Oera Linda studies

12 June 2012

JON SWOR WRÉKA

Posted Today, 11:00 AM

Blithon sal rehlico
so he gesiet uuraca

THI RJUCHTLIKA SKIL HIM FORBLYDA
SAHWERSA HI WRÉKE BISJATH

wraka, wreka, wrake, wreke, wracu, etc. ~ old-dutch, old-saxon, gothic, old-frisian, old-english, old-northfrench, old-german, etc.

It has survived in Dutch (wraak), Frisian (wrake, wraek, wrek) and German (rache).

Possibly, the English 'wrath' and the Dutch 'wreed' are related.

Here are the 11 OLB-fragments that have the word.

As always, with Ottema and Sandbach translations (and my suggestions added).

[026/31] Minno's Skrifun

WILLATH HJA HIM SIN LIF BIHALDA LÉTA
ÁND THJU WRÉKA OFKAPIA LÉTA.
SA MÉI MAN THAT DÁJA

[O+S p.41]

Willen zij hem zijn lijf laten behouden

en de wraak laten afkoopen,

zoo mag men dat gedoogen.

the offended

[they] will spare his life
and
forego their
[buy-off the] revenge,
it may be permitted.

[041/33] Setma and Domar

NE FLUCHTER NAVT
SA IS ER AN THA WRÉKE THÉR BITROGNA VRLÉTEN.

[O+S p.61]

vlucht hij niet,

dan wordt hij aan de wraak der bedrogene overgelaten

if he does not [flee],
he may be given over to the vengeance of

those whom he has

[the] offended

[042/] Domar Nydiga

BÉRTHET JETA RÉIS SA MOT I THACH NÉI THA TIN.LÁNUM.
TILTHJU MÀN THÉRTHRVCH FORMITHA ALL VNERIMDE WRÉKA ÀND FÉITHA

[O+S p.63]

gebeurt het nog eenmaal, dan moet hij toch naar de tinlanden,

opdat men daardoor vermijde alle

onbehoorlijke

[ongerijmde] wraak en veete.

if it happens a second time, he must go to the tin mines,
in order to avoid any unseemly hatred or vengeance.

[043/07] Domar Horninga

HY MÉI FLÍA SA R KÀN THACH NÀRNE SKIL SÉKUR WÉSA FARA WRÉKANDE HÁND.

[O+S p.63]

Hij mag vlieden zoo hij kan, nergens zal hij veilig wezen voor de wrekende hand.

and wherever

he may flee [if he can], [but] he shall never be secure from the avenging
justice
[hand].

[069/09] Ho't Jon vrgvng

MEN JON SWOR WRÉKA THÉRVR

[O+S p.97]

Maar Jon zwoer wraak daarover

but Jon swore

to be revenged

[revenge] for it

[070/02] Ho't Jon vrgvng

FONUTA LITHA É.LANDA GVNGER UT WRÉKA THA THÍRJAR SKÉPA ÀND LANDA BIRÁWA

[O+S p.99]

Van de kleine eilanden uit ging hij uit wraak de Thyrische schepen en landen plunderen

From the smaller islands he made expeditions for vengeance on the Tyrians, and plundered their ships and their lands

[085/08] Frana vrmord

WRÉKE WILLATH WI THÉR VR NAVT NE HROPA THAM SKIL TYD NIMA

[O+S p.117]

Wraak willen wij daarover niet roepen, die zal de tijd nemen

We do not ask for revenge. Time will provide that

[090/09] Apollánja

THÉR HETHER EN BURCH EBUWAD LINDA.S.BURCH HÉTEN.
VMBE DÁNA TO WREKANA VS LÉTH.

[O+S p.125]

Daar heeft hij eene burgt gebouwd, Lindasburgt geheeten,

om daar ons leed te wreken.

There he built a citadel named Lindasburgt,
in order there to avenge our

wrong

[suffering].

[115/02] Fréthorik Oeralinda

MIN TÁT THÉR RJUCHTER WÉRE WILDE HJA WRÉKEN HÁ

[O+S p.159]

Mijn vader, die rechter was, wilde haar gewroken hebben

My father, who was a judge, would have her avenged

[138/15] Jesus fon Kasamir

TO THA LERSTA MOST.ER FLUCHTA VR THA WRÉKE THÉRA PRESTERA

[O+S p.187]

Ten laatste moest hij vluchten om de wraak der priesteren

At last he was obliged to flee from the wrath [or: revenge] of the priests

[147/16] Vr Friso

THRVCH THA LUST THÉRE WRÉKE ÀJEN THA GOLUM ÀND ÀJEN THA KÀLTANA FOLGAR

[O+S p.201]

door de lust tot wraak tegen de Golen en tegen de Kalta

volgers

by their desire [lust] for vengeance upon the Gauls, and the followers of

Kaltona

[Kàlta]

19th Century paper?

