Wandering Myths: Transcultural Uses of Myth in the Ancient World

475 Pages·2018·8.27 MB·English

by  Lucy Audley-Miller

WanderingMyths

Wandering Myths
|
Transcultural Uses of Myth in the Ancient World
Edited by
Lucy Audley-Miller and Beate Dignas
ISBN978-3-11-041685-5
e-ISBN(PDF)978-3-11-042145-3
e-ISBN(EPUB)978-3-11-042151-4
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018935090
BibliographicinformationpublishedbytheDeutscheNationalbibliothek
TheDeutscheNationalbibliothekliststhispublicationintheDeutscheNationalbibliografie;
detailedbibliographicdataareavailableontheInternetathttp://dnb.dnb.de.
©2018WalterdeGruyterGmbH,Berlin/Boston
Coverimage:RoundglassgoldmedalliondepictingHerculestearingtheantlersoff
theCerynianstag.c.300–350AD(©AshmoleanMuseum)
Typesetting:PTP-Berlin,Protago-TEX-ProductionGmbH,Berlin
Printingandbinding:CPIbooksGmbH,Leck
♾Printedonacid-freepaper
PrintedinGermany
www.degruyter.com
Contents
BeateDignasandLucyAudley-Miller
Preface
WanderingMyths:TransculturalUsesofMythintheAncientWorld|VII
RobinLaneFox
Introduction
TravellingMyths,TravellingHeroes|XXXIII
Part I: ChangingCulturalandMythicalLandscapesinAnatolia
IanRutherford
KingshipinHeaveninAnatolia,SyriaandGreece
PatternsofConvergenceandDivergence|3
CatherineM.Draycott
MakingMeaningofMyth
OntheInterpretationofMythologicalImageryinthePolyxenaSarcophagusandthe
KızılbelTombandtheHistoryofAchaemenidAsiaMinor|23
TanjaS.Scheer
Myth,MemoryandthePast
WanderingHeroesbetweenArcadiaandCyprus|71
Part II: ReceptionandInnovationofMythologicalProgrammes
betweenGreeceandItaly
NancyT.deGrummond
FromMezntietoMezentius?
TheStratigraphyofaMythinEtruriaandRome|95
LucaGiuliani
Pots,Plots,andPerformance
ComicandTragicIconographyinApulianVasePainting|125
VI | Contents
KatharinaLorenz
DistributedNarrative
AVeryShortHistoryofJuxtaposingMythsonPompeianWalls|143
BarbaraE.Borg
NoOneisImmortal
FromExemplumMortalitatistoExemplumVirtutis|169
B.C.Ewald
AtticSarcophagi
MythSelectionandtheHeroisingTradition|209
PartIII:WanderingEast,WanderingSouth
MartinWest
Gilga¯mešandHomer:TheMissingLink?|265
RanaSérida
Myth,Memory,andMimesis
TheInarosCycleasLiteratureofResistance|281
LukePitcher
DeathontheNile:TheMythofOsirisandtheUtilityofHistoryinDiodorus.
EgyptInGreco-RomanHistoriography|309
RachelWood
WanderingHero,WanderingMyths?
