09 November 2011

Forum # 13 (okt. 29 - nov. 9, 2011)

Posted 29 October 2011 - 05:09 PM
Menno and Abramelin, togethter you have convinced me that AKEN in OLB most probably refers to a BURG in the present Den Haag area.

Knul, on 28 October 2011 - 08:03 PM, said:
The name Ockenburg seems te come from Ockenberg, not burg. s. http://www.landgoed-ockenburg.net/ It has not been a borough (burg), but a residence from the 15th-17th century.

The site says:
"Sommige bronnen spreken van een landgoed "Ockenberghe" dat in de 15e eeuw in de buurt van Wateringen zou hebben gelegen, maar aan het begin van de 80 jarige oorlog is ontruimd."
"Some sources mention an estate "Ockenberghe" that would have existed in the 15th century near Wateringen, but was cleared when the 80 year war started."

IMO it's more likely that the original name refered to a BURG (citadel) than to a BERG (mountain, hill). Anyway a BURG would be built on a hill (BERG) if there was one.

The estates may very well have been named after a historical site that had disappeared (long) before they were built.

The counts of Holland didn't choose just any random site to settle and it's indeed a smal step from (H)AKEN to HAGE(N).

The Aacken (Aken) in Germany may have been named after this older (and more startegically placed) AKEN, like Bremen would have been named after Brêmes and Hamburg after Hames-Boucres.

### Posted 29 October 2011 - 05:23 PM
Knul, on 28 October 2011 - 08:18 PM, said:
I found youur list of toponyms and will include that in my excel-scheme. ... If you have some addenda right now, please post them here.

You can include the ones you agree with and don't need to mention my name, as I copied most from Ottema.
Yes, I'll see if I have any changes.

I hope your list of modern expressions will include English words in the OLB as yes, look, boy, merry merry, run away, together, etc.

I don't think I'll make that list (not soon that is), specially since I personally don't think there are words in OLB that are 'too modern' for the OLB to be authentic. It was more like a suggestion.

### Posted 29 October 2011 - 05:45 PM
Knul, on 29 October 2011 - 12:16 AM, said:
Anyway this Ockenburg is already much more close than the Aken, which you find everywhere for Aachen (D).

It's a significant find indeed and it changes our view of 'South-Vlieland'.

Similarly the Gertmannen, named after Carmania (Punjab) and to be identified as the Groningers instead of Germans.

Carmania was named after the Gertmen that were named after Gért (P's daughter).

Can you explain why you think the Gertmen became Groningers and not Germans?
It does not make sense to me.

Freedom was given by Charles the Great and taken by the Dutch count Floris V.

This is actually not an accepted fact, but part of the so-called Frisian 'fantastic' historiography (mythology).

### Here are some I canged my mind about:

Otharus, on 26 October 2010 - 06:54 PM, said:
AKEN - Aken (Aachen) a burg located at or near present The Hague
ALMANLAND - Ameland ?
BUDA - Budapest ?
FLYLAND - Vlieland not the present Wadden-Island
KATTABURCH - Kattenburcht, Kassel ?
MANNAGARA FORDA - nowaday Munster (Westfalia) ?
NY FRYASBURCH - Freiburg (Brisgau) ?
NORTHLAND - Norway Noordland

### Posted 29 October 2011 - 10:16 PM
Abramelin, on 29 October 2011 - 09:52 PM, said:
But I am quite sure you didn't like this estate came into existance in the 17th century, heh.

Wrong guess.
It's obvious that this estate is younger, and the original AKENBURG does not have to have been exactly on that spot.
Names are usually recycled many times

### Posted 29 October 2011 - 11:59 PM
Abramelin, on 29 October 2011 - 11:01 PM, said:
But there never was an 'Aken Burg' thousands or a thousand of years ago to begin with, right?

We don't know yet.
It's possible.
There must have been something significant before the counts of (what would later be called) Holland decided to settle there.

### Posted 30 October 2011 - 11:10 AM
Knul, on 29 October 2011 - 11:59 PM, said:
Almanland p.44, 84, 104 refers to Almenum, which according to Ocko Scharlensis just before 1256 became a town (now part of Harlingen).

English Wiki says: "Almenum according to legend is the site of the first Christian church in Friesland built in 777 AD by Gustavus Forteman."

Ottema and Jensma both interpreted it as Ameland.

My opinion is that both Ameland and Almenum may be etymologically related to Almanland, but it is not sure that Almanland refers to 19th or 13th century Ameland or Almenum.

Fact is, that topynyms sometimes move and change through the ages.

### Posted 31 October 2011 - 06:16 PM
Knul, on 31 October 2011 - 04:57 PM, said:
As it is impossible to place excel on this side, I have placed the concept register on www.rodinbook.nl. see on top UM (Unexplained Mysteries). Please complete the scheme.

Thanks again for the effort, but as I asked you before, please leave me out of the table.

I'm surprised to see "Aken = Aachen" under my name, as a few posts back I congratulated you for helping me change my mind about that.

To me it does not make sense to place the obvious ones (that all agree about, like "ALPA") in all rows.

It's much better to only mention the various views if there is no agreement.

