Ancient heroic stories often follow a traveller through danger, but the reasons for leaving and the meaning of a return differ widely. Odysseus struggles to reach Ithaca after the Trojan War. Gilgamesh travels beyond the familiar world after his closest friend dies. Inanna enters the realm of the dead and comes back at a terrible price. Such different ancient journeys help explain why a single modern pattern can seem applicable to so many stories.
No ancient storyteller was working from a universal set of instructions for these adventures. The stories were told in different languages and societies, some separated by millennia. Their audiences had different ideas about what made a person heroic. A Mesopotamian king, Sumerian goddess, Greek seafarer and displaced Trojan might all confront death, while being judged by their stories against very different values.
The expression hero’s journey is mainly a modern term used in comparative mythology. Joseph Campbell popularised the model in The Hero with a Thousand Faces in 1949, drawing on earlier scholarship and much older narratives. Looking at the ancient stories themselves reveals both why his pattern became influential and where it breaks down. The differences tell us what each tradition expected from its heroes.
How the hero’s journey became a modern theory
Campbell borrowed the word monomyth from James Joyce to describe his proposed recurring pattern. The model moves from departure out of familiar surroundings, through testing and initiation, to a return of some kind. In its more elaborate form he identified seventeen possible stages, including the call to adventure, crossing a threshold, supernatural assistance, a central ordeal and the return with a benefit or insight. The seventeen stages were Campbell’s interpretation; Greek and Babylonian poets were not following a set of rules they had never known.
According to the Joseph Campbell Foundation’s explanation of the model, Campbell treated departure, initiation and return as the broad movements of a journey, without requiring every story to contain each detailed stage. The familiar circular diagram can impose a rigid appearance on a theory that Campbell expressed with more flexibility. His concern was with the psychological and religious meanings of myths, rather than simply with recipes for adventure fiction.
Other scholars had compared the lives of heroes long before Campbell published his book. Otto Rank’s The Myth of the Birth of the Hero, first published in German in 1909, compared extraordinary births, threatened infants and parental conflict. Lord Raglan’s The Hero (1936) proposed a list of twenty-two recurring features in legendary royal biographies. Rank emphasised infancy and psychoanalytic interpretation; Raglan assembled repeated events in legendary royal lives. Both schemes were devised by modern scholars and were unknown to the ancient storytellers.
A proposed pattern can determine which details a reader notices. A researcher can select episodes that fit a familiar pattern while explaining away those that do not. Journeys, helpful companions and confrontations can appear in separate traditions without proving contact or identical values. Folklorists have therefore challenged the universal claims made for the monomyth. A 2024 discussion of the ‘Hollywood McMyth’ raises similar objections to the use of a flexible mythological comparison as a standard script for mass entertainment.
The age and transmission of the surviving sources create another problem for comparison. The surviving copies of ancient stories are often much younger than the traditions they preserve. Greek audiences heard performances of Homeric poetry before those poems assumed their surviving written forms. Mesopotamian narratives survive in versions composed and copied over many centuries. The thirteenth-century Icelandic manuscripts that transmit major Norse heroic stories preserve traditions with earlier roots, but their precise earlier forms cannot simply be reconstructed from the medieval texts. Shared episodes give historians material to compare, but do not by themselves demonstrate one lost ancestral story.
The call to leave: Theseus, Aeneas and Gilgamesh
Theseus, Aeneas and Gilgamesh leave home for three separate reasons: an obligation to others, the destruction of a city and grief after a death. In the Athenian myth of Theseus and the Minotaur, the young hero sails to Crete among youths sent as tribute to King Minos. Ancient accounts differ about the tribute’s terms, yet the danger faced by Athens is clear: its young people are sent to the Labyrinth to die. The voyage to Crete therefore places Theseus’ courage at the service of Athenians who have been unable to protect their young.
Theseus needs the help of Minos’ daughter Ariadne if he is to survive the labyrinth. She helps him find a way back out after the killing, most famously by providing a thread that he can follow through the passages. Theseus succeeds through Ariadne’s knowledge, while the larger story turns on Athens’ obligation to Crete and what happens to the people who help the hero. Theseus subsequently abandons Ariadne in several versions of the story, and on his return forgets to change his ship’s black sails. His father Aegeus, believing him dead, throws himself into the sea. The homeward voyage ends in tragedy despite the Minotaur’s defeat.