Posted Yesterday, 10:47 AM

Abramelin, on 10 June 2012 - 07:25 AM, said:

I meant the posts by Swede and others about geology, Cormac's posts about genetics, and posts about archeology.
Posts that were critical concerning the theories in his book.

Those critical posts were not strong enough to make me doubt that his main conclusion is right.

For me, even without Alewyn's evidence, it is evident that OLB must be authentic, because it is just way too complex for human minds to fabricate something like that out of nothing, specially in the 18th century.

If it were a 19th century hoax, it would fit more in the belief system of that time. Things in it that by then were considered totally outrageous, by now actually seem to be possible.

If it were fake, that should become more evident through the years, not less, which is the case.

And like I said before: why does that paper-study have to take more than five years?
Still no clear results.
If the paper would be from a 19th century factory, that can be established within one week.

Edit: one thing I think he should have mentioned is, that the flood year was also known in 19th (18th?) century Frisian almanaks.

Posted Yesterday, 01:54 PM

Abramelin, on 11 June 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

I think the bolded sentence in the last quote gives the major limitation here: the OLB manuscript has of course been in many hands during more than 160 years.

I don't think it should be too difficult to remove a very thin layer from both sides of a scrap.

Besides carbon dating, comparison with known paper from 19th century factories should be easy.
The claim was that it would be from a particular factury in Maastricht.
Paper from this factory must be available in archives.
If the claim is true, the composition of the paper should be the same.

Posted Yesterday, 02:23 PM

Abramelin, on 11 June 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

I have serious doubts about how people in the 19th century handled the manuscript. As you know, nowadays they use those white disposable gloves.

That why I said they can remove a microscopic layer.

Quote

About that paper factury in Maastricht: didn't they have samples of their paper and had it not already been compared with the paper of the manuscript?

If they have, it didn't provide the proof they wanted or it would have been published.

Posted Yesterday, 04:55 PM

Abramelin, on 11 June 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

(Volunteers Research into heritage
OERA LINDA BOOK UNRAVELED?)

A demagogic article with some false conclusions.

For example:

"Dit onderzoek moest uitwijzen of niet eerder bestudeerde, onbeschreven vellen die Over de Linden in het geheim had bewaard, overeenstemden met het handschrift. En ja, de vellen bleken qua samenstelling zelfs vrijwel identiek te zijn: het bewijs dat Over de Lindens als ‘afschrijver’ bij het werk betrokken was."

"This examination would have to prove that previously unexamined, empty sheets of paper that Over de Linden had secretly kept, were the same as the manuscript. And yes, the sheets were of almost the same composition: Proof that Over de Linden had been involved as copyist."

My comments:

1. That he would have "secretly kept" them is an interpretation, not a fact, and it also does not make sense. If he was indeed the copyist, he would have gotten rid of the empty sheets, as he kept fanatically defending his truth till his death bed.

2. The sheets are of "almost the same composition", that means not of the same stock.

3. Even if they were of the same stock, that would not prove that OdL has to have been "involved as copyist". In theory, his uncle Hendrik Reuvers, or the husband of his cousin, Rijkent Kofman, could have made the copy. OdL could have received the manuscript including the empty sheets. That would explein why he kept them. He saw no harm in it. If he would have been 'guilty' of making the copy, he would not have been so stupid as to keep the leftover paper.

Posted Yesterday, 05:07 PM

Something else:

"De makers lieten het papier in een kleurstof vergelen, daarna droogden en persten ze het voordat ze het beschreven."

"The makers colored the paper in a (liquid) pigment, then they dried and pressed it before they wrote on it."

If this would be the case, the paper would be colored in the inside as well, because a liquid would penetrate the fibres.
But the paper is white from the inside.

And why do they not mention what sort of pigment was used for the coloring?
That should have been an easy one, since they can compare with the empty sheets.

When I asked them this last year, they answered that they would no longer answer my questions.

If the 'makers' would have done all this effort, they could have easily made the paper look older than it does.

It just all does not make sense.

