Posted 04 June 2012 - 05:26 PM
Otharus, on 28 May 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:
A similar exercise can be done with (for example):
SEND vs. SIND
WÉSA vs. WESEN
NW/ NVV vs. NV
KÁNING/ KÀNING vs. KENING/ KÉNING
WI vs. WY
SEND vs. SIND
NW/ NVV vs. NV
KÁNING/ KÀNING vs. KENING/ KÉNING
WI vs. WY
Correction:
WÉSA and WÉSEN are not two varieties of the same word, they are different inflections of the same verb.
WÉSA = wezen, zijn (dutch) = to be = sein (german)
WÉSEN = geweest, gewezen (dutch) = been (past perfect) = gewesen (german)
=== Posted 12 June 2012 - 10:31 PM
From Dutch Wiki (translated into English):
Boaz (Biblical name)
The name Boaz means "In Him is force/ power".
http://nl.wikipedia....(Bijbelse_naam)
Like so many names from antiquity, this name can be explained by a Dutch/ Frisian word, in this case 'baas'/ 'baes' (English: boss).
Some OLB fragments with it:
THA BÁSA ÀND HJARA STORSTA SVNUM
FORSTA. GRÉVA. RÉDJÉVAR ÀND ALLE BÁSA ÀND MÁSTERA
ÀND ÉNIS BÁS SKOLDE WERTHA OVIR ALLE KÉNINGKRIK JRTHA.S
WAS THENE MÁGÍ BÁS WRDEN OVIR SKÉNLANDIS ASTAR DÉL
HWAND THENE MAGÍ WRDE BÁS
IK HÀV THI FRÉJETH JEFTH IK BÁS SKILDE WERTHA
THRJU JÉR LÉTTER WÉR THENE MÁGÍ BÁS
ALSA NÉARCHUS THÉR SELVA NÉN BÁS OVIR BILÍWA NE KV
NÉNE ORA MÁSTERA NACH FORSTA NER BÁSA
THÉRVMBE SKIL.ER ÁK BÁS ÀND RJUCHTER OVIR WÉSA
======
Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:43 AM
14 x Aldland / Atland in 5 spelling varieties and mostly used to designate yearvarieties with fragment numbers as used below:
ÁTLAND - 1, 4, 7, 8, 13
ÁT.LAND - 6, 14
total "ÁT-": 7x
ALDLAND - 11, 12
ÁLDLAND - 3, 10
ALD.LAND - 2, 5, 9
total "ALD-" or "ÁLD-": 7x
Note:
Of these 7 times with "LD-", Ottema and Sandbach translated as "Atland" 4 times.
This stresses the relation to Plato's Atlantis, while it hides the meaning, "old-land".
The word is used for designation of year or era in fragments: 1, 5, 8 to 14 = 9 x out of 14.
So the remaining fragments that might tell us something about what or where this land or island was are 2, 3, 4 and 6, 7.
I would not rule out the possibility, that for some people (and thus authors) "ALDLAND" might simply have ment "old land", that is: all land that disappeared as a result of the disaster, or: all land before the big flood.
Fragments with Ottema & Sandbach translations
1. [00a/16] Hidde Oer-a Linda
NÉI ÁTLAND SVNKEN IS. THÀT THRJA THUSOND.FJVWER HVNDRED ÀND NJUGON ÀND FJVWERTIGOSTE JÉR
[O+S p.3]
nadat Atland verzonken is, het drie duizend vier honderd negen en veertigste jaar
in the three thousand four hundred and forty-ninth year after Atland was submerged
2. [021/16] Orlochs-éwa
HJARA MODER.S BÀRTA.LÁND. MIT NOMA ALD.LAND THAT NW VNDER.NE SÉ LÉITH
[O+S p.33]
hun moeders geboorteland, met name Aldland, dat nu in zee ligt
their native land, which was called Aldland, and is now submerged
3. + 4. [049/25] Ho àrge-tid kém
ÁLDLAND. TRVCH THA STJURAR ÁTLAND HÉTEN SVNK NÍTHER
[O+S p.71]
Aldland, door de zeelieden Atland geheeten, zonk neder
Aldland, called by the seafaring people, Atland,
5. [050/31] Ho Mágjara kémen
100 ÀND 1 JÉR NÉI THAT ALD.LAND SVNKEN IS
[O+S p.73]
100 en 1 jaar nadat Aldland gezonken is
One hundred and one years after the submersion of Aldland
6. [057/17] Tunis and Inka
INKA MÉNDE THAT.ER BY.SKIN WEL EN HACH DÉL FON ÁT.LAND BY WÍSA FON É.LAND VRBILÉWEN SKOLDE WÉSA
[O+S p.81]
Inka meende dat er misschien wel een hooggelegen deel van Atland, bij wijze van eiland, zoude overgebleven wezen
Inka thought that perchance some high-lying part of Atland might remain as an island
7. [058/02] Tunis and Inka
THA ÁTLAND SVNKEN IS. WAS.T.INNA MIDDEL SÉ RA OWERA ÁK ÀRG TO GVNGEN
[O+S p.81]
Toen het Atland verzonken is, was het aan de oevers der Middellandsche zee ook erg toegegaan
When Atland was submerged there was much suffering also on the shores of the Mediterranean
8. [058/20] Tunis and Inka
THAT WÉRE 100 ÀND 93 JÉR NÉI ÁTLAND SVNKEN IS
[O+S p.83]
dat was 193 jaren nadat Atland gezonken is
[that was] one hundred and ninety-three years after Atland was submerged
9. [062/08] Kàlta and Min-erva
563 JÉR NÉI ALD.LAND SVNKEN IS
[O+S p.87]
563 jaar nadat
Five hundred and sixty-three years after the submersion of
10. [075/08] Ulysus
AN THA JÉRA 1000 ÀND 5 NÉI ÁLDLAND SVNKEN IS
[O+S p.105]
In het jaar 1005 nadat
In the Year One Thousand and Five after
11. [079/13] Déna-marka vrléren
1600 ÀND 2 JÉR NÉI ALDLAND VRGVNGEN IS
[O+S p.111]
1602 jaren nadat
1602 years after the submersion of
12. [083/22] Déna-marka vrléren
VNDERA TÍDUM THAT ALDLAND SVNKEN IS. STAND THJU FORMA SPÉKE FON THET JOL AN TOP
[O+S p.115]
In de tijden, dat
At the time of the submersion of
13. [136/08] Jes-us fon Kasamir
16 WÁRA 100 JÉR LÉDEN IS ÁTLAND SVNKEN
[O+S p.185]
Zestien honderd jaren geleden is Atland gezonken
Sixteen hundred years ago, Atland was submerged
14. [141/20] Jes-us fon Kasamir
FJUWER THUSAND JÉR NÉI ÁT.LAND SVNKEN IS
[O+S p.191]
vierduizend jaren nadat Atland verzonken is
4000 years after the submersion of Atland
=== Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:26 PM
Abramelin, on 13 June 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:
But from the OLB one can learn that Aldland was the homeland of the
Finda (and the Finda only), or in other words: it was a specific area,
and not all the land that got submerged in the 2194 BC event.
