The Great Bear, The Living Statue & The Monster In The Cave

September 29, 2016 6:57 AM

"In recent years a promising scientific approach to comparative mythology has emerged in which researchers apply conceptual tools that biologists use to decipher the evolution of living species. In the hands of those who analyze myths, the method, known as phylogenetic analysis, consists of connecting successive versions of a mythical story and constructing a family tree that traces the evolution of the myth over time." On using biological ideas to trace the paths of evolving myths across the world.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane (12 comments total)

this is relevant to my interests thank you

(bouncing faintly on seat in eagerness)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:07 AM on September 29, 2016

Just as unrelated species sometimes evolve to resemble one another owing to their inhabiting similar ecological niches, mightn’t there also likewise be myths which appear alike despite having divergent origins? Could one distinguish between tales sharing a common ancestry and those having evolved separately to meet similar needs?
posted by misteraitch at 7:25 AM on September 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

I would think that the detail of Ursa Major being a bear would be good evidence for evolution of the story from a common source. That particular grouping of stars has no real resemblance to a bear. If different cultural groups independently come up with the notion of hunted animals being represented in the stars, it seems highly unlikely that they would select those specific stars and that specific animal coincidentally.
posted by tdismukes at 7:30 AM on September 29, 2016

Interesting article. Looking forward to input from linguists and archaeologists here.
posted by BlueHorse at 7:44 AM on September 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

Good thing phylogenetic analysis is not messy at all.
posted by srboisvert at 8:34 AM on September 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

This was great, I learned a lot and it felt great. Thanks for posting it!
posted by bleep at 9:08 AM on September 29, 2016

My current research lends credibility to the out-of-Africa theory of human origins,

Well, tens of thousands of individuals from various indigenous groups have been sequenced, but nobody was quite sure about human migration until you ran PHYLIP on a folklore table.
posted by benzenedream at 9:57 AM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Could one distinguish between tales sharing a common ancestry and those having evolved separately to meet similar needs?

Given that humans have had brains that are basically unchanged in structure and function for tens of thousands of years, is it even somehow surprising that the same mythical patterns might have been generated by the similar processors of input as humans struggled to make sense of the world in which they live?

I like the idea that maybe myths have been carried by humans across the millennia of human migration, but I'd also not be surprised if the explanation is that human brains create similar stories because of the basic material they are using to explain things.
posted by hippybear at 10:39 AM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

That wouldn't account for what the article mentions about these myths not appearing in every culture.
posted by bleep at 10:48 AM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Every system needs inputs to create an output. I'd be interested to know more about differences in the settings of those cultures which might explain how the inputs were different before I discounted the lack of similar across-the-board output.
posted by hippybear at 10:52 AM on September 29, 2016

Here's an informative read, with a bit of righteous attitude, on this topic from the locals' point of view:
"Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans & the Myth of Scientific Fact", by Vine Deloria
posted by Mesaverdian at 6:22 PM on September 29, 2016

It is always fun to read about outdated paradigms. Marco Polo's travels tell of a city in China that was so far north the Pole Star could not be viewed. (He lived in a flat earth world.)
Moses stopping the sun, great stuff !
These paradigms had practical uses; in aboriginal dream time, myth and family folklore combine to give a mindmap of the local terrain that would help in hunting or finding water.
Common myths about Orion belt and Ursa Major can be seen as basic science or heuristics that helped ancient man in his day to day activities and communication.
I'm not surprised neolithic man was thinking in a similar way thousands of miles apart.
posted by Narrative_Historian at 3:40 AM on September 30, 2016