TheImageofHeraclesinIran|327
KatherineM.D.Dunbabin
TheTransformationsofAchillesonLateRomanMosaicsintheEast|357
RobertParker
Epilogue|397
Index|405
BeateDignasandLucyAudley-Miller
Preface
WanderingMyths:TransculturalUsesofMythintheAncientWorld
Greekmyths¹occupiedacentralplaceinthethought-worldsofancientpeopleover
considerabletimeandspace.Thisfact,togetherwiththeinterpretativepotentialthat
has been demonstrated by important recent studies on the ancient uses and reso-
nancesofthesemyths,²justifiesaddingtothelargebodyofworkthathasbeenpro-
ducedonmythintheancientworld.Thecurrentvolumeseekstocontributetothis
fieldaspecificfocusonatransculturalperspective.Themulticulturalnatureofthe
ancientMediterraneananditsinterconnectionswiththeNearEast,thedifferingcul-
turaltraditionsandcontinuouschangeswithinandbetweentheseareasposetremen-
douschallengestosuchafocus,butalsoenormouspossibilities.Itisnotdifficultto
seethatancientsocietieswerelinkedbytheircreationandunderstandingofmytho-
logicalnarratives,fromtheAncientNearEasttoRomeandbeyond.Itismuchharder
todiscernanddescribeanypatternsinthissharedunderstanding,ortoexaminehow
mythscameto“move”andtobecomelocallyresonantindisparateplacesindifferent
ways.Theauthorsinthisvolumetakeupthechallengeandshowthatthisapproach
offerstheopportunitytoseelinksbetweenculturesaswellasmodesofadaptationand
receptionthatwouldnototherwisebevisibleandwhichfundamentallycharacterised
ancientperspectivesandidentities.³
1 Mythisatermthatisnotoriouslydifficulttodefineandtheeditorsofthisvolumeshrinkfromthe
taskofattemptingithere.Arangeofdifferentdefinitionshavebeenproposedbutthereis,perhaps,
somethingtobesaidforDowdenandLivingstone’sboldassertionthat“weknowaGreekmythwhen
weseeoneandhaveneedofnodefinitions,guidance,orcodeofpracticetoidentifyitassuch”(Dow-
denandLivingstone2011,3).Weusetheterm“GreekMyth”above,andelsewhere,torefertothemost
notabletellingsofthesenarrativesintheworksoffiguressuchasHomerandHesiodandinorderto
broadlysituatethevolume,butagreewithcriticismthatitisunhelpfultousethistermtoexpress
culturalexclusivenessoropposition(apointraisedbyvariousscholars,seeforexampleBeard1993,
50;Junker2005(translation2012),xiii;Newby2016,10–4).Asothershaveshownelsewhere,andthe
authorsinthisvolumeclearlydemonstrate,mythsweresubjecttocontinuousredefinitiontosuitnew
contextsandthisprocesscouldleadtotheiradoptionandindigenisationfarawayfromGreekcon-
texts.
2 Forafewexamples,fromthemanypossible,see:DeAngelisandMuth1999;ZankerandEwald
2004;Junker2005(translation2012);Patterson2010;Smith2012;Giuliani2013;Woodard2013;Hall
2013;MacSweeney2014;Lorenz2016;Hawes2017.
3 Althoughthisconcepthascometoberegardedasproblematicbysome(seee.g.Niethammer2000
and,whenappliedtotheancientworld,aspotentiallyanachronistic,e.g.Hölscher2008,esp.52–4;
Hölscher2011,60;seealsoBrooks2011onindividualidentityasaconcernthatisparticulartoapost-
Enlightenmentworld).Weusethetermherebecause,likemanyscholars,webelieveitisuseful,if
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110421453-001
VIII | BeateDignasandLucyAudley-Miller
Thestudyofmythshasfewcompetitorswhenitcomestoahistoryofscholarship
thatisimbuedwithconflictingtheories.⁴Muchisgainedfromlookingatthegenesisof
eachandtherelationshipbetweenthesetheories,muchfromtestingeachonspecific
examples.Mostisprobablyachievedbynotsettlingononetheorybutbyacknowl-
edgingthatthecomplexityofthephenomenonescapessingleinterpretation.Thisis
particularlytruewhenweaddress“cross-culturaltransferencesofmyth”,andtherea-
sonsforthisaremanifold.While“theorising”isnotprimarilyamatterof“fillingthe
gaps”,itispreciselyourgrowingknowledgeofthemythologies,thelanguages,the
bodiesoftexts,andultimatelytheinteractionbetweenGreekandotherancientcul-
turesthatquestionstheveracityofonespecificmodeofinterpretation.Althoughit
hastakenanextremelylongtimeforthe“paradigmofGreekmyth”todisappear(and
sometheoriesofmythwereratherdevelopedtokeepittenaciouslyalive),compari-
sonacrossculturesandthinkingaboutthenotionormodesofdiffusionhavebecome
amustinanystudyofmyth.