That is only fragment 2 of my post (page 21, line 16 of the manuscript), the introduction to the war-laws. The author of that fragment suggests to know where Finda was born, but she was a mythological mother, like Frya and Lyda. There may have been women with those names, but the OLB-story about the three mothers is obviously myth or poetic fiction. The intro-fragment basically says that before Aldland sank, there was no war with the Finda people, so they did not need laws about war.
You assume that the OLB was written by one author in one time and place. I believe that the various texts were written by different authors in different times and places. Therefore, IMO, what is said about Aldland does not have to be consistent.
The book was supposedly compiled firstly in the 6th C. BCE, that is some 1600 after Aldland sank.
Now think of how various authors wrote about our year zero in the 17th century. What is historic, what is myth, what is pure fiction?
Quote
We
both know that it is generally accepted that Aldland was what others
nowadays call Doggerland, or the former dry bed of the North Sea, and
that can simply not be true if we follow the OLB narrative.
No, I don't know if that is what is generally accepted. I think it is also plausible to consider the possibility that people may have referred with Aldland/ Atland/ Atlantis to a lost continent in the Atlantic Ocean. This would agree more with Inka's story.
Again: I don't think every author of the various texts in the OLB may have had the same idea of what and where A. was.
=== Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:02 PM
Abramelin, on 13 June 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:
It may be clear from the OLB that he Fryans and Findas were not close
friends, and most times real enemies. When is there often a 'need for
war'? That's when your enemy lives nearby. Well, the Finda didn't live
nearby, so that leaves out anything near Fryan territory, including the
North Sea.
That is strange logic. They are enemies in the OLB, because they had wars since the Magí invaded Skénland (100 years after Aldland sank). If before that they had no wars, they were not enemies, whether they lived far away or closeby. If they had no wars why would they have been enemies?
Anyway, my statement still stands:
I would not rule out the possibility, that for some people (and thus authors) "ALDLAND" might simply have ment "old land", that is: all land that disappeared as a result of the disaster, or: all land before the big flood.
Similar to É-MUDE, meaning the mouth of a river; does not have to be limited to one geographic location.
=== Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:56 PM
Abramelin, on 13 June 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:
First: if Aldland meant nothing but the old land, then where is the article before Aldland?
They never use it, so it's a name not just all the old land that submerged.
They never use it, so it's a name not just all the old land that submerged.
I did not say ALDLAND means "the old land", it simply means "old land".
Just like "Op-Dijk" or "Oost-Eind" can be anywhere, so can "Old-Land".
=== June 26th, 2012, 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ib-issi
I have not got a note of the page
no's but but have read in about three different places where it looks
like it says they were wichanlik or wickan, i will find them again after
work tommorow.
|
Wigand = strijder, held (warrior, hero)
Wigandlik = dapper, strijdbaar (brave, warlike)
These are the OLB fragments:
[page 4, line 32]
MÀN MOT TÁLA HJAM FON THA WICHARDA ÀND FON HJARA WICHANDLIKA DÉDUM ÀK WRA FÀRA SÉ.TOCHTA.
Sandbach p.11:
You must tell them of the sea-heroes, of their mighty deeds and distant voyages
=> should be "heroes"
[047/29]
VMB.VS WIGANDLIK FOLK THA WÉI TO WISANA NÉI SINA SÉ
S.69: to show our seafaring men the way to his sea
=> should be: "brave people"
[053/30]
THÉR NÁMON HJA WODIN MITH SIN WIGANDLIKA LAND.WÉR IN
S.77: where they took on board Wodin and his valiant host
(land-wér is actually: land-defence-force)
[054/24]
THV BIST THENE WIGANDLIKSTE KÀNING JRTHA.S
S.77: You are the most warlike king on the earth
[054/31]
WODIN WAS STERIK WOST ÀND WIGANDLIK
S.77: Wodin was strong, fierce, and warlike
[093/15]
SA SKOLDE HJRA BODA SINA WICHAR TO WÉI.WÍSER THJANJA
S.129: her messenger should serve as guide to his warriors
[112/22]
THÀT HJA SÉR WICHANDLIK EWRDEN SEND
S.155: that they
[201/10]
THA FORSTA ÀND WIGANDLIKSTA MANNA
S.241: the princes and the fighting men
=> should be "bravest men"
(I left out two more similar fragments, because I have to go.)
=== Posted 27 June 2012 - 07:08 PM
Linde-river and -valley in Friesland.
Satelite photo's see here .
=== Posted 28 June 2012 - 08:49 AM
Today and tomorrow, midsummer is celebrated in the Frisian village where I live since january.
Of all possible objects, what do you think is used for decoration of the street?
The wheel! Photo's see here.
Of all possible objects, what do you think is used for decoration of the street?
The wheel! Photo's see here.
=== Posted 28 June 2012 - 03:16 PM
Abramelin, on 28 June 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:
I don't know how to translate -oorden in proper English, but it is a wellknown word from the OLB
Ottema translated WRDA with "oorden", but I think "waarden" (wards) would have been more correct.
http://gtb.inl.nl/iW...82&lemma=waerde
http://gtb.inl.nl/iW...&lemmodern=oord
http://nl.wikipedia....aard_(landschap)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward
Some OLB fragments with WRD:
THÁ KÉMON THÁ LANDWÉRAR UT ALLE WRDA WÉI
THRVCH MIN FOLK BEN IK KÉREN TO GRÉVETMAN OVIRA LINDA WRDA
THA WALDA THÉRA LINDA WRDA WÉRON MÉST WÉI
NÉI THA WRDUM FON STÁVERE ÀND THÀT ALDERGA
TO MIDNE FONET FÉST.FÍRJA KÉM NÉVIL TO HULLANDE VSA WRDA IN THIKKE THJUSTERNISE
SÁ SKILUN THÉR IN ALLE WRDA MÀNNISKA VPSTONDA
THÁ GOSA FALLEN WAS THÁ WILDON THA LJUD FON ALLE WRDA ÉNE OTHERE MODER KJASA
THENE OTHERA SVJARING NÉI MANNA.GARDA.WRDA.
MANNA.GARDA.WRDA IS FARIN THIT BOK. MANNA.GARDA.FORDA SKRÉVEN. MEN THAT IS MIS DÉN.
DÁNÁ TÁGON HJA INOVIR STÁVEREN.S.WRDA BY HJARA LJUDA ROND
THAT ALD ÀND JONG UT ALLE WRDUM WÉI KÉMOM
MIN TÁT HETH SKRÉVEN HO THA LINDA.WRDA ÀND THA LJUD.GÁRDNE VRDILGEN SEND.
