Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears from what it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.

A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who

B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human ancestors

C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors

D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors

E. appears that it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who

Meaning analysis:
Researcher s in Germany have unearthed wooden spears from ancient lakeshore ground, .It is the evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.

Error analysis:
Here three clauses

1) Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears (
2) what it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors
3) stunning evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed. : Fragment , no verb is here

SV agreement: 1) Researchers –Have, 2) Lakeshore hunting ground –appears &3) who -hunted

Verb Tense

Clause 1:Present perfect -OK (Researchers have unearthed wooden spears , whose effect s still we going to study/read)
Clause 2 Past tense –not ok as we discuss it in present (here there is no reason to change the tense) , So it is to be in present
Clause 3:Simple past –ok as it true past fact.

Pronoun:
Here It is ambiguous, it does not have clear antecedent. It may refer to “old wooden spears “ or lakeshore hunting ground . In both cases its uses is wrong . It cant refer to “old wooden spears”.
As per meaning it is to be referring to lakeshore hunting ground. Then Redundancy comes into picture, no need to write here “IT” because “What “already expressed the intended meaning.
There is no problem with “WHO” can be use for human ancestor

Modifier:
Stunning evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.
It is a abstract modifier which modifies precedent clause “Researcher s in Germany has unearthed wooden spears from ancient lakeshore ground “
Using of “AS” is wrong because as must be followed by clause , but there is no clause in original sentence .”As” can’t be used as here because it does not discuss any position . so its wrong

POE:

A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who :WRONG

B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human ancestors :WRONG

C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors WRONG

D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors :CORRECT (appears to be correct idiom , Abstract Modifier “ stunning evidence that human ancestors systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed “clearly modifies preceding clause

E. appears that it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who : wrong because use of “from what appears that it” makes it ambiguous and clause “stunning evidence …….. is fragment