15 December 2011

Forum # 17 (nov. 30 - dec. 15, 2011)

Posted 30 November 2011 - 10:48 AM
To avoid a misunderstanding:
My interest in the ancestry of Halbertsma does not come from a suspicion that he might have created the manuscript, but rather, that he had a more than average interest in etymology and history, because his ancestors knew (some of) the content of it.
Cornelis' ancestors may not always have kept the manuscript a total secret. There may still be copies or other versions in private collections. Jan Over de Linden, Cornelis' great-grandfather may even have left Leeuwarden because he got in trouble talking or publishing about it. All speculation, I know. But we need that to keep our minds open for all different possible scenarios. I still hope to find out more about the OL genealogy.

### Posted 30 November 2011 - 08:46 PM
Alewyn, on 30 November 2011 - 02:09 PM, said:
Halbertsma’s so-called involvement was first raised a hundred years after the Oera Linda Book surfaced. In the 19th century nobody even considered him to be a suspect. Yet, now, him being the mastermind behind the creation of the OLB, is being flaunted as fact. At the same time we are continuously being told that the guys in the 19th century “were not stupid/fools”.

Very good point.

### Posted 30 November 2011 - 09:31 PM
Abramelin, on 30 November 2011 - 02:43 PM, said:
OK, so the Halbertsma's had a dog called Apol.

I promise you that if you keep looking for coincidences like this, you will find many more.
You guys (Abe and Knul) really should read and study Jensma's book before you go on with this.
His 'proof' that Haverschmidt, Verwijs and Over de Linden did it is much stronger than yours about Halbertsma, but still not good enough.
Lunatic asylums are filled with people that can prove they are being followed or that the number plates of passing cars contain hidden messages.
You will have to do much better than Jensma to be convincing.
As long as you and Knul haven't even studied his book, how can we take you seriously?
I know you read the summary but that's not enough.
It might help you see the shortcomings of your method.

### Posted 30 November 2011 - 09:52 PM
Abramelin, on 30 November 2011 - 09:01 PM, said:
Yes, indeed: these guys from the 19th century were no fools.

When the OLB was intensely discussed in the first decade of its publication, there were still many people who had known Halbertsma, his work and his passions very well.
Your theory is that he wrote it for his own amusement, as an exercise.
If that were so, why would he have kept this activity, that must have cost him a lot of time and deep research, a total secret to all of his colleagues, friends and relatives?
And I ask again:
Why did he not include his most beloved Hindelopen in it?
Why did he use KERDEL, while not mentioning this version in his publication about churl/tjzerl?

### Posted 30 November 2011 - 10:22 PM
Abramelin, on 30 November 2011 - 10:02 PM, said:
I am not lying: "kerdel" is a real word.

I know, but Halbertsma apparently didn't, and yet it is used in the manuscript.

And why did he not use Hindelopen??
What are you asking? Maybe he should have added his full name into to OLB?

It IS relevant, because according to your and Knul's logic the OLB is a reflection of Halbertsma's passions and obsessions.

You keep finding new ones that fit, but the ones that are NOT included in the OLB, you simply ignore.

Hindelopen was demonstrably one of his favorites, and if he wrote it for his own pleasure, he would surely have included it.

Great fantastic etymologies can be made to it...

### Posted 30 November 2011 - 11:24 PM
Abramelin, on 30 November 2011 - 02:03 PM, said:
mar ek de hûn Apol, de kat, de kanarje en de hinnen.
See page 8 of this PDF: http://images.tresoa...etterhoeke1.pdf

That is a publication of 2005.
Hundreds of Frisians must have read it, including many people who know the OLB.
To you it's proof that Halbertsma wrote it.
To me it's proof that the name Apol was still in use in Friesland. There may have been hundreds of dogs with that name.
There's also a painter called Louis Apol (1850-1936): http://nl.wikipedia....wiki/Louis_Apol
Where do you think Halbertsma got that name from?
He probably didn't suck it out of his thumb.
It's a nice find, but I wouldn't go Halelujah about it.
Information, names, facts from the manuscript were 'singing around' in Friesland and the rest of Holland, long before it was first published.
You interpret them as inspiration for the OLB, but they can also be seen as traces from an old tradition, partly oral, partly written.

### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 01 December 2011 - 06:41 AM
Abramelin, on 30 November 2011 - 09:01 PM, said:
In the old days you had to travel to some faraway library, and you would only do that if you expected to find something there.

This is exactly my point. The information in the OLB covers Scandinavia, Northern and Western Europe, the Mediterranean, Egypt and North Africa, Greece, the Middle East and India.

Who in 19th century Netherlands could have had the opportunity, time and resources to gather and process all this information? It would have had to be a FULL TIME and LIFELONG occupation. There would not have been time left over for any other career.

As I have shown before, none of the historical facts in the OLB have been proven wrong since it appeared and, as Otharus have stated, none of the historical ideas that were proven wrong since the 19th century, appear in the OLB.

If Alewyn had lived in the 19th century, he would not have been able to write his book.

Agreed, and if the “hoaxers” lived in the 21st century, then only might they have been able to have created this “hoax”.

Let us just agree to disagree with Professor Jensma without name-calling. He is still a highly respected person in certain circles.

### Posted 01 December 2011 - 07:17 AM
Abramelin, on 30 November 2011 - 11:28 PM, said:
Not once did I read anything about the OLB in both the sources I posted.

Try some mindyoga and read my reconstruction of how a 19th century Frisian culturalist like Halbertsma may have had knowledge of facts, names, ideas from the OLB, without knowing that they came the OLB.

Jan Over de Linden (c.1718-1794) was a clerk (student or scholar). He knew the content of the manuscript. He not only educated his son Andries (1759-1820) about some of its content, but also other people he trusted. He may just have told stories about Frieslands ancient past, without reveiling his source. People may have liked them, without believing they were true. He may even have presented it as fiction. He may have told stories about Apol, an ancient Frisian hero, the Frisian 'Apollo'.
Someone who would later become the schoolteacher of the young Halbertsma was one of the people who really liked this story. He would tell it to his students years later. The young Halbertsma liked this story too. He may have forgotten it later, but remembered the name. Later he named his dog after it.
He had no clue that it came from an old manuscript.
Information is not only transfered through written sources.
What we find on the internet is a fraction of the sources that exist and what exists is a fraction of what once existed.
Don't underestimate oral tradition.

### Posted 01 December 2011 - 09:50 AM
Alewyn, on 01 December 2011 - 08:32 AM, said:
What was the relationship between Ottema and Halbertsma?

Good question, I'll read and think about it.
One thing is clear already.

Ottema and Verwijs were members of the elitarian Friesch Genootschap (Frisian Society), that was founded in 1827. It was here where the first debates about the manuscript took place.

Eeltsje Halbertsma (1797-1858) had joined in 1827, but ended his membership in 1834. To his brother Joost he wrote about this: "there are fools of all kinds" (es gibt Narren aller Art); he didn't want to be one of them. (Source Wikipedia)

Discussions about Frieslands history, language and culture must have led to strong emotions long before the manuscript surfaced.

### Posted 01 December 2011 - 09:34 PM
New: photo of Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers (1818-1878), daughter of aunt Aafje Reuvers-Over de Linden (1798-1849) and Hendrik Reuvers (1796-1845), full cousin of Cornelis Over de Linden (1811-1874). On the right photo she is portrayed together with two granddaughters, probably Cornelia and Teetje Zwaan (born 1863 and 1865 resp.). With thanks to Dr. F.W. Zwaan.

### Posted 01 December 2011 - 11:54 PM
Knul, on 01 December 2011 - 06:51 PM, said:
the forgerers of the OLB knew that they had to replace -en by -a in plural nouns en infinitives, so they changed leven in leva, but forgot about it, that the noun leven = lif and not leva.

No, LIF = lijf (body), but obviously related to LÉVA (life, to live).

Originally, there was no distinction between the noun LÉVA and the verb LÉVA, just like in modern Dutch.

