Jan 21

Guide – Empathic Archaeology: The Straw Man

A comic illustration representing the laying out of a 'straw man' in an archaeologist's mind.

Empathic Archaeology: Building and Breaking Straw Men for Deeper Understanding

“It’s like trying to psychoanalyse an imaginary alien in your mind, and hoping some of those wild ideas make sense out in the field”— A quote which beautifully encapsulates the challenge and creativity at the heart of empathic archaeology. It highlights the active imagination required to understand ancient peoples who may seem entirely foreign to us, and the constant process of refining or discarding our interpretations in response to new evidence.

At first glance, the idea of psychoanalyzing an “imaginary alien” might sound outlandish, but it perfectly mirrors the approach many archaeologists must take when trying to understand ancient cultures. These cultures are far removed from our own in time, and often in social structure, belief systems, and material culture. To bridge the gap between the modern researcher and these ancient peoples, we must use a form of active imagination, thinking creatively about how they might have thought, felt, and acted.

The Active Imagination in Archaeology: Building the “Straw Man”

The idea of building a “straw man” is a useful metaphor here. In the context of empathic archaeology, a “straw man” represents a provisional, imaginative model of the ancient people you are trying to understand. This model is, at its core, speculative and may be completely wrong—but it serves as a starting point for exploration. Just as a straw man is deliberately constructed to resemble an argument or concept that can later be tested and torn down, the empathic archaeologist creates a mental construct of the people or society they are studying, based on available evidence.

For example, when studying an ancient civilization, archaeologists might imagine their social structures, motivations, and worldview in the following way: “What might a member of this society have believed about life after death?” or “How might they have viewed their relationship with the natural world?” These speculative ideas, though speculative, are built upon data from artifacts, rituals, and ethnographic analogies. The archaeologist then tests these ideas against what they observe in the field.

This process of constructing an imaginative model—the “straw man”—is crucial for empathic archaeology. It’s a method of entering into the world of the ancient peoples, putting yourself in their shoes, and allowing the evidence to challenge and refine your understanding of their experiences.

The Value of the Straw Man: A Flexible Tool for Exploration

The key to this process is flexibility. Just as a straw man can be knocked down and rebuilt, so too can our understanding of the past be constantly revised as new evidence is uncovered. By using imagination to create a hypothetical model, archaeologists are giving themselves a conceptual framework through which to view the evidence. However, they must be open to the fact that this framework may collapse entirely once they test it against new data.

This is why empathic archaeology requires both creativity and intellectual humility. The creation of a straw man allows archaeologists to actively engage with the unknown, but the subsequent collapse of the model—when new evidence suggests a different interpretation—is equally important. Each time a model breaks down, a breakthrough is achieved, leading to a deeper understanding of the people being studied.

For example, early archaeologists studying ancient burial sites might have imagined that elaborate burial goods indicated an aristocratic social structure. However, as more evidence was uncovered, such as the presence of similar goods in the graves of people from different social classes, the original straw man (the idea of a strictly hierarchical society) would need to be adjusted. Perhaps the original idea of burial goods as status symbols was not entirely correct, and instead, the goods had symbolic or ritual significance, challenging and enriching the model.

The Importance of “Testing” the Straw Man in the Field

The fieldwork phase is where the true test of this imaginative process occurs. Just as a psychoanalyst might evaluate the validity of their theories by observing the patient, an archaeologist tests their models by examining the real, physical evidence. The “alien” analogy helps highlight the complexity here. When you’re attempting to understand a culture so distant from your own, you’re, in a sense, studying a kind of “alien.” The ideas that come to mind may seem bizarre or far-fetched—much like those alien ideas—but they are grounded in the best available evidence at the time.

A hypothetical example could be the interpretation of ritual practices: archaeologists might create a model that suggests certain artifacts were used in sacred rituals, with the “alien” assumption being that these people were deeply spiritual. They might build this model based on certain types of pottery or ceremonial objects found in specific locations, and begin imagining how these artifacts might have been used in a ritual. But when they test this hypothesis, it could be refuted by new evidence, perhaps showing that the artifacts were used for practical purposes and had nothing to do with ritual. The collapse of this model then provides crucial insight—it’s not just a failure, but an opportunity to revaluate and build something more refined.

Imagination as a Tool for Empathy, Not Fantasy

It’s crucial to note that this imaginative process is not about making up wild, unfounded ideas or letting fantasy take over. The “alien” metaphor is not an invitation to indulge in pure speculation. Rather, it is a method of creative thinking that works within the boundaries of evidence. Empathy requires imagination, but that imagination is grounded in the data and informed by research. This is where critical thinking comes in: the need to remain vigilant about the limits of our models and to test them rigorously against new findings.

It is also essential to recognize the difference between empathy-based imagination and wishful thinking. Empathy in archaeology is about understanding a worldview from the inside out—not projecting our own desires or preferences onto ancient peoples. An archaeologist’s imagination is not a blank canvas but a tool for integrating diverse strands of evidence, historical context, and comparative analysis.

Why the Collapse of the Model is Crucial

The beauty of this process lies in the constant recalibration. Every time a hypothesis (or straw man) collapses, it refines the understanding and brings us closer to a more accurate representation of the ancient world. The collapse of a model isn’t a failure; it’s an essential part of the scientific method. Each failure exposes new questions, directs attention to overlooked data, and leads to new perspectives. This iterative process of creation and destruction is fundamental to developing a deeper understanding of the past.

For example, in the study of prehistoric art, an initial theory might be that cave paintings were created for ritualistic purposes. As new evidence from similar sites emerges, or as more precise analyses of the paintings are made (perhaps revealing that some caves were only used as temporary shelters or have no other signs of ritual activity), the hypothesis begins to break down. This forces researchers to think in new ways about the significance of the art, perhaps considering it as a means of communication or storytelling rather than a purely ritualistic practice.

Conclusion: Empathic Archaeology as a Dynamic Process

Empathic archaeology is not a static process; it’s dynamic and constantly evolving. It requires the active imagination of researchers to build tentative models or straw men, but it also requires an openness to having those models tested, challenged, and even shattered. Every collapse of the model is an opportunity for a deeper breakthrough—a step closer to understanding the humanity of those who lived long ago.

By embracing this approach, archaeologists can continually refine their understanding of the past, driven by creativity, intellectual humility, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. It’s an iterative, imaginative, and rigorous process that bridges the gap between the present and the ancient world—one breakthrough at a time.

Jan 21

Guide – Empathic Archaeology Introduction

An archaeologist’s mind’s eye, representing the chaos of creation.

