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

Posted (edited)

In 1845 Cornelis over de Linden, Staderman and Munnik travelled to Enkhuizen to visit aunt Aafje Over de Linden (Vijzelstraat), obviously to discuss the inheritance, but it took till 1848, that aunt Aafje handed the manuscripts over to Cornelis Over de Linden. Reuvers, who opposed to the transaction, died in 1845.

About the source of the first part of your quote, here's a part of my earlier post:

Earlier we have read about Cornelis Over de Linden's version of the story of how he got the OLB manuscript from his aunt Aafje in Enkhuizen.

Let's first have a look at three other versions by other people.

(Translated from DGG p.243)

version 1

Over de Linden's stepson-in-law Jacob Munnik told in 1876 that in 1845 he went with Cornelis and the book-binder Ernst Stadermann from Den Helder, to Over de Linden's mother in Enkhuizen, where he [Cornelis], apparently without succes, tried to convince her to give him an old family-book. [source: Beckering Vinkers, "Wie heeft het Oera Linda-Boek geschreven?", p.31]

version 2

Related to this, Beckering Vinkers states - without mentioning a source - that Over de Linden in 1848 finally went to get this book in Enkhuizen, together with his son Cornelis II [aged 15 by then]. [source: Beckering V., "Wie heeft ...?", p.15]

version 3

A third witness report is from a certain Hajo Last in Enkhuizen, whose mother lived next to the mother of Over the Linden. Last said that Over de Linden regularly visited his mother and...: "Once when he was visiting in Enkhuizen, he came to his cousin, and that was a widow Kofman [if this was in the 1840-s her husband was still alive], in the Rietdijk, now called the Vijzelstraat [...]. She said to him: 'Kees, I have some old manuscripts here, from your grandfather, and he always said: "Those are meant to be passed on to my heir ['stamhouder']".' That's how his cousin gave them to him; I still remember him saying it, sitting at our table."

[Footnote Jensma:] This was from a sent-in letter in the 'Enkhuizer Courant' of 9-1-1934. With this 'widow Kofman' Cornelia or Kee Reuvers is meant (born 1818), the daughter of 'aunt Aafje' and Hendrik Reuvers. Apparently she lived in the old Over de Linden family-house at the Rietdijk after her husband Rijkent Kofman had died; in 1840 they lived at the Nieuwe Zeedijk 391.

Version three is complex and needs to be analysed:

It is told by Hajo Last (1) in 1934, who has heard Cornelis Over de Linden (2) tell his story (see underlining; before 1874), about what his cousin the 'widow' Kee Kofman-Reuvers (3) said to him (when she 'handed over' the OLB) about what his grandfather Andries Over de Linden (4) used to say (before 1820).

Over de Linden had told his story to Hajo Last, visiting Last's mother, who was the neighbor of OL's mother Antje Goedmaat, who died in 1874.

If versions 1 and 2 are correct, Cornelis tried to retrieve the OLB in 1845, in which he succeeded in 1848. His own 'official' versions (from 1867 on) also say that he 'received' the OLB in 1848.

It's plausible that Cornelis has waited with trying to retrieve the book till his uncle Hendrik Reuvers had died in 1845.

The testimony of Jacob Munnik (stepson-in-law of Cornelis) is in conflict with the story of Cornelis, who claimed that his aunt gave it to him by surprise (him not knowing about it).

I cannot think of a reason why Munnik would have made this up.

Jensma suggests that this concerns another old family book (not the OLB).

The second part of your quote (that aunt Aafje gave Cornelis the manuscripts) is according to the story of Cornelis, but I suspect he has been lying about this, because:

1. his story does not agree with Jacob Munnik's story

2. it also does not agree with the story of Hajo Last, who wrote in the Enkhuizer Courant of January 9, 1934 that

a. he had heard from Cornelis that the latter had received the book from Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers (daughter of aunt Aafje), and

b. that according to Hein Kofman, son of Cornelia Kofman-reuvers, Cornelis had stolen the book from his mother.

Here again, I can't think of a reason why an 83 year old man, shortly before his death, would make up a story like this. It sounds true to me.

I tend to conclude that:

Cornelis probably did not get the book from his aunt Aafje, but from her daughter (his cousin) Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers, and it is possibly that he did not receive it in an honest or friendly way.

Cornelia might not have cared so much about it, but her husband Rijkent Kofman may have received it from Hendrik Reuvers (who seems to have known what it was about).

