Ignatius Donnelly: Father of Alternative History?

Ignatius Donnelly, sometimes referred to as “the father of alternative history”, and not in a good way, lived from 1831 to 1901. He was an American politician, reformer, and author. He served as lieutenant governor of Minnesota, 3 terms in the house of representatives, and in the Minnesota senate. Originally a supporter of the Republican party and reconstruction, Donnelly later took a more liberal stance, though he was not a fan of the Democratic party either. After losing a bid to return to congress in 1878, he left politics behind and turned to writing.
Link

His first book, “Atlantis: The Antediluvian World” (1882) posited that Plato’s Atlantis was not a fable, but history. His description of Atlantis (in my opinion) mirrors his political and philosophical motivations later in life. Namely, a utopian, egalitarian, and resource based economy that lifted man from his barbaric roots to an enlightened society that eventually encompassed, or at least spawned an enlightened global civilization. A golden age if you will.

Donnelly posited that Atlantis perished just as Plato described, and that a remnant of the original Atlantean island escaped and were the purveyors of flood stories that are common among cultures today.

Donnelly’s second book “Ragnarock: The Age of Fire and Gravel” (1883) furthers his hypothesis that there is a section of earth’s bedrock that is “unstratified” and contains no evidence of life which he calls “the drift”. The drift is evidence for an ancient global cataclysm about 12,000 years ago caused by a comet impact. This cataclysm caused survivors to seek refuge in caves…

A third book written in 1888 titled “The Great Cryptogram” was aimed at demonstrating the probability that Francis Bacon was the author of Shakespeare’s plays.

Caesar's Column: A Story of the Twentieth Century, painting a graphic picture of the potential horrors of life in the United States in the coming century, yet closing with a statement of what might be achieved through reform.

Link

Donnelly’s fourth book was akin to a dystopian novel on the order of 1984 and aimed squarely at the United States. Interestingly enough, it is set mostly in 1988 New York and is about a society that has lost its ideals. The book is (again) mostly a statement on Donnelly’s own political philosophy and warns of the dangers of social Darwinism and even manages to pay homage to Marxism. Some consider the book prophetic with it’s hint at upcoming technology like the internet, others see it as a good overview of political ideologies in the late 1800’s.

My intent is not to write a brief biography of Donnelly, but rather to show how his own ideological thinking colored his perception of history, and no doubt colored it for his readers as well. I’m sure he would be pleased to know that his adoption of ideas floating around at the time of a global cataclysm weren’t so far off the mark, now that we know there was a global cataclysm approximately 12,900 years ago and more upheaval around 11,600 years ago in the way of rising sea levels among other things.

Also, the idea of a global civilization while not new in Donnelly’s day, may not have been so far off the mark.



I don’t know that I would call Donnelly the “father of alternative history” as much as I would call him an idealist who used “alternative history” to propagate his philosophical leanings. His writings seem to be underpinned with his politics, though I am not saying that was his sole reason for his books on the ancient past, but the past certainly gave him avenue to express his frustration with the present.

The proposition that Donnelly is somehow single-handedly responsible for 20th century "pseudo-science" is a bit ridiculous and says more about those who claim it than those who question the present historical narrative.

"What's inside."

Maybe it's not a basket, but a bucket. A bucket of water symbolizing the flood?

Could it be related to the bible passage where he talks about a man with a pitcher of water.

Just chewing on speculation.

a reply to: Tucket
That basket/bucket/handbag has been speculated to be a lot of things, but what I find interesting is that the Gobekli Tepe stelae has 3 of them at the top. (First image, left section) That means the handbag "icon" goes back over 12,000 years.

The people that depicted it said it was a metal bucket for drawing water. In these representations, it goes with the cone as part of a fertilization gesture, though the figures themselves (apkallus) are there to ward off evil spirits - which does tie in with blessing the flelds and fertilization of crops.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
The people that depicted it said it was a metal bucket for drawing water. In these representations, it goes with the cone as part of a fertilization gesture, though the figures themselves (apkallus) are there to ward off evil spirits - which does tie in with blessing the flelds and fertilization of crops.