Het leven is goed: (the) life is good
Het is goed te leven: it is good to live

OLB also shows us that the Dutch word "blijven" (to stay/ remain; German= bleiben; Danish= bliver; Frisian= bliuwe) originally was BILÉVA; bij-leven or be-leven.

That "blijven" is related to "leven" can still be seen in the past tense:

ik/ jij/ hij/ zij bleef
wij/ jullie/ zij bleven

The following dictionaries did not have this more pure version (BILÉVA):

- Alt friesisches Wörterbuch (1786) by T.D. Wiarda
- Proeve van een Friesch en Nederlandsch Woordenboek (1832) by M. Hettema
- Altfriesisches Wörterbuch (1840) by K. Von Richthofen
- Lexicon Frisicum (1874) by J. Halbertsma

### Posted 02 December 2011 - 01:05 PM
Knul, on 01 December 2011 - 06:51 PM, said:
Another example: the plural of svn is svna. However in the OLB you find in many cases svnvm, but -vm is used for the plural noun after a preposition like fon, with, etc.

Plural of SVN (son): SVNA or SVNUM?
In Dutch there are two correct words for "sons": "zonen" and "zoons".
Like English and Dutch, the language of the OLB does not make a clear distinction of grammatical cases.

SVNUM is used in:
- Introduction of Adela-followers' book (3x)
- The three mothers (1x)
- Copy from burg Walhallagára (1x)
- Wichhirte's diary (1x)
- Anonymus about Black Adel (1x)
Total: 7x

SVNA is used in:
- Creation myth (1x)
- Frya's Tex (1x)
- Rights of all Fryas (1x)
- Éwa for navigators (2x)
- Copy from any burg (1x)
- Apollánja's book (1x)
- Brunno's notes (2x)
- Fréthorik's book (1x)
- Koneréd's book (4x)
- Anonymus about Black Adel (2x)
Total: 16x

Introduction of Adela-followers' book


Copied from walls of Fryasburch, Texland:

1) Creation myth


2) The three mothers

3) Frya's Tex

4) Rights of all Fryas

5) Éwa for navigators

Copied from walls of burch Walhallagára, Seven Islands


This was written on all burchs


Apollánja's book


Brunno's notes


Fréthorik's book


Wichhirte's diary


Koneréd's book


Anonymus about Black Adel


### Posted 02 December 2011 - 02:20 PM
Knul, on 01 December 2011 - 06:51 PM, said:
The poor about it is its grammatical inconsistency and inconsistency of spelling throughout the OLB. [...] The OLB is full of such inconsistencies, which Halbertsma would not allow, nor Hettema, nor Verwijs nor any other linguist with knowledge of Oldfrisian.

The inconsistencies are best explained if we accept that the various texts were written in different times and regions, by different people.

There was no official grammar established by the state and there must have been countless dialects. Even today, various villages here, not more than an hour walking distance apart, sometimes have slightly different dialect and vocabulary.

The various texts of OLB are written in different styles and with different spelling-varieties and choice of words.

For supposed hoaxers this would have been a hell of a job.
So much pain for no gain at all.
It does not make the slightest sense.

### Posted 02 December 2011 - 02:33 PM
Abramelin, on 02 December 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:
I think it is most likely that when two forms of one word are being used indiscriminately, then one of these words was once used in a different way.

When the different texts within the OLB are compared, sometimes SVNUM is used, and mostly SVNA, but within one text always consequently.

Only in the last (newest) bit, about Black Adel, both SVNA and SVNUM are used, in different grammatical cases.

I don't think the 19th century assumption that the Gothic language is an ancestor of Oldfrisian is correct.

The spelling variety of the OLB does not fit well in the dictionary theory, unless we assume that this variety was made on purpose.

About the dictionary-theory: some words were (and are still) unknown, other words were only known in different varieties (like BILÉVA).

### Posted 02 December 2011 - 05:06 PM
Improvised translation of (part of) Ottema's reply to brochure by J.F. Berk (1877), as copied by N. Luitse in "Wordlist & Grammar OLB", based on Ottema's unpublished work (1990).

OLB is only understandable, when it is taken as it appears, that is, as a collection of texts from different times and regions, written by different people, that, kept in one family, make up a kind of family archive.

A seven year constant study of the book and every publication about it has always confirmed this conviction.

The language of the OLB does not fit into the linguistic understandings of mister Beckering Vinckers. I will gladly believe that. Neither do the Oldfrisian laws.

It also does not completely agree with the Frisian grammar of Rask & Hettema (1832).

This was based on the Oldfrisian Laws and Landrights, that, coming from various regions of the Oldfrisian fatherland, represent just as many dialects, and all differ in form and spelling. One can therefore not demand, that other manuscripts will fit into that same grammar.

From the OLB the grammar still has to be made. For that all gammatical phenomena, that appear in the various texts of it, have to be collected, sifted and arranged.

### Posted 02 December 2011 - 07:04 PM
A spelling-variety sample, just because I felt inspired and wanted to continue something I had started before.

Otharus, on 05 May 2011 - 10:54 AM, said:
SKRÉVEN ~ 24 x

of which 6 varieties:
. . . WR-SKRÉVEN ~ 1 x (over-written = copied)
. . . VR-SKRÉVEN ~ 1 x ( ,, )
. . . E-SKRÉVEN ~ 2 x
. . . É-SKRÉVEN ~ 1 x
. . . BI-SKRÉVEN ~ 1 x (describe)
("-" added by me)

And 4 with a double-V or W:
(BI-) SKRÉWEN ~ 1 x
(A-) SKRIWEN ~ 1 x
(A-) SKRÍWEN ~ 1 x
(the last two having I, resp. Í after the SKR-)

Total: 28 x

So the constant factor is:

and between SKR- and -EN, we find:
É - 26 x
I - 1 x
Í - 1 x
V - 24 x
W - 3 x
VV - 1 x

A spelling-variety sample, just because I felt inspired and wanted to continue something I had started before.

[size="4"]Writing varieties[/size]

New-Frisian: skriuwe
Westfrisian: skroive

[hid/13] WRSKRÍVA
[004/14] VPSKRÍWA
[004/22] SKRÍWA
[051/15] SKRIWA
[061/17] SKRIWA
[061/28] SKRIWA
[068/17] SKRIVA
[087/16] BISKRIVE
[089/24] IK SKRÍW
[089/27] IK SKRÍW
[091/11] SKRIVA
[106/10] SKIWA (writing error?)
[108/19] SKÍVA ( ,, )
[112/16] SKRIWA
[114/02] SKRÍWA
[114/20] SKRÍVA
[118/32] SKRIVA
[119/19] SKRÍVA
[131/32] SKRIVA
[144/17] SKRIVA
[154/17] SKRIWA
[162/31] SKRIVA
[168/16] SKRÍWE
[195/02] SKRIVA
[196/19] SKRÍVA
[196/26] SKRÍVA
[196/32] SKRIVA
[197/17] SKRÍVA
[197/28] SKRÍWA
[198/07] VRSKRIVA
[199/11] SKRIVA

varieties with
Í: 15
I: 17
V: 19
W: 13

other varieties:
endings on -E or -A
WR-, VR- and OVER-

[097/33] SKRIWAND
[134/16] SKRIVANE
[208/12] SKRÍWANE

[008/07] SKRÉF

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Why would anyone take all this effort for a practical joke?!

Most people in the 18th century had to work hard for their money, and if they didn't, they wanted to at least have the honor for the work they did.

That someone or a few people would do all this work in total anonymity, without any financial compensation, is just utterly improbable.

### Posted 02 December 2011 - 08:25 PM
Abramelin, on 02 December 2011 - 07:15 PM, said:
Did someone build a church around year zero in Friesland, maybe Jesus himself, or Joseph of Arimathea, or one of the apostles?

Why do you think the Christians invented the word that is now "kerk" (church)?
The classical shape of them will also have been copied from pre-christian equivalents.

Related words:
kerker (dungeon, jail, gaol, prison)
karkas (carcass)
schuur (shed, barn)
zerk (tombstone)

### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 03 December 2011 - 05:53 AM
Otharus, on 02 December 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:
Improvised translation of (part of) Ottema's reply to brochure by J.F. Berk (1877), as copied by N. Luitse in "Wordlist & Grammar OLB", based on Ottema's unpublished work (1990).

