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.
SAVED FROM THE FLOOD — Oera Linda studies
05 December 2011
29 November 2011
> 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
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
Forum # 16 (nov. 24 - 29, 2011)
Posted 24 November 2011 - 07:14 AM
Besides the fact that the content of the rhymesagas is interesting, they will help us see that the conclusions of Dr. Hettema, Dr. Ottema, Dr. Reitsma and Prof. Dr. Vitringa about OLB's language were right, and that Beckering Vinckers was wrong.
The complete rhymesaga, with Dutch and English translation placed under every two lines, is here.
### Posted 24 November 2011 - 07:19 AM
The Puzzler, on 24 November 2011 - 02:56 AM, said (about Rhymesaga):
Methinks it was affirming the values the Frisians held dear and the respect they earned for it.
Yes, but it also sounds like war-propaganda. Interesting is also the use of the letter C for the sound K (as in Latin). In OLB and the Westfrisian "Landriucht", C is only used in combination CH.
### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 24 November 2011 - 12:49 PM
For the benefit of those readers who may not quite understand the controversy around the Oera Linda Book, or who may not be able to read Dutch, I would like to offer a few insights. You be the jury and decide for yourselves whether the book is a hoax or not.
The adherents to the hoax theory have to prove that the Oera Linda Book was written after 1854, and before 1867 when the book came into the public domain. If it is proven that the OLB existed before 1854, their whole theory gets blown out of the water.
The date of 1854 is derived from the discovery of an ancient culture that had their dwellings on piles or stilts in some Alpine lakes. Before this date, nobody knew about these “Pile Dwellers”; nobody, that is, except the authors of the Oera Linda Book, who described these in the 6th century BC. Dr. J.G. Ottema referred to this discovery in his address to the Frisian Society for History and Culture in February 1871.
Some further info may also be found at this website:
http://www.worldfootprints.com/swiss-lake-dwellings-make-world-heritage-list
The first traces of an ancient lake-dwellers’ village were found in Lake Zurich in 1854, a year in which the waters of the lake dropped to an exceptionally low level. Excavations revealed hundreds of wooden piles, driven into the earth, along with all sorts of unusual objects, extremely well preserved.
The discovery received attention all over Europe. In the decades that followed, remains of similar settlements were found on the shores of lakes in other European countries, notably in the alpine region.
Prior to the discovery, archaeological investigation of pre-history had found evidence of human mortality more than anything else – tombs, weapons and military strongholds – and so the lake-dweller villages provided the first testimony to the everyday life of European peoples between 5,000 and 500 BC.
To get around this damning evidence against their hoax theory, they have to deny or discredit any references to the OLB before 1854. Everything from the Oera Linda Book, to letters, sworn statements and, in fact, any evidence and persons referring to an earlier date are shouted down as a hoax or a conspiracy. The fact that they have not produced a single shred of concrete evidence over the last 140 years, or even over the last 18 months in this forum, do not seem to bother them in the least. Their speculation would have been laughable to anyone who has made a study of the Oera Linda Book and the facts surrounding it, had it not been so tragic. They have, up to the present, deprived the world of a very important part of its history.
Before now, the adherents to the hoax theory’s greatest weapon was the fact that most research into the OLB was in Dutch and not accessible to non-Dutch readers. By relegating the thoughts of those who do believe in the authenticity to some dark corner, they have created the impression that the hoax theory is “generally accepted”. Just to make certain that people will further denounce the book, they have added the label of a religious or “Pagan Bible. They might as well call Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey “Pagan Bibles”. The Oera Linda Book is first and foremost a book on history.
In the next instance they would like to have people believe that all the facts in the OLB were known in the 19th century. Nothing is further from the truth. Every time historical facts are presented, they very quickly steer the discussion back to some meaningless linguistics. This is a sure way of getting any potential non-Dutch participants out of the way. Then, of course, there are Abramelin’s ludicrous attempts to show that the whole OLB is based on places in the Netherlands
I will start by posting some Dutch writings that refer to earlier dates and which I have translated. Herewith an extract from E. Molenaar’s 1949 Book: Het geheimzinnige handschrift van de Familie Over de Linden (The mysterious manuscript of the family Over de Linden).
(Otharus has already quoted from this section in his post 4831 dated 12/5/2011, Page 323)
Chapter 1
In August 1948 it was a hundred years since the then 37 year old Cornelis over de Linden, ship’s carpenter first class at the Royal Dockyards at Den Helder, travelled to Enkhuizen with his 13 year old son, Cornelis, to visit his mother (Widow of Jan over de Linden) and his aunt Aafje (daughter of the 1820 deceased Andries over de Linden). An ordinary family visit, therefore, of which the memory would have been long lost, had it not been that both travelers on their return from Enkhuizen to Den Helder, were in possession of a parcel of documents of most extraordinary content.
In the parcel, Cornelis over de Linden, in the presence of his son, found a large and a small manuscript. The first (of which the beginning was in Latin and the rest – the greater [part] – in Old Dutch) was later identified as a rare copy of “De Kroniek van Friesland” [The Chronicles of Friesland] of Worp van Thabor, whilst the smaller manuscript in the Old Frisian language, written in an unknown script, would later, through the translation of Dr. J.G. Ottema, become known as “The Oera Linda Book”.
About the age, authenticity and origin of the latter manuscript, much has been written since and are still being written whereby the criticism [against] dominates the debate, but the last decisive word has not yet been spoken. The Oera Linda Book question is still an unresolved problem.
The commemoration of the above-mentioned, to the Over de Linden family such an important event in August 1848, to which until now, very little attention has been given, is therefore a logical reason and offers a good opportunity to review whether there are any clues to be found or utterances that became known which could confirm the presence of the old writings in the Enkhuizen family Over de Linden.
To this end, it is expedient to investigate:
1. What information is known or may still be found which would indicate that the manuscript in question existed in Enkhuizen before 1848;
2. From which family member Cornelis over de Linden may have received the manuscript in 1848;
3. Whether Cornelis over de Linden was entitled to this old family document and to then regard it as his property.
The one and other [information] about the Enkhuizen family Over de Linden became known that is undoubtedly of importance.
With the information available, one cannot go back further than the mention of Jan over de Linden (Great Grandfather of Cornelis from Den Helder). He had, presumably from Friesland, settled in Enkhuizen and it would seem that he became known as “Jan de Diender” [Jan the Server] by virtue of his occupation; his date of birth remained unknown. His son Andries, born at Enkhuizen in 1759, employed as Ships’ Carpenter Foreman, had three children: Antje, Aafje and Jan.
Antje left the parental home, married, but continued to live in Enkhuizen. When Aafje married Hendrik Reuvers, she and her husband lived with her father in “de grote koepel met tuin” [the great dome with garden] on the Rietdijk [Reed Dyke] (at present Vijzelstraat) in Enkhuizen, which belonged to her father. Their daughter, Cornelia Reuvers together with her husband and their son, Hein Kofman, also lived their whole life in the house. The latter was born 11 February 1853 and died on 15 January 1933.
The mentioning of this information is relevant to later statements by Cornelia Reuvers (Widow Keetje Kofman) and her son Hein Kofman regarding old documents of the family Over de Linden at Enkhuizen, which were in the ancestral home on the Rietdijk, and which were taken by Cornelis to Den Helder.
The son of Andries, named Jan and by occupation a ship’s carpenter, was light-hearted and restless by nature. He travelled from one place to another; wherever he found work. He had one son, Cornelis, who was born at Enkhuizen in 1811. Grandfather Andries was very attached to his grandson as he was the only male heir [“stamhouer” – one who continues the family name]
He [Cornelis] stated later that his grandfather, when they were sometimes together and in private, used to impress upon him that he must never forget that his family was of true Frisian blood and that he would later, when he was older, explain it all.
This never happened. When Andries over de Linden (15 April 1820) died at age 61, his grandson, Cornelis was still a child of 9 years.
Like Grandfather Andries, Cornelis’ father was also full of [boasted about] his old Frisian decendency as is evident from a later account by the gentleman C. Wijs, which is the following:
“In the year 1831 I found myself on the corvette ‘Nehalennia’ (Commander, Captain at Sea[?]) on the Schelde at fort Marie. I was teacher and nurse on the mentioned vessel. Ship’s carpenter Jan over de Linden was also on the vessel and he often boasted in a friendly mood that he descended from the oldest clan in the world and on such occasions he would poke fun at the aristocracy. I was only on the corvette for half a year and lost contact with Jan over de Linden. He never spoke of any books or writings.”
This Jan, born at Enkhuizen on 20 January 1787, died on 23 June 1835 on board H.M. Guard Ship “Euridice”.
Grandfather Andries did apparently inform his son, Jan, of the living family tradition about their old Frisian decendency, but he left him in the dark regarding any related old documents and did not bequeath these to his son as he could not entrust him therewith because of his irresponsibility. The elder sister Antje, still alive in 1876, was also not aware of the existence of the old family heirloom.
Andries over de Linden, who was apparently more acquainted with the contents of the book and with the charge to secrecy and maintenance through inheritance to posterity and eventually necessary through copying, than generally known, had placed the old writings in the care of his living-in daughter with the instruction to hand it over later to his grandson and heir to the family name. She did comply to this request, but only in the year 1848.
The reason for this late complying with the request is also known. The spouse of Aafje, Hendrik Reuvers, had during his life prevented his wife from handing over the old family papers to Cornelis in accordance with her father’s request. In 1845 Reuvers died; a few years later she married Koops Mijlhof who was not aware of the existence of the old documents. She died at Enkhuizen on 4 February 1849.
That the parcel of old documents, [which Cornelis over de Linden and his son had returned with in 1848 to Den Helder after a visit to Enkhuizen], had been present in the ancestral home of his family there, is confirmed by different persons, either from their own recollections or as a result of a formal investigation, by the mention of certain facts or detail regarding this family at Enkhuizen, which were published.
This information being the following:
A. The result of an investigation instigated in 1876 by the gentleman Knuivers at Enkhuizen, into the family Over de Linden there and the manuscript of Cornelis over de Linden (who had died on 22 February 1874) which was by then the already known Oera Linda Book.
For the investigation, Mr. Knuivers approached the then still living descendents of Andries. Old male descendents of this last mentioned [Andries] did not exist any more in Enkhuizen but, there was a daughter of 80 years (Antje) and she was never aware of the manuscript. The widow Keetje Kofman (daughter of Hendrik Reuvers and Aafje o/d L) had, however, heard of it. This widow lived in the ancestral home of this branch of the O.d. Lindens and “without a doubt” goes the article, “a manuscript was preserved here in a corner, covered in dust. How long this manuscript had been there, [and] when it was taken to Den Helder, nobody could say; wherever I knocked and [despite] all my efforts [troubles]”.
B. A statement by the gentleman Munnik (married to a daughter of Cornelis over de Linden’s first wife). He told the following:
“In 1845 (one year before my marriage) C. over de Linden, the book binder Staderman and I went together on a trip (to Enkhuizen). We came to an old sailor, where Over de Linden’s mother was a housekeeper. C.o.d.L. spoke alone to his mother and the old man and, when we were again outside Enkhuizen, he said: ‘It is a bloody awful job. The old man has an old book of us and does not want to release it. From it, it would appear that our family is very old’”.
“Further”, M said, “he spoke of the splendour of woodlands, of lime districts, lime trees, etc. “Though it is Old Fries”; “There (So said C.o.d.L.) lays the bl……[Cussing?]”
“He grumbled like this for a few years (from 1845 -1847), although he started learning Old Fries”.
(The person, from whom o.d. Linden requested the book, would not have been the man where his mother was housekeeper, but Reuvers, the husband of Aunt Aafje [die zij ook bezocht zullen hebben?]).
C. In an article in the Friesche Courant [Frisian Newspaper] of 30 April 1877, Mr. M.K. de Jong, headmaster of the school at Kooten, shared, when the matter of the Oera Linda Book was dealt with in the town’s development club “De Hervorming” [The Reformation], when a fellow townsman, whose love for the truth was beyond any doubt, declared that his uncle Leendert over de Linden told him some 40 years ago (thus about 1837) that there were still some very old writings in the Over de Linden family.
D. A letter from Mr. D. Brouwer, Town Archivist of Enkhuizen, to this author [E. Molenaar], dated 26 October 1939, with the following content:
“With reference to your enquiry regarding the possibility that the manuscript may have already been in the possession of the Over de Linden family in Enkhuizen around 1848, I must inform you that there are no authentic evidence here that could confirm this.
“What is known to me is based on verbal statements:
1. A member of the O.d.L. family still living here assures me that the manuscript was with another family member who lived in Vijzelstraat before 1850. Cornelis o.d. Linden, who worked at the Dock Yards in Den Helder, was born in Enkhuizen and he took the manuscript over from his aunt (Aafje).
2. An old timber man [carpenter], H. Kofman (grandson of Aafje) who has lived his whole life in the house in de Vijzelstraat after the widow Kofman-Reuvers, told me many times that the packet containing the manuscript of the Oera Linda Book had been in the house; he even showed the place where it had been kept before it was taken by Cornelis o/d Linden to Den Helder.”
E. An article in “De Enkhuizen Courant” [The Enkhuizen Newspaper] of 9 January 1934 about an old resident of Enkhuizen, Mr. Hajo Last at Bussum (Died there in 1934, aged 83) wherein he said, inter alia, that he had worked with Hein Kofman (grandson of Aafje) and had asked him once about the manuscript that came from his mother (daughter of Aafje). Hein Kofman told him: “Cousin Over de Linden stole it from my mother”.
No, Hein Kofman, cousin Cornelis did not steal it from your mother; your grandmother received the manuscript for safekeeping from her father Andries over de Linden with the request to give it to his grandson and heir to the family name, Cornelis, and to this she complied.
From all the aforementioned, it is evident:
1. That the manuscript of the contentious Oera Linda Book had been present before 1848 in Enkhuizen, in the ancestral home in de Vijzelstraat.
2. That aunt Aafje in August 1848, during a visit by Cornelis over de Linden and his son, handed the old family documents over to him in accordance with an instruction from her father Andries.
3. That Cornelis over de Linden, as rightful heir to his grandfather, took possession of these documents.
### Posted 24 November 2011 - 10:30 PM
Alewyn, on 24 November 2011 - 08:45 PM, said:
In letters to Siderius, Verwijs, Ottema and to his grandson, Cornelis over de Linden explained every time that he made copies by hand of the original manuscript because he did not want to let the original out of his hands. He was very open about it, and that explains what his grandson saw. Yet, you, Jensma and others continuously try to create the suspicion that Cornelis created, or was a party to the creation of the Oera Linda Book.
Also, as I have pointed out several times before, the story of Floris was out of the THIRD hand, written down a century after it was supposed to have happened.
Floris stayed with his grandfather in the summer of 1869. Two years earlier, in 1867, Verwijs was already writing to state officials about the manuscript (being ca. 200 pages).
What if king Willem would have wanted to come immediately and see it with his own eyes?
Cornelis Over de Linden would not have risked being caught as an impostor.
There are reasons to doubt about some details of his story. In some versions his aunt Aafje gave it to him, in others he got it from his cousin Cornelia. My theory explaines this confusion. But there is no reason to doubt that he got it in 1848.
### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 24 November 2011 - 11:08 PM
To those who may be interested, herewith the address by Dr JG Ottema (1804-1879) to the Frisian Society for History and Culture – February 1871. (I don’t know whether I posted this before)
(Dr. Ottema was the first outsider to take the OLB seriously and also the first outsider to whom Cornelis over de Linden entrusted the original manuscript. He translated and published the OLB in 1872 and again in 1876)
This document is, for the most part, ignored by the hoax theorists. The reader is encouraged to read this document and then to consider the “philosophical” conjecture of those who are trying to prove that the Oera Linda Book is a hoax.
Address by Dr JG Ottema (1804-1879) to the Frisian Society for History and Culture – February 1871
Over de Linden, Chief Superintendent of the Royal Dockyard at the Helder, possesses a very ancient manuscript which has been inherited and preserved in his family from time immemorial, without anyone knowing whence it came or what it contained, owing to both the language and the writing being unknown.
All that was known was that a tradition contained in it had from generation to generation been recommended to careful preservation. It appeared that the tradition rests upon the contents of two letters, with which the manuscript begins, from Hiddo oera Linda, anno 1256, and from Liko Oera Linda, anno 803. It came to C Over de Linden by the directions of his grandfather, Den Heer Andries Over de Linden, who lived at Enkhuizen, and died there on the 15th of April 1820, aged sixty-one. As the grandson was at that time barely ten years old, the manuscript was taken care of for him by his aunt, Aafjie Meylhoff, born Over de Linden, living at Enkhuizen, who in August 1848 delivered it to the present possessor.
Dr E Verwijs having heard of this, requested permission to examine the manuscript, and immediately recognized it as very ancient Fries. He obtained at the same time permission to make a copy of it for the benefit of the Friesland Society, and was of the opinion that it might be of great importance, provided it was not suppositious, and invented for some deceptive object, which he feared. The manuscript being placed in my hands, I also felt very doubtful, though I could not understand what object any one could have in inventing a false composition only to keep it a secret. This doubt remained until I had examined carefully executed facsimiles of two fragments, and afterwards of the whole manuscript - the first sight of which convinced me of the great age of the document.
Immediately occurred to me Caesar’s remark upon the writings of the Gauls and the Helvetians in his Bello Gallico (i. 29, and vi. 14), `Graecis utuntur literis’, though it appears in v. 48 that they were not entirely Greek letters. Caesar thus points out not only a resemblance - and a very true one - as the writing, which does not altogether correspond with any known form of letters, resembles the most, on a cursory view, the Greek writing, such as is found on monuments and the oldest lapidary. Besides, I formed the opinion afterwards that the writer of the latter part of the book had been a contemporary of Caesar.
The form and the origin of the writing is so minutely and fully described in the first part of the book, as it could not be in any other language. It is very complete, and consists of thirty-four letters, among which are three separate forms of a and u, and two of e, i, y, and o, besides four pairs of double constants - ng, th, ks, and gs. The ng, which as a nasal sound has no particular mark in any western language, is an indivisible conjunction; the th is soft, as in English, and is sometimes replaced by d; the gs is seldom met with - I believe only in the word segse, to say, in modern Fries sidse, pronounced sisze.
The paper, of large quarto size, is made of cotton, not very thick, without watermark or maker’s mark, made upon a frame or wire-web, with not very broad perpendicular lines.
An introductory letter gives the year 1256 as that in which this manuscript was written by Hiddo overa Linda on foreign paper. Consequently, it must have come from Spain, where Arabs brought into the market paper manufactured from cotton.
On this subject, W Wattenbach writes in his Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1871), s. 93:
The manufacture of paper from cotton must have been in use among the Chinese from very remote times, and must have become known to the Arabs by the conquest of Samarkand about the year 704. In Damascus this manufacture was an important branch of industry, for which reason it was called Charta Damascena. By the Arabians this art was brought to the Greeks. It is asserted that Greek manuscripts of the tenth century written upon cotton paper exist, and that in the thirteenth century it was much more used than parchment. To distinguish it from Egyptian paper, it was called Charta bombicina, gossypina, cuttunea, xylina. A distinction from linen paper was not necessary. In the manufacture of cotton paper raw cotton was originally used. We first find paper from rags mentioned by Petrus Clusiacensis (1122-50).
The Spaniards and the Italians learned the manufacture of this paper from the Arabians. The most celebrated factories were at Jativa, Valencia, Toledo, besides Fabriano in the March of Ancona’.
In Germany the use of this material did not become very extended, whether it came from Italy or Spain. Therefore the further this preparation spread from the East and the adjoining countries, the more the necessity there was that linen should take the place of cotton. A document of Kaubeuren on linen paper of the year 1318 is of very doubtful genuineness. Bodman considers the oldest pure linen paper to be of the year 1324, but up to 1350 much mixed paper was used. All carefully written manuscripts of great antiquity show by the regularity of their lines that they must have been ruled, even though no traces of the ruled lines can be distinguished. To make the lines they used a thin piece of lead, a ruler, and a pair of compasses to mark the distances.
