MYTHS ARE HISTORY
3. On Reconciling Cross-Cultural Similarities & Differences
|
3. On Reconciling Cross-Cultural Similarities & Differences
|
We have seen that cosmogonic myths throughout the world resemble one another to an extraordinary degree. Indeed, there is such an essential homogeneity of Creation Myths throughout the world that we consistently find an astounding similarity, even among myths collected in widely different regions. Where we find significant numbers of monuments with similar designs, similar orientation, and even consistent patterns of astronomical alignment, we can be confident that common observations prevailed over the same geographic area for a considerable amount of time. Cultural vantage points that shared a common geography would’ve also shared overlapping celestial fields-of-view in common, often resulting in strikingly similar mythologies. — But genuine differences and distinctions exist too, exhibiting every form of variation — not only between different cultures and geographic regions near and far, but sometimes even between versions of the same myth collected from the very same culture.
Despite the kindred nature of all myths, there accordingly remains a unique individuality to each mythology of the world, an individuality that increases in complexity as our focus shifts from broad geographical areas toward individual cultures within those areas. At the broadest level, where the mythologies of the world are considered collectively, what is common to all cultures seems very clear-cut. At the narrowest level, the mythology of a single culture, the very opposite pertains, and we instead find many distinct discrepancies distinguishing cultural traditions from one another. — Creation stories in particular, while commonly based around a small handful of limited themes, illustrate a wide array of variations. Each and every example seems to have its own unique vision or version of events. Sometimes the roles of the gods are reversed; sometimes events regarded as beneficial to one culture are regarded elsewhere as detrimental; sometimes the sequence of events falls in a different order; sometimes the characteristic roles of the planets were reversed; sometimes it can be difficult to tell the end of one age apart from the beginning of the next. The multitudinous variations between such accounts have often presented many difficulties for ardent students of comparative mythology. |
It has thus become increasingly obvious that looking at both the similarities and the differences between mythologies is far more essential than was heretofore appreciated. —Solely concentrating on the general parallels and similarities of any two or more cultures, while setting their specific variations aside, can only result in an incomplete and artificially skewed picture. Smoothing over the distinctions between cultural re-tellings will only hamper our ability to look backward and arrive at a more precise understanding of what really happened.
The differences between cultures are very real, and there must be no tacit attempt to ignore or obscure them or explain them away. — Instead, we must hear out each rendition in the specific context of each culture's situational field-of-view. No geographic region can be left out. While it is perfectly natural for cultures dwelling relatively near one another to have witnessed a remarkably similar series of events, the distinctions between cultures more removed from each other correspondingly tend to be more pronounced. Only by factoring in the data points that pertain to their respective distinctions — with the understanding that their unique differences offer additional hints and clues just as valuable as their general similarities — may we find ourselves enabled to arrive at more definitive models of mythology’s celestial events, as seen through the watchful eyes of dozens of cultures from multiple vantage points on the ground. |
Other attempts to explain the general global unanimity of creation myths have simply not been able to account for both the similarities and the differences. But in our case, both the similarities as well as the differences are equally important to the integrated global reconstruction of events we seek.
— Accounting for local distinctions in the context of global continuity, and reconciling both similarities and differences worldwide, as both independently valuable and equally true, actually becomes greatly simplified when our proposed solution to the problem of partial perspectives is universally applied. It then becomes much easier to see why there were so many common mythic themes around the globe, and how we can account for cross-cultural dissimilarities and distinctions. When great events on a planetary scale were beheld in terror simultaneously by peoples scattered everywhere over the world — with each culture or geographic region being restricted by its own distinctly limited vantage point on the ground — it’s quite natural that both similarities and differences would arise, especially in consequence of the combined motions of Earth’s daily axial rotation and the annual orbital revolutions of the planets. — It’s simply that, on a spinning globe, the geophysical site of a local culture’s vantage point rotates counterclockwise with the rotation of the Earth, while the scene of their field-of-view in the astronomical heavens revolves clockwise — the globe turning through day and night, and the planets moving in the opposite direction of the Earth’s daily motion. Some cultures, as such, would’ve had a direct line of vision on celestial events as they unfolded; while other cultures further removed would have only a partially obscured point of view; while still others located at even greater distances (especially those on the other side of the world) would witness little to nothing at all. |
— Thus it is that we can most easily account for both the general similarities as well as the unique differences across cultures — both with regard to the minor distinctions observed between those in nearby latitudes, as well as the larger distinctions we find between those dwelling in faraway climes. Commonalities between mythologies, as such, would naturally be due to different cultures witnessing the same cosmological events at the same time; while notable distinctions across cultures would equally be due to the partial perspectives framed by the unique geophysical sites each culture inhabited -- i.e., their distinctly different points-of-view on the exact same events.