LINDA.HÉM IS JETA WÉI. THA LINDA.WRDA FAR EN DÉL
Varieties of LJUDWERD:
Ljuwert [hidde/16]; 1256 CE
Ljudwerd [liko/23]; 803 CE
Ljudwardja [113/25-26] ca. 300 BCE
Ljvdwérd [143/21] ca. 250 BCE
Ljvwrd [143/22] idem
Ljvwerde [206/11] ca. 50 BCE
The following list of toponyms also demonstrates how Newfrisian spelling is degenerating (changing D into T):
Dutch/ Oldfrisian spelling VS "Nyfrysk":
Britswerd - Britswert
Burgwerd - Burgwert
Cornwerd - Koarnwert
Hartwerd - Hartwert
Jorwerd - Jorwert
Kimswerd - Kimswert
Leeuwarden - Ljouwert
Rewerd - Rewert
Tjerkwerd - Tsjerkwert
Wieuwerd - Wiuwert
=== Posted 30 June 2012 - 09:59 PM
Abramelin, on 30 June 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:
No forests with Lindens/Lime trees overthere either.
What are you talking about? 16th century or even later?
That OLB fragment was about 300 BCE.
It may have been anywhere.
The course of the present Linde river may have been way different.
Think of how much "the Netherlands" have changed over the last 1000 years.
We will really have to accept that we willnot know for sure where all the places described in OLB were.
We cannot even be sure if TEXLAND = Texel, or MEDEASBLIK = Medemblik.
=== July 1st, 2012, 06:15 PM ~ by Alewyn Raubenheimer
The small box/case of Johan Winkler (1877-1916)
(Raubenheimer's translation)
The bequest of Johan Winkler dated March 1907 (placed in the small box)
To whom it may concern,
At an evening meeting of the Frisian Society of History, Culture and Linguistics at Leeuwarden, the gentleman Dr. Eelco Verwijs, at the time archivist of Friesland and resident in Leeuwarden, tabled a bundle of loose sheets of a manuscript. He presented this bundle to the management of the Frisian Society and said that he had shortly before, whilst travelling from Harlingen to Den Helder on a steamboat which at the time sailed between these two places, met a certain gentleman, C. Over de Linden, ship’s carpenter at the Royal Dockyard at Den Helder. This man had told the gentleman Verwijs that he was the owner of a very old unreadable manuscript passed on from father to son for centuries in his family – a family of very Old Frisian descends. Mr. Over de Linden did not know what the manuscript contained. (My note: This tale goes against all documentary evidence)
The gentleman Verwijs further informed the meeting (I was present and by chance sat next to him) that he was naturally very interested in Over de Linden’s story and the latter, when he had heard that Verwijs could read Old Frisian, wanted to hand over some pages of the manuscript to Verwijs for further examination. After Dr. Verwijs had returned to Leeuwarden, having received some pages of the manuscript from Mr. Over de Linden, he had the pages copied letter by letter by a competent person and then sent the original pages back to Mr. Over de Linden. This is the copy he tabled at the meeting of the Frisian Society as related above. After the gentlemen at the meeting had handed the pages around and all had examined them (also the gentleman Eekhoff – mentioned later) and after some discussion and some further explanation by the gentleman Verwijs, the chairman (Mr. J. Dirks) proposed that the pages be handed to me to table a report thereon at a next meeting – a proposal that was adopted by the members and accepted by me. I was then still a young man in (the then) contemporary Frisian and had practised Old Frisian as a hobby since my youth, since the age of fourteen, with the encouragement and guidance of the Frisian language scholar Tiede Roelofs Dykstra.
I therefore accepted the charge and, after the meeting, returned home with the manuscript in my pocket. Soon after, I began studying the document and gradually the notion came to me that the matter was not “kosher”, and could not be – a notion that became a conviction as I came to understand and grasped the contents of the manuscript. Yet, I hesitated and doubted my conviction as I almost dared not consider, unsuspecting as I was, direct fraud on the part of the, to me completely unknown Mr. Over de Linden, much less still of the well known (to me) gentleman Verwijs. Thus I asked,in my embarrassment, Messrs.Jacobus van Loon Jz en Gerben Colmjon-both Frisian language scholars,for help and advice.These gentlemen, thereupon, came to my house one evening and we jointly considered everything carefully concerning the manuscript and the language in which it was written. After a long and careful deliberation, the mentioned gentlemen also came, like me, to the conclusion, on language and historical grounds, that the manuscript, insofar as it was placed in my hands, was fictitious, false. In a meeting of the Frisian Society following our gathering, I submitted, in this spirit, a short report on the manuscript wherein I concluded that it had to be false and an unruly piece – at least not as old as claimed therein.
This report was accepted and nothing more was said in the meeting about the matter. It was as if everyone hesitated to reveal his real opinion. Dr JG Ottema, board member of the Frisian Society was also present at the meeting. This prematurely aged, fragile and nervous man flipped a bit through the manuscript, which I again placed on the table, and said: "I would still like to rummage through it at my leisure at home", whereupon he, with the permission of the chairman, Mr. J Dirks, placed it in his pocket and, after the meeting, took home.
The Sunday following the meeting of the Frisian Society where I tabled my report, I went to church at the Groote Kerk (Big Church) in Leeuwarden where I, as deacon of the Dutch Reformed Church, had to perform duty. Dr. Ottema also attended the service. After the service, leaving the church with my fellow deacons who had taken up the collection with me, (and) walking along the Groote Kerk Street to the “deacon house” where we, as was customary, would count, store and record the collection, I heard behind me from a side street, the Modder, hurried, unsteady footsteps and a vibrant call: “Mr. Winkler, Mr. Winkler.” (It is as though I can still see and hear it after 40 years). Turning around, I saw that the caller was the gentleman Ottema mentioned above - coming over to me out of breath like he was walking over coal and nervously informed me that I was mistaken in my report to declare the manuscript false.
“Oh, oh! How you are mistaken!” said the old man in a trembling voice.
“How you are mistaken. The manuscript is undoubtedly authentic and its contents are so beautiful, so very important and remarkable!! No nation in the world (or, if must be, other than the Jewish nation with its Bible) – no nation in the world has such an old document and in such an old script, written in its oldest language and relating its oldest history as our Fries Nation now, especially now we, Frisians!!! Etc.
Oh! I was dumfounded! All this happened amongst church people, in the middle of churchgoers. I was certainly dumfounded – me the simple, innocent young man against a great scholar which Dr. Ottema certainly was. But, I modestly kept quite.
From that day the gentleman Ottema was besotted with the “Book of Adela” as we then still called the few pages from Mr. Over de Linden’s manuscript. He moved (as men say) heaven and earth for the benefit of the book, gathered many followers who, like him, regarded the book as a most remarkable and highly important document. Very few remained with me and the gentleman Colmjon who rejected its value and authenticity.