### Posted 01 November 2011 - 11:37 PM
Knul, on 01 November 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:
Misselja is a new challange !
... If the author says it is an island, he means that it is an island. It is pretty sure, that Marseille was not an island. Ergo: Misselja cannot be Marseille. However, there is another island in the Mediterranean Sea, which can be identified as Misselja. That is Mallorca or Majorca, which is the largest island of the Balears, lying opposite the coast (kad) of Spain. The history of this island is pretty similar to that of Marseille, founded by the Greeks, conquered by the Romans and then conquered by the Carthagenians (Phonicians). The island of Mallorca had the same function on this side of the Pillars of Hercules as Cadiz on the other side and could be indicated as a volksplanting (colony) of the Frisians as well. Mallorca was the nucleus of the trade in the Western part of the Mediterranean. One should not forget, that shipping in the old times was not crossing the seas, but faring along the coast. After entering the Mediterranean Sea Mallorca was the first stop after the Street of Gibraltar v.v. when leaving the Mediterranean Sea Mallorca was the last stop before entering the street of Gibraltar. I haven't yet located the name Misselja. Maybe the Roman name of Mallorca was Messala (it was a Roman custom to put the name of a conquered land after one's name). The name Messala, which comes close to Misselja, is frequently used in Roman names, also as Messalina. As this Mallorca would be a Frisian volksplanting (colony) like Cadiz, it makes sense, that the case Misselja is discussed by the Eremother of Texland.

Most interesting!

You may very well be right.

It makes sense to me.

Abramelin, on 01 November 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:
Mallorca or Majorca doesn't sound like Massilia/Misselia at all.

That does not mean that OLB's "MIS-SELLJA" can't refer to what is now Mallorca.

Noord-Holland doesn't sound like West-Flyland...

Names change and sometimes move.

### Posted 01 November 2011 - 11:55 PM
Abramelin, on 01 November 2011 - 11:41 PM, said:
Marseilles/Massalia still is not an island, and it never was.

That is why I agree with Knul that it can't be OLB's MIS-SELLJA.
But it's possible that Massalia (the later Marseilles) was named after the earlier (and more important) island Missellia (the later Mallorca).

### Posted 02 November 2011 - 12:06 AM
In this thread we have seen that Oldfrisian offers countless possible explanations for toponyms, mythological names and ancient tribes.

Some of these explanations totally make sense to all of us, others sound crazy or silly to some.

Is there any other language that offers so many possible etymologies?

### Posted 02 November 2011 - 10:17 AM
The Puzzler, on 02 November 2011 - 04:45 AM, said:
Middle English cappe < Old Northern French cape, variant of Old French chape < Latin caput (“head”). ... Your nose is nesos - a peninsula that juts out, like your nose

For the record:

Dutch = neus
German: Nase
Swedish: näsa
Danish: næse
Norwegian: nese

Latin "caput" (head)
Dutch: kop
German: Kopf

I don't have Scandinavian dictionaries here, but I'm quite sure that those lands (that were never part of the Roman empire) have similar (slang?) words for head.

### Posted 02 November 2011 - 05:39 PM
Abramelin, on 02 November 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:
I don't think people will name their city as being painfull, but the "Ache" in the meanning of waters and streams and so on seems more likely: people tend to name their cities according to either who founded it or to where it is located.

Possible meaning of "AKEN".
According to Jensma (2006, p.75) the Oldfrisian dictionary of Mr. M. de Haan Hettema gives: bekend (known).

OLB p.2 line 13

Ottema p.7
Doch dat alles is u zelven ook bekend

Sandbach p.7
This is well known to you

Maar dat alles is u zelf bekend

### Posted 02 November 2011 - 07:16 PM
Abramelin, on 02 November 2011 - 05:59 PM, said:
But those are 2 words A and KEN.

A.KEN = A-ken = Aken

There's plenty of examples of words in OLB that originally were two words with a dot in between, and later became one word.

Random example p.3 line 17: ROND.DÉL = rondeel (http://nl.wikipedia....ondeel_(vesting))

In De Haan Hettema's dictionary "aken" was spelled as one word, meaning: known.

So now the meaning of AKEN is known. LOL

### Posted 02 November 2011 - 07:47 PM
Abramelin, on 02 November 2011 - 07:36 PM, said:
It's "Martegue", you see it, yes? Or "Maguelone", another island?
Please say 'yes'.

The candidate for Missellja must not only be an island, but also a strategic spot, with good harbor facilities etc.

That's what I like about Knul's hypothesis.

Mallorca is the first big island in the Mediterranean, coming from the Strait of Gibraltar and has a wonderful bay on the southside, where the capital Palma is located, a major seaport.

### Posted 02 November 2011 - 08:10 PM
Abramelin, on 02 November 2011 - 08:01 PM, said:
BUT... it's not close to any coast.
And THAT is what the OLB tells us.
And it's NOT in the northern part of the Med, but in the western part of the Med.

I finally took the effort to check the text.
You are right.


### Posted 03 November 2011 - 07:06 PM
Knul, on 03 November 2011 - 01:51 PM, said:
1. denies that Cornelis over de Linden did not understand the manuscript as he wrote to Verwijs,
2. denies that Leendert over de Linden stated that his father Cornelis over de Linden did not write the OLB,
3. denies the role of Ernest Stadermann,
4. denies that Verwijs called the OLB a hoax in a letter to Johan Winkler,
5. denies that Haverschmidt wrote to Leendert over the Linden, that he did not participate and even didn't know Cornelis over de Linden.

If one denies, what people have written, one can proof anything.

Please reconsider the witness reports of:
(See quote below.)