The same event being viewed from different perspectives by different groups of people separated from one another around the globe would be perfectly capable of generating wildly different myths, even though they all ultimately recorded different aspects of the same event. — I.e., the same historical events that account for the general global similarities in mythologies can likewise easily account for the unique cultural differences we also find. This is precisely why cosmogonic myths exhibit both a great amount of parallel commonality, as well as very specific distinctions in details. The full global aperspectival story, however, can only be made up of all its similarities and differences combined. For all mythologies ultimately refer back to the same series of prehistorical events, despite the fact that the outward form of their cultural milieus vary greatly from country to country. Their common patterns and themes, taken together and examined carefully in depth, do not reveal contradictory views, so much as different ways of seeing the very same things from multiple varied perspectives. — And it is in this sense that all traditional mythologies and cultural histories worldwide are ultimately telling us one and the same universal story. |
The notable distinctions between cultures also help demonstrate that the similarities found globally are likely not instances of a single culture spreading its tales to others, but instead seem far more strongly suggestive of a variety of different partial perspectives on the same cosmogonic events. — And the fact that each mythological rendition was originally orientated around a culture’s own local field-of-view makes easy sense as to why peoples from elsewhere would not readily assent to a mythology foreign to their own. After all — how could the particular field-of-view by which one people fashioned their myths successfully meet the needs and expectations of cultures outside their own?
Moreover, the co-existence of both more and less developed cosmogonies also seems to be dependent upon a given culture’s partial perspective and respective field-of-view — far more so than any intrinsic characteristics exhibited by a given population, be it large or small. A more genuine rationale for the so-called deficiency or scantiness of developed cosmogonies in certain parts of the world, vis a vis those of considerable elaboration found in other regions of the globe, did not involve a given culture’s propensity for advanced degrees of abstract thought, but rather the relative security or insecurity afforded by the physical vantage point of the populations’ central cultural site. I.e., cultures with fields-of-view that enabled them to observe one or more cosmogonic event at a safe distance would be far more capable of developing more complex cosmological schemes, based on their continued tracking of cosmogonic agents (such as planets, asteroids and comets) via those very same fields-of-view. |
All in all, our model of the world’s partial perspectives and fields-of-view not only reconciles both the similarities and the differences between cultures worldwide, it also promises to resolve most if not all problems encountered by previous students of comparative world mythology — including:
— why such similarly characteristic myths developed independently in multiple locations around the globe, in spite of the relative variety of native habitats and terrains; — why there are strong distinctions across cultures, despite the clear-cut parallels; — why some of these myths appear to have a very limited geographical distribution (such as the Earth Diver motif found only in far east Asia, certain Pacific islands, and the western shores of the Americas); — why neighboring cultures sharing a common landscape, with similar but not identical fields-of-view, adhered to very similar but not identical mythological beliefs (such as the cultures of the Near East and the eastern shores of the Mediterranean); — why particular themes with a very wide or universal distribution (such as the World Flood motif) generally exhibit a wider range of variations and are often found bundled or combined in sequence with other common themes; — why observational details regarding major natural disasters (such as floods, fires, and extended periods of darkness) were typically cast in terms of supernatural characters and actions (on account of the very limited perspectives of all eyewitnesses); — why the impact of natural disasters on human settlements and the resilience of their surrounding ecosystems varied considerably from time to time and from place to place; — why the number of catastrophes suffered by ancient peoples differed from one location to the next; — why different counts of World Ages, Heavenly Kings and Generations of Man were preserved by different cultural traditions; — why the order of creation, or the sequence of cosmogonic events out of which new creations and destructions unfolded varied in different cosmogonic legends from different places and different times; — as well as why the creation of myth and the enactment of mythic rituals quickly came to an end, when no visual references in the skies remained to be mythologized. |
This same general situation also accounts for the relative limitations inherent in solely studying the celestial perspectives of a single myth-making culture alone — when most cultural differences began as simple differences in quite literal points-of-view on the ground. No single mythology can be considered basic and original, with all others being derivative — for ultimately both the similarities between cultures as well as their differences were equally true, and remain equally valuable to us.
|
In sum, it is truly remarkable how unified world understanding becomes when we look at things this way. Mythology no longer seems to be such a vast confused welter of stories as was formerly supposed. Instead, the full global story as an integral whole becomes akin to a choir of multi-cultural voices, singing in worldwide harmony to the common strains of a single symphony. — And this is precisely why we must choose to be all-inclusive and all-embracing, and bring all examples worldwide together to be compared, contrasted and integrally combined — if we want to arrive at a common universal history behind all peoples’ individually tailored mythologies.
|