The correct answer is D)Evaluate the evidence used to support it.
A good historian will read the claims of other individuals and will conduct independent reserach in order to verify their claims. If a historian is reading a research paper uses specific resources to support their claim, historians will look into the other resources to see if they are legitimate. This type of investigation results in questions such as who is publishing this paper, why are they publishing this paper, and what biases they may have. All of these questions will allow an individual to determine whether the evidence used to support it is legitimate.
Answer:
sorry bro I don't know the answer
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.
