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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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”.

Edit:
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

[002/26]
THA BÁSA ÀND HJARA STORSTA SVNUM KRUPTON BY THA LODDARIGA FINNA MANGÉRTUM
[003/11]
SA KVNDON HJARA SVNUM VPFOLGJA THAM
[003/19]
[hja] HILDON VPPAR VRBASTERA SVNUM AN

Copied from walls of Fryasburch, Texland:

1) Creation myth
[006/30]
NW BÀRDON EK TWILIF SVNA ÀND TWILIF TOGETHERA

2) The three mothers
[008/19]
HJRA SVNVM WÉRON LIK HJU

3) Frya's Tex
[013/23]
WILLATH JVW SVNA FON HJARA TOGHATERUM

4) Rights of all Fryas
[026/02]
THA SVNA MÜGON THI NÁMA HJARAR TATA VPPIRA SKILDUM WRITA

5) Éwa for navigators
[027/14]
ALLE FRYA.S SVNA HÀVA LIKKA RJUCHTA
[028/21]
SA MÜGON THA SVNA THI NÔMA HJARAR TÁTA VPPIRA SKÍLDUN FORA

Copied from walls of burch Walhallagára, Seven Islands

[064/11]
SVNUM ÀND TOGHATRUM FRYA.S

This was written on all burchs

[083/27]
SÁ SKILUN THA SVNA VPSTONDA

Apollánja's book

[090/12]
HY HETH FIF SVNA WNNEN

Brunno's notes

[093/06]
THI MÁGÍ THAM SINA FRYA.S.SVNA HAGJA WILDE
[094/31]
THÉR BINNA STAND ADEL.BROST HJRA SUNA

Fréthorik's book

[118/14]
LÉR HJAM AS JEF HJA FRYAS.SVNA WÉRE

Wichhirte's diary

[124/24]
HJA SKOLDE ALREK EN DÉL TOFARA SINA SVNUM WÁRJA

Koneréd's book

[146/03]
THÉR BI HÉDER TWÉN SVNA WNNEN ÀND TWA TOGHTERA
[153/18]
THA ÉROSTA HÉTO HJARA SELVA MODER HIS SVNA ÀND THA ÔTHERA HÉTON HJARA SELVA TÁT HIS SVNA
[153/21]
THA MODER.HIS SVNA NE WRDE NAVT NI MELD

Anonymus about Black Adel

[209/11]
THJOTH.HIS SVNA THAT IS FOLK.HIS SVNA
[209/32]
THA FORSTA MOSTON THRIJA SJVGUN FON HJARA SVNUM NÉI STÁVEREN SENDA

### 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:
SKRÉVVEN ~ 1 x
(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:
..SKR...EN

and between SKR- and -EN, we find:
É - 26 x
I - 1 x
Í - 1 x
and:
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
[091/15] OVERSKRÍVA
[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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KP_hlUYidQ
"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).
http://www.friesgenootschap.nl/english/index.htm

"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:

[028/20] SIN HJA AN ÉNRE KASE FELTH
were they felled (killed) in a fight

[210/24] THAT ÁSKAR THJU KÀSE VRLÉREN HÉDE
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.

Quote
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.
Of course 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
http://books.google....20medea&f=false

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:

Myths

"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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludim

"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).

Edit:
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."
http://gtb.inl.nl/iW...db=MNW&id=42563

=> 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:

Prologue

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:
regen-bui
pis-zeik
advies-raad
dol-fijn
druk-pers
kei-steen
klets-praat
neder-laag
schemer-duister
sik-baard
straat-weg
taak-opdracht
trap-ladder
morgen-ochtend

### 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.

Dutch academic freedom (of speech) and objectivity!?

SEMafoor article ~ translation and discussion

Posted by Alewyn Raubenheimer on 3 December 2011:

Herewith my translation of an article on the Oera Linda Book on the Dutch website Semafoor.net of the academic study group, SEM.

SEM is an acronym for “Studiekring Eerste Millennium” (“Study Circle First Millennium”) and has as its aim a renewed investigation into the first millennium history of the Low Countries between the Somme River in Northern France and the Elbe River in Northern Germany for the period 100 BC to 1200 AD.

http://www.semafoor.net/Oeralindaboek.htm

(It is noticeable, in my opinion, how dissenting views are ignored, denied, suppressed or ridiculed but, the reader can judge for him/herself. Please also note some additional "suspects" who could have created the OLB)

The Oera Linda Book - A game with almost no end

Thanks to the dissertation of Goffe Jensma, anno 2004, the Oera Linda Book has once again received much publicity. The thesis deserves positive appreciation. Not because it introduces new perspectives but because it is set out in a clear and understandable way to show what happened and could have happened. 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. In this article we add three marginal notes; partly criticism and partly elaboration, namely: the mystification, the authors and the believers.