"OLB is only understandable, when it is taken as it appears, that is, as a collection of texts from different times and regions, written by different people, that, kept in one family, make up a kind of family archive.

A seven year constant study of the book and every publication about it has always confirmed this conviction."

This is exactly my contention. Once you realize that the Oera Linda Book is authentic, all the answers fall into place and a new and very fascinating insight into our pre-history appears.

Many of the questions we still ask today are answered, eg. Who were the original inhabitants of Greece, who were the "Sea People", the Hyksos, the Gauls, the Celts, the Trojans, etc.

Those who continue to search (in vain) for the author(s) of the Oera Linda Book, are depriving themselves (and others) of a very fascinating story.

Those who see it, or want to use it as some religious document, might as well look at Homer's Iliad and Odyssey as religious documents. Once again, they miss the whole point.

### Posted 04 December 2011 - 07:41 AM
It is very understandable that the Dutch have difficulties accepting that the OLB might be authentic.

Dutch children are educated to believe that their pre-christian ancestors were "raw and primitive".

(I'm not suggesting a conspiracy here, this is just what we have been taught since we were christened.)

Here's a video and lyrics of a song (partly translated) from the popular "kinderen voor kinderen" (children for children) from Dutch public television.

"we are the Batavians [...]
we wear clothers made of wild bears [...]
we catch boars and make wars [...]
we crawl through the mud [...]
have a bath once a year [...]
these are the manners of the Batavians; raw and primitive [...]
behavior of the year zero"

### Posted 05 December 2011 - 11:16 AM
Abramelin, on 04 December 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:
There is no proof anywhere at all that the ancient Dutch were not "raw and primitive", lol.

Yes, there is.
In the time of the Roman occupation (of the southern low lands), the Frisians were known as international traders and they saved a Roman fleet.

### Posted 05 December 2011 - 12:34 PM
Alewyn, on 05 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:
“The spiritual testament of John Winkler that became known in 1916 already has, in fact, the story of what happened as far as it can be established.”

Johan Winkler (1840-1916) was a prominent member of the "Provinciaal Friesch Genootschap ter Beoefening van Friesche Geschied-, Oudheid- en Taalkunde" (provincial frisian society for practice of frisian history, archaeology and linguistics), as had been Ottema (1804-1879) and Verwijs (1830-1880).

This society, now called "Koninklijk Fries Genootschap voor Geschiedenis en Cultuur" (royal frisian society for history and culture), was one of the financing partners of Goffe Jensma's book, "De Gemaskerde God" (2004).

"The Frisian Society for History and Culture was founded in 1827. Our aim is to enhance the interest in the history and culture of [the province of!] Friesland and to support research in that field."

Anything "Frisian" from before 1100 AD (when Holland, Zeeland and Westflanders were also referred to as "Friesland", or "Frisia" in Latin) is not of interest to them. They aim, in fact, at stressing the uniqueness of the culture and dialect in their current province of Friesland alone.

### Posted 05 December 2011 - 03:47 PM
Knul, on 05 December 2011 - 03:10 PM, said:
Johan Winkler did not know the correspondence between Over de Linden, Verwijs, Ottema and Haverschmidt. He only guessed and did not prove his complot theory.

I don't know whether he knew any of the correspondence or not, but that he only guessed and didn't prove his theory is correct.
The same applies to you.

### Posted 07 December 2011 - 04:01 PM
Knul, on 06 December 2011 - 04:13 AM, said:
Just show us the Roman texts, which describe the Frisians as international traders. That they saved a Roman fleet comes from the Magnus sage ?

My source was "De rand van het Rijk" by historians Jona Lendering and Arjen Bosman.

Otharus, on 17 November 2010 - 08:07 PM, said:
1) In 12 BC the Frisians saved a Roman fleet (from Drusus) when it had gotten in trouble in the Waddenzee.
2) The Frisians of that time were already known to have a varied agriculture and to trade on distant shores.
(De Rand van het Rijk ~ De Romeinen in de Lage Landen, p.109; chapter 6 Chauken en Friezen)

### Posted 07 December 2011 - 05:13 PM
Knul, on 06 December 2011 - 06:55 AM, said:
The list of English words in the OLB can be expanded with the word kaese = Eng. case Dutch zaak. Dutch expression: de zaak verliezen - loose the case. Ottema translates battle, Sandbach follows Ottema.

Wrong again, Knul.
KASE is Oldfrisian.

Hettema (1832): KASE = gevecht (fight)
Richthofen (1840): KASE (also spelled "case") = streit, zwist, schlägerei, gefecht (fight, conflict, battle, etc.)
The word appears twice (in slightly varried spelling) in the OLB:

were they felled (killed) in a fight

that Askae had lost the fight

### Posted 07 December 2011 - 05:28 PM
Knul, on 07 December 2011 - 04:53 PM, said:
Accidentely I know Arjen Bosman. The only international trade was, that the Frisians sold pelts of cows to the Romans and got a conflict about it. It was not even trade, but they had to sell as a sort of tribution.

You may 'know' him, but apparently you don't know his book:

page 109 improvised translation:
"Four tribes lived in the northern coastal area. The 'minor' Frisians lived west of the Flevo-lake in what is now North-Holland, and the 'major' Frisians lived in present Friesland. [...] More to the east, the Romans distinguished the minor and major Chauks: the first tribe lived in the provinces Groningen and Ostfriesland, the second between the mouths of Weser and Elbe. The names suggest at most a political division, as the four tribes shared the same economy, that was characterised by varied agriculture and trade on distant shores."

Dutch: "handel op verre kusten"

Many Latin texts show that the Romans had much difficulties navigating the North Sea.
The Frisians must have been excellent ship builders and navigators.

Still, Dutch history teachers at primary schools seem to portrey them as "raw and primitive"...

### Posted 07 December 2011 - 06:14 PM
Knul, on 06 December 2011 - 07:26 AM, said:
I have seen ample factual proof that the OLB is an hoax full of anachronisms, like the story of the Cretan king Minos (born and died in Leeuwarden) and that the Frisians teaching the Greeks and Phoenicians their alfabet, who adopted monotheism long before Christianity arrived in Europe and so on.

I trust the judgement from Dr. Ottema, who was headmaster (principal) of a gymnasium (school for students of Latin and Greek) better than that of a confused librarian like you.

But even IF there were anachronisms in the OLB, that still would not prove it to be a hoax, as our ancestors might have taken the liberty to interpret history and mythology in their own way.

Do you claim to know where king Minos was born and where he died?

### Posted 07 December 2011 - 06:24 PM
Knul, on 07 December 2011 - 06:11 PM, said:
I hope you see, that kâs-e is no warfare term (battle), but a juridical term (case).

Just have a look at the various examples Richthofen gives in which the word was used in Oldfrisian texts.
One of his translations is Schlägerei.

German Wiki:
Eine Schlägerei ist eine gewalttätige Auseinandersetzung mindestens zweier Personen.
(a violent conflict between at least two people)

### Posted 07 December 2011 - 06:34 PM
Knul, on 07 December 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:
On the same gymnasium where students were teached the philosophy of Decartes? By the way Halbertsma went to that gymnasium.

Your Descartes argument is nonsense.
The OLB does not contain his famous quote "I think, therefore I am" (cogito ergo sum).
And even IF it did, it would not prove it was inspired by Descartes, as it may have been the other way around, or they may have had a shared source of inspiration.

### Posted 08 December 2011 - 08:34 AM
Knul, on 08 December 2011 - 01:12 AM, said:
Philosophy of Descartes (cogito ergo sum) commented by a theologician (J.H. Halbertsma) in the OLB.
[...] So neither Irtha nor any other created object can say, "I am" but rather, "I was".
So no man can say, "I think" but rather, "I thought".
[...] Besides, everybody knows and must acknowledge that he is now changing, that he changes every minute even while he says, "I am",
and that his thoughts change even while he says, "I think".

