The scarcity of data makes history very subtle and interesting. Something we rarely get in schools since we're fed facts and dates (and only partial reasons). When you learn how an historian finally discover by cross referencing antique texts, remains of artwork, geology, etc, it's hard not to be thrilled.
It's not the scarcity of the data that makes history subtle or interesting - after all, most periods and areas of study have a surfeit of data. Even when I was studying 17th century Russia, there were more primary source documents in the (terribly, horribly catalogued and organized) archives than I could possibly read in a lifetime.
The truly subtle bits come from the need to thoroughly understand the Sitz im Leben - as best you can, the surrounding context in which the source was produced and the purpose for which the source was produced. Without that, you just end up with anachronistic presentism.
In my opinion, the need to place oneself as deeply as possible in a completely foreign period and mindset before the interpretation of a new source can even begin is what makes historians excellent analytical thinkers - as well as extremely useful product managers and marketers.
Well, the surrounding context is also part of the data, even though I understand that it's easy to forget embedding yourself in it to interpret the data already at hand.
Yes. I've always framed this as a kind of simulation. When we can actualize things in our minds, we then can also process them in ways not possible in a basic sense.