Posted Yesterday, 10:19 PM

Abramelin, on 11 June 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

I can only make sense of it when I think like this:

-1- These 3 people had to pay from their own pockets to be able to do the research.
-2- It will have cost them quite a lot of money (and time).
-3- They will publish their findings at the end of this year, and.... probably on some site where you must pay for some paper/document to have it sent to you.
-4- And by that get compensated somewhat for their financial investment.

I do not think any money is involved.
The only thing they invested was their time.
They also will not try to sell it.

By stressing the fact that it is a voluntary project they suggest to be independent, but they are totally biased.
What this article does not say is that Jensma leads the project.
Again, his theory is presented as fact, although none of the specialists who were speaking at the presentation of his book in 2004 believed it.

The information this paper group supplies is vague, incomplete and suggestive. They should be happy that someone is interested, but when I started asking critical questions, they closed the door. That is the kind of behavior of someone who is lying.

Between the lines, I read that they are either blinded by tunnel vision (they see only what they want to see), or they are indeed lying. I know they would have good reasons to do that.

Posted Today, 10:16 AM

Abramelin, on 12 June 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Instead of discussing the article about the research, here is the research paper itself:

The Oera Linda Boek - A literary forgery and its paper

Yes, I remember emailing that to you.
Good thing that you published it online now.

He is my discussion about it (copy from UM onto my blog):
http://fryskednis.bl...scientific.html

Posted Today, 11:38 AM

Abramelin, on 12 June 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

And after recently an unknown picture of Haverschmidt from 1868 showed up in his (= Cornelis Over de Linden's) granddaughter's inheritance, Jensma now hopes for a similar find: a letter.

No, that was about HaverSchmidt's inheritance, not that of OdL.

Posted Today, 12:07 PM

Abramelin, on 12 June 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

I don't think that's what they mean: what would it prove or disprove if a granddaughter owns a photo of her grandfather? But it would certainly look like a clue if it was Over de Linden's granddaughter who owned a photo of HaverSchmidt.

Jensma still hopes to find proof that HaverSchmidt did it, because he knows his job is not well done.
He hopes that a letter will appear in which he confesses that he was involved.
That photo simply shows that after all these years, still unknown material from/ about HaverSchmidt can surface.

Posted Today, 12:27 PM

Abramelin, on 12 June 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

In the correspondence about the book they found a note from Verwijs that was really written on the same, for that time special 'English paper'. "Too coincidental to be a coicidence," Kardinaal chuckles. And that's how, after Over de Linden, also Verwijs let himself be caught as an accomplice.

I cannot believe these people are serious.
Here is the fragment prior to yours.

Het ontsluiten van hout was een specifiek Amerikaanse procédé, in 1866 voor het eerst commercieel toegepast in Pennsylvania en in een Engelse papierfabriek in Gloucestershire. Omdat het Oera Linda-papier sodapulp bevat, wat wijst op ontsloten hout, dateert het van minimaal 26 jaar later dan altijd werd aangenomen.

The unlocking of wood was a specific American procedure, for the first time commercially applied in 1866 in Pennsylvania and in an English paper factory in Gloucestershire. Because the Oera Linda-paper contains sodapulp, which suggests unlocked wood, it dates of minimally 26 years later than always was assumed.

How realistic is this, really?

In 1867 OdL started trying to have the manuscript translated, and he would have written it in less than one year previously, when he was already an old man, and on the newest possible paper available?!

This is totally insane.

They have not proven that the OLB paper is from that English factory, only that it contains sodapulp, "which suggests unlocked wood".
They are not even sure that Verwijs' paper is the same.

Posted Today, 12:35 PM

Abramelin, on 12 June 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

CodL had the mansucript ready, or most of it. Then he buys that special paper, makes it look as old as the former version, and voila.

I respect your belief.

Posted Today, 12:46 PM

Abramelin, on 12 June 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

But it is at least not as insane as you suggested.

So you would use paper that is made with a technique that is only used since let's say 2011?

Abramelin, on 12 June 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

LOL, I am a 100% sure that when they find that letter, it will be considered a hoax!!

And I am a 100% sure they will never find such a letter, because it never existed.

Posted Today, 01:04 PM

If the paper is proven to be from that Gloucestershire factory, they should clearly say so.

They don't, they are merely suggesting it.

"The Oera Linda-paper contains sodapulp, which suggests unlocked wood."

First let them clearly prove and state that it is from that factory.
Until then I will not take them seriously.

