Why is the information available to archaeologists about early native american cultures very limited?
native americans had no written languages so their cultural artifacts could not be analyzed.
the nomadic tribes burned all documents and selected artifacts before they moved to new locations, so no information was available.
a pandemic of european diseases destroyed native american cultures before information could be gathered.
archaeologists did not recognize the benefits of learning about native cultures until most of the available information had been lost.

google it

explanation:

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.  

during the debate over his landmark energy policy proposal, president jimmy carter failed to consult one of the most powerful senators, louisiana’s russell long, who would have a big say over whether the legislation moved through the upper chamber. this was classic carter. with a strong distaste for congressional politics, the president simply refused to do what most other presidents would consider routine, such as courting key senators. long became so irate with the president that when he was finally invited to a white house dinner, he stood up to ask a question and, before doing so, proceeded to sarcastically introduce himself: “i’m russell long, chairman of the senate finance committee.”

this interaction is a revealing moment in stuart e. eizenstat’s fascinating new history of carter’s presidency. the former peanut farmer from georgia was a president who, according to conventional wisdom, didn’t care much for party politics; nonetheless, in eizenstat’s view, carter’s legacy on domestic and foreign policy has been vastly underappreciated. the author paints carter as a “bold and determined” leader who bravely attacked the challenges of his time. eizenstat goes so far as to argue that carter might very well be the most successful one-term president in american history.