How are we going to deal with founding myth

There are many ridiculous myths and legends everywhere. Do they have any historical values? Can they tell us something about the real history? (I don't mean psychology of people or something)

For example, if a story says a hero is raised by wolves, can we say that wolves represent another race?

But why would we interpret it that way then? If the ancient people were really raised by another people why didn't they say so why would they invent a story about wolf milk? For entertainment ?

That's highly subjective and almost impossible to determine.

A big problem with the pre-modern idea of storytelling is that before we started thinking about concepts like objectivity and subjectivity, the factual and fictional were completely intertwined with each other.

Related to this is the idea of religious literalism, which is in fact a very modern idea, since, before inventions like the printed press, science as an independent, systematic field of study seperate from philosophy, and a hogher standard of living which allowed average folk to get access to all this information, the whole concept of taking a holy text literally would have been completely unheard of

So you mean the ancient people didn't really believe the wolf milk story?

Then did they read it as a metaphor of a more reasonable story?

I just don't understand why can't they record things without fictions

There is a pattern to founding myths across Eurasia, including Rome's (the difference is the twin founders):

A maiden is impregnated by a heavenly spirit or god.
The rightful king is deposed unjustly.
The maiden gives birth to a marvelous baby boy.
The unjust king orders the baby to be exposed.
The wild beasts nurture the baby so he survives.
The baby is discovered in the wilderness and saved.
The boy grows up to be a skilled horse man and archer.
He is brought to court but put in a subservient position.
He is in danger of being put to death but escapes.
He acquires a following of oath-sworn warriors.
He overthrows the tyrant and reestablishes justice in the kingdom.
He founds a new city or dynasty.

>So you mean the ancient people didn't really believe the wolf milk story?

They probably did, it's just that we're talking about a time when objectivity and subjectivity wouldn't have been seen as seperate concepts, meaning that the inner life (sentiments such as great men coming from humble beginnings), the outer life (humans being raised by animals, which is farfetched, but not really impossible) and just plain nonsense (animals actually talking and planning the whole thing in advance) would all be inseperable.

>I just don't understand why can't they record things without fictions

Two reasons that I can think of is that the human mind tends to remember sequences of events much better than just raw data. If you have the logical proposition of "in potential, the lowest man can rise to become a king", you won't really remember that, because it's just dry facts. If however you tell a story about some lowlife who, through all sorts of struggles, rises to become a king, people tend to remember the latter much better.

There are also practical concerns, like the limited resources for literature, so you have to pack history, philosophy, literature and poetry into one big story, instead of having a library of seperate volumes. Remember, we're talking about a time before the printing press, when books costed as much as a house. To pack those genres into one book would've been a pretty efficient solution

Patently false. Since the dawn of time religious literalism has been a thing. It's an important part of Abrahamic religion. You couldn't just interpret something as you wanted and be alright in the Pharisees's eyes for instance, which is what led to Jesus catching their ire. Which is ironic since modern Christianity is all literalism, so we're back again where we started, but whatever.

You can only articulate so much with a limited vocabulary.

What's next? Every story has a beginning and an end? Or every story conveys some kind of moral lesson? Therefore they're all based on some common myth? At least contribute something of value to discussion or don't at all.

>You couldn't just interpret something as you wanted and be alright in the Pharisees's eyes for instance, which is what led to Jesus catching their ire.

You couldn't interpret anything at all, because 99% of the people at the time couldn't read and didn't personally own a Torah.

>human mind tends to remember sequences of events much better than just raw data.
Okay. But suppose I say "The founders of Rome were raised by a people with wolf totem"
That is a raw data that is more difficult to remember than "The twins were raised by a wolf"?
Isn't it going to sound ridiculous and hard to believe and make people not take them seriously?
It sounds to me they chose the more entertaining stories over the simpler story.

>so you have to pack history, philosophy, literature and poetry into one big story
Why can't they just pack scientific facts but also had to pack philosophy stuff?

I know I am asking a vague question so I better settle down to a particular case. Unfortunately I can't think of many origin stories. Bible has some but they are all too controversial it might turn into /pol/

>everyone's a steppe nomad
Maybe in Asia but not in Europe
Colony myths to get people to tolerate each other

>"What scientific truthfact does this myth/symbol correspond to?"
>playing autistic matching games

You already lost any deeper understanding into these cultures.

>people with wolf totem
Why not just a person named Wolf? Thats actually a common name in different languages, like lupe and adolf, and easy to reimagine as an actual wolf for the sake of a story

>the outer life (humans being raised by animals, which is farfetched, but not really impossible) and just plain nonsense (animals actually talking and planning the whole thing in advance) would all be inseperable.
Eh, you mean ancient people can't separate plain nonsense from possible?

Sorry I am asking a vague question maybe we should use some modern African jungle tribe as example. But that would get us into anthropological nonsense and I just want to know about history.

I mean, even wolf raising children sounds like impossible nonsense to me and shouldn't be allowed to appear on my family history. I know that primitive people aren't good at science but they should also know it's impossible.

Is it religion that is interfering with their sense of what is possible and what is not? That's how I can understand the mix up

I am just making example but yeah you have a more believable example easily. Why didn't they tell that story then?

>Why didn't they tell that story then?

Because they were WRONG

But the wolf milk story is also wrong

I guess the only scientific explanation is they had animist religion and believed that wolves would do such a thing.

>scientific explanation

u got 'em, another case closed

>Do they have any historical values?

Some do, Rome's has none whatsoever.

People lived in Rome 14,000 years before the legend of Romulus and Remus is set, even if it were true it basically happened at the end of Rome's history and not the start.

The "wolf" in this case could well mean a prostitute and would honestly make more sense.

I see. So the stories only have very small historical value. It is when there is a theory that is already supported by science, the stories can be then explained as a metaphor of fact (that is already proved by science). Otherwise it's should be treated as total nonsense.

It's more or less as I thought. But at least now I know when people interpret the stories and when people don't.

Thanks for replying the thread.

But you literally have humans living with wolves for years
And no he wasn't a furry

>People lived in Rome 14,000 years

no

This.

Prostitutes in were often called "lupa" or she-wolf and brothels were called lupanar because of their predatory nature.

The she-wolf that raised Romulus and Remus could've been a prostitute and lupa translating to the wolf mother.