Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12
Riaan

[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

11,638 posts in this topic

Indeed. But it could be interpreted as other things, too, as Jurgen Spanuth does. In any case, I regard stone circles, such as Stonehenge, as the early structures from which the brick burghs of the Frisians evolved. They have simply survived longer, being made of stone.

No way hosee. Stonehenge is circular, yeah, but in no way resembles the way citadels are being described in the OLB.

And yes, Stonehenge was made of stone, huge stones. NOT bricks.

The way Stonehenge was built must have been something to behold, right?

The OLB talks about lots of things, and in a lot of detail, but never do we read anything about megalithic structures, or how they were constructed.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider Pytheas as some sort of ancient 'tourist', visiting the North Sea area.

He talked (or better Pliny the Elder talked about what Pytheas had written before him) about all the wonders and cultures he encountered.

The tower in center of the citadel at Texel 'reached to heaven', or simply: it was HUGE, and was alight (the 'foddik', the sacred eternal fire), like some huge lighthouse.

If it really did exist back them, it must have been a marvel into the eyes of some foreigner.

--

And what is YOUR argument, anyway? You are grasping at straws, too, lol.

An argument from silence is no argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way hosee. Stonehenge is circular, yeah, but in no way resembles the way citadels are being described in the OLB.

And yes, Stonehenge was made of stone, huge stones. NOT bricks.

The way Stonehenge was built must have been something to behold, right?

The OLB talks about lots of things, and in a lot of detail, but never do we read anything about megalithic structures, or how they were constructed.

.

The OLB talks about lots of things, but there are infinitely more things it doesn't talk about. An argument from silence is no argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OLB talks about lots of things, but there are infinitely more things it doesn't talk about. An argument from silence is no argument.

Toni I know Abe and he's not calling for silence as such only that we ought to wait for more evidence either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toni I know Abe and he's not calling for silence as such only that we ought to wait for more evidence either way.

I know he's not calling for silence. What he's trying to say is that if something isn't mentioned by some ancient text, it therefore never existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know he's not calling for silence. What he's trying to say is that if something isn't mentioned by some ancient text, it therefore never existed.

However that I'm afraid is the way these things are viewed by academia. Like it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However that I'm afraid is the way these things are viewed by academia. Like it or not.

No, that's not true. Stonehenge, for example, is mentioned in no English text from the 12th century to the 17th, yet it still existed during that period. What he's saying is that because the OLB doesn't mention something, then the OLB must be a fake. On that argument all ancient texts are fake, because one could easily think of something they don't mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's not true. Stonehenge, for example, is mentioned in no English text from the 12th century to the 17th, yet it still existed during that period. What he's saying is that because the OLB doesn't mention something, then the OLB must be a fake. On that argument all ancient texts are fake, because one could easily think of something they don't mention.

Without repeating the whole of the thread and so on... Wilkens tells us he has been studying the question of where Troy was located for 30 years. Not three as you or Alewyn has said.

Wilkens also quotes the OLB. However he also has mountains of other evidence and one of his key arguments is that people mess with texts to get there own way or that the real identity of various places is forgotten. Need I mention Henry VIII again or do you see my point? I think it's fair if we all take stock of what Otharus has asked to be done and then perhaps we can move on. But remember I've heard it said many times on here that the arguments put up by the skeptics are nothing in comparison to those who are professional academics - Historians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without repeating the whole of the thread and so on... Wilkens tells us he has been studying the question of where Troy was located for 30 years. Not three as you or Alewyn has said.

Wilkens also quotes the OLB. However he also has mountains of other evidence and one of his key arguments is that people mess with texts to get there own way or that the real identity of various places is forgotten. Need I mention Henry VIII again or do you see my point? I think it's fair if we all take stock of what Otharus has asked to be done and then perhaps we can move on. But remember I've heard it said many times on here that the arguments put up by the skeptics are nothing in comparison to those who are professional academics - Historians.

I haven't said anything about Wilkens at all, and neither know, nor care, whether he's been studying the location of Troy for 3, 30, or 300 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't said anything about Wilkens at all, and neither know, nor care, whether he's been studying the location of Troy for 3, 30, or 300 years.

