Archaeological Studies of Art in Understanding Human Behavior - Literature review Example

The potential of Archaeological Studies of Art in Understanding Human Behavior Introduction Through archaeological studies, people acquire knowledge about past human behavior. They do this by systematically recovering and analyzing objects and material remains. Archaeological studies of art is based on the study of works of art that have been discovered by archaeologists (Conkey & Hastorf 1990, pp. 12). Such works of art help to reveal much about human behavior. The works of art being studied may include artifacts which may be as tiny as buttons or as a huge as buildings. Whether they are small or huge, they provide information about past cultures and the behavior of people who lived a number of years before. The artifacts prove that the past societies had their own cultures that dictated their behavior and also give the present generations a connection to their past. Archaeological studies is divided into prehistoric archaeology and historical archaeology. Prehistoric archaeology involves the study of those cultures that never had a written language. Although prehistoric people had no writings about their culture, they left behind many remains including ceremonial objects, tools and pottery. Historical archaeology delves into the study of what remained of cultures (Ingold 2013, pp. 23). Archaeological studies of art are important because they help in understanding the reason for change in human behavior through the years and the mode of change. Archaeologists look for hidden patterns in the way certain cultural events evolved such as farming, growth of cities, and the end of significant civilizations to get an idea of why the events came to be. Through archaeological studies, it is possible to make predictions on how culture and human behavior changes. Archaeological studies of art also provide a history and a heritage for the cultures being studied (Paddaya 2004, pp. 45). Without archaeological studies, it would be impossible to know anything about how prehistoric people developed culturally. In addition, archaeological studies show the day to day life of people such as slaves, workers in coalmines and others who did not get much attention from historians (Paddaya 2004, pp. 52). In the modern day and time, culture records all things by way of television, books, the internet and newspapers. However, there is normally a big disparity between the words and actions of people. Modern media must edit stories and change what actually happens. Although what is written can prove to be very useful, it may not be free of bias because of the faults and beliefs of the producers of these writings. The purpose of this essay is to discuss the potential of archaeological studies of art in explaining human behaviors. Value of archaeological Studies Archaeological studies on a frequent basis, gives us a more reliable record of the past human behavior than the historical accounts alone. The past is valuable because it is a people’s cultural heritage. Through archaeological studies, people seek to understand how this information is utilized for prosperity. Getting to understand how human behavior has been changing increases our understanding of the past. It helps to plan for the future and for future generations as well. Some studies show that public archaeology is significant to the comprehension, protection and celebration of the wealth and diversity of our cultural heritage. Archaeologists have discovered the significant of this role and are therefore in the process of developing different mechanisms for reaching out through the media, public programs, the internet and publications to make archaeological contributions public (Morwood 1975, pp. 115). Archaeological sites provide proof of the activities of humans and this is based on the availability of artifacts in large concentrations in a particular place. Excavating archaeological sites causes destruction to land because it involves the systematic extraction of soil and artifacts. The sites have some resemblance to research laboratories in which the collection, recording and analysis of data is done. In their search for past human behavior, archaeologists must excavate and map information found in the soil layers. The artifacts discovered in the various soil layers make it easy for archaeologists to find patterns in human behavior. They then base their studies on the changes in the behavior of humans over time as they observe from the artifacts. The combined analysis of activities available in the soil including the artifacts obtained is maintained in the archaeological records (Ouzman1998, pp. 12). Archaeology emphasizes on the study of the past human cultures. Archaeological studies have a bigger potential of revealing human behavior than history. Archeological studies have two major advantages. It stretches into the past and brings out information that is scarcely known to today’s generations. In addition, archaeological studies are based on tangible things meaning, it is more credible than any other human science. This implies that the efforts of archaeology can help explain current issues with good identity. The potential in archaeological studies of art is therefore immense. Anthropologists study both the present and past human societies and they seek to find the meaning of the existence of these societies. They therefore do this through source interpretation and especially the discoveries of archaeologists. Anthropologists restrict themselves to the immediate and recent history of cultures. According to Ucko & Rosenfeld (1967, pp. 69) archaeological studies have an edge