Brittany Wissen -- Storied Places

One of Lane’s major points in our study of his book is that a sacred place is also a storied place. He explains his idea by saying: “particular locales come to be recognized as sacred because of the stories that are told about him. The oldest stories, it would seem, are all tales about places—favorite hunting grounds painted inside Paleolithic caves, Gilgamesh seeking the land beyond the sun, the body of the Egyptian pharaoh bound for the underworld, Abraham headed toward Canaan” (Lane 15) What I am interested in is how much of these stories are true. Are they history or are they merely myth? How can one tell the difference? Sometimes, the borders are thin. When I hear a story about creation, I almost always discount it. After all, how can a person know what happened if they were, after all, being created? Therefore, I always associate creation with myth; I don’t see how history can be involved when no one knows for a fact. On the other hand, some myths, such as the Loch Ness monster, have evidence. For instance, there have been “sightings” throughout the ages of the Loch Ness monster. Does this give it the possibility of being history instead? Though the “evidence” may not be perfect, or even correct, “fact,” it is still there. Does a myth being a myth make the sacred place any less important or must it be defined as important purely by concrete history?

source:
Lane, Beldan C. Landscapes of the Sacred: Geography and Narrative in American Spirituality. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.