Well mores the pity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OLB talks about lots of things, but there are infinitely more things it doesn't talk about. An argument from silence is no argument.

The OLB is very specific about how they built the citadels, like it was very specific about lots of other things.

The OLB NEVER EVER mentions any megalithic structure, nor how they were built.

We nowadays are still impressed, the Romans were, and the Greeks were.

But the Frya people? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted about lots of things that would concern the OLB narrative.

And when Otharus, Alewyn, Tony, and others posted their stuff, I always responded sooner or later.

But I post lots of stuff concerning the OLB, and the Tony's and Otharusses's and Alewyn's remain silent, they just ignore what I found out, and construct another search for me to answer.

I am alone here, But I think I am doing quite well.

Now I tell the believers here: Fk you all.

You always want me to give you an answer to what you posted, but you never ever answer to what *I* posted?

OK.

Alewyn, Otharus, Tony... answer my questions in my former posts, or I will no longer take you seriously.

*I* have a scientific training (chemistry), but I do have serious doubts about your scientific training, if you all had ANY...

I accept being wrong, I DO answer difficult questions, but when I post something that might give you all some doubts about your convictions, you all never answer me, and come up with something new for me to answer.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OLB is very specific about how they built the citadels, like it was very specific about lots of other things.

The OLB NEVER EVER mentions any megalithic structure, nor how they were built.

We nowadays are still impressed, the Romans were, and the Greeks were.

But the Frya people? No.

Why should we expect an ancient text to mention everything we want it to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted about lots of things that would concern the OLB narrative.

And when Otharus, Alewyn, Tony, and others posted their stuff, I always responded sooner or later.

But I post lots of stuff concerning the OLB, and the Tony's and Otharusses's and Alewyn's remain silent, they just ignore what I found out, and construct another search for me to answer.

I am alone here, But I think I am doing quite well.

Now I tell the believers here: Fk you all.

You always want me to give you an answer to what you posted, but you never ever answer to what *I* posted?

OK.

Alewyn, Otharus, Tony... answer my questions in my former posts, or I will no longer take you seriously.

*I* have a scientific training (chemistry), but I do have serious doubts about your scientific training, if you all had ANY...

I accept being wrong, I DO answer difficult questions, but when I post something that might give you all some doubts about your convictions, you all never answer me, and come up with something new for me to answer.

.

In what way does the study of chemistry help with regard to history and mythology? If anything, it's a hindrance, because the techniques used in the physical sciences are very different to those used by historians, and if you attempt to apply them, you will end up with nothing. Such as, for example, your repeated, continual insistence that writers of ancient text should mention things that you deem important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OLB talks about lots of things, and in a lot of detail, but never do we read anything about megalithic structures, or how they were constructed.

The first text that was copied to be saved in 'the book of Adela's followers', is the "Forma Skêdnise", the "Earliest History" (Ottema/Sandbach p.10-13, original p.5-6, see below, few corrections added).

This obviously is a pseudo- (or fantasy based) history (or as the Fryans themselves would say, an wla skêdnese).

It is suggested that Frya and her two 'sisters' were the first people, that before them there was nothing. It's not much less than a deification, something she would not have liked herself as indicated by her own Tex.

What were the post-deluvian Fryans trying to hide and forget, in the 49th year of Fåsta's 'reign'?

Who was Frya really, was she a historical mother at all?

Is the Frya of the 'earliest history' ment to be a different (earlier) one then the one who wrote the Tex and drowned in the flood?

Who was/were the father(s) of Frya's children really and who were her parents?

Did she indeed have a twin-brother as some of the Nordic mythology suggests?

If the Fryans believed that Wr.alda alone was the bisittar of loft, wêter, lând ånd fjur (Tex Fryas #5, p.12 of original), that Wralda controlled the elements, why - in their perception - would he have caused the Great Flood? Was it a punishment for something? Had they done something wrong?

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Thit stand vppa tha wâgum et Fryasburch to Texland askrywen, thåt stêt âk to Stâvia ånd to Mêdêas blik.

Dit stond op de wanden der Fryasburg te Texland geschreven, dat staat ook te Stavia, ook te Medeasblik.

