Professor Ola Svein Stugu,

Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Myths, History and the Construction of National Identity

European Summer University conference The Misuse of History
Strasbourg July 2. 2003.

Abstract
Myths, particularly myths of origin, have played an important part in the construction of
national identities and in legitimating states and dynasties as well as other forms of
political regimes. Modern historical research is often seen as a kind of opposite to myths,
but at the same time history and historians are known to have played vital parts in the
nation building processes in a large number of countries, not at least by the ways history
have been taught in schools. This raises important questions of the character of narratives
told by historians, whether their identity making functions are very different from premodern myths. When acknowledging the identity making potentials of historical
narratives at large, the difference between myths and research based history becomes
blurred. Focusing on the mythical aspects and functions of history makes it possible to
discuss uses and abuses of history from new perspectives.

In 1941, the Japanese historian Tsuda Sokichi was put on trial in Tokyo, charged with lesemajesty. His crime was to have cast doubt on the existence of emperor Jimnu, who was said to
have founded the imperial dynasty in the year 660 B.C., and of the existence of Jimnus
immediate successors. By doing this, he also challenged the myths of the divine ancestry of the
imperial family. We have no evidence of the existence of these early emperors, Tsoda had
argued, except from what was told in Japans first written histories, Kojiki and Nihon Shoki,
which were both produced at the imperial court early in the 8 th century. These works were
compiled mainly to legitimate the existing system of government by showing its long historical
roots. It should not be ruled out that the old stories contained some truth, Tsuda maintained. As a
nationally minded Japanese, he may even have liked it to be so, but as a scholar, he had to take a
sceptical stand.
At the same time, other prominent Japanese historians were busily engaged in the
celebration of 2600 years of Japanese statehood in 1940. An important purpose of the

celebrations was to confirm and strengthen Japanese identity as a unique, unified nation with a
particular civilising mission in Asia. In this connection an imperial Commission of Inquiry into
Historical Sites Related to Emperor Jimnu was appointed, with the task to determine which
places of memory that were to be officially recognized as related to the first emperor, and which
places that were to be dismissed as mythical and legendary. Hardly any academic historians held
the old narratives to be reliable, their participation in the commission and the celebrations was
otherwise motivated. For some it may be a case of sheer opportunism, but there is no doubt that
several leading historians also shared a firm belief in Japans historical mission and deep
devotion to the imperial regime. This also made them endorse textbooks where critical questions
were altogether left out, because that might be dangerous to the over-arching educational goal of
bringing up loyal subjects of the imperial state (Brownlee 1997).
This Japanese case is a good point of departure for a more general discussion on the role
of myths in society:
It shows that belief in myths involves fundamental value and belief systems. A discussion of
myths therefore cannot be reduced to a simple question of ignorance versus knowledge and
enlightenment.
It is a good case to demonstrate how myths of origin have become important elements in
legitimating not only regimes, but also the very existence of nations. On one hand, this
implies that myths may be used consciously for instrumental purposes. But it also means that
by studying the character of a nations myths we may get good insights into the hegemonic
value systems of that nation.
It shows that scholarly history is not always unambiguously opposed to myths, but at times
has been deeply involved in reproducing and endorsing myths.
Last, but not least, the Japanese case makes a good point of departure for clarifying what is
actually meant by a myth.
What is a myth?
Myth theory has until recently been a topic of principal interest to historians of religion and of
ideas. From this perspective myths are commonly seen as fictious narratives of gods and heroes
in some undefined past.
This perspective may be developed further in at least two important directions. One of
them springs from the idea of the fictious character of myths, seeing myths as unproved beliefs,
as opposed to rational truth. This interpretation is in line with the old Greek dichotomy, posing
Mythos as an opposite to Logos. A similar interpretation may be found in some textbooks in