The intellectual stimulus of the discovery of oral poetry and transmission has
transformedthestudyofarchaicepic,andthesameishappeningwithregardtothe
increasinglystudiedbodyofNear-Easterntexts–ifwethinkthisfurtheranddevelop
newinsightsintocross-culturalstory-tellingwefurtheraddtoamulti-layeredunder-
standingofmythicalstories.Assomeofthecontributionsofthisvolumearegoingto
show,theintricatewebofsimilaritiesanddifferencescanmakeallthedifferencetothe
notionofwhatmythisanddoes,andevenmoresotheproposalsandconclusionswe
generateaboutthecommunicationbetweenindividualsandgroups,viaeverypossi-
blemediumandineverypossiblesetting.Itismostwelcomethatthisthoughtprocess
hasbeensetintomotionalsointhestudyofotherperiods,genresandgeographical
settings, and this not only in the context of “empire” and cultural dominance.⁵ In-
evitably,criticallyandconstructivelythinkingaboutideasof“culture”⁶and“cultural
diffusion”,orthemovementofculturalformsfromonesocietytoanother,becomesa
crucialaspectofourtask.Theextremelyrichandscholarlydiscourseon“Hellenisa-
treatedasadynamic,i.e.partofacontinuousoverlappingprocessofself-definitionperformedin
relationtovariedsituations,groupidentifications,socialrelationships,andsocio-culturallydefined
values(e.g.Bauman1996;Hall1996,1–17;Kuper1999,226–247;Diaz-AndreuandLucy2005,1–13;Rev-
ell2009).
4 ForexcellentoverviewsseetheconciseintroductioninDowden1992,22–34,andthekeypublica-
tionsonmythbyGraf1993;especiallypoignant:Graf2004.
5 SeeespeciallyWhitmarshandThomson2013,whodothiswithremarkablepersuasionforthestudy
oftheancientnovel(“imaginativetextswritten(mostly)inGreekbetween400BCEand200CE”,2).
6 Misgivingsagainstusingthischargedtermarecloselyrelatedtothoseregarding“identity”.Seenote
3above.
Preface | IX
tion”,⁷“Romanisation”,⁸hybridity,⁹globalisation¹⁰andindigenisationprovidedpart
ofthestimulusforourproject.¹¹Notexpoundingthebenefitsofoneofthedeveloped
modelsbutrathercontributingtoourunderstandingoftheseprocesses,theauthors
ofthisvolumeconsistentlyfocusontheagencyofthosedeployingmyths,andthey
showtherangeofwaysinwhichthesenarrativescouldbeadjustedtoservethespe-
cificneedsofdifferentcontexts.
With regard to more recent scholarship on myth, likewise, this focus on case-
specificagencykeysintobroadertrends.Thereisnolongeradesireto“test”mythfor
itstruthcontentorthequestionofwhetherancientusers“believed”intheirmythsbut
ratheracarefulinvestigationofwhattriggeredthesurfacingandadaptationofmyths
inlocalcontexts.Whilestudiesofkinshipandfoundationmythsloomlargeandare
indeedfruitful,insightsgowellbeyondtheclaimthatGreekidentityguaranteedcul-
tural status in non-Greek, Hellenistic or Roman imperial contexts.¹² Looking at the
notoriousandimportantrelationshipbetweenmythandritual,alreadyBurkertintro-
ducedamore“accommodating”discussion,suggestingavarietyofpossiblelinksand
steppingbackfromonerigidandgeneticallydeterminedone.¹³Again,wethinkthat
thecross-culturalperspectiveisreasontoembracethisapproachandtolookat“rit-
ual”inafreshway.Thisshouldnotapriorigoagainsta“constructivist”modelbutnew
considerationssurface.Mythologicalnarrativesmakeimportantchargedstatements
aboutthegodsandtheirrelationshipswithmortals,abouthumanoriginsandabout
societyanditsinstitutions,andchangingsocietalconditionsmustthereforeevokean
adjustmentofmythsifthesearetosurviveandremainrelevant.¹⁴Successfulmyths
areoftenthosethatadapteasilyasaninadvertentresponsetochangeswithintheir
(human)setting.Regardlessofhowfluidourconceptof“culture”isandhowreluc-
tantwearetousetheterm“culturalidentity”,transposingastoryintoanewcultural
7 Forkeydiscussionofthisterm,seeZanker1976;Wallace-Hadrill2008;PragandQuinn2013.
8 Atermwhichhasbeenparticularlyreviledasdeemedtoberifewithcolonialistassumptionsand
baggage(e.g.Barrett1997;Mattingly2002;Mattingly2004;Mattingly2006,14–17).Morerecentlysome
scholarshaveobservedthatthetermdoesatleasthavethemeritofreferringtothecontactculturein
questioninawaythat“culturalchange”doesnot,andsuggestthatperhapsthetermcanbeusefulif
carefullydefined(e.g.Wallace-Hadrill2008,28;Mullen2013,9–10).