This was inscribed upon the walls of Fryasburg in Texland, as well as at Stavia and Medeasblik.

Thåt was Frya his dêi ånd to thêre stonde was et vrlêden sjvgun wâra sjvgun jêr, thåt Fåsta was anståld as folksmoder nêi Fryas jêrta.

Het was Fryasdag en te dier tijd was het zeven maal zeven jaren geleden, dat Festa was aangesteld als volksmoeder, naar Fryas begeerte.

It was Frya's day, and [at that time] seven times seven years had elapsed since Festa was appointed Volksmoeder [Folksmother] by the desire of Frya.

Thju burch Mêdêasblik was rêd ånd en fâm was kêren. Nw skolde Fåsta thju nêja foddik vpstêka, ånd thâ thåt dên was an åjnwarda fon thåt folk,

De burgt Medeasblik was gereed en eene maagd [fam] was gekozen. Nu zoude Festa hare nieuwe lamp opsteken, en toen dat gedaan was in tegenwoordigheid van het volk,

The citadel of Medeasblik was ready, and a Burgtmaagd [Fam] was chosen. Festa was about to light her new lamp, and when she had [that was] done so in the presence of all the people,

thâ hrop Frya fon hira wâkståre, sâ thåt allera månnalik thåt hêra machte: Fåsta nim thinra stifte ånd writ tha thinga thêr ik êr navt sedsa ne machte.

toen riep Frya van hare waakstar, zoodat iedereen het hooren konde: Festa neem uwe stift en schrijf de dingen, die ik [eerder] niet zeggen mocht.

Frya called from her watch-star, so that every one could hear it: "Festa, take your style and write the things, that I may not speak [could not say earlier]."

Fåsta dêde alsa hja boden wårth. Sâ send wy Fryas bårn an vsa forma skêdnise kêmen.

Festa deed alzoo als haar geboden was. Zoo zijn wij Fryas kinderen aan onze vroegste geschiedenis gekomen.

Festa [Fåsta] did as she was bid, and thus we became Frya's children, and [begot] our earliest history began.

Thåt is vsa forma skêdnise.

Dit is onze vroegste geschiedenis.

This is our earliest history.

Wr.alda tham allêna god ånd êvg is, mâkade t.anfang, dana kêm tid, tid wrochte alle thinga âk jrtha. Jrtha bârde alle gârsa, krûdon ånd boma, allet djara kwik ånd allet årge kwik.

Wralda, die alleen goed en eeuwig is maakte den aanvang, alsdan kwam de tijd, de tijd wrochte alle dingen, en ook de aarde, de aarde baarde alle gras, kruiden en boomen, al het liefelijk gedierte en al het booze gedierte.

Wr-alda, who alone is eternal and good, made the beginning. Then commenced time. Time wrought all things, even the earth. The earth bore grass, herbs, and trees, all useful and all noxious animals.

Alhwat god ånd djar is, brocht hju by dêgum ånd alhwat kwâd ånd årg is, brocht hju thes nachtis forth. Afteret twilifte jol-fêrste bârde hja thrja mangêrta.

Alles wat goed en liefelijk is, bragt zij bij dag voort, en alles wat boos en kwaad is, bragt zij bij nacht voort. Na het twaalfde Juulfeest bragt zij voort drie maagden:

All that is good and useful she brought forth by day, and all that is bad and injurious by night. After the twelfth Juulfeest she brought forth three maidens:

Lyda wårth ut glyande, Finda wårth ut hêta ånd Frya ut warme stof.

Lyda uit gloeijende stof, Finda uit heete stof, en Frya uit warme stof.

Lyda out of fierce heat. [glowing,] Finda out of strong heat. [hot,] Frya out of moderate heat [warm matter].

... etcetera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is suggested that Frya and her two 'sisters' were the first people, that before them there was nothing. It's not much less than a deification, something she would not have liked herself as indicated by her own Tex.

In the OLB there are three examples of negative sentiments about deification, and still this is exactly what happened, first with Frya, later with Wodin, Neph-Tunis, Min-erva/ (Ny-) Hellenia all the way up to Jesus of Nazareth or Christ.

