The question is incomplete, so the complete question is as follows:
What is an example of a reason why historical interpretations may change over time?
A. Archeologists may uncover new climate evidence.
B. Political scientists discover a new method of scientific research.
C. Economists may learn more about how ancient governments operated.
D. New X-ray technology proves that previous medical conclusions were incorrect.
Answer:
A). Archeologists may uncover new climate evidence.
Explanation:
The Archeologists works to reveal several historical interpretations on thebasis of facts gathered from primary sources of evidence.
The example that [roves chnaging interpretation over time by archeologists is that they may uncover new climate evidence which can change the earlier facts and can reveal several new things. Archeologists can change tehir views whenever they will find some new and more strong evidences.
Hence, the correct option is "A".
Because some people think Timbuktu is the most remote place on earth.Timbuktu is located in the presents day Republic of Mali at the edge of the Sahara dessert.
The answer is Sir Francis Drake. He is an English men but had nothing to do with Spain.
Answer:
lay out and transportation links, canals helped transport goods in between cities and into cities for imports and also exported them, with this came the ability to travel quicker therefore more ethnic groups began migrating around the country to different cities increasing the ethnic diversity
Answer:
There's a popular belief that Americans fought and won the entire revolution with nothing but guerrilla warfare. That's not true, and the myth largely stems from how the war began. The very first military engagement between British and American forces occurred on April 19 of 1775. American militia men had been covertly transporting weapons and colonial government leaders from town to town, hiding them from the British army. The British heard about these stockpiles in the Massachusetts towns of Lexington and Concord and went to seize them. The American volunteers of these town gathered together to oppose the British, resulting in a brief skirmish. As the British beat a hasty retreat back towards Boston, American militia units basically popped out of the bushes along the entire road, shot a few volleys, and disappeared. It wasn't enough to decimate the British, but the British weren't prepared for it, and it drove them back.
Explanation:
Imagine that you are in charge of leading a small army of volunteer soldiers against the largest and most powerful professional army in the world. Are you going to march straight into battle? Not if you expect it to be a very long one!
For centuries, small armies have relied on guerrilla warfare to help even the odds. This includes non-traditional wartime tactics like ambushing, sabotage, and raids rather than direct engagements. Guerrilla warfare is not meant to really defeat an opponent; instead, the idea is to make the war drag on and become so expensive that your adversary gives up. It's the different between fighting a professional boxer versus a swarm of mosquitoes - the mosquitoes won't kill you, but they just may drive you away.
Amongst the many armies to try out these tactics were the American colonists fighting for their independence. The American Revolution was a conflict between a group of volunteers and a massive professional army. Did they think they could defeat Britain, the heavyweight champion of European colonialism? Maybe not, but while Britain prepared to defend its title, it was the colonists who learned how to 'float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.'
