The Iliad: proof that it was real?

[Epictetus]

I thought this was interesting. A new statistical study (and article) has found that the social relationships between characters in myths like Beowulf and the Iliad are closer to reality than those relationships found in fiction. It makes one wonder if there is a basis of truth in these myths.

[Nathan Ross]

Very thought-provoking! Perhaps it might be because 'modern' fictions (post medieval) are generally about the individual, whereas 'myths' are about the collective - all those lists of people, ships, towns and places as a desire for inclusivity?

"...Irish epic, Táin Bó Cúailnge... recent archaeological evidence suggests that it could be based in part on a real conflict in Ireland 3200 years ago"

This would be the 'Cattle Raid of Cooley' I suppose - I wonder what the 'recent evidence' is?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Wow, suddenly the Illiad is a Myth again...LOL

[john m roberts]

My favorite comparison of the Iliad and the Tain runs like this:

In the Greek national epic, the heroes set sail in a thousand ships and fight for ten years over the most beautiful woman in the world.

In the Irish national epic, the heroes fight over a cow.

Granted, it's a really great cow.

[Epictetus]

That was one of the exceedingly rare moments when "LOL" was a reality.

[Vindex]

My favorite comparison of the Iliad and the Tain runs like this:

In the Greek national epic, the heroes set sail in a thousand ships and fight for ten years over the most beautiful woman in the world.

In the Irish national epic, the heroes fight over a cow.

Granted, it's a really great cow.

Thank you!

I needed cheering up this evening :wink:

[Sean Manning]

As a man with a BSc in a computer science who hopes to get a MA in ancient history this December, and who briefly read their article, I can say that their methodology is confused. For example, they don't have a group of historical narratives as a control group, they don't consider that the social network in the Homeric tradition is different than that in any fragment such as the Iliad, and they don't explain why Richard III counts as a fictional narrative not a historical one. (Of course its not very truthful history ... but even to a strong believer in their historicity neither are Beowulf or the Iliad). In other words, it doesn't really prove anything. To do that they would have to have two control groups (fictional and historical narratives), compare the social networks in a given text to each group and see which it resembled, then ask literary scholars why that might be.

Despite the note on p. 2, I would also be interested to see some worked examples of how they divided relationships into friendly and hostile. Do Glaucus and Diomedes count as friendly (they are guest-friends) or hostile (they try to kill each other)? What about Paris and Menelaus? Achilles and Agamemnon? What models of "real social networks" do they use and why would social networks in warlike Iron Age societies organized by family ties be similar? (Their bibliography doesn't have article titles, just authors, dates, and journals, so one would have to read their sources to get an idea).

Richard Carrier has a detailed critique from a classicist's perspective (“Bad Science Proves Demigods Exist!”). I have to agree that this reflects poorly on the authors' and reviewers' practical knowledge of logic. It is an intriguing approach though, and its possible that one day there will be evidence that it is useful.

[Epictetus]

Carrier brings up some good points. Thanks for posting that.

[Sean Manning]

The blurb on the authors' project website nestor.coventry.ac.uk/research/appmath/staff/kenna_myth.php has a bit of information on their long-term plans. They seem to recognize the need to check more types of literature, but I don't see historical narratives on their list. And I have a suspicion that if they plugged The Marshals of Alexander's Empire into their program it would look artificial because everyone knew everyone else, just like the Marvel Universe.

[Lyceum]

Well as usual there is a colossal facepalm at this sort of thing. Carrier did an alright, if overly polite, job at explaining the problems with it.

Firstly, I do hope this project is not getting grant money. I mean...I really really do. Secondly yes these "Scientists" really ought to learn logic, I mean my god. Morons.

Incidentally if anybody is actually interested in how oral poetics work we have a vast body of literature built up over decades, across various cultures you can consult. For the Greek in particular we're well served.

Its funny. I was discussing something similar with an anc historian and a few other Homerists the other day, how non Homerists never seem to understand this stuff (with a few exceptions like R. Thomas) and that Aegean Archaeologists are particularly prone to idiocy but I guess these pair beat the likes of Palaima et al. Good for them. We now have a new (bad) paradigm to point out.

EDIT: Should also point out that, despite obvious misgivings at...whatever the hell this was. I'm thankful so many people are still interested in the ancient world. Now, if we could get kids into reading Homer a bit more....