In old writings the ink is very black or brown; but while there has been more writing since the thirteenth century, the color of the ink is often gray or yellowish, and sometimes quite pale, showing that it contains iron. All this affords convincing proof that the manuscript before us belongs to the middle of the thirteenth century, written with clear black letters between fine lines carefully traced with lead. The colour of the ink shows decidedly that it does not contain iron. By these evidences the date given, 1256, is satisfactorily proved, and it is impossible to assign any later date. Therefore all suspicion of modern deception vanishes.
The language is very old Fries, still older and purer than the Fries Rjuchtboek or old Fries laws, differing from that both in form and spelling, so that it appears to be an entirely distinct dialect, and shows that the locality of the language must have been (as it was spoken) between the Vlie and the Scheldt.
The style is extremely simple, concise, and unembarrassed, resembling that of ordinary conversation, and free in the choice of words. The spelling is also simple and easy, so that the reading of it does not involve the least difficulty, and yet with all its regularity, so unrestricted, that each of the separate writers who have worked at the book has his own peculiarities, arising from the changes in pronunciation in a long course of years, which naturally must have happened, as the last part of the work is written five centuries after the first.
As a specimen of antiquity in language and writing, I believe I may venture to say that this book is unique of its kind.
The writing suggests an observation, which may be of great importance.
The Greeks know and acknowledge that their writing was not their own invention. They attribute the introduction of it to Kadmus, a Phoenician. The names of their oldest letters, from Alpha to Tau, agree so exactly with the names of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet, with which the Phoenician will have been nearly connected, that we cannot doubt that the Hebrew was the origin of the Phoenician. But the form of their letters differs so entirely from that of the Phoenician and Hebrew writing, that in that particular no connection can be thought of between them. Whence, then, have the Greeks derived the form of their letters?
From `thet bok thêra Adela folstar’ (The Book of Adela’s Followers) we learn that in the time when Kadmus is said to have lived, about sixteen centuries before Christ, a brisk trade existed between the Frisians and the Phoenicians, whom they named Kadhemer, or dwellers on the coast.
The name Kadmus comes too near the word Kadhemer for us not to believe that Kadmus simple meant a Phoenician.
Further on we learn that about the same time a priestess of the castle in the island of Walcheren, Min-erva, also called Nyhellenia, had settled in Attica at the head of a Frisian colony, and had founded a castle at Athens. Also, from the accounts written on the walls of Waraburgt, that the Finns likewise had a writing of their own - a very troublesome and difficult one to read - and that, therefore, the Tyrians and the Greeks had learned the writing of Frya. By this representation the whole thing explains itself, and it becomes clear whence comes the exterior resemblance between the Greek and the old Fries writing, which Caesar also remarked among the Gauls; as likewise in what manner the Greeks acquired and retained the names of the Finn and the forms of the Fries writing.
Equally remarkable are the forms of their figures. We usually call our figures Arabian, although they have not the least resemblance to those used by the Arabs. The Arabians did not bring their ciphers from the East, because the Semitic nations used the whole alphabet in writing numbers. The manner of expressing all numbers by ten signs the Arabs learned in the West, though the form was in some measure corresponding with their writing, and was written from left to right, after the Western fashion. Our ciphers seem here to have sprung from the Fries ciphers (siffar), which form had the same origin as the handwriting and is derived from the lines of the Juul?
The book as it lies before us consists of two parts, differing widely from each other, and of dates very far apart. The writer of the first part calls herself Adela, wife of Apol, chief man of the Linda country. This is continued by her son Adelbrost, and her daughter, Apollonia. The first book, running from page 1 to 88, is written by Adela. The following part, from 88 to 94, is begun by Adelbrost and continued by Apollonia. The second book, running from page 94 to 114, is written by Apollonia. Much later, perhaps two hundred and fifty years, a third book is written, from page 114 to 134, by Frethorik; then follows from page 134 to 143, written by his widow, Wiljo; after that from page 144 to 169, by their son, Konered; and then from page 169 to 192 by their grandson, Beeden (a doubtful assumption). Pages 193 and 194, with which the last part must have begun, are wanting, therefore the writer is unknown. He must have been a son of Beeden.
On page 134, Wiljo makes mention of another writing of Adela. These she names `thet bok thêra sanga (theta boek)’ thêra tellinga’, and `thet Hellênia bok’; and afterwards `tha skrifta fon Adela jeftha Hellênia’.
To fix a date we must start from the year 1256 of our era, when Hiddo overa Linda made a copy, in which he says that it was 3 449 years after Atland was sunk. This disappearance of the old land (aldland, atland) was known by the Greeks, for Plato mentions in his `Timaeus’, 24, the disappearance of Atlantis, the position of which was only known as somewhere far beyond the Pillars of Hercules. From this writing it appears that the land stretching far out to the west of Jutland, of which Helgoland and the islands of North Friesland are the last barren remnants. This event, which occasioned a great dispersion of the Frisian race, became the commencement of a chronological reckoning corresponding with 2193 before Christ, and is known by geologists as the Cimbrian flood.
On page 80 begins an account in the year 1602, after the disappearance of Atland, and thus in the year 591 before Christ; and on page 82 is the account of the murder of Frana, `Eeremoeder’, of Texland, two years later - that is, in 589. When, therefore, Adela commences her writing with her own coming forward in an assembly of the people thirty years after the murder of the Eeremoeder, that must have been the year 559 before Christ. In the part written by her daughter Apollonia, we find that fifteen months after the assembly Adela was killed by the Finns in an attack by surprise of Texland. This must accordingly have happened 557 years before Christ. Hence it follows that the first book, written by Adela, was of the year 558 before Christ. The second book, by Apollonia, we may assign to the year 530 before Christ. The later part contains the history of the known kings of Friesland, Friso, Adel (Ubbo), and Asega Askar, called Black Adel. Of the third king, Ubbo, nothing is said, or rather that part is lost, as the pages 169 to 188 are missing. Frethorik, the first writer, who appears now, was a contemporary of the occurrences, which he relates, namely, the arrival of Friso. He was a friend of Liudgert den Geertman, who, as rear admiral of the fleet of Wichhirte, the sea-king, had come with Friso in the year 303 before Christ, 1,890 years after the disappearance of Atland. He has borrowed most of his information from the logbook of Liudgert.
The last writer gives himself out most clearly as a contemporary of Black Adel or Askar, about the middle of his reign, which Furmerius states to have been from 70 before Christ to 11 after the Birth of Christ, the same period as Julius Caesar and Augustus. He therefore wrote in the middle of the last century before Christ, and knew of the conquest of Gaul by the Romans. It is thus evident that there elapsed fully two centuries between the two parts of the work.
Of the Gauls we read on page 84 that they were called the `Missionaries of Sidon’. And on page 124 `that the Gauls are Druids’. The Gauls, then, were Druids and the name Galli, used for the whole nation, was really only the name of an order of priesthood brought from the East, just as among the Romans the Galli were priests of Cybele.
The whole contents of the book are in all respects new. That is to say, there is nothing in it that we were acquainted with before. What we here read of Friso, Adel, and Askar, differs entirely from what is related by our own chroniclers, or rather presents it in quite another light. For instance, they all relate that Friso came from India, and that thus the Frisians were of Indian descent; and yet they add that Friso was a German, and belonged to a Persian race which Herodotus called Germans. Accordingly to the statement in this book, Friso did come from India and with the fleet of Nearchus; but he is not therefore Indian. He is of Frisian origin, of Frya’s people. He belongs, in fact, to a Frisian colony, which after the death of Nyhellenia, fifteen and a half centuries before Christ, under the guidance of a priestess Geert, settled in the Punjab, and took the name of Geertmen. The Geertmen were known by only one of the Greek writers, Strabo, who mentions them as being entirely different from Phoenicians (slightly edited) in manners, language and religion.
The historians of Alexander’s expeditions do not speak of Frisians or Geertmen, though they mention Indo-Scythians, thereby describing a people who lived in India, but whose origin is in the distant, unknown North.
In the accounts of Liudgert no names are given of places where the Frieslanders lived in India. We only know that they first established themselves to the east of the Punjab, and afterwards moved to the west of those rivers. It is mentioned, moreover, as a striking fact, that in summer the sun at midday was straight above their heads. They therefore lived within the tropics. We find in Ptolemy, exactly 24°N. on the west side of the Indus, the name Minnagara; and about six degrees east of that, in 22°N., another Minnagara. This name is pure Fries, the same as Walhallagara, Foolsgara, and comes from Minna, the name of an Eeremoeder, in whose time the voyages of Teunis and his nephew Inca took place.
The coincidence is too remarkable to be accidental, and not to prove that Minnagara was the headquarters of the Frisian Colony. The establishment of the colonists in the Punjab in 1551 before Christ, and their journey thither, we find fully described in Adel’s book; and with the mention of one most remarkable circumstance, namely, that the Frisian mariners sailed through the strait in whose times still ran into the Red Sea.
In Strabo, book i., pages 38 and 50, it appears that Eratosthenes was acquainted with the existence of the strait, of which the later geographers make no mention. It existed still in the time of Moses (Exodus xiv. 2) for he encamped at Piha-chiroht, `the mouth of the strait’. Moreover, Strabo mentions that Sesostris made an attempt to cut through the isthmus, but that he was not able to accomplish it. That in very remote times the sea did flow through is proved by the result of the geological investigations on the isthmus made by the Suez Canal Commission, of which Mr Renaud presented a report to the Academy of Sciences on the 19th June 1856. In that report, among other things, appears the following: `Une question fort controversée est celle de savoir, si à L’époque où les Hebreux fuyaient de l’Egypte sous la conduite de Moïse, les lacs amers faisaient encore partie de la merrouge. Cette dernière hypothèses’ accorderait mieux qu l’hypothèse contraire avec le texte des livres sacres, mais alors il faudrait admettre que depuis l’époque de Moïse le seuil de Suez serait sorti des eaux’.
With regard to this question, it is certainly of importance to fall in with an account in this Frisian manuscript, from which it seems that in the sixteenth century before Christ the connection between the Bitter Lakes and the Red Sea still existed, and that the strait was still navigable. The manuscript further states that soon after the passage of the Geertmen there was an earthquake; that the land rose so high that all the water ran out, and all the shallows and alluvial lands rose up like a wall. This must have happened after the time of Moses, so that at the date of the Exodus (1564 BC) the track between Suez and Bitter Lakes was still navigable, but could be forded dry-foot at low water.
This point, then, is the commencement of the isthmus, after the forming of which, the northern inlet was certainly soon filled up as far as the Gulf of Pelusium.
The map by Louis Figuier, in the `Année scientifique et industrielle’ (première année), Paris, Hachette, 1857, gives a distinct illustration of the formation of this land.
Another statement that occurs only in Strabo, finds also here a conformation. Strabo alone of all the Greek writers relates that Nearchus, after he had landed his troops in the Persian Gulf, at the mouth of the Pasitigris, sailed out of the Persian Gulf, by Alexander’s command, and steered round Arabia through the Arabian Gulf. As the account stands, it is not clear what Nearchus had to do there, and what the object of the further voyage was. If, as Strabo seems to think, it was only for geographical discovery, he need not have taken the whole fleet. One or two ships would have sufficed. We do not read that he returned. Where, then, did he remain with the fleet?
The answer to this question is to found in the Frisian version of the story. Alexander had bought the ships on the Indus, or had had them built by descendants of the Frisians who had settled there - the Geertmen - and had taken into his service sailors from among them, and at the head of them was Friso. Alexander having accomplished his voyage and the transport of his troops, had no further use for the ships in the Persian Gulf, but wished to employ them in the Mediterranean. He had taken that idea into his head, and it must be carried into effect. He wished to do what no one had done before him. For this purpose Nearchus was to sail up the Red Sea, and on his arrival at Suez was to find 200 elephants, 1 000 camels, workmen and materials, timber and ropes &c., in order to haul the ships by hand over the isthmus. This work was carried on and accomplished with so much zeal and energy that after three months’ labor the fleet was launched in the Mediterranean. That the fleet really came to the Mediterranean appears in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander; but he makes Nearchus bring the fleet round Africa, and sail through the pillars of Hercules.
After the defeat at Actium, Cleopatra, in imitation of this example, tried to take her fleet over the isthmus in order to escape to India, but was prevented by the inhabitants of Arabia Petraea, who burnt her ships. (See Plutarch’s Life of Antony). When Alexander shortly afterwards died, Friso remained in the service of Antigonus and Demetrius, until, having been grievously insulted by the latter, he resolved to seek out with his sailors their fatherland, Friesland. To India he could not, indeed, return.
Thus these accounts chime in with and clear up each other, and in that way afford a mutual confirmation of the events.
Such simple narratives and surprising results led me to conclude that we had to do here with more than mere Saga and Legends.
Since the last twenty years, attention has been directed to the remains of the dwellings on piles, first observed in the Swiss lakes, and afterwards in other parts of Europe. (See Dr E Rückert, Die Pfahlbauten; Wurzburg, 1869; Dr TC Winkler, in the Volksalmanak, t.N.v.A.1867). When they were found, endeavours were made to discover, by the existing fragments of arms, tools and household articles, by whom and when these dwelling had been inhabited. There are no accounts of them in historical writers, beyond what Herodotus writes in book v. chapter 16, of the Paeonen. The only trace that has been found is one of the panels of Trajan’s Pillar, in which the destruction of a pile village in Dacia is represented.
Doubly important, therefore, is it to learn from the writing of Apollonia that she, as `Burgtmaagd’ (chief of the virgins), about 540 years before Christ, made a journey up the Rhine to Switzerland, and there became acquainted with the Lake Dwellers (marsaten). She describes their dwellings built upon piles - the people themselves - their manners and customs. She relates that they lived by fishing and hunting, and that they prepared the skins of animals with the bark of the birch-tree in order to sell the furs to the Rhine boatmen, who brought them into commerce. This account of the pile dwellings of the Swiss lakes could only have been written in the time when these dwellings still existed and were still lived in. In the second part of the writing, Konered oera Linda relates that Adel, the son of Friso (approximately 250 years before Christ), visited the pile dwellings in Switzerland with his wife Ifkja.
Later than this account there is no mention by any writer whatever of the pile dwellings, and the subject has remained for twenty centuries utterly unknown until 1853, when an extraordinary low state of the water led to the discovery of these dwellings. Therefore no one could have invented this account in the intervening period. Although a great portion of the first part of the work - the book of Adela - belongs to the mythological period before the Trojan war, there is a striking difference between it and the Greek myths. The Myths have no dates, much less any chronology, nor any internal coherence of successive events. The untrammeled fancy develops itself in every poem separately and independently. The mythological stories contradict each other on every point. `Les Mythes ne se tiennent pas’, is the only key to the Greek Mythology.
Here, on the contrary, we meet with a regular succession of dates starting from a fixed period - the destruction of Atland, 2193 before Christ. The accounts are natural and simple, often naive, never contradict each other, and are always consistent with each other in time and place. As, for instance, the arrival and sojourn of Ulysses with the Burgtmaagd Kalip at Walhallagara (Walcheren), which is the most mythical portion of all, is here said to be 1 005 years after the disappearance of Atland, which coincides with 1188 years before Christ, and thus agrees very nearly with the time at which the Greeks say the Trojan war took place. The story of Ulysses was not brought here for the first time by the Romans. Tacitus found it already in Lower Germany (see Germania, chap. 3), and says that at Asciburgium there was an altar on which the names of Ulysses and his father Laëtes were inscribed.
Another remarkable difference consists in this, that the Myths knew no origin, do not name either writers or relaters of their stories, and therefore never can bring forward any authority; whereas in Adela’s book, for every statement is given a notice where it was found or whence it was taken. For instance, `This comes from Minno’s writings - this is written on the walls of Waraburgt - this in the town of Frya - this at Stavia - this at Walhallagara’.
There is also this further. Laws, regular legislative enactments, such as are found in great numbers in Adela’s book, are utterly unknown in Mythology, and indeed are irreconcilable with its existence. Even when the Myth attributes to Minos the introduction of lawgiving in Crete, it does not give the least account of what the legislation consisted. Also among the Gods of Mythology, there existed no system of laws. The only law was unchangeable Destiny and the will of the supreme Zeus.
With regard to Mythology, this writing, which bears no mythical character, is not less remarkable than with regard to history. Notwithstanding the frequent and various relations with Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, we do not find any traces of acquaintance with the Northern or Scandinavian Mythology. Only Wodin appears in the person of Wodan, a chief of the Frisians, who became the son-in-law of one Magy, King of the Finns, and after his death was deified.
The Frisian religion is extremely simple and pure Monotheism. Wr-Alda or Wr-Alda’s spirit is the only eternal, unchangeable, perfect and almighty being. Wr-Alda created everything. Out of him proceeds everything - first the beginning, then time, and afterwards Irtha, the Earth. Irtha bore three daughters - Lyda, Finda and Frya - the mothers of the three distinct races, black, yellow and white - Africa, Asia and Europe. As such, Frya is the mother of Frya’s people, the Frieslanders. She is the representative of Wr-Alda, and is reverenced accordingly. Frya has established her `Tex’, the first law, and has established the religion of the eternal light. The worship consists of the maintenance of a perpetually burning lamp, foddik, by priestesses, virgins. At the head of the virgins in every town was a Burgtmaagd, and the chief of the Burgtmaagden was the Eeremoeder of the Fryasburgt of Texland. The Eeremoeder governs the whole country. The kings can do nothing, nor can anything happen without her advice and approval. The first Eeremoeder was appointed by Frya herself, and was called Fasta. In fact, we find her the prototype of the Roman Vestal Virgins.
We are reminded here of Velleda (Welda) and `Aurinia in Tacitus (Germania, 8.Hist., iv. 61, 65; v. 22,24. `Annals’ i. 54), and of Gauna, the successor of Velleda, in Dio Cassius (Fragments, 49). Tacitus speaks of the town of Velleda as `edita turris’, page 146. It was the town of Mannagarda forda (Munster).
In the country of the Marsians he speaks of the temple Tanfane (Tanfanc), so called from the sign of the Juul.
The last of these towns was Fastaburgt in Ameland, temple Fost, destroyed, according to Occa Scarlensis, in 806.
If we find among the Frisians a belief in a Godhead and ideas of religion entirely different from the Mythology of other nations, we are the more surprised to find in some points the closest connections with the Greek and Roman Mythology, and even of the origins of the two deities of the highest rank, Min-erva and Neptune. Min-erva (Athene) was originally a Burgtmaagd, priestess of Frya, at the town of Walhallagara, Middelburg, or Domburg, in Walcheren. And this Min-erva is at the same time the mysterious enigmatical goddess of whose worship scarcely any traces beyond the votive stones of Domburg, in Walcheren, Nyhellenia, of whom no mythology knows anything more than the name, which etymology has used for all sorts of fantastical derivations.
The other, Neptune, called by the Etrurians Nethunus, the God of the Mediterranean Sea, appears here to have been, when living, a Friesland Viking, or sea-king, whose home was Alderga (Ouddorp, not far from Alkmaar). His name was Teunis, or Cousin Teunis, who had chosen the Mediterranean as the destination of his expeditions, and must have been deified by the Tyrians at the time when the Phoenician navigators began to extend their voyages so remarkably, sailing to Friesland in order to obtain British tin, northern iron, and amber from the Baltic, about 2 000 years before Christ.
Besides these two we meet with a third mythological person - Minos, the lawgiver of Crete, who likewise appears to have been a Friesland sea-king, Minno, born at Lindaoord, between Wieringen and Kreyl, who imparted to the Cretans an `Asegaboek’. He is that Minos who, with his brother Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, presided as judges over the fates of the ghosts in Hades, and must not be confounded with the late Minos, the contemporary of Aegeus and Theseus, who appears in the Athenian Fables.
The reader may perhaps be inclined to laugh at these statements, and apply to me the words that I myself lately used, fantastic and improbable. Indeed, at first I could not believe my own eyes, and yet after further considerations I arrived at the discovery of extraordinary conformities which render the case much less improbable than the birth of Minerva from the head of Jupiter by a blow from the axe of Hephaestus, for instance.