historical method, which describe writing scholarly history as opposite to telling myths, and
present the development of history from myth telling to evidence based research as a major
breakthrough not only in the professionalising of history, but in the development of modern,
critical thinking at large. (Kjeldstadli 1991). It goes well with this way of reasoning to see
fictious tales as lies; myth and truth as opposites.
Another discussion focuses on the religious functions of the mythical narratives. From
this point of view, myths very often have didactic purposes, and function as means of conveying
fundamental values, beliefs and life orientations to an audience.
Psychologists and psychiatrists have developed this way of thinking further. Myths are
fundamental in giving meaning and importance to human existence and confidence to peoples
lives, the psychologist Rollo May maintains in his book The Cry for Myth (1991). In his view,
myths are patterns in the form of narratives that give meaning to our lives. His approach is
focusing on the functions of myths, very much downplaying the question of their factual or
fictious character.
Mays perspective is on the individual, but the analysis may be easily transferred to
collectives, where myths have important functions in binding societies together, supporting
collective identities, and not at least in defining the properties of these identities. Myths may be
seen as explanatory narratives, which by giving answers to important questions become sources
for strength and meaning, models for action and patterns for interpretation in a confusing,
disparate world. By giving guidance to whom belongs to an us group and which values are to
be respected, and vice versa whom and what belong to the outside and which values are to be
despised, myths play important parts in constructing collective identities. Telling myths about a
common past in short becomes a way to forge a common identity within a group of people
(Brandt 1999, Eriksen 1999). But myths also give prescriptions for action. According to William
McNeill, myths are publicly held beliefs that unite people, comfort them by alleviating
uncertainties, and mobilize them to act (McNeill 1986, referred in Puchala 2003: 164 f).
From a rational point of view the term myth implicates that the story referred to has a
fictious character. However, in the culture where the myth is being told, it is at the outset
regarded to hold some truth to be believed in. As Ernst Cassirer has noted: In mythical
imagination there is always implied an act of belief. Without the belief in the reality of its object,
myth would lose its ground in this respect it seems to be possible and even indispensable to
compare mythical with scientific thought. Of course they do not follow the same ways. But they
seem to be in quest of the same thing: Reality (Cassirer 1944, quoted in Puchala 2003).

Instead of simply condemning myths as lies and stamping belief in myths as crude
superstition, it seems much more fruitful to look closer at their functions. Shared myths define
political communities and contribute to rendering them governable, Robert MacIver has
maintained, describing myths as value-impregnated beliefs and notions that men hold, that
they live by or live for (MacIver 1947, referred in Puchala 2003). In this connection, it not only
becomes relevant to study the functions of what is universally considered as myths, but also of
other narratives that contribute to giving order and meaning to the world. Focusing on functions,
it becomes less important whether the narratives speak of supernatural beings or of humans with
a proven existence; of events universally acknowledged as fictious or dealing with historical
events. This reasoning obviously blurs the dichotomy between Mythos and Logos and makes it
clear that the borderline between what is being seen as mythical and what is accepted as factual
history is not given once and for all, but is a result of cultural and political processes in certain
conditions. It also makes us aware that not only the contents of the narratives become important
but also their form.
Myths consequently describe not only imaginary figures, but may also deal with
historical persons that in certain connections are given some kind of heroic dimensions. In
European culture people like Napoleon, Luther and Mary Stuart have acquired a kind of mythical
stand on line with Don Quixote, Hamlet and Faust. Fictional or real, they all invite different
interpretations. They also have something else in common: they are not only central points of
reference in national cultures but belong to a common European heritage as well (Henry 2002).
The functions of particular myths therefore may be redefined, and one single myth may
be used by different groups and entities for different purposes. Their most basic function,
however, seem to be to unify the groups, tribes, nations or other entities where they are being
told around certain common ideas, values and orientations.
The mythical foundation of nations
A particularly important group of myths tell tales of national origin and of decisive events of
national foundation. In European culture one of the first and best known myths of this kind is the
story of Romulus and Remus and the foundation of Rome. The Japanese stories of the noble,
brave Emperor Jimnu and his divine ancestry belong to the same category and have functioned
as an important vehicle for identity and loyalty making. The motive of divine ancestry may be
found also in other parts of the world, e.g. in South American Inca mythology.
Another instance is Norse sagas describing the royal Yngling family as descendants of
Odin. He was the preferred god of the Vikings, and was known to the southern Germans as