Empathic Archaeology: The Art of Understanding Ancient Cultures Through Their Eyes

Empathic archaeology is the practice of immersing oneself in the worldview of the people being studied, allowing archaeologists and researchers to interpret artifacts, structures, and landscapes through the lens of the individuals who created or used them. This approach goes beyond the cold analysis of material culture—it strives to understand the emotions, motivations, and lived experiences of ancient peoples. While it is relatively straightforward to empathize with individuals from the more recent past, applying this empathy to distant cultures or ancient civilizations can be much more challenging.

The question then becomes: How do we, as modern researchers, create a mindset that allows us to genuinely “step into the shoes” of people from vastly different times and cultures, often with very little direct evidence of their emotions, thoughts, and daily lives?

Cultivating Open-Mindedness and Patience

Empathic archaeology requires a deep openness to new ideas and experiences—something that is cultivated through curiosity and intellectual humility. It begins with accepting that we, as modern individuals, are not fully capable of understanding the ancient mind in its entirety. No matter how much evidence we uncover, we will never fully experience the world as ancient people did. The first step in empathizing is acknowledging our limitations and working within them.

As archaeologists, it is essential to approach ancient cultures with the mindset of an explorer, willing to sit with ambiguity and discomfort. We must allow ourselves the space to wonder about how ancient people might have thought, felt, and interacted with the world. This approach requires patience—patience with the material, with the archaeological process, and with the people we seek to understand. Empathy isn’t instantaneous; it’s built over time through careful observation and a willingness to challenge our assumptions.

For example, when excavating a site, instead of simply recording what was found and cataloguing it, an empathic archaeologist might pause to consider: Why did they place these objects here? What significance might they have attached to these items? How did they feel about them? This mindset can lead to richer interpretations, even if these interpretations remain speculative.

2. Immersion in the Context

One of the most important aspects of empathic archaeology is context—understanding the people and their environment within their specific historical, social, and geographical context. To empathize with ancient peoples, we need to think about their lives in a multi-dimensional way, considering factors like climate, politics, religious beliefs, and cultural norms that shaped their experiences.

For example, when studying a burial site, an empathic archaeologist wouldn’t just catalogue the grave goods and their symbolic meanings. They would also consider the cultural practices surrounding death: How did these people grieve? What was their relationship with the concept of the afterlife? Were the objects in the grave meant to ease the deceased’s journey, or were they symbols of the deceased’s status during their life?

To build this contextual understanding, it’s crucial to use all available sources of evidence. This could mean studying local mythology, ancient texts, and ethnographic parallels from cultures with similar practices. It also requires being attuned to the physical landscape, as the environment in which people lived played a significant role in shaping their beliefs, practices, and even emotions. By immersing oneself in the totality of the environment and lifestyle, empathy can be fostered for people who lived thousands of years ago.

3. Utilizing Comparative Methods and Ethnographic Analogy

When direct evidence is scarce, archaeologists often use ethnographic analogy—comparing past cultures with more recent or contemporary ones to infer behaviours, customs, and worldviews. Though this method has its limitations, it can help us build a model of how ancient peoples might have lived.

For example, modern indigenous cultures that have had minimal exposure to Western technology or social structures may provide insight into how ancient societies with similar technological and social conditions might have thought and acted. By studying the ways in which contemporary communities interact with their environment, engage in rituals, or form social hierarchies, archaeologists can begin to imagine the lived experience of people in the distant past.

However, it’s important to be careful with this approach. The risk of over-analogizing is always present. Cultures are dynamic, and just because a certain behaviour or belief exists in one contemporary society doesn’t necessarily mean it existed in the same way in an ancient one. It’s important to continually question and refine these analogies, always being aware of the cultural distance that exists between the present and the past.

4. Acknowledging Cultural Relativism

Empathy in archaeology is also closely tied to the concept of cultural relativism—the idea that we should strive to understand cultures on their own terms, rather than imposing modern values or standards onto them. In other words, we should refrain from judging ancient people based on our current moral or cultural frameworks.

An empathic archaeologist would ask, What values, beliefs, and social structures did these people hold dear? This approach can be especially challenging when studying cultures that engaged in practices that are controversial or seemingly foreign to us, such as human sacrifice or slavery. Understanding these practices within the context of the ancient worldview is essential to avoiding anachronistic judgments that may hinder empathy. For instance, a culture that practiced ritual sacrifice may have seen this act as a necessary way to maintain cosmic order, a belief system that differs greatly from modern concepts of morality and ethics.

By acknowledging cultural relativism, archaeologists can better avoid projecting modern biases onto the past. Instead of saying, “This was wrong,” an empathic archaeologist might say, “This was part of a different worldview, shaped by the specific historical and environmental challenges of their time.”

5. Building Emotional Connections Through Material Culture

Archaeology, by its very nature, involves working with material culture—artifacts, structures, and landscapes that people have left behind. These physical remnants offer a window into the past, but they also have the potential to elicit an emotional response. Artifacts, when considered as more than just objects, can become symbols of human lives, hopes, and struggles.

For example, when studying a tool or an ornament, an archaeologist might try to imagine the person who made it: What were they thinking when they crafted this object? What need did it fulfil? Did they hold a special significance for the person, or was it a commonplace item? This type of emotional engagement with material culture allows archaeologists to form a deeper connection with the past.

6. Applying Imagination and Storytelling

Finally, empathic archaeology involves a certain amount of creative thinking—using the imagination to weave together the evidence and create a narrative. This doesn’t mean fabricating stories, but rather allowing the evidence to inspire plausible reconstructions of past lives. The process of storytelling allows us to bridge the gap between the hard data and the human experiences that may have been involved.

For example, an archaeologist studying a residential site might imagine a day in the life of the people who lived there: What did their morning routine look like? How did they interact with the landscape? What kinds of rituals or social activities might they have participated in? By asking these questions and crafting plausible scenarios, archaeologists can deepen their understanding of the human experiences behind the material culture.

Conclusion: The Mindset of an Empathic Archaeologist

Creating a mindset that allows for empathic archaeology requires curiosity, patience, and an openness to imagining the lives of people who lived in worlds vastly different from our own. It involves combining critical analysis with emotional engagement and striving to understand ancient people on their own terms. The process is not always easy—especially when dealing with distant or unfamiliar cultures—but by using a combination of context, comparison, and cultural sensitivity, empathic archaeology allows us to form richer, more human-centred interpretations of the past. This approach can lead to more nuanced and meaningful discoveries and help ensure that the stories of ancient people are told with empathy, understanding, and respect.

