Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege

This topic has expert replies
Moderator
Posts: 7187
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
Followed by:23 members

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Archaeologists seeking the location of a legendary siege and destruction of a city are excavating in several possible places, including a middle and a lower layer of a large mound. The bottom of the middle layer contains some pieces of pottery of type 3, known to be from a later period than the time of the destruction of the city, but the lower layer does not.

Que. Which of the following hypotheses is best supported by the evidence above?
(A) The lower layer contains the remains of the city where the siege took place.
(B) The legend confuses stories from two different historical periods.
(C) The middle layer does not represent the period of the siege.
(D) The siege lasted for a long time before the city was destroyed.
(E) The pottery of type 3 was imported to the city by traders.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
Followed by:5 members

by deloitte247 » Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:10 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Option A - INCORRECT.
The lower layer contains the remains of the city where the siege took place that is more reason why it is assumed that the lower part of the middle layer is having the pottery and the lower layer does not. Meanwhile it is assumed that an occurrence would have taken place after the siege and also before the destruction.

Option B - CORRECT.
This hypothesis is best supported by the evidence provided. The legendary might have confuse two stories from two historical period together at the same time that is why the middle layer has the pottery of the later period before the time of the destruction and the lower layer does not.

Option C - INCORRECT.
The middle layer does not represent the period of the siege, there most have been an occurrence after the siege.

Option D - INCORRECT.
The siege would have lasted for a long time before the city was destroyed and also there is a possibility that there most have been another occurrence which would have caused the mix up.

Option E - INCORRECT.
There is no prove of the pottery being imported into the city during or after the period of the siege.