Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 5 votes

Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
6099 replies to this topic

#1966    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011

Posted 14 November 2012 - 10:55 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 14 November 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:


Those Fryans must have felt jealous when they saw Minoan boats:

.

But Minos was a Fryan?


#1967    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,127 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 15 November 2012 - 02:38 AM

View PostVan Gorp, on 14 November 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

But Minos was a Fryan?

Yeah, but maybe he wasn't aware of that...

His language was anything but Germanic, his script didn't resemble Phoenician or Greek, and his boats were typical for the eastern Mediterranean.



.


#1968    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010

Posted 15 November 2012 - 02:37 PM

View PostOtharus, on 14 November 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

More related Dutch words:
staaf (rod, bar)
stevig (firm, solid)

And, of course, staf...

Posted Image

... and staffel.

Posted Image


#1969    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,127 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:02 AM

About paranoia: who here is always on about the OLB being intentionally suppressed in the Netherlands?

That people 'fear' the OLB and all that?

Personally I try to focus on the OLB itself and just because it interests me.


#1970    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,127 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:37 AM

View PostAbramelin, on 14 November 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

Chronicles of Eri: being the history of the Gaal Sciot Iber/ Volume 1 - Roger O'Connor, 1822

http://www.unexplain...184645&st=10365

Volume II:

http://archive.org/s...age/n8/mode/2up

In total some 1000 pages to read...


This looks like an example of that ancient Phoenician-Scythian writing O'Connor talks about:

Posted Image



It's probably nothing but Irish Gaelic written using Greek script. Compare with this Greek text example:

Posted Image

Edited by Abramelin, 16 November 2012 - 10:37 AM.


#1971    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,450 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:22 PM

Thread cleaned

Suffice to say, please be sensible when it comes to picking an avatar.


#1972    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:56 PM

From the OLB (nice quote about origine of Catholicisme)

...
While the doctrine of Jessos was thus spreading over the earth, the false priests went to the land of his birth to make his death known.
They went to live in caves in the mountains, but in them they had hid all their treasures, and they made in them images of Jessos.
They gave these statues to simple people, and at last they said that Jessos was a god, that he had declared this himself to them, and that all those who followed his doctrine should enter his kingdom hereafter, where all was joy and happiness. Because they knew that he was opposed to the rich, they announced everywhere that poverty, suffering, and humility were the door by which to enter into his kingdom

Bill Hicks knew it without OLB :-)




#1973    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,127 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:11 PM

HAIL TO ALL TRUE FRISIANS.

(...)

Sixteen hundred years ago, Atland was submerged; and at that time something happened which nobody had reckoned upon. In the heart of Findasland, upon a mountain, lies a plain called Kasamyr (Cashmere) that is “rare” There was a child born whose mother was the daughter of a king, and whose father was a high-priest. In order to hide the shame they were obliged to renounce their own blood. Therefore it was taken out of the town to poor people. As the boy grew up, nothing was concealed from him, so he did all in his power to acquire wisdom. His intellect was so great that he understood everything that he saw or heard. The people regarded him with respect, and the priests were afraid of his questions.

http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/#br

Your Jes-us (and no, not Sandbach's 'Jessos') was born around the time Atland submerged, and that was in 2194 BCE.

"Sin forme nôm wêre Jes-us"
Old Dutch-ish: "Zijn formele naam waar Jes-us"

You really think that something happening more than 4000 years ago was the source of Catholicism?

Or do you think there is a slight possibility that someone living in the 19th century (one of the creators of the OLB) wasn't too pleased with these Catholics?

Ottema (and Sandbach) was very aware that this "Jes-us" could have been no one else but Jesus.

So what did he do? He translated it into "Jessos".

.

Edited by Abramelin, 17 November 2012 - 08:27 PM.


#1974    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:10 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 17 November 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

HAIL TO ALL TRUE FRISIANS.

(...)

Sixteen hundred years ago, Atland was submerged; and at that time something happened which nobody had reckoned upon. In the heart of Findasland, upon a mountain, lies a plain called Kasamyr (Cashmere) that is “rare” There was a child born whose mother was the daughter of a king, and whose father was a high-priest. In order to hide the shame they were obliged to renounce their own blood. Therefore it was taken out of the town to poor people. As the boy grew up, nothing was concealed from him, so he did all in his power to acquire wisdom. His intellect was so great that he understood everything that he saw or heard. The people regarded him with respect, and the priests were afraid of his questions.

http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/#br

Your Jes-us (and no, not Sandbach's 'Jessos') was born around the time Atland submerged, and that was in 2194 BCE.