Defication Wodin

[Ottema/ Sandbach p.79/ orig. p.55]

Wodin (...) Sin rik hilde sjvgun jêr, thâ vrdwind-ir.

Wodin (...) Zijn rijk duurde zeven jaren, toen verdween hij.

Wodin (...) His reign lasted seven years, and then he disappeared.

Thene Mâgy sêide that-er mong hjara godon vpnimeth wêre,

De Magy zeide dat hij onder hunne goden was opgenomen,

The Magy said that he was taken up by their gods

ånd that hi fon thêr over hjam welda,

en dat hij van daar over hen heerschte,

and still reigned over us [from there],

men vs folk lakton vmbe tin tâl.

maar ons volk lachte om zijne taal.

but our people laughed at what they said.

Defication Tünis

[Ottema/ Sandbach p.97/ orig. p.69]

Thi kåning was fon Tünis ofstamed,

De koning was een afstammeling van Teunis,

The king was a descendant of Teunis,

sâ wi lêter hêrdon,

gelijk wij later hoorden.

as we were afterwards informed [heard later];

men til thju tha prestera en kåning wilde håve

Maar omdat de priesters een koning wilden hebben,

but as the priests wished to have a king,

thêr alderlangne nêi hjara bigrip wêre,

die daar naar hun begrip van overlang was (?)

who, according to their ideas, was of long descent,

alsa hêde hja Tünis to en gode up hêjad,

hadden zij Teunis tot een God verheven,

they deified Teunis,

to årgnisse sinra folgar.

tot ergernis van zijne volgers.

to the vexation of his followers.

Defication Hellênja or Minerva

[Ottema/ Sandbach p.101/ orig. p.72]

Thâ Hellênja jefta Minerva sturven was,

Toen Hellenia of Minerva gestorven was,

When Hellenia or Min-erva [had] died,

tha bâradon tha prestera as jef hja mith vs wêron,

hielden de priesters zich als of zij met ons waren,

the priests pretended to be with us,

til thju that hel blika skolde

en opdat zulks duidelijk blijken zoude,

and in order to make it appear so,

havon hja Hellênia to-ne godene ute kêth.

hebben zij Hellenia tot eene Godin uitgeroepen.

they deified Hellenia.

(...)

Men wi nildon Minerva navt as êne godene navt bikånna,

Maar wij wilden Minerva niet als eene Godin erkennen,

But we would not recognise Min-erva as a goddess,

nêidam hja selva seid hêde

naardien zij zelve ons gezegd had,

because she herself had told us

that nimman god jefta fvlkvma wêsa ne kvnde thån Wr.aldas gâst.

dat niemand goed of volkomen kon wezen, als Wraldas geest.

that no one could be perfectly good except the spirit of Wr-alda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is suggested that Frya and her two 'sisters' were the first people, that before them there was nothing. It's not much less than a deification, something she would not have liked herself as indicated by her own Tex.

How the lie lived forth...

(Indirect) references to the "Forma Skêdnise" further in the OLB.

1) in book Apol-lânja Oera-Linda

[Ottema/ Sandbach p.143, original p.103]

Trâst thêr fâm wêre to Stavia (...) sêide

Troost, die Maagd was te Stavia (...) zeide:

Troost, who was the maid of Stavia (...) said,

Thâ Frya bern was, stand vs moder naked ånd blât, vnbihod to jenst tha strêlum thêre svnne.

toen Frya geboren was, stond onze moeder naakt en bloot, onbehoed tegen de stralen der zon.

When Frya was born, our mother stood naked and bare, unprotected from the rays of the sun.

Ninman macht hju frêja ånd thêr wêre ninman thêr hja help macht lêna.

Niemand kon zij vragen, en er was niemand, die haar hulp verleenen konde.

She could ask no one, and there was no one who could give her any help.

Thâ gvng Wr.alda to ånd wrochte in hjra mod nigung ånd liavde anggost ånd skrik.

Toen ging Wralda heen en wrocht in haar gemoed neiging en liefde, angst en schrik.

Then Wr-alda wrought in her conscience inclination and love, anxiety and fright.

