1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Katena32 [7]
3 years ago
12

Charcoal from a hearth site in Colorado, 2,000 miles south of Alaska, is known to be 11,200 years old. Researchers reasoned that

, since glaciers prevented human migration south from the Alaska-Siberia land bridge between 18,000 and 11,000 years ago, humans must have come to the Americas more than 18,000 years ago.
Which of the following pieces of new evidence would cast doubt on the conclusion drawn above?

(A) Using new radiocarbon dating techniques, it was determined that the charcoal from the Colorado site was at least 11,400 years old.

(B) Another campsite was found in New Mexico with remains dated at 16,000 years old.

(C) A computer simulation of glacial activity showed that it would already have been impossible for humans to travel south overland from Alaska 18,500 years ago.

(D) Using new radiocarbon dating techniques, it was proved that an ice-free corridor allowed passage south from the Alaska-Siberia land bridge at least 11,400 years ago.

(E) Studies of various other hunting-gathering populations showed convincingly that, once the glaciers allowed passage, humans could have migrated from Alaska to Colorado in about 20 years.
History
1 answer:
mina [271]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

(B) Another campsite was found in New Mexico with remains dated at 16,000 years old.

Explanation:

The hypothesis is telling us that humans could not have crossed to Alaska from Siberia in the years between 11,000 - 18,000, however, if two archeological sites are found and dated 11,200 years old and 16,000 years old, the new evidence contradicts the hypothesis and the hypothesis should be discarded.

You might be interested in
Kalamidad.
aleksklad [387]

Answer:

Lahat yan okay ba

Snnnnkkkkkkk

3 0
3 years ago
Which of the following best shows how a historian would study the historiography of the French Revolution?
atroni [7]
C. This would enable to find the events and get his thoughts and report in order.
7 0
2 years ago
( One paragraph please) How will you know state hunger is solved ( One paragraph please)
Luba_88 [7]

\huge \tt{QUESTION:}

  • How will you know state hunger is solved

\pink{⊱┈────────────────────┈⊰}

\huge \tt{ANSWER:}

  • The solution to combatting hunger seems simple get food to people in need when they need it. ... When individuals and families have access to food, are educated about nutrition and how to be healthy, and can grow more crops and sell more harvests, they can be self-sufficient and resilient to future crises

❦PHCOUNTRY❦

6 0
2 years ago
(50 Points + Brainliest answer if it's detailed, original, and clear.)
nadezda [96]
Zealots were a political/philosophic movement in first century (what I call) Israel. They were (if I can put it this way) a sort of uncouth bunch who thought the only way to free themselves from Roman rule was to oppose the Romans with force. 

That was their platform. They did not take into account that the Roman's were a huge military power that was ruthless when antagonized. As these things go, Rome was a pretty good ruler. At least they knew the difference between meaningful opposition and tolerance of differences.

The zealots did not see Rome that way. They believed that any interference was too much interference. 

That's when Rome got upset and the first Jewish War of 65 AD or so began. It was like sticking your arm in a hornet's nest. The Zealots had gained the largely unwelcome wrath of Rome. The zealots were unlucky (in a way). If they had picked a time that a warrior/emperor was not leader, their opposition may have evaporated. It would be like hitting a marshmallow. Rome may have considered it an internal affair. They had up to this point. Even though some of the Pharisee priests supported the Zealots, the alliance was destroyed by the unwillingness to negotiate further. 

Anyone who is really dedicated can be termed a Zealot in modern times. I am using the term to describe someone that is Zealous. You could look up Galatians 1:11 - 14 to see how  Paul used the term. This connection between Paul and Jewish leaders (including Zealots) is really hotly debated. It's another hornet's nest.
3 0
3 years ago
Portuguese settlement of brazil
avanturin [10]

I dont know what your question is really saying


8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Need help Need help Need help !!!!!!!!!!!
    10·1 answer
  • People living in _______ are more likely to be vandalized?
    10·1 answer
  • Slave codes affected enslaved people by
    8·2 answers
  • Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir came to power in a military takeover in 1989. Based on this statement which term best describe
    14·1 answer
  • Which best describes the stance of most Northern states on protective tariffs in the years leading up to the Civil War? a)They o
    13·2 answers
  • Without the Mayflower Compact, what might have happened? What were the Pilgrims<br> trying to avoid?
    11·1 answer
  • What was the effect of jazz reaching a large audience in mainstream America?
    6·2 answers
  • The U.S. stock market crash of 1929 hit America hard because _____.
    9·2 answers
  • What could people do after the invention of writing
    7·1 answer
  • Freeeeeee points<br> Brainless
    8·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!