In the Greek Mythology all the gods and goddesses have a youthful period. Pallas alone has no youth. She is no otherwise than adult. Min-erva appears in Attica as high priestess from a foreign country, a country unknown to the Greeks. Pallas is a virgin goddess, Min-erva is a Burgtmaagd. The fair, blue-eyed Pallas, differing thus in type from the rest of the gods and goddesses, evidently belonged to Frya’s people. The character for wisdom and emblematical attributes, especially the owl, are the same for both. Pallas gives to the new town her own name, Athenai, which has no meaning in Greek. Min-erva gives to the town built by her the name Athene, which has an important meaning in Fries, namely that they came there as friends - `Athen’.
Min-erva came to Athens about 1 600 years before Christ, the period at which the Grecian Mythology was beginning to be formed. Min-erva landed with the fleet of Jon at the head of a colony in Attica. In later times we find her on the Roman votive stones in Walcheren, under the name of Nyhellenia, worshipped as a goddess of navigation; and Pallas is worshipped by the Athenians as the protecting goddess of shipbuilding and navigation.
Time is the carrier who must eternally turn the `Jol’ (wheel) and carry the sun along his course through the firmament from winter to winter, thus forming the year, every turn of the wheel being a day. In winter the `Jolfeest’ is celebrated on Fry’s day. Then cakes are baked in the form of the sun’s wheel, because with the Jol Frya formed the letters when she wrote her `Tex’. The Jolfeest is therefore also in honor of Frya as inventor of writing.
Just as this Jolfeest has been changed by Christianity into Christmas throughout Denmark and Germany, and into St Nicholas Day in Holland; so, certainly, our St Nicholas’ dolls - the lover and his sweetheart - are a memorial of Frya, and the St Nicholas letters a memorial of Frya’s invention of letters formed from the wheel.
I cannot analyze the whole contents of this writing, and must content myself with the remarks that I have made. They will give an idea of the richness and importance of the contents. If some of it is fabulous, it must have an interest for us, since so little of the traditions of our forefathers remain to us.
An internal evidence of the antiquity of these writings may be found in the fact that the name Batavians had not yet been used. The inhabitants of the whole country as far as the Scheldt are Frya’s people - Frieslanders. The Batavians are not a separate people. The name Batavi is of Roman origin. The Romans gave it to the inhabitants of the banks of the Waal, which river bears the name Patabus in the `Tabula Pentingeriana’. The name Batavi does not appear earlier than Tacitus and Pliny, and is interpolated in Caesar’s `Bello Gallico’, iv. 10. (See my treatise on the course of the rivers through the countries of the Frisians and Batavians, p. 49, in `DeVrije Fries’. 4th vol. 1st part, 1845).
I will conclude with one more remark regarding the language. Those who have been able to take only a superficial view of the manuscripts have been struck by the polish of the language, and its conformity with the present Friesland language and Dutch. In this they seem to find grounds for doubting the antiquity of the manuscript.
But, I ask, is, then, the language of Homer much less polished than that of Plato or Demosthenes? And does not the greatest portion of Homer’s vocabulary exist in the Greek of our day?
It is true that language alters with time, and is continually subject to slight variations, owing to which language is found to be different at different epochs. This change in the language in this manuscript accordingly gives ground for important observations to philologists. It is not only that of the eight writers who have successively worked at the book. Each is recognizable by slight peculiarities in style, language and spelling; but more particularly between the two parts of the book, between which an interval of more than two centuries occurs, a striking difference of the language is visible, which shows what a slowly progressive regulation it has undergone in that period of time. As a result of these considerations, I arrive at the conclusion that I cannot find any reason to doubt the authenticity of these writings. They cannot be forgeries. In the first place, the copy of 1 256 cannot be. Who could have at that time forged anything of that kind? Certainly no one. Still less any one at an earlier date. At a later date a forgery is equally impossible, for the simple reason that no one was acquainted with the language. Except Grimm, Richthofen and Hettema, no one can be named sufficiently versed in that branch of philology, or who had studied the language so as to be able to write in it. And if one could have done so, there would have been no more extensive vocabulary at his service than that which the East Frisian laws afford. Therefore, in the centuries lately elapsed, the preparation of this writing was impossible. Whoever doubts this let him begin by showing where, when, by whom, and with what object such a forgery could be committed, and let him show in modern times the fellow of this paper, this writing, and this language.
Moreover, that the manuscript of 1 256 is not original, but is a copy, is proved by the numerous faults in the writing, as well as by some explanations of words, which already in the time of the copyist had become obsolete and little known, as, for instance, in pages 82 (114), `to thera flete jefta bedrum’; page 151 (204), `bargum jefta tonnum fon tha besta bjar’.
A still stronger proof is that between pages 157 and 158 one or more pages are missing, which cannot have been lost out of the manuscript because the pages 157 and 158 are on the front and the back of the same leaf.
Page 157 finishes thus: `Three months afterwards Adel sent messengers to all the friends that he had gained, and requested them to send him intelligent people in the month of May’. When we turn over the leaf, the other side begins, `his wife, he said, who had been Maid of Texland’, had got a copy of it.
There is no connection between these two. There is wanting, at least, the arrival of the invited, and an account of what passed at their meeting. It is clear, therefore, that the copyist must have turned over two pages of the original instead of one.
There certainly existed then an earlier manuscript, and that was doubtless written by Liko oera Linda in the year 803.
We may thus accept that we possess in this manuscript, of which the first part was composed in the sixth century before our era, the oldest production, after Homer and Hesiod, of European literature. And here we find in our fatherland a very ancient people in possession of development, civilization, industry, commerce, literature, and pure elevated ideas of religion, whose existence we had never conjectured. Hitherto we have believed that the historical records of our people reach no farther back than the arrival of Friso the presumptive founder of the Frisians, whereas here we become aware that these records mount up to more than 2 000 years before Christ, surpassing the antiquity of Hellas and equalling that of Israel.
### Posted 25 November 2011 - 08:26 AM
Thank you Alewyn for translating that important text from Molenaar.
Alewyn, on 24 November 2011 - 12:49 PM, said:
To get around this damning evidence against their hoax theory, they have to deny or discredit any references to the OLB before 1854. Everything from the Oera Linda Book, to letters, sworn statements and, in fact, any evidence and persons referring to an earlier date are shouted down as a hoax or a conspiracy. The fact that they have not produced a single shred of concrete evidence over the last 140 years, or even over the last 18 months in this forum, do not seem to bother them in the least. Their speculation would have been laughable to anyone who has made a study of the Oera Linda Book and the facts surrounding it, had it not been so tragic.
Tragic is the right word.
There are many letters and other writings available from the hand of Cornelis Over de Linden. These give good insight into his mind and soul. He suffered a great deal from the false accusations of being a shameless liar and impostor. According to the hoax theorists, he would have lied to his grandchildren, even on his death bed and in his testament. It is this kind of injustice that drives honest and innocent people to madness and sometimes suicide. Similarly, it was suggested that Ottema was insane. We have many examples nowadays of how sensational press can destroy someone's reputation and life. The most succesful journalists (and 'scientists'!) are not always the most intelligent, honest and ethical ones. The crouds want to be pleased; malicious delight and gossip sells better than truth. To me there's hardly anything more depressing.
Quote
Just to make certain that people will further denounce the book, they have added the label of a religious or “Pagan Bible".
... or Nazi- or NewAge-Bible.
Quote
In the next instance they would like to have people believe that all the facts in the OLB were known in the 19th century. Nothing is further from the truth.
People who believe this should read the discussions of the elite in the time the book was first presented. They give a good impression of what was known and believed then. Even Jensma in 2004 still called many facts that what we have found out in this thread "based on phantasy", because he didn't know.
### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 25 November 2011 - 11:20 AM
Oct 1872 – Feb 1874. Essay by Cornelis over de Linden (Addressed to grandson Cornelis III). The text was published in J. Beckering Vinckers’ “Wie heeft het Oera-Linda-Boek geschreven” (“Who wrote the Oera Linda Book”) (Kampen 1877).
(My translation of the Dutch version posted by Knul a few weeks ago. Knul’s and Beckering Vinckers’ remarks have been omitted.)
To my grandson Cornelis and further descendents,
Everybody who has any interest in my manuscript, asks me how I obtained it. You may possibly do the same later but, as it is not certain that I will still be alive, I want to write it down here.
Introduction:
My great-grandfather (Jan over de Linden) had two sons, of which my (grand) father (Andries over de Linden) was the eldest. He thus became the possessor of the manuscript.
My father (Jan over de Linden II) moved to Amsterdam when I was still quite small but, as soon as my parents dared to let me go on my own, I yearly went to my grandparents.
My father had two sisters: Antje and Aafje. Antje was married, and Aafje still unmarried and lived with her parents. When she later also married, she still lived with her parents and at last, they lived with her.
In the year 1821 (1820) my grandmother died and, if I remember correctly, my grandfather died three weeks after. How it fared with my father and his sister, I do not know, but my aunt Afje stayed with her husband and her children in my grandfather’s house.
When my grandparents had passed away, I felt no obligation to go to Enkhuizen annually. I thus stayed away.
In the year 1836 (1835) my father died. After his death my mother came to the Nieuwediep. The place did not appeal to her and so she went to Enkhuizen. When my mother lived at Enkhuizen, I visited her whenever the opportunity arose. Thus I also visited her in the year 1848 and my aunt Aafje also paid a visit. Her husband had died and now she was married to one Koos Meijlhof. After I had spoken some to her, I asked her whether I could see the garden once more where I had so much delight as a child. She went ahead of me and the first tree my eyes fell upon was a Saint-Laurens tree on which there were already a few ripe pears.
“Since Grandfathers death” I said, “I have not tasted any of this fruit. If you do not object, I would like to pick me a few of these beautiful pears.”
“That you may.” She said.
When I had picked them, she went on to say: “You spoke of grandfather, but I still have something for you. Hendrik would not let me give it to you but Koops does not know about it. She then went away and fetched the manuscript.
“This is a family book”, she said on handing it over. “The language is Old Fries and has been preserved by the family for centuries, therefore, I must impress upon you that you must value it very highly.”
“But”, I asked her before thanking her, “Why did Grandfather not give the book to my father?”
“That question,” she said, “I also asked your Grandfather, but he said ‘Kees (Cornelis) must have it (in any case) and if I give it to him, Jan cannot get rid of it.’”
I imagined something completely different but, I made as if I was very happy as though I had received a gold watch.
As soon as I arrive in the Nieuwediep, I studied it but, it was as intelligible to me as though it was Chinese. Disappointed, I put it aside but, I could not refrain from taking it in my hands every now and then. Eventually I deciphered the words Oera Linda and over tha Linda, (and) it did occur to me that these were synonyms of Over de Linden. The claim of my aunt, that it was a family book, could thus not be contradicted.
Educated friends, who could have helped me with my further investigations, I did not have, and to call on somebody through the press who would have translated it for a sum, I could not afford. When I had an opportunity, I went to the Book Dealer, Bkkr, and asked him for an Old Fries Dictionary. He gave me a dictionary on the poems of Gijsbert Japiks. Now I continued with vigor and I progressed so far that I could read the “Lape koer fen gabe schroer” (JH Halbertsma) quite well and that was the end of it.
Somebody told me that the letters in the book was rune script; thereupon I searched for a book on rune script and found a little book with the title: “Bimerkingen, om en steenoxe met runeinskrift til horende H.M. Kongen of Danmark”. I was none the wiser.
Somebody else told me the script was Phoenician. Now I searched for Phoenician and found a little book with the title: “Palaographische studien”. I must admit that as far as I could make out, the letters in my book looked both like rune script and Phoenician script, but I remained ignorant. How could I have the manuscript translated?
As Meesterknecht (Superintendent?) I could travel (take leave?) six days every year. By making use of this perk, I first went to Amsterdam where I could stay over at some cousins of my first wife. I could stay over, eat, drink, etc, but not sleep there. I therefore went to a boarding-house diagonally across the Heintjehoeksteeg (on the banks?) but I was not happy with this arrangement. The second morning, when I was in the coffee room, a gentleman and his wife joined me at the table, talking about their further journey to Harlingen.
When I heard Harlingen, I thought “Here you have, so to say, been to the other end of the world and Friesland, where people say your ancestors came from, you have never seen.”
“Are you going to Harlingen?” I asked my table companions
“Yes, Captain.”
“Then I am going with”
“That will be a pleasure. Then we have each others company.”
We thus went together on the journey. When we approached Harlingen, the lady asked: “Where are you actually going?”
“To Harlingen”.
“You said so, but you should know to whom you are going.”
“No. When you spoke about Harlingen, I thought I might as well travel with these people. That is all.”
“Well”, said the man, “I find that bloody strange. If you do not know where you are going , then come to us!”
“With the greatest of pleasure” and so I went with Mr. and Mrs. Siderius to “The Lanen”.
After the meal, the gentleman went with me for a stroll. That evening we had a drink and so the conversation came to my manuscript which I could not read.
“You must send something over”, Mr. Siderius said. “We have here a teacher, a Mr. Jansen, who is so well versed in Old Fries that he will translate it for you in no time”.
When I was back at Den Helder, I bought some writing paper which I placed like tracing paper over my manuscript and traced the letters. When I had traced some 4 pages, I sent it over.
Some time later Mr. Siderius wrote me that they have discovered old Fries laws in my tracings like they haven’t done in years. Over Christmas he and his wife would visit me and then I should have a whole consignment ready. I prepared a whole package and when he was with me, I actually showed him the (original) manuscript.
After he had been back in Friesland for a long time, I wrote him (asking) why I have not yet seen any translation. He replied that they thought all along there was some cunning fellow here in Den Helder who was joking with them; in addition he asked whether the manuscript was on paper or parchment. As he had seen the manuscript, I found the question ridiculous and thought the Frisians was taking me for a ride. When Mr. Siderius was with me, he told me that as Mr. Jansen was unable to do the translation, the assistance of the archivist Mr. Eelco Verwijs was called in. When I then thought that Siderius was deceiving me, I wrote to Mr. Eelco Verwijs how I began, on advice from Mr. Siderius, to have some tracings of my manuscript translated by Mr. Jansen from Harlingen; though I have not seen any translation and that I, in fact, have heard that he could not even, without his (Verwijs’) help, do the translation. I (therefore) took the liberty to send him a loose page of my manuscript whereby I requested him to let me know how much he would ask me per page to do the translation.
He replied that he, misled by the strange facsimiles, was afraid that there was somebody at Den Helder who tried to deceive him but now that he had a page of the original, he no longer had any doubts about the authenticity of the manuscript; that he did not want any compensation for the translation if I would allow him to make the contents known to the outside world, etc.
This is what the honourable gentleman wrote me on 13 October 1867. I have kept the letter as I have done with others he later wrote me. From these letters you can see how he did his best to get the manuscript out of my hands, etc. The first page “Okko, mijn zoon” he sent back with the translation, but now he wanted the whole manuscript. I answered him that he could see from the first page he translated that I had to protect the manuscript with body and soul; therefore I could not let the manuscript out of my hands without being disobedient to the utmost will of my ancestors.
After much correspondence he came himself.
“Once he is in my presence,” he wrote, “it will go much better”.
It did not go better, though, and Eelco Verwijs left upset. (Thursday, 21 November 1867) He took the last copies of my manuscript but except for “Okke mijn zoon”, he had not yet translated anything for me. Whilst he was with me over a drink, I asked him to translate something for me from the manuscript. He opened the book en told me the story where Ulysses was with the burghmaagd Kalib.
When he had read half a page, he shut the book saying “You can see all Eastern, Western and Nordic gods and goddesses are mentioned here. It is a wonderful book.”
It was out. His actions left me with the impression that he wanted to keep me in the dark about the contents and thereby obtain it from me for next to nothing. But he was off the mark; for that he had put on too much airs.
Once I looked him up in Leiden and told him that I am approaching sixty and that I have read that only eight persons in a hundred reach that age (and) that it is now time that I became acquainted with the contents of my manuscript.
“Yes”, he said, “if you want a good translation, you must be patient. I do not have the time and therefore I have placed it in the hands of a Dr. Winkler in Leeuwarden and this gentleman very much enjoys old Friesian”.
As I did not hear anything more about the matter, I resigned myself to the fact that I would not hear anything further. This was, however, not the case.
In the evening of 24 December 1870, I received a letter with an unknown handwriting. The letter was from the hon. Dr. Ottema (written 22 December 1870).
He wrote to me that Eelco Verwijs, through my kindness, was able to donate a translation of an Old Frisian document to the Frisian Society.
The mentioned manuscript was place in his hands to investigate but that he could see from my facsimiles that the gentleman E. Verwijs had made a number of errors, wherefore he asked me very friendly to have the original manuscript.
I answered that I was not so disinterested to lend the gentleman E. Verwijs a manuscript for the Frisian Society; that I was not even aware of the existence of such a society but, that I had given it to him to translate it for me, though, now that the matter is clear, he could borrow sections on condition that, with every section he returns, he must send a translation. The gentleman Ottema accepted these conditions and he remained true to his word.
That winter, my son Anton Jan (born 1843) was home. When a new translation came, then he and my son Leendert (born 1837) and their wives would come to hear what Dr. Ottema had to say to us. Then it was an inexpensive family feast and I cannot recall ever having experienced more joy. In addition, the contents, especially the laws, were very much to my liking, although, I had to admit, they could not be applied any more to the present society.
The next summer when I and my wife went to Harlingen, we stretched our journey to Leeuwarden because I was curious to see the gentleman Ottema. When I was walking with him in his garden, his cousin told my wife that Uncle only lived for the manuscript; so much so that, when the last section left, he was quite depressed and said “There it goes now”.
At this occasion, he also taught me to recognize the letters by which I have progressed so far that I can read the manuscript somewhat.
When I was back in Harlingen, I receive 25 booklets from him. These contained the report that he gave to the Frisian Society on his findings. As soon as the report was in the hands of the Dutch scholars, observations, so to say, were generated. It came down to this that the whole thing was a hoax. Through all these remarks I also started to doubt but then the gentleman Ottema came out of his corner and proved from the journey of Apollonia and the pile dwellings that they were wrong.
“Yes”, the opponents said “but then the piece was written after (18)50”.
As I knew that I had it in my possession since the year 1848 of our Lord I, at least, was convinced that the piece had to be genuine.
From all this opposition, the Frisian Society refused to fund the publishing of the work, but the gentleman Ottema showed that he was a Frisian of the old mould who would not let any opposition distract him from his goal. He sought a publisher himself and so, without the help of others, it (the book) saw the light.
When the book was in the trade, the gentleman Brouwer from Limburg still attempted in “Den Spectator” to declare the book to be worthless rubbish. Many of my learned acquaintances approved of his judgment. I am not a learned man but I got the impression of a mischievous youth shouting at a servant outside the door because he was whipped for playing tick-tock (on the door). I was nevertheless amazed at his bombast, which, at a first glance seemed like as good reasoning. It brings life to the world.
At the Town Council of Enkhuizen they received a request from The Hague to find my family tree. Mr. van Alpen, Inspector of Steam Affairs (?), asked me how I found the book. A representative of the Provincial Administration from Friesland advised me to deposit the manuscript in the archives of Friesland, with proof of ownership, whereupon my descendents could always get it, etc. The book is thus out in the open (in the world).
(The end has not been published [apparently] on the request of L.F. over de Linden)
### Posted 26 November 2011 - 10:32 AM
Abramelin, on 25 November 2011 - 04:07 PM, said:
Onze voorouders (Our ancestors) - Jacob van Lennep
http://books.google....epage&q&f=false
This is an important source for who wants to know how the early 19th century Dutch thought about their ancient past.