1. Schoolteacher Cornelis Wijs in 1876 about 1831.
2. Two schoolteachers in a notary statement, about 1848.
3. Naval officer W.M. Visser, about 1854.
4. Jacob Munnik about 1845.
5. Schoolmaster M.K. de Jong, about ca. 1837.
6. Hein Kofman and his mother Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers, about 1845.

The statements from these people suggest or confirm the existence of the manuscript in the Over de Linden family, long before it would have been created according to the hoax theories.

My question to the forum and specially to Knul is: how can these witness reports be explained?

Otharus, on 12 May 2011 - 01:08 PM, said:
Yes, there are several witness reports that indicate that in the 30's and 40's of the 19th century, the manuscript existed already and/or that the Over de Lindens believed that they stemmed from an ancient noble Frisian family.
1. Schoolteacher Cornelis Wijs stated in 1876 that in 1831 he had heard Jan Over de Linden (1785-1835), the father of Cornelis, boost about descending from "the oldest family in the world".
2. Two other schoolteachers made an official statement with a notary, that in 1848 they had heard Cornelis Over de Linden junior (1833-1868) boost about virtually the same (being from ancient noble Frisian descent), as well as his father (Cornelis senior) knowing this from "a book with strange letters".
3. Naval officer W.M. Visser had made a diary note on 23-12-1854 of having heard from Cornelis Over de Linden that the latter had told him about the book and that it was written "in a strange language and a strange script".
5. New information
Translated from Molenaar (1949), a quote from Jacob Munnik, who was married to a pre-marital daughter of Cornelis Over de Linden's first wife (which makes him Cornelis' step-son-in-law.)

"In 1845 (a year before my marriage), C. Over de Linden, bookbinder Stadermann and me went on a little tour together (to Enkhuizen). We visited an old skipper, where Over de Linden's mother was a housekeeper. C.O.L. spoke with his mother and the old man in private and when we had left Enkhuizen, he said: "It's a bloody shame; the old one has an old book that belongs to us and he does not want to hand it over. It proves that our family is old." He also spoke about forested areas, like royal domains with many Linden-trees etcetra. "But it is old-Frisian; that's the bloody problem!", Cornelis had said.
For a few years he has been complaining about it (from 1845-1847), but in the meantime he had started to learn the old-Frisian language."

I agree with author Molenaar that Munnik probably had confused the old skipper with Hendrik Reuvers, the husband of aunt Aafje, whom they will also have visited.

6. More new information
Again from Molenaar (1949), who writes about an article in the Friesche Courant of 30-4-1877, written by M.K. de Jong, schoolmaster in the village Kooten. He states that a trustworthy fellow villager had declared that "about 40 years ago" (ca. 1837) "his uncle Leendert Over de Linden had told him that there were some very old manuscripts kept by the Over de Linden family."
7. Relevant to know is also that Hein Kofman (1853-1933), who was said to have heard that Cornelis Over de Linden had stolen the OLB from the house of his parents, lived all his life in the house of his parents Rijkent Kofman and Cornelia Reuvers (1818-1878), which had also been the house of his grandparents Hendrik Reuvers and Aafje Over de Linden (1798-1849) as well as the house of Andries Over de Linden (1759-1820) and IJfje Schols. This means that since the death of Andries Over de Linden in 1820, the manuscript has stayed in the same house until Cornelis took it to Den Helder in 1848.

Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers would have stated that "without doubt the manuscript had been kept here [in her house] in a corner, covered with dust." She did not remember how long it had stayed there and when it had been moved to Den Helder.

### Posted 03 November 2011 - 07:40 PM
Abramelin, on 03 November 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:
Otharus, all these sources are members of the Over de Linden family.
And those who are not members of the family are close acquaintances or friends of the family.

So you think they were all lying?

Schoolteacher Cornelis Wijs, the two other schoolteachers, naval officer W.M. Visser and schoolmaster M.K. de Jong were not family nor known to be close acquaintances.

Did you have a source for that?

Jacob Munnik, Hein Kofman and Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers were family, but the Kofmans were not on Cornelis' side; Hein Kofman claimed that Cornelis had stolen the manuscript from his parents.

Do you have an explanation for that?

### Posted 03 November 2011 - 10:27 PM
Abramelin, on 03 November 2011 - 09:29 PM, said:
I have another question: could you give us the sources of this info (in Dutch)?
Not that I don't trust you, but maybe I can squeeze a bit more out of it.

My sources are "De Gemaskerde God" by Jensma and "Wie heeft het OLB geschreven?" by Beckering Vinkers.

I quoted and translated extensively in earlier posts.
This might be a good one to start with:

Otharus, on 19 April 2011 - 08:02 AM, said:
Some first attempts towards a new OLB theory
Earlier we have read about Cornelis Over de Linden's version of the story of how he got the OLB manuscript from his aunt Aafje in Enkhuizen.
Let's first have a look at three other versions by other people.
(Translated from DGG p.243)

### Posted 03 November 2011 - 11:15 PM
Knul, on 03 November 2011 - 10:51 PM, said:
Of course I know the witness reports. [...]

You didn't answer the question.
How do they fit into your theory?
Were all the witnesses lying?

### Posted 04 November 2011 - 08:24 AM
Knul, on 04 November 2011 - 12:16 AM, said:
You tell me, if he lied or not.

I did, long ago:
Otharus, on 19 April 2011 - 08:02 AM, said:
Some first attempts towards a new OLB theory
Because Jensma believes that Cornelis was involved in the creation of the OLB, his theory about the above is that:
1) There must have been some old family document but this was lost as it can not have been OLB.
2) Cornelis' version of the story is a total lie.

