Folklore and Archaeology: Basics - by Thilanka Siriwardana

Every human being is nostalgic about the past and tends to introduce their versions of the history by using the available materials in the present. This approach leads people to rely it as a hobby or a leisure time activity for research on the past and becomes separate disciplines now known as 'archaeology' and 'history'. However, it is apparent the folklore is usually ignored from these main streams. It remains among the folks for fill the gaps in their knowledge about the past. Are that archaeology and history teaching in universities were able to fill these nostalgic gaps of commoners at an adequate level? We left that to answer that later and at this moment discuss the possibility of using folklore in archaeological studies.

‘Archaeology’ is a discipline or academic study about history through interpretations by using material remains. Folklore was commonly understood as the traditions and beliefs of people below the level of ‘high culture’ (this line is a rigorous place which modern academic mislead all the knowledge system). This includes myths, folktales, legends, folk songs, proverbs, riddles, games, place names, regular ceremonies, rituals and many others. It is simply traditional and comes from the oral and performances. In here we can see that two disciplines have different routes, the first based on materials and second on oral tradition (material vs concepts). Though it differs from the source, both are once interrelated with each for revealing the past.

While some archaeologists attempted to apply folklore to archaeological material, they often found that folk tradition and archaeological remains did not match, and folklore are not even true. Due to that reason, they dispelled the folklore from sources of archaeological data. We cannot argue that folklore contains accurate, reliable representations of past behaviours, beliefs or events. However even archaeology is not pure science, and its data about the past which perceived and interpreted are problematic because it is usually people oriented. Also, interpretations can be exceptional and characteristic to individual sites.
Consequently, correlate folklore with archaeology is not an attempt for matching nescience with science but adjusts the common features together.  Folklore gives us a broader understanding of the past as perceived, remembered and made significant by both past and present people. Because these features are also common to archaeology, both can correlate with each and can enrich by creating new approaches to thinking about common questions and indeed raising new questions.

In the early period of archaeology, details in folklore are followed by the antiquarians and treasure hunters who search for a fortune and relics. Heinrich Schliemann proved to correct his belief in the accuracy of Homer’s account of the Trojan War, even though the story had not been written down for almost half a millennium. In an instant he reveals a mask of a King from Troy, he said ‘I saw the face of Agamemnon’. If that was the case in the Iliad, then why not elsewhere? The memories of Stonehenge in England, Megalithic remains of Spain, Roman Goddess Isis worship in Sweden, the Neolithic culture of India survived with folklore and subjected to document in some centuries or millenniums later.

Oral traditions are not a phenomenon that is dying out or decaying or showing any sign of being in decline. Certainly, it ages, and one part of it and then another may die off. However, it also capable of breeding, it grows, it spreads, it feeds on other matters, and it has the greatest ability to adapt to changing circumstances. The advantage of this is that it conveys what people think of their words and actions, what they might not be able to express in everyday conversation. Similar to it, archaeological remains not vanishing forever but transforming by site formation processes. The final issue is decoding the evidence back.

Folklore is not static. As above mentioned, it is open to changes.  On that reason, folklores does not an essentially gives a sense of time. In archaeology, we mightily concerned with time and space. However, folklore usually goes as ‘once upon a time... (In Sinhala - ekomath eka kaleka)’  or ‘once upon……. (In Sinhala - ekomath eka rataka). However, the events in these stories are often sequential and expressed in very human terms. By that archaeologist now can turn to more than one way of study and take detail into a one period.
Further, it will allow archaeologists to consider new ideas and enter into interpretations we might not even otherwise consider. Because of the individuals in the past had multiple perceptions, understanding and experience as same as we have today. We can view the relation of archaeology and folklore an endeavour open to various approaches and perspectives.

Further, there is a changing cultural value in archaeology and folklore. Through the ages, both above give values to monuments and that cultural value can be decoded by working both disciplines together by incorporating local folklore into public interpretations of archaeological sites. Both are gaining the interest of local populations either.

Finally, folklore as the people’s natural and intuitive way of thinking and acting, it allows archaeologists to interpret past. This dialogue between archaeology and folklore is a union for facing some exciting challenges and for solving mysterious puzzles in the depth of the lag of time.