I already like Van Lennep's introduction (sorry no translation yet):
Men heeft veel over het nuttige of nadeelige der historische romans geschreven en getwist: en het is mijne bedoeling niet, te dezer plaatse dit vraagpunt op nieuw te berde te brengen. Dat ik mij aan het opstellen en uitgeven van dergelijke verhalen bezondig, is een bewijs, dat ik de soort voorsta en mijn gevoelen te dien opzichte kan niet onpartijdig zijn. Slechts dit geloof ik te kunnen vaststellen, dat de rechte kennis der waarheid minder schade lijdt door een roman dan door een dagblad of een geschiedkundig werk. Dit moge bij den eersten opslag een paradox schijnen; maar niets is er, dat meer heeft van een paradox dan een nieuw denkbeeld: — en de verklaring mijner stelling is dood eenvoudig. De lezer van een roman is reeds door den tytel gewaarschuwd, dat hij waarheid en verdichting door een gemengd zal vinden: en hij heeft het zichzelf te wijten, zoo hij alles voor goede munt opneemt. De dagblad- en historieschrijver daarentegen beloven waarheid: — en hoevelen onder hen zijn er, die woord houden?
And then the title of part I "ALWART".
As "Alward" (which sounds the same), this is an anagram of "Wralda".
Coincidence?
### Posted 26 November 2011 - 10:48 AM
Abramelin, on 25 November 2011 - 07:43 PM, said:
Oh, and a nice extra: "Freia" (the goddess) is mentioned a couple of times; one time in a poem sung by some witch, another time by someone who was a bit displeased with the (sexual) behaviour of (I think some) Romans (like in "if Freia could prevent this, this would not happen").
Quite relevant.
The phrase "Freia behoede ons!" (May Freya save us!) is also found in:
De Gids. Nieuwe Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen. G.J.A. Beijerinck, Amsterdam 1839.
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_gid001183901_01/_gid001183901_01_0115.php
(one year after publication of Van Lennep's book)
### Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:13 PM
Abramelin, on 26 November 2011 - 02:06 PM, said:
(Translation from Knul:) This is the place to point out similarities between Joost Halbertsma and Jacob van Lennep (1802-1868) [...] Freerk Dirks Fontein (1777-1843) was a merchant-scholar from Harlingen.
I can think of another explanation for the 'similarities' between some elements of the OLB and some of the ideas of
Joost Halbertsma (1789-1869),
Jacob van Lennep (1802-1868) and
Freerk Fontein (1777-1843).
Jan Over de Linden (ca.1718-1794) was book-printer, publisher and trader in Enkhuizen.
Until now, none of his publications are identified but that does not mean they did not exist.
If he indeed owned the manuscript he may have published some of it's information and it's also possible that he (or one of his forefathers) invited people he trusted, to have a look at it or discuss it. They may have promised to keep the secret of the manuscript, while being allowed to use it as inspiration.
All speculation of course, just like the stuff the hoax theories are made of.
### 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...
==>> see seperate post on Fryskednis
### Posted 27 November 2011 - 08:55 PM
Abramelin, on 27 November 2011 - 03:24 PM, said:
OK, so you agree that those stilt-houses ("paalwoningen" or "hutten op palen") were known before 1853?
It's interesting that Jakob van Lennep puts the Marezaten (Marsaten) in the middle of- or in the western part of the Netherlands, near/on a lake called "Meir". So the name would mean something like "seated on the Meir".
But the OLB suggests these Marsaten lived close to the Swiss.... as though the discovery of those stilt houses in 1853 forced the creator(s) of the OLB to re-locate them and move them much further inland into the direction of Switzerland.
MÁR-SATA AND HJARA PÀL-HUSA ~ a reconstruction
1745: Jan Over de Linden (age 26) moves from Leeuwarden to Enkhuizen, bringing with him the manuscript.
1764: Jan Over de Linden (age 45) starts bookshop in Enkhuizen (Nieuwe Westerstraat).
1794: Jan Over de Linden dies (age 75) and leaves the manuscript to his son Andries (age 34).
1820: Andries Over de Linden dies (age 60) and leaves the manuscript to his daughter Aafje (age 21) and the father of her daughter, Hendrik Reuvers (age 24), who were both living in Andries' house.
1838: Jacob Van Lennep (age 36) publishes history-based novel, in which he describes Marezaten with stilt houses in Holland.
1845: Hendrik Reuvers dies (age 49). Cornelis Over de Linden (age 34, grandson of Andries) from Den Helder starts attempts to obtain the manuscript
1848: Cornelis Over de Linden (age 37), succeeds and becomes owner of manuscript.
1853: Discovery archaeological remains of stilt houses in Switzerland.
1867: Cornelis Over de Linden starts looking for help of scholars in Leeuwarden with translation of the manuscript.
1872: First publication of transcription and translation of the manuscript, that would become known as the Oera Linda Book (OLB).
Fragment from the manuscript [OLB p.109/14]
BOPPA THÉRE RÉNA TWISK THET BERCHTA. THÉR HÀV IK MÁR.SÁTA SJAN.
THA MÁR.SÁTA THÀT SEND MÀNNISKA THÉR INVPPA MÁRA HÉMA.
HJARA HUSA SEND VP PÀLUM BUWAD.
THÀT IS VRET WILDE KWIK ÀND BOSE MÀNNISKA.
THÉR SEND WOLVA BÁRA ÀND SWÁRTE GRISLIKA LÁWA.
ÀND HJA SEND THA SWETSAR JEFTHA PÀLENGGAR FON DA HÉINDE KRÉKA LANDER THÉRA KÀLTA FOLGAR ÀND THA VRWILDERE TWISKAR.
ALLA GÍRICH NÉI RÁV ÀND BUT.
THA MÁRSÁTA HELPATH HJARA SELVA MITH FISKA ÀND JÁGA.
THA HUDA WRDATH THRVCH THA WIVA TOMAKAD ÀND BIRHET MITH SKORS FON BERKUM.
THA LITHA HUDA SAFT LIK FÁMNA FILT. [...]
HJRA FACHTA ÀND KRUDA WRDON THRVCH THA RÉN.HÉMAR VRWANDELATH ÀND THRVCH THA STJURAR BUTA BROCHT.
Wherefrom did Van Lennep get the idea of Marezaten with stilthouses in Holland?
As far as I know there are no archaeological finds therof in Holland, nor older (accepted) sources.
Where did Van Lennep get this idea from?
Explanation: Some of the information from the OLB was vaguely known to some people.
If the manuscript would be a fabrication, and the phrase about the Már-sata and their stilt houses would have been based on Van Lennep's work, why would they be located (correctly, but different from Van Lennep interpretation!) in Switzerland?
The only possible explanation is that the manuscript would have been made after the 1853 finds, which can only be true if Over de Linden and all his witnesses were liars.
A more likely explanation (without any liars) is that Van Lennep based his story on (inaccurate) information, that came (directly or indirectly) from the manuscript.
### Posted 27 November 2011 - 09:01 PM
Alewyn, on 27 November 2011 - 08:00 PM, said:
Had the writers of the Oera Linda Book used sources such as van Lennip for their story, then surely one would have expected them to have described, and located, these people in the Netherlands. They actually went against van Lennip, however, and placed them in the region of Switzerland - exactly where archaeologists found them in 1853/4.
Exactly! Van Lennep's info came (distorted) from OLB, not the other way around!
### Posted 27 November 2011 - 09:07 PM
Otharus, on 27 November 2011 - 08:55 PM, said:
A more likely explanation (without any liars) is ...
That is... except for the (relatively small) understandable lie of Cornelis that his Aunt Aafje gave him the manuscript and that he didn't know of its existence (as described by me earlier). Important is that he obtained it from his family in Enkhuizen, 1848. That was not a lie.
### Posted 27 November 2011 - 10:09 PM
Abramelin, on 27 November 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:
Every known map of the ancient Netherlands located the Marsaten somewhere in the Netherlands.
Marsaten means lake- or marsh-dwellers.
But it's the pole-houses that are the key.
Pole-houses were not found in the Netherlands, nor described earlier than by Van Lennep (as far as we know).
### Posted 27 November 2011 - 10:13 PM
If the supposed hoaxers based the pole-houses in Switzerland on the 1853 finds, why would they call their inhabitants Már-sata? How did Van Lennep get his idea to add the idea of Pole-houses to the Marsati?
### Posted 27 November 2011 - 10:24 PM
Abramelin, on 27 November 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:
If a Van Lennep knew of the OLB long before it was published, why would he locate them smack in the middle of the Netherlands, a country known for having no mountains at all?
Van Lennep may not have known the OLB itself, but some of the information, through 'unofficial' channels (hearsay).
As we say in Dutch: he had heard the bell, but didn't know where the clapper was hanging.
("Hij had een klok horen luiden, maar wist niet waar de klepel hing")
### Posted 28 November 2011, 12:24 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:
The key is that a Van Lennep mentions pole houses 15 years before they were discovered in Switzerland.
One of the arguments for the OLB is that it mentions these pole houses "which were not known before then", but Van Lennep already did 15 years before the manuscript shows up for the first time.
I don't think Van Lennep just invented them.
Exactly. Van Lennep must have had a source.
What source?
Possibly oral tradition, but based on what?
That the manuscript showed up for the first time 15 years after Van Lennep's publication does not mean it did not exist before he published.
Anyway, the question was if Van Lennep could be the source for OLB's pole-houses.
The answer: not likely.
It's actually more probable that it's the other way around, as I have argued.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 12:41 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:
Actually, he didn't.
As I have shown you he mentions the Marezaten a couple of times as close neighbours of the Batavians, the Batavians who lived on 'an island' (between the rivers Rhine and Maas). But if you read his book about ancient Dutch history, you'll see he actually talks about the Batavians (he says something like they must have learned the art from beavers, lol).
OK, so Van Lennep in 1838 described Batavians with pole-houses in what is now Holland (in a history based novel), that were never found and for which there is no known source.
And OLB (that according to Cornelis OL and witnesses existed in 1848 or earlier) describes Lake- or Marshdwellers with pole-houses in nowaday Switserland, of which in 1853 archaeological evidence was found.
This means that, with the data we have now, OLB can only be a hoax if it was created after 1853, which can only be true if Cornelis Over de Linden lied consequently during the last years of his life, even to his own grandchildren. It also means that all witnesses (some under oath and some respected schoolmasters) lied as well.
A characteristic of paranoid conspiracy theories is that they are based on distrust.
Cornelis Over de Linden is not guilty of lying until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is still too much doubt to not give him the benefit of it.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 12:51 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:
And my point about Van Lennep was that - contrary what you read about the OLB all over the internet - pole houses were apparently known by Dutch people before the OLB showed up.
If the concept of pole-houses was only known in Holland before the remains were found in Switzerland, the question remains: how did the Dutch know?
Possibly from a hidden manuscript?
Did Cornelis' forefathers talk about it (as according to witnesses his father did)?
### Posted 28 November 2011, 02:03 PM
So, suppose the OLB was fabricated in the 19th century, what do you think would be more likely:
- that is was finished after 1853, which means Over de Linden et al lied
or:
- that the author(s) guessed right placing pole-houses in Switzerland, like they guessed right (and used only correct sources) in a huge load of cases that we have already identified (we should make an inventory!)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ It is also possible - and in my perception more likely - that Apollánja's report is authentic.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 02:43 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 01:50 PM, said:
The problem with this OLB "Middel Se" (Middle Sea) being the Mediterranean is, like I have said many times, that it was located "into the direction of the evening", while the "Aster Se" (East Sea/Baltic) was "in the direction of the morning".
Clearly the OLB is talking about Northern Europe.
The Med is and was in the south.
In the mind of a Frisian sailor, the old-Fryan coastline would roughly have been from the utter (North-) east to the utter (South-) west; where the Middelsea starts (at Gibraltar's gate).
See Map.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 04:49 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 03:02 PM, said:
The OLB Marsaten lived north or north-west of these Swiss ("Swetsar").
First in a row you had the Marsaten who lived in pole houses, THEN you got the Swetsar who lived nearest the Heinde Krekalander (Italy).
"Then come the Swiss, the nearest to the frontiers of the distant Italians"
No, because Sandbach's translation was inaccurate.
[OLB 109/22]
ÀND HJA SEND THA SWETSAR JEFTHA PÀLENGGAR
FON DA HÉINDE KRÉKA LANDER THÉRA KÀLTA FOLGAR
ÀND THA VRWILDERE TWISKAR
[O+S 151]
En zij zijn de naburen of aangrenzenden
van de heinde Krekalanden, der Kalta volgers
en der verwilderde Twiskar
Then come the Swiss, the nearest to the frontiers
[And they are the neighbours (Swetsar) or adjacents]
of the distantItalians [Krekalander], the followers of Kalta
and thesavage [degraded] Twiskar
The word SWETSAR is based on the Oldfrisian word SWETHE; border.
SWETSAR was a synonym to PÀLENGGAR.
Yet another toponym that can be etymologically explained with Oldfrisian.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 05:15 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:
The entrance of the Med is south-west, the Med itself is at the south.
It is much more simple than you think.
An early Frisian who wanted to go to the Mediterranean, would not have gone south over land, but sailed southwestwards along the coastline. From autumn till spring that is where the sun sets, from a Frisian point of view.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 05:28 PM
The Puzzler, on 28 November 2011 - 05:05 PM, said:
I think this word might equate to 'wild'.ie; savage - VRWILDERE, although you have degraded, fair enough.
An Englishish version would be: overwildered
My dictionary translates: wild, neglected, gone wild, unkempt, dishevelled, mad, distraught, corrupted, depraved, degenerated, demoralized, brutalized, degraded, dehumanized, bestialized, animalized.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 05:33 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:
If Europe was Fryan territory, then the Med would have been in it's south.
They talk about the Middle Sea, not about the entrance to the Middle Sea.
There were no highways, railroads or airports!
The best way to get there from their cultural centre Texland (if we assume that is roughly where now Texel is), was by ship, soutwestwards; in the direction of where the sun sets.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 06:22 PM
Alewyn, on 21 October 2010 - 02:26 AM, said:
Thank you so much for your kind words Otharus. I think I understand how much it takes to go against entrenched populist ideas; especially on such an emotional subject as this is in the Netherlands.
Have you noticed how this posting of yours is totally ignored by Abe in his subsequent posting? I think you and the other readers will draw their own conclusions from that.
From your video I see that Westfriesland was conquered in 1297 AD.
In 1902 the mighty British Empire conquered the two tiny Boer Republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State in South Africa after a 3 year war. Some 22 000 British soldiers, 4 000 Boer combatants and 26 000 Boer women and children died in the conflict (the women and children died in British concentration camps).
After the war, Dutch and Afrikaans were banned from all schools and public services such as courts, state departments, etc. For the next almost 40 years, Afrikaners could not rise beyond the position of foreman in any industry or state department. There was a deliberate attempt to eradicate Afrikaans. My late father recounted how he was told not to speak “that language” when he would apply for work on the mines.
From what little I know of Frisian history, it seems like the same policy was followed in the Netherlands after 1297 AD. Yet, after more than 700 years they still exist - absolutely marvellous.
Liko Oera Linda’s letter of 803 AD comes to mind:
(For material gain) “they conspire with foreign kings, who know that we are their greatest enemies, because we dare to speak to their people of liberty, rights, and the duties of princes. Therefore they seek to destroy all that we derive from our forefathers, and all that is left of our old customs.”
I can certainly understand that.
I hope somebody will respond to your conclusion in your video that “the language of (the) Oera Linda Book is Overold Dutch – Old (West-Frisian) Dutch”. I am afraid I am not qualified to do so.
Last weekend, in the daily newspaper of North-Holland (part of which is Westfriesland) had an interesting article.
The photo with the skull from 1297 AD by itself is fascinating and here's a translated fragment.
Title:
"Hollanders raised hell in Vrone in the battle against the Westfrisians in 1297 - Warcrimes now proven"
Fragment:
"The research proves for the first time that the Hollanders not only won the bloody battle, in which many hundreds [my source said 4 to 5 thousand] Westfrisians were killed. The victors have also demonstrably raised hell for the civilian population of Vrone. Provincial archaeologist Rob van Eerden: 'On several skeletons we found the same type of injuries showing that the living victims were systematically struck on the knees with a sword. Those are not traces of battle, those people were crippled with intent outside of the battlefield'."
### Posted 28 November 2011, 07:02 PM
Both Dutch OLB-translators Ottema and Jensma interpreted FORÁNA as the old-Westfrisian village Vroonen (Vronen or Vrone), that was destroyed in 1297.
FORÁNA in OLB means "in front" (Dutch: vooraan).
Jensma's theory (2004) is that language expert Eelco Verwijs (1830-1880) was involved (one of three) in creating the manuscript, but in his 1863 publication (and lecture) "De namen der vrouw bij den Germaan" (the Germanic words for 'woman'), he suggests that the name of the village Vronen was derived from 'vroon' meaning 'lord/master' (Dutch 'heer', p.14).
This fact does not support Jensma's theory.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 07:30 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:
I think I have showed more admiration for accepted Frisian history than many here.
"Accepted" Frisian history...
It's the so-called "fantastic" history, the suppressed, 'occult' (hidden) history that is interesting.
In my research it becomes more and more clear that there were/ are basically two traditions in the Frisian language & history debate.
The one that Hettema and Ottema were representing (and that I like most) is looking more at similarities with Dutch, Westfrisian, Flemmish, and other neighboring cultures (a shared tradition), while The Fryske Akademy, of which Jensma is a representative, aims more at cultural separation of the province Friesland from the rest of The Netherlands.
The video on Youtube in which Jensma talks about the OLB is in the Frisian dialect, without Dutch or English subtitles (so most Dutch won't understand), as if it is only a Frisian affair and does not concern the rest of Europe.
If someone of FA or Tresoar is reading this, I would urge them to make a more international presentation.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 07:46 PM
The Puzzler, on 28 November 2011 - 04:37 PM, said:
berchta in the translation is apparently mountain - so Lydasburcht would be Lyda's mountain?? I don't think so - this word also equals berg, or as in Burchtfam, a berg, now, note that it said Leiden is built on an artificial HILL - this imo is enough to be a burcht - the translation into English seems to have us thinking big mountains, but a small artificial hill is still a berg/burcht - hence LydasBURCHT.
BURG and BERCH are different words, meaning borough/burgh/citadel/castle (dutch: burcht) and mountain (dutch: berg/gebergte) respectively.
Note: in Dutch "g" and "ch" sound the same in these words.
"Burg" and "berg" may be etymologically related, but in the context of the OLB they clearly have different meanings.
### Posted 29 November 2011, 08:59 AM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 10:00 PM, said:
Just to show you that - as the "Hollander" I am - I respect the ancient history of the Frisians. [...]
I have found out many things about the Frisians that made me feel very happy.
Are you aware of the fact that the term "Holland" was introduced in official documents only in 1100 AD by count Floris II "the fat"?
He then started signing with "Florentius, comes de Hollant", while before 1100, he signed with "comes Frisiae".
This family was "given" reign (the right to collect taxes) by the 'holy' Roman empire over the low lands that were called Frisia (that includes the area where you live) in the 9th century, while the reality was that they only had power over a limited (south-western) area. The reason why Floris II changed the name probably was, that he had no power in what became known as Westfriesland and the North-eastern provinces of the Netherlands. It took his descendants almost 200 more years, and several wars, to conquer Westfriesland.
### Posted 29 November 2011, 01:27 PM
Some fragments of letters between Over de Linden and Ottema, copied from "De Gemaskerde God" (2004, p.261-262) by Jensma, who copied them from Luitse (1991). Improvised translation into English by me.
OdL to Ottema, 24-10-1871 (about the planned publication of the book):
"If both noble and common people can buy it, I fear, that I, because of Liko's recommendation, the history of Jesus, and the ultra-democratic laws in it, may become the scapegoat of the Catholics, all various orthodox protestants and full-blooded aristocrats, while the publisher makes all the profit."
OdL to Ottema, 5-11-1871 (about the beauty of prophecies and philosophy of the manuscript):
"On the other hand I suffer from fear. Some of my superiors, with whom I have a good understanding, might not be pleased with the content of the book."
Jensma (paraphrased from letter OdL to Ottema, 6-9-1872):
"One day Over de Linden was visited by a man of noble descent - a baron, who read Ottema's translation and replied with a heartfelt 'goddamnit, that is a load of communistic rubbish'. The baron went to one of OdL's superiors, who strongly advised him against publication."
Ottema to OdL, 10-9-1872 (reply to previous):
"Don't worry about what this gentleman likes to call communistic. Without that the manuscript could not be old. This was also how the Old Romans organised their earliest States, as described by Tacitus."