Empathic Archaeology Links

  1. Empathic Archaeology: Understanding the Past through Empathy
    Link
  2. The Role of Empathy in Archaeological Interpretation
    Link
  3. Empathy in Archaeology: Bridging the Gap Between Past and Present
    Link
  4. Archaeology and the Emotion: The Influence of Empathy in Ancient Studies
    Link
  5. Reimagining the Past: Empathy and the Archaeological Process
    Link

Jan 21

Guide – Critical Thinking: Lack of Evidence Does Not Mean Evidence of Lack

A car broken down on the side of the road.

“Lack of Evidence Does Not Mean Evidence of Lack”: Critical Thinking and the Dangers of Assumed Knowledge

In archaeology, the phrase “lack of evidence does not mean evidence of lack” is an important reminder that the absence of proof does not necessarily prove something does not exist or did not happen. In fact, this statement touches on a subtle but pervasive issue in the field of research: the tendency for researchers—whether archaeologists, historians, or even students—to fill in gaps with assumptions. These assumptions often arise from biases, preconceived notions, or the overwhelming need to find patterns and explanations that make sense with the evidence we do have. However, this can lead to gaps in knowledge that become overlooked, misinterpreted, or even “brainwashed” into being accepted as truth.

The Brainwashing of Assumptions and Pattern Recognition

One of the key issues in critical thinking is recognizing that human brains are wired to seek patterns. It’s a survival mechanism: we look for connections between events or objects in order to predict outcomes. In archaeology, this can be a double-edged sword. While pattern recognition is vital for understanding the past, it can also lead to errors.

Let’s say an archaeologist is excavating a site and finds a series of objects that appear to form a pattern—such as pottery shards that align with a particular period of time. Based on this, they might begin to assume that they are dealing with a continuous or settled site. However, if the excavator doesn’t pause to question that assumption, they may overlook the possibility that the pottery could have been deposited at different times, or the area could have served multiple purposes over time. The mere lack of evidence for long-term habitation in this case doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist; it might simply not have been found yet—or it could have been missed due to the narrow focus on certain types of evidence.

Critical thinking in this context requires the archaeologist to remind themselves: “What am I assuming, and why?” This means that we must always stay aware that our minds are conditioned to “fill in the blanks,” but doing so without acknowledging the gap can lead to flawed conclusions.

In a report, we would want to address these gaps openly: acknowledging what we know and, just as importantly, what we don’t know. For example, in the context of a field system, instead of assuming that the absence of a clear water source means it wasn’t a valid field system, a critical thinker would write something like, “While there is no immediate evidence of a water source within the field system, it is important to note that water sources could exist beyond the excavation area, or might have been integrated into a broader landscape system that has yet to be fully uncovered.”

Such an approach not only demonstrates transparency but also shows patience and humility in archaeological research. It provides a space for the “lack of evidence” to be questioned rather than dismissed too quickly. In turn, this gives future researchers the opportunity to come back to the site, explore new ideas, or take a fresh look at previously unconsidered data.

The Dangers of Overly Rigid Interpretation: Bias in the System

In academia, we can see these biases manifest in various forms, such as students who overly criticize their lecturers’ interpretations, or place too much emphasis on the interpretations of an outsider. In a university setting, this behaviour can be attributed to several factors, including the pressure of imposter syndrome or the feeling of needing to demonstrate superior knowledge. Students might feel compelled to point out flaws in established interpretations to prove their own competence or to differentiate themselves from the group.

While it’s important to critically evaluate the work of others, especially in archaeology, over-criticism can stifle the spirit of collaboration. Students might find themselves dismissing expert opinions too quickly, focusing on what they believe to be “mistakes” or inconsistencies, even if these are just natural complexities or areas where evidence is still inconclusive. This leads to unnecessary conflict and hinders productive learning and discovery.

Moreover, the sense of imposter syndrome—feeling like a fraud in a professional setting—often leads researchers to hide mistakes or avoid admitting to gaps in their knowledge. They may overlook errors in their own work or, in the case of historical omissions, fail to question when something is being left out of the record. The drive to “fit in” with the dominant scholarly narrative or avoid rocking the boat can lead to the perpetuation of gaps in knowledge. This is especially problematic when one field of research builds on the conclusions of another without critically re-examining the premises.

Consider the example of historical omissions: When early archaeologists or historians, operating under the assumptions of their time, ignored or omitted certain pieces of evidence because they didn’t align with the mainstream narrative—such as the role of women or lower-status individuals in ancient societies—it wasn’t necessarily a deliberate attempt to obscure the truth. Rather, it was due to the dominant narratives of the time, which themselves were influenced by cultural biases and a limited understanding of the past. This type of omission can have lasting effects on the academic field, as those gaps in knowledge remain unchallenged for generations.

A modern-day equivalent might be the dismissive attitude some scholars may have towards unconventional interpretations of archaeological sites—perhaps due to the assumption that new methods or technologies can’t uncover what older methods missed. But if researchers do not continually re-evaluate data and assumptions, these gaps can widen, leaving crucial insights out of the historical record.

A Real-Life Example: The Misunderstanding of Stonehenge’s Construction

One example of “lack of evidence” leading to flawed conclusions in archaeology is the initial misinterpretation of Stonehenge’s construction timeline. For many years, the dominant theory was that the stones were transported over long distances using primitive methods, but the “lack of evidence” for these methods meant that many archaeologists simply accepted that we would never know the exact process. However, new evidence and more critical thinking challenged this assumption. More recent excavations and geophysical surveys revealed that local quarries were used to source some of the stones, demonstrating that assumptions about the construction process were incomplete, not necessarily wrong.

The long-standing belief that the stones were moved by a single, mysterious method persisted largely because the evidence didn’t seem to fit alternative explanations. This reluctance to challenge a long-held theory led to many years of incomplete or misleading conclusions. In this case, archaeology benefited from being patient and revisiting prior assumptions.

The Call for Patience and Openness

For critical thinking to truly be effective in archaeology (and beyond), we must adopt the approach of considering the whole picture—acknowledging that our own thinking, our own patterns, may not always lead to the right answer. We must openly admit that some conclusions are not fully supported by evidence yet and that we may not have all the data we need. By taking the time to question our own assumptions, and the assumptions embedded in prior research, we open the door for a fuller understanding to emerge.

In summary, when discussing gaps in knowledge or the “lack of evidence,” critical thinkers must avoid filling those gaps too quickly with assumptions. Instead, they should embrace the unknown with humility and patience, recognizing that in archaeology—just as in life—answers are often not as simple as they appear at first glance. By doing so, we can avoid the brainwashing of conventional wisdom and make space for new, potentially revolutionary insights.