(Remember that Jacob Kofman, son of Cornelia and Rijkent, became a driven 'apostolic' leader. See my post of April 19.)

This letter from Hajo Last is most important.

I now know part of it through you, and part through Jensma's book.

Can you please post it as a whole on the forum or on your website?

I will translate it into English.

I suppose, that the OLB has been bought by the son of Stadermann later.

Can you please tell us a bit more about this theory?

Edited by Otharus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for interest here's a cool list of all events and phenomena recorded in the newspaper in the Middle Ages, weather wise, some example of it...

-----

1249 November 24

Cambery

Landslide

Many villages lost

1250 October 1

North Sea

Gale & sea flood

Great damage, England, Holland, Flanders

1251 May 19

England

Thunderstorm & tornado

Thunderstorm damaged Windsor. Funnel cloud seen, St. Albans

1252 January 13

England & Ireland

Gale

E and SW gales caused much damage

1252 March 13

England

Obscuration

Sun, Moon and stars of a red colour for 15 days

1252 March - Jul;y

England, Ireland

Drought

Summer heat day & night. Shannon dried up

1254 January 1

England

Aurora?

'Ship' in air at night at St. Albans

1255 April 8

Prague

Tornado

‘Swirl’ damaged many buildings

1255 summer

Lombardy

Seiches?

Lakes & rivers rose & fell

1256

Arabia

Volcano

Eruption near Medina

------

http://www.phenomena.org.uk/page29/page32/page32.html

I must have been a flood near Leeuwarden, or at least Frisian (and not Fryan) territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OKKE MY SON—

You must preserve these books with body and soul. They contain the history of all our people, as well as of our forefathers. Last year I saved them in the flood, as well as you and your mother; but they got wet, and therefore began to perish. In order not to lose them, I copied them on foreign paper.

In case you inherit them, you must copy them likewise, and your children must do so too, so that they may never be lost.

Written at Liuwert, in the three thousand four hundred and forty-ninth year after Atland was submerged—that is, according to the Christian reckoning, the year 1256.

Hiddo, surnamed Over de Linda.—Watch.

You are putting way too much faith in the Christian Reckoning.

It's three thousand four hundred and forty nine years since the sinking of Atland, THAT IS, ACCORDING TO THE CHRISTIAN RECKONING - the year 1256.

He knows it's 3449 years since the sinking and his phrase is 'that is , according to the Christian reckoning, 1256 - the only thing making it`1256 is the Christian Reckoning. Do don't think they might have been off a few years somewhere when they created that Anno Domini time...

It's only a few years out, he should probably be saying it was 1251 or 1252, but he is actually not saying it's any date, he's telling us the date in accordance to Christian Reckoning.

You're like one of these people who goes around disproving the Bible because something is not in exact date alignment somewhere.

Yeah, let's forget about details, so we can make up whatever we want.

The OLB says "last year". What next, was the writer demented??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abe, I was realy hoping that some participants here would have taken this posting more serious.

All this playing with words is just derailing the discussion every time and do not prove a thing. It is the same as all the wild speculations around "whodunnit" or trying to prove Greek Mythology true.

As an example: I gave very credible references to the "Green Sahara" which not only fits in well with the OLB's timing and description of the 4.2ka BP event, but would also blow some of the theories around the demise of the Old Kingdom of Egypt, out of the water. I do not want to sound abrasive, but it seems to me people just do not even want to consider the possibility that the old kingdom's demise was not triggered by a famine but by something much more violent and instantaneous. Instead of exploring this line of thought, we again compare words in different languages with one another, ad nauseum. In the meantime, the silence of the Egyptologists is/are(?) deafening.

You know my point of view, Alewyn: I prefer geology and archeology above this playing with words.

I really do try to find real proof even though I am skeptical about it.

Btw, I know Kmt-sesh reads this thread, and I am quite sure if he reads something he agrees or doesn't agree with, he will post about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Abe, I was realy hoping that some participants here would have taken this posting more serious.

All this playing with words is just derailing the discussion every time and do not prove a thing. It is the same as all the wild speculations around "whodunnit" or trying to prove Greek Mythology true.

I found the quoted post by Abe extremely arrogant.

The silence of 'official' linguists is also deafening and even if they would contribute, they might not agree with each other about everything.

I guess you are not an 'official' historian, nor theologian either and yet you try to make sense of it.

We are all (alternative) truth seekers here and as Puzzler has correctly stated, the main reason why the OLB was assumed to be a hoax in the first place was because of the language that was misunderstood as having too many supposedly 'modern elements' in it.