over anthropology because archaeologists study long time changes and make conclusions about the changes and disappearance of certain cultures and groups over time. Archaeology has a very important role. It’s importance is in the way it reveals cultural ways and works of art that are useful in identifying the wrong historical understandings. Archaeological studies of art help to create points of diversity and unity in different civilizations and cultures. It helps in discovering other people’s behaviors as well as ours. When an archaeological site or artifact is lost, a lot of information about human behavior and culture gets lost. Archaeological studies must be treated as an important discipline that makes it possible for people to understand the information buried in the past and the stories that have been misunderstood. Wobst (1977, p. 320) observes that archaeology provides a rare understanding of the culture and history of man that aids our understanding of the past. Through archaeology people get to understand when and where communities lived and the reasons why they lived. Archaeology examines the changes and the origins of change that take place in various cultures. They seek patterns and elaborations of the patterns to explain the time and reason for human habitation on earth. It also investigates how complex and agricultural societies originated. Contrary to history which depends on written records to explain people’s behavior and events, archaeology makes it easy for people to study what happened before the existence of written languages and to understand the lives of people by analyzing their works of art that have been recovered. Archaeology covers every time period and geographic region that human beings occupy (Wobst 1977, pp. 170). Through archaeology people get to understand complex topics such as the ancient civilization of Egypt, the discovery of agriculture in Mesopotamia, life in the colonial times in Jamestown Virginia, slavery in north America and the Mediterranean trade route routes used in the early periods. Through archaeological studies, people get information about the lives of people, communities as well as families that could have remained invisible (Whitley 2001, pp. 78). The potential of Archaeological studies Archaeological studies have been found to have a lot of potential for studying past societies and their ways of life (Ucko 1977, pp. 67). This potential surpasses that of that disciplines such as history and anthropology. The potential of archaeological studies in studying artworks effectively is found in the sophisticated methods used in finding, analyzing and documenting artifacts and many other artworks used by people in the past. Archaeologists have specialized tools and methods used to separate very tiny materials buried in soils form the surrounding soil particles. They make use of fine mesh screens to find things such as, beads, cereal grains and many other plant remains. To recover very tiny materials that cannot be recovered through these screens, flotation is used. This is a method in which materials are mixed with water so that the very light particles and objects can float (Ouzman 1995, pp. 89). Archaeological studies also have great potential because archaeologists study the cultural behavior of past cultures, since the human species started, up to the most recent happenings. They carry out this study using the artefacts and remains of materials that people leave behind. Archaeologists do excavations, apply scientific techniques and analysis on their discoveries and through this they are able to reconstruct the ways of life of past societies and get to know about the evolution and development of different customs (Ouzman 1998, pp. 218). Archaeology is wholly dedicated to the study of the cultures of individuals even those that existed in the past alone. Archaeology appears as part of history but when it comes to explaining human behavior, it’s level of reliability is higher than that of history because history relies on written documents while archaeology depends of material evidence. Although written descriptions about historical issues are good, one description or even many of them that come from a common point of view it is not possible to have a clear understanding of past cultures. Authors may lie or give information in a way that sounds convenient to them (Brandt & Carder 1987, pp. 226) Archaeology being a humanistic discipline it also qualifies to be a science because it makes use of scientific techniques. Archeologists are reliable in their findings because they study the available evidence and from it they formulate credible ideas or hypothesize on it. They then test their hypotheses by revisiting their evidence or looking for evidence to prove it. After this, they do some good inference through which they can explain the details of their evidence and the general theme on which the study was initiated. The inference is an important stage because it shows how authentic the findings of archaeologists can be. Archaeology today has more sophisticated purposes than before. Archaeologists focus on the behavior of people who made the artefacts being discovered. They invest their energy in studying material objects and what they can learn from these materials about past civilizations. However, archaeological studies have a notch higher because studies are now being done on the understanding of the society that used or made the material evidence (Banks & Morphy 1997, pp. 340). Through archaeological studies, it is possible to achieve higher level understanding of human behavior because currently there is strong cooperation between archaeologists and