Philosophers of all times have thought about thinking and being (and sometimes about their relationship).
This fragment in the OLB deals with being and thinking, but in a totally different way then you assume.

The fragments you quoted don't even suggest the relationship: THINKING => BEING (I think => I Am).

All it says is, that when you talk about the present, it's already past:

Thoughts are changing while you express them.

Tjebbe Hemsterhuis was very much influenced by Descartes. s. Lectio publica Tiberii Hemsterhusii de originibus linguae Graecae, edited by J.H. Halbertsma; new edition with a prefatory essay by Jan Noordegraaf and an introductory article by Anthonia Feitsma, Amsterdam-Münster 1997.

Here you have a direct link between the OLB and J.H. Halbertsma, which not yet has been discussed in the literature on the OLB.

This is how you are reasoning:

1. A fragment in OLB reminds you of Descartes
2. Descartes inspired Hemsterhuis
3. A text from Hemsterhuis was edited by Halbertsma
=> direct link between OLB and Halbertsma!

What about this one:

Descartes, who studied in 17th century Leeuwarden, was influenced by people who were (directly or indirectly) inspired by the OLB?

### Posted 08 December 2011 - 08:43 AM
Knul, on 08 December 2011 - 01:30 AM, said:
It would be obvious to think of Menno Simonsz (Witmarsum), who was the religious leader of the anabaptists. J.H. Halbertsma was an anabaptist minister in Deventer. I can recommend to read Doopsgezinde Bijdragen, nieuwe reeks 31 (2005).

Another example of your way of reasoning:

1. OLB describes a character called MINNO
2. Menno Simonsz was the religious leader of the anabaptists
3. Halbertsma was an anabaptist minister
=> obvious connection between OLB and Halbertsma!

"Menno" is a common (Frisian) name.

### Posted 08 December 2011 - 09:03 AM
Knul, on 08 December 2011 - 06:25 AM, said:
Apart from this biasten is a misspelling. It should read biasta according to the own spelling rules of the OLB, where -en is replaced by -a. cfr. Biwesta Pangab thêr sind tha Yra jeftha wranga, tha Gedrostne jeftha britne, aend tha Orjetten jeftha vrjetne.

The OLB does not have very strict spelling rules.
I have given many examples of spelling variety, which would only be normal if OLB was written by various authors in various times and various regions, AS IT SAYS IT IS.

### Posted 08 December 2011 - 09:32 AM
Knul, on 08 December 2011 - 07:15 AM, said:
It's ridiculous to suggest, that Latin comes from Oldfrisian.

Appealing to ridicule is a sign of weakness.
Ofcourse I did not mean the Oldfrisian of the Medieval sources, but the language that must have existed in pre-Roman NW-Europe, of which the OLB-language MAY be a reflection.

### Posted 08 December 2011 - 11:30 AM
Abramelin, on 08 December 2011 - 11:03 AM, said:
So, either the OLB "Krylwald" means something else (not a name but a type of forest, like 'kriel forest', think 'kriel-kip' , small), or the OLB "Ljvwerde" is not Leeuwarden.

If there would have been only one Krylwald, the author would not have had to add "east of Ljvwerde".

The term Krylwald is also used in OLB to describe 'kreupelhout' (copse, coppice?) in NW-India.

I guess there were more of those woods and the Krylerwoud got its name from what was once a generic name.

### Posted 08 December 2011 - 12:56 PM
Abramelin, on 08 December 2011 - 11:03 AM, said:
"Dwarlpada" means "slingerpaden" (winding paths). Could be your labyrinths, or just paths with many bends and twists. Not uncommon in a forest.
Sandbach translated it as "concealed path".
I couldn't find "dwarl" in any Old Frisian dictionary, but I certainly know the word "dwarl", lol. "Dwarrel" I know to mean something like idiot, fool. And we now have a word in Dutch football (no, 'soccer' is for the English, lol), "dwarrelbal" which has to do with a player not shooting the football in a straight line, uncontrolled.

I didn't know that the word "dwarrel" means "dwaas". Interesting.

The best translation for DWARLPADA imo would be "dwaalpaden" (the verb "dwalen" = stray, err, wander, roam, ramble, rove).

Newfrisian words for "dwarrelen" are: "twirje", "dwarlje" and "dwarrelje".
There seems to be a relation to the English verb "to twirl".
So the dutch word "dwalen" might originally have been "dwarlen" or "dwarla".

### Posted 08 December 2011 - 04:43 PM
Knul, on 08 December 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:
The area is called Creyll. The wood was on the Creyll, indeed between Medemblik and Stavoren. Both the counts of Hollan and the Frisians claimed the area for hunting.

The author of your source used a fancy spelling, Cnull.
In "Cronyk van Friesland" it's "Creil", Westfrisians would use a "K".
And Abe is right about the relation with the word "kriel".
It makes no difference whether it's spelled as Creyll, Creyl, Creil, Kreil, Krijl, Kryl, or anything else that sounds exactly the same.
Anyone who has ever done research of old sources, knows that spelling was never strict.

### Abramelin posted 08 December 2011 - 07:24 PM
A bit more about this "Medea".......

Verhandeling over het Westland, ter Opheldering der Loo- en, Woerden en Hoven
1844 / page 278

Derk Buddingh

The idea that the name "Medemblik" had something to do with a "Medea" already existed in 1844... no, even earlier: Hamconius (16th century) already mentioned "Medea".

But a Van den Bergh explained it as meaning "virgin".
I'd say, related to the English "maid" or the German "Mädchen".

### Abramelin posted 08 December 2011 - 08:27 PM
Knul, on 08 December 2011 - 07:28 PM, said:
On my website I oppose to Goffe Jensma's complot theory. Authenticity is out of order for 150 years. To deny that is first class misinformation.

Maybe I am the last person on this whole website who should interfere as some kind of 'referee' between the 2 of you bickering for pages on end now - you all know I am quite capable of the same, lol - but I think Otharus' main point is that you state your theory as being a 100% fact.

Well, I am a skeptic too, but not one here, including me, has ever been able to post a theory - pro or contra the OLB - that was a 100% fact. Maybe that's why I sometimes appear to 'shift' from one to a slightly different viewpoint, and when that happens it's based on what I discovered.

I'm sorry to say, but you, Menno appear to me as fiercely defending your theory as Alewyn defends his (book).

I still don't believe at all the OLB is an authentic ancient manuscript describing an unknown ancient European culture/civilization - and that's because I'm finding more and more sources that were available to people from the 19th century (and before the OLB was published) - but I try to be flexible concerning any theory I might develop.

### Posted 09 December 2011 - 09:58 AM
Knul, on 08 December 2011 - 11:58 PM, said:
Halbertsma appeared to have written about each aspect or topic of the OLB, even about weapons like the sax.

Your mind is playing tricks with you.
You see only the things that confirm your idea, and are blind to all contradictions.
The list of subjects in OLB that H. did NOT write about, would be much longer, while many of the things and words that he was really passionate about, don't appear in the OLB.

### Posted 10 December 2011 - 12:07 AM
Abramelin, on 08 December 2011 - 06:58 PM, said:
Found another interesting Dutch book, from 1702:
"Oud-Heden van Zaan-Land Stavoren Vronen en Waterland door H. Soeteboom II Deel"

In this book, on page 2-3 of "Van Vroonen" (or 273-274 of 755 in the PDF), a fragment about "Attelantida" (Atlantis in a spelling that does not yet exist on the web, as far I could find with Google).

"Sodanig een History en Lant-beschryvers belydenisse behoort te wesen, (als gesegt is) want wy hier inne niet na en 'volgen de luyden (hoewel van groote geleertheyd) die werk gesocht hebben, omme te beschryven een Utopia, als den verstandigen Thomas Mores, eertyts Cancelier van Engeland, ofte van 't Eylant Attelantida, daar den Jesuit en nauw doorsnuffelende Josephus Acosta van verhaalt, het welke eenige hondert mylen groot, ontrent de barbarische kusten gelegen hadde, en in de grooten Oceaan, die ongrondelyk diep is, verdronken soude zyn, 't gene met reden men Nergens Land noemen mocht: ofte en volgen ook niet den voortreffeyken werelt wysen Plato, om te verhalen van een Stad, die noyt te vinden heeft geweest, hoewel datter een sulken Stad in des Aardryks ront wel behoorde, ofte hadde mogen zyn. Want, het gene hier verhandelt sal worden, is van een Stad ofte Vestinge, die haar wesen heeft gehad in der waarheyd, hare handelinge en doen in erusthaftigheyd, haar voorspoet in Scheepvaart en Koophandel, haar bloey en 't vallen in den verderffelyken Oorlog."