The mystification

The OLB is not a copy of an old manuscript, no falsification (because it has not been copied), but it is a mystification. Werner Fuld discussed the Oera Linda Book in his “Das Lexicon der Fälschungen” (The Lexicon of Hoaxes) (1999) and notes that this joke was recognized very early on. Even the Nazis recognized after a short time that the OLB did definitely not show a great Germanic past, but saw the book as a “ungermanische Fälschung” (a hoax).

When I delved into Ottema’s edition of the OLB a few decades ago, I soon realized that we had to do with a mystification here. That is no compliment to me.

“Everything in the OLB is suspect” wrote G. Molewijk in 1993. The so-called old language and the style, and especially the etymology of a number of words, were convincing enough for me. In 1874 Prof. Dr. A. Vitringa had already highlighted the historical heresy.

Some 15 years ago I received a typed text of Albert Delahaye sent by the Albert Delahaye Foundation wherein the Oera Linda Book was secretly used to support his views on the history of the Low Countries in the first millennium. It took many telephone calls to convince the then secretary H. Jochems that this edition of the work would be to the detriment of Delahaye, rather than to his advantage [sic].

Since then, the manuscript remained in suspension. I occasionally still expressed the following views: The Oera Linda Book is a mystification, but a mystification can still be an interesting document and even a historical source. He, who, however, tries to put forward a new perspective on the history of the first millennium and uses the Oera Linda Book as an authentic (13th century) source, is wrong from the outset. In the SEM it was more or less agreed some years ago not to do this in publications under the auspices of the SEM [sic]. Not everybody was satisfied with this unwritten rule. To them this was a form of self-censure. Jensma, in his dissertation, tended somewhat strongly in the direction of, amongst others, Albert Delahaye and Joël Vandemaele; I shall come back to this under the third heading.

The OLB in the translations of Ottema (1876) and Jensma (2005) can also be seen as a remarkable literary document. As a mystification of a so-called ancient document, the OLB is, however, not successful: it contains too many easily recognizable falsifications. These are too obvious. The metaphor of a struggle between two religious viewpoints, though, is a creation that fits in the literary history. Jensma, in his dissertation, primarily brings this metaphor to the fore, but it certainly is not an original discovery, because this view has been mentioned by numerous authors and has been known for many years.

The Author(s)

Joep Rozemeyer recently published an article in SEMafoor 4.1 (February 2004) about the OLB wherein he reveals that the historian Herrius Halbertsma made a statement about clergyman, linguist and antiquarian Joost Halbertsma. Eelco Verwijs would have made use of his library in creating the Oera Linda Book. Herrius Halbertsma thus pointed to Verwijs as the author. It is precisely from the remarkable relation between documents from this library and underlined passages in the books of Joost Hiddes Halbertsma that Verwijs is seen as the author. Those who want to meet (know more about) Joost Hiddes and his family can read a letter from him to his sister-in-law Baukje in the book “Het hart op de tong in negentig brieven (1571-1957)” [Heart on the tongue in ninety letters (1571-1957)] published by W.Gs. Hellinga.

According to Jensma, Francois Haverschmidt is the author intellectualis, Cornelis over de Linden is the part-time writer who actually wrote the text in “OLBees” and Eelco Verwijs the expert who initiated the mystification joke and advised on the creation of the codex.

Jensma wrote: “Paaltjens was not the only result of Haverschmidt’s enormous urge to mystification. His authorship is characterized by all kinds of techniques that result in indirectness and ambiguity and the expression of how he saw the world and himself – in his favourite metaphor – as show (pretence, false); as a historical contingency which referred to a more real, and reality behind history to a hidden entity, what he called ‘God’".

Some sort of literary proof, therefore. In the critique of the thesis in the NRC under the title “Magnificent misunderstanding”, the following is written: “The evidence against Haverschmidt is the weakest, Jensma acknowledges immediately”. Jensma, of course, means that the evidence for Haverschmidt’s authorship is poor. This honesty is to be appreciated. The discussion about this is not strange, because the Haverschmidt-solution is not conclusive.