experts from other disciplines. Until the latter half of the20th century, most of the archaeologists did their work in isolation without the input of experts in other fields. This has since changed and today, many archaeologists work with people trained in excavation and scientists from different disciplines who have specialized in the study of the environments of the past. For example, between 1950 and 1970 an international group of scientists dug out a number of caches containing animal bones in Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. These were areas where ancient humans killed animals and ate their body parts. The researchers examined several stone tools and fragments recovered from the caches together with animal bones. They did a microscopic analysis on the broken bones and found that some of them were snatched from predator kills. They were then broken by hominids with tools made of stone before hyenas came to scavenge on them (Clegg 1987, pp. 90). Statistical sampling is also applicable to archaeological studies and this makes archaeological studies more credible. Archaeologists also have a method of using clay potsherds to create chronological sequences of for cultures that existed during the Neolithic period and other later periods. Potsherds can be found in huge numbers in many sites and so researchers only pick few samples from each excavation. A smaller amount of artifacts such as potsherds can be used with statistical sampling methods to create accurate estimations of the total amount of each type of artifact. Archaeological researchers use these statistical estimates to understand the sequences of cultural change in the past as follows. Artifacts that have known dates for example, pottery and coins that were in use at a well known time period give archaeologists a comparison which makes it possible for them to date other cultures and sites that lack any writing. For instance, as Sir Arthur Evans was excavating Knossos in the early years of the 1900s, he also analyzed pottery objects discovered in Egypt that had been made by the inhabitants of Minoan in Crete during the Bronze Age. Based on the dates of the excavation sites in Egypt where the objects were discovered, Evans concluded that the Minoan civilization existed in Crete between 200 and 1250 BC (Gamble 1991, pp. 176). To enhance the accuracy of results, archaeological studies for artworks made by ancient cultures can also be done with the use of radiocarbon dating. This technique was introduced by Willard Libby and other Americans in his team in 1949. Since then, it has often been used in archaeology. Since the nucleus of Carbon 14 decays at a rate that is recognizable, scientists are able to discover the life of organic substances including plant matter, bones and shells just be measuring the remaining amount of Carbon 14. Radiocarbon dates have the potential of dating sites that are even 50,000 years old. Archaeological studies have been greatly revolutionized through this method in the last 50 years. For example, testing materials from settlements in Jericho in present day Jordan by radiocarbon means revealed that these settlements existed in 700 BC which means that they are 3500 years older than the age they were believed to be (Morwood & Hobbs 1992, pp. 172). In the last few years, anew way of doing radiocarbon dating has come into use. In this method, scientists are using a device known as the accelerator mass spectrometer. Using this equipment, scientists count C-14 atoms instead of counting integration rates. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) has the ability to date something as small as a kernel of grain or a tiny piece of wood hidden in the socket of a bronze axe. It is possible to date objects that are as old as 90, 000 years. Because AMS dates may be obtained from tiny isolated objects, the accuracy of the resulting chronologies can be higher than that of dates obtained from standard radiocarbon dating. For instance, Bruce Smith, an archaeologist from America used AMS method to determine the age of maize cobs obtained from caves in the Tehuacan Valley. Based on his results, the domesticated maize was planted there before 2500 BC, and this was much later compared to the dates suggested by radiocarbon dates. Smith, Lewis-Williams, Blundell & Chippindale (2000) show that Archaeologists also use uranium series dating to date artifacts. This technique measures uranium isotope decay in rocks composed of calcium carbonate. This method is used for dating bones and tools discovered hidden in these rocks. For example, Archaeologists John Yellen and Allison Brooks used uranium series dating to calculate the age of fish spears made of animal bone and used by early Africans. These spears originated from Katanda in the Democratic Republic of Congo are believed to have been made 20,000 years ago. The study of art objects can also be done through thermo-luminescence which is a technique for measuring the emission of electrons from materials that were once heated, for example pottery, or even rocks that had an exposure to volcanic or solar heat. However, thermo-luminescence has so far not yielded reliable results and archaeologists are in the process of refining the technique. After documenting, mapping and dating a site, archaeologists integrate all the acquired data into a comprehensible picture. Archaeologists borrow from what is known about the archaeological record to make their interpretations. The interpretations they make are then added to the existing knowledge (Morwood & Smith 1994, pp. 81). Classification has been used by archaeologists for a long time in their study of artifacts and past