The Hyksos invaded the Nile Delta, of Egypt and ruled it from 1650 B.C.

Their origin is uncertain, but archaeologists hypothesize that they were Canaanites.

In support of this hypothesis, the archaeologists point out that excavations of Avans,

The Hyksos capital in Egypt, have uncovered large numbers of artifacts virtually

Identical to artifacts produced in Ashkelon, and Ashkelon was a majkor city of

Canaan at the time of the Hyksos’ invasion.

In order to evaluate the force of the archaeologists. Evidence ,it would

Useful to determine which of the following ?

1A)      whether artifacts from Ashkelon were widely traded to non-Canaanite cities

2B)      Whether significant numbers of artifacts that do not resemble artifacts

produced in Ashkelon have been found at Avaris

3C)      Whether Avaris was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan

4D)      Whether Ashkelon after 1550 B.C.continued to produce artifacts similar to whose

found at Avaris

5E)      whether any artifacts produced by the Hyksos after 1550 B.C .have been

found in Egypt

我选A,但也有人说B.

不知道哪个更对?请NN指点

A

对A正反两个方面回答可以分别加强或者削弱那两种人的关系，对B采取同样的方法就

不行了

a

考古学家的焦点就是H是不是C人-----〉考虑有没有C的文物，是不是本地产的阿

B.Whether significant numbers of artifacts that do not resemble artifacts

produced in Ashkelon have been found at Avaris

有其他非C的文物，不能否定有是C的文物阿！！

A就可以判断这些可能的C文物是当地生产的——证明是C人。还是进口的——可能排除

C人

个人意见