The title of the OLB gives no direct indication about the author because this was thought out by Ottema. Initially the book was described as “The Book of Adela” or “The old Frisian Manuscript”. Cornelis over de Linden must not be underestimated as a possible author. There are undoubtedly [Sic] texts in the OLB from his hand and his spirit. Whenever Over de Linden quoted from passages in the OLB, it was always from the first part: “The Book of Adela’s Helpers”. There is no denial [Sic] that Haverschmidt could indeed be regarded as the real author.

Jensma says that the book originated from around 1860 but only surfaced in 1867 and he asks what happened in the interim. This hypothesis, that the OLB originated around 1860, firmly shuts the door on the thought that the origination history of the OLB is more complex.

It is noticeable that Jensma gave so little attention to the hypothesis that the original author (or shall I say one of the authors of the OLB texts) could have been Johannes Jans over de Linden, who was a book seller in Enkhuizen from 1790 to 1804 (therefore possibly quite literate) and a man with an artistic writing talent and the man who had the family crest made with a source and the word “Watch”.

This hypothesis came from Wigholt Vleer. He worked out his theory in 1952, published this in the Leeuwarder Courant (Newspaper) of 29 August 1959 and he came back to this in 1966 in a letter to the “RVU Educatieve Omroep” (Educational Journal?). This letter is published in this issue of SEMafoor.

Jensma does not take Vleer seriously, probably because he also published several books on “ley lines” [?], but it is known that the aforementioned Codex expert W. Hellinga came to the conclusion that the ink of the surviving OLB text dated from before 1820 and that he supported the hypothesis of Vleer.

“The case is solved: the book seller was the author” said Vleer.
"Hellinga did not see it (agree?) anymore, and stopped his research," alleged Jensma.

Hellinga was no Fries, otherwise he would have persisted. Somebody else, who supported Vleer’s hypothesis, was the ex-mayor of Graft-De Rijp and Weesp: Henk over de Linden. It is in any case in an article in the Leeuwarder Courant of 4 January 1992. In the same newspaper (22 June 1984) Kerst Huisman published an article in the Fries dialect [Sic] that Jensma must have read. The article starts with the information that the greatest humorist in the Netherlands’ historical world, Albert Delahaye is from Brabant Zundert. This view is essentially based on an unpublished and unauthorized [Sic] text of Delahaye which Huisman obtained in some or other way, undoubtedly (in) confidence. On this type of information, Jensma then embroider further.

The Believers

Jensma alleges the following (P.188): “Neither Molenaar nor Vleer dared, and it typified the Netherland situation, declare the book outright authentic”.

What a strange remark. Which Netherland situation? Is it about some none-Frisian situation? This Jensma alters even more, a kind of condescending and misinterpretation, particularly when it comes to people outside the traditional club of those involved. In my opinion, Vleer was already convinced of the mystification in 1952. He concentrated on the possible author. Vleer was no OLB-believer despite his “leylijnen”.

The most important believer was, of course, Jan Ottema who published the manuscript in 1876 and translated it. He made an international swell from a joke. You can see him at best as a believer against (his own) better judgment. His belief in the great pre-history was stronger than historical philology. He who reads Ottema’s views does not get the impression that we have to do with a fool here. In truth: educated and yet gullible. At some moment he had to realize that he was deceived and his hanging [suicide] can be connected to this [sic]. Understandably, things then became quite around the OLB. But, there are still believers. These believers are treated differently than Ottema by Jensma. Some comments about this.

I start with a quote (P.192): “The Oera Linda Book is still used here and there – but not in Friesland! – to give force to language nationalistic aspirations. Albert Delahaye contended that important episodes in Frisian history took place in Northern France. At the end of his life he applied this notion to the Oera Linda Book, and in Flanders he found supporters, for example, Joël Vandemaele, whose name was probably derived from “OLBees” MALJA = mad, foolish.”

In the meantime, a Flemish linguist has been busy for a number of years to translate the book into West Flemish to get the apostate (“stray”) Flemish to return to speaking West Flemish. Comparable to this, is the aspirations of Adriaan Snyman who translated the book into Afrikaans: “Die Oera Linda Boek: die verstommende verhaal van Atlantis waar Afrikaans 4000 jaar gelede sy ontstaan gehad het”. (“The Oera Linda Book: The amazing story of Atlantis where Afrikaans had its origins 4000 years ago”). Afrikaans is a dialect of “OLBees” [sic].

