How possibly can we correlate archaeological evidence and oral traditions in reconstructing history?

Answer 1

Great question! We can better understand the past through the archaeological record and oral traditions, either on their own or looked at together in the appropriate context. Oral traditions alone may help us reconstruct the past in their own ways and it is important to state that they are valid sources of information, however no cultural practice occurs in a vacuum and so they should always be understood within its own temporal and cultural context.

The most general answer I feel comfortable giving (please see my specific example below for a more in-depth answer): Evidence in the archaeological record may be correlated with oral traditions if practices, beliefs, social roles, events, etc., described in oral traditions provide context for the archaeological evidence or the oral traditions directly or indirectly reference the archaeological evidence, including references to activities involving it.

There is no single right way to answer how to correlate information from the archaeological record with oral traditions to reconstruct past peoples, practices, and events; an archaeologist's methods for analysis depends on factors such as the type, condition, and date of the archaeological evidence, and research resources including their relationships with stakeholders who may be the only source for relevant oral traditions.

For an in-depth answer, please see the following fictitious example:

EXAMPLE: Pottery in-situ

Let's say an archaeologist is studying a completely intact in-situ (in its original location) piece of pottery in a large open room that was built in a dirt mound. The archaeologist grew up near this dirt mound and is considered a member of the community of stakeholders who have various oral traditions which the archaeologist is very familiar with.

The piece of pottery is the only artifact in the room in the dirt mound. The shape of the pottery resembles an extremely large bowl and is in the middle of the room. The archaeologist completes an isotopic analysis of residue from the pottery and identifies the residue to be animal fat. Unclear about the context of this pottery piece as well as the animal fat, the archaeologist speaks with members of the stakeholder community and identifies possible connections between some oral traditions and the piece of pottery:

In numerous oral traditions, a spiritual practice in small dirt mound temples is described, where individuals spread grass throughout the floor of the temple and then place a small piece of raw meat in a large bowl with a special mixture of oils and dried plants. The individual is then said to sit on the floor and whisper a series of blessings for the meat. Then, the raw meat is taken from the large bowl so that it can be cooked and eaten, and their blessings protects them from illness from the meat.

The archaeologist identifies those oral traditions as likely referencing a practice which the pottery piece they are studying was used for. This correlation is supported by the evidence of animal fat residue in the pottery piece which could be explained by the meat blessing practice in the oral traditions, and the descriptions in the oral traditions of a place which mirrors the location of the pottery piece. Due to those oral traditions, the archaeologist decided to also complete isotopic testing on residues from the floor where the pottery piece is in-situ, which provides evidence of plants on the floor like what is described in the meat blessing practice in local oral traditions.

In summary, the archaeologist correlates the pottery piece in-situ in a dirt mound with a meat blessing practice described in local oral traditions, reconstructing past activities/practices involving the pottery piece. This correlation suggests the context for data they collected such as animal fat residue in the pottery piece and plant residue on the floor. The archaeologist connects the pottery piece to oral traditions based on their judgements of parallels/connections between the pottery piece in-situ and local oral traditions, and it is possible that the parallels between the pottery piece in-situ and the oral traditions are merely a coincidence.