I believe that some parts Cornelis' version of the story may be lies, but not all.

One important element of his version is that his uncle, Hendrik Reuvers (1796-1845) did not want Cornelis to have the book. This would explain why Cornelis in 1845, after his uncle's death, tried to retrieve the book.

Lie #1 of Cornelis: He DID know of the OLB and has made efforts to get it. (In Wirth's publication http://www.scribd.co...nik-Einfuehrung, it says that before the OLB was translated, Cornelis believed that it contained information about a family treasure.)

It also means that Hendrik Reuvers knew that the book was important, he may have known what exactly it was about, as he was 24 when his father-in-law, Andries Over de Linden, died in 1820. Since aunt Aafje was ilitterate, it is more likely that Andries discussed the book with Hendrik and maybe taught him to read it. Hendrik's daughter Cornelia/Kee married to Rijkent Kofman in 1838, so Reuvers had enough time to pass on knowledge to his son-in-law.

Noteworthy is that when Aafje Over de Linden married Hendrik Reuvers, they asked her cousin Jan Over de Linden (1776-1858) to be a witness, and not her older brother Jan (1785-1836).

Since his aunt was ilitterate and since Hein Kofman later said that Cornelis had stolen the book (while his brother Jacob Kofman became an 'apostle'), and since Hajo Last knew a version where Cornelis got the book from his cousin Kee, I suspect a second lie:

Lie #2 of Cornelis: He did not recieve the OLB from his aunt Aafje Reuvers-Over de Linden, but from her daughter Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers, probably using force or maybe he even took it without her consent. This would explain his story "sitting at the table", more that 13 years later (between 1861 and 1867). He felt he needed to stress the fact that she had given it to him and that this had been the will of his grandfather.

With everything I know so far, I find it most likely, that:

1. The OLB had been passed on in 1820 from Andries Over de Linden to his son-in-law Hendrik Reuvers, who already had two unlawful children with his daughter Aafje, whom he would officially marry in 1821.
2. After Hendrik's death in 1845, the book was passed on to his son-in-law Rijkent Kofman, the husband of Cornelia Reuvers.
3. Between 1845 and 1848, Cornelis Over de Linden tried to get the book, in which he succeeded in 1848.
4. Between 1848 and 1876 Cornelis tried to decipher and translate the book himself, and when he came to the conclusion that the book did not contain information about a family-treasure, he gradually sent it to specialists, possibly hoping that at least it would increase their status and social position.

### Posted 04 November 2011 - 03:47 PM
Knul, on 04 November 2011 - 01:02 PM, said:
I think there was a family quarrel about the inheritance of the bookshop and printery of the founder Jan over de Linden between the Enkhuizen branche of the family and the Den Helder branche.

Why do you think this?
Is it just a thought or do you have a source?

They returned with empty hands since Hendrik Reuvers, husband of Aunt Aafje, opposed to a deal. Obviously aunt Aafje had been appointed to settle the inheritance.

This is speculation and certainly not "obvious".

Hendrik Reuvers died 15-2-1845. The witness reports say that in 1845 they visited Cornelis' MOTHER, not his aunt. His mother was working for (and living with) an old skipper and he would have opposed to handing over the manuscript.

We may suspect that the witness confused the aunt for the mother and Reuvers for the skipper, but we should be careful not to present our assumptions as facts here.

It has been Cornelis over de Linden, who said that he received the OLB from aunt Aafje (letter to Verwijs, september 1867) as a family treasure, but you think her daughter Cornelia gave it to Cornelis over de Linden.

That is not just my thought.

Cornelis' story was inconsistent. He had told Hajo Last that he had received it from his cousin Cornelia Reuvers.

I have been very careful with always mentioning my sources, quoting and translating. On your website you list a huge amount of sources (my compliments for that), but I have to conclude that you haven't read them all (properly).

This is in contradiction to the witness report of Berk, who says that Over de Linden possesed the OLB in 1853.

No, it's not.

In all versions of the story he got the manuscript in his hands in 1848.

Besides you change the meaning of the family treasure from an old book to a hidden treasure (money ?), which would be indicated in the book.

No, I did not.

Wirth wrote that Cornelis initially thought the book would contain information about a family treasure. If remember correctly, Jensma mentioned this too in his book.

### Posted 04 November 2011 - 04:26 PM
Knul, on 04 November 2011 - 03:55 PM, said:
Paper investigation in the 19th century tells, that the paper was 25 years old.

This 'investigation' is disputable. There were no good research methods and the investigators had never before seen 13th century paper. Their frame of reference was too limited and they were most probably not neutral (just like the nowaday paper-research team).

This is confirmed by recent spectrometric investigation of the paper.

No, it is not.

I have demonstrated that the research team is biased and that the outcome of their investigation is contradicting.

A carbondating examination is needed.
Why don't they simply do that?

### Posted 04 November 2011 - 04:53 PM
Besides you change the meaning of the family treasure from an old book to a hidden treasure (money ?), which would be indicated in the book.

No, I did not. Wirth wrote that Cornelis initially thought the book would contain information about a family treasure. If remember correctly, Jensma mentioned this too in his book.