Besides the fact that the content of the rhymesagas is interesting, they will help us see that the conclusions of Dr. Hettema, Dr. Ottema, Dr. Reitsma and Prof. Dr. Vitringa about OLB's language were right, and that Beckering Vinckers was wrong.
The complete rhymesaga, with Dutch and English translation placed under every two lines, is here.
### Posted 24 November 2011 - 07:19 AM
The Puzzler, on 24 November 2011 - 02:56 AM, said (about Rhymesaga):
Methinks it was affirming the values the Frisians held dear and the respect they earned for it.
Yes, but it also sounds like war-propaganda. Interesting is also the use of the letter C for the sound K (as in Latin). In OLB and the Westfrisian "Landriucht", C is only used in combination CH.
### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 24 November 2011 - 12:49 PM
For the benefit of those readers who may not quite understand the controversy around the Oera Linda Book, or who may not be able to read Dutch, I would like to offer a few insights. You be the jury and decide for yourselves whether the book is a hoax or not.
The adherents to the hoax theory have to prove that the Oera Linda Book was written after 1854, and before 1867 when the book came into the public domain. If it is proven that the OLB existed before 1854, their whole theory gets blown out of the water.
The date of 1854 is derived from the discovery of an ancient culture that had their dwellings on piles or stilts in some Alpine lakes. Before this date, nobody knew about these “Pile Dwellers”; nobody, that is, except the authors of the Oera Linda Book, who described these in the 6th century BC. Dr. J.G. Ottema referred to this discovery in his address to the Frisian Society for History and Culture in February 1871.
Some further info may also be found at this website:
http://www.worldfootprints.com/swiss-lake-dwellings-make-world-heritage-list
The first traces of an ancient lake-dwellers’ village were found in Lake Zurich in 1854, a year in which the waters of the lake dropped to an exceptionally low level. Excavations revealed hundreds of wooden piles, driven into the earth, along with all sorts of unusual objects, extremely well preserved.
The discovery received attention all over Europe. In the decades that followed, remains of similar settlements were found on the shores of lakes in other European countries, notably in the alpine region.
Prior to the discovery, archaeological investigation of pre-history had found evidence of human mortality more than anything else – tombs, weapons and military strongholds – and so the lake-dweller villages provided the first testimony to the everyday life of European peoples between 5,000 and 500 BC.
To get around this damning evidence against their hoax theory, they have to deny or discredit any references to the OLB before 1854. Everything from the Oera Linda Book, to letters, sworn statements and, in fact, any evidence and persons referring to an earlier date are shouted down as a hoax or a conspiracy. The fact that they have not produced a single shred of concrete evidence over the last 140 years, or even over the last 18 months in this forum, do not seem to bother them in the least. Their speculation would have been laughable to anyone who has made a study of the Oera Linda Book and the facts surrounding it, had it not been so tragic. They have, up to the present, deprived the world of a very important part of its history.
Before now, the adherents to the hoax theory’s greatest weapon was the fact that most research into the OLB was in Dutch and not accessible to non-Dutch readers. By relegating the thoughts of those who do believe in the authenticity to some dark corner, they have created the impression that the hoax theory is “generally accepted”. Just to make certain that people will further denounce the book, they have added the label of a religious or “Pagan Bible. They might as well call Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey “Pagan Bibles”. The Oera Linda Book is first and foremost a book on history.
In the next instance they would like to have people believe that all the facts in the OLB were known in the 19th century. Nothing is further from the truth. Every time historical facts are presented, they very quickly steer the discussion back to some meaningless linguistics. This is a sure way of getting any potential non-Dutch participants out of the way. Then, of course, there are Abramelin’s ludicrous attempts to show that the whole OLB is based on places in the Netherlands
I will start by posting some Dutch writings that refer to earlier dates and which I have translated. Herewith an extract from E. Molenaar’s 1949 Book: Het geheimzinnige handschrift van de Familie Over de Linden (The mysterious manuscript of the family Over de Linden).
(Otharus has already quoted from this section in his post 4831 dated 12/5/2011, Page 323)
Chapter 1
In August 1948 it was a hundred years since the then 37 year old Cornelis over de Linden, ship’s carpenter first class at the Royal Dockyards at Den Helder, travelled to Enkhuizen with his 13 year old son, Cornelis, to visit his mother (Widow of Jan over de Linden) and his aunt Aafje (daughter of the 1820 deceased Andries over de Linden). An ordinary family visit, therefore, of which the memory would have been long lost, had it not been that both travelers on their return from Enkhuizen to Den Helder, were in possession of a parcel of documents of most extraordinary content.
In the parcel, Cornelis over de Linden, in the presence of his son, found a large and a small manuscript. The first (of which the beginning was in Latin and the rest – the greater [part] – in Old Dutch) was later identified as a rare copy of “De Kroniek van Friesland” [The Chronicles of Friesland] of Worp van Thabor, whilst the smaller manuscript in the Old Frisian language, written in an unknown script, would later, through the translation of Dr. J.G. Ottema, become known as “The Oera Linda Book”.
About the age, authenticity and origin of the latter manuscript, much has been written since and are still being written whereby the criticism [against] dominates the debate, but the last decisive word has not yet been spoken. The Oera Linda Book question is still an unresolved problem.
The commemoration of the above-mentioned, to the Over de Linden family such an important event in August 1848, to which until now, very little attention has been given, is therefore a logical reason and offers a good opportunity to review whether there are any clues to be found or utterances that became known which could confirm the presence of the old writings in the Enkhuizen family Over de Linden.
To this end, it is expedient to investigate:
1. What information is known or may still be found which would indicate that the manuscript in question existed in Enkhuizen before 1848;
2. From which family member Cornelis over de Linden may have received the manuscript in 1848;
3. Whether Cornelis over de Linden was entitled to this old family document and to then regard it as his property.
The one and other [information] about the Enkhuizen family Over de Linden became known that is undoubtedly of importance.
With the information available, one cannot go back further than the mention of Jan over de Linden (Great Grandfather of Cornelis from Den Helder). He had, presumably from Friesland, settled in Enkhuizen and it would seem that he became known as “Jan de Diender” [Jan the Server] by virtue of his occupation; his date of birth remained unknown. His son Andries, born at Enkhuizen in 1759, employed as Ships’ Carpenter Foreman, had three children: Antje, Aafje and Jan.
Antje left the parental home, married, but continued to live in Enkhuizen. When Aafje married Hendrik Reuvers, she and her husband lived with her father in “de grote koepel met tuin” [the great dome with garden] on the Rietdijk [Reed Dyke] (at present Vijzelstraat) in Enkhuizen, which belonged to her father. Their daughter, Cornelia Reuvers together with her husband and their son, Hein Kofman, also lived their whole life in the house. The latter was born 11 February 1853 and died on 15 January 1933.
The mentioning of this information is relevant to later statements by Cornelia Reuvers (Widow Keetje Kofman) and her son Hein Kofman regarding old documents of the family Over de Linden at Enkhuizen, which were in the ancestral home on the Rietdijk, and which were taken by Cornelis to Den Helder.
The son of Andries, named Jan and by occupation a ship’s carpenter, was light-hearted and restless by nature. He travelled from one place to another; wherever he found work. He had one son, Cornelis, who was born at Enkhuizen in 1811. Grandfather Andries was very attached to his grandson as he was the only male heir [“stamhouer” – one who continues the family name]
He [Cornelis] stated later that his grandfather, when they were sometimes together and in private, used to impress upon him that he must never forget that his family was of true Frisian blood and that he would later, when he was older, explain it all.
This never happened. When Andries over de Linden (15 April 1820) died at age 61, his grandson, Cornelis was still a child of 9 years.
Like Grandfather Andries, Cornelis’ father was also full of [boasted about] his old Frisian decendency as is evident from a later account by the gentleman C. Wijs, which is the following:
“In the year 1831 I found myself on the corvette ‘Nehalennia’ (Commander, Captain at Sea[?]) on the Schelde at fort Marie. I was teacher and nurse on the mentioned vessel. Ship’s carpenter Jan over de Linden was also on the vessel and he often boasted in a friendly mood that he descended from the oldest clan in the world and on such occasions he would poke fun at the aristocracy. I was only on the corvette for half a year and lost contact with Jan over de Linden. He never spoke of any books or writings.”
This Jan, born at Enkhuizen on 20 January 1787, died on 23 June 1835 on board H.M. Guard Ship “Euridice”.
Grandfather Andries did apparently inform his son, Jan, of the living family tradition about their old Frisian decendency, but he left him in the dark regarding any related old documents and did not bequeath these to his son as he could not entrust him therewith because of his irresponsibility. The elder sister Antje, still alive in 1876, was also not aware of the existence of the old family heirloom.
Andries over de Linden, who was apparently more acquainted with the contents of the book and with the charge to secrecy and maintenance through inheritance to posterity and eventually necessary through copying, than generally known, had placed the old writings in the care of his living-in daughter with the instruction to hand it over later to his grandson and heir to the family name. She did comply to this request, but only in the year 1848.
The reason for this late complying with the request is also known. The spouse of Aafje, Hendrik Reuvers, had during his life prevented his wife from handing over the old family papers to Cornelis in accordance with her father’s request. In 1845 Reuvers died; a few years later she married Koops Mijlhof who was not aware of the existence of the old documents. She died at Enkhuizen on 4 February 1849.
That the parcel of old documents, [which Cornelis over de Linden and his son had returned with in 1848 to Den Helder after a visit to Enkhuizen], had been present in the ancestral home of his family there, is confirmed by different persons, either from their own recollections or as a result of a formal investigation, by the mention of certain facts or detail regarding this family at Enkhuizen, which were published.
This information being the following:
A. The result of an investigation instigated in 1876 by the gentleman Knuivers at Enkhuizen, into the family Over de Linden there and the manuscript of Cornelis over de Linden (who had died on 22 February 1874) which was by then the already known Oera Linda Book.
For the investigation, Mr. Knuivers approached the then still living descendents of Andries. Old male descendents of this last mentioned [Andries] did not exist any more in Enkhuizen but, there was a daughter of 80 years (Antje) and she was never aware of the manuscript. The widow Keetje Kofman (daughter of Hendrik Reuvers and Aafje o/d L) had, however, heard of it. This widow lived in the ancestral home of this branch of the O.d. Lindens and “without a doubt” goes the article, “a manuscript was preserved here in a corner, covered in dust. How long this manuscript had been there, [and] when it was taken to Den Helder, nobody could say; wherever I knocked and [despite] all my efforts [troubles]”.
B. A statement by the gentleman Munnik (married to a daughter of Cornelis over de Linden’s first wife). He told the following:
“In 1845 (one year before my marriage) C. over de Linden, the book binder Staderman and I went together on a trip (to Enkhuizen). We came to an old sailor, where Over de Linden’s mother was a housekeeper. C.o.d.L. spoke alone to his mother and the old man and, when we were again outside Enkhuizen, he said: ‘It is a bloody awful job. The old man has an old book of us and does not want to release it. From it, it would appear that our family is very old’”.
“Further”, M said, “he spoke of the splendour of woodlands, of lime districts, lime trees, etc. “Though it is Old Fries”; “There (So said C.o.d.L.) lays the bl……[Cussing?]”
“He grumbled like this for a few years (from 1845 -1847), although he started learning Old Fries”.
(The person, from whom o.d. Linden requested the book, would not have been the man where his mother was housekeeper, but Reuvers, the husband of Aunt Aafje [die zij ook bezocht zullen hebben?]).
C. In an article in the Friesche Courant [Frisian Newspaper] of 30 April 1877, Mr. M.K. de Jong, headmaster of the school at Kooten, shared, when the matter of the Oera Linda Book was dealt with in the town’s development club “De Hervorming” [The Reformation], when a fellow townsman, whose love for the truth was beyond any doubt, declared that his uncle Leendert over de Linden told him some 40 years ago (thus about 1837) that there were still some very old writings in the Over de Linden family.
D. A letter from Mr. D. Brouwer, Town Archivist of Enkhuizen, to this author [E. Molenaar], dated 26 October 1939, with the following content:
“With reference to your enquiry regarding the possibility that the manuscript may have already been in the possession of the Over de Linden family in Enkhuizen around 1848, I must inform you that there are no authentic evidence here that could confirm this.
“What is known to me is based on verbal statements:
1. A member of the O.d.L. family still living here assures me that the manuscript was with another family member who lived in Vijzelstraat before 1850. Cornelis o.d. Linden, who worked at the Dock Yards in Den Helder, was born in Enkhuizen and he took the manuscript over from his aunt (Aafje).
2. An old timber man [carpenter], H. Kofman (grandson of Aafje) who has lived his whole life in the house in de Vijzelstraat after the widow Kofman-Reuvers, told me many times that the packet containing the manuscript of the Oera Linda Book had been in the house; he even showed the place where it had been kept before it was taken by Cornelis o/d Linden to Den Helder.”
E. An article in “De Enkhuizen Courant” [The Enkhuizen Newspaper] of 9 January 1934 about an old resident of Enkhuizen, Mr. Hajo Last at Bussum (Died there in 1934, aged 83) wherein he said, inter alia, that he had worked with Hein Kofman (grandson of Aafje) and had asked him once about the manuscript that came from his mother (daughter of Aafje). Hein Kofman told him: “Cousin Over de Linden stole it from my mother”.
No, Hein Kofman, cousin Cornelis did not steal it from your mother; your grandmother received the manuscript for safekeeping from her father Andries over de Linden with the request to give it to his grandson and heir to the family name, Cornelis, and to this she complied.
From all the aforementioned, it is evident:
1. That the manuscript of the contentious Oera Linda Book had been present before 1848 in Enkhuizen, in the ancestral home in de Vijzelstraat.
2. That aunt Aafje in August 1848, during a visit by Cornelis over de Linden and his son, handed the old family documents over to him in accordance with an instruction from her father Andries.
3. That Cornelis over de Linden, as rightful heir to his grandfather, took possession of these documents.
### Posted 24 November 2011 - 10:30 PM
Alewyn, on 24 November 2011 - 08:45 PM, said:
In letters to Siderius, Verwijs, Ottema and to his grandson, Cornelis over de Linden explained every time that he made copies by hand of the original manuscript because he did not want to let the original out of his hands. He was very open about it, and that explains what his grandson saw. Yet, you, Jensma and others continuously try to create the suspicion that Cornelis created, or was a party to the creation of the Oera Linda Book.
Also, as I have pointed out several times before, the story of Floris was out of the THIRD hand, written down a century after it was supposed to have happened.
Floris stayed with his grandfather in the summer of 1869. Two years earlier, in 1867, Verwijs was already writing to state officials about the manuscript (being ca. 200 pages).
What if king Willem would have wanted to come immediately and see it with his own eyes?
Cornelis Over de Linden would not have risked being caught as an impostor.
There are reasons to doubt about some details of his story. In some versions his aunt Aafje gave it to him, in others he got it from his cousin Cornelia. My theory explaines this confusion. But there is no reason to doubt that he got it in 1848.
### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 24 November 2011 - 11:08 PM
To those who may be interested, herewith the address by Dr JG Ottema (1804-1879) to the Frisian Society for History and Culture – February 1871. (I don’t know whether I posted this before)
(Dr. Ottema was the first outsider to take the OLB seriously and also the first outsider to whom Cornelis over de Linden entrusted the original manuscript. He translated and published the OLB in 1872 and again in 1876)
This document is, for the most part, ignored by the hoax theorists. The reader is encouraged to read this document and then to consider the “philosophical” conjecture of those who are trying to prove that the Oera Linda Book is a hoax.
Address by Dr JG Ottema (1804-1879) to the Frisian Society for History and Culture – February 1871
Over de Linden, Chief Superintendent of the Royal Dockyard at the Helder, possesses a very ancient manuscript which has been inherited and preserved in his family from time immemorial, without anyone knowing whence it came or what it contained, owing to both the language and the writing being unknown.
All that was known was that a tradition contained in it had from generation to generation been recommended to careful preservation. It appeared that the tradition rests upon the contents of two letters, with which the manuscript begins, from Hiddo oera Linda, anno 1256, and from Liko Oera Linda, anno 803. It came to C Over de Linden by the directions of his grandfather, Den Heer Andries Over de Linden, who lived at Enkhuizen, and died there on the 15th of April 1820, aged sixty-one. As the grandson was at that time barely ten years old, the manuscript was taken care of for him by his aunt, Aafjie Meylhoff, born Over de Linden, living at Enkhuizen, who in August 1848 delivered it to the present possessor.
Dr E Verwijs having heard of this, requested permission to examine the manuscript, and immediately recognized it as very ancient Fries. He obtained at the same time permission to make a copy of it for the benefit of the Friesland Society, and was of the opinion that it might be of great importance, provided it was not suppositious, and invented for some deceptive object, which he feared. The manuscript being placed in my hands, I also felt very doubtful, though I could not understand what object any one could have in inventing a false composition only to keep it a secret. This doubt remained until I had examined carefully executed facsimiles of two fragments, and afterwards of the whole manuscript - the first sight of which convinced me of the great age of the document.
Immediately occurred to me Caesar’s remark upon the writings of the Gauls and the Helvetians in his Bello Gallico (i. 29, and vi. 14), `Graecis utuntur literis’, though it appears in v. 48 that they were not entirely Greek letters. Caesar thus points out not only a resemblance - and a very true one - as the writing, which does not altogether correspond with any known form of letters, resembles the most, on a cursory view, the Greek writing, such as is found on monuments and the oldest lapidary. Besides, I formed the opinion afterwards that the writer of the latter part of the book had been a contemporary of Caesar.
The form and the origin of the writing is so minutely and fully described in the first part of the book, as it could not be in any other language. It is very complete, and consists of thirty-four letters, among which are three separate forms of a and u, and two of e, i, y, and o, besides four pairs of double constants - ng, th, ks, and gs. The ng, which as a nasal sound has no particular mark in any western language, is an indivisible conjunction; the th is soft, as in English, and is sometimes replaced by d; the gs is seldom met with - I believe only in the word segse, to say, in modern Fries sidse, pronounced sisze.
The paper, of large quarto size, is made of cotton, not very thick, without watermark or maker’s mark, made upon a frame or wire-web, with not very broad perpendicular lines.
An introductory letter gives the year 1256 as that in which this manuscript was written by Hiddo overa Linda on foreign paper. Consequently, it must have come from Spain, where Arabs brought into the market paper manufactured from cotton.
On this subject, W Wattenbach writes in his Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1871), s. 93:
The manufacture of paper from cotton must have been in use among the Chinese from very remote times, and must have become known to the Arabs by the conquest of Samarkand about the year 704. In Damascus this manufacture was an important branch of industry, for which reason it was called Charta Damascena. By the Arabians this art was brought to the Greeks. It is asserted that Greek manuscripts of the tenth century written upon cotton paper exist, and that in the thirteenth century it was much more used than parchment. To distinguish it from Egyptian paper, it was called Charta bombicina, gossypina, cuttunea, xylina. A distinction from linen paper was not necessary. In the manufacture of cotton paper raw cotton was originally used. We first find paper from rags mentioned by Petrus Clusiacensis (1122-50).
The Spaniards and the Italians learned the manufacture of this paper from the Arabians. The most celebrated factories were at Jativa, Valencia, Toledo, besides Fabriano in the March of Ancona’.
In Germany the use of this material did not become very extended, whether it came from Italy or Spain. Therefore the further this preparation spread from the East and the adjoining countries, the more the necessity there was that linen should take the place of cotton. A document of Kaubeuren on linen paper of the year 1318 is of very doubtful genuineness. Bodman considers the oldest pure linen paper to be of the year 1324, but up to 1350 much mixed paper was used. All carefully written manuscripts of great antiquity show by the regularity of their lines that they must have been ruled, even though no traces of the ruled lines can be distinguished. To make the lines they used a thin piece of lead, a ruler, and a pair of compasses to mark the distances.
