Question

When archaeologists first studied the city of Teotihuacán, located near

modern-day Mexico City, they excavated only the palaces and temples, areas
used by the elite upper class. All these sites showed damage from fire around
the 7th or 8th century. Early archaeologists concluded that the whole city was
ravaged and burned by invaders, possibly the Toltecs. However, this
conclusion has since become controversial. A modern alternative theory holds
that the burning was from an internal uprising of the lower class.
The passage describes the possible causes of a fire that occured around the 7th or
8th century.
Why might the early archaeologists' data have been misleading?
O because the Toltecs were a peaceful people
O because evidence of a fire cannot be seen after so much time
O because early archaeologists only looked at specific areas
O because early archaeologists did not know how to excavate properly
.4

Answer 1

The data from early archaeologists may have been misleading because their focus was exclusively on the elite parts of Teotihuacán, possibly leading to incorrect conclusions about the city-wide impact of the fires.

Step-by-step explanation:

The early archaeologists' data might have been misleading because they only looked at specific areas of the city of Teotihuacán, namely the palaces and temples associated with the elite upper class. This could have skewed their interpretation, making them more likely to conclude that the observed fire damage was the result of an invasion and destruction on a city-wide scale rather than a selective event, such as an internal uprising. Further archaeological research that includes broader sections of the site may yield more representative data, contributing to our understanding of Teotihuacán's complex history and the true cause of the fires during the decline of this influential Mesoamerican city.

Answer 2

The correct answer is: O because early archaeologists only looked at specific areas.

The passage mentions that early archaeologists studied only the palaces and temples, areas used by the elite upper class. By focusing solely on these specific areas, they may have missed crucial evidence from other parts of the city, leading to a potentially misleading conclusion about the cause of the fire. They didn't consider the possibility of an internal uprising of the lower class, which is the alternative theory proposed by modern archaeologists. This limited scope of their investigation could have resulted in incomplete or biased data, making their initial conclusion about the fire being caused by invaders less reliable.