In his first letter to Verwijs he speaks of 'heiligdom' (sacred), which he had to keep and maintain, not of treasure (money). This must be speculation by Jensma.

The one (sacred family document) does not exclude the other (possible information about a treasure).

Wirth already wrote about this in the 1930's.

Read more carefully and check your sources before accusing a respectable researcher of speculation.

### Posted 04 November 2011 - 04:56 PM
This is in contradiction to the witness report of Berk, who says that Over de Linden possesed the OLB in 1853.

No, it's not. In all versions of the story he got the manuscript in his hands in 1848.

The contradiction is the meeting 13 years later.

What meeting?
Can you quote Berk's witness report about 1853?

### Posted 04 November 2011 - 05:02 PM
They returned with empty hands since Hendrik Reuvers, husband of Aunt Aafje, opposed to a deal. Obviously aunt Aafje had been appointed to settle the inheritance.

This is speculation and certainly not "obvious".
Hendrik Reuvers died 15-2-1845. The witness reports say that in 1845 they visited Cornelis' MOTHER, not his aunt. His mother was working for (and living with) an old skipper and he would have opposed to handing over the manuscript.
We may suspect that the witness confused the aunt for the mother and Reuvers for the skipper, but we should be careful not to present our assumptions as facts here.

No speculation. Her sister didn't know.

Who's sister didn't know what?

### Posted 04 November 2011 - 05:10 PM
I think there was a family quarrel about the inheritance of the bookshop and printery of the founder Jan over de Linden between the Enkhuizen branche of the family and the Den Helder branche.

Why do you think this? Is it just a thought or do you have a source?

No other source than you have, but it is clear that they didn't go to Enhuizen just for fun (Over de Linden, Munnik and Stadermann). It has been said, that Stadermann has been taken with them because he knew about old books. Besides it has been reported, that Over de Linde was angry, that he did not get his share.

1. Over de Linden was angry that his uncle would not let him have the old family treasure (the Oldfrisian manuscript).

2. He took Stadermann because the latter knew about old books.

3. They went to Enkhuizen to try and collect the Manuscript and perhaps some other valuable books.

So what is your source for the "family quarrel about the inheritance of the bookshop and printery of the founder Jan over de Linden between the Enkhuizen branche of the family and the Den Helder branche"???

Let's stick to the facts.

### Posted 04 November 2011 - 05:23 PM
Abramelin, on 04 November 2011 - 04:27 PM, said:
Goffe Jensma has been discussed here often, but up to now we only read small parts of his analysis of the OLB.
I think it is fair to at least read what he had to say, even though many here do not agree with his conclusions.
His analysis is available online, but as a jumbled textual mess: someone obviously downloaded a PDF and without second thoughts copied all the 'hidden links' and footnotes along with the text itself. [...]

Thanks for that Abe, but it's still only part of his work.

The full publication of his "analysis", the thesis "De Gemaskerde God" (The Masked God), published in 2004 (only in Dutch), is not available online yet.

His conspiracy theory is with great distance superior to Knul's, but still not credible.

All specialists who were present at his book presentation agreed about that.

### Posted 04 November 2011 - 05:54 PM
Abramelin, on 04 November 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:
But did you just say they discussed Knul's work at the presentation of Jensma's book?

I understand the confusion.
I ment they agreed that Jensma's theory (that Haverschmidt was the main creative genius behind the OLB) is not credible.

Otharus, on 14 October 2010 - 04:49 PM, said:
Goffe Th. Jensma wrote a thesis about the OLB and is generally accepted to be the 'official authority' on the subject.
At a public discussion on the occasion of his promotion, none of the speakers agreed with his conclusion that François Haverschmidt must have been the genius behind OLB. (see below)
Source: Leeuwarder Courant, friday 10 december 2004
Dutch title of article: "Van het Oera Linda-boek, de Friese kip en de zeespiegel"
Translation of relevant fragment (by me):
"Although the speakers without exception praised Jensma's work, he had not been able to convince any of them of his truth that François Haverschmidt is the main author of the OLB."
Original fragment in Dutch:
"Hoewel de sprekers zonder uitzondering vol lof waren over het werk van Jensma, had hij niemand kunnen overtuigen van zijn waarheid dat François Haverschmidt de belangrijkste auteur van het Oera Linda-boek is."

Correcting myself:
It was not all specialists that were present, but all specialists that spoke at his presentation.

### Posted 05 November 2011 - 10:11 AM
Knul, on 05 November 2011 - 12:27 AM, said:
Sister of Aafje Meyloff didn't know about OLB.

You mean Antje Van Doornik-Over de Linden (1795-1882), sister of Aafje Meijlof-Over de Linden (1798-1849) and Jan Over de Linden (1785-1835), the father of Cornelis.

Cornelis' father Jan was not interested in the manuscript and aunt Aafje was illiterate.

Here's a very short summary of my hypothesis:

Andries Over de Linden (1759-1820) was keeper of the manuscript.

[fact:] His daughter Aafje and the father of her children, Hendrik Reuvers, lived in his house in Enkhuizen.

Hendrik Reuvers (1796-1845) was initiated into the secrets of the book by his father-in-law Andries Over de Linden (1759-1820).

[fact:] The daughter of Aafje and Hendrik, Cornelia Reuvers (1818-1878) and her husband Rijkent Kofman (1820-1861) lived in the house of Cornelia's parents.