9 E.g.Webster2003(on“creolised”modesofhybridityintheRomanperiod).
10 ForparallelsbetweenRomanculturalchangeand“globalisation”seeWitcher2000;Hingley2005;
Hitchner2008;Alexandridis2010,esp.253–9.FordiscussionofeconomicparallelsseeGeraghty2007;
Morley2007,90–107.
11 Onthemovementofgoodsandpracticesinvolving“hybridisation,interpretation,translation,ma-
nipulation,mutationand‘indigenisation’”,seeHingley2005,111.
12 ThecontributionsbyScheer,DraycottandSéridainthisvolumeillustratethisapproachnicely,but
seealso,Clarke2008;Patterson2010;Dignas2012;Thomas2014.
13 Burkert1979.Burkert’srelationshipwithritualisttheoriesiscomplexandcannotbesetoutindetail
here;forasuccinctsummaryofthehistoryofscholarshipsee,e.g.,Segal2015,49–65,andCsapo2005,
especially132–80.
14 Graf1993,esp.3–4.
X | BeateDignasandLucyAudley-Miller
settingwouldmaketheneedforadaptationevengreater.If,however,mythandritual
wereoftenconnected,suchasintheformofaetiologicalstoriesthatexplainedorwere
performedaspartofarecurringritualorfestival,adeliberateandstrikinglackofad-
justmentisalsopossibleandthequestionofmeaninghasaverydifferentdimension.
Thequestionastowhetheramythmayormaynothavetravelledalongwithritual
opensupamyriadofaddedpossibilities.¹⁵
Therelationshipbetweenanexistingornon-existingspatialfluidityofmythanda
cross-culturaldimensionisafascinatingone,andonethatrequiresfurtherattention
givenvaluablerecentworkonthephysicalsettingofmyth.Hawes’volumeMythson
theMapbringstogetheranarrayofcasestudiesandimportantgeneralconclusions.¹⁶
Specificityoflocationishighlighted,forexample,inMinchin’sintriguingdiachron-
icalanalysisofthestoryofHeroandLeander,inwhichtheHellespontinesettingis
notoptional,regardlessofhowothercentralaspectsofthestory,itsappealasanar-
rativeofloveandloss,determineitssuccessandsurvival.¹⁷Myth,here,isnotonlyan-
choredbylocationbutalsoexpressesandcreatescollectivememorythatdetermines
theevolutionofthemythintime.Thisexampleshowsnicelyhowthestudyofmythis
bothembeddedinandtranscendstwostrongtrendsinrecenthistoricalscholarship,
namelythattowardsenvironmentalhistory¹⁸andthattowardsmemorystudies¹⁹,in
themselvesconcernsthatbenefitimmenselyfromacross-culturalperspective.
Finally,wewishtoemphasiseouracknowledgementthatthiscross-culturalline
ofenquiryintothestudyofancientmythisnotentirelynovel.Indeed,recentscholar-
shiphasbeenparticularlyfruitfulinthisareaandhasshownthatitwarrantsfurther
investigation.Thisworkservedastheimpetusforthisbook.Examplesthatshowthe
potentialforsuchanapproachcanbefoundinawiderangeofdisciplines,andour
contributorshavehelpfullysituatedtheirownworkwithinthediscourseofeachof
their fields, making a lengthy introduction to current research in their various ar-
eas superfluous here. At the risk of repeating some of their discussion, one exam-
plewillhopefullyadequatelyservethepurposeofthispreface,namelythestudyof
GreekmythinRomanvisualculture.Romansocietyanditsarthadtraditionallybeen
viewedasrelativelylackingintermsofitsown“original”myths,²⁰havingbeen“sat-
15 Thisispotentiallyaverydifferentprocess,anditsinvestigationaveryilluminatingone,where
theretellingofastorymayhavebeenlinkedtoitsaetiologicalmotiffordifferentreasonsthanearly
theorieswouldhavepostulated.
16 Hawes2017.
17 Ch.4inHawes2017.
18 SeeforexampleBekker-Nielsen2014.
19 Foranoverviewofrecentscholarshipandaltogetheranexcellentcollectionofindividualstudies
seeGalinsky2016;withmuchrelevancealsoBommas2013and2014.
20 OnRomanlackofmyth,seeWissowa1912;Latte1926;suchtheoriestogetherwithcontemporary
argumentagainstthisviewaresuccinctlyandhelpfullyoverviewedinBeardetal.1998,esp.171–81;
KearnsandPrice2003,xi–xii.On“Romanmyths”seealsoGrant1973;Wiseman2004.