theories that explain the primary function of Great Zimbabwe are
groundless.
To begin with, the professor mentions that
it is unlikely that Great Zimbabwe served as a defensive fortress to protect
people who lived in the area from outside invaders. If the site was a fortress,
it would have had sustainable water source. But, there was no water source.
Moreover, there was no defensive structure built on the walls or entrance of
the site. This casts doubt on the reading’s assertion that the main role of the
site was to protect people from invaders.
Second, the professor asserts that the site
was not a palace built to house the royal family. According to the recent
research, the word ‘Zimbabwe’ comes from the phrase meaning house of stone. This
indicates that the origin of the word ‘Zimbabwe’ has nothing to do with royal family.
In addition, given the fact that more than 2000 people lived in Great Zimbabwe,
the site was likely to be a full sized city not a palace. This challenges the
reading’s argument that the site was for the royal family.
Lastly, the professor points out that Great
Zimbabwe was not intended as a religious center. According to the recent research, scientists
found out that the cave on a nearby hill was used by kings not by religious people.
Kings might use the cave to amplify there voice and carry their voice across
the valley. This refutes the reading passage’s argument that the site was built
for religious purpose.
|