"Sin forme nôm wêre Jes-us"
Old Dutch-ish: "Zijn formele naam waar Jes-us"

You really think that something happening more than 4000 years ago was the source of Catholicism?

Or do you think there is a slight possibility that someone living in the 19th century (one of the creators of the OLB) wasn't too pleased with these Catholics?

Ottema (and Sandbach) was very aware that this "Jes-us" could have been no one else but Jesus.

So what did he do? He translated it into "Jessos".

.

Yes of course, same Jesus.
I didn't look to the dates, only what is described and that seems to me a perfect 'kathar' (ketter) view like you have also in the middleages.
Kathars believed in what the person of Jesus/Buda/Krishna (for me the same story, one true belief) told to people about right living but not the foly around created by 'catholic' priests.
They didn't believe in 'the passion of the christ' and the veneration of the cross.
In that sens it is as Bill brings with humor: why should a genuine belief venerate the symbol that is said to have killed the forerunner of the same belief?
An explanation can be found in trickery and shifting the true lessons.  Not the love but the sufferance is venerated.

If you ask me, neither the ages of our Christian timeline or the ones in OLB can be taken absolutely (imo, so i don't bother with them too much when looking at events that are described).
The subject is more interesting, still nowadays.

Take abortion: institutional christian view is against because they say want to protect the living soul in the whomb.
Well, Kathars didn't see it that way: they saw it as the foetus is soul-less till birth. When complications while pregnant, they'd preferred to save the mothers live.
In circles of militant catholicism they would give (and this has been really the case) an injection to the mother for baptizing the child would it die, can you imagine?

You can see some same 'ketter'like thought in the line
"Thâ hja blât kêmon spisde Wr.alda hjam mith sina âdama"
Can be translated litteraly: When they came naked (moment of the birth), Wr alda blew his breath (birth of soul) into them.

Not trying here to prove anything in any direction.
Was just pondering a bit on the way OLB seems to link that Jes-us and false priests story with the same conflict in middleages between catholics and kathars.


#1975    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,127 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 18 November 2012 - 03:33 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 13 November 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

Hja tham thêr saton vppa êlanda wrdon Lêtne hêten, thrvchdam hja mêst al vrlêten lêvadon.
Alle strând aend skor hêmar fon-a Dênemarka alont thêre Saendfal nw Skelda wrdon Stjurar, Sêkaempar aend Angelara hêton.
Angelara sâ hêton mân to fora tha butafiskar vmbe that hja alan mith angel jefta kol fiskton aend nimmer nên netum.
Thêra thêr thâna til tha hêinde Krêkalânda sâton, wrdon blât Kâd-hêmar hêten, thrvch tham hja ninmerthe buta foron.


(Sandbach's translation, but improved by me: )
Those who were 'seated' on islands were called Lêtne, because they lived an isolated life.
All those who had their homes on beaches and shores between Denmark and the Sandval, now the Scheldt, were called Stiurar, Sêkaempar, and Angelara.
The Angelara were men heretofor called the Butafiskar* because they only fished with hooks or kol ** and never nets'.
From there to the near Krekalands the inhabitants were merely@ called Kadhemers ("Kâd-hêmar"), because they never fared outside***.


* buta = here: without (nets)
** kol: fish gear to catch cod, consisting of a long line that is provided with angle and plummet.
http://gtb.inl.nl/iW...=WNT&id=M034627
*** buta - here: outside (DU: 'buiten')
For 'buta':
http://www.koeblerge...ch/afries-B.pdf
@ blât = here: merely


And now compare with Sandbach's translation:

Those who lived in the islands were called Letten, because they lived an isolated life.
All those who lived between Denmark and the Sandval, now the Scheldt, were called Stuurlieden (pilots), Zeekampers (naval men), and Angelaren (fishermen).
The Angelaren were men who fished in the sea, and were so named because they used lines and hooks instead of nets.
From there to the nearest part of Krekaland the inhabitants were called Kadhemers, because they never went to sea but remained ashore.

http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/#au


<snip>



View PostAbramelin, on 13 November 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

The OLB clearly gives an explanation for the former name of the Angelara, "Butafiska" : they never used nets, or they fished without nets.

But I had to think of something else.

In Dutch we have the word 'binnenvisser', or someone who catches fish in lakes and rivers and such.

'Binnen' means 'inside', and the opposite is 'buiten' or 'outside' (and 'without').

One could form the word 'buitenvisser' or in old Dutch-ish, "buitenvisscher". That would be someone who fishes at sea.

