The lecturer argues that the reasons
of why the Anasazi people discarded their hometown have poor evidences to prove them.
This contradicts the reading passage’s claim that they might have such severe
drought that they migrated other areas.
First, the lecturer argues that there was no connection between their malnutrition and a drought. Discovery of bones that shows the
Anasazi people’s poor condition of nutrition isn’t proper to prove that they
had drought. First of all, the hypothesis that their poor condition derived from
a shortage of the harvest can be disputed by they had religious ceremonies at that
time. In order to do the ceremonies, they had to devote their foods as a
tribute for religious leaders. So, it is plausible that most of the Anasazi
children had malnutrition. This refutes the reading passage’s claim that poor
water supplies from drought was a reason of their migration.
Second, the lecturer suggests that they didn't have a plan to return. In fact, the dry period had been shortly ended from
1300 to 1340. So, closing their granaries and blocking off the town entrances
would have another purpose before they left their hometown. This casts doubt on
the reading passage’s asserts that the Anasazi’s actions before leaving show
that they had a plan to come back home.
Third, the lecture maintains that they choose an area to live where didn't have sufficient water supplies. Most of the Anasazi selected Mesa in
Arizona, where was so elevated that they also couldn’t cultivate, to settle. So,
if they had wanted to find where they could cultivate and got much more crops,
they would have gone near the Rio Grande River. The fact that they settled the
area regardless of water supplies doesn’t make sense that the Anasazi ran away
from the drought. It contradicts the reading passage’s suggestion that it
proves why they escaped from original town that they resettled an area with
rich water supplies.
첫댓글 수고했다,,,홧팅,,,