<h3>
Answer:</h3>
1)Yes,
because stone tools are less susceptible to destruction than bones, stone artifacts typically offer the best evidence of where and when early humans lived, their geographic dispersal, and their ability to survive in a variety of habitats
2)Yes because non- human animal bones have a greater density relative to size; they are less porous and are thicker in cross section than the bones of humans. For example, in humans humeral and femoral cortical thickness is about a quarter of the total diameter compared to about half of the total diameter in animal limb bones.
3)Yes,
the bones can tell us not only what kinds of animals humans hunted, but their abundance and age at death, and, in the changes as different layers are uncovered, the impact of human predation on wild populations. ... “[The bones] serve as important proxies for what humans were doing.”
4)Yes, as scientists have discovered what they say is “direct evidence” supporting the theory that Ice Age migrants from Asia traveled down the Pacific Coast, rather than through North America’s interior.A geological study provides compelling evidence to support the hypothesis that ancient humans migrated into the Americas via a coastal route. By analyzing boulders and bedrock, a team shows that part of a coastal migration route became accessible to humans 17,000 years ago. During this period, ancient glaciers receded, exposing islands of southern Alaska's Alexander Archipelago to air and sun -- and, possibly, to human migration.