Butafiska >> buitenvisser >> fisherman at sea

Anyway, Butafiska appears to be the former name of the Angelara ("Anglers").

Oh, and in the quote of the OLB you will read "to fora" which is indeed Old Frisian for 'before'.
In modern Dutch that would be "te voren"

****

EDIT:

I found a German surname that is very similar to this BUTAFISKA:

Bütefisch , also spelled as Buetefisch.



View PostVan Gorp, on 13 November 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Let me guess: Buiten-Vis? :-)

<snip>


Damn, Van Gorp, you gave of course the most obvious translation for the German surname Bütefisch: "buiten-vis", sea fish ("outside fish").

But suddenly it dawned on me: we don't read anything about the Batavi in the OLB, right? And we shouldn't, because the Batavi were late arrivals.

Or do we...

So I did a bit of 'Scrabble' - a popular passtime in this thread:

Butafiska >> Butafis >> Butavis ....... Batavis??


The fun thing is that, according to the Romans, the Batavi were great swimmers, even when wearing full armour:


The Batavi, a Germanic tribe, inhabited the region today known as Gelderland (Netherlands), in the Rhine river delta, then known as the Insula Batavorum ("Island of the Batavi", because surrounded by branches of the Rhine), part of the Roman province of Germania Inferior. They were a warlike people, skilled horsemen, boatmen and swimmers.

They were regarded by the Romans as the very best (fortissimi, validissimi) of their auxiliary, and indeed all, their forces.[47] In Roman service, both their cavalry and infantry had perfected a technique for swimming across rivers wearing full armour and weapons.


http://en.wikipedia....Roman_military)

So, on one Wikipage we see all our possible etymologies, lol:

- they were 'the best' (Otharus/Van Gorp), based on 'better/best'
- they were 'warriors' (me), based on 'badwa' meaning 'war, battle'
- they were 'boatmen' (Puzzler)
- they were excellent swimmers, Butavis (me).




.

Edited by Abramelin, 18 November 2012 - 03:38 PM.


#1976    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,127 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 18 November 2012 - 03:54 PM

View PostOtharus, on 13 November 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

You make it more complicated than it is.

" Angelara, zo heette (noemde) men tevoren de buitenvissers, omdat ze alleen met angel en kol visten en nimmer met netten."

"Angelara, so the 'seafishermen' (fishermen in the open water) were named in earlier times, because they only caught fish with angel (hook) or kol (lines), and never with nets."

(http://gtb.inl.nl/iW...rn=buitenvisser)

Angelara sâ hêton mân to fora tha butafiskar
Angelara zo (ge)heten te voren de Butafiskar
The Angelara were men heretofor called the Butafiskar

Now I'm thinking: maybe it's just the other way round, like you, Otharus suggested:

Angelara zo (ge)heten mannen te voren de Butafiskar: Angelara, as the Butafiskar were called before.

Yes, chronologically that would fit a lot better, but is it linguistically correct??

From anglers to sea fishers, from Angli to Batavi?

Hmm....

+++++

EDIT:

Check this map, http://upload.wikime...a_Magna_jpg.jpg , and look up the Angli (Denmark), Batavi (Netherlands), Angili (Germany, east of the Catti), Catti (Germany, and related to the Batavi).

Btw, the Angrivari in NW Germany are often also seen as part of the Angli



.

Edited by Abramelin, 18 November 2012 - 04:26 PM.


#1977    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,127 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 18 November 2012 - 04:33 PM

But if the OLB does indeed hint at the Batavi (Butavis/Butafiska), then there should also be some sort of a hint at the Cananefates in the OLB because these tribes existed alongside each other and south of the Frisii.


#1978    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011

Posted 18 November 2012 - 05:38 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 18 November 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

But if the OLB does indeed hint at the Batavi (Butavis/Butafiska), then there should also be some sort of a hint at the Cananefates in the OLB because these tribes existed alongside each other and south of the Frisii.

Yes Abe, that's a creative approach :-)
Well if you ask me, if that would be the case like you suggested we can look at Roman texts linked with Batavi, Caninefates and see what is mentionned OLB.

