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

I am trying to find out who, in modern times, found out that the Old Kingdom in Egypt came to an end in ca. 2200 BC and when did he or they, established this.

The “Rosette Stone” was taken by the British from the French and then to Britain in 1802 after which it was deciphered. So, it would appear that Egyptian hieroglyphs were only deciphered after this date. But at what stage did they find out for the first time that the Old Kingdom came to an end in 2200 BC?

Can anybody help?

Greetings, Alewyn. I've done some digging through my library and online resources because your question has merit. You're right to mention the Rosetta Stone, although I would extend to that other epigraphic sources under study in the early nineteenth century. The decipherer of hieroglyphs, Jean-François Champollion, could affect only so many results from the Rosetta Stone because the English had it and he was stuck in France. His first successful decipherment in 1822, in fact, was from drawings provided by a friend who had visited Abu Simbel. He deciphered the name of Ramesses, which of course considerably predates the Rosetta Stone. A number of years followed before anyone could functionally translate Egyptian hieroglyphs, but Champollion got the ball solidly rolling. Pity he died so young because our grasp of the script would've been much quicker.

Nothing substantial or meaningful was known about ancient Egypt until its scripts were deciphered; this is not just hieroglyphs but hieratic and demotic, as well. But I'm droning on, as is my tendency. There is no easy answer to your question, Alewyn. Neither I nor anyone else could pin down a specific person who established the endpoint of the Old Kingdom. It's never that easy. As with any other field of historical study, Egyptology has been a growing discipline involving countless brilliant minds and an ever-increasing reliance on modern science.

Through the Etana database I found a free and downloadable PDF for J.H. Breasted's Ancient Records of Egypt (Volume 1) which was one of the seminal books of its time. Anyone interested in downloading it can visit this page and click on the second link for Volume I of Breasted's work; a PDF will open on your screen. Alternately, to go straight to the PDF download, click this link:

PDF download: Ancient Records of Egypt (Volume 1)

I'm recommending this book for two reasons: first, it's quite old (1906) and gives one a glimpse of how the chronology of pharaonic Egypt was understood by early scholars; and two, Breasted goes into some detail on how the chronology, dynasties, and royal lines were understood in his time. Breasted, from the University of Chicago and founder of the Oriental Institute, was one of the giants of his time. Yes, the substance of some of his material is outdated by this time, which is not surprising, but Breasted represents one of the brightest minds of the nascent state of Egyptology in the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century. He is one of the early scholars who helped to begin the polishing of our understanding of Egyptian chronology.

In substance the origin of this chronology goes back to the third century BCE and the accounts of Manetho, with whom everyone here is no doubt familiar. Manetho's original history of Egypt doesn't survive but has been preserved in parts through the writing of other writers of his era. It was Manetho who established the original system of dynasties with which modern historians first worked. Although the lists of kings provided by Manetho are quite garbled and difficult to follow, which is the result of both simple inaccuracies on Manetho's part and his need to write all of the names in Greek variants, we still follow a dynastic chronology that's similar to the original one derived by Manetho. The system of periods (Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom, intermediate periods, et cetera) was developed in more recent times.

The system of dynasties is not static. It continues to undergo enhancements as new evidence comes to light. For example, it was long thought that a mysterious queen named Nicrotis was the last monarch to rule Dynasty 6, although scholars eventually came to terms with the fact that there simply is no real evidence for her. Rather, it is now argued that after the long reign of Pepi II, a short-lived king named Merenre II reigned for perhaps a year. I think this was becoming clear even in Breasted's time, so it's not entirely fresh news.

When you examine old books written by Egyptology you will invariably see quite a spread in dates and years. Our knowledge of specific dates prior to the Persian period is still on unsolid grounds, but it has grown a lot more stable through the years. Modern science is essential for the polishing of timelines. Carbon dating, for example, has shown that the pyramid of Pepi II dates to around 2300 BCE; the conventional reign for Pepi II is usually in the range of 2290-2196 BCE, so the carbon-dating results are very close. Moreover, archaeoclimatology analyses of numerous Near Eastern sites have fixed the 4.2 kiloyear event beginning at about 2200 BCE.

This is one of those cases where science and historical inquiry mesh very well. Dynasty 6 would've ended around 2200 BCE, and both the textual and archaeological records reveal a sharp decrease at this time in the power of central authority in Egypt. In short course Egypt devolved into the civil wars of the First Intermediate Period. Such collapses are seen elsewhere at the same time, as with the Akkadians in Iraq. The 4.2 kiloyear event marked a rapid onset of drought from North Africa, through the Levant and Mesopotamia, and all the way up into the Hindu Kush. The widespread failures of crops and death of livestock would've played havoc on the kingdoms of this period. And as it happens, we see this very thing happening in Egypt after Pepi II and Merenre II. It is the sharp turn in socio-politics and the breakdown of central authority that clearly mark the transition between Dynasty 6 of the Old Kingdom and Dynasty 7 of the First Intermediate Period.

I apologize for the length of this post as well as for an inability to name a specific person who devised the chronological end for the Old Kingdom. But like I said, it's not that simple: it's a complicated mixture of historical investigations going back well over a century and the advent of modern science.

On a concluding note, I can't promise I'll be a regular participant in this discussion. I realize that the OLB has putative connections to the Near East but the majority of its content is beyond my scope of research. I don't know that I'd have much to contribute. But if anyone has a question about ancient Egypt, please know I'm available. You might end up with a tedious post like this one, and I certainly can't promise I have all the answers, but I'm willing to help where I can. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you?

