why do historians continue to gather historical evidence for even well-known events they want to find artifacts to sell...they are looking for evidence to predict the future... They know that new evidence may lead to new impertaians... They assume that new technology will prove all of the old series incorrect...

pretty sure its "They know that new evidence may lead to new impertaians"

The answer is ¨They know that new evidence may lead to new impertaians.¨

Explanation:

Okay to prove to you this is the right answer I am going to tell you why the other answers are wrong. Lets start with ¨to sell the artifacts¨  okay the reason this is wrong is due to the fact historians do not sell artifacts they put them in museums.

Alright the next answer im prove is wrong is ¨they are looking for evidence to predict the future¨ . Historians most of the time do not try to predict the future but understand the past better.

Now lets prove the last answer wrong ¨They assume that new technology will prove all of the old series incorrect¨  Okay so historians do not get item from the past to just say how dumb their design is or how unefficient they are.

they all focused on themes about the inevitability of death.

giant impact theory - the moon was formed from the collision between earth and another mars-sized body.

colliding planetesimals hypothesis - the moon was formed from the same cloud of material as earth.

capture hypothesis - the moon was locked into orbit by earths gravity as it was passing by it.

accretion hypothesis - the moon was formed from collisions and combining of planetesimals.

i think this is right, if not and you know better let me know.