The gentleman Ottema now obtained the whole manuscript, the complete Oera Linda Book, from Mr. Over de Linden and he did not rest before he had made the book world known, which happened in 1872 when the publisher H. Kuipers in Leeuwarden published “The Oera Linda Book, from a manuscript from the 13th century, worked, translated and published by Dr. J.G. Ottema.”
The gentleman Dr. E. Verwijs now remained impartial and silent as much as possible in the matter. He got very little involved or not at all with it. No wonder! He realized that the Oera Linda Book was false – whilst the whole object with which he tabled the manuscript at the Frisian Society was a failure, as will be shown from the manuscript. I also remained impartial from the whole movement although I continued to declare the Oera Linda Book false when necessary.
Meanwhile, having participated from the outset in the Oera Linda Book and all that accompanied it, I came to know much about the whole matter; I became convinced who the original author was, who supported and helped him in the formulation, who introduced the writing to the world and how he launched it, etc. etc. These convictions of mine can now be found described here.
The conclusions of my many silent investigations and research, my experiences regarding the creator (creators) of the Oera Linda Book and all that are associated with it, are as follows. It will be noticed that this is only my personal opinion, my personal conviction - and nothing more. It is not legal proof.
The idea to have a document, a written book so to say (as the Oera Linda Book eventually became in essence) fabricated, first took hold in the brain of the gentleman Haverschmidt, minister of the Dutch Reformed Church at Den Helder. This was a witty, roguish, funny man, and as such already been known in his youth, especially amongst his fellow students at Leiden during the time he studied there. Under the pseudonym “Piet Paaltjes” various rhymes (poems are too flattering a term), mostly of a farcical nature, were written by him and saw the light.
As minister at Den Helder he was one of the first to represent and promote the so-called modern trend in the Church. In the years that he became acquainted with, and pondered about the book “Les Ruïnes”, he considered bringing a mysterious writing in a mysterious way into the world – a writing full of lies and fables presented in a very acceptable manner. Should the writing then be accepted as truth by some, or perhaps even many, he would then reveal himself as the creator, the author thereof and in this way demonstrate that as little as his writing reflected the truth, so little was the Bible a holy and truthful book.
As he worked on, and wrote his plot, he progressed further and further and began to exceed his objective. When his work was almost finished, he shared his intentions with Mr. Over de Linden at Den Helder (mentioned above) who was one of his followers in his modern direction. This man was soon wholly taken up by the gentleman Haverschmidt’s plan. In fact it fitted him like a glove, and he would give his assistance – as indeed he did.
Mr. Haverschmidt, although a Fries, born in Leeuwarden, was not sufficiently acquainted with the Frisian language, at least not with Old Frisian, the Early Middle Ages form of the language, to perfect his work in order to achieve his goal. Thus he looked for someone else who knew more about Old Friesian than himself. Such a man he found in the gentleman Dr. Eelco Verwijs, archivist of Friesland at Leeuwarden, someone he may have known to a more or lesser extend, perhaps even a friend – that I do not know.
The gentleman Verwijs was, like the gentleman Haverschmidt, witty and roguish who would always come up with a joke. Both gentlemen soon colluded; Mr. Verwijs added substantially to the book and improved the language as far as he was capable.
The latter had, with the disclosure of the book, another aim with the book other than those of Mr. Haverschmidt. He wanted to play the book into the hands of Mr. W. Eekhoff, archivist of Leeuwarden and book trader there. Now, this Mr. Eekhoff was, as far as his disposition was concerned, totally different from Mr. Verwijs; the one was the opposite of the other. Mr. Eekhoff was an old fashioned formal man, always serious, filled with dignity – an old fashioned scholar, through and through a man of the old stock. Through their positions, the gentlemen Verwijs and Eekhoff often had contact with one another but, other than that, their attitude to one another was far from friendly. It could not be otherwise – considering their temperaments. Mr. Verwijs ridiculed Mr. Eekhoff many times – not so much out of spite, but rather out of “nocht oan onnocht” – to use this Frisian expression.
To mention one example of his ridiculing: Mr. Eekhoff called himself (and also thus wrote his title on the title pages of his two main publications , “The Historical Description of Leeuwarden” and “The Condensed History of Friesland”, as “Archivarius van Leeuwarden”. Mr. Verwijs wrote, like everybody else at the time and even today, “Archivaris”. Hence he would, whenever he spoke to others of Mr. Eekhoff, jokingly spoke of “the last of the Archivariussen”. He did this as wordplay on a well known novel of the day called “The last of the Mohikanen” (a Red-Indian tribe in America). Oh, this was only lighthearted jokes (but) unsuited to a respectable and formal man such Mr. Eekhoff. Anyhow, the people enjoyed it. Mr. Verwijs also called Mr. Eekhoff “Wopke” (Eekhoff hated the name) – “Wopke the Profit”. But enough! (I have only mentioned this mockery here in passing to sketch the character of Mr. Verwijs, but I do want to voice my special respect to the memory of the honourable Mr. Eekhoff).
The gentleman Verwijs now contrived to place the manuscript, first drawn up by the gentleman Haverschmidt and afterwards further worked out by him, through an intermediary, as though by chance, in the hands of the Frisian Society. (Mr. Over de Linden being the intermediary) – most likely expecting the gentleman Eekhoff (who was on the management of the Society) to accept the manuscript without delay and with great enthusiasm as authentic and true and by his effort would announce it to the world. For this reason the beautiful story was worked out how Mr. Verwijs would have received the first announced pages out of the hands of Mr. Over de Linden as already mentioned here.
The gentleman Verwijs now expected nothing other than the gentleman Eekhoff falling on the manuscript like a welcome prey and make the “ad majorem Frisiae gloriam” known worldwide with great enthusiasm. But, that did not happen. Whether the gentleman Eekhoff, by some or other means, got wind earlier or whether something did not seem right and he did not trust the manuscript because it came out of the hands of the gentleman Verwijs – in whatever way I do not know – what I do know is that the gentleman Eekhoff did not walk into the trap that was laid for him. He also took, at the meeting of the Frisian Society (See page 34 before) where some pages of the manuscript was first tabled, the pages in his hands, paged through them saying nothing and asking nothing and passed it on to his neighbour at the table. I still see it now, so to say, happening.
The gentleman Eekhoff remained completely impartial in the whole matter. He did not get involved at all. He said nothing in favour of, or against the Oera Linda Book and has never done so. He simply remained outside of it.
I, however, took the pages (“The book of Adela’s followers” as we then called the manuscript) home to bring out a report about it. Some time later I submitted a report and thereupon the gentleman Dr. Ottema took the pages to his home – as related here before.
The gentleman Eekhoff, most certainly to the annoyance of the gentleman Verwijs, did not walk into the trap but the gentleman Ottema walked straight into it. The gentleman Verwijs then remained impartial and did not warn the gentleman Ottema. The Gentleman Haverschmidt also kept his distance. Oh (but) neither could do anything else. The further unfolding of the matter, starting with the publishing of the complete Oera Linda Book, is known and revealed.