[My note: Snyman used the Oera Linda Book to advance his own political agenda. His references lack credibility (to put it mildly) and his book is so drenched in racism that no serious academic will give it a second glance]

Despite these different political flavours, we see every time how (post) modern religionism is not in contrast to the amusing (and) perplexing historical naivety which all these readers display, but how both these indeed strengthen each other. This associative raking together of historical and spiritual “nonsense” goes beyond belief. The interpretation of the Oera Linda Book fits into a much broader process of secularization of religion and, perhaps without it, is even inconceivable. "

Concerning Delahaye, Jensma had only one journalistic source in mind, namely the article of Kerst Huisman from which ex-mayor Henk over de Linden also came to view the hypothesis of Wigholt Vleer in a positive light, but wherein he also mentions that Albert Delahaye, at the end of his life, was a supporter of the OLB and even based his stories on it. It does not make sense to claim (only) at the end of your life, that your life’s work was based on the OLB. Nonsense.

The truth is that the work of Delahaye was absolutely not based on the OLB; that he indeed did see the OLB as a supporting work for a time, that he also produced a typed manuscript about it and that he decided himself not to publish it. The publishers of the posthumous editions of Delahaye’s work also did not do so (gave it up).

In 1985 the archivist, W.A. Fasel, wrote to Delahaye that Delahaye “is not only destroying his hard earned credibility, but is making himself ridiculous in perpetuity (undying)”[sic]. In this case we can assume that Delahaye reached the same conclusion.

In the case of Vandemaele, it is true that this author based two of his publications on the OLB. He clearly used the OLB as an authentic source in two of his books namely: “De Spiegel der Geschiedenis” (1996) (“The Mirror of History”) and “Controversiële Geschiedschrijving” (1999) (“Controversial History Writing”). To be more specific: Both books are drenched in the Oera Linda Book.

The question now arising here is: ‘what value can these books have if we regard the OLB as a mystification?’

Jensma gave a possible explanation for the name of Vandemaele (see quote). According to Ottema’s translation of the OLB, “Mal(l)en” in OLBees actually also means “slanderer”, and that is : to verbally do damage to someone. It is a pity that it is proven in this way. Equally cheap is the expression “apostate Flemish” as a metaphor for a language struggle. As an apostate Fries, Jensma, nevertheless, published his dissertation in Dutch.

Conclusion

In which way does the Oera Linda Book have historical significance? The OLB is, in itself, history from around 1800 to the present and there are more than 1000 fairly substantial publications dedicated to it. See Jensma’s bibliography. The OLB is, concerning the early history of the Frisians, an indirect source. It can be compared to a historical map. Historical maps are reconstructions: they relate the historical insights in a particular period. These insights, for example, may deal with the empire of Charlemagne. In anno 2000 somebody draws a map around (the year) 800. A historical map is, therefore, quite different from a geographical map.

In the same way the Oera Linda Book is a reconstruction; an indirect vision of a specific period; if one removes the ridiculousness and jokes. There is, for example, the legend of Friso, whether we agree with it or not. The OLB corresponds indeed to historical views, and they were in 1600 and 1800 different from now. In considering this, it can not be said that the OLB has nothing to do with a view on history, even if we find that this view is an imaginative premise. Plato’s view on Atlantis is the same. The OLB is not intended to write some alternative history. It is in a totally different class from the publications of Erich von Däniken, Thor Heyerdahl (and) Graham Hancock who are trying to reason that historical matters were different from what we think [sic]. Researchers like Immanuel Velikovsky and Zechariah Sitchin operated on an even better level.

On a more journalistic level, the beginning of the third millennium is a boom in new revelations and disclosures: it became a type of book genre; if we want to generalize and call it all pseudoscience, we may do so, but it is also a fact that the contentious authors and their views is a fad that will pass.

What was at first seen as pseudoscience and called as such, can nevertheless lead to changes in scientific approaches and views. Of this, however, there is no talk (possibility) of the Oera Linda Book [sic].

############

Posted by Alewyn Raubenheimer on 5 December 2011:

I posted the above two days ago. Perhaps our Dutch friends did not have the time to read it yet (Too long?) or they do not consider it as relevant or important. There is also, of course, the third possibility that the article falls outside their comfort zone. Let me then respond to my own post. I will start with Delahaye:

Albert Delahaye (1915 -1987) was a Dutch Historian who wrote a number of books and who “presented a set of hypotheses that were contrary to long-held ideas about the history of Nijmegen and that of the Low Countries in general.”

http://www.albertdelahaye.nl/index.php?english

In essence he put forward the argument that the accepted history of the Low Countries, and more specifically, the Netherlands is wrong. Large portions of the Netherlands was allegedly flooded and too wet (Dunkirk Transgressions) during the period 200 AD to 1000 AD for events to have taken place as presented by Dutch Historians. There are many people who disagree with him but he also has his supporters. In fact, they even have an “Albert Delahaye Foundation” and it would seem that SEM, the academic “Study Circle First Millennium”, has its origins in, amongst others, Delahaye’s work – so, he was no lightweight.