cultures. This is a technique that also highly increases the precision of their research. Researchers use classification as a way of distinguishing between various artifacts and certain material objects. Archaeologists make use of different systems of classification of artifacts to sort data into orderly units. Classification by archaeologists is used to describe types of artifacts such as various types of pottery, and the relationship between various objects of the same type for example clay vessels. Archaeologists refer to this system as typology since it is a classification of artifacts and grouping of items in a hierarchical manner. When doing a study on thousands of tools made of stone, researchers try to identify patterns such as composition of materials, color and shape. These patterns are then used as variables for defining each object category. For example the container category may have round-based pitchers that have curved handles and shallow bowls. After ordering the artifacts into particular types, archaeologists do a determination of the sequence with which the various types of artifacts existed. The sequences are determined through a process called seriation. Archaeologists understand that artifact type sequences or seriations show the changes that took place in various types of artifacts over a long time period Lewis-Williams, (1985, pp. 178). Archaeological studies have a big potential for studying cultures and human behavior. The volume of artifacts studied is normally big because archaeologists analyze sequences of artifact types from many different sites found on huge land areas. Comparing many different types of sequences can be an indicator of how various types of artifacts were spreading from a group of people to the next in ancient times. For example, in a 1000 year period starting 1500 BC, a type of pottery decorated with shell ornaments that archaeologists called Lapita ceramics spread very quickly from island to island in the Southwestern Pacific. The evolution of the pottery and other items from island to island in a continuous manner shows that the inhabitants used canoes to trade in things such as volcanic glass. Archaeologists are relying on techniques that can help them to discover the source of materials of trade in the past. For example, Cemal Pulak and George Bass did analyses on copper ingots obtained from the Uluburun shipwreck that happened off the coast of Southern Turkey. They found out that the copper originated from Cyprus mines. Several such types of analyses have showed that trade held an important place in ancient societies especially after the onset of the early civilizations in Mesopotamia and Egypt after 3000 BC (Jameson Jr, ‎Ehrenhard & Finn 2003, pp. 189). Up to the 1950s, archaeologists were interested in studying artifacts and ancient cultural sequences. The use of computers, carbon dating and other scientific techniques of high technology resulted in a huge theoretical revolution during the 1960s. This new view of archaeology put a significant emphasis on the reconstruction of the environment, the study of past cultures and the utilization of sophisticated tools for analysis. Moreover, researchers involved in this new archaeological form emphasized on the significance of explaining the development and change that took place in past cultures. Because their primary interest was in cultural processes, the archaeologists started identifying themselves with the name ‘processual’ or process oriented and their work took the name processual archaeology (Loendorf, ‎Christopher Chippindale & Whitley 2005). Processual archaeologists view different cultures as systems that are interacting with the ecosystems around them. For instance, Barry Kemp, a British archaeologist from a processual dimension explained how ancient chiefdoms in Egypt turned into a unified state. He explained that some interacting developments resulted into a unified state on the Nile Valley and he suggested that the state existed in 3000BC. After analyzing ceramics, trade routes and religious art from Egypt, he concluded that certain factors among them population growth, growth of new religious beliefs and increased trade led to this change. There are many archaeologists who are in support of the processual approach for doing research and interpretation. However, the critics of this approach claim that the approach focuses too much on scientific methods and that it is too personal. Many archaeologists have started using their research to narrate stories about ancient peoples and their interactions in small of big groups. These new dimensions of archaeology are known as post-processual archaeology. The name combines many research types but it is based on the thoughts and actions of the people in the past day after day. Archaeologists of the post-processual approach are after reconstructing the value systems and beliefs of past people. Their view is that archaeology has wrongly made societies to look homogenous (Layton 1992, pp. 235). Archaeological studies also involve the study of gender roles and other aspects of ancient societal life and this takes many approaches. It comprises of processual perspectives, new archaeological record observations and comparative observations taken from living societies. There are many studies whose focus has been placed on how men and women used to relate and on the development and change of gender roles in ancient times. A classic example of how archaeology can be used to get information on gender can be obtained from the agricultural villages of Syria in 8000 BC (Morphy 1989, pp. 167). Archaeologists have discovered that women in the Syrian villages were