OK, well a while back on one of the Egyptian topics I was stating how I had never seen a picture of a pyramid in Egypt - which since they seem to have recorded so much, I would sorta expect to see. It says to me that maybe they actually were not there, like, until Herodotus says.

I'm pretty sure at the time you commented on it and I was hoping you would find a picture of one for me.

Alas, I never have seen one still, of the pyramids created by Egyptians.

That's all I meant and it was an off the cuff post above but generally, yep, that's what it's about.

By "picture" do you mean something like a relief carving or painting of a pyramid that dates to the Old Kingdom?

Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken. You seem to have taken offense by this slight of mine. In all honesty I recall neither your post nor the discussion in question, so I assure you I did not mean to offend. You know how some of these threads are: they take on a life of their own and it's hard to keep up with them.

In any case, if you're talking about the absence of relief carvings or paintings of specific pyramids, that's something that's been addressed in detail many times not just by me but by other posters. I am willing to answer the question but do not want to sidetrack or hijack the OLB discussion. Let me know. I'd like to straighten this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Oh, damn, now I think I know what's going on, Puzzler. I just saw your reply to Abramelin.

I'm guessing you weren't taking offense by my omission. You were poking fun at the fact that there are no known depictions of pyramids in the Old Kingdom. Yes, that is still true, but I think you've probably read my long diatribes on this same subject so I needn't bog down a thread that has nothing to do with the subject.

I can be so dense sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings, Alewyn. I've done some digging through my library and online resources because your question has merit.

On a concluding note, I can't promise I'll be a regular participant in this discussion. I realize that the OLB has putative connections to the Near East but the majority of its content is beyond my scope of research. I don't know that I'd have much to contribute. But if anyone has a question about ancient Egypt, please know I'm available. You might end up with a tedious post like this one, and I certainly can't promise I have all the answers, but I'm willing to help where I can. ;)

Hi Kmt_sesh,

Thank you so much for your very detailed response and all the effort that went into it. I really appreciate it.

Although this topic revolves around the Oera Linda Book, I do believe there are elements that should be of interest to Egyptologists.

As you know, the OLB claims that their civilization was destroyed in 2193 / 2194 BC. I know that people keep on saying the book is a hoax and that the Frisians derived at this date from Biblical chronology. The problem that I have is that no theologians, Christian historians or anybody else used this date anywhere in the world – at least not to my knowledge. My question then is “where did the OLB get this date from and what other proof do we have that something dramatic happened ca 2200 BC?

Most (if not all) of the following information was not available in the 19th century when the OLB surfaced:

4200 years ago…

1. The Old Kingdom of Egypt came to an end.

2. The Akkadian Empire in Iraq was destroyed (2193 BC – Prof Weiss).

3. The Harrapan Urban Civilization in India (first excavated in the 1920s) ceased to exist.

4. The Epic of Gilgamesh , Curse of Akkad and The Ipuwer Papyrus (translated in 1909 by A.H. Gardiner) all describe floods, earthquakes and meteorites (burning potsherds falling from the sky, flaming stars, etc.).

5. The Hong Shan Culture in China Disappeared (The Hongshanhou site was discovered by the Japanese archaeologist Torii Ryūzō in 1908 and extensively excavated in 1935 by Kōsaku Hamada and Mizuno Seiichi ).

6. North African Savannahs became the Sahara desert.

7. Paleo-megalakes in North Africa disappeared (Lake Mega-Fezzan, Lake Mega-Chad, and others).

8. Salt content of ground increased in North Africa and Middle East.

9. Bible recorded “The Deluge” or “Noah’s Flood”.

10. Oera Linda Book records the destruction of North Western Europe (2193 BC). Earth quakes, floods and mountains spewed fire.

11. Archaeologists found megalithic chambered tombs near Defile in the Netherlands which disappeared after 2200 BC under several feet of clay and peat (with acknowledgement to Abramelin).

12. Oera Linda Book states “the sun rose higher” before the disaster.

13. Book of Enoch states that the Earth shook violently and became inclined.

14. Scientists (German) speculate that the earth’s orbit changed.

15. Ice cores show the onset of a 300 year drought.

16. Scientists refer to the 4.2ka BP Bond Event.

17. Archaeological sites in South Africa seems to indicate high sea levels (Blombos Caves, etc). I have personally taken photographs of two road cuttings on the South African coast more than a 1000 kilometres apart which clearly show tsunami layers. Geologists call these “roll-stone layers” caused by changing sea levels. Yet, I found Aeolian sands below the roll stones!

18. The paleo-tsunami history of Australia shows, inter alia, mega tsunamis around the same time.

19. Extraordinary floods related to the climatic event at 4200 a BP on the Qishuihe River, middle reaches of the Yellow River, China ( Chun Chang Huanga, , Jiangli Panga, Xiaochun Zhaa, Hongxia Sub and Yaofeng Jiaa a Department of Geography, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710062, PR China; b School of Tourism and Human Geography, Xi’an International Studies University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710061, PR China Received 31 May 2010; revised 29 November 2010; accepted 7 December 2010. Available online 3 January 2011. ).

20. Meteorite fields in Argentina date to ca. the same time. (Possibly also the Burckle Impact crater).

The above list goes on and on. I believe the Old Kingdom was not destroyed by a drought but rather by a cataclysmic disaster which most likely was caused by a cosmic impact or series of impacts – some impacting the ground and some disintegrating in the atmosphere (like the Tunguska explosion); such as could happen when earth’s orbit intersected a meteorite swarm or cloud. The drought was only an after effect.