But, and here is the point, even his own loyal and doting supporters censored him. They still cannot accept that Delahaye actually considered the Oera Linda Book to be true and they are doing their utmost to refute this. They consider his work as extremely important (although not necessarily the part about the Dunkirk Transgressions, which seems to have been proven wrong), but (sigh) he should not have used the OLB. In fact, one of SEM’s unwritten rules is that nobody is allowed to quote from, or even mention, the Oera Linda Book. The case is closed and sealed. No reference to the OLB will be tolerated.

Talk about Dutch academic freedom (of speech) and objectivity!

Herewith some extracts from the article in my previous post:

1. “He, who, however, tries to put forward a new perspective on the history of the first millennium and uses the Oera Linda Book as an authentic (13th century) source, is wrong from the outset. In the SEM it was more or less agreed (sic) some years ago not to do this in publications under the auspices of the SEM.”

2. “Some 15 years ago I received a typed text of Albert Delahaye sent by the Albert Delahaye Foundation wherein the Oera Linda Book was secretly used to support his views on the history of the Low Countries in the first millennium. It took many telephone calls to convince the then secretary H. Jochems that this edition of the work would be to the detriment of Delahaye, rather than to his advantage.”

3. “These believers are treated differently than Ottema by Jensma. Some comments about this.

I start with a quote (P.192): “The Oera Linda Book is still used here and there – but not in Friesland! – to give force to language nationalistic aspirations. Albert Delahaye contended that important episodes in Frisian history took place in Northern France. At the end of his life he applied this notion to the Oera Linda Book,”

4. “Concerning Delahaye, Jensma had only one journalistic source in mind, namely the article of Kerst Huisman from which ex-mayor Henk over de Linden also came to view the hypothesis of Wigholt Vleer in a positive light, but wherein he also mentions that Albert Delahaye, at the end of his life, was a supporter (fan) of the OLB and even based his stories on it.

“The truth is that the work of Delahaye was absolutely not based on the OLB; that he indeed did see the OLB as a supporting work for a time, that he also produced a typed manuscript about it and that he decided himself not to publish it. The publishers of the posthumous editions of Delahaye’s work also did not do so (gave it up).

“In 1985 the archivist, W.A. Fasel, wrote to Delahaye that Delahaye ‘is not only destroying his hard earned credibility, but is making himself ridiculous in perpetuity (undying)’. In this case we can assume that Delahaye reached the same conclusion.”

Although many people do not agree with Delahaye, I highlight the above to show that the Dutch are not these broadminded people they would like us believe. Johan Winkler (for, what I believe, may have been very selfish motives) placed the final “Hoax” stamp on the OLB in the 19th century, and since then his views have been regarded as gospel. They will simply not entertain any dissenting views.

############

Posted by Alewyn Raubenheimer on 5 December 2011:

My first response to the above SEMafoor.net article dealt with Delahaye. Let us now look at Professor Jensma:

I think it is fairly safe to say that the first port of call for anyone who wants to know more about the Oera Linda Book, could well be Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article gives us a good summary of what is generally accepted about the OLB.
Consensus and Truth, however, are not synonyms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oera_Linda_Book

“The most likely candidates for the author of the manuscript are Cornelis over de Linden or Eelco Verwijs. A popular third choice is the Protestant preacher François Haverschmidt (1835–1894), well known for writing poetry under the pseudonym Piet Paaltjens. Haverschmidt lived in Friesland and was an acquaintance of Verwijs.

Jensma (2004) argued that Haverschmidt was the main writer of the book, with the help of Over de Linden and Verwijs.”

From the above quote it is very clear that the illusion is created that the OLB has been proven to be a hoax and that it is almost certain that Haverschmidt was one of the most likely candidates. This message is unashamedly send into the world. The SEMafoor article, however, paints a very different picture:

“The evidence against Haverschmidt is the weakest, Jensma acknowledges immediately”. Jensma, of course, means that the evidence for Haverschmidt’s authorship is poor. This honesty is to be appreciated. The discussion about this is not strange, because the Haverschmidt-solution is not conclusive.

