1649

[paul]

I have been riveted by Nico Haupt’s suggestion that “history” began around 1649.

http://fakeologist.com/2014/12/14/nico-911-noplaner-meets-chris/

This seems to be a good collection of his (a bit unusual, but highly original) writings:

http://checkthis.com/user/ewing2001

Thinking about it, I came to realize that a lot of “ancient” texts that we think of as authentic were “discovered” firmly within the Christian era, some actually quite close to the modern era. It seems possible that there would be a motivation to bend, manipulate, invent or otherwise sanitize these texts.

Now, I don’t know what Nico believes happened before 1649. I rather doubt human history in toto began at that time. However, I have no problem believing a certain political group, having got hold of the power of the printing press, proceeded to rewrite and invent history as it pleased. And I have no problem at all believing that this would have happened multiple times throughout human history.

As I sit reading the stunning Poetic Edda, I can’t shake the feeling that it was made up by the 1% for people just like me- disenchanted with Christianity, looking for cultural roots. Here, son, read this……

In any event, it does seem compelling and fertile to look at 1649 as some sort of historical fulcrum.

Some examples of the recent first appearance of ancient texts:

Poetic Edda:
Nothing is known of its whereabouts until 1643 when it came into the possession of Brynjólfur Sveinsson, then Bishop of Skálholt.

Epic of Gilgamesh:
The standard version was discovered by Hormuzd Rassam in the library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh in 1853.

Some examples of foundational texts whose earliest manuscripts are quite a bit later than the ascribed date of composition:

The Iliad:
Venetus A was created in the tenth century AD.[citation needed] All text on the manuscript dates to the same period, including the Iliad text,

The Odyssey:
The oldest complete manuscript is the Laurentianus from the 10th or 11th century.

Not sure if Nico or others would claim that the 10th century manuscripts themselves are forgeries. Not sure what the relevance of this or that fragment would be.
</span>

[Author]

Posts