What Is a Founding Myth? The Story a Group Tells About Its Own Beginning
By the BrainSnail editorial team. How these articles are written and checked, and how to tell us when one is wrong.
Every group with a sense of itself has an account of how it began, and those accounts share recognisable features across cultures and periods. They explain the present arrangement, justify it, and mark the boundary between those inside the group and everyone else.
What the story does
A founding account performs several functions simultaneously and they reinforce each other. It explains why things are as they are, converting an arrangement that could have been otherwise into the result of a particular history. It legitimates, since a current claim to territory, authority or precedence rests on how it was originally acquired, and the story supplies that origin. It defines membership, because whoever descends from the founders or shares in the founding event belongs and whoever does not is outside. It supplies a model, since the founders' conduct becomes a standard to invoke. And it locates the group in time, giving a beginning that can be commemorated and dated, which allows anniversaries, rituals and public holidays to reactivate the story regularly. Those functions explain why such accounts are defended so fiercely against historical correction, since correcting the story is not a neutral factual matter but a challenge to whatever the story is supporting.
The recurring elements
Accounts from very different societies share a surprising amount of structure:
- •A migration or arrival, with the founders coming from elsewhere, which explains distinctiveness and frequently justifies a claim to land
- •A founder figure, sometimes twins, whose qualities the group claims to have inherited
- •Violence at the origin, including fratricide, sacrifice or conquest, which appears in a striking number of accounts including Rome's
- •Divine sanction, through a sign, a promise, a covenant or descent from a deity
- •A moment of choice or covenant, in which the group takes on obligations that continue to bind it
- •Threat overcome, since a story requires difficulty and the difficulty defines what the group is against as much as what it is for
The modern national versions
Nation states generate these accounts as thoroughly as ancient cities did, and because the process is recent it can be documented. National histories written in the nineteenth century selected episodes, elevated figures, standardised languages and constructed continuity between medieval populations and modern states that historians have since shown to be substantially invented. Folk traditions were collected, edited and occasionally fabricated to supply an authentic past, with the Ossian poems in Scotland and the compilation of the Finnish Kalevala representing the two ends of that spectrum, since one was a forgery and the other a genuine collection shaped heavily by its editor. Monuments, anthems, flags, public holidays and school curricula were created to transmit the account. The scholarship describing this process has become substantial, with the phrase invented tradition attached to it, and its central claim is not that nations are fake but that they are constructed recently and that the constructed parts are usually presented as ancient.
Smaller groups do it too
Nations attract the most attention and the pattern operates at every scale where a group has an identity to maintain. Companies maintain origin stories, and the garage in which a technology firm supposedly began is a recognisable genre with the same structure of humble beginnings, a visionary founder and obstacles overcome, frequently simplified well past what the records support. Universities, schools, regiments and clubs each maintain a founding account with commemorations attached. Professions tell origin stories about a founding figure whose standards current members claim to uphold, which is what medical oaths and legal traditions do. Social movements construct accounts of a first action or a decisive moment, and disputes about who was present and what happened at such moments recur regularly as the movement's later direction is argued over. Families do it at the smallest scale, with stories of an ancestor's arrival, a decisive choice or a hardship survived, and the same features appear, since the story explains why this family is as it is and what its members are supposed to be like.
When the story is contested
Founding accounts become political whenever an excluded group challenges them, and the resulting arguments have a recognisable shape. Settler societies face the sharpest version, since a story of arrival and establishment must deal with the people already present, and the movement from narratives of empty land or of civilising mission towards accounts that include dispossession has been contested in Australia, Canada, the United States, New Zealand and elsewhere across recent decades. Commemoration becomes a battleground, since a date celebrated by one group marks a catastrophe for another, and disputes over national days, statues and museum displays are disputes over whose founding account holds. Historical scholarship functions awkwardly here, since establishing what happened is a different activity from deciding what a society should tell itself, and historians who correct a cherished story are frequently attacked for motives rather than answered on evidence. The workable resolutions generally involve holding more than one account at once rather than replacing a story with another single story.
The takeaway
The account explains the present arrangement, legitimates a claim, defines who belongs and supplies a model to invoke, which is why correcting it is never a purely factual matter. Arrival from elsewhere, a founder figure, violence at the origin and divine sanction recur across very different societies. Nineteenth-century national histories built continuity that later scholarship showed to be constructed, and presented the construction as ancient.