Harte

Harte! I was wondering what it would take to bring you out of lurking.

We have discussed this briefly a long time ago, but which people said it was a bucket of water? Was it a later culture, or an earlier culture?

a reply to: Harte
I've watched a few videos on Donnelly, it's one reason I chose to do this thread on him. It's likely I'll watch this one too. Looks interesting.

ETA: That was actually one of the better videos I've watched on Donnelly, but I'm not so sure he was as much a crackpot as he was politically motivated, although the two are at times synonymous.

Thank heavens for the Carnegie Foundation, letting us all know what history we're supposed to learn !

a reply to: Klassified

The Maori of New Zealand say that Tane which means man. brought three handbags back from the Gods. They each had a different name. Add to that aboriginal rock drawing in Arnheim land show drawings with the bag. They were truly a worldwide artwork.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Harte
The people that depicted it said it was a metal bucket for drawing water. In these representations, it goes with the cone as part of a fertilization gesture, though the figures themselves (apkallus) are there to ward off evil spirits - which does tie in with blessing the flelds and fertilization of crops.

Harte

Harte! I was wondering what it would take to bring you out of lurking.

We have discussed this briefly a long time ago, but which people said it was a bucket of water? Was it a later culture, or an earlier culture?

The stereotypical carving that goes with this claim is Assyrian. The Assyrians called it a bucket, and a few real buckets that are startlingly similar to what you usually see in the carving have actually been found. The Assyrians used the Sumerian word for it, if I remember correctly. Banduddu I believe it was.
These figures almost always appear at doorways and windows, facing the opening. Pretty much settled that they are for warding off demons. The regular people even buried similar carvings under thresholds of buildings.

Harte

originally posted by: Nothin
Thank heavens for the Carnegie Foundation, letting us all know what history we're supposed to learn !

Well, here's you another chance, since apparently you have eschewed prior opportunities.

Harte

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Klassified

The Maori of New Zealand say that Tane which means man. brought three handbags back from the Gods. They each had a different name. Add to that aboriginal rock drawing in Arnheim land show drawings with the bag. They were truly a worldwide artwork.

While your translation is reasonable (tane is ancestor,) the story you refer to here is not about Man, it's about the god of the forest also called Tane, the Maori creator of Mankind. He created us and gave us baskets of knowledge.
The subject was metal water buckets.
I'll add some speculation here (don't faint.) The "buckets" at Gobekli Tepe could be baskets used to haul dirt. The place WAS covered with fill every 15 or 20 years.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Why cover Globeli Tepi in dirt,it s like piling a heap of dirt over Notre Dam and making a hill out of it. Isn't it more likely it was covered in some type of deluge, caused by the impact crater in Greenland> I think its more likely that this comet impact would have caused an earthquake that literaly made the earth form waves which would have destroyed most existing structures? with a rippling effect until the energy was absorbed.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Harte

Why cover Globeli Tepi in dirt,it s like piling a heap of dirt over Notre Dam and making a hill out of it. Isn't it more likely it was covered in some type of deluge, caused by the impact crater in Greenland> I think its more likely that this comet impact would have caused an earthquake that literaly made the earth form waves which would have destroyed most existing structures? with a rippling effect until the energy was absorbed.

Believe it or not, there are basic and extremely obvious differences between soils that are deposited in different ways. Gobekli Tepe was covered with fill. This was done multiple times (about every 15 to 20 years, like I already stated,) with new stones placed on top of the fill. Some of the stones were even repurposed from previous layers onto the new ones.

You don't get to discount educated people's own findings about this just so you can bring in some imaginary crap about a non-existent comet.

Harte

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Harte

Why cover Globeli Tepi in dirt,it s like piling a heap of dirt over Notre Dam and making a hill out of it. Isn't it more likely it was covered in some type of deluge, caused by the impact crater in Greenland> I think its more likely that this comet impact would have caused an earthquake that literaly made the earth form waves which would have destroyed most existing structures? with a rippling effect until the energy was absorbed.