In all modesty, locked in the small case, in which I also want to place this document, there are many special (items) relating to the closer history of the Oera Linda Book. It has been drawn up and written by Johan Winkler, ex-committee member (Librarian) of the Frisian Society for History, Antiquities and Language and presently extraordinary member thereof.
Haarlem, March 1907.
Source: Vrije Fries, 1917, no. 25.
(Raubenheimer's translation)
The bequest of Johan Winkler dated March 1907 (placed in the small box)
To whom it may concern,
At an evening meeting of the Frisian Society of History, Culture and Linguistics at Leeuwarden, the gentleman Dr. Eelco Verwijs, at the time archivist of Friesland and resident in Leeuwarden, tabled a bundle of loose sheets of a manuscript. He presented this bundle to the management of the Frisian Society and said that he had shortly before, whilst travelling from Harlingen to Den Helder on a steamboat which at the time sailed between these two places, met a certain gentleman, C. Over de Linden, ship’s carpenter at the Royal Dockyard at Den Helder. This man had told the gentleman Verwijs that he was the owner of a very old unreadable manuscript passed on from father to son for centuries in his family – a family of very Old Frisian descends. Mr. Over de Linden did not know what the manuscript contained. (My note: This tale goes against all documentary evidence)
The gentleman Verwijs further informed the meeting (I was present and by chance sat next to him) that he was naturally very interested in Over de Linden’s story and the latter, when he had heard that Verwijs could read Old Frisian, wanted to hand over some pages of the manuscript to Verwijs for further examination. After Dr. Verwijs had returned to Leeuwarden, having received some pages of the manuscript from Mr. Over de Linden, he had the pages copied letter by letter by a competent person and then sent the original pages back to Mr. Over de Linden. This is the copy he tabled at the meeting of the Frisian Society as related above. After the gentlemen at the meeting had handed the pages around and all had examined them (also the gentleman Eekhoff – mentioned later) and after some discussion and some further explanation by the gentleman Verwijs, the chairman (Mr. J. Dirks) proposed that the pages be handed to me to table a report thereon at a next meeting – a proposal that was adopted by the members and accepted by me. I was then still a young man in (the then) contemporary Frisian and had practised Old Frisian as a hobby since my youth, since the age of fourteen, with the encouragement and guidance of the Frisian language scholar Tiede Roelofs Dykstra.
I therefore accepted the charge and, after the meeting, returned home with the manuscript in my pocket. Soon after, I began studying the document and gradually the notion came to me that the matter was not “kosher”, and could not be – a notion that became a conviction as I came to understand and grasped the contents of the manuscript. Yet, I hesitated and doubted my conviction as I almost dared not consider, unsuspecting as I was, direct fraud on the part of the, to me completely unknown Mr. Over de Linden, much less still of the well known (to me) gentleman Verwijs. Thus I asked,in my embarrassment, Messrs.Jacobus van Loon Jz en Gerben Colmjon-both Frisian language scholars,for help and advice.These gentlemen, thereupon, came to my house one evening and we jointly considered everything carefully concerning the manuscript and the language in which it was written. After a long and careful deliberation, the mentioned gentlemen also came, like me, to the conclusion, on language and historical grounds, that the manuscript, insofar as it was placed in my hands, was fictitious, false. In a meeting of the Frisian Society following our gathering, I submitted, in this spirit, a short report on the manuscript wherein I concluded that it had to be false and an unruly piece – at least not as old as claimed therein.
This report was accepted and nothing more was said in the meeting about the matter. It was as if everyone hesitated to reveal his real opinion. Dr JG Ottema, board member of the Frisian Society was also present at the meeting. This prematurely aged, fragile and nervous man flipped a bit through the manuscript, which I again placed on the table, and said: "I would still like to rummage through it at my leisure at home", whereupon he, with the permission of the chairman, Mr. J Dirks, placed it in his pocket and, after the meeting, took home.
The Sunday following the meeting of the Frisian Society where I tabled my report, I went to church at the Groote Kerk (Big Church) in Leeuwarden where I, as deacon of the Dutch Reformed Church, had to perform duty. Dr. Ottema also attended the service. After the service, leaving the church with my fellow deacons who had taken up the collection with me, (and) walking along the Groote Kerk Street to the “deacon house” where we, as was customary, would count, store and record the collection, I heard behind me from a side street, the Modder, hurried, unsteady footsteps and a vibrant call: “Mr. Winkler, Mr. Winkler.” (It is as though I can still see and hear it after 40 years). Turning around, I saw that the caller was the gentleman Ottema mentioned above - coming over to me out of breath like he was walking over coal and nervously informed me that I was mistaken in my report to declare the manuscript false.
“Oh, oh! How you are mistaken!” said the old man in a trembling voice.
“How you are mistaken. The manuscript is undoubtedly authentic and its contents are so beautiful, so very important and remarkable!! No nation in the world (or, if must be, other than the Jewish nation with its Bible) – no nation in the world has such an old document and in such an old script, written in its oldest language and relating its oldest history as our Fries Nation now, especially now we, Frisians!!! Etc.
Oh! I was dumfounded! All this happened amongst church people, in the middle of churchgoers. I was certainly dumfounded – me the simple, innocent young man against a great scholar which Dr. Ottema certainly was. But, I modestly kept quite.
From that day the gentleman Ottema was besotted with the “Book of Adela” as we then still called the few pages from Mr. Over de Linden’s manuscript. He moved (as men say) heaven and earth for the benefit of the book, gathered many followers who, like him, regarded the book as a most remarkable and highly important document. Very few remained with me and the gentleman Colmjon who rejected its value and authenticity.
The gentleman Ottema now obtained the whole manuscript, the complete Oera Linda Book, from Mr. Over de Linden and he did not rest before he had made the book world known, which happened in 1872 when the publisher H. Kuipers in Leeuwarden published “The Oera Linda Book, from a manuscript from the 13th century, worked, translated and published by Dr. J.G. Ottema.”
The gentleman Dr. E. Verwijs now remained impartial and silent as much as possible in the matter. He got very little involved or not at all with it. No wonder! He realized that the Oera Linda Book was false – whilst the whole object with which he tabled the manuscript at the Frisian Society was a failure, as will be shown from the manuscript. I also remained impartial from the whole movement although I continued to declare the Oera Linda Book false when necessary.
Meanwhile, having participated from the outset in the Oera Linda Book and all that accompanied it, I came to know much about the whole matter; I became convinced who the original author was, who supported and helped him in the formulation, who introduced the writing to the world and how he launched it, etc. etc. These convictions of mine can now be found described here.
The conclusions of my many silent investigations and research, my experiences regarding the creator (creators) of the Oera Linda Book and all that are associated with it, are as follows. It will be noticed that this is only my personal opinion, my personal conviction - and nothing more. It is not legal proof.
