Jonathan M. Hall | Archaeology and Myth: Some Reflections

Cases such as the “House of David” stele from Tel Dan, “Amazon” burials in western Russia and Ukraine, the fortifications and first palace of Romulus at the foot of the Palatine hill in Rome, or the tomb of St Peter in the Vatican, to name just a few, have inspired triumphalist claims that the “science” of archaeology has succeeded in proving the historicity of traditions that many had consigned to the field of myth. Such claims, however, betray a fundamental misunderstanding as to the nature and function of myth. Since myth typically exists in a plurality of variants and since the concept of “truthfulness” is generally immaterial to myth’s efficacy, the notion that it can be either proven or disproven by archaeology is deeply problematic. This lecture will offer some reflections on the relationship between archaeology and myth, with particular reference to the controversy surrounding the historicity of the Trojan War.
The Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures welcomes Jonathan M. Hall, Phyllis Fay Horton Distinguished Service Professor in the Humanities and Professor in the Departments of History and Classics and the College, University of Chicago, for this Members Lecture.
Our lectures are free and available to the public thanks to the generous support of our members. To become a member, please visit:
bit.ly/2AWGgF7
2022, ISAC
Music credit: bensound.com

[@lakepenagelady]

So excited for another season of OI Public lectures. Thank you for making them available on KZbin.

[@ISAC_UChicago]

We are excited to offer them to you!

[@Matthy63]

Very interesting perspective. On the Homeric question, setting aside the question of whether there was a Trojan war, and even whether Homer existed or was a single person etc - there's a good case that the Iliad was composed at least in part by someone who had a pretty good grasp of Anatolian geography, to the extent that Schliemann had a decent idea of where to dig going off not much more than that, and conversely not a terribly good grasp of Achaean geography. As the speaker mentions, Ilion/Troy VI would have been a site known to Iron Age Greeks, so for the sake of argument an Anatolian "Homer" would have a pretty good grasp on the location of Ilion, and would have been able to compose a backstory around that. It feels weirdly tautological, and fitting, that Schliemann in a way did find "Homer's Troy" in that the site "Homer" was looking at is Ilion, while this fact tells us pretty much nothing about the epics in the way that Schliemann thought it did.

[@heqaib]

Fantastic lecture!

[@juanfervalencia]

amazing lecture

[@umutcangun]

If one were to accept the principles of Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend for what constitutes as myth, then the whole thing has again a new meaning.

[@gobrutality]

Maybe it's time for us to rethink the developments in this subject and eating some kuru-pilav ha??

[@uhoh007]

Cline gives a far more nuanced view. "Archeology is not a tool for confirming myths". No, it is one tool to establish the historicity of aspects of mythological narratives. We need less Greek scholars pounding familiar tropes, and more Hittite scholars translating the vast reserve of unread documents from the most likely invading party at Troy around 1250BC. M.Hall proceeds here as more a lawyer than scientist. Cicero would approve ;)

[@bobwilson7684]

now you have to apply this mentality to Hazi Hawas 🤣🤣 brilliant lecture , Netanyahu would do good too watching the lecture🤣🤣

[@justsomeofmyfavs]

Very interesting lecture and a well-argued position about the myth. It's also interesting that the Indo-European Latins of Rome may have chosen to be "Trojans" because of their close Etruscan neighbors, a culture they admired and heavily borrowed from. Because there is some archaeological and linguistic evidence that the non-Indo-European Etruscans indeed hail from Anatolia like the Roman authors state (e. g. the closely related Lemnian language from the Aegean). And since Troy/Hisarlik was also a largely pre-Indo-European city, it or its environs might have been the point of exit of the Etruscans into Italy after the Bronze Age collapse. Be it the result of the "Trojan war" or an earlier event.

[@DesertAres]

I would have thought the Romans got their idea of being descendants of Troy from Aeneas who fled the burning city in the 12th century B.C.E, stopped in Carthage (which wasn't founded until the 9th century) canoodled with Queen Dido and then came to Italy where his descendants eventually became Romans. Although since it's all myth anyway, one theory is can crossover regardless of anachronistic reality. Also the Etruscans have (see Wikipedia) definitely not come from Asia Minor but according to DNA have no connection to the eastern Mediterranean. The Romans did seem to acquire customs from them, like gladiators and perhaps the toga.

[@justsomeofmyfavs]

@@DesertAres The Etruscans definitely do have a connection to the Eastern Mediterranean, at least a linguistic one. The Lemnian language from Lemnos is widely accepted to be related to Etruscan and its Alpine relative Rhaetian. Genetically speaking, Etruscans do have steppe (IE) component, but most of their ancestry comes from non-IE Neolithic farmers. Who in turn have their origin in Anatolia. It's not unrealistic to presume these non-IE populations also founded and lived in Troy/Hisarlik probably until the Bronze age collapse - an episode thereof being "The Trojan War", later heavily mythologized.

[@gailascari]

@@justsomeofmyfavs Etruscan language NOT related to the Eastern Mediterranean nor Anatolian languages.

[@Gracchi]

i think the horse, was just a metaphor, for the earthquake, that did bring the walls down, the horse of course a representation of posiden.

[@Rhadamistus5]

At 17:30 Colchis (Western Georgia) from Trapezus up Eastern Black Sea Coast is the Caucasian Colchian Kingdom and has nothing to due with Cappadocia. The borders on the entire NE are misleading. But nice lecture.

[@geraldlevin5141]

Interesting! Thanks. Armageddon event! I received sensitive information in Egypt & went to London Commonwealth Office (LCO) in July 1997. I was thanked & appointed to a Commonwealth project; 'To facilitate Israel joining the Commonwealth, as planned in 1919'. 'To facilitate Israel's entry into Commonwealth'. I asked WHY? LCO replied that during World War 1 (WW1), 19-25 September 1918, this battle of Megiddo (Armageddon) was fought. So, LCO decided to establish Israel after WW1 had to establish Israel. The LCO bible interpretation was 1] Armageddon, 2] Messiah, 3] Israel established & 4] Israel to be 'A light unto the Nations'. In 1918, LCO decided that time for 4] had arrived. LCO established Trans-Jordan as Palestine (89%) in 1921. Israel would be on Cis-Jordan (21%). BUT in 1922 the League of Nations took over and did not establish Israel as planned. So, LCO decided that Armageddon was fought over 100 years ago & that perhaps the Messiah had also ''Been & Gone''. Thus, that Trans-Jordan would be the Palestinian state and Israel (Light to Nations) would be all of Cis-Jordan. Nobody can prove LCO wrong. League of Nations (LON) tried. But LON failed. Time for Archaeology to solve ''The Riddle of the Sands''🖖💯🖖 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14119.21926

[@christianfrommuslim]

I'm disappointed that Hall threw the Tel Dan stele, an extra-Biblical confirmation of the minimalist-doubted "the House of David," into the same category as Troy and Aneas. This makes me doubt his objectivity. It seems like a capricious and unnecessary slur at the historicity of the Bible. Does he say the same of the Merneneptah Stele, the recently discovered Mount Ebal curse tablet, and anything else that confirms a Biblical place or character? The trend in archaeology over the past few decades overwhelmingly confirmed the historicity of the Bible.