So was it a deluge that covered Gobekli Tepe in refuse? Or did a magic earthquake travel from Greenland that had the power to destroy existing structures?

I find it immensely interesting that this earthquake capable of destroying man made structures left the actual structures of GT intact and managed to simply bury it in rubble and refuse. All from 800 to 900 years prior to the oldest layers of Gobekli Tepe being constructed. It's an impressive feat to be sure. Selective destruction, time travel, ignoring that the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis posits that the object that may or may not have struck the Earth 12,900 before present actually struck the Earth in several areas of the planet and not just Greenland.

Facts are everything and excluding some to assist in providing an advantage when most people won't bother with anything gives the appearance of a half baked hypothesis as opposed to one that is well thought out and supported by evidence.

I realize that this doesnt actually answer your query regarding WHY they would cyclically fill in one pit and begin a new one. But it does demonstrate the issues with confirmation biases and systematically ignoring what doesnt work for you or just not bothering to look deeper into a subject once you feel that you have enough data to support your preconceived notions.

a reply to: peter vlar


The lidar of the crater in Greenland along with the impact time is accepted scientific fact.

a reply to: Harte

Hold on.
Just a sec.
Gonna use my call-a-friend option on this one.
Who ya gonna call ?
Am gonna call my old pal Denny Ignorencio !

“ Hey Denny!”
" Yeah ? "
" What does it mean, when right after the faceoff, one player turns to the other player, drops his flippers, and starts wailing on the other player ? "

" It means that despite him being in the game, on the ice, wearing a uni, and all of the other pretense : that he wasn’t really there to play Hockey in the first place. ”
" Yeah but he looks like a Hockey-player, no ? "
" A lot of kids dress-up as Hockey-players on Halloween. Doesn’t mean they`re on their way to a game. "

" What does it mean when the same player, exits the penalty-box, ignores the puck, and goes straight after the other guy again ? "
" That’s sometimes followed by an insincere apology, like : “Sorry eh.” Then an invitation to REALLY play Hockey, this time.
But the gig is up. The cat’s out of the bag. There is deception afoot. Or, errrr : askate ? "

" It means that whatever the first guy did : it bothered somebody… "

" Thanks Denny ! "

a reply to: Nothin

When you are over the target you get the most flack. We have it as a prime reasoning tool that we are better educated and know more than the ancients. This is a generalization and they are generally wrong. It has led us to ignore obvious machine tool marks on dressed stone all over many ancient sites. Ancient sites worldwide show these same sites as if they have been shaken off of their foundations. We know we live in a world where most of the time is spent in Ice ages where on average we get a ten thousand year period of warmer climate before the ice sheet comes down again. Not only that at random periods a major impact of a Comet shakes it all up again, add in the odd Carrington event, and it's a bloody miracle that mankind exists at all. What we consider a reasonable standard of living in this day and age, has only come about for the many simply because chance has been benign to us. For that, I give thanks but am reminded that at some stage it will go the other way as sure as one day follows another. There is a high probability that we have been here before if advanced technology is hinted at at some sites it only confirms that we would be stupid to ignore this just because we do not like what this suggests.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: peter vlar


The lidar of the crater in Greenland along with the impact time is accepted scientific fact.

That still doesn't come anywhere near explaining how a potential younger dryas impact affected Gobekli Tape nearly 1000 years before the oldest layers of GT. Nice try though.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: peter vlar


The lidar of the crater in Greenland along with the impact time is accepted scientific fact.

That still doesn't come anywhere near explaining how a potential younger dryas impact affected Gobekli Tape nearly 1000 years before the oldest layers of GT. Nice try though.

The presence of a crater is not an indication of the dating of the impact that caused it either. The thing could be hundreds of thousands of years old - or more.

Harte.

Harte