In old writings the ink is very black or brown; but while there has been more writing since the thirteenth century, the color of the ink is often gray or yellowish, and sometimes quite pale, showing that it contains iron. All this affords convincing proof that the manuscript before us belongs to the middle of the thirteenth century, written with clear black letters between fine lines carefully traced with lead. The colour of the ink shows decidedly that it does not contain iron. By these evidences the date given, 1256, is satisfactorily proved, and it is impossible to assign any later date. Therefore all suspicion of modern deception vanishes.
The language is very old Fries, still older and purer than the Fries Rjuchtboek or old Fries laws, differing from that both in form and spelling, so that it appears to be an entirely distinct dialect, and shows that the locality of the language must have been (as it was spoken) between the Vlie and the Scheldt.
The style is extremely simple, concise, and unembarrassed, resembling that of ordinary conversation, and free in the choice of words. The spelling is also simple and easy, so that the reading of it does not involve the least difficulty, and yet with all its regularity, so unrestricted, that each of the separate writers who have worked at the book has his own peculiarities, arising from the changes in pronunciation in a long course of years, which naturally must have happened, as the last part of the work is written five centuries after the first.
As a specimen of antiquity in language and writing, I believe I may venture to say that this book is unique of its kind.
The writing suggests an observation, which may be of great importance.
The Greeks know and acknowledge that their writing was not their own invention. They attribute the introduction of it to Kadmus, a Phoenician. The names of their oldest letters, from Alpha to Tau, agree so exactly with the names of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet, with which the Phoenician will have been nearly connected, that we cannot doubt that the Hebrew was the origin of the Phoenician. But the form of their letters differs so entirely from that of the Phoenician and Hebrew writing, that in that particular no connection can be thought of between them. Whence, then, have the Greeks derived the form of their letters?
From `thet bok thêra Adela folstar’ (The Book of Adela’s Followers) we learn that in the time when Kadmus is said to have lived, about sixteen centuries before Christ, a brisk trade existed between the Frisians and the Phoenicians, whom they named Kadhemer, or dwellers on the coast.
The name Kadmus comes too near the word Kadhemer for us not to believe that Kadmus simple meant a Phoenician.
Further on we learn that about the same time a priestess of the castle in the island of Walcheren, Min-erva, also called Nyhellenia, had settled in Attica at the head of a Frisian colony, and had founded a castle at Athens. Also, from the accounts written on the walls of Waraburgt, that the Finns likewise had a writing of their own - a very troublesome and difficult one to read - and that, therefore, the Tyrians and the Greeks had learned the writing of Frya. By this representation the whole thing explains itself, and it becomes clear whence comes the exterior resemblance between the Greek and the old Fries writing, which Caesar also remarked among the Gauls; as likewise in what manner the Greeks acquired and retained the names of the Finn and the forms of the Fries writing.
Equally remarkable are the forms of their figures. We usually call our figures Arabian, although they have not the least resemblance to those used by the Arabs. The Arabians did not bring their ciphers from the East, because the Semitic nations used the whole alphabet in writing numbers. The manner of expressing all numbers by ten signs the Arabs learned in the West, though the form was in some measure corresponding with their writing, and was written from left to right, after the Western fashion. Our ciphers seem here to have sprung from the Fries ciphers (siffar), which form had the same origin as the handwriting and is derived from the lines of the Juul?
The book as it lies before us consists of two parts, differing widely from each other, and of dates very far apart. The writer of the first part calls herself Adela, wife of Apol, chief man of the Linda country. This is continued by her son Adelbrost, and her daughter, Apollonia. The first book, running from page 1 to 88, is written by Adela. The following part, from 88 to 94, is begun by Adelbrost and continued by Apollonia. The second book, running from page 94 to 114, is written by Apollonia. Much later, perhaps two hundred and fifty years, a third book is written, from page 114 to 134, by Frethorik; then follows from page 134 to 143, written by his widow, Wiljo; after that from page 144 to 169, by their son, Konered; and then from page 169 to 192 by their grandson, Beeden (a doubtful assumption). Pages 193 and 194, with which the last part must have begun, are wanting, therefore the writer is unknown. He must have been a son of Beeden.
On page 134, Wiljo makes mention of another writing of Adela. These she names `thet bok thêra sanga (theta boek)’ thêra tellinga’, and `thet Hellênia bok’; and afterwards `tha skrifta fon Adela jeftha Hellênia’.
To fix a date we must start from the year 1256 of our era, when Hiddo overa Linda made a copy, in which he says that it was 3 449 years after Atland was sunk. This disappearance of the old land (aldland, atland) was known by the Greeks, for Plato mentions in his `Timaeus’, 24, the disappearance of Atlantis, the position of which was only known as somewhere far beyond the Pillars of Hercules. From this writing it appears that the land stretching far out to the west of Jutland, of which Helgoland and the islands of North Friesland are the last barren remnants. This event, which occasioned a great dispersion of the Frisian race, became the commencement of a chronological reckoning corresponding with 2193 before Christ, and is known by geologists as the Cimbrian flood.
On page 80 begins an account in the year 1602, after the disappearance of Atland, and thus in the year 591 before Christ; and on page 82 is the account of the murder of Frana, `Eeremoeder’, of Texland, two years later - that is, in 589. When, therefore, Adela commences her writing with her own coming forward in an assembly of the people thirty years after the murder of the Eeremoeder, that must have been the year 559 before Christ. In the part written by her daughter Apollonia, we find that fifteen months after the assembly Adela was killed by the Finns in an attack by surprise of Texland. This must accordingly have happened 557 years before Christ. Hence it follows that the first book, written by Adela, was of the year 558 before Christ. The second book, by Apollonia, we may assign to the year 530 before Christ. The later part contains the history of the known kings of Friesland, Friso, Adel (Ubbo), and Asega Askar, called Black Adel. Of the third king, Ubbo, nothing is said, or rather that part is lost, as the pages 169 to 188 are missing. Frethorik, the first writer, who appears now, was a contemporary of the occurrences, which he relates, namely, the arrival of Friso. He was a friend of Liudgert den Geertman, who, as rear admiral of the fleet of Wichhirte, the sea-king, had come with Friso in the year 303 before Christ, 1,890 years after the disappearance of Atland. He has borrowed most of his information from the logbook of Liudgert.
The last writer gives himself out most clearly as a contemporary of Black Adel or Askar, about the middle of his reign, which Furmerius states to have been from 70 before Christ to 11 after the Birth of Christ, the same period as Julius Caesar and Augustus. He therefore wrote in the middle of the last century before Christ, and knew of the conquest of Gaul by the Romans. It is thus evident that there elapsed fully two centuries between the two parts of the work.
Of the Gauls we read on page 84 that they were called the `Missionaries of Sidon’. And on page 124 `that the Gauls are Druids’. The Gauls, then, were Druids and the name Galli, used for the whole nation, was really only the name of an order of priesthood brought from the East, just as among the Romans the Galli were priests of Cybele.
The whole contents of the book are in all respects new. That is to say, there is nothing in it that we were acquainted with before. What we here read of Friso, Adel, and Askar, differs entirely from what is related by our own chroniclers, or rather presents it in quite another light. For instance, they all relate that Friso came from India, and that thus the Frisians were of Indian descent; and yet they add that Friso was a German, and belonged to a Persian race which Herodotus called Germans. Accordingly to the statement in this book, Friso did come from India and with the fleet of Nearchus; but he is not therefore Indian. He is of Frisian origin, of Frya’s people. He belongs, in fact, to a Frisian colony, which after the death of Nyhellenia, fifteen and a half centuries before Christ, under the guidance of a priestess Geert, settled in the Punjab, and took the name of Geertmen. The Geertmen were known by only one of the Greek writers, Strabo, who mentions them as being entirely different from Phoenicians (slightly edited) in manners, language and religion.
The historians of Alexander’s expeditions do not speak of Frisians or Geertmen, though they mention Indo-Scythians, thereby describing a people who lived in India, but whose origin is in the distant, unknown North.
In the accounts of Liudgert no names are given of places where the Frieslanders lived in India. We only know that they first established themselves to the east of the Punjab, and afterwards moved to the west of those rivers. It is mentioned, moreover, as a striking fact, that in summer the sun at midday was straight above their heads. They therefore lived within the tropics. We find in Ptolemy, exactly 24°N. on the west side of the Indus, the name Minnagara; and about six degrees east of that, in 22°N., another Minnagara. This name is pure Fries, the same as Walhallagara, Foolsgara, and comes from Minna, the name of an Eeremoeder, in whose time the voyages of Teunis and his nephew Inca took place.
The coincidence is too remarkable to be accidental, and not to prove that Minnagara was the headquarters of the Frisian Colony. The establishment of the colonists in the Punjab in 1551 before Christ, and their journey thither, we find fully described in Adel’s book; and with the mention of one most remarkable circumstance, namely, that the Frisian mariners sailed through the strait in whose times still ran into the Red Sea.
In Strabo, book i., pages 38 and 50, it appears that Eratosthenes was acquainted with the existence of the strait, of which the later geographers make no mention. It existed still in the time of Moses (Exodus xiv. 2) for he encamped at Piha-chiroht, `the mouth of the strait’. Moreover, Strabo mentions that Sesostris made an attempt to cut through the isthmus, but that he was not able to accomplish it. That in very remote times the sea did flow through is proved by the result of the geological investigations on the isthmus made by the Suez Canal Commission, of which Mr Renaud presented a report to the Academy of Sciences on the 19th June 1856. In that report, among other things, appears the following: `Une question fort controversée est celle de savoir, si à L’époque où les Hebreux fuyaient de l’Egypte sous la conduite de Moïse, les lacs amers faisaient encore partie de la merrouge. Cette dernière hypothèses’ accorderait mieux qu l’hypothèse contraire avec le texte des livres sacres, mais alors il faudrait admettre que depuis l’époque de Moïse le seuil de Suez serait sorti des eaux’.
With regard to this question, it is certainly of importance to fall in with an account in this Frisian manuscript, from which it seems that in the sixteenth century before Christ the connection between the Bitter Lakes and the Red Sea still existed, and that the strait was still navigable. The manuscript further states that soon after the passage of the Geertmen there was an earthquake; that the land rose so high that all the water ran out, and all the shallows and alluvial lands rose up like a wall. This must have happened after the time of Moses, so that at the date of the Exodus (1564 BC) the track between Suez and Bitter Lakes was still navigable, but could be forded dry-foot at low water.
This point, then, is the commencement of the isthmus, after the forming of which, the northern inlet was certainly soon filled up as far as the Gulf of Pelusium.
The map by Louis Figuier, in the `Année scientifique et industrielle’ (première année), Paris, Hachette, 1857, gives a distinct illustration of the formation of this land.
Another statement that occurs only in Strabo, finds also here a conformation. Strabo alone of all the Greek writers relates that Nearchus, after he had landed his troops in the Persian Gulf, at the mouth of the Pasitigris, sailed out of the Persian Gulf, by Alexander’s command, and steered round Arabia through the Arabian Gulf. As the account stands, it is not clear what Nearchus had to do there, and what the object of the further voyage was. If, as Strabo seems to think, it was only for geographical discovery, he need not have taken the whole fleet. One or two ships would have sufficed. We do not read that he returned. Where, then, did he remain with the fleet?
The answer to this question is to found in the Frisian version of the story. Alexander had bought the ships on the Indus, or had had them built by descendants of the Frisians who had settled there - the Geertmen - and had taken into his service sailors from among them, and at the head of them was Friso. Alexander having accomplished his voyage and the transport of his troops, had no further use for the ships in the Persian Gulf, but wished to employ them in the Mediterranean. He had taken that idea into his head, and it must be carried into effect. He wished to do what no one had done before him. For this purpose Nearchus was to sail up the Red Sea, and on his arrival at Suez was to find 200 elephants, 1 000 camels, workmen and materials, timber and ropes &c., in order to haul the ships by hand over the isthmus. This work was carried on and accomplished with so much zeal and energy that after three months’ labor the fleet was launched in the Mediterranean. That the fleet really came to the Mediterranean appears in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander; but he makes Nearchus bring the fleet round Africa, and sail through the pillars of Hercules.
After the defeat at Actium, Cleopatra, in imitation of this example, tried to take her fleet over the isthmus in order to escape to India, but was prevented by the inhabitants of Arabia Petraea, who burnt her ships. (See Plutarch’s Life of Antony). When Alexander shortly afterwards died, Friso remained in the service of Antigonus and Demetrius, until, having been grievously insulted by the latter, he resolved to seek out with his sailors their fatherland, Friesland. To India he could not, indeed, return.
Thus these accounts chime in with and clear up each other, and in that way afford a mutual confirmation of the events.
Such simple narratives and surprising results led me to conclude that we had to do here with more than mere Saga and Legends.
Since the last twenty years, attention has been directed to the remains of the dwellings on piles, first observed in the Swiss lakes, and afterwards in other parts of Europe. (See Dr E Rückert, Die Pfahlbauten; Wurzburg, 1869; Dr TC Winkler, in the Volksalmanak, t.N.v.A.1867). When they were found, endeavours were made to discover, by the existing fragments of arms, tools and household articles, by whom and when these dwelling had been inhabited. There are no accounts of them in historical writers, beyond what Herodotus writes in book v. chapter 16, of the Paeonen. The only trace that has been found is one of the panels of Trajan’s Pillar, in which the destruction of a pile village in Dacia is represented.
Doubly important, therefore, is it to learn from the writing of Apollonia that she, as `Burgtmaagd’ (chief of the virgins), about 540 years before Christ, made a journey up the Rhine to Switzerland, and there became acquainted with the Lake Dwellers (marsaten). She describes their dwellings built upon piles - the people themselves - their manners and customs. She relates that they lived by fishing and hunting, and that they prepared the skins of animals with the bark of the birch-tree in order to sell the furs to the Rhine boatmen, who brought them into commerce. This account of the pile dwellings of the Swiss lakes could only have been written in the time when these dwellings still existed and were still lived in. In the second part of the writing, Konered oera Linda relates that Adel, the son of Friso (approximately 250 years before Christ), visited the pile dwellings in Switzerland with his wife Ifkja.
Later than this account there is no mention by any writer whatever of the pile dwellings, and the subject has remained for twenty centuries utterly unknown until 1853, when an extraordinary low state of the water led to the discovery of these dwellings. Therefore no one could have invented this account in the intervening period. Although a great portion of the first part of the work - the book of Adela - belongs to the mythological period before the Trojan war, there is a striking difference between it and the Greek myths. The Myths have no dates, much less any chronology, nor any internal coherence of successive events. The untrammeled fancy develops itself in every poem separately and independently. The mythological stories contradict each other on every point. `Les Mythes ne se tiennent pas’, is the only key to the Greek Mythology.
Here, on the contrary, we meet with a regular succession of dates starting from a fixed period - the destruction of Atland, 2193 before Christ. The accounts are natural and simple, often naive, never contradict each other, and are always consistent with each other in time and place. As, for instance, the arrival and sojourn of Ulysses with the Burgtmaagd Kalip at Walhallagara (Walcheren), which is the most mythical portion of all, is here said to be 1 005 years after the disappearance of Atland, which coincides with 1188 years before Christ, and thus agrees very nearly with the time at which the Greeks say the Trojan war took place. The story of Ulysses was not brought here for the first time by the Romans. Tacitus found it already in Lower Germany (see Germania, chap. 3), and says that at Asciburgium there was an altar on which the names of Ulysses and his father Laëtes were inscribed.
Another remarkable difference consists in this, that the Myths knew no origin, do not name either writers or relaters of their stories, and therefore never can bring forward any authority; whereas in Adela’s book, for every statement is given a notice where it was found or whence it was taken. For instance, `This comes from Minno’s writings - this is written on the walls of Waraburgt - this in the town of Frya - this at Stavia - this at Walhallagara’.
There is also this further. Laws, regular legislative enactments, such as are found in great numbers in Adela’s book, are utterly unknown in Mythology, and indeed are irreconcilable with its existence. Even when the Myth attributes to Minos the introduction of lawgiving in Crete, it does not give the least account of what the legislation consisted. Also among the Gods of Mythology, there existed no system of laws. The only law was unchangeable Destiny and the will of the supreme Zeus.
With regard to Mythology, this writing, which bears no mythical character, is not less remarkable than with regard to history. Notwithstanding the frequent and various relations with Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, we do not find any traces of acquaintance with the Northern or Scandinavian Mythology. Only Wodin appears in the person of Wodan, a chief of the Frisians, who became the son-in-law of one Magy, King of the Finns, and after his death was deified.
The Frisian religion is extremely simple and pure Monotheism. Wr-Alda or Wr-Alda’s spirit is the only eternal, unchangeable, perfect and almighty being. Wr-Alda created everything. Out of him proceeds everything - first the beginning, then time, and afterwards Irtha, the Earth. Irtha bore three daughters - Lyda, Finda and Frya - the mothers of the three distinct races, black, yellow and white - Africa, Asia and Europe. As such, Frya is the mother of Frya’s people, the Frieslanders. She is the representative of Wr-Alda, and is reverenced accordingly. Frya has established her `Tex’, the first law, and has established the religion of the eternal light. The worship consists of the maintenance of a perpetually burning lamp, foddik, by priestesses, virgins. At the head of the virgins in every town was a Burgtmaagd, and the chief of the Burgtmaagden was the Eeremoeder of the Fryasburgt of Texland. The Eeremoeder governs the whole country. The kings can do nothing, nor can anything happen without her advice and approval. The first Eeremoeder was appointed by Frya herself, and was called Fasta. In fact, we find her the prototype of the Roman Vestal Virgins.
We are reminded here of Velleda (Welda) and `Aurinia in Tacitus (Germania, 8.Hist., iv. 61, 65; v. 22,24. `Annals’ i. 54), and of Gauna, the successor of Velleda, in Dio Cassius (Fragments, 49). Tacitus speaks of the town of Velleda as `edita turris’, page 146. It was the town of Mannagarda forda (Munster).
In the country of the Marsians he speaks of the temple Tanfane (Tanfanc), so called from the sign of the Juul.
The last of these towns was Fastaburgt in Ameland, temple Fost, destroyed, according to Occa Scarlensis, in 806.
If we find among the Frisians a belief in a Godhead and ideas of religion entirely different from the Mythology of other nations, we are the more surprised to find in some points the closest connections with the Greek and Roman Mythology, and even of the origins of the two deities of the highest rank, Min-erva and Neptune. Min-erva (Athene) was originally a Burgtmaagd, priestess of Frya, at the town of Walhallagara, Middelburg, or Domburg, in Walcheren. And this Min-erva is at the same time the mysterious enigmatical goddess of whose worship scarcely any traces beyond the votive stones of Domburg, in Walcheren, Nyhellenia, of whom no mythology knows anything more than the name, which etymology has used for all sorts of fantastical derivations.
The other, Neptune, called by the Etrurians Nethunus, the God of the Mediterranean Sea, appears here to have been, when living, a Friesland Viking, or sea-king, whose home was Alderga (Ouddorp, not far from Alkmaar). His name was Teunis, or Cousin Teunis, who had chosen the Mediterranean as the destination of his expeditions, and must have been deified by the Tyrians at the time when the Phoenician navigators began to extend their voyages so remarkably, sailing to Friesland in order to obtain British tin, northern iron, and amber from the Baltic, about 2 000 years before Christ.
Besides these two we meet with a third mythological person - Minos, the lawgiver of Crete, who likewise appears to have been a Friesland sea-king, Minno, born at Lindaoord, between Wieringen and Kreyl, who imparted to the Cretans an `Asegaboek’. He is that Minos who, with his brother Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, presided as judges over the fates of the ghosts in Hades, and must not be confounded with the late Minos, the contemporary of Aegeus and Theseus, who appears in the Athenian Fables.
The reader may perhaps be inclined to laugh at these statements, and apply to me the words that I myself lately used, fantastic and improbable. Indeed, at first I could not believe my own eyes, and yet after further considerations I arrived at the discovery of extraordinary conformities which render the case much less improbable than the birth of Minerva from the head of Jupiter by a blow from the axe of Hephaestus, for instance.