So, even Prof. Jensma, “Mr. Oera Linda Book”, is (apparently) not sure of his facts, but Wikipedia portrays his as a very credible theory. What does that tell us about the credibility of the Wikipedia article and the author of the article and, for that matter, anyone who advances the Haverschmidt connection? (In fact, Haverschmidt left a letter for us wherein he categorically denied any knowledge of, or involvement in the OLB).

Very early on in this forum, Abramelin said that I should have consulted with the “Experts” before I published my book. Well, I did try. Herewith a copy of an e-mail I received from Tresoar on 5th July 2009 (more than 2 years ago). At the time I was not impressed but, today I am very thankful for their reply. It just made me more determined to publish my findings.

“Dear Mr. Raubenheimer,

I am very sorry we have to disappoint you, but we are not interested. The ancient book you refer to is the Oera Linda Boek, which is generally and wide and large considerd to be a mystification, or better maybe, a hoax, set up by Francois HaverSchmidt, Eelco Verwijs and Cornelis over de Linden. Dr. Goffe Jensma wrote a dissertation on the entire affair in 2004, which has been received with great acclaim.

For more information, see for example www.oeralindaboek.nl and www.semafoor.net/Oeralindaboek.htm .

We will not enter in further discussions on the subject.

With kind regards,

Teake Oppewal
secretary KFG”

(How is that for closing the door in somebody’s face?)

From the above it is obvious that even Tresoar agrees with Prof. Jensma’s self-confessed flimsy theory and again, it comes down to credibility. I must also point out that Tresoar referred me to SEMafoor.net. in the first place. They can therefore not claim that they were not aware that Prof. Jensma was not all that comfortable with his own theory.

A further comment about Prof. Jensma: My initial impressions were that he came forward with completely new discoveries and novel insights into the OLB. Not so, according to SEMafoor.net:

“Thanks to the dissertation of Goffe Jensma, anno 2004, the Oera Linda Book has once again received much publicity. The thesis deserves positive appreciation. Not because it introduces new perspectives but because it is set out in a clear and understandable way to show what happened and could have happened. 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.”

“The metaphor of a struggle between two religious viewpoints, though, is a creation that fits in the literary history. Jensma, in his dissertation, primarily brings this metaphor to the fore, but it certainly is not an original discovery, because this view has been mentioned by numerous authors and has been known for many years.”

It is, therefore, just a regurgitation of the same old story under a different guise.

A last quote from the SEMafoor.net about Prof. Jensma that I just cannot let pass:

“Jensma alleges the following (P.188): “Neither Molenaar nor Vleer dared, and it typified the Netherland situation, declare the book outright authentic”.

(Ouch! Does that hurt, or what?)

Bravo, Professor! Exactly what I have been saying all along.

> Foreword Ottema 1876

Posted 27 November 2011 by Alewyn Raubenheimer.

Herewith my next translation of a Dutch document for non-Dutch readers:

Foreword to the second edition of the Oera Linda Book.
By Dr. J.G. Ottema
September 1876

The first edition of the Oera Linda Book has been sold out and as a result, the opportunity has arisen to publish a second edition. I welcome this opportunity because it allows me to correct some mistakes that crept in previously or to improve on a less accurate translation.

Since its first appearance, (and) even before it was printed, the book has been criticised and rejected. Many tried to prevent it from being published or distributed.
Not only within, but also ouside the country people rallied against the book as though the well-being of the country and people depended on its authenticity.

What did the poor book do to deserve such hatred and bitterness? Is the text and language such gibberish and nonsense that it does not deserve to be read; well, people do not read it. If they do read it, they will also read what I wrote in the Introduction, the Historical Notes, the Royal Academy and the Oera Linda Book, and De Deventer Newspaper and the Oera Linda Book. Yet, this is exactly what they don’t do. People do not want to be informed about the nature, the scope or the scientific value of the book. It is much easier and enjoyable to blindly reject and shout the book down than doing a serious examination thereof. Everyone, whether they only saw the book superficiously or heard about it, consider themselves qualified to express a derogatory opinion about it. Their verdict is triumphantly published in all newspapers, cheered on by the ignorant public and the country has been saved.

Now Messrs F. Muller and P. Smidt of Gelder, Amsterdam examined the paper of the manuscript and alleged in the Nederlandsch Spectator no. 32 of 5th August 1876 that the paper was manufactured during this century and more specifically within the last 25 years in the factory (paper mill) of Messrs Tielens and Schrammen in Maastricht.