Again, I am the skeptic here, not you.

Posted Today, 02:10 PM

If it was a hoax and the supposed makers appearantly made supernatural efforts to create an illusion of authenticity, why would they include things that made it totally unbelievable (in that time), like the story of Jes-us from Kasamir, and many other examples?

In this thread it became clear that the ideas in it, that in the 19th century were seen as absolutely outrageous, are all, in fact possibly true.
~ ~ ~

Article (added 21-1-2014) for future reference:

Arab paper probably contained plant (or tree) material, since they learned it from the Chinese. See fragment (p.58-59) from: "Science and Technology in Medieval European Life" by Jeffrey R. Wigelsworth; Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006.

Syntax too modern?

Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:02 AM

Abramelin, on 09 June 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

I said 2600 years because that was when the OLB is supposed to have been put on paper the first time.

And whatever text (in runes) they have found throughout (Northern) Europe, the syntax is always totally different from any modern Germanic language, including Frisian and Dutch.

Well if it doesn't change in 2000 years, why would it change in 600 years more?

Runic inscriptions will hardly reflect spoken language, they will more be like code.

OLB is the only known source of prechristian 'Dutch'.
Appearantly syntax didn't change.

That some people find it hard to imagine, is not a valid argument against the authenticity.

Many people found it hard to imagine that Darwin's theory was right.

I have shown that almost all of my ancestors from seven generations back came from Westfriesland. For their ancestors it will mostly be the same. People would not go far from home and only marry someone that spoke the same language. I know that some people's ancestors are from all over the place. Their culture is really more 'bastardised', more confused, literally. Let's simply do a thought experiment. Texel; people have lived there for thousands of years. Why would syntax have changed dramatically? Children learn it in the first few years mostly from their mother, brothers, sisters. In areas where there have been many wars it may be different, but not on an island like that.

Anyway, I don't find it hard to imagine at all that the OLB-syntax is authentic.
We can disagree about that, but the point is, that the fact that some people find it difficult to imagine, means nothing at all.

Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:42 AM

Abramelin, on 09 June 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Well, read Beowulf or any other old English text of around the 8th century (or before) and you will see what I mean: you will recognize many Old Germanic words, but the syntax is very different.

Do you think people on Texel will have spoken that language in the the 8th century?
I don't.

The only real wars in North-Holland in the last 2000 years were the counts of 'Holland' trying to subdue Westfriesland, in which they only succeeded in the late 13th century.

Those counts from Holland will have been from Merovingean royal descent, judging by the name Theuderic (Diederik, Dirk) most of them had. Just like Friso did 1000 years earlier to get more influence, they will have married Frisian women (also because they were most beautiful and wise of course), and after a few generations they could have themselves be called 'comes Frisia', but that didn't mean the Frisians were willing to pay taxes. Hence the wars. In 1297 the whole male population was murdered, but the women remained and they will have taught their children the old language, although some terms may have become taboo, like after every war.

There may also have been a few Danish invasions around the time of Christenings, but then again, it was men coming, not changing much of the 'mother-tongue'.

There is no reason to believe that language in North-Holland changed much between the time of the Romans (who stayed below Rhine anyway) and the arrival of the Franks/ Merovingeans.

Posted 09 June 2012 - 11:44 AM

Abramelin, on 09 June 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

This was not a book with mere formulas or incantations or codes, although I should add that it is suggested that Wulfila tried to stay as close as possible to the Latin and/or Greek versions of the Bible he must have used.

That's the whole point. All of the oldest sources were written by Latin schooled monks.
Nothing (other than OLB) is saved from Westfrisian spoken language.

Posted 09 June 2012 - 03:32 PM

Abramelin, on 09 June 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

Then we go back centuries in time, and the language changes.

Why?

Quote

Did the Frisians speak a similar language as Old English (Beowulf style or older)?
Quite probably for it is known that when Willibrord tried to convert them to Christianity he didn't need an interpretor/translator.

Why do you think Willibrord spoke Beowulf style Old-English?

If the Westfrisians would have spoken that Beowulf style language, why and how would it have changed in only a few hundred years into Frisian/ Dutch?

In studying the OLB and Oldfrisian, I have learned that English is much more a bastardised language than Frisian and Dutch. F and D are more pure and 'in between' English, German and the Scandinavian languages. So it would only make sense if they are closer to the original 'Germanic'. I don't know much about English/ Brittish history, but it looks like there have been more wars and mixing of cultures and languages. Considering that even today Great Brittain knows several very different dialects, the 'Beowulf-style language' will not be the only Old-English that there must have been.