2) in book Frêtho-rik Oera-Linda

[Ottema/ Sandbach p.159, original p.115]

Thi Mâgy bogade vppa sinra snôdhêd.

De Magy verhief zich op zijne slimheid.

The Magy prided himself upon his cunning,

Men Irtha skold im thâna, thåt hja nên Mâgy ner afgoda to lêta ne mochte

Maar Irtha zoude hem toonen, dat zij geen Magy noch afgoden mocht toelaten

but Irtha made him know that she would not tolerate any Magy or idol

to thêre hêlge skêta, hwêrut hju Frya bêrade.

tot de heilige schoot, waaruit zij Frya baarde.

on the holy bosom [?] that had borne Frya.

3) in Letter from Rika the Ald-fâm

[Ottema/ Sandbach p.231, original p.191]

Tha hja vrjettath, that Frya bern bêrde svnder jengong ênis mån.

Doch zij vergeten, dat Frya kinderen baarde zonder toegang eens mans.

but they forget that Frya bore children without having intercourse with a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's not true. Stonehenge, for example, is mentioned in no English text from the 12th century to the 17th, yet it still existed during that period. What he's saying is that because the OLB doesn't mention something, then the OLB must be a fake. On that argument all ancient texts are fake, because one could easily think of something they don't mention.

No, maybe Stonehenge is not mentioned in any English text from the 12th to the 17th century, but we are talking about a socalled 4000+ years old manuscript (a manuscript copied at least until 1256 AD): Stonehenge must have been still in use during the time of the Frya people. For them it was not in ruins, and it is known that people reconstructed and built on Stonehenge up to like 1200 BC.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way does the study of chemistry help with regard to history and mythology? If anything, it's a hindrance, because the techniques used in the physical sciences are very different to those used by historians, and if you attempt to apply them, you will end up with nothing. Such as, for example, your repeated, continual insistence that writers of ancient text should mention things that you deem important.

This is of course not about chemistry, it is about having done scientific research (a looong time ago).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should we expect an ancient text to mention everything we want it to?

Not everything, just impressive buildings and structures.

I think you know there is a site that (I think) uses your interpretation/translation of the OLB to claim the Frya empire was nothing else but the civilization responsible for the west-European megalithic culture.

And many megalithic structures were still being constructed during the time of the Frya people.

If it was indeed them who constructed these megalithic structures, then why don't we read about it in the OLB, and why DO we read about those citadels no one ever found a trace of?

If it wasn't them, then it must have been a people they knew of and whom they very probably were in close contact with.

===

EDIT:

This is the site I mentioned (and wasn't it your own site??):

The Oera Linda Book was compiled over many centuries by the Frisians, a nation who in historical times lived around the southern coast of the North Sea. The Frisians believed that their ancestors had constructed the stone circles and megalithic monuments that are found all over Europe. They also claimed to be descended from the inhabitants of the lost island of Atlantis (or Atland, as they called it). The ancient Megalithic Culture existed across the whole of western and northern Europe, and was the earliest known civilisation on Earth. The Greek philosopher Plato, and the Oera Linda Book, both tell us that this vast area was divided into ten autonomous kingdoms, or kin-groups, spread out over large tracts of the continent.

http://www.coven-of-cythrawl.com/traditional_witchcraft.htm

I hope it's not your site, because it appears the one who wrote it never actually read the OLB...

"The Frisians believed that their ancestors had constructed the stone circles and megalithic monuments that are found all over Europe."

You will not find that, anywhere in the OLB.

"They also claimed to be descended from the inhabitants of the lost island of Atlantis (or Atland, as they called it)."

They didn't claim that at all; only the Finda came from Aldland ( or Atland, as the sailors called it), and nowhere does it say Aldland was an island. Aldland was located far away from the Frya empire, and in 2194 BC it sunk. That's all the OLb says about it.

.

.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everything, just impressive buildings and structures.

I think you know there is a site that (I think) uses your interpretation/translation of the OLB to claim the Frya empire was nothing else but the civilization responsible for the west-European megalithic culture.

And many megalithic structures were still being constructed during the time of the Frya people.

