"That which might be the first clear representation of a horse in the Middle East can be found in a tablet form Ur III, reign of Šu-Sin, 2037 – 2029 BCE . . . Therefore, it is possible to place domestic horses in Ur prior to 2000 BCE. Since horse domestication took place in the steppes of northern Kazakhstan, a link between this region and the Middle East must be found, in order to account for the horses' presence there. Only after c. 2100 BCE did horses begin to appear regularly in the Near and Middle east. This means that sometime between c.2500 and c.2100 BCE, there was an increase in the influx of horses into the region." From The Origin and the Spread of the War Chariot by Elias Manuel Morgado Pinheiro (2010).
The author's argument could best be understood in the context of which of the following historical developments?
Choose 1
Choose 1

(Choice A)
A
There was an exchange of technology and methods of transportation between the steppes and Mesopotamia.

(Choice B)
B
There was an exchange of technology and methods of transportation between the Mongol Empire and the steppes.

(Choice C)
C
Mesopotamian military expeditions spread their civilization and city-states into the Eurasian steppes

(Choice D)
D
The independent development of new technologies within Mesopotamian society spread to the steppes

the answers is b.   environments.

i believe the correct answer is option b. most eastern european nations joined nato.

though i could be wrong, option d. the eastern european nations were granted complete independence, would be another choice.

hope this ! : )

native americans suffered high rates of poverty and unemployment.

during the late 1960s and early 1970sthe need for political militancy grew among the native americans. throughout the 1960s, they had been the nation's poorest minority group, the most deprived group, according to practically every socioeconomic measure. in 1970, the indian unemployment rate was 10 times the national average, and 40 percent of the native american people were below the poverty line.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is