Viewing all the evidence, anthropologists have for many generations felt certain that these persistent elfin or fairy characteristics are due to historic memory rather than to mythological imagination. That is, the traditional elf, troll, gnome, kobold, leprechaun, brownie, or imp is not purely an Aryan night-daemon, but a synthesis of the night-daemon with a very genuine dwarf or pigmy race of men whom the Aryans at one time or another displaced and drove into underground hiding, and who afterward kept up a furtive and vindictive course of reprisals against their conquerors.

Driven underground, decimated in numbers, and hunted down whenever seen, the vanquished dwarfs became sly creatures of the night—sallying forth by stealth to waylay lone travelers, steal infants for nameless sacrifices, despoil lonely farm houses, shoot from ambush, and otherwise vent their hatred of their Aryan conquerors. In time it is certain that many Aryan renegades went over to them and joined their number—as men in savage places “go native” today—and that they succeeded in inculcating their repulsive system of fertility-worship amongst a decadent stratum of the Aryans, thus giving rise to the furtive Witch-Cult with its sinister organisation and ceremonies, and its obscene and orgiastic Sabbat.

Memories of these waspish, uncouth, and miniature enemies could not but be extremely vivid among the conquerors of Europe; and it is not remarkable that the creatures—so unlike men as the tall, blond Aryans conceived humanity—became blended with the ancient hereditary lore of night-daemons which antedated our ancestors’ entrance to the region. Had the Aryans not encountered this squat, dark race, it is probable that their night-daemon myths would have continued to remain in a more or less ambiguous and plastic form. To the conquered little people we undoubtedly owe the existence of elves, duergars, trolls, gnomes, and kobolds as our forefathers conceived them.

• H. P. Lovecraft, "Some Backgrounds of Fairyland", taken from Marginalia (1944), taken from a letter to Wilfred Blanch Talman, 23 Sep 1932

So, J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit turned 80 this week. While it did not exactly set the world on fire when it first came out in 1937 (coincidentally, the same year that Lovecraft died), it's still a landmark, not just in genre fiction, but in the tremendous impact that Tolkien and his interpretations of traditional mythology and folklore has shaped out current ideas of those things - from Dungeons & Dragons to World of Warcraft. The efforts to depict these creatures on screen have driven technology, inspired interests in art, linguistics, calligraphy, Historical European Martial Arts, cooking...and history, of course. Because something doesn't need to have actually have happened to have shaped our ideas of history; we are inspired and influenced by narratives at least as much as we are about simple facts. Tolkien himself drew on a number of influences from his contemporary period - including the medievalist resurgence driven by folks like William Morris - and he was not primarily a historian, his works have the narrative of history about them, especially as understood by many folks, who liken history to stories told about great people that happened a long time ago somewhere far away. This is especially true for the Silmarillion, which specifically invokes the form of a history in many respects, but even in The Hobbit you get a sense of history. The world does not begin on the first page, the characters references places and characters and events that have never been seen (and won't be), but which impact the stories going forward. If you ignore for a moment all the elves and other fantastical elements, one of the great accomplishments of Tolkien was imbuing his works with a sense of this great tapestry of history - something which lighter fantasy, like E. R. Eddison's The Worm Ouroboros (1922), never quite accomplished. Robert E. Howard managed something like it in his essay "The Hyborian Age" (1936) but he was working in a much more piecemeal format, with a bit less impact as a result.

Which is a bit of a ramble, but it's something worth thinking about, perhaps. How we approach literature and history, how we can approach history as literature and literature as history. Because we've all gone off on our own unexpected journeys.

Given the recent romanticization of the Crusades by far-right groups, I was wondering, what exactly is the history of Crusade romanticization? In other words, how different is today's Crusade glorification versus glorification in the 19/20th centuries, and what are some good sources that deal with Crusade romanticization?

Would the Bacchus/Dionysus figure be considered sex positive or a feminist?

Along those lines, How was the god regarded by people historically. IE if someone was known to worship him, would people be concerned, amused, horrified?

I ask the first question as I am heading a new sex positive, polyamory/open relationship-centric blog. We want to use Bacchus or Dionysus as a sort of mascot, but want to make sure he's a good fit. He's commonly associated with promiscuity and excess, which is fine in our eyes.

We are more concerned about any stories of rape or coercion. Getting people drunk to take advantage of them, vs being the guy people voluntarily went to get drunk and have fun, etc.

Thanks so much for any help!

Hey /u/sunagainstgold -- question for you:

Here you said that you'd peg the end of the middle ages at 1523, but never said why. Care to explain now?

I've been having fun this morning with the Postmodernism Generator. I'm sure many of you are aware of it, but if not, check it out. If you feel like you need something to read while nodding sagely, I highly recommend it.

Here's an excerpt from "The Futility of Society: The postcultural paradigm of context in the works of Spelling":

The main theme of Abian’s model of the postcultural paradigm of context is the role of the reader as observer. Derrida uses the term ‘capitalist discourse’ to denote a self-falsifying totality.

“Art is fundamentally unattainable,” says Lacan; however, according to Hanfkopf, it is not so much art that is fundamentally unattainable, but rather the meaninglessness, and some would say the rubicon, of art. However, the subject is contextualised into a premodernist socialism that includes consciousness as a whole. In Jackie Brown, Tarantino examines the cultural paradigm of expression; in Reservoir Dogs he deconstructs the postcultural paradigm of context.

Question - When reviewing historical accounts on, lets say, Romans invading Gaul, as a random example, how many books/sources do we have on that info?

Ie. So and so posts a comment about details of the conquest and references a book from many years ago (ie. An original account). As a complete average, how many such original accounts exist?

We hear/have heard of issues of Scottish and Catalonian Independence in the recent past, but I don't think there has been much news about Breton Independence. Why has there been more talk of Scottish and Catalonian Independence then talk of an independent Brittany?

I've been on a bit of a Khmer Rouge research kick lately. https://imgur.com/GjttyQ5 that picture has made me wonder what happened to all the ordinary rank and file Khmer Rouge soldiers after their organization was disbanded. I've seen lots of stuff talking about the later lives of ex-Khmer Rouge leaders but not of the regular people/soldiers/etc. of it. What happened to them all? Were they executed outright? Did a lot of them flee the country when things got bad for the Khmer Rouge?

How do we determine how history actually happened as opposed to how it would be depicted on paper? For example, the Catholic Church wrote out sexual positions and practices married couples were meant to follow. We have no writings from peasants in the Medieval era confirming whether they strictly followed the church's teaching or whether they saw them as general guidelines that could be ignored if the mood struck them. I understand that court records and civil law could give us glimpse into how strictly people adhered to our written sources, but like most crime, the vast majority of it is never caught. How do we know where the truth actually lies?

Recently I was looking through Volume 3 of Elizabeth Donnan's Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America for source materials for a program I'm working on.

One series of documents of particular interest were the 1792 Massachusetts Case of the Salem schooner Abeona (Pg.89-97). The owner and captain are charged with violating the 1788 state ban on Massachusetts' vessels and citizens partaking in the slave trade. The case itself is fairly rock solid, and includes multiple statements from crew members regarding the voyage. But, they are ultimately found Not Guilty of the count on a technicality.

Their defense? It just so happens that shortly after the passing of the law banning the slave trade, the state of Massachusetts had ceded its right to restrict international commerce...under the newly ratified U.S. Constitution. Therefor the state had no right to maintain the ban.

Within a year the ship's Captain was back on the coast of Africa.