If it was indeed them who constructed these megalithic structures, then why don't we read about it in the OLB, and why DO we read about those citadels no one ever found a trace of?

If it wasn't them, then it must have been a people they knew of and whom they very probably were in close contact with.

===

EDIT:

This is the site I mentioned (and wasn't it your own site??):

The Oera Linda Book was compiled over many centuries by the Frisians, a nation who in historical times lived around the southern coast of the North Sea. The Frisians believed that their ancestors had constructed the stone circles and megalithic monuments that are found all over Europe. They also claimed to be descended from the inhabitants of the lost island of Atlantis (or Atland, as they called it). The ancient Megalithic Culture existed across the whole of western and northern Europe, and was the earliest known civilisation on Earth. The Greek philosopher Plato, and the Oera Linda Book, both tell us that this vast area was divided into ten autonomous kingdoms, or kin-groups, spread out over large tracts of the continent.

http://www.coven-of-cythrawl.com/traditional_witchcraft.htm

I hope it's not your site, because it appears the one who wrote it never actually read the OLB...

"The Frisians believed that their ancestors had constructed the stone circles and megalithic monuments that are found all over Europe."

You will not find that, anywhere in the OLB.

"They also claimed to be descended from the inhabitants of the lost island of Atlantis (or Atland, as they called it)."

They didn't claim that at all; only the Finda came from Aldland ( or Atland, as the sailors called it), and nowhere does it say Aldland was an island. Aldland was located far away from the Frya empire, and in 2194 BC it sunk. That's all the OLb says about it.

.

.

.

It's not my site. I'm mentioned on it, I believe.

You are doing it yet again - arguing from silence. Why didn't the writers of the OLB mention the megaliths? Why didn't the writers of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mention the megaliths? After all, stone circles exist in their hundreds across England, the very same location as the Anglo-Saxon civilisation. Yet not a single word, or hint, is mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon corpus of literature, let alone their official history, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not my site. I'm mentioned on it, I believe.

You are doing it yet again - arguing from silence. Why didn't the writers of the OLB mention the megaliths? Why didn't the writers of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mention the megaliths? After all, stone circles exist in their hundreds across England, the very same location as the Anglo-Saxon civilisation. Yet not a single word, or hint, is mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon corpus of literature, let alone their official history, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Why is that?

I haven't read the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but does it mention houses, churches/temples, and so on?

The OLB does, and in detail, but nothing about megalithic structures.

Well, let me ask you something: who built these megalithic structures in western Europe?

.

EDIT:

In the Bible the pyramids are not mentioned, but there are those who think that they were indeed mentioned, but were called the "granaries of the Pharaoh" or something.

Megalithic structures could be named in a totally different and not easy to recognize manner because people had not the faintest idea what these megalithic structures were supposed to be.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but does it mention houses, churches/temples, and so on?

The OLB does, and in detail, but nothing about megalithic structures.

Well, let me ask you something: who built these megalithic structures in western Europe?

.

EDIT:

In the Bible the pyramids are not mentioned, but there are those who think that they were indeed mentioned, but were called the "granaries of the Pharaoh" or something.

Megalithic structures could be named in a totally different and not easy to recognize manner because people had not the faintest idea what these megalithic structures were supposed to be.

.

The megalithic structures were built by the earliest Neolithic settlers. These were the ancestors of the Germanic and Celtic peoples, but from thousands of years earlier, and by the time of the OLB society had changed considerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The megalithic structures were built by the earliest Neolithic settlers. These were the ancestors of the Germanic and Celtic peoples, but from thousands of years earlier, and by the time of the OLB society had changed considerably.

Then read this Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalith

These structures were still being built during the time of Frya's people:

"In Western Europe and the Mediterranean, megaliths are, in general, constructions erected during the Neolithic or late stone age and Chalcolithic or Copper Age (4500-1500 BC). "

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then read this Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalith

These structures were still being built during the time of Frya's people:

"In Western Europe and the Mediterranean, megaliths are, in general, constructions erected during the Neolithic or late stone age and Chalcolithic or Copper Age (4500-1500 BC). "

.

Not many in the Low Countries though, the focus of the writers of the OLB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.