▶ Your Answer :
In the reading passage, there is ample support for the author's claim that scholars have suggested some possible functions about the Great Zimbabwe. The professor in the lecture gives several reasons as a rebuttal to the author's point.
First, the professor in the lecture argues that it is unreasonable to think of it as a fortress. For example, to be functioned it must have permanent sources like water. But there wasn't any reliable water resource. Also, the other fortress towers weren't found at all. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that this edifice served as a defensive fortress because it consisted of large, massive blocks.
Next, the professor in the lecture insists that this place didn't belong to upper class. To be specific, the word 'Zimbabwe' is short phrase, meaning that it houses stone. And we can suppose that about 2000 people lived in this area. The argument that all these people were noble class is preposterous. This counters the reading passage's assertion that taking the word's meaning and huge complex which required massive resources to build into consideration, it was built on purpose of royal family living.
Finally, the professor in the lecture contends that it didn't function as a religious center. To be specific, there was a hill in the place. So we could assume that the king used this area to carry his voice, not religious purpose. This refutes the reading passage's suggestion that it served as a means of religious center because there was a hill which can impress mysterious on people |