Wotan. Recently there has even been some attempts, mainly by Norwegian anthropologist and
adventurer Thor Heyerdahl, to revive the 13th century Icelandic saga writer Snorri Sturlusons
interpretations of Odin as a real chieftain, leading his tribe from somewhere in the Caucasian
region to Scandinavia some 2000 years ago (Heyerdahl 2001). This story of a wandering tribe in
search for a promised country bears semblance to and may even have been inspired by the
biblical myths of Abraham and of Moses and the Exodus, which are fundamental in legitimising
the state of Israel even today.
Quite often mythical characters have their origin in some kind of historically grey zone
where it cannot be entirely ruled out that they do not have any kind of actual historical reference.
The existence of the characters mentioned above becomes more a question of faith than of
evidence. But somewhat further on the grey scale we find a large field of narratives about kings,
chieftains, saints and other personalities whose existence most historians admit, but whose lives
to a large degree have been described in mythological terms and by help of narratives with clear
mythic properties. These narratives also have something else in common, the function of
explaining and legitimating regimes, states or nations within which the stories were told.
In European history we recognize a large number of such narratives. Arminius is known
to history as the leader of an ac hoc alliance of Germans that routed the Roman legion of Varus
in the forests of Westphalia in year 9. Particularly during the period of German romanticism
Arminius, or Hermann, as he was then named, was endowed with a kind of proto-German
national conscience and hailed as a liberator against the Roman invaders. This narrative found its
most visible expression in a giant monument which was erected in the Teutoburger Wald in
1875, where the chieftain is seen looking westwards in the direction of France with his sword
drawn, ready to meet the enemies of the Germans once more. The sword has an inscription
which may be translated into English as German unity is my strength, my strength is German
power (Deutschlands Einigkeit meine Strke, meine Strke Deutschlands Macht) (Schultze
1989).
Another narrative of mythic properties is the story of the baptism of Clovis (Clodvig, the
first Louis) in 496. By help of war and murder he had become the first ruler over all the Frankian
tribes. But by the act of baptism, the barbarian not only converted to Christianity and was
legitimated by the papal church, he also symbolically converted to civilization, and became a
worthy and just ruler. It is no wonder that this moment was later hailed as the moment of birth of
France.
One of the most common and popular myths of this period is the idea that the Germanic
and Slavic tribes existed as a kind of primordial ethnic entities with identities and existences of
5

their own long before the age of the so called barbaric invasions. Modern historians commonly
dismiss these interpretations. Patrick Geary has noted that the formation of these early medieval
tribes rather followed a process that has very much in common with the formation of the Zulus in
South Africa in the 19th century. At first they were military bands grouping around a strong
chieftain, Chaka, only gradually and later on they were shaped into a distinct identity group by
help of a range of different historical processes (Geary 2002).
South Africa is also the home of a more recent exodus narrative, the story of the Great
Trek, the Boer conquest of the South African interior in the mid 19 th century. The histories of
these events, not at least of the Blood River victory against the Zulus, very soon acquired
mythical properties, and in the end was endorsed as an official founding myth of white South
Africa until 1994. The myth manifested itself by the erection of the massive Voortrekkermonument outside Pretoria in the years around 1940, another example of how myths are being
enforced and literally cemented by the construction of monuments and other sites of memory.
In Europe the historical raw materials for constructing myths of national origin is mostly
of early medieval origin. Its transformation into tales of national heroes, however, as a rule is a
modern phenomenon. Recently one has witnessed a further transformation of some of these tales,
more appropriate for a transnational era. Among the most prominent heroes of mythical
narratives in Europe is Charlemagne. In the era of European national states he was claimed not
only by France but by Germany as well as one of their founding fathers. After the establishment
of what was to become the European Union Charlemagne has been transformed into some kind
of predecessor of the enterprise.
The Anglo Saxon King Alfred of Wessex of the late 9th century not only got mythic status
for his relentless fights against the Vikings, but also for his civilizing efforts, and he has at
several occasions been used as a symbol of national British resistance against foreign invaders.
In France the story of Jeanne dArc has been used for similar purposes. Alfreds contemporary,
the Madjar king Arpad, on the contrary, got his founding father status as the successful leader of
invading groups into what later became Hungary. Another contemporary, the Norwegian
chieftain Harold Fairhair, is reputed as the king who united Norway. The authors of medieval
sagas conceived of Harolds Kingdom as something similar to Norway as it was at their time of
writing some 300 years later. This narrative has been retold e.g. in school textbooks until
recently. Leading historians today, however, maintain that Harolds realm hardly comprised
more than Western Norway with some adjoining districts.
Looking at what these narratives have in common, we may first of all note that nothing
succeeds like success. Whether the hero was a defender or a conqueror is of less importance than
6