Virgil’s Aeneid, composed in the late first century BCE, begins Aeneas’ long exile with the destruction of Troy. The hero escapes carrying his father Anchises and leading his young son Ascanius; his wife Creusa is lost in the destruction. He does not depart from a secure household in search of excitement. He carries a broken community, its family obligations and its sacred household objects into exile. Italy is where Aeneas’ descendants will help lead toward Rome; he will not live to enjoy that distant future as a personal reward.
The Roman readers of Virgil’s poem already knew the future history toward which Aeneas was travelling. That foreknowledge made the sacrifices, compromises and violence along Aeneas’ route particularly charged for Roman readers. The poem repeatedly tests pietas, the Roman virtue of dutiful responsibility toward gods, family and community. Duty is not the same as uncomplicated goodness. The abandonment of Dido gives the duty-bound journey a painful cost for both the woman and Carthage that cannot be removed by a tidy pattern.
Gilgamesh’s journey follows the death of Enkidu, and begins in the city of Uruk in southern Mesopotamia. In the Standard Babylonian epic, Gilgamesh and Enkidu first become famous through their victories over Humbaba, guardian of the forest, and the Bull of Heaven. Then Enkidu dies. Gilgamesh is terrified that his own body will meet the same end. He travels across dangerous mountains and waters to find Utnapishtim, a man who survived a divine flood and received exceptional life. Gilgamesh travels because he wants to learn whether death is unavoidable, rather than because he is trying to rescue a conquered kingdom.
Every encounter on the road is shaped by Gilgamesh’s fear of losing his own life after Enkidu’s death. His journey takes him past the scorpion guardians of the mountain, through darkness, to the alewife Siduri and finally across the Waters of Death. Campbell’s labels of ‘threshold’ and ‘helper’ explain little without Gilgamesh’s fear of death. Gilgamesh has ruled as if power might place him beyond ordinary human limits. Enkidu’s death exposes the mistake. What he discovers is that his royal power cannot free him from the fate of other human beings.
Trials, helpers and the danger of treating every episode alike
Odysseus often survives the Odyssey through judgement, deception and self-control rather than force alone. After the Trojan War he wants to reach his household on Ithaca. Poseidon’s hostility, the Cyclops Polyphemus, Circe’s enchantments and the dangers of the sea delay him for years. The poem makes the consequences of his choices unavoidable. He tells the Cyclops his real name after escaping, inviting divine retaliation. His companions disobey warnings and slaughter the cattle of Helios. Odysseus and his companions make choices that carry consequences, even when gods and prophecies shape their circumstances.
In Book 12, the Sirens pose a danger that Odysseus prepares to overcome by limiting his own choices. Circe warns that their song will lure sailors to destruction. Odysseus has his men stop their ears with wax and bind him to the mast. He can hear the song only because he has arranged to be prevented from following it. In Homer’s account of the Sirens, Odysseus even begs to be released and his crew tightens the ropes. The hero’s ingenuity consists in arranging for other people to resist his future wishes. The episode tests dangerous curiosity and the ability of a crew to enforce a decision its captain knows he may want to reverse.
The Sirens’ story had already become a familiar subject in Greek art long before modern mythologists began comparing heroic journeys. A red-figure stamnos, a pottery vessel used for storing and serving wine, attributed to the Siren Painter around 480–470 BCE shows Odysseus tied to the mast while bird-bodied Sirens approach. Its British Museum registration is 1843,1103.31, also catalogued as E440. The painted scene establishes that Greek artists knew and represented the story. It is not evidence that the painter believed in a seventeen-stage hero’s journey. Where and how the vessel was used remains distinct from the interpretations later viewers or modern scholars might place upon it.
The helpers are often essential to a hero’s survival. Athena repeatedly protects Odysseus and assists his son Telemachus. Circe first threatens the crew, then gives Odysseus instructions for the voyage ahead. Ariadne provides Theseus with the means of escape. In the Norse Sigurd tradition, the smith Regin equips the young hero for his confrontation with the dragon Fafnir, but his motives are treacherous. The helper’s aid can be necessary even when the helper has dangerous intentions. The stories are interested in obligations, bargains and competing loyalties, not simply in the acquisition of magical equipment. For more on the religious background, see Spoken Past’s comparison of Greek, Roman, Norse and Egyptian mythologies.