Sorry, no translation this time.

### Posted 10 December 2011 - 08:41 AM
The great-grandfather of Cornelis Over de Linden, Jan Andries'-son, had been registered at his notice of marriage in Harlingen (1745) as "Jan Overlinde", but did not use a family name when he had his children baptised in Enkhuizen between 1746 and 1764. In his testament (1783) he signed with "Jan Over Lende". When his sons get married in 1776 and 1782 they are registered as "Over de Linden".

Some considerations:
- More research in Friesland (Harlingen and Leeuwarden) is needed.
- Why was the family name not used between 1746-1764?
- It is possible that Jan Andries'-son (or one of his forefathers) adapted the name Over de Linden (in any spelling variety), because he/they had the manuscript. Cornelis is not necessarily a straight descendant (in the male line) of Okke Hiddes-son.

### Posted 10 December 2011 - 02:19 PM
Alewyn, on 10 December 2011 - 07:06 AM, said:
Incidently, I wrote a week ago to Dr. Ad Maas at Semafoor who, apparently, wrote the article that I translated. I asked him whether he has documentary proof that Hellinga found the ink to date to before 1820. As to be expected, I am still waiting. You see, IF Hellinga did indeed say this and IF it is true, this will create a bit of a dillemma for the supporters of the hoax theory. This will then rule out Halbertsma as a suspect as well. It will also make a mockery of your speculation that some of the OLB text was added later.

Here is an interesting twist. Prof Jensma, in his response to the Semafoor article on the same website, claims that he was not aware of Hellinga's findings and, even if its true, it proves nothing because he believes the paper dates from after 1860. Must we then assume that the people who wrote the OLB in the 19th century used ink that was more than 40 years old? They went through years of labour to research history, concocted a new story, created a new language and script and even went through the trouble of getting old ink from goodness knows where and... used new paper!?

Very interesting!
The paper investigation of the last few years had no answer about the age of the ink.
If SEMafoor doesn't come with an answer, I will go try and find it.

### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 10 December 2011 - 05:53 PM
The Puzzler, on 10 December 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:
I'm going 'historical fiction' as well.
As pointed out by Otharus, the parts about the birth of Lyda, Finda and Frya are certainly that.

This is what I wrote about these myths in my second edition:


"The 2193 BC disaster not only destroyed the Fryan Federation but also all memory and such records of their past as there may have been. It seems probable that Frya was their Folk Mother before the disaster. She apparently died in the flood.

"After the disaster she appears to have been elevated to the position of Earth Mother or Founding Mother by her successor. Fasta claimed to have been nominated by nobody less than Frya, and in fact, received instructions from Frya, who was now watching over them from her Watch Star.

"Exalted Frya. When she had thus spoken, the earth shook like Wralda’s sea. The ground of Flyland sank beneath her feet, the sky became black and green from tears, and when they looked for their mother she had already risen to her watch star; then at length thunder spoke from the clouds, and lightning wrote in the sky, “Watch!”
Far-seeing Frya. The land from which she had risen was now a stream, and except her Tex, all was destroyed that came from her hand.

"Fasta obviously strengthened her own hand by convincing the nation that she enjoyed divine sanction and fellowship:

"Upon my servant Fasta I have placed my hopes. Therefore, you must accept her as your Honorary Mother. If you follow my advice, she will hereafter remain my servant as well as all pious matrons who succeed her. Then shall the lamp that I have lighted for you never be extinguished. Its light shall always illuminate your intellect, and you shall always remain as free from foreign domination as the sweet river-water from the salt water of the boundless sea.

"She not only established or re-established a corpus of laws under the claimed guidance of Frya, but she also recreated their origins and ancient history:

"This stands written on the walls of Fryasburgh in Texland. It also stands in Stavia and in Medeasblik:
“It was Frya’s day, and it was seven times seven years since Fasta was appointed as Folk Mother by Frya’s desire. The burgh of Medeasblik was ready, and a Burgh Matron was chosen. Fasta would light the new lamp and this was done in the presence of all the people, when Frya called from her watch-star so that every one could hear it:
'Fasta, take your stylus and write the things which I may not speak.’
Fasta did as she was told. Thus we, Frya’s children, discovered our earliest history”

"According to this Fryan myth, that Fasta apparently invented, Wr-alda created three Earth Mothers in the beginning.

"Lyda was the mother of the black people; Finda was the mother of the yellow people and Frya the mother of the white people. From then on all the descendants were referred to as the children or people of Finda, Lyda or Frya. Frya was described as blonde-haired with blue eyes and a fair complexion. Her name meant Freedom.

"Frya should possibly be compared to Lady Justice or Justitia, with her weighing scales and double-edged sword who often adorns our courthouses or courtrooms as an allegorical personification of the moral force that underlies our legal system. Likewise, Frya was possibly seen as the embodiment of divine order, law, ethics and custom – at least during the earlier part of their history."

### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 10 December 2011 - 06:39 PM
Abramelin, on 10 December 2011 - 05:49 PM, said:
I said a few days ago that sometimes an answer stares you right in the face, and you don't notice it.

How many times have we discussed the OLB name for Africa, "Lydia". This "Lydia" that always gets translated as "Libya", and no one knows how to explain why the OLB uses LYDIA instead of LIBYA like the rest of the planet in during ancient times.

Well, I think I found out why:

"Ludim is the Hebrew term for Lydia used in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In the Biblical Table of Nations Genesis 10:13 they were descended from Mizraim. According to Josephus, their land was destroyed in the Aethiopic wars.

These Ludim should not be confused with another group who were said to descend from Lud, son of Shem, son of Noah.

Ludim is sometimes thought to be a typographic error for Lubim, in reference to Libyans."


"Ludim (= Hebrew term for LYDIA) is sometimes thought to be a typographic error for Lubim, in reference to Libyans."

Who would make such an error (if that's what it really was...)? Some theologian, or a preacher?

A very interesting find.

I checked 6 different English Bible translations and they all say Ludim or Ludites. The Dutch (Willibrord) translation say Ludieten. The Afrikaans translation, however, says Lydia.

The Bible (at least Genesis 10:13) does not say where this Ludim or Lydia was but the OLB points to North Africa.

Clearly this is no error as it is borne out by the Hebrew text. Now either somebody in the Netherlands during the 19th century read the Hebrew Bible or the OLB knew what the ancient name was because it is as old as it claims to be.

A very interresting find indeed.

### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 10 December 2011 - 07:46 PM
Abramelin, on 10 December 2011 - 06:45 PM, said:
To put it more clearly: not one ancient civilization used any word similar to LYDIA when they meant LIBYA. It only occurred when someone made a typo while translating from the Hebrew Bible, and by accident changed a -d- into a -b-.

Much like I have thought for all this time we are discussing the OLB.

Now let me show you what my sources say:

Smith's Bible Dictionary

LU´DIM (strife), Gen. 10:13; 1 Chron. 1:11, a Mizraite people or tribe, descended from Ludim the son of Mizraim; also called Lydians. It is probable that the Ludim were settled to the west of Egypt, perhaps farther than any other Mizraite tribe. Lud and the Ludim are mentioned in four passages of the prophets—Isa. 66:19; Jer. 46:9; Ezek. 27:10; 38:5. There can be no doubt that but one nation is intended in these passages, and it seems that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the Mizraite Ludim.

Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible

Ludim, a son of Mizraim (Gen. 10:13). Possibly a reference to the inhabitants of an unknown country connected with the Egyptians.

Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary

LUDIM [LOU deam] — the first son of MIZRAIM, who was the second son of Ham (Gen. 10:13; 1 Chr. 1:11). Some scholars, however, believe this term refers not to an individual but to a people; in both passages the NEB translates Lydians and the NIV translates Ludites. Some scholars attempt to identify the Ludim with the LUBIM (2 Chr. 12:3; 16:8; Nah. 3:9), the plural of LIBYAN, a people of North Africa west of Egypt bordering the Mediterranean Sea.
There is no textual authority, however, for identifying Ludim with Lubim. Some confusion also exists because of the ambiguous way the Ludim are associated with both African and Asiatic nations.

Now let us look at what the OLB has to say (especially about the last highlighted sentence above):

The Writings of Beden

Chapter 3 – Black Adel (ca 71 BC – 11 AD)

When this was done, the people by craft and force made themselves masters of the whole. land. The people who live on the south side of the Mediterranean Sea, come for the most part from Phœnicia. The Phœnicians (Carthaginians) are a basturd race of the blood of Frya, Finda, and Lyda. The Lyda people were there as slaves, but by the unchastity of the women these black people have degenerated the other people and dyed them brown. These people and the Romans are constantly struggling for the supremacy over the Mediterranean Sea.
(A reference to the Punic Wars).

Many people made translations of the Hebrew Bible. Are you saying they all made the same "typo"?
Let's face it. This is just further evidence of the antiquity of the Oera Linda Book.

### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 11 December 2011 - 12:23 PM
The Puzzler, on 11 December 2011 - 09:18 AM, said:
The theory you give Alewyn of the impact event in 2193BC - do you base this mostly on the 'sun rose higher' sentence or the effects it had as described by the OLB in the 2193BC event?

Puzzler, in answer to your question, I will only deal with the 2193 BC event in this response. The 305 BC event will be dealt with later.

Herewith some extracts from my book. Please note that I have left out most references to ancient scribes, my footnote references to scientific literature and all figures - in an attempt to make this post as short as possible.

Survivors of the Great Tsunami (Second Edition)

Pages 22 to 24

From the Aegean and Anatolia to Egypt, and across Mesopotamia to India and the Far East, archaeologists found traces of the collapse of whole cities and civilizations. These findings are supported by ice core analyses from Antarctica, Greenland, Mount Kilimanjaro and the Himalayas. Deep-sea core drilling in the North Atlantic and tree rings in North America all point to a sudden climate change in the latter half of the Holocene. It is remarkable that all these very ancient civilizations - older than 4200 years - were remote from any oceans or seas. There appear to have been relatively little coastal development before or, more than likely, very little remained thereof.

While archaeological evidence points to widespread famine and a resultant mass migration after ca 2200 BC, climate change and the much-hypothesized resultant drought alone cannot explain the almost instantaneous collapse of these ancient societies. The onset of a drought-induced famine would have been somewhat slower.

The French archaeologist, Claude FA Schaeffer, concluded as far back as 1948 that earthquakes throughout the region caused the initial collapse while the British archaeologist, James Mellaart, later identified drought and migrations as the culprits.

Prof Harvey Weiss, professor of Near Eastern Archaeology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, has been involved for many years in the archaeological work at Tell Leilan; a city of the Bronze Age Akkadian Empire on the Habur Plains of Northern Mesopotamia in modern-day Syria. He concluded that the city was suddenly abandoned in 2193 BC – exactly the same year in which the Oera Linda Book claims that the Old Frisian civilization in Western Europe was destroyed.

The Sumerian King List, describing the Akkadian Empire after the death of king Shar-kali-shari (ca. 2217-2193 BC), gives us some idea of the chaos that followed:

Who was king? Who was not king? Irgigi the king; Nanum, the king; Imi the king; Ilulu, the king—the four of them were kings but reigned only three years. Dudu reigned 21 years; Shu-Turul, the son of Dudu, reigned 15 years. … Agade was defeated and its kingship carried off to Uruk. In Uruk, Ur-ningin reigned 7 years, Ur-gigir, son of Ur-ningin, reigned 6 years; Kuda reigned 6 years; Puzur-ili reigned 5 years, Ur-Utu reigned 6 years. Uruk was smitten with weapons and its kingship carried off by the Gutian hordes.

In his paper, Desert Storm, Professor Weiss says the following:

Only decades after the city’s massive walls were raised, its religious quarter renovated and its grain production reorganized, Tell Leilan was suddenly abandoned. In our excavations, the collapsed remains of Akkadian buildings are covered with erosion deposits that show no trace of human activity.

Elsewhere Professor Weiss concluded that it would appear that some building projects were even abandoned before completion. One can only assume that these projects were started in prosperous times but they were never finished. It would appear that in the midst of this prosperity something happened which caused a sudden cessation of construction activities.

In collaboration with soil scientist and archaeologist Marie-Agnés Courty of the National Centre for Scientific Research in Paris, it was noted that the remains of the city was covered with a thin layer of volcanic ash followed by some 200mm of fine sand. She found very little evidence of earthworm activity, which pointed to a prolonged period of aridity. Prof Weiss continues:

Whether at Tell Leilan or Tell Taya, Chagar Bazar or Tell al-Hawa, the results told the same story: between 2200 and 1900 BC people fled the Habur and Assyrian plains en masse.

He compares his conclusions with other archaeological work:

In Egypt, the Old Kingdom, during which the great pyramids were built, gave way to the turmoil of the First Intermediate Period; in Palestine, Early Bronze Age towns were abandoned; in Mesopotamia Akkad collapsed and nomadic people made strange movements across and down the Euphrates and Tigris valleys.

Pages 38 to 42

4.2ka BP Tsunami & Flood Evidence

The dominant theory today is that the demise of these ancient cultures was the result of a hereto-unexplained change in global climate. We have seen, however, that none of the old scribes attributed their misery to drought per se. On the contrary, the one common denominator to all these old legends is floods. It would be reasonable, therefore, to speculate that the proposed climate change, droughts and famines were not primary causes of the catastrophe, but rather that these were the results of the initial event.

Following are only a few randomly selected scientific articles from all over the world of a possible global tsunami that happened about 4200 years ago. Please note that we have much more evidence of this event and of many other paleo-tsunamis. The aim of this investigation, however, is merely to illustrate that there is sufficient evidence to support the Oera Linda Book’s claim of a catastrophe in 2193 BC. None of this evidence was available in the 19th century.

* China

The extract of a paper written by Chun Chang Huang and others from the Department of Geography, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, Shaanxi in the People’s Republic of China in 2010, Extraordinary floods related to the climatic event at 4200 a BP on the Qishuihe River, middle reaches of the Yellow River, China, gives evidence of these floods:

A paleo-hydrological study was carried out in the Qishuihe River valley in the middle reaches of the Yellow River.
The results show that successive floods occurred between 4300 and 4000 a BP in association with the abrupt climatic event of 4200 a BP. These overbank floods had the riverbank settlement inundated repeatedly.
The climatic event of 4200 a BP and the climatic decline at 3100 a BP were believed to be characterized by droughts previously. This work provides solid evidence that both severe droughts and extreme floods were parts of the climatic variability during abrupt climatic event and climatic decline in the semi-arid to sub-humid zones over the world.

* North Africa

Arguably, the most compelling evidence for the 4200 years Before Present (BP) event can be found in North Africa and the Sahara Desert. Archaeologists and Paleoclimatologists have established that, more than 4500 years ago, North Africa consisted of grassland, thorn bush savannas and the largest fresh water lakes on earth. Lake Meggafezzan and Lake Megachad, in fact, were comparable in size to Great Britain and the Black Sea respectively. The region teemed with wild life.

The great pyramids of Egypt, therefore, were not built in the desert, but in a land of plenty.

The Potsdam-Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) in Germany, headed by Prof. Dr. Martin Claussen, analyzed climate feedbacks from the last several thousand years as reported in ScienceDaily

Before that time, the Sahara was covered by annual grasses and low shrubs, as evidenced by fossilized pollen.
The transition to today's arid climate was not gradual, but occurred in two specific episodes. The first, which was less severe, occurred between 6,700 and 5,500 years ago. The second, which was brutal, lasted from 4,000 to 3,600 years ago. Summer temperatures increased sharply, and precipitation decreased, according to carbon-14 dating. This event devastated ancient civilizations and their socio-economic systems.