Roman text tribes mentionned in relation with Caninefates and possible hint in OLB: Frisii (pretended OLB writers?), Sicambri (Sekaemper?), Batavi (Butafiska?), Marsaci (Marsata?), Sturi (Sturar?)
Quickly scan of which are not linked (correct me if wrong): Kâd-hêmar, Landsâton, Holtsâton, Wodsâta -> all four not related with sea anymore but with land/wood

Little sidetrack:
By diving into the text I came across these lines about the progress of life, all changes (probably allready discussed, but for me i just saw it) -> the extended version of Rene Descartes' "Je pense donc je suis" :-)


Thervmbe ne mêi irtha selva, ner eng skepsle ni sedsa: ik ben, men wel ik was. Ak ne mêi nên maenniska navt ne sedsa ik thaenk, men blât, ik thochte.

So neither the earth nor any other created object can say, I am; but rather, I was. So no man can say, I think; but rather, I thought.


#1979    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,127 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:51 PM

That was also Knul's idea: Descartes.

--

The Holtsâton/ Wodsâta showed up on a map of Denmark/Schleswig-Holstein, as I showed in part -1- of this thread. They lived in the woods.

Both the Kâd-hêmar and the Landsâton were landkubbers.


#1980    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,127 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 19 November 2012 - 08:36 PM

The Cananefates remain an enigma.

I jokingly once equated them with the Canaanites by just leaving out the -F- in Cananefates : Cananeates. I stretched the joke by saying they were not 'leek masters' as you can read on any page about them, but 'red onion masters', dying cloth with the dye extracted from red onions. Red onions are members of the leek family. The Phoenicians (Canaanites) died cloth purple with the dye they extracted from 'murex'.

But then we have one possible etymology for the name of the Dutch sea goddess "Nehalennia":

Some people think that the name Nehalennia is derived from the Hebrew words ‘nahal’, meaning to guide and ‘aniah’ meaning ship. This would indicate the meaning to be ‘guide the ship’, i.e. he who guides the ship(s).

http://www.neeltjeja...gin-of-the-name

And Nehalennia was often depicted with her left foot on a ship. People made offerings to her during Roman times for a safe voyage across of the North Sea.

And... then we have Theo Vennemann, the German linguist, who has a theory that says that Punic/Phoenician influenced NW Germanic languages.


The next is a couple of quotes from someone not agreeing with Vennemann's theory:


Abstract
In this review article we evaluate Theo Vennemann’s provocative theories on the role of
Afroasiatic and Vasconic (e.g. Basque) languages in the pre-historic development of Indo-European
languages in Europe as presented in the volume Europa Vasconica-Europa Semitica, a collection of
27 of Vennemann’s essays. First, Vennemann argues that after the last ice age most of Central and
Western Europe was inhabited by speakers of Vasconic languages, the only survivor of which is
Basque. These speakers formed a substrate to the later-arriving Indo-Europeans. The primary
evidence for the presence of Vasconic throughout much of Europe is drawn from the Old European
hydronyms originally identified by Hans Krahe as Indo-European and reanalyzed by Vennemann as
Vasconic. Second, Vennemann maintains that Afroasiatic speakers colonized coastal regions of
Western and Northern Europe beginning in the fifth millennium BCE. According to his theory, these
speakers formed a superstrate or adstrate in Northern Europe and had a profound impact on the lexical
and structural development of Germanic. In the British Isles the language of these colonizers, which
Vennemann calls ‘‘Semitidic’’ (also ‘‘Atlantic’’), had a strong substratal influence on the structural
development of Insular Celtic. In this essay we examine the evidence for and against Vennemann’s
theories and his methodology.

# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.



Europa Vasconica-Europa Semitica is a provocative, stimulating and imaginative
collection of 27 dense essays by one of themost creative thinkers in diachronic linguistics
of our era, Theo Vennemann (whose name is not infrequently suffixed with the tag
genannt Nierfeld). At the hefty price of about $175.00 for its 977 printed pages,more than
60% of it written in German, the book is not for the casually curious reader. Evaluating
this work is a serious challenge, because it confronts the reader on nearly every page with
argumentation, theory, and novel proposals, together with an array of languages (viz.
Basque and a range of Afroasiatic languages, as well as more familiar IE languages such
as Germanic, Celtic and Italic) which may not fall within the competence of a single
reader, or reviewer.


