when archaeologists study excavation site, objects found closer to the surface are. a. often as damaged as those found below them b. impossible to date with accuracy c. unlikely to contain radioactive material. d. not as old as those found in deeper layers
d. not as old as those found in deeper layers
how might the use of fire have affected human migration
The use of fire by early human populations is believed to have had a significant impact on human migration. Here are a few ways that fire might have influenced human migration:
1. Increased survival and expansion: The ability to control and use fire would have provided early humans with several survival advantages. Fire could provide warmth, scare away predators, protect against insects and parasites, and be used for cooking food. These benefits would have allowed early humans to inhabit a wider range of environments and expand their territories, leading to migration into new areas.
2. Altering landscapes: The intentional use of fire to clear vegetation and create open landscapes might have facilitated human migration. By burning vegetation, early humans might have created clearer paths, improved visibility, and increased the availability of edible plants and game, making it easier to move into and settle new areas.
3. Focused settlement patterns: The use of fire for agriculture, particularly in the form of slash-and-burn techniques, could have resulted in specific settlement patterns. As early humans discovered the benefits of fire for land clearance and farming, they might have established settled communities in areas with fertile soils, suitable climates, and access to water resources. This could have led to the formation of more permanent settlements and potential population growth, influencing migration patterns over time.
4. Social and cultural implications: Fire would have played a significant role in early human societies. It provided light, warmth, and a gathering point for communication and community. The use of fire might have facilitated the exchange of knowledge and cultural practices among different groups, which could have encouraged migration as people sought new resources, ideas, and alliances.
It is important to note that the impact of fire on human migration would have varied depending on the specific environmental contexts, cultural practices, and technological advancements of different human populations throughout history.
when archaeologists study excavation site, objects found closer to the surface are. a. often as damaged as those found below them b. impossible to date with accuracy c. unlikely to contain radioactive material. d. not as old as those found in deeper layers a. people could live in places otherwise would have been too cold.b. people could cook food and scare off dangerous animals. c. people could settle in one place where it was easy to keep a fire burning. people could be. less dependent on daylight and travel at night.
The correct option to complete the statement "when archaeologists study excavation site, objects found closer to the surface are..." is:
d. not as old as those found in deeper layers.
The options you provided afterward seem to be unrelated and may not directly answer the given question. However, they do touch upon some of the advantages and implications of using fire for early human populations.
d. not as old as those found in deeper layers
When archaeologists study an excavation site, they often find that objects found closer to the surface are not as old as those found in deeper layers. This is due to a principle known as stratigraphy, which states that older layers of soil and artifacts tend to be buried deeper in the ground over time.
To understand why objects closer to the surface are generally not as old, archaeologists use a method called relative dating. Relative dating involves analyzing the different layers of soil and artifacts present at an excavation site. By examining the sequence of these layers, archaeologists can determine the relative age of objects found within them. In other words, they can establish which objects are older or younger than others based on their position in the soil.
Therefore, the answer to your question is option d: Objects found closer to the surface are not as old as those found in deeper layers. This is a result of the accumulation of soil and debris over time, which buries older artifacts deeper underground.