The fact that this is not yet accepted is, imo, simply because nobody has yet looked for this. More and more scientists, however, are starting to connect the dots.

In my book (chapter 1) I tried to explain the event. There is also my speculation about the Hyksos which I believe is quite relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yesterday I posted the links to examples of the Rüstringen dialect and other Old Frisian dialects so people could compare it themselves with the OLB language.

Great Abe, I did that over 2200 posts ago, in January:

If anyone else is interested in comparing three known versions of Old-Frisian (ca. 12th century), here's some links:

Londriuht (Rüstringer) (not dated as far as I know, but probably from ca. 12 century)

Landriocht (Westerlauwers)

Land- and Skeltana Riucht (Westfrisian)

The Rüstringer dialect does NOT seem to be more similar to the OLB language than the other dialects. The old-Westfrisian dialect actually seems to be closest related. At first sight all three varieties seem to share the language of the OLB as a common ancestor. A thorough examination may prove this to be right.

The following is a sample of the Rüstringer dialect, taken from the link above, with the there provided German translation as well as my improvised English translation. As usual I try to stay close to the original rather than write good English. I have converted the original into capitals for an easier comparison with the OLB language.

HIR IS ESKRIUIN,

Hier ist geschrieben,

Here is written,

... etcetera.

I still think that the Rüstringen dialect comes closest to the OLB language.

That is because you never compared the languages/dialects yourself.

Yet, you dare to post strong, unfounded opinions about my experimental studies of it, like "child's play" and "New Age crap" (whatever that means).

Edited by Otharus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

:lol: Oh, damn, now I think I know what's going on, Puzzler. I just saw your reply to Abramelin.

I'm guessing you weren't taking offense by my omission. You were poking fun at the fact that there are no known depictions of pyramids in the Old Kingdom. Yes, that is still true, but I think you've probably read my long diatribes on this same subject so I needn't bog down a thread that has nothing to do with the subject.

:tu:

I edited this because I wanted to omit that you said you can be a dumb ass sometimes...cause I didn't want to thumbs up that.

Thanks for popping in kmt. ;)

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As you know, the OLB claims that their civilization was destroyed in 2193 / 2194 BC. I know that people keep on saying the book is a hoax and that the Frisians derived at this date from Biblical chronology. The problem that I have is that no theologians, Christian historians or anybody else used this date anywhere in the world – at least not to my knowledge. My question then is “where did the OLB get this date from and what other proof do we have that something dramatic happened ca 2200 BC?

There is no need for all the information you posted to have been available to "theologians, Christian historians or anybody else". All the information that would have been required for the authors of the OLB to have used the date 2193 BCE as the time of great catastrophe, was the one piece of information freely available in Dutch/Frisian almanacs at that time (the 19th century) - and that piece of information is that date was published in those almanacs as being when the biblical flood of Noah occurred.

This ties in nicely with the OLB being a hoax, a parody of the Christian bible and a lesson in literality vs symbology.

Otharus,

The Rüstringer dialect does NOT seem to be more similar to the OLB language than the other dialects. The old-Westfrisian dialect actually seems to be closest related. At first sight all three varieties seem to share the language of the OLB as a common ancestor. A thorough examination may prove this to be right

The highlighted statement is a little presumptuous. A similarity in usage of language can as easily point to the opposite conclusion - that the OLB borrowed from one (or more) of these old dialects to construct it's language.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday I posted the links to examples of the Rüstringen dialect and other Old Frisian dialects so people could compare it themselves with the OLB language. I still think that the Rüstringen dialect comes closest to the OLB language. So let's wait till someone else gives his/her opinion.

HIR IS ESKRIUIN

The title is the beginning of the Rustringian laws (it means "here is written").

Let's test the hypothesis that the OLB-language would be based on this dialect with one example, the participium perfectum of "to write"; written.

English = written (words that come closest are 'described' and 'scribbled')

Dutch: geschreven

Afrikaans: geskryf

German: geschrieben

Danish, norwegian = skrevet

Swedish = skrivit

Icelandic = skrifað

Current Westfrisian dialect (North-Holland): skreven (long E or É)

In the OLB there are several varieties of the word, but by far the most common is "SKRÉVEN"

SKRÉVEN ~ 24 x

of which 6 varieties:

. . . WR-SKRÉVEN ~ 1 x (over-written = copied)

. . . VR-SKRÉVEN ~ 1 x ( ,, )

. . . E-SKRÉVEN ~ 2 x

. . . É-SKRÉVEN ~ 1 x

. . . BI-SKRÉVEN ~ 1 x (describe)

("-" added by me)

And 4 with a double-V or W:

SKRÉVVEN ~ 1 x

(BI-) SKRÉWEN ~ 1 x

(A-) SKRIWEN ~ 1 x

(A-) SKRÍWEN ~ 1 x

(the last two having I, resp. Í after the SKR-)

Total: 28 x

So the constant factor is:

..SKR...EN

and between SKR- and -EN, we find:

É - 26 x

I - 1 x

Í - 1 x

and:

V - 24 x

W - 3 x

VV - 1 x

Now a look at the Rustringer variety of the same word:

ESKRIUIN

The variety with E- in the beginning is counted in OLB 3 out of 28, but let's focus about the core of the word:

SKRIUIN

First thing to notice is that SKR- is the same, but the last I is in conflict with the constant factor of the OLB, where all varieties end with -EN.