Jan 21

Guide – Using the best tools for research

A car broken down on the side of the road, with the driver holding a set of tools.

Using the best tools for research

For amateur researchers who don’t have access to extensive professional resources, there are still several methods and tools they can use to cross-check previous findings and apply a holistic approach. While they may never have access to every piece of data, they can still adopt strategies that lead to more accurate, well-rounded interpretations. Here are some practical approaches:

Use Open Access Academic Databases

Many research papers, articles, and datasets are available for free online. Some key resources include:

  • Google Scholar: A free search engine for academic papers. It allows users to find peer-reviewed articles, theses, and books. By looking at the references of key papers, amateur researchers can find related studies that may support or challenge the findings they are reviewing.
  • JSTOR (Free Access): JSTOR offers a free tier with access to some articles, especially older publications that might be useful for historical research.
  • DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals): A database of open-access scholarly journals that often include archaeological research.
  • Project MUSE: Another free access source for humanities and social sciences journals.
  • Archive.org: A digital library offering free access to millions of books, including historical texts and research papers.

By using these resources, amateur researchers can quickly cross-check prior findings and broaden their understanding by accessing a variety of viewpoints and research outcomes.

Use Crowdsourced Databases and Public Resources

There are many databases available online that provide free access to archaeological records, inscriptions, and materials:

  • The British Museum Collection Online: The British Museum offers a free online database with detailed descriptions and images of their collections, including items related to the Brigantes and other ancient cultures.
  • Digital Atlas of Roman and Medieval Civilizations: A map-based resource that helps users trace the history and geography of ancient and medieval civilizations, offering access to primary sources and archaeological sites.
  • Online Inscriptions Databases (e.g., Epigraphic Database): Some online databases specialize in inscriptions and provide free access to primary epigraphic data. For instance, the Epigraphic Database Heidelberg allows users to explore Roman inscriptions.
  • OpenStreetMap (OSM): A free mapping tool that can be used for historical landscape analysis by overlaying ancient roads, settlements, and geographical features. This can help situate archaeological finds in their broader landscape.

These resources provide a wealth of information that can help researchers cross-check findings and compare different sources.

Online Forums and Communities

  • Reddit: Subreddits like r/Archaeology, r/History, or r/AskHistorians can provide a platform for researchers to discuss their findings with experts and amateurs alike. These communities often have experienced individuals who are willing to offer insight or suggest alternative interpretations of data.
  • ResearchGate: A network where researchers from various fields share their work and discuss their findings. Many papers are available for free download, and you can directly ask questions from authors regarding their studies.
  • Academia.edu: Similar to ResearchGate, this platform allows researchers to share papers and collaborate with others. Many researchers upload their works for free access.

Cross-Referencing Inscriptions, Artifacts, and Iconography

One of the simplest ways to check previous findings is to look at iconography and artifacts related to the same period or culture. For example, if you’re studying an inscription like the one in Brigantia, you can cross-reference it with:

  • Images of similar statues or artifacts from the same period. Do they have consistent symbols or iconography? Is there a pattern of imperial representation that aligns with the inscription’s wording?
  • Other inscriptions: Cross-reference the wording with other inscriptions from the same region or similar contexts to see if there’s congruence in the language or titles used, like the IMP or AUG mentioned earlier.

This can be done by browsing online museum collections, as mentioned above, or by examining online repositories that document such items.

Applying the Holistic Approach in Practice

To apply a holistic approach when you don’t have all the data available:

  • Start with a wide search: Look at multiple sources for every piece of data you are examining, from different time periods and regions, not just those specifically related to your topic. This helps you avoid over-relying on a narrow set of conclusions.
  • Consider multiple perspectives: In archaeology, perspectives can differ based on cultural, regional, or temporal contexts. For example, an inscription that doesn’t mention a deity’s full name might still be important if its iconography indicates imperial power, as in the case of Brigantia.
  • Balance primary and secondary sources: While primary sources (like the inscriptions themselves) are crucial, don’t overlook secondary sources that provide analysis and context. However, always question the conclusions presented in secondary sources, especially if they don’t seem to fit with other data.
  • Ask the right questions: Constantly ask yourself, “Does this evidence fit with the broader context of the period or culture?” and “Am I ignoring any alternative explanations?”

Using Critical Thinking to Evaluate Sources

  • Check for Bias: Be aware of potential biases in both primary and secondary sources. Research conducted in different historical or cultural contexts may carry biases that influence interpretation. Always consider the author’s background, their research focus, and the political or cultural context of their work.
  • Consider the Source’s Publication Date: Research findings change over time. Earlier works might be outdated as new techniques, discoveries, or theories emerge. Always check if there are more recent publications or alternative viewpoints.

Tools for Visualizing and Organizing Data

Even without access to advanced tools, free software can help organize and analyse data:

  • Trello or Notion: These are project management tools that allow you to organize your findings and research in a way that’s easy to review and cross-check. You can create different boards for topics, and visually map out how evidence fits together.
  • Google Sheets or Excel: Simple but effective tools for creating databases, timelines, and cross-referencing data. Use these for creating comparative tables or keeping track of conflicting interpretations.
  • Gephi: A free tool for visualizing networks. This could be used to track relationships between different archaeological sites, people, or inscriptions.

In Conclusion

While amateur researchers may not have access to all professional tools, they can still employ these strategies to ensure a more holistic approach to archaeological research. By using freely available online resources, checking multiple data sources, and applying critical thinking, researchers can challenge prior assumptions and avoid relying on incomplete or biased conclusions. This approach allows them to build more nuanced, accurate interpretations, even with limited access to data.

Jan 21

Guide – Congruence in Archaeological Interpretation: Holistic Analysis

A car approaching a signpost with two arrows pointing in different directions, both leading to the same destination.

 

Congruence in Archaeological Interpretation: Holistic Analysis

In archaeology, congruence refers to the alignment or consistency between various elements of evidence, data, and interpretations. It is the principle that all parts of a research question should fit together seamlessly to offer a coherent and reliable understanding. When there is a lack of congruence—when one or more pieces of evidence contradict or fail to align properly—it often leads to inappropriate or incomplete interpretations of the data.

A recent example of this occurred with the interpretation of a Roman inscription from Brigantia, where the word IMP (imperator) was omitted. Researchers decided that this omission was a simple error—assuming that the word had been mistakenly left out. However, this interpretation failed to consider the whole context, including the surrounding evidence, particularly a statue that clearly depicted symbols of imperial power. The statue’s iconography—objects that signify imperial authority—was ignored in the discussion, and if taken into account, it would have likely prevented the flawed conclusion. This oversight highlights the importance of congruence: data must be considered in the context of all available evidence, rather than focusing narrowly on isolated pieces of information.