Hendrik Reuvers initiated his son-in-law Rijkent Kofman into the secrets of the book.

Cornelis Over de Linden (1811-1874) had heard of the book and stole it in 1848 or at least used pressure on his cousin Cornelia (Kee) to hand it over.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
That Antje OL didn't know about the book does not prove that it did not exist.
There are many other facts that make it more likely that it did.

### Posted 05 November 2011 - 12:37 PM
Otharus, on 05 November 2011 - 10:11 AM, said:
That Antje OL didn't know about the book does not prove that it did not exist.

I forgot to add this link to one of my earlier posts, just to show that I knew and don't hold back information.

Otharus, on 12 May 2011 - 01:08 PM, said:
Another aunt of Cornelis, Antje Van Doornik-Over de Linden (1795-1882), when asked in 1876, said not to have heard of the manuscript.

We should consider all three possible explanations of this:

1. She really had never heard of it.
2. She had forgotten about it.
3. She lied.

### Posted 05 November 2011 - 09:38 PM
Knul, on 05 November 2011 - 08:35 PM, said:
I have never heard, that aunt Aafje was illiterate. I can hardly beliefe so, because she was a daughter of a bookshopper-publisher.

That is not correct.
Her father, Andries Over de Linden (1759-1820) was a carpenter (timberman).

### Posted 05 November 2011 - 10:26 PM
Knul, on 05 November 2011 - 08:35 PM, said:
I have never heard, that aunt Aafje was illiterate.

Jensma, "De Gemaskerde God", p.244:

It is most likely that Over de Linden indeed got hold of family documents ca. 1848, that had been kept in the family house at the Oude Rietdijk in Enkhuizen, where aunt Aafje and her daughter Cornelia were living. In this branch of the family, that was socially weak, the succesful Cornelis will have been regarded as a lettered man and as a head of the family to whom these documents belonged.
In my opinion, it is not likely that Cornelis received parts of this archive from his aunt Aafje. Much more likely is the earlier cited story by [Hajo] Last, who claimed that Over de Linden got these documents, that his grandfather wanted him to inherit, through Cornelia Reuvers-Kofman, who [also] lived in the house of this grandfather. [...]
Salient detail is, that both aunt Aafje and her daughter Cornelia were illiterate. Source: marriage certificate Aafje Over de Linden and Koop Simonsz Meijlof, 20 dec. 1846: the bride "declared not having learned to write." [...]

Original text in Dutch:
Het is het waarschijnlijkst dat Over de Linden inderdaad zo rond 1848 in het bezit is gekomen van familiestukken die tot dan toe bewaard werden in het familiehuis aan de Oude Rietdijk te Enkhuizen, waar tante Aafje en haar dochter Cornelia woonden. In deze tak van de familie, die sociaal gezien zeer zwak was, zal de carrièremaker Cornelis zijn beschouwd als een geletterd man en als de chef de famille aan wie deze stukken ook toekwamen.
De meest waarschijnlijke weg waarlangs delen van dit archief bij Cornelis terecht zijn gekomen loopt mijns inziens niet via tante Aafje. Veel waarschijnlijker is het hiervoor geciteerde verhaal van [Hajo] Last, die beweert dat Over de Linden deze stukken, die de grootvader voor zijn stamhouder had bestemd, heeft gekregen van de bij deze grootvader inwonende Cornelia Reuvers-Kofman. [...]
Saillant detail is, dat zowel Tante Aafje als haar dochter Cornelia analfabeet waren. Bron: huwelijksacte Aafje Over de Linden en Koop Simonsz Meijlof, 20 dec. 1846: de bruid "verklaarde geen schrijven te hebben geleerd". [...]

### Posted 05 November 2011 - 10:33 PM
Abramelin, on 05 November 2011 - 10:03 PM, said:
I hope you won't mind, Otharus, but I 'bumped' this old post of yours to be able to know who is what, why, where and when.
This discussion between the two of you is kind of hard to follow.
For me this family thing is a lot more difficult to follow than anything we posted before about etymologies, myths, people, history, maps, and so on.

Yes, I understand it can be confusing.
I'm used to it as I have been a genealogist for almost 30 years now (started at highschool because I was bored).
Thanks for quoting that to fresh up our memory.
The whole (updated) Over de Linden genealogy is here: http://fryskednis.bl...-genealogy.html

### Posted 06 November 2011 - 10:23 AM
Abramelin, on 05 November 2011 - 10:38 PM, said:
Otharus, do you have Jensma's source for this story about what COL's grandson is suppposed to have said?

Letter signed Santpoort, 7 Oct. 1965 from Riek Mulder-Pomper.

(From 1917 she had shared house with the widow of a grandson of Cornelis I, Floris August Over de Linden (1863-ca.1910), who had lived in the house of his grandfather in the 1860-s)

"... as a very little child he was brought to his grandfather. This grandfather must have been a very funny man, who was fooling everyone around and was always telling strange stories and said things that make you laugh. In one summer a few 'learned doctors from Leeuwarden', as the grandfather called them, came to visit, and took him out to go sailing. But there was a day, that the grandfather no longer joined, but was writing all day on big sheets of paper. He had fun, but never wanted to tell the little boy why. In the evening the 'learned doctors' came and grandfather would read to them what he had written during the day. Then they laughed loudly, and Floor had heard them shout: they'll be surprised and they'll never believe it! Years later, when he heard about the controversy around the book and had a good think about it, he went to his oldest brother Cor [= Cornelis III] (there was also a sister Brecht) and told him, that it was all nonsense, as he himself had seen Grandfather write the book [aged 5 or 6 years old!].
But Cor had become furious and had said, that he had no clue, that he should mind his own business, and keep his mouth shut, because after all the book said that they descended from kings! So he kept it for himself, he no longer could ask his grandfather, who had already passed away, and therefore he informed his wife about it. And Mrs. O.d.L. told me, probably because she thought, that at least someone should know. But first I had to solemnly promise her to never speak about it with anyone 'because of the sensitivity of the family'."