Posted 09 June 2012 - 04:37 PM

Abramelin, on 09 June 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

The language used (idiom and grammar) in the OLB is very similar to what we read in those 13th century Frisian Law Texts.

We must be aware, that the OLB language (as we know it) may not be what it was when it was first compiled in the 6th C. BC.

Copyists tend to make the text they copy more understandable.
There may have been many copyists other than Liko and Hidde, all may have changed bits.
The last copy (1256 BC) may represent what was understandable in that time.
Personally I don't think that language would have had to change so much within a strong culture, where people tended to chose to marry only people of there own culture.

But this is just to remind ourselves that - when OLB is authentic - it still is a 13th century copy, so we are not sure if it perfectly reflects the language of the original version.

Pheme, a famous FÁM (femme)

Posted 07 June 2012 - 11:37 PM

In Greek mythology, Pheme (Greek: Φήμη, Roman equivalent: Fama) was the personification of fame and renown, her favour being notability, her wrath being scandalous rumors. She was a daughter either of Gaia or of Hope, was described as "she who initiates and furthers communication" and had an altar at Athens. A tremendous gossip, Pheme was said to have pried into the affairs of mortals and gods, then repeated what she learned, starting off at first with just a dull whisper, but repeating it louder each time, until everyone knew. In art, she was usually depicted with wings and a trumpet.

In Roman mythology, Fama ("rumor") was described as having multiple tongues, eyes, ears and feathers by Virgil (in Aeneid IV line 180 and following) and other authors. She is also described as living in a home with 1000 windows so she could hear all being said in the world. Virgil wrote that she "had her feet on the ground, and her head in the clouds, making the small seem great and the great seem greater."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheme

Once more, a name that can simply be explained through OLB-Oldfrisan, which would change the existing etymology (i.c. make it more plausible):

FÁM = lady, sometimes translated as 'priestess' (but the Fryans hated priesthoods).
It was a highly responsible and respected position.
The term is used 143 times.
The French word for woman is derived from it: Femme (Latin: Femina), and of course, Feminism.
It would totally makes sense if the Greek/ Latin Pheme/ Fame would be derived from it.

The following fragment is interesting in this context:

[154/05]
FON ALLE GRÉVA THÉR BIFÁRA HIM WÉRON. N.AS THÉR NIMMAN SÁ BIFÁMED LIK FRISO WÉST.
[Ottema and Sandbach p.209]
Van alle Graven, die voor hem waren, was er niemand zoo befaamd als Friso geweest.
Of all the counts that preceded him there was none so renowned [famous] as Friso.

WITH.BURCH ~ subsidiary burg

Posted 05 June 2012 - 12:52 PM

[150/09]
AN BYDE SIDA THÉRE HAVES.MVDE IS ÉNE WITH.BURCH BVWED

[Ottema p.203]
dat aan beide zijden van den havenmond eene versterkte burgt gebouwd is

[Sandbach p.203]
that on each side of the harbour a strong citadel has been built

[Jensma]
aan beide zijden van de havenmond is een witburcht* gebouwd
* Witburcht - onduidelijk; mogelijk afgeleid van Nieuwfries wiet = nat, dus een nat- of zeeburcht(?).

Ottema's "versterkte" (strengthened) was nothing but a wild guess. Sandbach accepted it and most later translations copied it (Overwijn, De Heer, Raubenheimer, Knul).
Jensma guessed it should be "witburcht" (water- or seaburgh), but nowhere in the whole manuscript WIT (in the meaning of water or sea) is spelled with -TH.
My guess is that it should just be "with-burg": subsidiary burg, in Dutch lit. "bij-burcht".
The most common spelling for "with" in OLB is "MITH": 353 times (including combinations like THÉRMITH, HWERMITH), but "WITH" is also used 16 times.
It is fascinating that the spelling with W seems to only have survived in English:

with - english
mit - german
met - dutch
med - danish, swedish, norwegian
með - icelandic
με, μετά - greek

'ALDLAND' in North-Holland (Den Helder)

Posted 05 June 2012 - 08:34 AM

On maps in this post, in order of appearance:

't oude Lant ~ 1657
Het Oude Landt ~ 1699
Oude Lan ~ 1750
Oude Land ~ 1792
Het Oude Land ~ 1793
fort of royal navy ~ 1867
satellite photo's