What’s even more concerning is that this initial interpretation, although potentially erroneous, has since been accepted as conclusive and has been passed on unchallenged for many years. This uncritical acceptance of previous findings demonstrates how the lack of congruence—failing to align all the evidence—can perpetuate flawed conclusions and become embedded in the body of knowledge. These unchecked assumptions can then influence generations of researchers, leading them down a path of misunderstanding. The inscription, when considered with the statue and other supporting evidence, strengthens the idea that Brigantia was not only significant to the Romans but also highly revered by the native population. This reinforces the suggestion that Brigantia was one of the most important deities in the British Isles, at least in the Roman context.

This issue becomes even more pronounced when we consider the broader context of other Brigantian inscriptions. One inscription, though not definitively conclusive, seems to align Brigantia with the term AUG (augustus), a term typically used for the emperor and suggesting a connection to imperial authority. This further bolsters the idea that Brigantia had imperial significance, both to the Romans and to the local population. Yet, this evidence is often overlooked or dismissed in favour of the original interpretation, which neglected congruence in its analysis.

The Importance of a Holistic Approach

The lesson here is clear: to avoid misinterpretation, we must take a holistic approach to archaeological research. When examining evidence, it is vital to consider all available data, not just the isolated pieces that confirm preconceived ideas. This means asking critical questions about the connections between different forms of evidence, from inscriptions to material culture to iconography. Are the interpretations you’re working with congruent with all the evidence, or are some aspects being overlooked or disregarded?

Archaeological conclusions are not static. They evolve as new evidence is discovered, as new theories emerge, and as old assumptions are challenged. This is why we must constantly ask: did the previous research you are building on take a similarly holistic approach? Was all available evidence considered? Or was some evidence ignored because it didn’t fit with the prevailing narrative?

Research Bias and Political Manipulation

In addition to a lack of congruence, research bias can significantly influence how data is interpreted. Biases—whether due to personal beliefs, political agendas, or institutional pressures—can lead to a selective interpretation of evidence. Sometimes, researchers may avoid questioning established conclusions because it could “rock the boat” or challenge accepted wisdom. This is particularly true when it comes to politically sensitive topics or when it might cause discomfort within academic or cultural circles.

For instance, research that challenges the dominant narrative may be seen as controversial, leading to resistance or dismissal by peers who are invested in maintaining the status quo. This is where political manipulation in research can occur—whether intentional or not, biases can lead to the exclusion of evidence that contradicts the prevailing story. And when such biased conclusions are disseminated widely, they become “settled knowledge,” even if they were never rigorously tested or critically examined.

The Call for Critical Reassessment

To avoid these pitfalls, we must adopt a mindset of constant reassessment. This means regularly revisiting conclusions—our own included—and asking whether the evidence supports them in a congruent, holistic way. Archaeologists should actively seek out data that challenges their interpretations, and they should be willing to revise their views when new evidence arises.

At Brigantes Nation, we believe that critical thinking and congruence are not just academic exercises—they are essential for developing a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the past. We must not become complacent in our research, assuming that what we know today is the final truth. The knowledge of the past is fluid, and the more we examine it, the clearer it becomes that many conclusions have yet to be fully understood. By applying a holistic approach and embracing the process of critical reassessment, we can better align our interpretations with the truth, avoiding the trap of accepting flawed conclusions based on incomplete or biased evidence.

Conclusion: Moving Forward with a Holistic Lens

In the end, the failure to apply congruence in interpreting data is not just an academic misstep; it’s a missed opportunity to truly understand the complexity of history. In the case of Brigantia, the initial omission of the word IMP in the inscription might have gone unchallenged for decades, but by taking a broader, more congruent view of the evidence, we can uncover a richer, more accurate picture of the past. As researchers and as human beings, we must be willing to question our assumptions and challenge the status quo, recognizing that knowledge is always evolving, and true understanding comes from embracing the full complexity of the evidence before us.

This holistic approach is essential not only for archaeology but for all areas of life. By looking at the full picture and embracing the possibility of new insights, we can avoid the pitfalls of narrow thinking and work toward a more complete, nuanced understanding of the world around us.

Jan 21

Guide – Challenging Assumptions with Free Thinking

Free Thinking in Archaeological Research: Challenging Assumptions for a Deeper Understanding

One of the most powerful tools in archaeology is not just digging deeper into the earth but digging deeper into our own thinking processes. In archaeological research, we often encounter assumptions—either based on prior data, outdated methodologies, or even cultural biases—that shape how we view and interpret the past. These assumptions, once accepted without question, can lead to distorted interpretations of the evidence. They can blind us to new insights, misplace vital clues, and ultimately hinder our understanding.

Free thinking, in this context, is the practice of questioning what we think we know. It means stepping back from conventional wisdom, challenging assumptions, and embracing the possibility that the “truth” we’ve accepted may be incomplete, or worse, misleading. The critical thinking approach applied to archaeological research requires a willingness to unlearn and relearn—to take what seems self-evident and ask, “What if this is wrong?”

The “Too Good to Be True” Social Media Scam – “I recently got a social media ad claiming I’d won a ‘limited-time offer’ for a luxury vacation—just click here! Naturally, I felt a little suspicious, but hey, ‘free vacation,’ right? Well, turns out it was the digital equivalent of ‘If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!’ After I eagerly handed over my bank details, I realized I had just funded someone’s Caribbean getaway instead of booking my own. Sometimes, greed overrules critical thinking—especially when it’s disguised as a ‘freebie.’ Next time, I’ll think before I click… but maybe I’ll still take the free vacation offer from a friend!”

How Assumptions Can Shape Our Understanding

In the field of archaeology, assumptions often shape how we interpret field systems, artifacts, and settlement patterns. For instance, many archaeological sites, especially those from the Iron Age, were never permanently inhabited. Yet, the assumption that a site should be continuously occupied or that it served a singular purpose often leads to misinterpretations. A fort, once assumed to be a permanent settlement, could actually have been a seasonal gathering place. A field system, classified as medieval due to its appearance, may have roots much deeper in time. These are not small mistakes—such assumptions can mask the true history of a site and lead us down a path of misunderstanding.

This tendency to cling to outdated conclusions is not just an issue in archaeology; it’s a natural human instinct. Our minds are programmed to accept what has been presented to us as truth, especially if those truths have been passed down through generations or supported by authoritative sources. However, critical thinking teaches us that these “truths” are often malleable. It reminds us that knowledge evolves, and assumptions that remain unchallenged can close our minds to new interpretations.

