Oral Traditions and Anthropological Analysis: Some Contemporary Myths

Abstract

Summary The terms ‘myth’ and ‘history’ are often used by historians and anthropologists interested in the oral traditions of non-literate peoples in a way which does not correspond to any ethnographic reality, but rather reflects the attitude of the ethnographer, an outsider, to the traditions of another people. In the field of oral history the term ‘myth’ often inhibits our understanding of traditions. It is preferable to use a neutral term like ‘legend’ for all orally transmitted stories which purport to be accounts of past events, whether they seem ‘mythical’ (fictional) or historical, because most legends contain both historical and ‘mythical’ (symbolic) levels of meaning. Legends should be classified in the same way as they are classified in the culture to which they belong. Much of this is in general agreement with Beidelman's article “Myth, Legend and Oral History”, but one must reject his argument that anthropological (structural-functional) analysis is indispensable to historians if they are to understand oral traditions, because the historical and ‘mythical’ meanings of legends are distinct. Even so, it is true that knowledge of the structural analysis of myth can greatly help an oral historian appreciate the complex nature of his sources, and so increase the value of his interpretation.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.