the fact that he succeeded. Actually Alfred is the only defender among these heroes. The others
are what may be called destructive creators, bringing entities into history that did not exist before
their days, either by conquer from outside or violent unification from inside.
Some heroes of historic narratives unite these properties. In the founding mythology of
the Habsburg dynasty, the first Rudolf is being presented as a defender as well as a conqueror.
The decisive moment of the story is the battle of Marchfeld in 1278, when Rudolf defended his
newly won title of King of Germany by defeating his rival, king Ottokar of Bohemia. This battle
has until quite recently been described in Austrian textbooks and popular history as a victory for
prudence, decency and justice against an unjust pretender. If Ottokar had won, the story of
Rudolf would probably have been one of a usurper of the throne.
Myths and history
The histories referred to above tell of national origins, of founding fathers, of decisive moments;
sometimes all elements are present in one and the same narrative. Stories about national saints
usually follow the same patterns. They are all examples of narratives about real events that may
have the same functions as fiction when it comes to conveying values and life-orientations and to
constructing and preserving identities. This does not mean that all narratives function in the same
way. A myth is unquestionable, closed and confirming, and not open to questioning and
reasoning. Its values are set and within what may be called a myths universe the roles of heroes
and villains are defined and fixed once and for all. In addition, a myths facts and events are
usually chosen and interpreted on the basis of some extra-historical or instrumental
considerations, not out of a wish to explain historical development on historys own conditions
or out of a wish to tell how it actually was (wie es eigentlich gewesen war in Rankes own
language).
As far as narratives of real historical events satisfy the requirements mentioned above,
they take on a mythical character. Instead of demonstrating the complexities and contradictions
of real history, mythologizing narratives usually oversimplify. How a story is being told then
becomes more important than its contents. In this connection the profession of the person telling
the story becomes of less importance. This means that historians too may be prone to reproduce
myths under certain circumstances, not at least in textbooks. In short, when acknowledging the
identity making potentials of historical narratives at large, the difference between myths and
scholarly history becomes blurred.
Particularly during the 19th century many historians were deeply involved in national
identity making and nation building processes of their time. Anthony D. Smith states:

Historians figure prominently among [nationalisms] creators and devotees That historians
should contribute in such a large measure to so historicist a movement, is not surprising, given
the common elements in early European nationalism and the historiography of the romantic
epoch. Michelet, Burke, Muller, Karamzin, Palacky and many others, provided the moral and
intellectual foundation for an emerging nationalism in their respective communities. Along with
the philologists, the historians have in many ways furnished the rationale and charter of their
aspirant nations. (Smith 1999: 29).
The Norwegian historian Peter Andreas Munch, the leading figure of what has been
called Norwegian historical school at the middle of the 19th century, may be a good case to
discuss the relationship between myths and history. The mythological aspects of his works are
most clearly visible in a theory of the origin of the Norwegians dating back to the late 1700s, but
refined by Munch and his contemporaries. According to Munch, Norwegians were a particular
tribe who entered Scandinavia by way of a northern route, contrary to Danes and Swedes,
coming from the south. The story has all properties of a genuine myth, even a proven historical
falseness, and it contained a high instrumental value at a time when Norway struggled to find its
own identity as distinct from its Scandinavian neighbours. It is no coincidence that the theory
gained prominence a couple of decades after Norway in 1814 regained its statehood after having
been part of the Kingdom of Denmark since late medieval times.
In most of his academic works, Munch treated his sources in a scholarly way. However,
he also wrote history textbooks for children, and vital parts of those narratives correspond well to
the closed, confirming, fixed form of mythological stories (see e.g. Munch 1839).
Of course, Munch was not the only one writing textbooks that way. Until well into the
second part of the 20th century, most textbooks in most countries are closed, confirming
narratives, inspired by good didactic intents of imbuing the readers with state approved values,
ideas and outlooks. In short, their mythologizing aspects are as a rule clearly visible. There are
exceptions, particularly at high school level. At primary school level, however, the exceptions
are rare.
The challenge
Having experienced all kinds of misuse of history in the last century, Europeans should have
learned a harsh lesson of mistakes that are not to be repeated. Do the cases referred to above
have any relevance at all for todays Europe?
This of course is a rhetoric question. Few historians and educators today want to play the
roles of their 19th century predecessors, but experiences particularly from Eastern and South