The change from the mid-Holocene climate to that of today was initiated by changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of Earth's axis.

Scientists are uncertain whether these changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of Earth's axis happened gradually (over millennia), or suddenly (over a few centuries). Perhaps we should ask the unthinkable: Could these changes not have happened instantaneously, such as over a period of, say, 0 to 3 years?

In pre-historic times, Lake Yoa in North Eastern Chad was part of the greater Lake Megachad and then, about 4000 years ago, its waters suddenly turned salty. This happened around the same time when the salt content of the ground increased at Tell Leilan in Syria, more than 2500 kilometres away. Scientists speculate that the cessation of fresh water recharge to the lake from rain or rivers and subsequent evaporation would have dramatically increased the salt content over the ensuing millennia. Archaeologists, however, noted that the salinity suddenly increased 4000 years ago. This was not a gradual process. Many of the lakes in North Africa today are salt-water lakes.

* The Caribbean

Dr. Sander R. Scheffers of the School for Environmental Management and Science at Southern Cross University, NSW, Australia, and others, in an article, Tsunamis, hurricanes, the demise of coral reefs and shifts in pre-historic human populations in the Caribbean, noted:

Three extreme impacts with different magnitudes can be clearly distinguished. The youngest event occurred at approximately 500 BP, a second event at 3,100 BP, and the oldest at 4,200 BP (Scheffers, 2002; Scheffers et al. 2006).

* The Netherlands

Otto S. Knottnerus from Zuidbroek in the Netherlands wrote an article, Sea Level Rise as a Threat to Cultural Heritage, in the Wadden Sea Newsletter 2000 (No. 2). Of note was the following statement in the article:

Near Delfzijl (Netherlands), Neolithic settlers built a megalithic-chambered tomb about 3350 BC. After 2200 BC, the site disappeared under several feet of clay and peat

In the Oera Linda book’s account of the 2193 BC disaster that struck the west coast of Europe, we read:

Rivers changed their course, and at their mouths, new islands were formed of sand and floating animals.

* Spain

Francisco Ruiz from the Department of Geodynamics and Palaeontology, University of Huelva, Avda, Spain, and others, noted in the research article, Evidence of high-energy events in the geological record: Mid-holocene evolution of the southwestern Doñana National Park (SW Spain):

This was followed by a renewed phase of instability ( 4200–4100 cal. years BP) indicated by the presence of fine storm-lain deposits and thicker, probably tsunami-induced shelly deposits.

* Sri Lanka

Ranasinghage, P. N et al in Signatures of Paleo-coastal Hazards in Back-barrier Environments of Eastern and Southeastern Sri Lanka:

The most recent pre-2004 tsunami event likely occurred around 1000 yrs BP with the older events around 4200 yrs BP and 4900 yrs BP.
The ~ 4200 and ~ 4900 yrs BP events were recorded in multiple cores from Kirind and Vakarai as well as in cores from Hambantota by Jackson (2008)

Pages 49 to 51

The Oera Linda Book

An important piece of evidence as to the severity and possible cause of the event is locked up in the Oera Linda Book in the description of their land before the 2193 BC disaster:

Before the bad time came our land was the most beautiful in the World. The sun rose higher, and there was seldom frost. The trees and shrubs produced various fruits, which are now lost. In the fields we had not only barley, oats, and rye, but also wheat which shone like gold, and which could be baked in the sun's rays. The years were not counted, for one was as happy as another.

Nowhere do they hint at a change in earth’s orbit, axial tilt or a cosmic impact except for four little inconspicuous words: Before the disaster, the sun rose higher. This is a clear indication that earth’s orientation relative to the sun had changed. It is also obvious that this happened very suddenly and not over millennia or even centuries as some are suggesting.

This description in the Oera Linda Book is confirmed by the observation made by scientists from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany:

The change from the mid-Holocene climate to that of today was initiated by changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of Earth's axis.

This information was not available in the 19th century and is compelling evidence that the Oera Linda Book is authentic.

It is also noteworthy that the Oera Linda Book describes their land as having been warmer before the disaster. This is precisely what modern climatologists are now concluding for mid-Holocene Europe. Neither the original authors nor any so-called forger in the 19th century could have realised the enormity of this seemingly unimportant observation. Again, this is undeniable evidence that the Oera Linda Book is authentic, or at least based on factual information. Even the best deceiver in the 19th century could not have foreseen the 21st century AD indications of a change in Earth’s orbit or a pronounced climate change some 4200 years ago.

Earth may have wobbled for a while after the blow before settling in her new orbit. The Oera Linda Book states that the Bad Times lasted three years.

The Book of Enoch
In the Book of Enoch, which is considered non-canonical and pseudepigraphical (falsely attributed) in almost all Christian churches, we find the following:

Chapter 55
(4) And when that agitation took place; the saints out of heaven perceived it; the pillar of the earth shook from its foundation; and the sound was heard from the extremities of the earth unto the extremities of heaven at the same time.

Chapter 64
In those days Noah saw that the earth became inclined, and that destruction approached.(2) Then he lifted up his feet, and went to the ends of the earth, to the dwelling of his great-grandfather Enoch. (3) And Noah cried with a bitter voice, Hear me; hear me; hear me: three times. And he said, Tell me what is transacting upon the earth; for the earth labours, and is violently shaken. Surely I shall perish with it. (4) After this there was a great perturbation on earth, and a voice was heard from heaven. I fell down on my face, when my great-grandfather Enoch came and stood by me.

It would appear logical to assume that the statements: the pillar (axis?) of the earth shook from its foundation and, Noah saw that the earth became inclined, confirm the Oera Linda Book’s the sun rose higher. Again, we see that Earth’s orientation changed suddenly and dramatically. The Book of Enoch was re-discovered and translated after the appearance of the Oera Linda Book.

Page 65
1. The Middle Sea or Mediterranean is described as the boundary of Frya’s Land in the direction of the evening, or towards the sunset. At first it was thought that this could have been a mistake that crept in during a previous transcription. If the Oera Linda Book had been a 19th century hoax, this clumsy mistake would have been incompatible with the factual detail and accuracy in the rest of the manuscript.

The Mediterranean lies south of the Netherlands whereas the sun sets in a southwesterly direction at the winter solstice. This is the most southerly position of the sunset after which it gradually moves to its northwesterly position at the summer solstice.

As stated before, the Book of Adela’s Followers was compiled in ca 558 BC. This is some 1700 years after the 2193 BC event. The description given of Frya’s land, however, was not as it was in 558 BC, but rather as it was before 2193 BC. The chapter starts with:

This stands inscribed upon all burghs. Before the bad time came… (My emphasis added).

In light of the evidence given in Chapter 1 of a change in the earth’s orbit and axial tilt, the above anomaly does not seem to be so far-fetched after all. In fact, this could be further proof of a sudden change in earth’s orientation relative to the sun around 2200 BC.

### Posted 13 December 2011 - 12:14 AM
Abramelin, on 11 December 2011 - 08:59 PM, said:
"...even as vampyra dva."
"...like leeches."
No way Sandbach, not "leeches", but "vampires".

"(pyr), znw. m. Mnd. ndd. pîr; no. pîr; ndl. pier. Over den vorm van het woord (ie uit î, als in mier, lier, gier e. a.) zie Franck op pier. De oorsprong van dit weinig verbreide woord is onbekend.
↪Worm, zoowel aardworm als ingewandsworm. Teuth. pijr, lumbricus. Kil. pier, pierworm, lumbricus, lumbricus terrestris, intestinum terrae. Plant. eenen pier oft pierwurm, vers de terre, vers pour prendre poissons, lumbricus."

=> Pyr or pier = worm

The word vampier / vampyr will be much older than the first time it was written down.
And most of what was ever written down is gone anyway.