Descending into the underworld: very different kinds of knowledge
Greek speakers used the term katabasis for a journey down to the realm of the dead. A traveller who crosses into the dead’s realm may encounter otherwise inaccessible figures and sometimes return with knowledge, a sequence readily compared to Campbell’s model. But some ancient descents have no successful return, and others concern religious authority rather than individual transformation. These descents had different purposes in their respective traditions.
In Book 11 of the Odyssey, Odysseus performs a sacrifice at the edge of the underworld to summon its dead inhabitants. The prophet Tiresias tells him how he might return home and what danger awaits if his men harm the cattle of Helios. Odysseus also meets his mother Anticleia, whose death he had not known about. Their meeting reveals a private consequence of his years away from Ithaca. The dead cannot simply be recovered by a clever sailor. Odysseus receives knowledge that may guide him home, but he does not obtain power over death itself.
In Book 6 of the Aeneid, Aeneas enters the realm of the dead as part of a story about Rome’s future. With the Sibyl as guide, he enters the underworld, encounters the shades of the dead, and meets Anchises. His father reveals a procession of future Romans, including figures important to Roman history and Augustan ideology. This is not merely advice about finding a route home. Aeneas sees the distant future of the people whose origins his flight from Troy will help set in motion. The poem uses the underworld to bring family history, Roman political destiny and the price of empire into the same narrative.
The Sumerian Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld sends the goddess Inanna into the underworld as its central traveller. Inanna, a powerful goddess associated with love, warfare and royal authority, enters the realm ruled by her sister Ereshkigal. She passes seven gates and is stripped of successive items of her regalia. Each item she surrenders strips away another visible sign of her authority as a goddess. Inanna ends her descent condemned by the underworld judges, with her body suspended like that of a corpse.
Before Inanna leaves, she gives instructions in case she does not return. Her minister Ninshubur is instructed to seek the other gods’ help after her disappearance. Enlil and Nanna refuse to intervene, but Enki creates two beings who recover Inanna’s body and restore her with life-giving substances. The University of Oxford’s Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, composition 1.4.1 preserves the seven gates, the appeals for help, Enki’s intervention and the obligation to supply a substitute.
Inanna returns from the underworld, but her restoration creates a new crisis. The powers of the underworld require a substitute, and their demand falls on Dumuzi. Dumuzi is seized to pay for the goddess’s return. It is a narrative about the jurisdiction of death, divine power, ritual lament and substitution. Campbell’s ‘return with the boon’ has little to say about substitution and the cost of Inanna’s restoration. The surviving Old Babylonian manuscripts are principally from the early second millennium BCE, so it is unsafe to date this written form straightforwardly to 2100 BCE, even if its traditions are older.
Egyptian funerary texts describe judgement after death in a different setting from those heroic descents. Scenes in Book of the Dead manuscripts show the deceased’s heart weighed against the feather or emblem of Maat, the principle of right order. Anubis tends the balance, Thoth records the outcome and the devourer Ammut threatens those who fail. This is not a hero’s voluntary descent to win a prize. It is a ritual and funerary vision of judgment intended to help the deceased survive after death. The Metropolitan Museum’s account of heart scarabs shows why Egyptians could fear that their own hearts might testify against them at judgement.
The Papyrus of Ani makes the difference especially clear because it is a funerary manuscript meant to guide and protect its deceased owner. It was produced in the New Kingdom, in the nineteenth dynasty, and depicts a deceased person’s passage through the afterlife. The manuscript does not tell a linear adventure in which Ani returns to ordinary life. The weighing scene is a guide to a desired posthumous condition. The Papyrus of Ani is especially revealing as a comparison because its deceased owner seeks a different outcome from the heroes who descend and return.
Sigurd and the Norse heroic cycle
Sigurd attacks Fafnir from a pit dug beneath the route that the dragon will cross. While roasting the dragon’s heart for Regin, he tastes its blood and understands the speech of birds, who warn him that Regin plans to kill him. He then kills Regin and takes the hoard. The story survives in different medieval Scandinavian witnesses, including the Poetic Edda and Völsunga saga. Their dates and differences matter: a single smooth summary can hide the way traditions changed as they were transmitted. Spoken Past discusses the broader legend and manuscript traditions in sources for Norse mythology.