The other I, following SKR- is a rare variety in OLB. If we add I and Í together, it's 2 out of 28.

In OLB U and V are sometimes interchangeable, but in no single variety of SKRÉVEN the U is used.

~ ~ ~

To get back to the hypothesis, if someone in the 19th century would want to create a fantasy language that is based on the Rustrinian variety of old-Frisian, he would have known the laws from which the fragment of the title of this post was taken.

According to Abe's theory, Halbertsma considered Rustringian to be the oldest and most pure of the old-Frisian dialects.

Why now would he make up nine different varieties of this word and not include the Rustringian variety?

And why would he make the variety that is still in use in Westfriesland the most common one?

Back to the modern languages:

scribbled, -scribed ~ English

geschreven ~ Dutch

geskryf ~ Afrikaans

geschrieben ~ German

skrevet ~ Danish, norwegian

skrivit ~ Swedish

skrifað ~ Icelandic

skreven (long E or É) ~ Current Westfrisian dialect (North-Holland)

If we compare these with the constant factor of the OLB:

SKR...EN

1) We find that only Westfrisian fully corresponds with it.

2) The beginning SKR- we also find in Afrikaans and the Scandinavian languages (Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic).

In Dutch and German this has changed into SCHR-, and in English into SCR-.

3) The end -EN we find in Dutch and German, in Afrikaans it is left out, and in the Scandinavian languages it has changed into -ET (Danish and Norwegian), -IT (Swedish) and -ATH (Icelandic)

4) The in OLB most common "V" in the middle is maintained in Dutch, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian.

In Afrikaans and Icelandic this has become an "F", in German and English a "B".

5) The sound before the "V" (most common in OLB is "É") is maintained in Dutch, Danish and Norwegian, while in the other languages it has become the I, IE or Y (with English as the only one where this sound is short).

The conclusions of this single example, are that:

1. None of the OLB varieties of the word are based on Rustringian.

2. The OLB word is most similar to (i.e. completely the same as) the word in the Westfrisian (North Holland) dialect.

It would be good to have more examples, but it is a lot of work.

Besides, I'm not an official "linguist"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Otharus,

The highlighted statement is a little presumptuous. A similarity in usage of language can as easily point to the opposite conclusion - that the OLB borrowed from one (or more) of these old dialects to construct it's language.

Yes, I agree.

Thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need for all the information you posted to have been available to "theologians, Christian historians or anybody else". All the information that would have been required for the authors of the OLB to have used the date 2193 BCE as the time of great catastrophe, was the one piece of information freely available in Dutch/Frisian almanacs at that time (the 19th century) - and that piece of information is that date was published in those almanacs as being when the biblical flood of Noah occurred.

You have answered only partly. I have heard on this site that the date of 2193 BC was freely available in the 19th century (in Dutch/Frisian almanacs). I cannot recall anybody on this site, however, providing proof of this statement. Could you do so, please?

Secondly, I have read fairly widely and have never seen anyone else using this date. So, where did the Dutch or Frisians get this date from, or, to put it in another way, why are they the only ones who ascribed this date to Noah’s flood?

Lastly, you seem to have missed the most important point of my posting, namely that the demise of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, seen in the context of all the other evidence I gave, was not the result of a drought as everybody seem to believe. It was the result of a world-wide catastrophic event and most likely a cosmic impact or impacts. How else would you explain the floods and subsequent droughts, the “falling stars”, the desertification of the Sahara, evidence of tsunamis and/or floods from all over the world, the new theory that earth’s orbit changed around the same time, etc., etc.

Now think about this and then compare it with the OLB’s description of the event. It is much more than just a date. Where did the “19th century authors” of the OLB get this information from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Great Abe, I did that over 2200 posts ago, in January:

That is because you never compared the languages/dialects yourself.

Yet, you dare to post strong, unfounded opinions about my experimental studies of it, like "child's play" and "New Age crap" (whatever that means).

Yes, I know you posted the links, and I even said that you did. But I had done that too, and I think even before you started participating in this thread. However, who posted what first is not important; this is not a contest.

I did compare the languages, and I hope someone else will give his/her opinion.

I would really like to know what a linguist like an Olivier van Renswoude has to say about it, and as I already said, if he says it's bull, then I will accept it. You will have read that I asked Cormac something about the possibility of typical Frisian DNA material (or whatever I should name it) showing up in 3000 years old skeletal remains of people living around the Mediterranean (based on the pdf Swede posted the link to). Why? Because I know I do not know much about genetics, so I asked someone who I think does.

I don't suggest you are talking from your rear end, but you are not a linguist. Now, suppose Van Renswoude said the languages (OLB and Rüstringen) are not that much alike, or not at all alike, and if he explains why, would that not add a bit of weight in your eyes?

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Alewyn, you still wonder who came up with that date of (around) 2200 BC, but it was known Frisian historians/theologians had calculated the date of the Flood to be 2193 BC.

It was Otharus who posted about the source, the "Friesche Volksalmanak".

It seems perfectly acceptable that a Frisian writer would use that date, calculated by Frisian historians/theologians.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alewyn, you still wonder who came up with that date of (around) 2200 BC, but it was known Frisian historians/theologians had calculated the date of the Flood to be 2193 BC.

It was Otharus who posted about the source, the "Friesche Volksalmanak".