Part of what we have proven (and are still busy proving) is that this is nonsense, which makes it more likely that OLB carries authentic information.

I advise you to just ignore the language posts if they're not your cup of tea, like I ignore most of the geology stuff, because I just don't know enough about it to discuss.

Instead of exploring this line of thought, we again compare words in different languages with one another, ad nauseum. In the meantime, the silence of the Egyptologists is/are(?) deafening.

Talking about "deafening silence"... you and Abe have been asking me many times for the paper study report.

I sent you both a PDF of the more detailed 2006 article and tried to start a discussion about it (see link below), but did not even get a "we agree" from either of you.

I would think that's a relevant line of thought too.

I would like to start discussing this article:

The Oera Linda Boek - A literary forgery and its paper

by A. Kardinaal, E. v.d. Grijn, H. Porck

published in: IPH Congress Book 16 (2006), p. 177-185

Abe and Alewyn have the PDF, and whoever wants it, can have it.

Just PM me a mailaddress as it is too big to attach here (480 kB).

Introduction

Last year when I spent a whole day at Tresoar in Leeuwarden, the library that owns the OLB and has a collection of documentation about it. I asked for the most recent paper study report, as I had heard Jensma say in an interview that the paper was indeed found to be of the 19th century.

They said they didn't have anything, but gave me the mail-address of the head of the Tresoar collection, who gave me the address of the paper-historian of the Royal Library in Den Haag, mr. Porck, who is leading the research. I had asked both for the most recent publication, and now I got the answer that they were working on one, and that they would inform me when it would be ready. The rest you know. When after many delays it was finally published in a Dutch magazine for archivists, the result was very disappointing. I posted a translation of it on the forum on April 15.

...etcetera

Edited by Otharus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I found the quoted post by Abe extremely arrogant.

The silence of 'official' linguists is also deafening and even if they would contribute, they might not agree with each other about everything.

I guess you are not an 'official' historian, nor theologian either and yet you try to make sense of it.

We are all (alternative) truth seekers here and as Puzzler has correctly stated, the main reason why the OLB was assumed to be a hoax in the first place was because of the language that was misunderstood as having too many supposedly 'modern elements' in it.

Part of what we have proven (and are still busy proving) is that this is nonsense, which makes it more likely that OLB carries authentic information.

I advise you to just ignore the language posts if they're not your cup of tea, like I ignore most of the geology stuff, because I just don't know enough about it to discuss.

Talking about "deafening silence"... you and Abe have been asking me many times for the paper study report.

I sent you both a PDF of the more detailed 2006 article and tried to start a discussion about it (see link below), but did not even get a "we agree" from either of you.

I would think that's a relevant line of thought too.

To start with the pdf you sent to us: I don't ignore it, but I am waiting for a reply to an email I sent to someone.

And about the language thing (and I don't know which post of mine you think is 'arrogant') : if the OLB carries authentic information then we should find physical proof it, somewhere, anywhere. I am talking archeology and geology.

==

Btw, the Vitkings are still alive and kicking!!

totoc_10.jpg

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meantime, the silence of the Egyptologists is/are(?) deafening.

P.S. concerning your question:

Since "silence" is singular, the verb should be "is".

(or were you just playing with words?)

:innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(and I don't know which post of mine you think is 'arrogant')

I referred to the one Alewyn quoted, in which he made some words larger. It started with:

"Pseudoscientific language comparison is a form of pseudo-scholarship that has the objective of establishing historical associations between languages by naive postulations of similarities between them.

BTW, many 'official' scientists accuse each other of being "pseudo-scientific" when they don't agree...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thing about the language: it is too modern. It is based on something much more recent.

And the OLB is supposed to have been copied from generation to generation, so even with some changes, overall the language should still look really ancient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I referred to the one Alewyn quoted, in which he made some words larger. It started with:

"Pseudoscientific language comparison is a form of pseudo-scholarship that has the objective of establishing historical associations between languages by naive postulations of similarities between them.

BTW, many 'official' scientists accuse each other of being "pseudo-scientific" when they don't agree...

Ok, that was a quote from Wiki.

But all is not lost: if that Olivier van Renswoude (the "Taaldacht" site, http://taaldacht.nl/ ) returns from wherever he is and responds to my question to him about the OLB and the Rüstringer dialect, then maybe we will know a bit more.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thing about the language: it is too modern. It is based on something much more recent.

How do you know that? Can you quote a credible specialist?

