Answer:
The Iroquois and Algonquin lived in the Northeast US and southeast Canada. The Anasazi lived in the Southwest US. The Iroquois and Anasazi lived a more sedentary lifestyle, while the Algonquin lived a more nomadic lifestyle. The Algonquin hunted and fished for food, while the Iroquois and Anasazi hunted, but also grew crops. Algonquin lived in wigwams (dome-shaped homes), Iroquois lived in long houses, and the Anasazi lived in Adobe style homes called pueblos. They all used what was available in nature for the creation of their homes. Algonquin society was patriarchal, Iroquois was matriarchal, and Anasazi was more matriarchal. The Algonquin and Iroquois were actually confederacies. They were actually different tribes of native americans that banded together in times of need.
No one is sure how the Anaszi declined. Some believe that they were attacked by a more hostile group or groups of indians. Others believe that they exhausted the few natural resources that existed within their desert environment. The Algonquin and Iroquois societies still exist and thrive today. They are prominent in their ancestral lands and have played key roles within both US and Canadian governments to protect their land and interests.
A trough is a low turning point or a local minimum of a business cycle. The time evolution of many variables of economics exhibit a wave like behaviour with local maxima (peaks) followed by local minima (troughs). A business cycle may be defined as the period between two consecutive peaks.
I believe the answer is B. hope this helped
Women have been a part of the war effort since the Revolutionary War, but in the early days of our nation they had to cloak themselves in disguise to serve alongside men. When they were accepted into the military, women were given auxiliary roles. As the weapons and methods of warfare changed in the late 20th century, however, the Pentagon began to realize that gender matters less on the battlefield.
B anti federalists supported it since the federalists thought the bill of rights was unnecessary