At Ramsund in Södermanland, Sweden, an eleventh-century carving records Sigurd’s story on a public rock face. The rock-face inscription, designated Sö 101, is usually dated to the early eleventh century. It shows Sigurd, Fafnir, Regin, the birds and the treasure-bearing horse Grani. But its runic text is not a retelling of the adventure. It records a woman’s commission of a bridge in memory of a relative. The Göttingen Academy’s RuneS record documents the inscription and its early eleventh-century style. The carving belongs to the world of public commemoration and Christian-period activity, rather than serving as a timeless illustration outside its own setting.
Gilgamesh’s failure and the problem of the reward
At the end of his travels, Gilgamesh finds Utnapishtim, whose extraordinary survival of the flood did not give all human beings a path to eternal life. Utnapishtim challenges him to remain awake, and Gilgamesh falls asleep. Later he acquires a plant associated with renewed youth, only for a snake to take it while he bathes. The quest’s most obvious prize is lost. By the standards of a quest that rewards each ordeal, he has failed twice.
The epic judges Gilgamesh’s apparent failure against the lasting works of his city. The opening and closing attention to Uruk’s walls frames a story about the human work that survives individual bodies. Gilgamesh cannot abolish mortality, but the city he governs, its buildings and its remembered achievements have a durability that he can recognise. This does not mean the epic teaches that monuments make kings immortal. He comes back to Uruk having encountered his limits, while the people he once ruled harshly still live within the city walls.
The British Museum’s Flood Tablet, museum number K.3375, was copied in the seventh century BCE and recovered from Ashurbanipal’s library at Nineveh. It preserves part of Tablet XI, including Utnapishtim’s account of the great flood. It is not the original composition of the entire epic, nor does it alone preserve every episode of Gilgamesh’s search. Generations of Mesopotamian scribes copied and altered the Gilgamesh stories rather than preserving a single original manuscript. The tablet is one surviving witness to the epic’s long written transmission, not evidence for a single moment of authorship. The separately transmitted Gilgamesh Tablet XII further complicates the idea that every part of the Gilgamesh cycle forms one smoothly continuous novel.
Gilgamesh returns without immortality. Enkidu remains dead, and Uruk still faces the dangers of an ordinary mortal city. He has learned what a mortal life can accomplish without overcoming death.
Women who drive the action, and women whose journeys do not fit
Simplified diagrams often place women around a travelling man as temptresses, goddesses or helpers. Ancient literature contains many such portrayals, but it also gives women independent plans, decisions and consequences. Recognising the decisions of women in these stories does not erase the unequal political and social powers of ancient societies.
Inanna herself travels into danger, overturning the assumption that the central adventurer must be male. Her minister Ninshubur is also indispensable: she obeys the instruction to seek help after the goddess disappears. Her initiative does not spare Dumuzi from the consequences of her return. Ereshkigal is herself a powerful ruler of the dead, with authority in her realm and a purpose beyond obstructing her sister.
During Odysseus’ absence, Penelope uses a deception to defend their household in the Odyssey. She delays the men seeking to marry her by weaving a shroud by day and undoing the work at night. Eventually the suitors discover what she has been doing. When Odysseus returns in disguise, Penelope does not simply recognise him and hand over her household. In Book 23 she tests him by mentioning the marriage bed built around a rooted olive tree, a private detail he alone should know. Penelope’s test depends on caution, intimacy and shared memory rather than on Odysseus’ ability to defeat an enemy by force.
Theseus’ killing of the Minotaur would not have secured his escape from the labyrinth without Ariadne’s thread. Yet her own subsequent fate varies across ancient tellings: she is abandoned, taken by Dionysus or given different explanations for her separation from Theseus. Those competing endings create a difficulty for any diagram that assumes one definitive plot. Following Ariadne’s experience instead of Theseus’ changes the story considerably: her ending may be abandonment or marriage to a god, depending on the version.
The battle with the Minotaur appears frequently on Greek pottery, sometimes with female figures observing the fight. The images show which moments artists and purchasers chose to emphasise, but they cannot establish the exact wording of a myth told in every household. The identification of some women shown beside the combatants remains uncertain in museum catalogues.
Horus, Set and the struggle for rightful rule
The struggle of Horus against Set is often described as a son’s revenge for his dead father Osiris. Vengeance forms part of the tradition, while the dispute also turns on succession and the restoration of divine authority. Osiris, the dead king, is associated with the afterlife. Horus claims the succession, while Set contests it. The conflict concerns who has the right to rule after Osiris and how divine order can be restored.
