In North America in the parts north of the present day Mexico, the First Nations had climatically a more hostile environment to deal with than their counterparts in the now Mexico and Mesoamerica and South America. The winters on the Great Plains and in the now Canadian north were harsh and did not favor large populations to develop (with some exceptions like in British Columbia, Canada which had a mild climate and in which 100's of 1000's of First Nations lived). So the mainly plains Indians had a nomadic existence following the game and fish and so had a more egalitarian less centralized leadership than their counterparts to the south. In Mexico, Mesoamerica and South America, the climate was generally less harsh, and fairly large scale agriculture was practiced and the people were more sedentary and political power was held in the hands of rulers who though they had henchmen, tended to be all-powerful, though the Incas for example had a quite equitable system of compulsory labour for public works and mines, allowing time for the participants to work their own fields to sustain their families.
<span>Hatshepsut is the answer you are looking for.</span>
<span>Assuming that this is referring to the same list of options that was posted before with this question, the answer is that it allowed for penetration of enemy lines for extended periods of time, since its armor withstood bullets. </span>
The slave codes were laws relating to slavery and enslaved people, specifically regarding the Atlantic slave trade.
this is all it would let me put in..hope it helps
A primary source is from someone who was apart of the event that’s being sourced, such as a holocaust survivor recounting the events of the holocaust, or someone who witnessed a murder. A secondary source would be someone sharing the primary source, such as a newspaper or a book! Hope this helps!