How Critical Thinking Applies to Our Own Thought Processes

Critical thinking in archaeology begins with recognizing that the way we interpret evidence is influenced by our own internal biases. These biases can be subtle—cultural expectations, personal experiences, or even the desire to conform to established views. The first step in applying critical thinking is to ask ourselves, “Why do I believe this?” and “What would happen if I didn’t believe it?”

To think critically is to engage in the following steps:

  1. Question the evidence: Does the data truly support the conclusions we’ve drawn, or are we filling in gaps with assumptions? Is there another way to interpret the same evidence?
  2. Consider alternatives: Are there different perspectives or theories that might explain the same findings? What would happen if we looked at the data from a different angle or with a different set of assumptions?
  3. Recognize biases: We all have biases. Whether it’s the desire to conform to popular theories or personal experiences that shape how we perceive evidence, acknowledging these biases helps to see things more clearly.
  4. Challenge the status quo: If an idea or interpretation has gone unquestioned for a long time, it’s often wise to revisit it. Just because something has been accepted for decades or centuries doesn’t make it unassailable.
  5. Embrace uncertainty: Critical thinking also involves accepting that we don’t have all the answers. In archaeology, as in life, the pursuit of truth is a continual process. Some questions may remain unanswered for now, but that doesn’t mean we stop questioning.

By embracing these principles, we can prevent ourselves from falling into the trap of thinking we know it all. We can open ourselves to new ways of understanding the past and, in the process, deepen our insight into the present and future.

The Hillfort Satnav Fiasco – “Last year, while visiting a hillfort in Galicia, my satnav directed me down a narrow footpath—because, of course, that’s where the road should be. Before I could say ‘critical thinking,’ I was driving toward a dead end on a steep hillside. It was only when I realized I might soon be auditioning for a role in a car commercials ‘gone wrong’ that I stopped and thought, ‘Maybe this is not a road after all.’ In the end, it was critical thinking that saved me from a serious accident. Well, that and realizing that my satnav probably needs a new map… or some basic common sense!”

Practical Applications in Archaeology

In the context of Brigantes Nation, applying critical thinking means taking a step back and evaluating the methods used to classify and interpret Brigantian sites. For example, many field systems and settlement patterns once attributed to the medieval period may, with a more critical eye, reveal evidence of older, pre-Roman practices. This requires not only challenging conventional assumptions but also engaging with the landscape in new ways—looking at topography, seasonal factors, and material evidence from a fresh perspective. It’s about connecting the dots in ways that haven’t been tried before.

Critical thinking also means questioning the sources themselves. Are the interpretations we rely on coming from scholars with a single perspective or from a range of sources? Are we listening to local knowledge or just following established scholarly opinions? In short, we must be willing to validate the sources we use, not just the conclusions they offer.

Self-Development Through Free Thinking

By embracing critical thinking, we not only become better archaeologists but better thinkers in all aspects of life. The ability to question assumptions, challenge the status quo, and think independently is valuable in every profession and in everyday decision-making. Free thinking encourages intellectual humility, a willingness to learn, and the courage to embrace new ideas—even if they conflict with established beliefs.

There are numerous resources for those who wish to develop their critical thinking skills. Below are some recommended readings and practices:

  • Books:
    • Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide by Tracy Bowell and Gary Kemp: A great primer on the fundamentals of critical thinking.
    • Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman: Explores the different modes of thinking and how biases influence our judgments.
    • The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan: A call to skeptical thinking in science, especially useful for anyone engaged in research.
  • Articles:
    • “The Importance of Critical Thinking in Research” from The Journal of Research in Science Teaching: An academic exploration of critical thinking in the context of research.
    • The Art of Thinking Clearly by Rolf Dobelli: A series of short chapters on common cognitive biases that influence decision-making.
  • Exercises:
    • Daily reflection: Ask yourself what assumptions you might have accepted in your own work or life and how they could be challenged.
    • Engage in discussions with others who offer differing viewpoints—this can help to refine your thinking.
    • Practice considering multiple solutions to problems before settling on the “obvious” answer.

Critical thinking is not only about asking the right questions but also about embracing the process of unlearning and discovering. This mindset is at the heart of Brigantes Nation’s research, and by applying it, we hope to unlock deeper, more meaningful insights into the past—and into our own thinking.

Jan 21

Guide – Introduction to Critical Thinking in Archaeological Research

A car in a river and the driver saying it is a car park

Introduction to Critical Thinking in Archaeological Research

In the world of archaeology, as with all forms of inquiry, the pursuit of truth begins with the ability to think critically and independently. Archaeology is often seen as the science of uncovering the past, but it is equally the art of understanding how we approach and interpret evidence. In the case of the Brigantes Nation, a tribe whose history is riddled with gaps and assumptions, critical thinking is not only useful—it is essential.

This guide is the starting point for a journey into free thinking applied to archaeological research. Free thinking is the cornerstone of open-mindedness and the refusal to accept conclusions simply because they are popular or traditional. It is about questioning long-held beliefs, re-evaluating evidence, and uncovering deeper truths that have long remained hidden under layers of assumption and bias.

At Brigantes Nation, we adopt a deeply eclectic approach to research. We believe that true understanding comes from synthesizing multiple inputs—historical, archaeological, and even intuitive—while remaining grounded in rigorous scrutiny. This site recognizes that the landscape surrounding key archaeological sites is just as important as the sites themselves. After all, the land holds the stories of those who lived and worked there—stories often obscured or ignored by conventional interpretations.

For example, few Iron Age forts were under permanent occupation. This simple fact opens the door to a whole host of questions about where people lived, how they moved, and the connections between sites that may not be immediately obvious. Our research embraces the notion that we may be mistakenly attributing later dates or purposes to sites, field systems, and tracks that are wrongly classified due to outdated assumptions. Critical thinking requires us to question even what has been long accepted, often for centuries. And we know that sometimes the most startling discoveries arise from challenging what we think we know.

Free thinking, therefore, is not just about applying different methods of research. It’s about fundamentally reshaping our relationship with knowledge itself. It is a practice that encourages curiosity, fosters intellectual independence, and allows us to transcend previous limitations. In archaeology, this could mean revisiting field systems situated in shadowy locations or investigating supposed “middle-age” structures without evidence—puzzles that, when scrutinized with fresh eyes, may offer us far more than we ever imagined.