Eastern Europe show clearly that history is still being used extensively for instrumental purposes
and being retold in mythical forms. The communist use of history to create class consciousness
and class hatred has since 1989 been replaced by using history to revive and strengthen national
and ethnic identities. Even in a Western European context it must be appropriate to raise the
question of whether good intentions justify using history for other kinds of politically approved
identity making projects. In this connection it is hard to avoid discussing certain ways and
projects of using history as a means to construct a common European identity. Particularly if we
sympathize with the project and ideals of an open society and public participation, we ought to
take the utmost care not to construct new mythologizing narratives, but to retain the open, often
contradictory character of scholarly history also when writing and arranging history for public
consumption.
At a more profound level, our culture also faces other challenges, at times formulated as a
need for myths in the sense of ordering, meaningful narratives in a disenchanted, bewildering
age. This does not mean that we have to renounce on research based ideals of scholarly history.
But all concerned with the uses and interpretations of history have to face the challenge
formulated by Rollo May: The problem is how to gain mental strength to see truth fully and
clearly. It is much easier to seek strength and consolation in narratives with mythical properties.
This is a challenge not only to school history but to public history at large.

Literature:
Brandt, Thomas 1999: Da verden hade fire hjrner. Myter, historie og identitet rundt
tusenrsjubileet i Trondheim i 1997 (A world with four corners. Myths, history and identity
in the Trondheim millennium 1997). History thesis, NTNU. Trondheim.
Brownlee, John S. 1997: Japanese Historians and the National Myths, 1600-1945: The Age of
the Gods and Emperor Jimnu. UBC Press, Vancouver.
Cassirer, Ernst 1944: An Essay of Man. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Eriksen, Anne 1999: Historie, minne og myter (History, memory and myths). Pax, Oslo.
Geary, Patrick J. 2002: The Myths of Nations. Princeton University Press.
Ginzburg, Carlo 1992: Clues, myths and the Historical Method. The Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore.
Henry, Barbara 2002: Identities of the West. In: Heidrun Friese (ed): Identities, Time. Difference
and Boundaries. Berghahn, New York/Oxford 2002, pp. 77-108.
Heyerdahl, Thor & Per Lilliestrm 2001: Jakten p Odin, p sporet av vr fortid (The Hunt for
Odin, trailing our Past). Stenersen, Oslo.
Kjeldstadli, Knut 1991: Fortida er ikke hva den engang var (The past is not like it has been).
Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
Maciver, Robert 1947: The Web of Government. Macmillan.
May, Rollo 1992: The Cry for Myth (1991). Norwegian edition: Myter og identitet. Aventura,
Oslo.
McNeill, William 1986: Mythistory and Other Essays. University of Chicago Press.
Munch, P. A. 1839: Norges Historie i kort Udtog til Brug for de frste Begyndere. Christiania.
Puchala, Donald J 2003: Theory and History in International Relations. Routledge.
Schultze, Hagen 1989: Gibt es berhaupt eine deutsche Geschichte? Siedler, Berlin.
Smith, Anthony D. 1999: Myths and Memories of the Nation. Oxford University Press.

10