CULTURAL HERO. — This is a figure found in the mythology of many primitive peoples and has a secondary function: subordinate to the Supreme Being. It is closer than the latter to humanity, to which it generally procures immediate advantages; it is, however, not always beneficent. It is also a creator where creation, considered as work, is attributed to a being subordinate to the Supreme Being: in this case it may also be the ancestor in the role of demiurge. It is generally the artificer of the present order of the world, without having, for the most part, an ethical character; it intervenes directly with very human methods in the affairs of this earth.
This figure has attracted the attention of historians of religions both for the analysis of its characteristics and for the position it occupies in the controversies regarding the formation of the concept of divinity. This controversy is summarized in an article published in 1906 by P. Ehrenreich (cf. bibliography). In it the author criticizes the theory of K. Breysig, as well as those of other authors belonging to the evolutionary school who dealt directly or indirectly with the subject, such as Max Müller, E. B. Tylor, D. Brinton, J. Frazer, and even Andrew Lang, who treats it in his *Making of Religions* (London 1901). In particular, he notes a clear contradiction in Breysig’s ideas,
according to whom the formation of the concept and figure of God among primitives derives from that of a heroic, strong, and wise man. This man, however, according to Breysig, is not an earthly individual from remote prehistory, a being of the human kind, but an ideal figure in which the exigency of human spirituality is carried to the highest sensible expression, and man finally bows before the ideal he himself has created. More coherent, instead, is (always according to P. Ehrenreich) E. Durkheim, who, although interpreting ethnological documentation without critical spirit, holds that the idea of the great gods among primitives came from totemic ancestors and has a basis in the figure of the cultural hero. For W. Wundt, finally, the gods were first conceived as heroes; later, as spiritual beings. Opposed is the opinion of Ehrenreich. He, in agreement with the theory of the Vienna school of historical-cultural monotheism among primitives, maintains that it is from the Supreme Being that the figure of the cultural hero gradually detaches itself, acquiring life and vigour in inverse proportion to the weakening of the idea of the Supreme Being among cultures that depart from the original form. The figure of the cultural hero is indeed lacking among the Pygmies, among whom the concept and cult of the Supreme Being have their purest manifestation. We do find it, however, among peoples who are also very primitive, such as those of central-southern California.
In the cosmogonic traditions of the Algonquins, Nanabozho is a demiurge (known also as Manabush, Nessou, Michabo, etc., among a great number of tribes). For the Ona of Tierra del Fuego, Teumakel, the Supreme Being, He who is in the heavens, cares little for the affairs of men, except to inflict punishments upon them, such as death, and leaves to Kenos, the first man, the task of attending to the affairs of this world. Indeed, He even entrusts to him the task of shaping the universe and establishing the social and religious rules that men must observe. The most important figure in the mythology of the Hottentots after Tsui Goab, the Supreme Being, is Heitsi Eibib, a cultural hero and demiurge born of a virgin, author of marvellous deeds, who died and was reborn several times, and who has assimilated many traits of the old Supreme Being. In Africa, the figure of the cultural hero is also found in the beliefs of the Herero, the Kaffirs, and the inland Sudanese.
Belief in the cultural hero is very widespread and perhaps general in Australia; the details of the deeds they perform vary from tribe to tribe, but the background of the narratives about them is almost identical. One of the most characteristic figures is Putaputia, the protector of the Aranda. They, as A. W. Howitt believes, did not create men, but only perfected them through their teachings. Among the Warramunga, however, the creation of men is attributed to the cultural heroes. The cultural hero of the Maori was Tane, son of Heaven and Earth. He also had the character of creator. Maui, instead, the hero of many Polynesian myths, did not take part in the act of creation, but it is he who forces the sun to follow a regular course, who procures fire for men, and performs many deeds on their behalf.
But where the figure of the cultural hero reaches its greatest development is among the native Americans, not only among the more primitive peoples, such as those mentioned above, but also among those with a more evolved culture. Such is the case of Bochica of the Chibcha, who constitutes one of the clearest examples of a civilizing hero. Subordinate to the Supreme Being Chimini-gaga, he taught men agriculture, the arts, piety, and then withdrew from the affairs of this world, intervening only once more to prevent a flood of the Bogotá valley. It is strange, however, that some traditions report that he in turn made use of another being to complete his work among men, a second cultural hero, Menquetara the Wise. This is perhaps to be attributed to a confusion of traditions, or rather to a repetition of an identical figure through the overlapping of different versions of the same myth, which then come to constitute a single narrative.