In the Greek Mythology all the gods and goddesses have a youthful period. Pallas alone has no youth. She is no otherwise than adult. Min-erva appears in Attica as high priestess from a foreign country, a country unknown to the Greeks. Pallas is a virgin goddess, Min-erva is a Burgtmaagd. The fair, blue-eyed Pallas, differing thus in type from the rest of the gods and goddesses, evidently belonged to Frya’s people. The character for wisdom and emblematical attributes, especially the owl, are the same for both. Pallas gives to the new town her own name, Athenai, which has no meaning in Greek. Min-erva gives to the town built by her the name Athene, which has an important meaning in Fries, namely that they came there as friends - `Athen’.
Min-erva came to Athens about 1 600 years before Christ, the period at which the Grecian Mythology was beginning to be formed. Min-erva landed with the fleet of Jon at the head of a colony in Attica. In later times we find her on the Roman votive stones in Walcheren, under the name of Nyhellenia, worshipped as a goddess of navigation; and Pallas is worshipped by the Athenians as the protecting goddess of shipbuilding and navigation.
Time is the carrier who must eternally turn the `Jol’ (wheel) and carry the sun along his course through the firmament from winter to winter, thus forming the year, every turn of the wheel being a day. In winter the `Jolfeest’ is celebrated on Fry’s day. Then cakes are baked in the form of the sun’s wheel, because with the Jol Frya formed the letters when she wrote her `Tex’. The Jolfeest is therefore also in honor of Frya as inventor of writing.
Just as this Jolfeest has been changed by Christianity into Christmas throughout Denmark and Germany, and into St Nicholas Day in Holland; so, certainly, our St Nicholas’ dolls - the lover and his sweetheart - are a memorial of Frya, and the St Nicholas letters a memorial of Frya’s invention of letters formed from the wheel.
I cannot analyze the whole contents of this writing, and must content myself with the remarks that I have made. They will give an idea of the richness and importance of the contents. If some of it is fabulous, it must have an interest for us, since so little of the traditions of our forefathers remain to us.
An internal evidence of the antiquity of these writings may be found in the fact that the name Batavians had not yet been used. The inhabitants of the whole country as far as the Scheldt are Frya’s people - Frieslanders. The Batavians are not a separate people. The name Batavi is of Roman origin. The Romans gave it to the inhabitants of the banks of the Waal, which river bears the name Patabus in the `Tabula Pentingeriana’. The name Batavi does not appear earlier than Tacitus and Pliny, and is interpolated in Caesar’s `Bello Gallico’, iv. 10. (See my treatise on the course of the rivers through the countries of the Frisians and Batavians, p. 49, in `DeVrije Fries’. 4th vol. 1st part, 1845).
I will conclude with one more remark regarding the language. Those who have been able to take only a superficial view of the manuscripts have been struck by the polish of the language, and its conformity with the present Friesland language and Dutch. In this they seem to find grounds for doubting the antiquity of the manuscript.
But, I ask, is, then, the language of Homer much less polished than that of Plato or Demosthenes? And does not the greatest portion of Homer’s vocabulary exist in the Greek of our day?
It is true that language alters with time, and is continually subject to slight variations, owing to which language is found to be different at different epochs. This change in the language in this manuscript accordingly gives ground for important observations to philologists. It is not only that of the eight writers who have successively worked at the book. Each is recognizable by slight peculiarities in style, language and spelling; but more particularly between the two parts of the book, between which an interval of more than two centuries occurs, a striking difference of the language is visible, which shows what a slowly progressive regulation it has undergone in that period of time. As a result of these considerations, I arrive at the conclusion that I cannot find any reason to doubt the authenticity of these writings. They cannot be forgeries. In the first place, the copy of 1 256 cannot be. Who could have at that time forged anything of that kind? Certainly no one. Still less any one at an earlier date. At a later date a forgery is equally impossible, for the simple reason that no one was acquainted with the language. Except Grimm, Richthofen and Hettema, no one can be named sufficiently versed in that branch of philology, or who had studied the language so as to be able to write in it. And if one could have done so, there would have been no more extensive vocabulary at his service than that which the East Frisian laws afford. Therefore, in the centuries lately elapsed, the preparation of this writing was impossible. Whoever doubts this let him begin by showing where, when, by whom, and with what object such a forgery could be committed, and let him show in modern times the fellow of this paper, this writing, and this language.
Moreover, that the manuscript of 1 256 is not original, but is a copy, is proved by the numerous faults in the writing, as well as by some explanations of words, which already in the time of the copyist had become obsolete and little known, as, for instance, in pages 82 (114), `to thera flete jefta bedrum’; page 151 (204), `bargum jefta tonnum fon tha besta bjar’.
A still stronger proof is that between pages 157 and 158 one or more pages are missing, which cannot have been lost out of the manuscript because the pages 157 and 158 are on the front and the back of the same leaf.
Page 157 finishes thus: `Three months afterwards Adel sent messengers to all the friends that he had gained, and requested them to send him intelligent people in the month of May’. When we turn over the leaf, the other side begins, `his wife, he said, who had been Maid of Texland’, had got a copy of it.
There is no connection between these two. There is wanting, at least, the arrival of the invited, and an account of what passed at their meeting. It is clear, therefore, that the copyist must have turned over two pages of the original instead of one.
There certainly existed then an earlier manuscript, and that was doubtless written by Liko oera Linda in the year 803.
We may thus accept that we possess in this manuscript, of which the first part was composed in the sixth century before our era, the oldest production, after Homer and Hesiod, of European literature. And here we find in our fatherland a very ancient people in possession of development, civilization, industry, commerce, literature, and pure elevated ideas of religion, whose existence we had never conjectured. Hitherto we have believed that the historical records of our people reach no farther back than the arrival of Friso the presumptive founder of the Frisians, whereas here we become aware that these records mount up to more than 2 000 years before Christ, surpassing the antiquity of Hellas and equalling that of Israel.
### Posted 25 November 2011 - 08:26 AM
Thank you Alewyn for translating that important text from Molenaar.
Alewyn, on 24 November 2011 - 12:49 PM, said:
To get around this damning evidence against their hoax theory, they have to deny or discredit any references to the OLB before 1854. Everything from the Oera Linda Book, to letters, sworn statements and, in fact, any evidence and persons referring to an earlier date are shouted down as a hoax or a conspiracy. The fact that they have not produced a single shred of concrete evidence over the last 140 years, or even over the last 18 months in this forum, do not seem to bother them in the least. Their speculation would have been laughable to anyone who has made a study of the Oera Linda Book and the facts surrounding it, had it not been so tragic.
Tragic is the right word.
There are many letters and other writings available from the hand of Cornelis Over de Linden. These give good insight into his mind and soul. He suffered a great deal from the false accusations of being a shameless liar and impostor. According to the hoax theorists, he would have lied to his grandchildren, even on his death bed and in his testament. It is this kind of injustice that drives honest and innocent people to madness and sometimes suicide. Similarly, it was suggested that Ottema was insane. We have many examples nowadays of how sensational press can destroy someone's reputation and life. The most succesful journalists (and 'scientists'!) are not always the most intelligent, honest and ethical ones. The crouds want to be pleased; malicious delight and gossip sells better than truth. To me there's hardly anything more depressing.
Quote
Just to make certain that people will further denounce the book, they have added the label of a religious or “Pagan Bible".
... or Nazi- or NewAge-Bible.
Quote
In the next instance they would like to have people believe that all the facts in the OLB were known in the 19th century. Nothing is further from the truth.
People who believe this should read the discussions of the elite in the time the book was first presented. They give a good impression of what was known and believed then. Even Jensma in 2004 still called many facts that what we have found out in this thread "based on phantasy", because he didn't know.
### Alewyn Raubenheimer posted 25 November 2011 - 11:20 AM
Oct 1872 – Feb 1874. Essay by Cornelis over de Linden (Addressed to grandson Cornelis III). The text was published in J. Beckering Vinckers’ “Wie heeft het Oera-Linda-Boek geschreven” (“Who wrote the Oera Linda Book”) (Kampen 1877).
(My translation of the Dutch version posted by Knul a few weeks ago. Knul’s and Beckering Vinckers’ remarks have been omitted.)
To my grandson Cornelis and further descendents,
Everybody who has any interest in my manuscript, asks me how I obtained it. You may possibly do the same later but, as it is not certain that I will still be alive, I want to write it down here.
Introduction:
My great-grandfather (Jan over de Linden) had two sons, of which my (grand) father (Andries over de Linden) was the eldest. He thus became the possessor of the manuscript.
My father (Jan over de Linden II) moved to Amsterdam when I was still quite small but, as soon as my parents dared to let me go on my own, I yearly went to my grandparents.
My father had two sisters: Antje and Aafje. Antje was married, and Aafje still unmarried and lived with her parents. When she later also married, she still lived with her parents and at last, they lived with her.
In the year 1821 (1820) my grandmother died and, if I remember correctly, my grandfather died three weeks after. How it fared with my father and his sister, I do not know, but my aunt Afje stayed with her husband and her children in my grandfather’s house.
When my grandparents had passed away, I felt no obligation to go to Enkhuizen annually. I thus stayed away.
In the year 1836 (1835) my father died. After his death my mother came to the Nieuwediep. The place did not appeal to her and so she went to Enkhuizen. When my mother lived at Enkhuizen, I visited her whenever the opportunity arose. Thus I also visited her in the year 1848 and my aunt Aafje also paid a visit. Her husband had died and now she was married to one Koos Meijlhof. After I had spoken some to her, I asked her whether I could see the garden once more where I had so much delight as a child. She went ahead of me and the first tree my eyes fell upon was a Saint-Laurens tree on which there were already a few ripe pears.
“Since Grandfathers death” I said, “I have not tasted any of this fruit. If you do not object, I would like to pick me a few of these beautiful pears.”
“That you may.” She said.
When I had picked them, she went on to say: “You spoke of grandfather, but I still have something for you. Hendrik would not let me give it to you but Koops does not know about it. She then went away and fetched the manuscript.
“This is a family book”, she said on handing it over. “The language is Old Fries and has been preserved by the family for centuries, therefore, I must impress upon you that you must value it very highly.”
“But”, I asked her before thanking her, “Why did Grandfather not give the book to my father?”
“That question,” she said, “I also asked your Grandfather, but he said ‘Kees (Cornelis) must have it (in any case) and if I give it to him, Jan cannot get rid of it.’”
I imagined something completely different but, I made as if I was very happy as though I had received a gold watch.
As soon as I arrive in the Nieuwediep, I studied it but, it was as intelligible to me as though it was Chinese. Disappointed, I put it aside but, I could not refrain from taking it in my hands every now and then. Eventually I deciphered the words Oera Linda and over tha Linda, (and) it did occur to me that these were synonyms of Over de Linden. The claim of my aunt, that it was a family book, could thus not be contradicted.
Educated friends, who could have helped me with my further investigations, I did not have, and to call on somebody through the press who would have translated it for a sum, I could not afford. When I had an opportunity, I went to the Book Dealer, Bkkr, and asked him for an Old Fries Dictionary. He gave me a dictionary on the poems of Gijsbert Japiks. Now I continued with vigor and I progressed so far that I could read the “Lape koer fen gabe schroer” (JH Halbertsma) quite well and that was the end of it.
Somebody told me that the letters in the book was rune script; thereupon I searched for a book on rune script and found a little book with the title: “Bimerkingen, om en steenoxe met runeinskrift til horende H.M. Kongen of Danmark”. I was none the wiser.
Somebody else told me the script was Phoenician. Now I searched for Phoenician and found a little book with the title: “Palaographische studien”. I must admit that as far as I could make out, the letters in my book looked both like rune script and Phoenician script, but I remained ignorant. How could I have the manuscript translated?
As Meesterknecht (Superintendent?) I could travel (take leave?) six days every year. By making use of this perk, I first went to Amsterdam where I could stay over at some cousins of my first wife. I could stay over, eat, drink, etc, but not sleep there. I therefore went to a boarding-house diagonally across the Heintjehoeksteeg (on the banks?) but I was not happy with this arrangement. The second morning, when I was in the coffee room, a gentleman and his wife joined me at the table, talking about their further journey to Harlingen.
When I heard Harlingen, I thought “Here you have, so to say, been to the other end of the world and Friesland, where people say your ancestors came from, you have never seen.”
“Are you going to Harlingen?” I asked my table companions
“Yes, Captain.”
“Then I am going with”
“That will be a pleasure. Then we have each others company.”
We thus went together on the journey. When we approached Harlingen, the lady asked: “Where are you actually going?”
“To Harlingen”.
“You said so, but you should know to whom you are going.”
“No. When you spoke about Harlingen, I thought I might as well travel with these people. That is all.”
“Well”, said the man, “I find that bloody strange. If you do not know where you are going , then come to us!”
“With the greatest of pleasure” and so I went with Mr. and Mrs. Siderius to “The Lanen”.
After the meal, the gentleman went with me for a stroll. That evening we had a drink and so the conversation came to my manuscript which I could not read.
“You must send something over”, Mr. Siderius said. “We have here a teacher, a Mr. Jansen, who is so well versed in Old Fries that he will translate it for you in no time”.
When I was back at Den Helder, I bought some writing paper which I placed like tracing paper over my manuscript and traced the letters. When I had traced some 4 pages, I sent it over.
Some time later Mr. Siderius wrote me that they have discovered old Fries laws in my tracings like they haven’t done in years. Over Christmas he and his wife would visit me and then I should have a whole consignment ready. I prepared a whole package and when he was with me, I actually showed him the (original) manuscript.
After he had been back in Friesland for a long time, I wrote him (asking) why I have not yet seen any translation. He replied that they thought all along there was some cunning fellow here in Den Helder who was joking with them; in addition he asked whether the manuscript was on paper or parchment. As he had seen the manuscript, I found the question ridiculous and thought the Frisians was taking me for a ride. When Mr. Siderius was with me, he told me that as Mr. Jansen was unable to do the translation, the assistance of the archivist Mr. Eelco Verwijs was called in. When I then thought that Siderius was deceiving me, I wrote to Mr. Eelco Verwijs how I began, on advice from Mr. Siderius, to have some tracings of my manuscript translated by Mr. Jansen from Harlingen; though I have not seen any translation and that I, in fact, have heard that he could not even, without his (Verwijs’) help, do the translation. I (therefore) took the liberty to send him a loose page of my manuscript whereby I requested him to let me know how much he would ask me per page to do the translation.
He replied that he, misled by the strange facsimiles, was afraid that there was somebody at Den Helder who tried to deceive him but now that he had a page of the original, he no longer had any doubts about the authenticity of the manuscript; that he did not want any compensation for the translation if I would allow him to make the contents known to the outside world, etc.
This is what the honourable gentleman wrote me on 13 October 1867. I have kept the letter as I have done with others he later wrote me. From these letters you can see how he did his best to get the manuscript out of my hands, etc. The first page “Okko, mijn zoon” he sent back with the translation, but now he wanted the whole manuscript. I answered him that he could see from the first page he translated that I had to protect the manuscript with body and soul; therefore I could not let the manuscript out of my hands without being disobedient to the utmost will of my ancestors.
After much correspondence he came himself.
“Once he is in my presence,” he wrote, “it will go much better”.
It did not go better, though, and Eelco Verwijs left upset. (Thursday, 21 November 1867) He took the last copies of my manuscript but except for “Okke mijn zoon”, he had not yet translated anything for me. Whilst he was with me over a drink, I asked him to translate something for me from the manuscript. He opened the book en told me the story where Ulysses was with the burghmaagd Kalib.
When he had read half a page, he shut the book saying “You can see all Eastern, Western and Nordic gods and goddesses are mentioned here. It is a wonderful book.”
It was out. His actions left me with the impression that he wanted to keep me in the dark about the contents and thereby obtain it from me for next to nothing. But he was off the mark; for that he had put on too much airs.
Once I looked him up in Leiden and told him that I am approaching sixty and that I have read that only eight persons in a hundred reach that age (and) that it is now time that I became acquainted with the contents of my manuscript.
“Yes”, he said, “if you want a good translation, you must be patient. I do not have the time and therefore I have placed it in the hands of a Dr. Winkler in Leeuwarden and this gentleman very much enjoys old Friesian”.
As I did not hear anything more about the matter, I resigned myself to the fact that I would not hear anything further. This was, however, not the case.
In the evening of 24 December 1870, I received a letter with an unknown handwriting. The letter was from the hon. Dr. Ottema (written 22 December 1870).
He wrote to me that Eelco Verwijs, through my kindness, was able to donate a translation of an Old Frisian document to the Frisian Society.
The mentioned manuscript was place in his hands to investigate but that he could see from my facsimiles that the gentleman E. Verwijs had made a number of errors, wherefore he asked me very friendly to have the original manuscript.
I answered that I was not so disinterested to lend the gentleman E. Verwijs a manuscript for the Frisian Society; that I was not even aware of the existence of such a society but, that I had given it to him to translate it for me, though, now that the matter is clear, he could borrow sections on condition that, with every section he returns, he must send a translation. The gentleman Ottema accepted these conditions and he remained true to his word.
That winter, my son Anton Jan (born 1843) was home. When a new translation came, then he and my son Leendert (born 1837) and their wives would come to hear what Dr. Ottema had to say to us. Then it was an inexpensive family feast and I cannot recall ever having experienced more joy. In addition, the contents, especially the laws, were very much to my liking, although, I had to admit, they could not be applied any more to the present society.
The next summer when I and my wife went to Harlingen, we stretched our journey to Leeuwarden because I was curious to see the gentleman Ottema. When I was walking with him in his garden, his cousin told my wife that Uncle only lived for the manuscript; so much so that, when the last section left, he was quite depressed and said “There it goes now”.
At this occasion, he also taught me to recognize the letters by which I have progressed so far that I can read the manuscript somewhat.
When I was back in Harlingen, I receive 25 booklets from him. These contained the report that he gave to the Frisian Society on his findings. As soon as the report was in the hands of the Dutch scholars, observations, so to say, were generated. It came down to this that the whole thing was a hoax. Through all these remarks I also started to doubt but then the gentleman Ottema came out of his corner and proved from the journey of Apollonia and the pile dwellings that they were wrong.
“Yes”, the opponents said “but then the piece was written after (18)50”.
As I knew that I had it in my possession since the year 1848 of our Lord I, at least, was convinced that the piece had to be genuine.
From all this opposition, the Frisian Society refused to fund the publishing of the work, but the gentleman Ottema showed that he was a Frisian of the old mould who would not let any opposition distract him from his goal. He sought a publisher himself and so, without the help of others, it (the book) saw the light.
When the book was in the trade, the gentleman Brouwer from Limburg still attempted in “Den Spectator” to declare the book to be worthless rubbish. Many of my learned acquaintances approved of his judgment. I am not a learned man but I got the impression of a mischievous youth shouting at a servant outside the door because he was whipped for playing tick-tock (on the door). I was nevertheless amazed at his bombast, which, at a first glance seemed like as good reasoning. It brings life to the world.
At the Town Council of Enkhuizen they received a request from The Hague to find my family tree. Mr. van Alpen, Inspector of Steam Affairs (?), asked me how I found the book. A representative of the Provincial Administration from Friesland advised me to deposit the manuscript in the archives of Friesland, with proof of ownership, whereupon my descendents could always get it, etc. The book is thus out in the open (in the world).
(The end has not been published [apparently] on the request of L.F. over de Linden)
### Posted 26 November 2011 - 10:32 AM
Abramelin, on 25 November 2011 - 04:07 PM, said:
Onze voorouders (Our ancestors) - Jacob van Lennep
http://books.google....epage&q&f=false
This is an important source for who wants to know how the early 19th century Dutch thought about their ancient past.
I already like Van Lennep's introduction (sorry no translation yet):
Men heeft veel over het nuttige of nadeelige der historische romans geschreven en getwist: en het is mijne bedoeling niet, te dezer plaatse dit vraagpunt op nieuw te berde te brengen. Dat ik mij aan het opstellen en uitgeven van dergelijke verhalen bezondig, is een bewijs, dat ik de soort voorsta en mijn gevoelen te dien opzichte kan niet onpartijdig zijn. Slechts dit geloof ik te kunnen vaststellen, dat de rechte kennis der waarheid minder schade lijdt door een roman dan door een dagblad of een geschiedkundig werk. Dit moge bij den eersten opslag een paradox schijnen; maar niets is er, dat meer heeft van een paradox dan een nieuw denkbeeld: — en de verklaring mijner stelling is dood eenvoudig. De lezer van een roman is reeds door den tytel gewaarschuwd, dat hij waarheid en verdichting door een gemengd zal vinden: en hij heeft het zichzelf te wijten, zoo hij alles voor goede munt opneemt. De dagblad- en historieschrijver daarentegen beloven waarheid: — en hoevelen onder hen zijn er, die woord houden?