It seems perfectly acceptable that a Frisian writer would use that date, calculated by Frisian historians/theologians.

.

OK. So lets assume the Frisians got their date from the Bible. One would then also expect their description of the event to have come from the Bible i.e 40 days and nights of rain, the mountains covered with water, everybody and everything drowned, etc., etc. Right?

Yet, they do not even mention rain. Lots of floods, earthquakes, fires, etc. going on for 3 years; not one year as the Bible says and not everybody perished. In fact, the OLB's description is much closer to the scientific evidence we are now getting than the very brief description in the Bible.

So, once again, how did they manage this in the 19th century when none of this were known?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You have answered only partly. I have heard on this site that the date of 2193 BC was freely available in the 19th century (in Dutch/Frisian almanacs). I cannot recall anybody on this site, however, providing proof of this statement. Could you do so, please?

I took this information from Jensma's 2007 book dealing with the OLB, although I have not read Jensma's book, but only know of this piece of information from other sources referencing it. I would suggest either obtaining a copy of that book, or visiting the Koninkliijke Bibliotheek to view the almanacs they actually have (I believe you can secure a copy online from them).

Secondly, I have read fairly widely and have never seen anyone else using this date. So, where did the Dutch or Frisians get this date from, or, to put it in another way, why are they the only ones who ascribed this date to Noah’s flood?

I never stated they were the only people using this date. More research is required to ascertain if this was a date commonly held in various societies as being one of the possible dates of the Noahic Flood.

Lastly, you seem to have missed the most important point of my posting, namely that the demise of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, seen in the context of all the other evidence I gave, was not the result of a drought as everybody seem to believe. It was the result of a world-wide catastrophic event and most likely a cosmic impact or impacts. How else would you explain the floods and subsequent droughts, the “falling stars”, the desertification of the Sahara, evidence of tsunamis and/or floods from all over the world, the new theory that earth’s orbit changed around the same time, etc., etc.

Now think about this and then compare it with the OLB’s description of the event. It is much more than just a date. Where did the “19th century authors” of the OLB get this information from?

Well, the drought conditions experienced towards the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom have been attributed to the cyclical Sahel drying. If you google this, you will find the phenomenon does have a global effect, however it is not caused by catastrophes such as impactors.

As for "evidence of tsunamis and/or floods from all over the world", the world is a very active place, climactically and seismically. There should be no surprise that evidence of climactic and/or seismic events are common. That does not suggest they all happened at the same time due to one global event.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. So lets assume the Frisians got their date from the Bible. One would then also expect their description of the event to have come from the Bible i.e 40 days and nights of rain, the mountains covered with water, everybody and everything drowned, etc., etc. Right?

Yet, they do not even mention rain. Lots of floods, earthquakes, fires, etc. going on for 3 years; not one year as the Bible says and not everybody perished. In fact, the OLB's description is much closer to the scientific evidence we are now getting than the very brief description in the Bible.

So, once again, how did they manage this in the 19th century when none of this were known?

I do not expect that someone writing a fictive ancient history of her/his people to use another very known book/manuscript word for word. If someone wants to create a fictive history (for whatever reason) that looks authentic, then s/he will mix from several available sources.

You talk about scientific evidence, but I'd still like to see that evidence for crumbling mountains, erupting volcanoes, submerging lands, lands arising from the sees, gigantic floods, fires all over, and all that at around 2200 BC in Europe. And yes, Europe, for that was where Frya's empire was located.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took this information from Jensma's 2007 book dealing with the OLB, although I have not read Jensma's book, but only know of this piece of information from other sources referencing it. I would suggest either obtaining a copy of that book, or visiting the Koninkliijke Bibliotheek to view the almanacs they actually have (I believe you can secure a copy online from them).

I never stated they were the only people using this date. More research is required to ascertain if this was a date commonly held in various societies as being one of the possible dates of the Noahic Flood.

Well, the drought conditions experienced towards the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom have been attributed to the cyclical Sahel drying. If you google this, you will find the phenomenon does have a global effect, however it is not caused by catastrophes such as impactors.

As for "evidence of tsunamis and/or floods from all over the world", the world is a very active place, climactically and seismically. There should be no surprise that evidence of climactic and/or seismic events are common. That does not suggest they all happened at the same time due to one global event.

Leonardo,

You will notice that I started my list in post 4653 with "4200 years ago..."

Everything I listed is what happened in ca. 2200 BC. So I am saying it all happened at the same time i.e. during the 4.2ka BP event. You can check all of them.

Most scientists are still not certain whether the event happened suddenly or gradually.

The reason why a distinct event has not been picked up yet in ice cores is because to date they have mostly looked at bigger increments such as 50 or 100 years. I believe they now realise that they should reduce their search criteria to 5 or 10 years to pick up a single sudden event. Research is now focussed on this and I am certain we shall see results within the next year or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not expect that someone writing a fictive ancient history of her/his people to use another very known book/manuscript word for word. If someone wants to create a fictive history (for whatever reason) that looks authentic, then s/he will mix from several available sources.

You talk about scientific evidence, but I'd still like to see that evidence for crumbling mountains, erupting volcanoes, submerging lands, lands arising from the sees, gigantic floods, fires all over, and all that at around 2200 BC in Europe. And yes, Europe, for that was where Frya's empire was located.

