2
untils
what would lead a historian to consider two events to have a relationship of
correlation rather than causation?
o
a. if the events were once considered unimportant but are now seen
as influential
o
b. if the events have not yet been extensively studied by other
historians
o
c. if the events happened around the same time but one did not
cause the other
o
d. if the events occurred in the same location but during different
historical periods

The correct answer is C, If the events happened around the same time but one did not cause the other.

Explanation:

A relationship of correlation in history means that two or more events are somehow associated. How these events are associated can take many forms: maybe they have the same cause, maybe they had similar impacts, they might have happened at the same time, or not at the same time but in similar ways, etc. Thus a relationship of association can take many forms.

One form that a relationship of association can NOT take is if one event caused the other because this relationship is more specific: one event triggered the other so this second event depends on the first event.

The difference is that if one says two events are associated, that doesn't necessarily mean one event depends on the other which is the case when one event caused another event and thus a dependence relationship exists.

pacal the great: the throne was passed on to pacal through a female; as a result, he believed that he must legitimize his claim to the throne to add stability to his reign.

as a result, the daughter of ac kan's brother ruled until her son, pacal, reached an age old enough to assume the throne.

pacal the great became the king of the mayan city of palenque in a different way than most mayan kings.

pacal pointed out that ac kan had succeeded his mother as ruler, thereby establishing a precedent for the rule to pass through a female.  

he tried to justify that the way he gained the throne by connecting his mother with the divine mother and the mythological events that happened during the creation of the world.  

typically, the son of a male mayan ruler inherited the throne, but in 612 ce, king ac kan died and did not leave behind a male heir.

montezuma 1: even so, these wars of conquest failed to provide enough human sacrifices and because of this, he formed a triple alliance with cities in the valley of puebla-tlascala.  

in addition, montezuma realized that his government failed to the aztecs during the famine.

in order to appease him, montezuma increased the number of human sacrifices.

the aztec performed human sacrifices to their god huitzilopotchli because they believed he desired human blood.  

around 1440 ce, montezuma i became the fifth emperor of the aztecs and went on to rule for 28 years.  

soon after he assumed the throne, the aztecs were hit with a series of disasters, namely a plague of locusts, a flood, and a harsh frost  

huayna capac: huayna capac also fought to gain territories north of his empire in what is now ecuador.  

huayna capac significantly extended the inca empire to the south, into what is now argentina and chile.  

in 1493 ce, huayna capac became the eleventh ruler of the inca empire.  

huayna, therefore, wanted to gain his own lands and launched campaigns against tribes to the east and north of the empire.  

the inca empire reached its peak under the rule of huayna capac.

during this time the empire covered a vast territory including parts of present day colombia, peru, argentina, chile, bolivia, and ecuador.

during his reign, huayna heard about bearded men with pale skin that resembled the incan1 god viracocha and took this news as a bad omen.

huayna took this as another bad omen that predicted the destruction of the empire.

did you check the study guide?