Mr Muller based his views on the following grounds:

1. Paper of the 13th century was entirely made of cotton, thick, uneven, woolly (and) with uneven and unclear lines. This paper is thin, even, hard, here and there transparent with regular clear waterlines.

Answer:
Cotton Paper from the 13th century had to be specifically prepared by “polishing” before one could write thereon. The Arabians and Goths (?) did this in the same way as the Egyptians did with their paper and the Romans glossed their finer parchment by rubbing it with the tusks of wild pigs, apri dente levigatur (Plinius). To get an even surface they would burnish the paper with agate. By rubbing the paper the fibres became denser, smoother and thinner than it was.

Even so, one cannot call the paper of the Manuscript thin. The Manuscript consists of 96 pages of a thickness comparable to the best Dutch paper types which does not belong to the thinner varieties.
I must point out that the samples of paper that Mr Muller saw earlier were unprepared and unpolished and therefore we must disagree.

2. Paper from earlier times until about 1800 was thinner in the middle than outside the waterlines. This paper (the Manuscript) is even, which shows that it is from this century.

Answer:
I note that the reference to earlier times does not go back further than the 14th century when linen paper instead of cotton paper was increasingly used as paper manufacturing spread throughout Europe. This observation, therefore, does not apply to cotton paper from the 13th century and cannot be used as an argument that the manuscript dates from the present.

The distinction with present paper is evident in the following four important points:

a. The width of the horizontal waterlines. Over a distance of 33 millimetres one gets 16 horizontal lines so that the width of each line is 2 mm. Machine paper shows in this distance 17 to 18 such lines with a width of not more than 1.85mm. Heavy English mail paper has 20 such lines, each with a width of 1.65mm

b. The absence of chlorine. An experiment done in my presence by the late Mr. A.P.H. Kuipers showed that the paper did not react in the slightest with silver and therefore clearly did not contain any chlorine. All paper manufactured during this century have been treated with chlorine which in the same experiment with silver leaves a white residue.

c. The absence of starch, amylum. The experiment with an iodine solution produces a pure and brilliant violet colour on machine paper but on the manuscript it had no effect and left the brown colour of the iodine unchanged, at least not more than with any other natural plant manufactured fibres because there is no amylum present in plant material. The (Manuscript’s) paper, therefore, was manufactured without the addition of starch and thus not in the present century.

d. In examining the waterlines there is another big difference between machine produced paper and the Manuscript. In the first case the lines are very clear but in the latter they are almost invisible to such an extent that Dr E. Verwijs in a letter d.d. Leiden 1 Dec 1870 (i.e. after having had the manuscript in his hands for 3 years) wrote to me: “Further, the paper appears very suspicious. It appears that the paper was hung in smoke. If one tears the paper it appears whiter at the tear. There is no watermark to be found and I have never seen paper from the Middle Ages without a watermark and I cannot even imagine that.”
Dr Verwijs therefore has not seen a watermark in all this time even when he was looking for it. It was not possible when he had machine produced paper (to compare with)

3. The paper is coloured yellow but not naturally so.

Answer:
If the paper was (artificially) coloured, i.e. painted, the colouring would have penetrated the paper, but this is not the case. At the tear one can clearly see that the paper is white on the inside. The dirty yellowish black colour of the paper is solely the result of time and aging over more than six centuries.
The fact that the paper was so well preserved over this time and not damaged by damp or mildew is prove of the meticulous care taken to protect this precious family heirloom.

4. The paper was cut off very smoothly and evenly; Paper from the 13th century cannot be cut without ravelling.

Answer:
This may be the case with unpolished paper but proves nothing with polished and therefore denser paper and in any event it depends on the sharpness of the knife or scissors used.

5. The paper cuts makes me think of machine produced paper, where the perpendicular waterlines (pontuseaux) could be produced but I am not aware whether the horizontal lines of paper frames could be present; if so, then I regard it as proper machine produced paper not older than 25 to 30 years. Earlier than this one could not make lines on machine produced paper.

Answer:
I have in front of me an authentic statement of Messrs E. van Berk, P. Uurbanus, A.J. Leijer and T. Mooy resident in Den Helder wherein they give the assurance that between 1848 and 1850 the existence of the manuscript later published under the title of Thet Oera Linda Bok was already known.

This statement was published in its entirety in the Heldesche newspaper of 12 March 1876.

With this Mr. Muller’s argument collapses about machine produced paper which, according to his claim of 25 or 30 years, i.e. before 1848, paper could not have been made with horizontal waterlines.

The paper of the manuscript therefore was not made in the 19th century. From the 14th to the 18th century no paper was made without a watermark but in the manuscript there is no trace of a watermark.