And then the title of part I "ALWART".
As "Alward" (which sounds the same), this is an anagram of "Wralda".
Coincidence?
### Posted 26 November 2011 - 10:48 AM
Abramelin, on 25 November 2011 - 07:43 PM, said:
Oh, and a nice extra: "Freia" (the goddess) is mentioned a couple of times; one time in a poem sung by some witch, another time by someone who was a bit displeased with the (sexual) behaviour of (I think some) Romans (like in "if Freia could prevent this, this would not happen").
Quite relevant.
The phrase "Freia behoede ons!" (May Freya save us!) is also found in:
De Gids. Nieuwe Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen. G.J.A. Beijerinck, Amsterdam 1839.
http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_gid001183901_01/_gid001183901_01_0115.php
(one year after publication of Van Lennep's book)
### Posted 26 November 2011 - 04:13 PM
Abramelin, on 26 November 2011 - 02:06 PM, said:
(Translation from Knul:) This is the place to point out similarities between Joost Halbertsma and Jacob van Lennep (1802-1868) [...] Freerk Dirks Fontein (1777-1843) was a merchant-scholar from Harlingen.
I can think of another explanation for the 'similarities' between some elements of the OLB and some of the ideas of
Joost Halbertsma (1789-1869),
Jacob van Lennep (1802-1868) and
Freerk Fontein (1777-1843).
Jan Over de Linden (ca.1718-1794) was book-printer, publisher and trader in Enkhuizen.
Until now, none of his publications are identified but that does not mean they did not exist.
If he indeed owned the manuscript he may have published some of it's information and it's also possible that he (or one of his forefathers) invited people he trusted, to have a look at it or discuss it. They may have promised to keep the secret of the manuscript, while being allowed to use it as inspiration.
All speculation of course, just like the stuff the hoax theories are made of.
### 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...
==>> see seperate post on Fryskednis
### Posted 27 November 2011 - 08:55 PM
Abramelin, on 27 November 2011 - 03:24 PM, said:
OK, so you agree that those stilt-houses ("paalwoningen" or "hutten op palen") were known before 1853?
It's interesting that Jakob van Lennep puts the Marezaten (Marsaten) in the middle of- or in the western part of the Netherlands, near/on a lake called "Meir". So the name would mean something like "seated on the Meir".
But the OLB suggests these Marsaten lived close to the Swiss.... as though the discovery of those stilt houses in 1853 forced the creator(s) of the OLB to re-locate them and move them much further inland into the direction of Switzerland.
MÁR-SATA AND HJARA PÀL-HUSA ~ a reconstruction
1745: Jan Over de Linden (age 26) moves from Leeuwarden to Enkhuizen, bringing with him the manuscript.
1764: Jan Over de Linden (age 45) starts bookshop in Enkhuizen (Nieuwe Westerstraat).
1794: Jan Over de Linden dies (age 75) and leaves the manuscript to his son Andries (age 34).
1820: Andries Over de Linden dies (age 60) and leaves the manuscript to his daughter Aafje (age 21) and the father of her daughter, Hendrik Reuvers (age 24), who were both living in Andries' house.
1838: Jacob Van Lennep (age 36) publishes history-based novel, in which he describes Marezaten with stilt houses in Holland.
1845: Hendrik Reuvers dies (age 49). Cornelis Over de Linden (age 34, grandson of Andries) from Den Helder starts attempts to obtain the manuscript
1848: Cornelis Over de Linden (age 37), succeeds and becomes owner of manuscript.
1853: Discovery archaeological remains of stilt houses in Switzerland.
1867: Cornelis Over de Linden starts looking for help of scholars in Leeuwarden with translation of the manuscript.
1872: First publication of transcription and translation of the manuscript, that would become known as the Oera Linda Book (OLB).
Fragment from the manuscript [OLB p.109/14]
BOPPA THÉRE RÉNA TWISK THET BERCHTA. THÉR HÀV IK MÁR.SÁTA SJAN.
THA MÁR.SÁTA THÀT SEND MÀNNISKA THÉR INVPPA MÁRA HÉMA.
HJARA HUSA SEND VP PÀLUM BUWAD.
THÀT IS VRET WILDE KWIK ÀND BOSE MÀNNISKA.
THÉR SEND WOLVA BÁRA ÀND SWÁRTE GRISLIKA LÁWA.
ÀND HJA SEND THA SWETSAR JEFTHA PÀLENGGAR FON DA HÉINDE KRÉKA LANDER THÉRA KÀLTA FOLGAR ÀND THA VRWILDERE TWISKAR.
ALLA GÍRICH NÉI RÁV ÀND BUT.
THA MÁRSÁTA HELPATH HJARA SELVA MITH FISKA ÀND JÁGA.
THA HUDA WRDATH THRVCH THA WIVA TOMAKAD ÀND BIRHET MITH SKORS FON BERKUM.
THA LITHA HUDA SAFT LIK FÁMNA FILT. [...]
HJRA FACHTA ÀND KRUDA WRDON THRVCH THA RÉN.HÉMAR VRWANDELATH ÀND THRVCH THA STJURAR BUTA BROCHT.
Wherefrom did Van Lennep get the idea of Marezaten with stilthouses in Holland?
As far as I know there are no archaeological finds therof in Holland, nor older (accepted) sources.
Where did Van Lennep get this idea from?
Explanation: Some of the information from the OLB was vaguely known to some people.
If the manuscript would be a fabrication, and the phrase about the Már-sata and their stilt houses would have been based on Van Lennep's work, why would they be located (correctly, but different from Van Lennep interpretation!) in Switzerland?
The only possible explanation is that the manuscript would have been made after the 1853 finds, which can only be true if Over de Linden and all his witnesses were liars.
A more likely explanation (without any liars) is that Van Lennep based his story on (inaccurate) information, that came (directly or indirectly) from the manuscript.
### Posted 27 November 2011 - 09:01 PM
Alewyn, on 27 November 2011 - 08:00 PM, said:
Had the writers of the Oera Linda Book used sources such as van Lennip for their story, then surely one would have expected them to have described, and located, these people in the Netherlands. They actually went against van Lennip, however, and placed them in the region of Switzerland - exactly where archaeologists found them in 1853/4.
Exactly! Van Lennep's info came (distorted) from OLB, not the other way around!
### Posted 27 November 2011 - 09:07 PM
Otharus, on 27 November 2011 - 08:55 PM, said:
A more likely explanation (without any liars) is ...
That is... except for the (relatively small) understandable lie of Cornelis that his Aunt Aafje gave him the manuscript and that he didn't know of its existence (as described by me earlier). Important is that he obtained it from his family in Enkhuizen, 1848. That was not a lie.
### Posted 27 November 2011 - 10:09 PM
Abramelin, on 27 November 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:
Every known map of the ancient Netherlands located the Marsaten somewhere in the Netherlands.
Marsaten means lake- or marsh-dwellers.
But it's the pole-houses that are the key.
Pole-houses were not found in the Netherlands, nor described earlier than by Van Lennep (as far as we know).
### Posted 27 November 2011 - 10:13 PM
If the supposed hoaxers based the pole-houses in Switzerland on the 1853 finds, why would they call their inhabitants Már-sata? How did Van Lennep get his idea to add the idea of Pole-houses to the Marsati?
### Posted 27 November 2011 - 10:24 PM
Abramelin, on 27 November 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:
If a Van Lennep knew of the OLB long before it was published, why would he locate them smack in the middle of the Netherlands, a country known for having no mountains at all?
Van Lennep may not have known the OLB itself, but some of the information, through 'unofficial' channels (hearsay).
As we say in Dutch: he had heard the bell, but didn't know where the clapper was hanging.
("Hij had een klok horen luiden, maar wist niet waar de klepel hing")
### Posted 28 November 2011, 12:24 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:
The key is that a Van Lennep mentions pole houses 15 years before they were discovered in Switzerland.
One of the arguments for the OLB is that it mentions these pole houses "which were not known before then", but Van Lennep already did 15 years before the manuscript shows up for the first time.
I don't think Van Lennep just invented them.
Exactly. Van Lennep must have had a source.
What source?
Possibly oral tradition, but based on what?
That the manuscript showed up for the first time 15 years after Van Lennep's publication does not mean it did not exist before he published.
Anyway, the question was if Van Lennep could be the source for OLB's pole-houses.
The answer: not likely.
It's actually more probable that it's the other way around, as I have argued.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 12:41 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:
Actually, he didn't.
As I have shown you he mentions the Marezaten a couple of times as close neighbours of the Batavians, the Batavians who lived on 'an island' (between the rivers Rhine and Maas). But if you read his book about ancient Dutch history, you'll see he actually talks about the Batavians (he says something like they must have learned the art from beavers, lol).
OK, so Van Lennep in 1838 described Batavians with pole-houses in what is now Holland (in a history based novel), that were never found and for which there is no known source.
And OLB (that according to Cornelis OL and witnesses existed in 1848 or earlier) describes Lake- or Marshdwellers with pole-houses in nowaday Switserland, of which in 1853 archaeological evidence was found.
This means that, with the data we have now, OLB can only be a hoax if it was created after 1853, which can only be true if Cornelis Over de Linden lied consequently during the last years of his life, even to his own grandchildren. It also means that all witnesses (some under oath and some respected schoolmasters) lied as well.
A characteristic of paranoid conspiracy theories is that they are based on distrust.
Cornelis Over de Linden is not guilty of lying until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is still too much doubt to not give him the benefit of it.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 12:51 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:
And my point about Van Lennep was that - contrary what you read about the OLB all over the internet - pole houses were apparently known by Dutch people before the OLB showed up.
If the concept of pole-houses was only known in Holland before the remains were found in Switzerland, the question remains: how did the Dutch know?
Possibly from a hidden manuscript?
Did Cornelis' forefathers talk about it (as according to witnesses his father did)?
### Posted 28 November 2011, 02:03 PM
So, suppose the OLB was fabricated in the 19th century, what do you think would be more likely:
- that is was finished after 1853, which means Over de Linden et al lied
or:
- that the author(s) guessed right placing pole-houses in Switzerland, like they guessed right (and used only correct sources) in a huge load of cases that we have already identified (we should make an inventory!)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ It is also possible - and in my perception more likely - that Apollánja's report is authentic.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 02:43 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 01:50 PM, said:
The problem with this OLB "Middel Se" (Middle Sea) being the Mediterranean is, like I have said many times, that it was located "into the direction of the evening", while the "Aster Se" (East Sea/Baltic) was "in the direction of the morning".
Clearly the OLB is talking about Northern Europe.
The Med is and was in the south.
In the mind of a Frisian sailor, the old-Fryan coastline would roughly have been from the utter (North-) east to the utter (South-) west; where the Middelsea starts (at Gibraltar's gate).
See Map.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 04:49 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 03:02 PM, said:
The OLB Marsaten lived north or north-west of these Swiss ("Swetsar").
First in a row you had the Marsaten who lived in pole houses, THEN you got the Swetsar who lived nearest the Heinde Krekalander (Italy).
"Then come the Swiss, the nearest to the frontiers of the distant Italians"
No, because Sandbach's translation was inaccurate.
[OLB 109/22]
ÀND HJA SEND THA SWETSAR JEFTHA PÀLENGGAR
FON DA HÉINDE KRÉKA LANDER THÉRA KÀLTA FOLGAR
ÀND THA VRWILDERE TWISKAR
[O+S 151]
En zij zijn de naburen of aangrenzenden
van de heinde Krekalanden, der Kalta volgers
en der verwilderde Twiskar
[And they are the neighbours (Swetsar) or adjacents]
of the distant
and the
The word SWETSAR is based on the Oldfrisian word SWETHE; border.
SWETSAR was a synonym to PÀLENGGAR.
Yet another toponym that can be etymologically explained with Oldfrisian.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 05:15 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 02:50 PM, said:
The entrance of the Med is south-west, the Med itself is at the south.
It is much more simple than you think.
An early Frisian who wanted to go to the Mediterranean, would not have gone south over land, but sailed southwestwards along the coastline. From autumn till spring that is where the sun sets, from a Frisian point of view.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 05:28 PM
The Puzzler, on 28 November 2011 - 05:05 PM, said:
I think this word might equate to 'wild'.ie; savage - VRWILDERE, although you have degraded, fair enough.
An Englishish version would be: overwildered
My dictionary translates: wild, neglected, gone wild, unkempt, dishevelled, mad, distraught, corrupted, depraved, degenerated, demoralized, brutalized, degraded, dehumanized, bestialized, animalized.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 05:33 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:
If Europe was Fryan territory, then the Med would have been in it's south.
They talk about the Middle Sea, not about the entrance to the Middle Sea.
There were no highways, railroads or airports!
The best way to get there from their cultural centre Texland (if we assume that is roughly where now Texel is), was by ship, soutwestwards; in the direction of where the sun sets.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 06:22 PM
Alewyn, on 21 October 2010 - 02:26 AM, said:
Thank you so much for your kind words Otharus. I think I understand how much it takes to go against entrenched populist ideas; especially on such an emotional subject as this is in the Netherlands.
Have you noticed how this posting of yours is totally ignored by Abe in his subsequent posting? I think you and the other readers will draw their own conclusions from that.
From your video I see that Westfriesland was conquered in 1297 AD.
In 1902 the mighty British Empire conquered the two tiny Boer Republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State in South Africa after a 3 year war. Some 22 000 British soldiers, 4 000 Boer combatants and 26 000 Boer women and children died in the conflict (the women and children died in British concentration camps).
After the war, Dutch and Afrikaans were banned from all schools and public services such as courts, state departments, etc. For the next almost 40 years, Afrikaners could not rise beyond the position of foreman in any industry or state department. There was a deliberate attempt to eradicate Afrikaans. My late father recounted how he was told not to speak “that language” when he would apply for work on the mines.
From what little I know of Frisian history, it seems like the same policy was followed in the Netherlands after 1297 AD. Yet, after more than 700 years they still exist - absolutely marvellous.
Liko Oera Linda’s letter of 803 AD comes to mind:
(For material gain) “they conspire with foreign kings, who know that we are their greatest enemies, because we dare to speak to their people of liberty, rights, and the duties of princes. Therefore they seek to destroy all that we derive from our forefathers, and all that is left of our old customs.”
I can certainly understand that.
I hope somebody will respond to your conclusion in your video that “the language of (the) Oera Linda Book is Overold Dutch – Old (West-Frisian) Dutch”. I am afraid I am not qualified to do so.
Last weekend, in the daily newspaper of North-Holland (part of which is Westfriesland) had an interesting article.
The photo with the skull from 1297 AD by itself is fascinating and here's a translated fragment.
Title:
"Hollanders raised hell in Vrone in the battle against the Westfrisians in 1297 - Warcrimes now proven"
Fragment:
"The research proves for the first time that the Hollanders not only won the bloody battle, in which many hundreds [my source said 4 to 5 thousand] Westfrisians were killed. The victors have also demonstrably raised hell for the civilian population of Vrone. Provincial archaeologist Rob van Eerden: 'On several skeletons we found the same type of injuries showing that the living victims were systematically struck on the knees with a sword. Those are not traces of battle, those people were crippled with intent outside of the battlefield'."
### Posted 28 November 2011, 07:02 PM
Both Dutch OLB-translators Ottema and Jensma interpreted FORÁNA as the old-Westfrisian village Vroonen (Vronen or Vrone), that was destroyed in 1297.
FORÁNA in OLB means "in front" (Dutch: vooraan).
Jensma's theory (2004) is that language expert Eelco Verwijs (1830-1880) was involved (one of three) in creating the manuscript, but in his 1863 publication (and lecture) "De namen der vrouw bij den Germaan" (the Germanic words for 'woman'), he suggests that the name of the village Vronen was derived from 'vroon' meaning 'lord/master' (Dutch 'heer', p.14).
This fact does not support Jensma's theory.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 07:30 PM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:
I think I have showed more admiration for accepted Frisian history than many here.
"Accepted" Frisian history...
It's the so-called "fantastic" history, the suppressed, 'occult' (hidden) history that is interesting.
In my research it becomes more and more clear that there were/ are basically two traditions in the Frisian language & history debate.
The one that Hettema and Ottema were representing (and that I like most) is looking more at similarities with Dutch, Westfrisian, Flemmish, and other neighboring cultures (a shared tradition), while The Fryske Akademy, of which Jensma is a representative, aims more at cultural separation of the province Friesland from the rest of The Netherlands.
The video on Youtube in which Jensma talks about the OLB is in the Frisian dialect, without Dutch or English subtitles (so most Dutch won't understand), as if it is only a Frisian affair and does not concern the rest of Europe.
If someone of FA or Tresoar is reading this, I would urge them to make a more international presentation.
### Posted 28 November 2011, 07:46 PM
The Puzzler, on 28 November 2011 - 04:37 PM, said:
berchta in the translation is apparently mountain - so Lydasburcht would be Lyda's mountain?? I don't think so - this word also equals berg, or as in Burchtfam, a berg, now, note that it said Leiden is built on an artificial HILL - this imo is enough to be a burcht - the translation into English seems to have us thinking big mountains, but a small artificial hill is still a berg/burcht - hence LydasBURCHT.
BURG and BERCH are different words, meaning borough/burgh/citadel/castle (dutch: burcht) and mountain (dutch: berg/gebergte) respectively.
Note: in Dutch "g" and "ch" sound the same in these words.
"Burg" and "berg" may be etymologically related, but in the context of the OLB they clearly have different meanings.
### Posted 29 November 2011, 08:59 AM
Abramelin, on 28 November 2011 - 10:00 PM, said:
Just to show you that - as the "Hollander" I am - I respect the ancient history of the Frisians. [...]
I have found out many things about the Frisians that made me feel very happy.
Are you aware of the fact that the term "Holland" was introduced in official documents only in 1100 AD by count Floris II "the fat"?
He then started signing with "Florentius, comes de Hollant", while before 1100, he signed with "comes Frisiae".
This family was "given" reign (the right to collect taxes) by the 'holy' Roman empire over the low lands that were called Frisia (that includes the area where you live) in the 9th century, while the reality was that they only had power over a limited (south-western) area. The reason why Floris II changed the name probably was, that he had no power in what became known as Westfriesland and the North-eastern provinces of the Netherlands. It took his descendants almost 200 more years, and several wars, to conquer Westfriesland.
### Posted 29 November 2011, 01:27 PM
Some fragments of letters between Over de Linden and Ottema, copied from "De Gemaskerde God" (2004, p.261-262) by Jensma, who copied them from Luitse (1991). Improvised translation into English by me.
OdL to Ottema, 24-10-1871 (about the planned publication of the book):
"If both noble and common people can buy it, I fear, that I, because of Liko's recommendation, the history of Jesus, and the ultra-democratic laws in it, may become the scapegoat of the Catholics, all various orthodox protestants and full-blooded aristocrats, while the publisher makes all the profit."
OdL to Ottema, 5-11-1871 (about the beauty of prophecies and philosophy of the manuscript):
"On the other hand I suffer from fear. Some of my superiors, with whom I have a good understanding, might not be pleased with the content of the book."
Jensma (paraphrased from letter OdL to Ottema, 6-9-1872):
"One day Over de Linden was visited by a man of noble descent - a baron, who read Ottema's translation and replied with a heartfelt 'goddamnit, that is a load of communistic rubbish'. The baron went to one of OdL's superiors, who strongly advised him against publication."
Ottema to OdL, 10-9-1872 (reply to previous):
"Don't worry about what this gentleman likes to call communistic. Without that the manuscript could not be old. This was also how the Old Romans organised their earliest States, as described by Tacitus."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)