This guide introduces free thinking as it applies to archaeological research and sets the foundation for a series of articles on how this concept informs various research inputs. Each form of input, whether historical data, site analysis, or material culture, requires its own subtle approach. Our goal is not only to provide you with tools for questioning the past but also to help you apply these principles in all forms of life. By learning to see with new perspectives, we can uncover truths that lead to a richer, more nuanced understanding of our world—both past and present.

Welcome to the Guide to Archaeological Research, where the past is never static, and every discovery begins with a question.

Links for further reading

Critical Thinking in Archaeological Research

The Use of Critical Thinking in Historical Analysis

Evaluating Archaeological Evidence: A Critical Approach

Rethinking Archaeology: Challenging Assumptions and Reinterpretation

Critical Thinking and Methodology in Archaeology

 

Jan 19

Rome: The Emperors Claim to Divinity

Emperor Augustus dressed as a deity, parading through ancient Rome
Emperor Augustus dressed as a deity, parading through ancient Rome
Emperor Augustus dressed as a deity, parading through ancient Rome

Emperor Augustus dressed as a deity, parading through ancient Rome

The Emperors Claim to Divinity

In Roman religion, the relationship between the emperors and the gods was complex and evolved over time. The concept of divinity in Roman imperial ideology became a central part of the Roman imperial cult and the emperor’s sacred authority. While there wasn’t a formalized concept of a “divine marriage” in the same way it was conceptualized in other ancient cultures, Roman emperors were often deified after their death, and some emperors cultivated a relationship with the gods that symbolized divine favour and their role as earthly representatives of the gods. Let’s break down the key aspects of the emperor’s relationship with the gods:

The Emperor as Divine or Semi-Divine

Divinization (Apotheosis): The most significant aspect of the emperor’s relationship with the gods was the idea of divinization or apotheosis, where an emperor was declared a god after death. The emperor’s deification was often a key part of the imperial cult of the emperor. Once an emperor died, his soul was believed to ascend to the heavens, and he was honoured as a god, often receiving divine worship and having temples built in his name.

Divine Titles: Emperors who were deified were often referred to as “Divus” (divine) or “Divi Filius” (son of a god), especially if they were the sons of a deified emperor, such as Augustus being the son of the deified Julius Caesar.

Symbolizing Divine Rule: The emperor was seen as a mediator between the divine and human realms, with his role being to enforce cosmic order on earth. His relationship with the gods helped reinforce his legitimacy as ruler.

The Imperial Cult

The imperial cult was a central institution in Roman religion, where emperors (both living and deceased) were worshipped as divine figures. This cult spread throughout the Roman Empire, particularly in the provinces. Emperor worship was an important aspect of maintaining loyalty and unity across the vast empire.

In some cases, the emperor was considered a living god, and rituals were performed in his honour. For example, Augustus was given divine honours during his lifetime, becoming the first emperor to be worshipped as a god, even while alive.

The emperor was also seen as the chief priest of the empire, performing sacrifices to ensure divine favour for the Roman people and empire.

The Emperor’s Role as the Divine Representative

The emperor was sometimes viewed as the earthly representative of a particular god or gods. For example, Jupiter, the king of the gods, was considered to have a special relationship with the emperor, especially as the emperor’s role was to maintain divine justice on earth.

Some emperors, such as Caligula, went even further by claiming to be the literal embodiment of certain gods. For example, Caligula famously declared himself the god Jupiter, and Nero sought to elevate himself to a godly status as well.

Divine Marriages and Consorts

Although the idea of a divine marriage between the emperor and a goddess wasn’t institutionalized in the same way it was in some other cultures, there are examples of emperors and empresses being connected to deities in a symbolic or ceremonial way, often to reinforce the divine right to rule.

Imperial Empresses: The empress was often seen as semi-divine or closely associated with the gods through her role. The relationship between the emperor and the empress could be seen as a sacred union in some instances. For example, Livia, the wife of Augustus, was worshipped as a goddess after her death, and her role as the mother of the divine emperor Tiberius was emphasized. Julia Domna, the wife of Septimius Severus, was also venerated in certain contexts, and sometimes referred to as “Augusta” (the female equivalent of Augustus).

In some cases, emperors themselves would associate with goddesses to enhance their image. For instance, the goddess Roma was frequently used to represent the idealized Roman state and, in certain instances, the emperor was portrayed in unity with Roma as the divine protector of the empire. Similarly, Isis, the Egyptian goddess, was popular among Roman emperors, and they may have symbolically aligned themselves with her as a protector figure.

The “Divine Consort” Concept

While the Roman emperors themselves were often portrayed as semi-divine or godlike, the empress sometimes played the role of a “divine consort”, especially when she was deified after her death. This status allowed the emperor and empress to be represented as a divine couple, symbolizing divine rule together.
The emperor’s relationship with the goddess Roma, for instance, may symbolize a marriage between the state and the imperial family, reinforcing the idea that the emperor and the empire were in a sacred union that was divinely sanctioned.

Examples of “Divine Marriages” and Symbolic Unions:

Jupiter and Juno: The Roman mythological pair of Jupiter and Juno served as the archetype of the divine marriage. The emperor was sometimes associated with Jupiter as a protector of the state, and the empress could be linked to Juno, symbolizing a divine balance between the two roles.

The Imperial Couple: In the Roman world, the emperor and empress might symbolically be paired with deities in the way a king and queen would have divine counterparts. The relationship between the imperial couple and the gods would be portrayed as an idealized union, symbolizing their rule as ordained by the gods.

Conclusion: A Divine Marriage between the Emperor and the Gods?

While there was no formalized concept of a divine marriage in the strict sense between the emperor and a goddess, Roman imperial cults often symbolized the emperor’s role as being divinely ordained. In many ways, the emperor could be seen as married to the empire, with the goddess Roma or Juno acting as symbolic consorts, representing the unity between the gods and the emperor’s reign.

The imperial family—particularly the empresses—were often deified after death and associated with the gods, strengthening the divine aura around the emperor’s rule. This symbolic marriage between the emperor and the gods reinforced the sacred nature of their reign and their cosmic responsibility to uphold divine order. The emperor’s relationship with the gods was central to his legitimacy, as the ruler of Rome was often seen as both divine and earthly, playing a role in maintaining the cosmic balance between the gods and humankind.

Jan 19

Latin Translation – Choosing the meaning of AUG

A symbolic illustration representing the process of determining the meaning of 'AUG' in Roman inscriptions
The process of determining the meaning of 'AUG' in Roman inscriptions

Latin Translation – Choosing the meaning of AUG

Recently I noticed that many Roman inscriptions, many words can be abbreviated, meaning that in reality, the exact meaning is always going to be, to some extent, and unconfirmable intellectually informed guess

For example, the term AUG could mean either Augustus, or Augusta. Given that we have inscriptions that give the Goddess Brigantia an appellation of Augusta, how do translators choose between those two options?

