Films, TV shows and other creative media often try to portray myths with the trappings of history. Their makers do this in order to package myths in a garb of historical legitimacy
Anshu Saluja
Of late, a number of film-makers, writers, artists and so on have claimed to retrieve and represent the past through their creative productions, a past — unspoiled by later distortions — that they profess is true. This brings us to the fraught connections between history and mythology. History reconstructs and presents an account of the past by analysing different sources — archaeological findings, coins, inscriptions, written texts and records, oral narratives, and other fields of information. A myth, on the other hand, rests on popular belief. Even though a myth matters because a large number of people subscribe to it, its relevance is tied not to authenticity but to its popular appeal and dissemination.
Myths are sanctified by religious beliefs and rituals. They often describe events supposed to have taken place hundreds of thousands of years ago, such as the catastrophic flood that destroyed life on Earth and the building of Noah’s Ark. Likewise, myths can also be deployed to account for extraordinary natural phenomena, such as hot-water springs, glacial rivers or volcanic craters. Even though scientific and geological explanations for these phenomena are now available, the myths associated with them continue to hold ground in many instances.
Crucially, a myth is important not because it is true. Its significance lies in that it exerts a powerful influence on people. We continue to believe in myths and reproduce them across time and space through our actions, ritual performances and narrative practices. But are we simply content with the knowledge that our preferred set of myths perpetuate? The answer is no. Our own beliefs are not enough for us: we often try to persuade others about the greatness and the veracity of the myths we believe in. We want others to buy into them, value them, and, ultimately, regard them to be true. This is precisely where the packaging of myth as history begins.
We believe in particular myths because we are attached to them — emotionally, ritually or otherwise. But we also seek legitimacy for these myths by giving them a historical basis. Why do we turn to the domain of history in this quest? We do so because history affords legitimacy to the past it records. With its principles of accuracy, objectivity, attention to detail, rigour and critical inquiry, history offers a focused lens to look at the past in all its complexity and plurality. Even those who ridicule history as the pointless study of an obscure past are swayed by the promise of legitimacy that the discipline holds out.
Unquestioning belief is what sustains a myth. Still, there’s a tendency to peddle and justify it in the name of history, a discipline which, by its very nature, concerns itself with scrutinising and questioning every aspect of the past. Films, television shows and other popular creative media often try to portray myths with the trappings of history. Their makers do this in order to package myths in a garb of historicity and historical legitimacy.
But history and mythology are independent of each other. They will safely remain so provided we resist the temptation to blur the lines separating the two.
Anshu Saluja is an assistant professor of History at Azim Premji University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The views expressed are personal