And the OLB is supposed to have been copied from generation to generation, so even with some changes, overall the language should still look really ancient.

Please read my earlier reply to that below.

One of the most important reasons why OLB is rejected by most Dutch scholars seems to be that the language is relatively easy to understand.

Since the oldest known texts in Dutch, Frisian, Saxon etc. are more difficult to understand, people assume, that anything older should be even more difficult than, or more different from our 'modern' language.

What they don't realize is that while the written history (written language) had been thoroughly destroyed in a few hunderd years of cultural genocide, the spoken language may have stayed almost the same for people who did not migrate and mix too much.

In the late Middle Ages, the only people who could read and write, had learnt this in Latin (not counting the few exceptions like Liko and Hidde, who risked their lives writing in the old language).

At some point they tried to write down the commonly spoken language (that was much older than Latin), but they had no more examples, they had to construct or actually reconstruct the spelling.

So instead of the evolution of language being linear or exponential (from very primitive to very advanced), it was actually more cyclic; at some point very advanced, and then as a result of wars, migrations and mixing of cultures, it became confused and partly forgotten, while later, in times of relative peace, it was reconstructed again.

Because of the similarities in the North-European languages, we can conclude that they must have had the same (or at least a shared) origin, much older than any known written source.

Nowhere ever have I seen one convincing example of "modern Dutch" in OLB that would prove that it cannot be as old as it says it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, let's forget about details, so we can make up whatever we want.

The OLB says "last year". What next, was the writer demented??

lol no I don't think he was demented.

I do think there is an explanation of some kind.

Maybe he wasn't actually in Luiwert, when the flood he spoke of 'last year' occurred.

1+1 could be 3.

He says last year - he says the time frame since Atland sunk - he only says the converted time in Christian Reckoning.

I'm not sure but I have my doubts about starting a timeframe at a supposed person's incarnation date.

When he devised his table, Julian calendar years were identified by naming the consuls who held office that year — he himself stated that the "present year" was "the consulship of Probus Junior", which was 525 years "since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ".[10] Thus Dionysius implied that Jesus' Incarnation occurred 525 years earlier, without stating the specific year during which his birth or conception occurred.

"However, nowhere in his exposition of his table does Dionysius relate his epoch to any other dating system, whether consulate, Olympiad, year of the world, or regnal year of Augustus; much less does he explain or justify the underlying date."

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

22nd century:

2104 BC – 2103 BC: Date of the Biblical flood according to the Hebrew Calendar.

[edit] Significant personsGudea

Ur-Nammu

Noah (2704–1753 BC) according to the Hebrew Calendar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22nd_century_BC

2104-2103BC - The Flood according to Hebrews.

Gudea was significant in this period as I already said.

2704-1753BC - Noah - this makes Noah 1049 years old, he's not even that old in the Bible I don't think.

...and you want to quibble over a few years.

I really don't think too much should be put into ANY dates.

You want to talk about 3 years...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

lol no I don't think he was demented.

I do think there is an explanation of some kind.

Maybe he wasn't actually in Luiwert, when the flood he spoke of 'last year' occurred.

1+1 could be 3.

He says last year - he says the time frame since Atland sunk - he only says the converted time in Christian Reckoning.

I'm not sure but I have my doubts about starting a timeframe at a supposed person's incarnation date.

(.....)

You want to talk about 3 years...?

I know the flood may not have happened in Leeuwarden at all, so I have been looking for a flood nearby, and the one that comes closest in the date of the OLB (1256-1=1255 AD) is the stormflood in Rüstringen, 1251 AD.

And as I said long ago, all those floods were recorded.

=

The Christian Reckoning was in use for many centuries, along with the Julian calendar.

It's not important what the mythical date of the Flood actually was, as long as they have pinned it down to one date, and in this case: 2194 BC (or better, so and so many years before a certain other date).

From the OLB:

OKKE MY SON—

You must preserve these books with body and soul. They contain the history of all our people, as well as of our forefathers. Last year I saved them in the flood, as well as you and your mother; but they got wet, and therefore began to perish. In order not to lose them, I copied them on foreign paper.

In case you inherit them, you must copy them likewise, and your children must do so too, so that they may never be lost.

Written at Liuwert, in the three thousand four hundred and forty-ninth year after Atland was submerged—that is, according to the Christian reckoning, the year 1256.

You assume that these people, who lived under Christian rule for many centuries, would not know what year it was??

The only reason you think these dates are not important is because without that accuracy you can freely introduce new 'connections', lol.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know that? Can you quote a credible specialist?

