From Ideology to Methodology: The Term “Charon’s Obol” in Modern Archaeological Discourse

This article deals with the paradoxical situation associated with the use of the term “Charon’s obol” in modern archaeological discourse. The term “Charon’s obol” turned into an unspoken normative historiographical rule and an “indisputable” explanatory model. At the same time, the term itself is essentially “empty”, and does not need to be argued, being the evidence arising from the “natural” logic of archaeological research. Archaeological discourse turns the discovery of “Charon’s obol” into a “natural” inevitability. Almost any coin (of any material and value) of ancient and early Middle Ages found in Europe, Scandinavia, the Far East, or Central Asia, is usually declared “Charon’s obol” by researchers. Surprisingly, the further the region is located from the ancient Greek poleis, the more coins dedicated to Charon archaeologists find. Moreover, in historiography, Charon has become an unambiguous symbol not only of ancient Greek book mythology, but also of the entire ancient Greek culture. The paradox of the situation is that Charon, the ideas of the researchers about whom constitute the content of the term, did not need coins, and the “ancient Greek funeral rite” which the authors appeal to as a model of “payment to Charon” did not imply any payments to Charon. The term is a result of uncritical reading of ancient classical literature. The term “Charon’s obol” cannot be filled with content, but is an artificial ideological construction related to the research tradition based on the ideas of European Romanticism (concepts of I. I. Winkelman and I. V. Goethe).