Archaeologists in Michigan have excavated a Native American camp near Dumaw Creek. Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. However, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Due to trade among Native Americans, some European trade goods would have reached the area before the European traders themselves did.
At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of European trade goods have been found.
The first European trade goods to reach the area would have been considered especially valuable and preserved as much as possible from loss or destruction.
The first European traders in the area followed soon after the first European explorers.
The site is that of a temporary camp that would have been used seasonally for a few years and then abandoned.
原因: no European trade goods were found at the site, and European traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward
结果: the camp probably dates to no later than 1630
加强从没有交易货物痕迹推出camp比1630前的联系
A:交易货物的过程/表现,无关
B:那些全部能被认为1620年后期的都是能发交易痕迹= 没被认为的属于1620后的都没有交易痕迹?
C:第一次交易货物,无关
D:第一个交易人,无关
E:季节性使用,无关。即使季节性使用也会有留下痕迹的可能的,不够足够。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论