In general terms, the ideas which underlie the two main theses of Europa Vasconica-
Europa Semitica are the following (summarized from the Introduction): After the last iceage,
which ended about 11,000 years ago, Indo-European agriculturists, possibly
originating in the Pannonian Basin of central Europe, migrated further into Europe in the
sixth millennium BCE, arriving in Scandinavia beginning around the fourth millennium
BCE. The migrating Indo-Europeans encountered other, non-IE people, who had started to
settle there already in the eighth millennium BCE, i.e. several millennia after the last iceage,
and had already named the European rivers, lakes, mountains and settlements. Thus
the oldest water names are probably the oldest ‘‘linguistic documents’’ in Europe north
of the Alps. The structure of these names betrays an agglutinating language with initial
accent, no vowel quantity and a predominant vowel a. The language family responsible
for these names is called by V ‘‘Vasconic’’, whose only surviving descendant is the
Basque language of the Pyrenees. Additionally, there are toponyms on the Atlantic
littoral which are neither Vasconic nor Indo-European. The prehistoric language
responsible for these names (and other linguistic effects) is called by V the ‘‘Semitidic’’
(also ‘‘Atlantic’’), group of languages, i.e. languages related to the Mediterranean
Hamito-Semitic languages,2 which were spoken along the European Atlantic seaboard
from the fifth millennium BCE until the first millennium CE. These languages are held
to have influenced the Indo-European languages of the northwest littoral from the fifth
millennium BCE onward.



The first thesis, which is in some ways the more radical of the two if for no other reason
than the historical obscurity of Basque itself, is a fundamental revision of Krahe’s
alteuropa¨isch hypothesis, which uses hydronyms as the critical data for establishing the
linguistic character of ‘‘Old Europe’’ as Indo-European. V’s central claim is that speakers
of Vasconic languages named the previously unnamed waterways and places of Pre-Indo-
European Europe. According to V a significant number of these names survived the
repopulation of Europe by the Indo-Europeans and even persist into modern times. Thus
for V, Krahe’s alteuropa¨isch hydronyms and toponyms are not Indo-European of any age;
they are Vasconic.

The second thesis, no less controversial but partly identifiable in previous literature (e.g.
the work of Morris Jones and Pokorny), has several subparts:

a. The Semitidic languages of the Atlantic seaboard gave many loanwords to
Indo-European, especially the western languages.
b. Germanic was shaped both lexically and structurally by a Semitic, probably
Phoenician superstratum.
c. The strong substratal influence present in the Insular Celtic languages is due
to the far-reaching Semitidic influence on Western Europe.




2. The Semitidic (Atlantic) hypothesis
The basic idea behind the Semitidic (Atlantic) hypothesis is that speakers of Hamito-
Semitic languages exerted a superstratal influence on the Indo-European populations of
northwest Europe, especially Germanic, and substratal influences on the coastal languages,
especially Insular Celtic, beginning in the 5th millennium BCE. These influences are
manifest in a variety of ways: on the non-linguistic side, V sees superstratal influence in the
Germanic Vanir myth (outlined in chap. 11 of this volume), which contains numerous
cultural features not easily recognizable as Indo-European. Among the themes Videntifies
are incest and marriage between sisters and brothers, and the harnessed team of cats
(probably lions) of the goddess Freya. According to Velements of this myth can be linked
to Semitic mythologies and he even proposes an etymological connection between
Germanic and Semitic gods such as Balder and Bacal (see in this vein Vennemann 2004,
forthcoming). Another example of non-linguistic evidence attributed by V to Atlantic
seafarers are the megalithic monuments of western Europe, which ‘‘are relics of a highly
developed society and may well be such vestiges of an Atlantic culture’’ (xvii).
Linguistic effects caused by the Atlantic languages include toponyms and other
common terms (‘‘appellatives’’), as well as forms and patterns in the structure of West
European languages. Likely examples of toponyms and hydronyms are The Solent, Solund,
Isles of Scilly; the river names Tay, Taw; and the Pit-names of Pictland such as Pittenweem.
Examples of Atlantic appellatives include administrative labels such as the ‘‘ruler’’ word in
Germanic (e.g. Germ. Adel); and the ‘‘house’’ word (Eng. house, Germ. Haus). On the nonlexical
side, Vattributes various aspects of Germanic ablaut to Atlantic influence. Opening
up the possibility of Atlantic influence on such a core structural feature as internal vowel
alternation of verbal forms (‘‘Germanic ablauting verbs have been lexically enriched and
grammatically systematized and functionalized by the Semitic-speaking peoples’’ (xix))
allows V to reinvestigate the etymologies of a number of Germanic strong verbs, in
particular those with the consonant p. Such verbs are unusual from an IE point of view
because they contradict the PIE ‘‘labial gap’’ (with Gmc. p the Grimm’s Law outcome of
the rare PIE B). V thus proposes new Atlantic etymologies for these verbs. Further
non-lexical influence by Atlantic languages is claimed by V to be responsible for anomalous
structures in Celtic, most prominently the head-initial word order characteristic of Insular
Celtic languages, a feature which V claims can be attributed to Atlantic influence.