You yourself already gave some evidence. See my post:

"Archaeologists found megalithic chambered tombs near Defile in the Netherlands which disappeared after 2200 BC under several feet of clay and peat (with acknowledgement to Abramelin)."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You yourself already gave some evidence. See my post:

"Archaeologists found megalithic chambered tombs near Defile in the Netherlands which disappeared after 2200 BC under several feet of clay and peat (with acknowledgement to Abramelin)."

That could prove a flood, true.

But I also mentioned (or better, the OLB does) erupting volcanoes, fires, and all that (see my former post happening at the same time, around 2200 BC, and in Europe.

Btw, Alewyn, do you still have that pdf that you quoted from (the megalithic chambers in the Netherlands). I appear to have lost it..

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Took me a bit of digging in my files, but I found something I posted here a long time ago.

It's about a volcanic eruption taking place around 2200 BC, Italy, but not one even close to the Thera eruption of centuries later:

2200

© Eruption of the Campi Flegrei. (± 50 yrs).

http://www.researchitaly.us/historyofsouthernitaly/prehistoryto501bc.html

(this link is dead, but it's saved on the Webarchives site:

http://classic-web.archive.org/web/20080508023153/http://researchitaly.us/historyofsouthernitaly/prehistoryto501bc.html)

http://boinnk.nl/blog/?tag=campi-flegrei

http://cires.colorado.edu/~bilham/tiltmeter.file/CampiFlegreiHelenBrand.pdf

Local collapse during this phase resulted in the Agnano caldera which was formed by several eruptions. Other major eruptions whose products are well exposed, occurred at Cigliano, Agnano-Monte Spina (4000 abp), Astroni (3700 abp) and Averno (3700 abp), Solfatara and Monte Olibano . The last eruption in the area occurred in historical time and was that of Monte Nuovo (1538 AD).

http://vulcan.fis.uniroma3.it/campi_flegrei/Campi_flegreitext.html

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

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Searching through this thread, I read I asked Alewyn a while ago, "Why do you think that Middelzee in Friesland was so important??"

This was of course in connection to the Middelzee/Middel-se being the western border of the Fryan Empire (OLB), or as the OLB says, "bordered in the direction of the evening by the Middel-se.". For many that 'Middel-se' was nothing else but the Mediterranean. *I* say that this Middel-Se in THAT part of the OLB is nothing but the Frisian Middel-Se/MiddelZee ("sea in the Middle").

The Battle of the Boarn (West Frisian: Slach oan de Boarn Dutch: Slag aan de Boorne) was an eighth century battle between the Franks and the Frisians near the mouth of the river Boarn in what is now the Dutch province of Friesland.

In 734 a Frankish army commanded by Majordomo Charles Martel invaded Friesland in a campaign that was part of a series of ongoing wars and skirmishes between the Franks and the Frisians. Marching along the river Boarn the Frankish army reached the mouth of the river where it used to flow into the Bordine estuary or Middelsee. This estuary has since silted up and been claimed for agriculture during the 10th to 14th century.

The Frisians commanded by King Poppo used boats to land their army and surprise the Franks. However, the Frisian army was beaten and Poppo killed.[1] The Franks gained control of the Frisian lands west of the Lauwers estuary and the Frisians became vassals of the Franks apart from the tribes living in East Frisia in present day Germany.

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

And here it says: "Tot aan de Middelzee was Friesland onder Frankische controle" or in English: "Up to the Middelzee Friesland was under Frankish control", ~~LINK~~

Some hypothetical maps of the area:

groot_friesland.jpg

kaart_nwned.jpg

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Phlegraean Fields, how obvious.

Phlegra is a mythical location in both Greek and Roman mythology.

It is a region of Macedonia in Greece. In Greek mythology, it is the site of Zeus's overthrowing of the Giants (Gigantes) at the end of the Gigantomachy.

Strabo wrote that Phlegrae was also called the Phlegraean Plain in Campania near Cumae. He writes that the Giants who survived, were driven out by Heracles, finding refuge with their mother in the site of Leuca (in Italy's 'heel'). A fountain there has smelly water from the ichor of the giants.

Strabo also writes

The peninsula Pallene, on whose isthmus is situated the city formerly called Potidaea and now Cassandreia, was called Phlegra in still earlier times. It used to be inhabited by the giants of whom the myths are told, an impious and lawless tribe, whom Heracles destroyed. [strabo, Geography 7]

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

Our swimming areas here are 2 of these - they are holes from air pushed out from an underground volcano.

Heres one:

p-lake-barrine.jpg

and another popular one:

p-lake-eacham.jpg

I am actually very familiar with this process, the Visitor Centres have all this info and signs showing you how they occur and as I mentioned the soil is red, because it's volcanic, ancient volcanic area this is.

The Phlegraean Fields is the Titanomachy area - it's the reason for the catastrophe and the people here keep the knowledge of it. It's been transferred to Thessaly, I knew it - the rape of the Sabines. I have read it was in Thessaly the Titanomachy occurred.

There must have been flodding at some time, like the 2200BC event - the OLB says there is catastrophe on the Middle Sea shores.

It's the entrance to the Underworld says Aeneid. It creates hot springs, thermal baths, we have those too, very popular tourist attraction.

Baiae is now underwater.

Because of coastal subsidence most of Baiae is now under water in the Bay of Naples, largely due to local volcanic activity

This is where the earliest latin type script is found, Cumae area, where the Greeks went first too. This area is the clash of 2 different cultures. the underworld of Hades and Persephone - the heat and steam probably rising with sulphuric fumes, which probably was an original type Sibyl thing.