In the Contendings of Horus and Seth, preserved in the New Kingdom papyrus Chester Beatty I, divine judges hear disputes and witness contests full of humiliation, deceit and reversal. Its tone can be comic and outrageous, which is one reason it resists solemn heroic diagrams. The papyrus dates to the New Kingdom, although some beliefs used in the story go back much further.
Horus’ victory belonged to Egyptian ideas about royal succession and divine order, but kings were not expected to undergo the same individual journey. Egyptian rulers were associated with Horus, while temples maintained relations among divine powers across different dynasties and local cults. Maat, often translated as truth, justice or right order, helps explain the stakes. Restoring maat was part of the continuing work of kingship and religion rather than a prize awarded once at the end of one adventure.
Reliefs in the Ptolemaic temple of Horus at Edfu portray the god defeating enemies, at times shown as hippopotamuses. At Edfu, these images belonged to the religious practices and ideas particular to that temple. The temple’s reliefs cannot establish that every version of Horus’ conflict with Set was identical, or that each pictured event occurred daily in precisely the same ceremony.
What the five traditions actually share, and where they differ
In Greek epic, long absence and violence repeatedly test a hero’s obligations to a household and the community around it. Odysseus returns, but the killing of the suitors produces another crisis: their families seek revenge. Athena intervenes to establish peace. Reaching home does not complete Odysseus’ task until the community can live without further revenge. In the Theseus tradition, by contrast, the hero’s successful killing of a monster can coexist with the death of his father and the abandonment of Ariadne. Greek myths therefore do not guarantee that a brave deed will lead to a painless homecoming or a fair reward.
Aeneas is assigned a destiny that reaches beyond his own life to the future Roman people. That does not erase the suffering of Dido or the Italians who resist the Trojan newcomers. The Aeneid ends when Aeneas sees the belt taken from the dead Pallas on Turnus and kills his defeated opponent. Virgil ends there, without narrating the foundation of Rome or a peaceful settlement. The conflict between destined rule, anger and violence remains unresolved, contrary to the harmonious ending a simplified heroic cycle might lead readers to expect.
The stories of Sigurd and the Völsung family come to us through medieval Icelandic writing and earlier Scandinavian visual evidence. They centre on kinship, inherited vengeance, wealth, betrayal and a reputation that can survive death. Sigurd’s victory over Fafnir does not secure a stable happy ending. The treasure associated with the dragon fuels the calamities that follow Sigurd’s victory. The Ramsund carving shows that Sigurd’s legend was publicly represented before the prose compilations we possess, without proving that its entire plot remained unchanged.
The struggles of Horus and Osiris helped Egyptian communities explain rightful kingship and an ordered world. Mesopotamian tales of Gilgamesh and Inanna explore the boundary between life and death, but even those two stories differ profoundly. One is a king who cannot acquire eternal life. The other is a goddess restored from death at a substitute’s expense. Their different aims and outcomes reveal the concerns of each tradition.
Reading the evidence before drawing the circle
These stories survive on tablets, in manuscripts and ritual texts, in inscriptions and through works of art. What can be learned depends upon how each source was produced and what it was meant to record. A painted vase establishes that an episode was depicted by a particular time and place; it does not tell us exactly how a performer recited the story. A medieval saga preserves an elaborate narrative but may incorporate centuries of revision. A cuneiform tablet preserves a written witness, not the first moment a tale was told. Disagreements between surviving accounts form part of the history of a myth and deserve explanation rather than erasure.
Each ancient narrative raises questions that a seventeen-stage diagram cannot answer. In the Odyssey, ask why Penelope’s test is necessary after the physical return. In the Aeneid, ask why Virgil ends with the death of Turnus. In Gilgamesh, ask what the hero has gained if he has lost the plant and cannot bring Enkidu back. In Inanna’s Descent, ask who pays for the goddess’s restoration. The dispute over Horus and Set similarly raises the question of why divine authority needed adjudication by other gods.
Departure, ordeal and change are useful terms for comparing heroic stories across cultures, and this explains much of the appeal of the hero’s journey model. It can illuminate why audiences separated by language and time recognise a story about leaving safety and confronting what lies beyond it. Those broad similarities become less useful when the ancient stories are read in full. Their heroes do not all seek personal fulfilment, their helpers do not all act from loyalty, their descents do not all end in resurrection, and their returns do not always restore the world. Ancient storytellers were concerned with their own characters and social questions, not with satisfying a later theory. Their different purposes, endings and ideas of obligation are what give comparison its historical value.
Discussion
Comments