V suggests that these Semitidic influences on Celtic may
have lasted into the Phoenician period. He asserts (594):

From about 5000 BC onward, Semitidic peoples, bearers of the megalithic culture,
moved north along the Atlantic coast to all the islands and up the navigable rivers as
seafaring colonizers, until they reached southern Sweden in the middle of the third
millennium. . . . At the dawn of history we find the western Mediterranean dominated
by Phoenicians, a Semitic people. . . . I assume the megalithic culture to have spread
along the Atlantic coast from the south and west of the Iberian Peninsula and France
(5th millennium) via Ireland and Britain (4th millennium) all the way to Sweden (3rd
millennium) and thus to have its origin in the coastal regions between the western
Mediterranean and the Atlantic, where I locate the homeland of the Semitic peoples.12


Since V identifies the Phoenicians among the likely Semitic-speaking travelers who
have introduced their language and culture along the Atlantic coast, it might be useful to
point out a few of the known characteristics of these people, since little is known about
possible earlier Atlantic settlers. The Phoenicians were seafaring Semitic-speaking traders
from the area of what is now the coastal plain of Lebanon and Syria. They established
settlements all over the Mediterranean, in Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Sicily, Sardinia,
Southern France, Southern Spain, and above all, North Africa (Hetzron, 1987b:656).


Comprising more than just a group of traders, Phoenician society was highly literate and
complex. Phoenicians left behind relics of their institutions everywhere they visited—
temples, figurines, some art, and most importantly for the present discussion, inscriptions
(the Phoenician script is the direct ancestor of the Greek and Roman alphabets).

Everywhere the Phoenicians went they seemed to write something down, the earliest
inscription stemming from Byblos and dating to ca. 1000 BCE. This is a problem for such
northerly settlements as V proposes for them because there are no Phoenician inscriptions
north of central Spain, none on the British Isles or Scandinavia, and none so early as would
be required for the scenario which V envisions for these locales. This is not to say that they
(Phoenicians or some other Semitic-speaking travelers) might not have visited these places,
nor are we denying that Semitic-speaking people may have been responsible for the
megaliths found in the northern European area,13 only that their linguistic influence could
not have been so great if there was an insufficient presence there to establish linguistic
monuments
. And in any case, V does little more than assert his assumptions on the
Phoenicians and other Atlantics rather than to establish them with firm linguistic evidence.

On this matter we cannot accept V’s postulation of such highly disputed attributes of
material culture or folklore such as the Vanir myth or for that matter the megaliths
themselves to the Atlantic peoples as acceptable substitutes for direct linguistic evidence,
specifically inscriptions.

Furthermore, for Semitidic-speaking settlers to be responsible for such monuments as
the megaliths they would have had to be in a powerful elite position, controlling everyone
who would be responsible for the construction of the monuments, just as with the Egyptian
pharaohs. Such control would require an elaborate, probably sedentary monarchical
society with a significant population, for which there is no external evidence (beyond the
megaliths and the purported linguistic effects of Semitidic on Germanic and Celtic) in the
early period relevant for this proposal. In any case, the northern megaliths cannot be dated
much before the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1500–800 BCE).




In fairness to V’s chronological scenario, it must be pointed out that other prominent
archaeologists such as Renfrew have argued for a much earlier Celtic settlement, perhaps
as early as 4000 BCE (1987:249), though more recently (1999:284–285) he places Proto-
Celtic later, sometime after 3000 BCE (similarly Germanic). The early date would seem to
fit with V’s view of the Celtic population of the British Isles. But V’s view of the
establishment of the megaliths by Semitidic settlers is not supported by Renfrew or other
mainstream archaeologists. Renfrew (1987:31) states that the megalithic tombs
characteristic of parts of western and northwestern Europe from Iberia to Britain to
Denmark probably have a local European origin, though he allows that they are a puzzle
that still needs to be resolved.