The Phlegraean Fields, also known as Campi Flegrei, (from Greek φλέγος, burning), is a large 13 kilometres (8.1 mi) wide caldera situated to the west of Naples, Italy. It was declared a regional park in 2003. Lying mostly underwater, the area comprises 24 craters and volcanic edifices. Hydrothermal activity can be observed at Lucrino, Agnano and the town of Pozzuoli. There are also effusive gaseous manifestations in the Solfatara crater, which is known as the mythological home of the Roman god of fire, Vulcan. The area also features bradyseismic phenomena, which are most evident at the temple of Serapis in Pozzuoli.

The area of the Ops, people who were known to have lived before the flood. Ops is the cult of Saturn too in Italy.

The seat of Vulcan, Hephaestus probably - then there is Serapis..! I just bought that up with Slim, Serapis seems to equate to Jesus Christ or at least Christians.

The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ

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

I have looked at Liguria but didn't pick up on the connections straight off to the giants in Phlegra, good one Abe, thanks for mentioning it.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That could prove a flood, true.

But I also mentioned (or better, the OLB does) erupting volcanoes, fires, and all that (see my former post happening at the same time, around 2200 BC, and in Europe.

We should be aware that when the text about the big flood (that could be read on the walls of all the burgs) was copied in the 6th century BC, the story was already some 16 centuries old. That means that, although without doubt it had been a big disaster for the Fryans, part of it may have been dramatic exaggeration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I know I have said that that date 2194 BC, could have been nothing but a mythical date, like the Jews (and many Christians) use for the creation of the earth.

That is something what Overwijn suggested in his book about the OLB (1941, second and extended edition 1951) , but he thinks the true date should have been 6200 BC, when Doggerland got flooded (to him Doggerland was Aldland/Atland).

Btw, I hope you read about my recent post on the Campi Flegrei eruption (Italy) of around 2200 BC.

But from what I read online, that eruption wasn't nearly as destructive as the centuries later eruption of Mt. Thera.

+++

EDIT:

I'd like to add that this Campi Flegrei WAS the most promising candidate to prove a devasting eruption around 2200 BC.

It's history is vey much more violent: there are those who say that the main reason the Neanderthals died out was because of a gigantic eruption of the Campi Flegrei around 37,000 BP; it covered much of ice-free Europe and north western Russia in ash, which caused animals and plants to die and thus the food source of the Neanderthals.

The Campi Flegrei is similar to that 'monster' that lurks beneath Yellowstone Park.

"How Europe came to be settled exclusively by modern humans has been a subject of much debate. It's still not known if Homo sapiens out competed, out bred, or directly killed off Homo neanderthalensis, or if they absorbed some of them through interbreeding. So it was frustrating to read about the eruption of Campi Flegrei during this time and to find out there was almost no information about the volcano's impact on humans.

Now, however, there is new evidence in the form of ash layers and tool deposits in Russian caves. These findings suggest that Flegrei's Campanian Ignimbrite super-eruption played an important role in depopulating portions of Europe and clearing the way for the first influx of modern humans.

If true, this would help to make sense of how Homo sapiens were finally able to displace the Neanderthals, as an earlier Neanderthal presence in the Middle East appears to have kept our ancestors bottled up in Africa for tens of thousands of years. When we finally undertook our first successful migration out of our home-continent, it was south along the coastline of the Arabian Peninsula, skirting the areas inhabited by Homo neanderthalensis at the time."

http://infmonk.blogspot.com/2010/10/europes-super-volcano-and-neanderthal.html

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IN the OLB women play a prominent role, and - as assumed by many - a situation different from most other people of ancient Europe.

Well this is what Strabo had to tell:

Strabo gives this vivid description of the Cimbric folklore (Geogr. 7.2.3, trans. H.L. Jones):

Their wives, who would accompany them on their expeditions, were attended by priestesses who were seers; these were grey-haired, clad in white, with flaxen cloaks fastened on with clasps, girt with girdles of bronze, and bare-footed; now sword in hand these priestesses would meet with the prisoners of war throughout the camp, and having first crowned them with wreaths would lead them to a brazen vessel of about twenty amphorae; and they had a raised platform which the priestess would mount, and then, bending over the kettle, would cut the throat of each prisoner after he had been lifted up; and from the blood that poured forth into the vessel some of the priestesses would draw a prophecy, while still others would split open the body and from an inspection of the entrails would utter a prophecy of victory for their own people; and during the battles they would beat on the hides that were stretched over the wicker-bodies of the wagons and in this way produce an unearthly noise.

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

From another source:

[About the Alans = Jazyges ]:

Jazyges – a nomadic branch of the Sarmatians, and therefore also of Iranian stock. First known to reside near the Sea of Azov, later settled on the Pannonian plain. Often fighting with, and sometimes for Rome, Jazygian cavalry in Britain may have contributed to the formation of the Arthurian legend. Their name is preserved in that of the Romanian city of Iasi.

Sarmatia – the region of Eastern Europe inhabited in Antiquity by the Sarmatians, a collection of tribes of Persian stock, in their greatest range around 100 BC occupying land from Barentsz Sea (north) to the Danube (south) and from the Vistula (west) to the Caspian Sea (east). The Sarmatians may be the origin of the centuries-old legends about women-warriors, as their females enjoyed an uncommon degree of participation in social life. The Sarmatians were related to the Scythians, allied themselves with the Huns in the 4th century and only disappeared from view at the time of the Gothic ascendancy in the Black Sea area. The modern-day Ossetians (in Georgia and Russia) might well be descendents of the Scythians/Sarmatians.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21261

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

IN the OLB women play a prominent role, and - as assumed by many - a situation different from most other people of ancient Europe.