Ottema had "bloedzuiger" (bloodsucker; leech). I think he was right.

Vam-pyr = ???-worm; most probably a bloodsuckung worm = a leech.

### Posted 13 December 2011 - 12:41 AM
Abramelin, on 12 December 2011 - 09:41 PM, said:
Otharus explains those coincidences away by telling us that people must have somehow known about the OLB.

Not necessarily did they know "about the OLB", but they might have known information from it.
Cornelis' great-grandfather, and/or some of his forefathers may have told stories from - or based on the OLB (if they indeed had it in their possession) without revealing their source.
If that happened, it's not a coincidence that infobits show up here and there in other sources

### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 13 December 2011 - 07:53 AM
The Puzzler, on 13 December 2011 - 03:53 AM, said:
Evidences? From 2350BC there seems to be indications of an impact. The impact may not have occurred at 2193BC anyway, the fallout geologically may have have happened for 200-300 years. Not the most reliable website but certainly gives a complete rundown of all occurrances relating to such an event at this time.
etc., etc.
Regardless of your stance, I believe it is very possible an impact occurred 2350-2200BC.
If it's true Hale-Bopp passed in 2213 BC, it is even more likely that impacts from it could have also hit Earth.

A very interresting post, Puzzler but I am afraid it will fall on barren soil here. I do not think that Cormac and Abramelin necessarily disagree with you, but to them agreement is a sign of weakness. Why do you think they have not agreed to a single point I have made in 19 months?

Cormac gets his kicks out of sarcasm and ridiculing others; to him these are the essentials of scholarly debate. (I know, I also find it difficult to understand). The fact that he deems it necessary to muster the support of someone like Knul, is equally strange. They are indeed strange bedfellows.

Abramelin is not afraid to post things that may go against his standpoint, but then he does his utmost to show why they are wrong or do not fit. (Again, difficult to understand).

But, let me not disappoint them. Herewith some more material to keep them going. They should get a lot of pleasure from this one – it is a somewhat dramatized prologue to my second edition:


Is this how it happened 4200 years ago?

The converging trajectories of the comets Oljato, Hale-Bopp and the giant proto-Encke had been intersecting Earth’s orbit for months; lesser asteroids and comets trapped in their wake. Those entering the atmosphere exploded high above the earth; their white-hot fragments streaking across the sky, followed by deafening sonic booms. Petrified, people watched as falling stars and flaming potsherds pummelled the planet. Raging fires and devastating air blasts laid millions of square kilometres of forests and grasslands to waste.

Then the mortal blow came. One of several large bolides struck the Indian Ocean 1500 kilometres southeast of Madagascar with the force of several million nuclear warheads; the sound heard from the extremities of the earth to the extremities of heaven. The impact flung trillions of tons of seawater and superheated steam into the stratosphere. Tectonic plates shook and rocked violently on the planet’s built-in shock absorber - the viscous magma of the underlying mantle. Around the globe volcanoes erupted. A thick ash and dust cover enveloped the earth, lit by lightning bolts emanating from the clouds. Temperatures plummeted.

Tsunamis from the impact and from thousands of earthquakes sped around the earth in a frenzy of destruction. The concentric walls of water towered hundreds of meters above the ocean as they raced towards land. Torrents of seawater rained down. Cities, towns and forests were crushed and swept away in an instant. Pulverized. Obliterated. Millions died. Those that were in the dark of night could not see it coming. They never knew what hit them.

The massive aftershocks continued for three years. Icebergs broke away from the polar caps. The resulting ice rafting inverted the thermohaline circulation of the oceans causing abrupt climate changes all over the planet.

The combined effects of the onslaught and the gravitational pull of the comets thrust Earth out of her orbit. Survivors would only notice later when the skies had cleared that earth’s orientation had changed.

In China, ancient cultures came to an end. The urban civilization of the Indus Valley in Pakistan and India was wiped out and in the Middle East, the Empire of Akkad would never recover. In Egypt, the Old Kingdom, the builders of the great pyramids, was destroyed. Over the next few centuries, the once rolling grasslands of North Africa turned to desert as the Albedo increased and rainfall decreased; the great lakes, now flooded with salt water, dried up. Man came to the brink of extinction. All that remained were the myths, folklore and legends. More than four thousand years later archaeologists would discover their relics in the sand.

In Europe, the most advanced civilization on the face of the earth seemingly disappeared without a trace. Seemingly…

This is their story.

### Posted 13 December 2011 - 10:32 AM
Knul, on 13 December 2011 - 04:53 AM, said:
p. 239-einde Met de komst van Friso (ca. 300 v. Chr.) is voor het eerst sprake van stalen kraanbogen (catapulten).

In what fragment did you read about steel catapults?

###Alewyn, on 13 December 2011 - 01:04 PM, said:
Iron has the nasty habit to rust. After 4000 years there would be nothing left.

### Posted 14 December 2011, 08:39 AM
Abramelin, on 14 December 2011 - 12:38 AM, said:
the silence about "vampyra" is deafening

I was not impressed at all and have answered.
Pyr/ pier = worm
Appearantly, vampyr/ vampier originally meant bloodsucking worm = leech.
You have been making a major thinking error all along.
Words are (usually) NOT invented by the people who wrote them down for the first time.
We have access to only a tiny fraction of all texts that were ever written down anyway.
Language will not always have changed as fast as it does nowadays.
That the oldest texts in our language are not older than ca. 1000 years ago, does NOT mean that our language was 'invented' only then.

### The Puzzler, on 14 December 2011 - 06:23 PM, said:
I actually think the word for leech could have been a vampyr first, then that got transferred into Hungarian/Romanian undead corpses who later sucked blood and became human 'vampires'. The original meaning for the blood-letting leech was lost on human undead corpses.

### Posted 14 December 2011, 06:49 PM
Oniomancer, on 14 December 2011 - 06:24 PM, said:
He just quoted the definition again above and it's right there in black and white, pierwurm.

It's common practice in Dutch and Flemmish to create a word out of two (almost) synonyms.

### Posted 14 December 2011, 10:20 PM
Knul, on 14 December 2011 - 08:56 PM, said:
Otharus, don't tell such nonsense.

A few examples:

### Posted 15 December 2011, 09:33 AM
The whole point of the discussion about "vampyr" is this:

OLB, according to Abe and Knul, would have to be a modern fabrication, because it has words in it that SEEM modern.

They basically say:
"It cannot be a 13th century copy, because word XYZ was first used in a text from the 15th century."

In my perception, this is an obvious thinking error, because:
1. words will usually be much older than the first time they were written down
2. most written texts that have ever existed are lost

They might as well say:
"It cannot be old, because I can not imagine it."

Not one single example of those "modern word" cases are proof that OLB has to be a hoax.

My point is just this:
That OLB would be a hoax is NOT PROVEN sufficiently, let alone that it was created by Halbertsma, Over de Linden, Stadermann, Haverschmidt, Verwijs and/or anyone else.

If this FACT would be accepted, I would be satisfied.

### Posted 15 December 2011, 09:43 AM
Knul, on 15 December 2011 - 01:22 AM, said:
pis-zeik ???? not in my vocabulary

Try Google, piszeikerd!

"Geef mij maar een Hertog Jan! (dat piszeik van heineken mag je houden)"
"En dan zelfs nog over de piszeik kan gaan op aan behoorlijk volume dat is niet gezond..."
"Kheb geen zin om op een straal piszeik te liggen ..."
"het is je avatar, die piszeik van een amstel"

I think it's Rotterdam slang.
It nicely shows that dictionaries are never complete (did you really believe that?!).
And I can guarantee that there are also words in use that cannot be found on the world-wide-web (... yet).

### Posted 15 December 2011, 10:39 AM
Abramelin, on 14 December 2011 - 07:12 PM, said:
The Frisians/Old Frisians use/d WERM.

But we don't know if they also used PYR/ PIER.
OLB has many examples of synonyms (several words with the same meaning).
It's not impossible just because we have no examples of it in literature.
Westfrisians use both words, but "pier" usually for the huge ones found on the "wad", used for seafishing.

No comments:

Post a Comment