Episode 126: Reconstructing Emotion in History

·33 min·3 clips

Archaeologist Guy Middleton argues tombs can reveal not just social status, but the deep emotions people felt at ancient funerals.

This episode explores how historians can reconstruct the emotional experiences of past societies from physical evidence, addressing philosophical challenges in historical interpretation. The host of Reflecting History examines these questions through a specific archaeological case study. He focuses on a 2023 academic paper by archaeologist Guy Middleton titled "I Will Follow You Into the Dark: Death and Emotion in a Mycenaean Royal Funeral." Middleton's paper analyzes the Treasury of Atreus, a royal tomb in Mycenae, Greece, dating to around 1350 BCE. The host explains that burials are traditionally studied to understand political hierarchy and social status based on grave goods. Middleton argues that the same evidence can also provide insight into the emotions felt by people during funerals, a concept he terms the "memoriescape." He describes a memoriescape as a lived-in landscape of tombs and settlements that provoked shared emotional responses and memories for Bronze Age communities. A central methodological question is whether modern historians are guilty of "presentism," or imposing contemporary emotions and morals onto the past. One counter-argument presented is that assuming past humans were emotionless is itself a flawed assumption, akin to treating them as an alien species. The host suggests works like Homer's *Odyssey* demonstrate that complex emotions were recognized in the Late Bronze Age. Middleton employs a technique of "reconstruction," using emotion as a lens to generate plausible scenarios of past events and lived experiences. For the royal funeral, this involves synthesizing evidence from similar tombs, ancient artwork, and geographical clues, since the Treasury of Atreus itself was looted. The reconstruction posits that the king may have felt mixed emotions about his own mortality and legacy during the tomb's construction. Ordinary citizens witnessing the funeral might have felt awe, community, or a reinforced belief in the king's divine legitimacy. Middleton cites a study on caves in the Greek mind, suggesting the tomb's cavernous space could have been an awe-inspiring, transformative "liminal zone." The episode notes that in ancient Greek thought, death was often seen as a gradual process rather than a single event, involving stages like bathing the body and settling affairs. For royal figures, death was a public, communal act with political ramifications, illustrated by references to the deaths of Alexander the Great, Henry VIII, and Louis XIV. The death of a leader could inspire genuine grief but also widespread anxiety about the future and succession. The host acknowledges the question of whether public grief was performative due to social pressure, but suggests that in the ancient context, the action itself constituted the grief. Archaeological evidence like painted coffins and pottery depicts communal rituals such as the *ekphora*, or funeral procession, which reinforced corporate identity. Following the burial, a large feast likely took place, serving to strengthen social bonds and memorialize the dead through gifts and games. The tomb's prominent location on main routes to the citadel meant people passed it regularly, creating a "stickiness" of memory over generations. Middleton references historians Harris and Tarlaw on how places become "sticky" with emotion and memory through repeated engagement. The paper concludes that while imaginative, using emotion as an interpretive frame can significantly enrich historical understanding. The tone is educational and conversational, guiding the listener through complex historiographical debate with clear examples. The host adopts a reasoned, explanatory style, carefully presenting different sides of the methodological argument. This episode would deeply interest history enthusiasts fascinated by archaeological methodology and the philosophy of interpreting the past. Listeners who prefer narratives focused solely on concrete events and dates, rather than theoretical discussions, might find it less engaging.

As heard by us

A restrained case for reconstruction as a way to read emotion in the archaeological record.

This episode treats history as a set of fragments and asks how far anyone can go from remains, documents, and artifacts toward motive, memory, and feeling.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

If you want history that uses emotion as a lens on the past, press play.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from Reflecting History