Well this is what Strabo had to tell:

Strabo gives this vivid description of the Cimbric folklore (Geogr. 7.2.3, trans. H.L. Jones):

Their wives, who would accompany them on their expeditions, were attended by priestesses who were seers; these were grey-haired, clad in white, with flaxen cloaks fastened on with clasps, girt with girdles of bronze, and bare-footed; now sword in hand these priestesses would meet with the prisoners of war throughout the camp, and having first crowned them with wreaths would lead them to a brazen vessel of about twenty amphorae; and they had a raised platform which the priestess would mount, and then, bending over the kettle, would cut the throat of each prisoner after he had been lifted up; and from the blood that poured forth into the vessel some of the priestesses would draw a prophecy, while still others would split open the body and from an inspection of the entrails would utter a prophecy of victory for their own people; and during the battles they would beat on the hides that were stretched over the wicker-bodies of the wagons and in this way produce an unearthly noise.

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

From another source:

[About the Alans = Jazyges ]:

Jazyges – a nomadic branch of the Sarmatians, and therefore also of Iranian stock. First known to reside near the Sea of Azov, later settled on the Pannonian plain. Often fighting with, and sometimes for Rome, Jazygian cavalry in Britain may have contributed to the formation of the Arthurian legend. Their name is preserved in that of the Romanian city of Iasi.

Sarmatia – the region of Eastern Europe inhabited in Antiquity by the Sarmatians, a collection of tribes of Persian stock, in their greatest range around 100 BC occupying land from Barentsz Sea (north) to the Danube (south) and from the Vistula (west) to the Caspian Sea (east). The Sarmatians may be the origin of the centuries-old legends about women-warriors, as their females enjoyed an uncommon degree of participation in social life. The Sarmatians were related to the Scythians, allied themselves with the Huns in the 4th century and only disappeared from view at the time of the Gothic ascendancy in the Black Sea area. The modern-day Ossetians (in Georgia and Russia) might well be descendents of the Scythians/Sarmatians.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21261

I found the Campi Flagrei most interesting, I hope you caught my post about it before.

The Sarmatians are Amazons imo and also Pallas. These people somehow went to Libya and settled there as Aryan Libyans. (imo)

They may went there when the eruption in Italy took place spoken of at the Campi Flegrei and settled, then seem to have entered Greece. It is the history of the Camp Flegrei area the Greeks took and what Plato is probably on about - I think my brain can see it all coming together in that dept.

The Giants lived there, before the flood, it's exactly what the OLB connotation is - before the flood they did have people in factories in Near Krekaland and those people were ones who suffered in the desctruction that hit the Med. as well - people left and went to Lyda's land..! some came up to Frya's land, Finda's people came in too - lots of change.

This also would have occurred right in the middle of all the other 2200BC falls, famines and floods - it really could have been something. I'd even say Alba Longa is part of this and also Latium and as I said all along, with Hestia and the Vestal Virgins and flame of Latium, it would be unusual if they WEREN'T some sort of Fryan fed. people. Romans are the ones who particularly have the Nordic look, the fairer ones of ancient days, although even in Northern Italy fairer types are.

I'm not necessarily saying it's Atland, that could still be in the East but I'd say it easily co-incides with the parts in the OLB and the giants were actually the Northern European Nordics who were in near Krekaland. The myths of the Greeks, if they came out of Phlegra can then come full circle, their myths are from Italy to Libya to Greece and contact with Egypt and all other areas in between, this is when an ancient flood happened and everyone left the PALLENE peninsula.

What we do know, is that the myth has a people coming from the area associated with AZ - Snorri calls Troy Asaland, we know it's in an area of what appears to be very Iranian symbolism, with a central fire and this also tallies with the lamp of the Fryans, that Ulysses needed too, the Trojans came into Latium - that means a group of people from Troy arrived in Latium, a group of AZ people - they were there in the beginning - the myth has covered this up - they were the fire people to start with there before the flood - the Fryans.

Let's say a group of people were in Latium with the alphabet that was Fryan.

Giants with an alphabet, fair people, maybe red heads too, Caligula is said to have been a red head, they spoke an Indo-European language and had writing - then a flood hit and volcanic eruptions and people split - the knowledge of Latium went into myth and they arrived in Libya around 2100BC I guess and maybe even Egypt - the Argives, Pelasgians, who were actually people who had left the Italian peninsula. They may have arrived in Egypt and even led to the downfall of the old Kingdom, once famine also came in - Ipuwer could be from this time, maybe the Exodus is also, who knows really.(If the Exodus is in the same time as the pyramids - it can align both of those events down to c. 1200BC by Herodotus and the Bible - when really they placed much earlier, as said 2200BC, 2400BC.) This could be when the pyramids were built because of this event, this is literally the Catastrophe of the Greek myths, the fall of the sky, when Atlas fell, the Titanomachy, when the Titans, forces of nature attacked the new Gods, Saturn was out and Zeus was in, at this point Plato starts his narrative. Poseidon went to Libya and these people would be the Atlanteans. They developed in Libya and came back into Greece. It was probably from this they left and first settled Troy. If Athena is Idunna, she could have much to do with the Underworld and may have been in Italy as Minerva since this was her real role.

Edited by The Puzzler

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.