This note creates a difficulty though. Because the children arrived in Holland a long time after Verwijs had written the state officials and for more than one-and-a-half year had tried to introduce the manuscript into the world. One would say, that the witness report about Floris can therefore not be true. At second thought though another, much better explanation presents itself, namely that Over de Linden had not completely finished the manuscript in the beginning of 1869 and that the events that Floris remembered occurred not before the summer of 1869.

In his report [to state officials!!!] about the manuscript of 1867 Verwijs wrote, that it 'contains about 200 pages in 4, the last part of which apparently is missing though...'. The usual interpretation of this is obviously that the OLB ends at page 210 in the middle of a sentence which (indeed) suggests that part is missing. But one can also interpret it, that the last part was missing and therefore still had to be made or finished. Based on existing writings that still needed editing, he estimated the expected size of the book at 200 pages.

Quote (Otharus)
I must admit that Goffe Jensma has a good imagination.
But mine is better.
With one simple question I can sweep his theory off the table:

What if King Willem of the Netherlands himself would have heard of the manuscript and taken an interest in it, what if he would have suddenly sent a telegram saying that he would arrive with the first next ship or horse and carriage, to personally come and have a look at the manuscript himself?

Surely, the supposed hoaxers Over de Linden and Verwijs would not have taken the risk to stand empty handed, and be demasked as swindlers, after their many attempts to get a transcription and translation of the manuscript funded!

### Posted 06 November 2011
This grandson stayed with Cornelis Over de Linden in the summer of 1869.

Verwijs wrote in 1867 to state officials about the manuscript containing "about 200 pages".

If Verwijs and Over de Linden were part of the supposed conspiracy, they would not be so stupid to not finish the manuscript before trying to have it translated and published.

### Posted 06 November 2011 - 12:10 PM
The Puzzler, on 06 November 2011 - 11:49 AM, said:
I don't really doubt there could be an Aldland in Friesland and then an Aldland in from whence these Finda's people came in. It's how both can be one is the answer that's really needed.

The discussion about toponyms being found in the provionce of Friesland as well as in the big world out there makes me think of an old philosophical principle as above so below (or something like that).

I can imagine that the Frisians wanted to 'copy' the big world into their little world by copying those toponyms like Middle Sea, Egiptaland etcetera.

Furthermore, Aldland just means "old land"; it can refer to any old or former land.

There are places that are called "Ouddorp" (old village), "Oudendijk" (old dike).

In the province of Zeeland there are two villages Oudeland and Oudelande.

### Posted 06 November 2011 - 04:26 PM:
"NOCHT": a NAUGHTY word in the OLB?
An example of subtle censorship by translators
==>> this language study is seperately posted.

I will later add the fragments with NOCH, ENOCH and ÉNOCH as they are obviously related too.

### Posted 06 November 2011 - 05:14 PM
Abramelin, on 06 November 2011 - 02:02 PM, said:
There was no "Middle Sea" in the big world, there was only a Middle Sea in the province of Friesland. And you will only find a 'Mittelsee' in either Germany or maybe Switserland.

You are contradicting yourself:

Abramelin, on 06 November 2011 - 02:05 PM, said:
everytime I tell you the Jews named the Med Middle Sea after the medieval German (in Latin) name for that sea.

### Posted 06 November 2011 - 05:20 PM
Abramelin, on 06 November 2011 - 02:30 PM, said:
Still, from what you posted, I think it's possible this Floor could have been present when his grandfather was busy finishing the manuscript.

I think you ignored this:

"This note creates a difficulty though. Because the children arrived in Holland a long time after Verwijs had written the state officials and for more than one-and-a-half year had tried to introduce the manuscript into the world."

"In his report [to state officials!!!] about the manuscript of 1867 Verwijs wrote, that it 'contains about 200 pages in 4, the last part of which apparently is missing though...'."

And don't forget it's a 'witness report' out of the 3rd hand, written down a century after it was supposed to have happened...

### Posted 06 November 2011 - 07:17 PM
Abramelin, on 06 November 2011 - 06:17 PM, said:
OK, the German 'Middle Sea' (latin: Mediterranea) came into existence many ages after the Fryans are supposed to have given a sea that name.

With "came into existence" you probably mean: "is mentioned on the oldest known source".
We don't know if the name existed earlier.
Sometimes a new source is found that changes generally accepted theories.
Our current theories are based on known and accepted sources.
A new theory that challenges the existing mainstream ones, is "alternative" untill it is accepted.
OLB is not a well known alternative source yet, and certainly not explained and understood properly.

### Posted 9 November 2011 - 09:35 AM
The Puzzler, on 08 November 2011 - 11:29 PM, said:
I still think it's fake, but not bs.

If the manuscript would be fake, it should be very easy to at least prove that the paper is modern and artificially colored. (But even then it could be a copy of an older original.)

