Question 1
The article focuses on the new archaeological findings which show that life in America could have started earlier than the time it is said to have started. The evidence of the charcoal collected from the two fire pits near the bottom layer of the soil and top rock, confirms the thought. It is however difficult to convince most of the people especially those that have been in the field of archaeology that it is true.
Question 2
The article does not tell the science behind the years they say life began in America. The lack of scientific proof is the reason why they assumed the years that life began. However even without the new evidence some questions were unanswered. For instance at what time in history did the America Indians arrive?
Question 3
The new discoveries could have created a bigger room for more research. It was enough proof that the there was a lot of evidence on the ground which had not been found. On the question of assuming the years, the archaeologists would have to proof the actual years using the evidence available. This is to avoid later finding evidence which differ completely from the said years. Scientific studies had found a new meaning as nothing was to be taken for granted. They would even study using the perishable evidence to get the facts right.
Question 4
It is clear that sometimes while people are conducting studies very important evidence can be left out. The conclusion from such studies may be biased. It will lack facts and may later be disputed by new findings. The department of archaeology should change some the methods they use to get facts and adopt ones that are very effective. Using the most recent technology would greatly benefit the study as it is more accurate than all the other archaeological methods of study.
