Why is it difficult for historians to study early civilization

To study history artifacts are needed and often they are lost to history because they have been buried and not found, are under water, are broken or ruined in some way, the site has been raided by thieves and items taken, war often interrupts digs or the archeological sites are destroyed by armies and information is lost. These are just a few things that makes it hard to study early humans and things are found all the time that historians learn from.

Historians need good sources (preferably, written sources) on which to base their studies. If early societies did not leave any written information , historians have to go by other indications like the remnants of villages and temples and perhaps some drawings or carvings. Sometimes these give an indication how societies were (or might have been) organized, but without written confirmation you can never be completely sure. so is that help full or not

abraham lincoln, according to anyone who was connected with agriculture, represented the worst of northern politicians. shortly after lincoln was elected, south carolina seceded from the union. they along with other southern states, retained their anger. in a way, it was their own fault: the democrats were split in the south. some wanted slavery to be extended in other states that were about to join the union and some didn't want it badly enough. lincoln had a solid backing from his party: the republicans were united in not wanting slavery to be expanded.

cur

explanation:

cancer