The paper research has been going on for several years now and there still is no clear answer to the question where and when it was made.

The research team is not willing to share results (other than two very vague articles) or answer questions about them.

A very recent study has proved that when research data is not willingly shared, it usually means that the outcome is not what the researchers hoped or expected.

"Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results"http://www.plosone.org...Fjournal.pone.0026828

Ottema must have been right after all, which means that many scholars that ridiculed him will lose their credibility.

### Posted 9 November 2011 - 11:03 AM
The Puzzler, on 09 November 2011 - 10:21 AM, said:
It could be sheer co-incidence that the date 1806 is given. That's really the swaying point for me.

The year 1806 is not all that significant really.
I don't think Dutch children learn it at school anyway.
In many years some 'major event' could be found if you look for it.

In THEORY it would be possible that people would keep unused paper (over 200 pages!) for 600 years (not so sure about the ink), but do you think that's realistic?

As for the so-called 'modern expressions'...
They are as modern as the oldest written down record of them.
The word FVCK is obviously much older than the first time it was written down.

Yesterday I bought a book with fabliaux from the 12th and 13th century (and I will be busy reading it).

Because they have been kept locked up in secret and private libraries until relatively recently, it's hard to believe that people dared to think, speak out and write these things back then.

But they did... and how!
In our perception of the past of our languages, we are dependent of the few sources that we have.

Never forget it's only a fraction of what ever existed.
(Remember winters here can be very cold and dark and we didn't always have central heating and lightbulbs. No better way to start a fire than with paper.)

### Posted 9 November 2011 - 11:33 AM
Otharus, on 09 November 2011 - 11:03 AM, said:
Yesterday I bought a book with fabliaux from the 12th and 13th century (and I will be busy reading it).

For Abe (when you get bored with the OLB)...
Zo bijgeschaafd als de tekst, zo 'onbeschaafd' is de inhoud van deze fabliaux. 'Boertig' is de juiste typering, maar menig lezer zal dit na één blik op de inhoudsopgave een eufemisme vinden. 'De lullendroom' of 'De ridder die kutten aan de praat kon krijgen' was misschien een betere titel voor deze bundel geweest; want het scabreuze element overheerst in deze twaalfde- en dertiende-eeuwse boerten. Geile geestelijken, overspelige vrouwen en hoorndragers figureren in haast iedere fabliau. 'Het neuken', stelt Van Altena in zijn inleiding, 'is aan de orde van de dag en de nacht.' Maar bij dit alles worden de zinnen geen moment geprikkeld.

Het ging vooral om de humor; er moest gelachen worden. En voor het publiek van de jongleurs was er geen groter vermaak dan leedvermaak. Er wordt dan ook menigeen afgerost in deze boerten, met als tragisch dieptepunt de ferme kastijding en zelfcastratie van pater Richard in 'Kutbert'. Deze pastoor alias pierewaaier gaat te dikwijls op bezoek bij een willige smidsvrouw, en dat wekt de wraakzucht van haar echtgenoot. Samen met zijn knecht betrapt de smid de pater op heterdaad, overmeestert hem en zet hem met zijn klokkenspel klem in een bankschroef. Vervolgens gaat de smidse in brand, waarop pater Richard geen andere keuze heeft dan gebruik te maken van het hem overhandigde scheermes. 'Zo kwam de pater aan zijn recht,' aldus de fabliau. Maar dat is nog niet echt het eind van het verhaal, want

Hiermee wordt het relaas besloten.
Ze vonden nog zijn beide kloten
geroosterd in het hete vuur,
die aten ze ten slotte puur
zonder komijn bij het ontbijt
als delicate smaak'lijkheid.


### Posted 9 November 2011 - 03:16 PM
Abramelin, on 09 November 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:
It's just that in that year Napoleon's brother became king here,
it's just about the French Revolution with the same ideas as we read about in the OLB,
it's also just a coincidence the French Revolution started in the year Joast Halbertsma was born,
it's again just a coincidence that the French Revolutionaries wanted to introduce a "Supreme Being" like Wralda,
and then we have their 'sacred tree', a linden-tree (lime tree / all those Lindens in the OLB),
their slogan égalite, liberté, fraternité,
and so on.

I'm used to 'co-incidences.
That's why I can relate to the concept of a 'world-ghost' (or collective subconsciousness).
I prefer that to paranoid thinking and seeing conspiracies everywhere.

### Posted 9 November 2011 - 03:20 PM
Here's a some of my doubts about the Halbertsma theory:

1) If I understand it correctly, you (Abe and Knul) believe that Halbertsma could have written most of what is now the OLB, using his knowledge of language, mythology and history. None of his friends and relatives knew about all this work. He had kept this a total secret.

2) After his death, others got hold of his notes or primal version and added and/or changed things, suggesting a link to the Over de Linden family. You and Knul believe that Stadermann did this, so he could sell it to Over de Linden.

3) But the (Westfrisian) Over de Linden family was not wealthy. Stadermann could better have chosen a rich Frisian family. And then there's all these witness accounts about the manuscript having been in the OdL family in Enkhuizen.

All this is not explained (yet) in the Halbertsma theory.
There's just too many facts that make any of the existing hoax theories terribly unbelievable.
And there is still no hard evidence AGAINST authenticity of the OLB.
Let's at least agree that it could possibly be authentic.
That would already be a great step forward.

No comments:

Post a Comment