Please read my earlier reply to that below.

I know you have bought and read the Beowulf saga, and then I found this (it's a bit jumbled up because it is copied using OCR):

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCIENCE

OF LANGUAGE.

BY A. H. SAYCE, 1880.

(..)

The Low German family is especially interesting to

the Englishman, whose own language belongs to it,

Anglo-Saxon, that is, the three slightly varying Anglian,

Kentish, and Saxon dialects, 1 was spoken by a mixture

" The Anglian was characterized by a special tendency to

throw off final n, and by a frequent use of the weak ending u(n}.

of tribes from the north of Denmark and the whole coast

of the German Ocean, and in spite of successive deposits

of Danish, Norman-French, and Latin, has remained the

kernel and essence of the English language up to the

present day. The tribes who remained at home were

afterwards termed Frisians, their oldest literary remains

being some legal documents of the thirteenth century.

The Frisic subdialects are very numerous, notwithstand-

ing the smallness of the population that speaks them, but

they have suddenly sprung into notoriety of late in con-

sequence of the curious forgery known as " The Oera

Linda Book," which professes to have been composed in

the year 559 B.C. The earliest English or Anglo-Saxon

production is the epic of Beowulf, of the seventh century,

portions of which still breathe a pagan spirit ; but it

may have been composed on the continent. The literary

dialect of Anglo-Saxon was destroyed by the Norman

Conquest, and the period that followed sometimes

termed Semi-Saxon was characterized by a struggle

between the local dialects and Norman French. With

the middle of the thirteenth century begins a new stage

in the history of our speech, which for the sake of con-

venience may be called Early English ; then comes

Middle English, the Court dialect of Chaucer and his

followers, succeeded by the Modern English of Elizabeth

and our own day. Besides Frisic, Anglo-Saxon claims

Kentish and Saxon agreed in the absence of these features. Saxon

was distinguished both from Anglian and Kentish by its as for /.

Kentish, finally, was separated from the others by its occasional ei

for eg" Sweet : " Dialects and Prehistoric Forms of English," in

the "Transactions of the Philological Society of London," 1876

(p. 19).

close relationship with the Old Saxon of the south be-

tween the Rhine and the Elbe ; indeed, from the second

to the fifth centuries the three groups of dialects, Frisic,

Anglo-Saxon, and Old Saxon, probably formed but a

single language, which differed chiefly from the extant

Old Saxon in its preservation of the diphthong ai and

of the thematic i and u. 1 The most important relic of

this Old Saxon tongue is the Christian poem of the

" Heliand," or " Saviour," preserved in two MSS. of the

ninth century. 2 Its modern representatives are the Low

German proper, or " Platt Deutsch," spoken in the low-

lands of northern Germany, and the Netherlandish,

divided into its two dialects of Dutch and Flemish.

Flemish was once the Court language of Flanders and

Brabant, but has had to yield its place to the Dutch.

http://www.archive.org/stream/introductiontosc02saycuoft/introductiontosc02saycuoft_djvu.txt

http://www.archive.org/stream/introductiontosc02saycuoft#page/ii/mode/2up

But I await Van Renswoude's reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the flood from which the OLB was saved at some point:

There were floods all the time and there was not much recording of them going on.

Therefore, that there's no record of a flood in 1255 proves nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I await Van Renswoude's reply.

OK, I will welcome his opinion too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That's because the Swedish royal family is actually French (just like the Dutch royal family is mostly German). :lol:

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

Ah right...I hadn't followed his line yet, but have followed Philip of Spain and found when I reached someone who DID NOT have Roman nose, his mother was this woman...

210px-Mary_of_burgundy_pocher.jpg

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

This French woman has a very 'ski jump' type nose, not Roman at all, her husband is this man -

210px-Albrecht_D%C3%BCrer_084b.jpg

Their son is this man:

210px-Juan_de_Flandes_004.jpg

Who looks decidely Dutch to me.

I can see her non-Roman nose in her French side. French women from what I generally see don't have very big noses.

Here's another picture of her and her husband and family, he is above as well, he has a great honker on him.

498px-Bernhard_Strigel_003b.jpg

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

Yes, Carl Philip can go back to this man, Charles XIV - Charles John who was French by birth, looks just like him too.

210px-CarlXIVJohnSweden.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Bernadotte

Otherwise he is quite tied into the Germanic Saxe-Coburg-Gotha lineage and therefore the English royal family too.