The idea to have a document, a written book so to say (as the Oera Linda Book eventually became in essence) fabricated, first took hold in the brain of the gentleman Haverschmidt, minister of the Dutch Reformed Church at Den Helder. This was a witty, roguish, funny man, and as such already been known in his youth, especially amongst his fellow students at Leiden during the time he studied there. Under the pseudonym “Piet Paaltjes” various rhymes (poems are too flattering a term), mostly of a farcical nature, were written by him and saw the light.
As minister at Den Helder he was one of the first to represent and promote the so-called modern trend in the Church. In the years that he became acquainted with, and pondered about the book “Les Ruïnes”, he considered bringing a mysterious writing in a mysterious way into the world – a writing full of lies and fables presented in a very acceptable manner. Should the writing then be accepted as truth by some, or perhaps even many, he would then reveal himself as the creator, the author thereof and in this way demonstrate that as little as his writing reflected the truth, so little was the Bible a holy and truthful book.
As he worked on, and wrote his plot, he progressed further and further and began to exceed his objective. When his work was almost finished, he shared his intentions with Mr. Over de Linden at Den Helder (mentioned above) who was one of his followers in his modern direction. This man was soon wholly taken up by the gentleman Haverschmidt’s plan. In fact it fitted him like a glove, and he would give his assistance – as indeed he did.
Mr. Haverschmidt, although a Fries, born in Leeuwarden, was not sufficiently acquainted with the Frisian language, at least not with Old Frisian, the Early Middle Ages form of the language, to perfect his work in order to achieve his goal. Thus he looked for someone else who knew more about Old Friesian than himself. Such a man he found in the gentleman Dr. Eelco Verwijs, archivist of Friesland at Leeuwarden, someone he may have known to a more or lesser extend, perhaps even a friend – that I do not know.
The gentleman Verwijs was, like the gentleman Haverschmidt, witty and roguish who would always come up with a joke. Both gentlemen soon colluded; Mr. Verwijs added substantially to the book and improved the language as far as he was capable.
The latter had, with the disclosure of the book, another aim with the book other than those of Mr. Haverschmidt. He wanted to play the book into the hands of Mr. W. Eekhoff, archivist of Leeuwarden and book trader there. Now, this Mr. Eekhoff was, as far as his disposition was concerned, totally different from Mr. Verwijs; the one was the opposite of the other. Mr. Eekhoff was an old fashioned formal man, always serious, filled with dignity – an old fashioned scholar, through and through a man of the old stock. Through their positions, the gentlemen Verwijs and Eekhoff often had contact with one another but, other than that, their attitude to one another was far from friendly. It could not be otherwise – considering their temperaments. Mr. Verwijs ridiculed Mr. Eekhoff many times – not so much out of spite, but rather out of “nocht oan onnocht” – to use this Frisian expression.
To mention one example of his ridiculing: Mr. Eekhoff called himself (and also thus wrote his title on the title pages of his two main publications , “The Historical Description of Leeuwarden” and “The Condensed History of Friesland”, as “Archivarius van Leeuwarden”. Mr. Verwijs wrote, like everybody else at the time and even today, “Archivaris”. Hence he would, whenever he spoke to others of Mr. Eekhoff, jokingly spoke of “the last of the Archivariussen”. He did this as wordplay on a well known novel of the day called “The last of the Mohikanen” (a Red-Indian tribe in America). Oh, this was only lighthearted jokes (but) unsuited to a respectable and formal man such Mr. Eekhoff. Anyhow, the people enjoyed it. Mr. Verwijs also called Mr. Eekhoff “Wopke” (Eekhoff hated the name) – “Wopke the Profit”. But enough! (I have only mentioned this mockery here in passing to sketch the character of Mr. Verwijs, but I do want to voice my special respect to the memory of the honourable Mr. Eekhoff).
The gentleman Verwijs now contrived to place the manuscript, first drawn up by the gentleman Haverschmidt and afterwards further worked out by him, through an intermediary, as though by chance, in the hands of the Frisian Society. (Mr. Over de Linden being the intermediary) – most likely expecting the gentleman Eekhoff (who was on the management of the Society) to accept the manuscript without delay and with great enthusiasm as authentic and true and by his effort would announce it to the world. For this reason the beautiful story was worked out how Mr. Verwijs would have received the first announced pages out of the hands of Mr. Over de Linden as already mentioned here.
The gentleman Verwijs now expected nothing other than the gentleman Eekhoff falling on the manuscript like a welcome prey and make the “ad majorem Frisiae gloriam” known worldwide with great enthusiasm. But, that did not happen. Whether the gentleman Eekhoff, by some or other means, got wind earlier or whether something did not seem right and he did not trust the manuscript because it came out of the hands of the gentleman Verwijs – in whatever way I do not know – what I do know is that the gentleman Eekhoff did not walk into the trap that was laid for him. He also took, at the meeting of the Frisian Society (See page 34 before) where some pages of the manuscript was first tabled, the pages in his hands, paged through them saying nothing and asking nothing and passed it on to his neighbour at the table. I still see it now, so to say, happening.
The gentleman Eekhoff remained completely impartial in the whole matter. He did not get involved at all. He said nothing in favour of, or against the Oera Linda Book and has never done so. He simply remained outside of it.
I, however, took the pages (“The book of Adela’s followers” as we then called the manuscript) home to bring out a report about it. Some time later I submitted a report and thereupon the gentleman Dr. Ottema took the pages to his home – as related here before.
The gentleman Eekhoff, most certainly to the annoyance of the gentleman Verwijs, did not walk into the trap but the gentleman Ottema walked straight into it. The gentleman Verwijs then remained impartial and did not warn the gentleman Ottema. The Gentleman Haverschmidt also kept his distance. Oh (but) neither could do anything else. The further unfolding of the matter, starting with the publishing of the complete Oera Linda Book, is known and revealed.
In all modesty, locked in the small case, in which I also want to place this document, there are many special (items) relating to the closer history of the Oera Linda Book. It has been drawn up and written by Johan Winkler, ex-committee member (Librarian) of the Frisian Society for History, Antiquities and Language and presently extraordinary member thereof.
Haarlem, March 1907.
Source: Vrije Fries, 1917, no. 25.
=== July 3rd, 2012, 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otharus
I am careful not to use the OLB as a 'religious' text...
|
Some examples:
They had convicted criminals brought away and work for them in the tinmines (Brittain), which is in conflict with one of their primal laws, that explicitly says they should never take someone's freedom. (The criminals should have been either re-educated and set free, or killed.)
Already in the 6th century after the big flood, the conflict between Minerva (Nyhellénja) and Kàlta (Sírhéd) demonstrated serious disharmony. (p.62)
In the 16th century after the flood (600 BCE), in the time of Adela, it was impossible to choose a new Mother as a result of jealousy and distrust. (Brunno's writings, p.91)
=== July 3rd, 2012, 09:54 PM by Alewyn Raubenheimer
Herewith a little tidbit I have been meaning to share for some time.
