[問題]GWD 31-Q10

[bonus]

Q10:

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 major 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?

A. Whether artifacts from Ashkelon were widely traded to non-Canaanite cities?
B. Whether significant numbers of artifacts that do not resemble artifacts produced in Ashkelon have been found at Avans?
C. Whether Avans was the nearest Hyksos city in Egypt to Canaan?
D. Whether Ashkelon after 1550 B.C. continued to produce artifacts similar to those found at Avans?
E. whether any artifacts produced by the Hyksos after 1550 B.C .have been found in Egypt

Answer: A

[bonus]

A選項
如果是貿易導致，很可能就是兩個城市，題中結論不一定成立；
考古學家的焦點就是H是不是C人
-> 考慮有沒有C的文物，是不是本地產的
A就可以判斷這些可能的C文物是當地生產的 -> 證明是C人。
還是進口的 -> 可能排除C人

[王志元]

投A一票
但我有不同解釋

Avan 出土的文物 與Ashkelon (C 首都)出土文物一樣
推論H人是從 C 來的

但若 兩地文物是貿易來的
而非H人帶來的話 那就推翻H人帶來的可能性
也就是說 H人不是C人