V sets the Atlantic background of the Picts to use in his linguistic arguments
concerning the element Pit- in Pit-names, which are part of his larger position on British
place-names.20 The Pit-names appear in more than three hundred names such as
Pittenweem, Pitochry, Pitsligo, Pitbladdo and so on, and have been the subject of acute
controversy (see the map in Watson, 1926, reproduced in Jackson, 1955:147). The Pitwords
were connected by Jackson with other Celtic forms (1955:148), suggesting a
Celtic pett ‘‘parcel of land or farmland’’. It is restricted to Celtic and a few Latin
borrowings, and is otherwise unknown in IE languages. V seizes this distribution to
connect it with a Hamito-Semitic root *fit- ‘‘land’’ as reconstructed by Orel and Stolbova
(1995, no. 809). He proposes a link with the Semitic *pitt- ‘‘area, region’’, manifested
prominently in Akkad. pittu ‘‘area, vicinity’’. Working this in with some other
Afroasiatic data from Cushitic and Omotic, V concludes that ‘‘Whatever the details of
the relationship of these words within Afro-Asiatic may turn out to be, my impression is
that this set of correspondences confirms the thesis that pett-/pit- in the Pit-names
continues a native Pictish word, and also the superordinate thesis that Pictish was related
to Semitic’’ (502).






20 V’s proposals for Atlantic-based place and water names include, in addition to the Pit-names, the name of the
strait Solent (England), the island Solund (Norway), and the Isles of Scilly (in the Atlantic off the southwest coast
of England), which he derives from Sem. *slc ‘‘rock, cliff’’ (following Coates, 1988); the rivers Tay (Pictland/
Scotland), Taw (England) and several Spanish/Portuguese river names (Tajo, Tejo), which he connects with a
putative, but apparently non-existent Hausa form tagus ‘‘river (with an estuary)’’, the only time Hausa is invoked
in an Atlantic etymology (after Stumfohl, 1989; non vidimus); and the Pit-names, and others (on which see
Sheynin’s 2004 critique). Examples of appellatives include administrative labels such as the ‘‘ruler’’ word (Germ.
Adel, OE æ el-), which V connects with Hebr. Ks: yly (more properly K¯as: i¯l) and Arab. Kat¯alun (and Kati¯lun) ‘‘noble,{read thisyourslef  in the pdf because the phonetic characters don't show up properly]
nobility, etc.’’, though the cognacy of the Hebrew and Arabic forms is in doubt because of the /s: /-/u/
correspondence; and the Gmc. *sibjo¯ ‘‘family’’ (Eng. sib, Germ. Sippe), which V relates to the Semitic root
*s?ph:
‘‘family’’ (this root occurs only in Northwest Semitic, viz. Ugaritic s?ph:
, Phoenician and Punic s?ph:
, and
Hebr. mis?p ¯ah: ¯ah). For general critique see Kitson (1996), who reasserts the Indo-European character of most
of the place names analyzed by V in his critique of one of the best-known of the chapters V has devoted to
the topic, namely V 1994 (chap. 6 of this volume).





2.3. The Semitidic superstratum in Germanic
V has rightly taken a closer look at the widely held view that a substrate is responsible
for the non-Indo-European portion of the Germanic lexicon. V (1) observes that a variety of
lexical items with no known cognates outside of Germanic can be divided into the
following semantic fields: 1. warfare and weapons (sword), 2. sea and navigation (sea), 3.
law (steal), 4. state and communal life ( folk), 5. husbandry, house building, settlement
(house), 6. other expressions of advanced civilization (Germ. Zeit ‘‘time’’), 7. names of
animals and plants (eel), 8. expressions from numerous spheres of daily life (drink). He
argues that it is highly unlikely that the pre-Germanic people would have borrowed the
lexical items in categories 1, 3, and 4 from a substrate population of hunter-gatherers.
Analogies are drawn from numerous contact situations in which a superstrate language
influences the lexicon of the recipient language precisely in those semantic fields (see also
in this vein Polome´, 1986). Examples given by V include Norman French borrowings in
Middle English, Frankish lexical influence on the development of French, Gothic and
Arabic loanwords in Spanish, Langobardic and Gothic loanwords in Italian, Turkish
loanwords throughout the Balkans, and Middle Low German loanwords in Danish and
Swedish.



All the allegedly analogous situations outlined above, with the exception of Low
German, involve subjugation of an indigenous population by an invading group. On this
basis, V argues that the lexical items in categories 1, 3, and 4 above must have been
borrowed from the language of a superstrate, or possibly adstrate, population that
subjugated the pre-Germanic population. The Low German situation points to trade as
another vehicle for the introduction of cultural loanwords, as Low German was the
language of the Hanseatic League, a trading federation centered in the Baltic, and not the
language of a conquering people. On the basis of these presumed parallels, V attempts to
identify a likely superstrate in northern Europe at the time of Indo-European settlement. He
points to the one hundred meter long West Kennet Long Burrow dated to 3250 BCE and
other large structures as indicative of an advanced society that could serve as a superstrate
to relatively primitive Indo-Europeans (16–17). In numerous articles, V argues that
Semitidic speakers formed the superstrate that provided Germanic with the non-Indo-
European portion of its cultural vocabulary.




