The reading passage contends the factors that caused the collapse of the Old Kingdom. On the other hand, the lecturer brings up several points that contradict this arguments.
To begin with, according to the lecturer, the position of provincial governors was pregilious, so if they are loyal to the pharaoh, the additional awards were given to them. Thus, there were no reasons for them to cause the collapse. This casts doubt on the reading, which states that greedy and ambitious attitude of the provincial lead to the collapse.
In addition, the lecturer argues that the historical documents that mentioned the weather of Old Kingdom were misinterpreted. This is because the document was only limited to the local, which was East. Thus, there were no clear evidences that others beside East had also severe drought. This refutes the reading passage's assertion that severe drought was one of the main reasons why the Old Kingdom collapsed.
The final point made by the lecturer is that fighting among sibling for successor was common in this era, and it didn't affect on the collapse drastically. Also Old kingdom, especially, was well organized, so there is less chance that this competition lead to the end of the Old Kingdom. This counters the writer's acclaim that the competition for the position of pepi's successor negatively influenced on the Old Kingdom. |