First, to recap the relevant part of the OLB’s story:
After the death of Minerva, nicknamed Ny-Hellenia, some Fryans in Athens elected a new Burghmaid, Gert, and called themselves “the Gertmanna”. They were subsequently expelled from Athens and fled to India in ca 1553 BC. In India they called their new land “Gertmannia”.
From India they migrated westwards towards Iran where they again called their new country “New Gertmannia” (It started off as a harbour to take in fresh water). Herodotus mentioned “Gertmania”, and by the time of Alexander the Great (ca 324 BC), it was known as “Carmania”. Today it is known as the province of “Kerman” in Iran.
(With other evidence I found, it became clear to me that the Gertmanna / Fryans played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Persian Empire.)
Some of these “Gertmanna” from India (next of kin of those in Persia) returned with Alexander’s army to Athens and after the wars with Ptolemy, they eventually returned to Fryasland in ca 300 BC after an absence of some 1224 years. They settled in Western Europe and retained the name of “Gertmanna”. The Romans subsequently called them “Germans”. Thus, the name of Burghmaid Gert of Athens was immortalized in Western Europe.
The first point I want to highlight from the OLB is this: Before ca 300 BC, there were no “Gertmanna” or Germans in Europe.
This is what Tacitus, a Roman Senator and historian (ca 56 AD – ca 117 AD) wrote in his “Germania” some 350 years later:
“The Germans, I am apt to believe, derive their original from no other people; and are nowise mixed with different nations arriving amongst them: since anciently those who went in search of new buildings, travelled not by land, but were carried in fleets; and into that mighty ocean so boundless, and, as I may call it, so repugnant and forbidding, ships from our world rarely enter.
“For the rest, they affirm Germany to be a recent word, lately bestowed: for that those who first passed the Rhine and expulsed the Gauls, and are now named Tungrians, were then called Germans: and thus by degrees the name of a tribe prevailed, not that of the nation; so that by an appellation at first occasioned by terror and conquest, they afterwards chose to be distinguished, and assuming a name lately invented were universally called Germans.”
From the OLB narrative we clearly see that the Gertmanna came from India. I also made the statement that the Gertmanna were involved with the Persians or Iranians (or “Ira” as the OLB called them). Herewith just one similarity between the Persians and the Germans:
Herodotus of Halicarnassus (circa 484 – 425 BC), described the Persian’s approach to making important decisions:
“It is also their general practice to deliberate upon affairs of weight when they are drunk; and then on the morrow, when they are sober, the decision to which they came the night before is put before them by the master of the house in which it was made; and if it is then approved of, they act on it; if not, they set it aside. Sometimes, however, they are sober at their first deliberation, but in this case they always reconsider the matter under the influence of wine.”
Some 500 years later, Tacitus had this to say about the Germans:
“To continue drinking night and day without intermission is a reproach to no man. Frequent then are their broils, as usual amongst men intoxicated with liquor; and such broils rarely terminate in angry words, but for the most part in maimings and slaughter.
“Moreover in these their feasts, they generally deliberate about reconciling parties at enmity, about forming affinities, choosing of Princes, and finally about peace and war. For they judge, that at no season is the soul more open to thoughts that are artless and upright, or more fired with such as are great and bold. This people, of themselves nowise subtile or politic, from the freedom of the place and occasion acquire still more frankness to disclose the most secret motions and purposes of their hearts. When therefore the minds of all have been once laid open and declared, on the day following the several sentiments are revised and canvassed.”
=== July 4th, 2012, 08:41 AM by Alewyn Raubenheimer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen
Friso is a legendary king of the
Frisians who is said to have ruled around 300 BC. According to Martinus
Hamconius in his 17th century chronicle Frisia seu de viris rebusque
illustribus, and also the 19th century Oera Linda Book, Friso was a leader of a group of Frisian colonists who had been settled in the Punjab for well over a millennium when
they were discovered by Alexander the Great. Taking service with
Alexander, Friso and the colonists eventually found their way back to
their ancestral homeland of Frisia, where Friso founded a dynasty of
kings.
|
According to supporters of the "hoax theory", the Oera Linda Book is a mixture of old legends, tales & myths from, inter alia, Friesland.
The old legends say that Friso came from India. The OLB, however, differs from the legends in that it tells us that, although he arrived in Frisia as the leader of the Frisian colonists (the Gertmanna) from India, he did not come from India. He was a “Sea King” in the Greek Navy. The Gertmanna met him in Athens and he showed them the way back to Frisia because he had been to Frisia before.
“Now Friso wished to go with all his people to Frya’s land, where he had been formerly, but most of them would not go.”
Unlike the Gertmanna from India, he had partaken in Greek religion before.
“The Joniars”, he said, “are idol worshippers. I myself have heard them call upon them.”
“That comes from their intercourse with the real Greeks”, Friso said. “I have often done it myself, and yet I am as pious a Frya’s man as the finest of you”. (i.e. he was not one of the Gertmanna)
The Gertmanna from India had a different leader:
“Friso, who had sailed a good deal with the Joniars, said “Yes”, but Wichirte, our king, said “No”.
Later Friso modernized the Frisian Army and Navy:
“Friso, who was already powerful by his troops, was chosen as count of the districts around Staveren. He laughed at our mode of defending our land and our sea battles; therefore he established a school where the boys might learn to fight in the Greek manner,”
I have asked this question before:
If the OLB is a hoax, why does it differ from the legends? Surely a hoax would have said that Friso came from India as the legends say? It would have been quite simple to work him into the Indian episode if the book was a hoax.
Secondly, how do we explain Tacitus’ claim that the word “Germans” was a new word? (My previous post)
======
July 4th, 2012, 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen
If the OLB had indeed stayed close to
that legend about Friso, then Friso would have been a foreigner, a man
from India. But as we all know, the whole OLB is about how great the
Fryans were and that everything civilized started with them, so the
founder of (modern day) Friesland should of course not have been a
foreigner.
|
Whether Friso was from the Indian colony, or from the Greek colony, in both cases he was a foreigner of Fryan descent.
If - as a mere thought experiment - we would assume that the OLB was made as a hoax, the supposed creators made a spectacular effort to create an illusion of authenticity, for example by including spelling and style varieties between the various texts that make up the OLB. (I have posted about this recently on UM and on my blog.)
Continuing the thought experiment, we can conclude, that the supposed hoaxers must have desperately wanted this manuscript to be accepted as authentic.
It would have been easier to have it accepted in 19th century Friesland and the Netherlands, if it was more in line with what was already available; the Frisian mythology and folklore. Yet, it was so revolutionary different at various points, that it was to be expected that many people would forcefully reject it.
