Contents
- 1 Empathic Archaeology: Building a Strong Straw Man
- 2 Question Everything and Question Again
- 3 Ensuring Stability: The Need for Strong Foundations
- 4 Rules for Ensuring Strength and Certainty
- 4.1 Source Evaluation: Where Does the Evidence Come From?
- 4.2 Consistency and Corroboration: Does the Evidence Align with Other Data?
- 4.3 Probability and Likelihood: How Certain Can We Be?
- 4.4 Continuous Testing and Re-evaluation: Does the Evidence Hold Up Over Time?
- 4.5 Bias and Assumption: Are We Blind to Our Own Prejudices?
- 4.6 Transparency: Are We Honest About What We Know and Don’t Know?
- 5 The Fragility of the Straw Man: The Importance of Patience and Humility
- 6 Conclusion: A Methodical Approach to Empathic Archaeology
Empathic Archaeology: Building a Strong Straw Man
Question Everything and Question Again
When engaging in Empathic Archaeology, the process of creating and refining a straw man—a provisional model of the past—requires a delicate balance of imagination and rigor. The archaeologist’s imagination fills the skeleton of the straw man with ideas and concepts, but these must be constantly tested and re-tested to ensure that they stand on solid ground. This means that the process of creation isn’t just about filling a void, but about applying the highest degree of scrutiny to every “component” of the model. This is where the principle of “question everything”—and then “question it again”—becomes essential.
In the world of research, as in life, it’s easy to let assumptions slip into our models unnoticed. These assumptions, if left unchecked, can grow into distracting fantasies that steer us away from the truth. To build a strong, resilient straw man, the archaeologist must continuously challenge their own thinking. This constant process of questioning ensures that each piece of evidence placed within the model is as close to the truth as possible, and that the model can withstand the rigors of further exploration and scrutiny.
Ensuring Stability: The Need for Strong Foundations
A straw man, by nature, is inherently vulnerable—it is a skeletal structure made of loosely connected pieces, and without the right foundation, it can easily fall apart. As researchers, we must ensure that the foundation of our model is built on the most reliable and well-supported evidence available. If we do not build on strong foundations, the straw man will not stand under the weight of critical questioning, and it will collapse when new evidence is introduced.
The aim is not to create a “perfect” model but to create one that has enough stability to allow for new ideas to grow within it. This is the essence of the scientific method in archaeology: to build a working hypothesis (the straw man), test it rigorously, and adjust it based on new evidence. By doing so, we create a framework that can evolve over time and withstand the scrutiny of critical thinking.
Rules for Ensuring Strength and Certainty
To ensure that each piece of evidence is stable within our straw man, we must establish a set of rules for evaluating and questioning evidence. These rules will help guide our decision-making and ensure that we do not fall prey to biases, assumptions, or faulty reasoning.
Source Evaluation: Where Does the Evidence Come From?
- Primary vs. Secondary Sources: Always prioritize primary sources—direct evidence from the past, such as inscriptions, artifacts, or sites—over secondary sources, which may involve interpretations or extrapolations from other researchers.
- Expertise of the Source: Consider the credibility of the source. Is the evidence coming from a respected researcher or institution? Was the work peer-reviewed or subject to rigorous scrutiny?
- Cultural Context: Understand the context in which the evidence was created. Was it shaped by cultural, political, or social biases? Consider the time, place, and people involved in producing the evidence.
Consistency and Corroboration: Does the Evidence Align with Other Data?
- Corroboration Across Different Sources: Seek out multiple sources that support the same evidence. Corroboration across different methods or types of evidence (e.g., written records, physical artifacts, and environmental data) increases the reliability of the data.
- Internal Consistency: Ensure that the evidence itself is coherent and does not contradict itself. For example, if an inscription suggests a particular ritual, but the material culture contradicts that interpretation, the evidence may need further scrutiny.
Probability and Likelihood: How Certain Can We Be?
- Likelihood vs. Certainty: Recognize that archaeological evidence rarely offers 100% certainty. Instead, we often deal with probabilities. Assess how likely the interpretation of the evidence is, and be open about the uncertainty. For example, it might be 80% likely that an artifact served a ritualistic purpose based on its context, but we must acknowledge that there’s still room for other interpretations.
- Strength of Evidence: Different types of evidence carry different weights. A well-preserved inscription is typically more reliable than a fragmentary pottery shard, though both can provide valuable insights. Always weigh the quality and quantity of evidence.
Continuous Testing and Re-evaluation: Does the Evidence Hold Up Over Time?
- Question Everything: No piece of evidence should be taken for granted. Even well-established facts should be questioned periodically. New discoveries or advancements in technology may provide new insights or challenge old interpretations.
- Re-questioning: Once evidence is placed into the straw man, test it again. How well does it fit within the emerging model? Is it stable when new evidence is added, or does it create inconsistencies? If new evidence contradicts an element of the model, be willing to discard or revise that element.
Bias and Assumption: Are We Blind to Our Own Prejudices?
- Personal Bias: Be aware of your own biases—whether cultural, ideological, or professional. These biases can shape the way evidence is interpreted or how certain pieces of evidence are prioritized. To minimize bias, actively seek out alternative perspectives or interpretations.
- Confirmation Bias: Avoid the trap of only seeking evidence that supports your existing model. Actively look for evidence that challenges your assumptions, and be willing to adjust your model if the evidence doesn’t fit.
Transparency: Are We Honest About What We Know and Don’t Know?
- Acknowledging Uncertainty: It’s important to be transparent about the gaps in our knowledge. When building a straw man, it’s okay to acknowledge that certain pieces of the model are speculative or provisional. This honest admission invites further investigation and helps prevent the model from becoming an unchallenged assumption.
- Clear Documentation: Keep detailed records of the evidence, reasoning, and decisions made during the process. This not only helps track the evolution of the straw man but also ensures that the process is open to scrutiny by others.
The Fragility of the Straw Man: The Importance of Patience and Humility
The process of building and refining a straw man is an iterative one. It requires patience, humility, and a willingness to let go of ideas that no longer hold up. Just as Frankenstein’s monster was built from various pieces, a straw man model is a construction of disparate ideas and evidence. But the more thoroughly we question each piece of evidence, and the more rigorously we test our assumptions, the stronger the final model will be.
Each time a piece of the straw man model is re-questioned or revised, the archaeologist grows closer to a more accurate understanding of the past. This is the beauty of the process—the collapse of an idea is not a failure, but a necessary step toward deeper insight. With each re-evaluation, the model becomes more refined, more stable, and more reflective of the complexities of ancient cultures.
Conclusion: A Methodical Approach to Empathic Archaeology
The strength of any straw man in Empathic Archaeology depends on the quality of evidence it’s built upon. By questioning everything, testing ideas repeatedly, and ensuring that each component is as true as possible, archaeologists can build models that are resilient and capable of evolving. The rules for evaluating evidence—whether through assessing consistency, likelihood, bias, or transparency—allow the archaeologist to build a more accurate and nuanced model of the past, one that can withstand the rigors of further scrutiny and testing.
By embracing this method, archaeologists create not just a straw man, but a conceptual framework that serves as a tool for deeper understanding and greater empathy with the ancient peoples they study.