Translating AUG

The translation of “AUG” as “Augustus” or “Augusta” in Roman inscriptions depends on context—specifically, the gender of the subject (whether it’s male or female) and the nature of the dedication or votive offering. While both Augustus (the title of the Roman emperor) and Augusta (the female counterpart, often used for the emperor’s wife or the deification of important female figures) are represented by the abbreviation “AUG”, translators rely on specific clues to decide which term is appropriate.

Here’s an analysis of the two options and how they are chosen:

Augustus (“AUG” = “Augustus”)

“Augustus” typically refers to the male emperor. In inscriptions, it is often used as a title for the emperor, especially for the first emperor, Augustus, but also for later emperors who were considered deified.

When “AUG” is used in inscriptions in reference to a male figure, it generally refers to the emperor’s imperial title, either in its deified form or as a mark of divine status.

Example: An inscription that reads “AUG” in reference to an emperor (like “Divo Augusto”) would be interpreted as “Augustus”, i.e., the emperor.

Context for “AUG” as Augustus

Military or Imperial Dedications: When inscriptions are made by military units or officials, “AUG” often refers to imperial deification. For example, a dedication to the gods of the empire or a vow by soldiers might refer to “Augustus” as the divine emperor.

Example Inscription: “To the divine Augustus”, meaning the deified emperor Augustus.

The gender in these contexts is clear because the emperor is male.

Augusta (“AUG” = “Augusta”)

“Augusta” refers to the female counterpart of Augustus, often used for the empress, the emperor’s wife, or women of imperial significance who were deified.

The title “Augusta” was often used in imperial inscriptions for women of royal or imperial rank—especially for the wives of emperors or for women who were honoured and deified after death (e.g., Livia, Julia Domna).

Example: When “AUG” is used in a context where the reference is to an empress or a female deity, it translates as “Augusta”.

Context for “AUG” as Augusta

Female Deified Figures: When “AUG” is used in the context of a female deity, particularly in the case of women associated with imperial families, it typically refers to their deified title of “Augusta”.

Example Inscription: “To the divine Augusta”, referring to Livia Augusta, the wife of Augustus.

The gender here is clearly female, and it would not be appropriate to translate it as “Augustus” since the term “Augusta” is gender-specific.

Translational Process and Contextual Clues

Gender of the Subject: The most important contextual clue is the gender of the figure being referred to in the inscription. If the subject is male (typically the emperor), “AUG” will usually be translated as “Augustus”. If the subject is female, particularly a wife of the emperor or a deified female figure, it will be translated as “Augusta”.

Imperial Status: Another clue is the status of the figure. “Augusta” is often used for imperial women, especially in references to empresses or women who were deified (i.e., honoured as divine figures after death).

Relationship to Emperor: “Augusta” is also used when referring to a woman’s role as the empress, or in instances where the woman’s role in the empire is emphasized (e.g., the empress was seen as a vital part of the imperial family and symbolized imperial power).

Examples of Translation Process

Livia Augusta

Context: Livia, the wife of Emperor Augustus, was deified after her death, and in inscriptions, she is often referred to as “Livia Augusta”.

Translation Process: Since Livia was a female who became a divine empress, “AUG” is translated as “Augusta”.

Julia Domna Augusta

Context: Julia Domna, the wife of Emperor Septimius Severus, was also given the title of “Augusta” after marriage and during her imperial role.

Translation Process: Here, “AUG” refers to the empress Julia Domna, so it is translated as “Augusta”.

Augustus (the Emperor)

Context: Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, was often referred to in official contexts with the title “AUG” as part of his imperial title.

Translation Process: In references to the male emperor, “AUG” is translated as “Augustus”.

Brigantia as Augusta

Context: When Brigantia is referred to as “AUG” in Roman inscriptions, it may indicate her elevation to a divine or imperial status, akin to the imperial “Augusta”.

Translation Process: Based on our previous discussions, if Brigantia is associated with the imperial family or linked to deified figures, the use of “AUG” would be translated as “Augusta”, signifying her transformation into a high-ranking goddess akin to the imperial women who held this title.

Summary

In Roman inscriptions, “AUG” can refer to “Augustus” (for male emperors) or “Augusta” (for female figures, especially empresses or deified women). Translators choose between these two meanings based on the gender of the subject (whether male or female) and the context of the imperial status or deification of the person or deity in question. In cases like Brigantia, where the goddess is syncretized with imperial power, “AUG” could appropriately be translated as “Augusta”, signifying her elevated role in the Roman imperial pantheon.

Jan 17

The names Cambre, Cambria, Cumbria, and Cymru

Castlerigg- Hutchinson's History of Cumberland
Castlerigg- Hutchinson's History of Cumberland

The similarities between the names Cambre, Cambria, Cumbria, and Cymru (the native Welsh name for Wales) have been noted by linguists and historians, particularly when exploring Indo-European and Celtic roots. These names are thought to derive from ancient Celtic words for “land,” “country,” or “region,” indicating shared linguistic origins.

Key Points of Connection:

Celtic Etymology: The Welsh “Cymru” and Latinized “Cambria” originate from the Brittonic kombrogi, meaning “fellow countrymen” or “compatriots,” emphasizing a shared sense of identity among the ancient Britons.

The place name Cumbria (in northern England) shares a similar derivation, highlighting its historical Celtic-speaking population.

Galician Cambre: Cambre, a town in Galicia, is thought to have pre-Roman or Celtic origins. While direct etymological ties to “Cymru” or “Cambria” are not definitively established, Galicia’s deep Celtic heritage suggests that its toponyms might share common roots with other Celtic-speaking regions like Britain and Ireland.

Cultural and Linguistic Ties:

Galicia has a long-standing cultural and historical association with the Celtic world. The shared cultural and linguistic influences between the Celts in Iberia and those in the British Isles could explain similar place names.

Folklore and Migration Legends:

Legends of Celtic migrations often draw parallels between Galicia and the British Isles. For instance, the Lebor Gabála Érenn (Book of the Taking of Ireland) links the Gaels to Galicia through the figure of Breogán. This cultural exchange could have contributed to overlapping linguistic patterns.

While no definitive evidence ties Cambre in Galicia directly to Cumbria or Cymru in Britain, the linguistic similarities underscore the shared Celtic heritage of these regions. This connection often fascinates scholars exploring the spread of Celtic culture across Europe.

Contact Us
close slider