used to grinding grain because the bones in the knees on their skeletons have evidence of scars that resulted from stress caused by pushing and kneeling while grinding on stones. More research into gender roles in the past is done by analyzing artifacts in a detailed manner. For example, there is a difference in style between Classic Maya figurines of men and women. The Maya figurines of women are less ornate than that of men. This shows that women in Maya societies had a lower status to that of men. The plain style of the female figurines remained for some time showing that women held particular gender roles (Clegg 1987, pp. 78). Archaeological studies have higher changes of unearthing information about past cultures because excavations are also done in urban areas. There is no particular area that cannot be reached by archaeologists. Urban archaeologists dig deep under major cities such as New York, Paris and London where they uncover cities that existed in the past and today they lie under city streets and tall buildings. Through these excavations, archaeologists get to understand a lot about life in urban areas which can also be used for planning of cities. For instance, urban archaeologists have collected information about how social classes began and the discovery of infrastructure as seen in the modern world. William Rathje, an archaeologist from America did excavations on modern garbage dumps in municipal areas in Arizona and Tucson among other cities in America (Layton 1991, pp. 79). He did an analysis on trash believed to come from people’s homes to understand much about their incomes, age, class and health status. Through his work, it is easier to understand the patterns of consumption and waste production in the society today. Through it, archaeologists have made comparisons for getting new understanding on historical archaeological records (Whitley, 2001). Conclusion In conclusion, this essay discusses the potential that archaeological studies of art has for studying human behavior and culture. Archaeological studies has a bigger potential of revealing much about human behavior than other disciplines such as anthropology and history. As other disciplines rely on written records, archaeological studies relies on tangible materials that serve as evidence of archaeological findings. The potential of archaeological studies in studying artworks effectively is found in the sophisticated methods used in finding, analyzing and documenting artifacts and many other artworks used by people in the past. Archaeology makes use of scientific techniques. Archeologists are reliable in their findings because they study the available evidence and from it they formulate credible ideas or hypothesize on it. Through archaeological studies, it is possible to achieve higher level understanding of human behavior because currently there is strong cooperation between archaeologists and experts from other disciplines. Statistical sampling is also applicable to archaeological studies and this makes archaeological studies more credible. To enhance the accuracy of results, archaeological studies for artworks made by ancient cultures can also be done with the use of radiocarbon dating. Archaeologists also use uranium series dating to date artifacts. This technique measures uranium isotope decay in rocks composed of calcium carbonate. Archaeology is wholly dedicated to the study of the cultures of individuals even those that existed in the past alone. The study of art objects can also be done through thermo-luminescence which is a technique for measuring the emission of electrons from materials that were once heated, for example pottery, or even rocks that had an exposure to volcanic or solar heat. Archaeological studies also involve the study of gender roles and other aspects of ancient societal life and this takes many approaches. It comprises of processual perspectives, new archaeological record observations and comparative observations taken from living societies. Archaeological studies have higher changes of unearthing information about past cultures because excavations are also done in urban areas. There is no particular area that cannot be reached by archaeologists. Bibliography Bahn, P.G. 1998. Prehistoric Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Banks, M. and H. Morphy (eds) 1997. Rethinking Visual Anthropology. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Brandt, S.A. and N. Carder 1987. Pastoral rock art in the Horn of Africa: making sense of udder chaos. World Archaeology 19:194-213. Clegg, J. 1987. Style and tradition at Sturts Meadow. World Archaeology 19:236-55. Conkey, M. and C. Hastorf (eds) 1990. The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Gamble, C. 1991. The social context for European Palaeolithic art. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57:3-15 Ingold T. (2013). Making Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. Routledge. John H. Jameson Jr, ‎John E. Ehrenhard, ‎Christine A. Finn (2003). Ancient Muses: Archaeology and the Arts. University of Alabama Press. Lawrence L. Loendorf, ‎Christopher Chippindale, ‎David S. Whitley (2005). Discovering North American Rock Art. Routledge. Layton, R. 1991. The Anthropology of Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Layton, R. 1992. Australian Rock Art: A New Synthesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis-Williams, J.D. 1985. The San artistic achievement. African Arts XVIII(3):55-59. Lorblanchet, M. 1992. Rock Art of the Old World. New Delhi: Indira Ghandi National Centre for the Arts. Newland Press. Morphy, H. (editor) 1989. Animals into Art. London: Unwin Hyman. Morwood, M. and C.E. Smith 1994. Rock art research in Australia 1974-94. Australian Archaeology 39:19-38 Morwood, M. and D. Hobbs (eds) 1992. The Ethnography of Rock Art. Occasional AURA Publication No. 5. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association. Morwood, M.J. 1975. Analogy and the acceptance of theory in archaeology. American Antiquity40 (1): 111-116. Ouzman, S. 1995. Spiritual and political uses of a rock engraving site and its imagery by San and Tswana speakers. South African Archaeological Bulletin 50:55-67. Ouzman, S. 1998. Towards a mindscape of landscape: rock-art as an expression of world understaning. In C. Chippindale and P. Taçon’s The Archaeology of Rock-Art, pp. 30-41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paddaya K. (2004). Recent Studies in Indian Archaeology. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Limited. Smith, B. J.D. Lewis-Williams, G. Blundell and C. Chippindale 2000. Archaeology and symbolism in the new South African coat of arms. Antiquity 74(284):467-8. Ucko, P. (ed.) 1977. Form in Indigenous Art. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Ucko, P. and A. Rosenfeld 1967. Palaeolithic Cave Art. London: World University Library. Whitley, D.S (2001). Handbook of Rock Art Research. Rowman & Littlefield. Wobst, H.M. 1974. Boundary conditions for Palaeolithic social systems: a simulation approach. American Antiquity 39(2): 147-78. Wobst, H.M. 1977. Stylistic behaviour and information exchange. In C.E. Cleland (ed.) Papers for the Director: research essays in honour of James B. Griffin, pp. 317-42. Michigan: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Read More

Modern media must edit stories and change what actually happens. Although what is written can prove to be very useful, it may not be free of bias because of the faults and beliefs of the producers of these writings. The purpose of this essay is to discuss the potential of archaeological studies of art in explaining human behaviors. Value of archaeological Studies Archaeological studies on a frequent basis, gives us a more reliable record of the past human behavior than the historical accounts alone.

The past is valuable because it is a people’s cultural heritage. Through archaeological studies, people seek to understand how this information is utilized for prosperity. Getting to understand how human behavior has been changing increases our understanding of the past. It helps to plan for the future and for future generations as well. Some studies show that public archaeology is significant to the comprehension, protection and celebration of the wealth and diversity of our cultural heritage.

Archaeologists have discovered the significant of this role and are therefore in the process of developing different mechanisms for reaching out through the media, public programs, the internet and publications to make archaeological contributions public (Morwood 1975, pp. 115). Archaeological sites provide proof of the activities of humans and this is based on the availability of artifacts in large concentrations in a particular place. Excavating archaeological sites causes destruction to land because it involves the systematic extraction of soil and artifacts.

The sites have some resemblance to research laboratories in which the collection, recording and analysis of data is done. In their search for past human behavior, archaeologists must excavate and map information found in the soil layers. The artifacts discovered in the various soil layers make it easy for archaeologists to find patterns in human behavior. They then base their studies on the changes in the behavior of humans over time as they observe from the artifacts. The combined analysis of activities available in the soil including the artifacts obtained is maintained in the archaeological records (Ouzman1998, pp. 12). Archaeology emphasizes on the study of the past human cultures.

Archaeological studies have a bigger potential of revealing human behavior than history. Archeological studies have two major advantages. It stretches into the past and brings out information that is scarcely known to today’s generations. In addition, archaeological studies are based on tangible things meaning, it is more credible than any other human science. This implies that the efforts of archaeology can help explain current issues with good identity. The potential in archaeological studies of art is therefore immense.

Anthropologists study both the present and past human societies and they seek to find the meaning of the existence of these societies. They therefore do this through source interpretation and especially the discoveries of archaeologists. Anthropologists restrict themselves to the immediate and recent history of cultures. According to Ucko & Rosenfeld (1967, pp. 69) archaeological studies have an edge over anthropology because archaeologists study long time changes and make conclusions about the changes and disappearance of certain cultures and groups over time.

Archaeology has a very important role. It’s importance is in the way it reveals cultural ways and works of art that are useful in identifying the wrong historical understandings. Archaeological studies of art help to create points of diversity and unity in different civilizations and cultures. It helps in discovering other people’s behaviors as well as ours. When an archaeological site or artifact is lost, a lot of information about human behavior and culture gets lost. Archaeological studies must be treated as an important discipline that makes it possible for people to understand the information buried in the past and the stories that have been misunderstood.

Read More