Dr. Jensma's interpretation was (2004), that the supposed hoaxers only wanted to create a short-term illusion, by making it self-evident that the manuscript was fake. Their aim would merely have been to start a debate about religion and Frisian nationalism.
But we have come to the conclusion that OLB is not at all self-evidently fake. If Jensma would be right, then why would they have made such an insane effort to (for example) create the spelling varieties?
For a mere academic joke, OLB is way too complex.
The fact that it deviated so much from the 19th century paradigm - while it actually agrees quite well with what we know or can imagine today (for example Iman Wilkens' evidence) - makes it much more likely that it is authentic, than that it is a hoax.
If it were a hoax, this should have become more obvious through the years.
Not less, as it does.
===July 4th, 2012, 09:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen
No, I didn't miss the point.
The legend as told by a Hamconius never said Friso was of Fryan descent. He was from India and India only. That legend never said that there was a group of Fryans/Frisians/whatever living there for 1200 years, and that a group of them "returned" to Frisia/the Fryan homeland. |
Frisian 'mythology':
Friso, founder of Friesland, came from India or was Noah-descendant (there were political motives to suggest a connection with bible mythology).
OLB:
Gertmanna came from India, and were guided to Fryasland by Friso, who was not from the Indian colony. The Gertmanna and Friso were all of Fryan descent.
If OLB would have been a hoax, it would have been more in line with the existing 'mythology' if Friso had also come from India.
Why would your supposed hoaxers have changed that element, risking that their fabrication would be rejected because of the many differences with textbook Frisian myths?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen
And to me it is clear no 19th century
Frisian wanted the name of their land/province to have originated from
some 'true' foreigner.
|
They were used to the idea that founding father Friso was from India.
There were also versions of the myth in which he descended from Noah.
=== July 5th, 2012, 08:07 AM by Alewyn Raubenheimer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen
You are religiously defending your 'Holy Book'.
|
When all else fail, the supporters of the Hoax Theory have all along been using this “religion” or “holy book” ploy to cast doubt on the objectivity of, and discredit anybody who may suggest that the OLB is authentic – a ploy that, I must say, has been very effective to date. Let’s face it: no professional academic wants to get involved with some hairbrained fringe “religion”.
Both Otharus and I have given irrefutable evidence that the OLB is authentic and you have done nothing more than heckling. But, who cares? In the end you and the “Hoax Theory” will carry the day; not because you are right, but because historians could not be bothered. The fact that the OLB radically changes our understanding of European history does not seem to concern them in the least.
Until the day that some historian with influence and guts sticks out his neck and question the “OLB Hoax Theory”, the status quo will remain. Unfortunately, there are very few such people around and unless such a person comes to the fore, you, Otharus and I will remain the only ones here bickering about it.
=== July 5th, 2012, 08:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen
Yes, that other 'legend' about Friso descending from "Shem". I know.
"Used to the idea" doesn't necessarily mean "loving the idea". |
You suggest that the supposed hoaxers changed "Friso came from India" into "Friso was from Fryan (proto-Frisian) descent", so the Frisian readers would get more respect for their supposed founding father.
From an idea that they were used to, they could move to an idea that they would love.
If that would be the case, then why did they not portray him like a hero?
The OLB is actually more negative about Friso than any of the legends that were already known.
=== July 5th, 2012, 11:34 AM
some Friso fragments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transvaler
The old legends say that Friso came
from India. The OLB, however, differs from the legends in that it tells
us that, although he arrived in Frisia as the leader of the Frisian
colonists (the Gertmanna) from India, he did not come from India. He was
a “Sea King” in the Greek Navy. The Gertmanna met him in Athens and he
showed them the way back to Frisia because he had been to Frisia before.
|
Quote:
| “Now Friso wished to go with all where he had been formerly, but most of them would not go.” |
NW WILDE FRISO MITH ALLE MAN NÉI FRYA.S LAND FÁRA.
THÉR.I ÉR WÉST HÉDE.
MEN THA MÉST NILDE THÀT NAVT NE DVA.
Quote:
| Unlike the Gertmanna from India, he had partaken in Greek religion before. “The Joniars”, he said, “are idol worshippers ["thjanjar" = servants]. I myself have heard them call upon them.” “That comes from their intercourse with the real Greeks ["Krékalandar"]”, Friso said. “I have often done it myself, and yet I am as pious a Frya’s man as the finest of you”. (i.e. he was not one of the Gertmanna) |
THA JOHNJAR SEND AFGODA THJANJAR SÉID.ER.
IK SELVA HÀV HÉRAD. HO HJA THI AN HROPTE.
FRISO SÉIDE
THET KVMATH THRVCH THA WANDEL MITH THA ÀFTA KRÉKALANDAR.
THÀT HÀV IK VÁKEN SELVA DÉN.
THACH BEN IK ALSA HERDE FRYAS AS THA FINSTE FON JOW.
Quote:
| The Gertmanna from India had a different leader: “Friso, who had sailed a good deal with the Joniars, said “Yes”, but Wichirte, our king, said “No”. |
FRISO THÉR FÜL MITHA JOHNJAR FAREN HÉDE SÉIDE JÀ
MEN WICH.HIRTE VSA KÉNING SÉIDE NÉ.
Quote:
| Later Friso modernized the Frisian Army and Navy: “Friso, who was already powerful by his troops ["ljud" = people], was chosen as count ["vrste-gréve"] of the districts around Staveren. He laughed at our mode of defending our land and our sea battles; therefore he established a school where the boys in the Greek manner,” |
FRISO THÉR AL WELDICH WÉRE THRVCH SIN LJUD
WÀRTH ÁK TO VRSTE.GRÉVE KÉRN
THRVCH STÁVEREN.S OMME.LANDAR.
HI SPOT MITH VSA WISA FON LÁND.WÉR ÀND SÉ.KÀMPA.
THÉRVMBE HETH.ER EN SKOL STIFT
HWÉR IN THA KNÁPA FJUCHTA LÉRA
NÉI KRÉKALANDAR WÍSA.
=== July 6th, 2012, 10:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vrank_Bouleen
The OLB also mentions the good things he did, so it's all not as negative as you portray it is.
|
Why would they have deviated from the existing mythology, that said he came from India?
In the 19the century, that was the most serious information available about him. The 'myth' might still have become confirmed later, for example by research in India.
The supposed hoaxers (that I don't believe in) would have played more safe, if they would have sticked to the idea that he came from India (together with the Gertmanna).
Again, I return to my main argument:
If they did this incredible job of reconstucting an old language, including spelling and style varieties, make up laws and histories, partly based on many obscure sources, make it look old, etcetera... In other words, if they made a huge effort to create an illusion of authenticity...
Then why did they include so many elements that - as they could have known - made the whole lot unbelievable and unacceptable to many scholars of their time?
Two examples:
- the Jesus of Kasimir story
- the 'RUN'-letters on page 46
A few believed it alright, but if the supposed hoaxers would have played safer, they could have fooled all of them!