2.4.1. Volk
V argues (665–666) that the quintessentially Germanic word Volk ‘‘people’’ (OE folc,
OFris. Folk, OS folc, OHG folc, ON folk) has a Semitidic etymology, based ultimately on a
root meaning ‘‘to split, divide’’. The argument rests semantically on the proposal that the
original meaning of Volk is not ‘‘people’’ but rather ‘‘division of an army’’.
V takes Volk
back to an Semitidic root of the structure *plg with the basic meaning ‘‘to divide’’ (cf. Hebr.
plg ‘‘to divide’’, and with enlargement, plgh ‘‘section’’). V surmises that the word was an
early loan which underwent Grimm’s Law. V’s semantic arguments are based on the
concept inherent in the English military term ‘‘division’’
, obviously based on divide, Lat.
di¯vi¯dere, that is, a portion of an army that has been segmented from the main body. But the
problem here is that Lat. di¯vi¯dere and its nominalized form di¯visio are never used in a
military context (OLD, s.v.). The notion of a division as a part of an army is a modern
concept, not an ancient one, first occurring in written English in 1597 in Shakespeare
(OED, s.v.). In fact, the oldest evidence we have from any military organization for the


http://cls.psu.edu/p.../LINGUA1158.pdf



Interesting is the critique on Vennemann's etymology of the Germanic word "volk/folk". The Dutch and English etymology sites we have often quoted from seem to agree with him:


folk (n.)
O.E. folc "common people, laity; men; people, nation, tribe; multitude; troop, army," from P.Gmc. *folkom (cf. O.Fris. folk, M.Du. volc, Ger. Volk "people"), from P.Gmc. *fulka-, perhaps originally "host of warriors;" cf. O.N. folk "people," also "army, detachment;" and Lith. pulkas "crowd," O.C.S. pluku "division of an army," both believed to have been borrowed from Proto-Germanic. Old English folcstede could mean both "dwelling-place" and "battlefield."

http://www.etymonlin...owed_in_frame=0
http://www.etymologi.../trefwoord/volk
http://gtb.inl.nl/iW...b=ONW&id=ID3710


Peleg , Modern Péleg / Páleg Tiberian Péle / Pale ; "division") is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as one of the two sons of Eber, an ancestor of the Israelites, according to the "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10-11 and 1 Chronicles 1. Peleg's son was Reu, born when Peleg was thirty, and he had other sons and daughters. According to the Hebrew Bible, Peleg lived to the age of 239 years. (Genesis 11:16-19)

In the Septuagint and some Christian Bibles derived from it, Peleg is called Phaleg and his father is called Heber. His son is called Ragau, born when Phaleg was 130 years old, and he had other sons and daughters. According to the Septuagint, Phaleg lived to an age of 339 years. (Septuagint Genesis 11:16-19) Modern translations generally use the names and dating as in the Masoretic Hebrew text. (compare Genesis 11:16-19)

Peleg is a common surname in Israel, also being the root lettering for sailing (lahaflig) and a military half-bivouac tent (peleg-ohel). The meaning of Peleg in English is "brook", a little river.


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


+++


Back to the Cananefates.


Cananefates


Kinneret
Nefat Kinneret, an Israeli nefat in Northern Israel


village, geographical area, settlement, area within a nation, administrative area within a nation, Israeli nefat, populated place

http://www.evi.com/q..._nefat_kinneret

Canannefat =  Knn nft, or Canaan Nefat?

Hell, maybe some Phoenician ships stranded on the west coast of the Netherlands during a storm, and were unable to repair their ships, stayed where they stranded, and settled there. After several centuries they were thoroughly Germanized by the surrounding tribes, and both Tacitus and Caesar just assumed  - and maybe wrongly so - that they had close ties with the Batavians and before that, the C(h)atti.
The Cananefates were a very small tribe, and that is to be expected if they were the offspring of people traveling the seas and had stranded there (and liked all those Nordic women, lol)..

Btw: one of the possible etymologies of their name mentions "kaan" or boat, canoe. And no, that name was an old Germanic word, not a loan from the Carib Indians.

All this may sound farfetched, but there are now indications the Minoans visited this side, the south-east coasts of the North Sea around the middle of the second millenium BCE, and who knows, their 'teachers' the Phoenicians maybe even earlier.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 19 November 2012 - 08:56 PM.