▶ Your Answer :
In the lecture, the speaker contends that the theories suggested in the reading passage are groundless. He casts doubt on the reading passage's point that there are plausible explanations about the leading functions of the Great Zimbabwe.
To begin with, the lecturer asserts that it is unlikely that the Great Zimbabwe was made in order to protect people from outside invaders. He points out that if people had made the site as a defensive fortress, the site should have involved water sources that can provide people with water and thus help people stay within the site. However, any water source had not been found within the site. This is in direct opposition to the reading's argument that the site played a significant role in providing protection for people from outside invaders.
On top of that, the speaker argues that it is unreasonable to believe the Great Zimbabwe served as a house for a royal family. To be more specific, At that time, the site may be a full-sized city for many people, not a small-sized city for the royal family because a number of people dwelled in the site. In addtion, the experts says that the site's name indicates merely a stone house, not the house for the royal family. This is contradictory to the reading's assertion that people created the site because of a house for the royal family.
Lastly, the lecturer maintains that it is doubtful that people used the Great Zimbabwe as a religious center. He supports his view by saying that the cave and the hill of the site were actually used by a king, not the religious leader. To be specific, the king often carried his or her voice to valleys through the cave and the hill. This rebuffs the reading passage's insistence that people made use of the site as a religious center.
|