It was thus also not manufacture in the 14th or later centuries. The only conclusion therefore is that the paper came from the 13th century.

6. The paper was bound into a book by means of holes. It is too hard around the holes to be old; also the method of binding is too modern and totally different from other old books; in addition less holes and thicker strands of parchment were used than is evident here.

Answer:
If Mr. Muller saw the complete manuscript he would have noticed that the spine nowhere shows any traces of glue. That proves that it was not bound by any modern methods, nor by string, parchment or strips but rather by a very simple and primitive method of securing with needle and thread in a cover of parchment which one still find in the trade such as with calendars and so forth.
This anyone can do and this is what Hiddo Oera Linda also did because he could not entrust the Manuscript to any (professional) book binders who (by and large) performed their work in monasteries. He warned his son about monks and that they must never see the Manuscript.

7. The writing is too new for an old document. The ink lies on the paper and has not affected the paper in any way which should have happened with an old document.
The ink is too black. In olden times the ink was lighter and with time it turned brown.

Answer:
In response to this I present the views of Wattenbach, in “Schriffcwesen im Mittelalter” (Middle Ages):

“In old manuscripts, the ink is black or brownish, always of a good to excellent quality. After 1300 AD, however, the ink often appears grey or yellowish and is sometimes quite faded.”

(The rest of the quote appears to explain the ingredients of the ink in German which I could not decipher)

What the ingredients of the ink was with which the Manuscript was written, I do not know; but I accept the statement of Wattenbach as to the good quality of the ink until the 13th century as proof of the Manuscript’s origin in the 13th century.

For these reasons I cannot associate myself or accept the opinions of Messrs Muller and Van Gelder whose opinions in any event are not without prejudice. They essentially asked the question whether the Manuscript’s paper in any way conforms to paper from the present time. This is however the second part of the issue. The first and more important part is how the writing compares to other manuscripts older than the 13th century.

In connection with this, I have one more remark to add. The writing was lined, possibly with lead but the age of the document caused the lines to fade and almost to disappear so much so that I could at first only suspect that the pages were ruled until mr. Hooft van Iddekinge pointed it out to me. When he first saw the manuscript he said that the paper was ruled and showed me the traces. Once I knew what to look for I could see the lines on every page. For this reason I redrew the lines on the facsimile of page 45 to show how meticulous the lines were drawn and the letters written between them. In fact it made me realise how much time and effort were spent on the Manuscript. From this I copied the script page for page onto normal ruled paper which would have taken some 300 hours. That would only be the copying. In addition, a fraudster would have had to compile the book, in a unique language which had to be different from known Frisian dialects which all differ in spelling, syntax, etc. Against this one would have had to invent a dialect that would have been spoken between the Flie and the Schelde. Lastly one would have had to invent letters and an alphabet that would be more suitable to the Frisian language than anything known.

In connection with the letters I must point out a very distinctive feature:

The alphabet had no q and s. The prefixes qu, se, sch and de c at the beginning of words were still unknown which prove that this document dated from before Roman times. The c is not use any different than ch.

In the Frisian Legal Books (Friesche Rechtboeken), the language adopted the Latin style of writing.and independent signs before vowals were lost together with the prefixes gs, ng, and th. The influence of Latin, especially since Charlemagne, simplified the alphabet by reducing the number of letters but it also made the alphabet less suitable to the unique sounds in the Frisian language. In this regard the Frisian style and spelling were corrupted to an extend that is still felt by present day authors.

A fraudster would have had to consider the spelling and the alphabet of the Old Frisian Laws without creating suspicion.

This (the Manuscript) is not some trivial task that some joker carried out just to fool somebody. To accept this is quite irregular. That however is nothing.

The negative criticism of modern science does not accept any irregularities. If they have decided that the Oera Linda book is not authentic then it must be false, whatever it takes. Now they search everywhere to find the culprit; there is even talk of a price on the head of the offender and a reward for anyone who turns him in. Yet, all this is in vain for the simple reason that such a person does not exist and never has.

In the meantime the public is frightened by the question: “Do you still believe in the Oera Linda Book?” My answer is: “Yes, Gentlemen”.

I have now spent almost six years in studying the book over and over from inside and outside, in the context of the old Greek and Latin literature but nowhere could I find any grounds for doubt. That is why I still believe that the Oera Linda Book is authentic and that is why I present the second edition.

Leeuwarden, Sept. 1876.
Dr. J.G. Ottema