Bret Devereaux

For example: Cult of Mithras - leaves evidence in the form of ritual sanctuaries. But it can't tell us (except for disjointed, hard to use snippets) what they believed, or what rituals they did, or sometimes who they were. 37/52

Archaeology works best as a companion to the sources, but that brings us back to the lack of sources - if there's no lit. text, evidence level plummets. Easy example of this: pre-Roman Gaul. The Gauls are *really* archaeologically visible. 38/52

They leave lots of prestige objects in shrines, lakes, rivers. Rich burial assemblages, identifiable hill-fort-town-centers. Lots of good archaeological evidence. But zero textual sources until the Romans show up. 39/52

Consequence: almost everything about their values, culture, social organization before the Romans and Greeks start describing it is speculative. Lots of ????s - tons. What archy can tell us, we know well - we can chart the changes in their objects really well! 40/52

Like 'when did they shift from shorter, pointier swords to longer, slashier swords' - can do a detailed map! But 'what was Gallic kingship like in 350 BCE? LOL best guess is to reason from Gallic kingship in 50 BCE, when we have Roman/Greek lit. texts. 41/52

Which brings us to: 6) Comparative Evidence - or (favorite Jurassic Park reference), "the frog DNA." Basically, if you don't know, fill in the blank with a similar, but more modern society which is better attested in the evidence. 42/52

Absolutely, comparative is the weakest form of evidence - it is what you use when you have nothing, but have a gap which has to be filled with *something* - comparative evidence is better than guessing... 43/52

...or in mid-19th century scholar fashion, just assuming ancient elites were just like your fellow British/French/German/American aristocrats. The good news is that comparative evidence can be brought to bear on any question. 44/52