▶ Your Answer :
The reading and the lecture are both about
the sudden disappearance of the Anasazi in the 13th century. The author of the
reading feels that a drought caused them to leave their land. The lecturer
challenges the claims made by the author. She is of the opinion that evidence
of the theory in the reading has serious issues.
To begin with, the author argues that
the signs of malnutrition in the Anasazi’s bones indicate that drought is
responsible for the resettlement. The article mentions that the shortage of
rain hindered the people from growing enough crops. This specific argument is
challenged by the lecturer. She contends that health issues due to poor diet
among the Anasazi were prevalent regardless of the amount of annual crop
yields. Additionally, she claims that the people gave most of their crops to
religious leaders as a form of tribute because they performed religious
ceremonies for them.
Secondly, the writer suggests that the
condition of the settlements shows that the Anasazi was reacting to a drought.
In the article, it is said that they had done the same measure in earlier
droughts. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by mentioning that they did not
return to their homes even though the dry spell ended quickly. She elaborates
on this by bringing up the point that if they had been responding to the
drought, they would have returned to their settlements soon.
Finally, the author posits that the
Anasazi settled in areas with dependable water sources, which means that the
drought caused them to leave their homes. In contrast, the lecturer’s position
is that they did not actually resettle in regions with enough water supplies.
She notes that some moved to current Arizona, which is an area with little moisture
and, therefore, not suitable for agriculture. It is unlikely that people fleeing from a
drought would choose a region with even harsher conditions. |