I was thinking this guy looked like Eric Bana as Hector in Troy and then how weird is that - apparently Orlando Bloom is this Prince Carl Philip's lookalike...Paris - of France....I'm creeped out now. lol :huh:

Troy%2016.jpg

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the flood from which the OLB was saved at some point:

There were floods all the time and there was not much recording of them going on.

Therefore, that there's no record of a flood in 1255 proves nothing.

No way, they recorded every flood, and just now I found an interesting document about it:

Early Years of the Little Ice Age in Northern Europe, 1300-1500

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0708/shin/shin2.html#sf

IV. Frequent Sea Floods in the 13th Century

IV.1) Introduction

Living in the low-lying areas on the coasts of the North Sea always meant always having inundations from the North Sea as a potential destabilizing factor. If exceptionally high tides happened to coincide with gale-force winds, the angry sea could swallow up several thousand hectares of farmland in a few short hours. This paper focuses on the 13th century when it seems that sea floods were abnormally frequent compared to preceding or proceeding centuries.

The first chapter will prove the increased frequency of sea floods of the 1200s from historical accounts and depict direct consequences such as devastated settlements and changes in the coastal geography. The second chapter will try to address the sudden increase of sea floods in the context of the medieval climatic trends and draw few potential causes. Finally, and possibly most importantly, the third chapter will highlight the more indirect impacts of such increased sea floods and storminess upon the course of development of coastal civilizations, and particularly upon the development of dykes.

(..)

A classic example of coastline change during the 1200s is the formation of the Zuiderzee in today's Netherlands. Though today, part of what used to be the Zuiderzee has been reclaimed and the rest has been turned into a freshwater lake (IJsselmeer), until the 20th century Zuiderzee used to be a part of the North Sea as the name "zee" (sea) indicates. In Roman times around 0 AD, it used to be called Lake Flevo, and indeed it was but a freshwater lake which was connected to the sea through a river called the Vlie. Gradually the lake enlargened itself and by the end of the 5th century it was called "Almere" (Great Lake), though not a sea yet theoretically (144). Then the process was accelerated and completed during the 13th century. In a flood in 1250, it is said that the Northern half of the Zee formed (145). In 1287, during a flood in which 80,000 people died in Holland the formation of the Zuiderzee was completed (146). The flood turned the Vlie, hitherto a freshwater outlet of Almere (Zuiderzee), into a saltwater channel and broke the hitherto uninterrupted chain of dunes permanently to the south of Texel; the Zuiderzee was now clearly a part of the North Sea in the form which persisted until the recent intervention of mankind (147). The storms and floods that gave birth to the Zuiderzee in the northern parts of the Low Countries, also largely determined the geography of the estuaries of the Rhine, Meuse, and Scheldt in the south as these rivers grew deeper(148).

A similar situation manifested on the Frisian (now German) coast when the Jadebusen basin was largely formed during a storm of 1218 that killed as many as 100,000 people in northern Frisia and the county of Holland (149). Also, the early 1200s was a critical period in the formation of Dollart Bay where the Ems discharges itself to the North Sea.

IV.2.3) Disasters

Storms and floods powerful enough to change coastal landscapes were undoubtedly forceful enough to swipe away entire villages and entire populations. Among many accounts of such disasters, the following are some of the conspicuous catastrophes: in a single flood in North Holland in 1212, 306,000 are known to have died (150). (note(151)) As a result of the floods of 1240 it was reported that sixty parishes accounting for over half the agricultural income of the Danish dio cese of Schleswig had been "swallowed by the salt sea" (152). In the floods of 1216, when King John of England was crossing the Wash, he lost the Crown Jewels to the water and subsequently died a few days later from the shock (153). In 1251, in Kent and Lincolnshire chroniclers recorded of floods 2m higher than "ever seen before" (154). In 1218, in the flood when Jadebusen was formed, 100,000 people died along the coasts of the North Sea, and in the subsequent year, 36,000 people died in Friesland from a storm(155).

IV.3) Why the Sea Floods?

IV.3.1) Explanatory Reasons

(...)

4_1_storms.gif

Figure 4.1 Number of severe sea floods reported each century in the North Sea (After Lamb)

4_7_Frisian_Coast.GIF

(...)

With the advent of dykes, however, men could no longer afford to not cooperate with each other. Because dykes usually span over large areas, often surrounding a large district, a neighbor's fate differed not much from one's own. In short, the fight against the sea was no longer a solitary task. Though it would be extreme to say that all the personal quarrels suddenly disappeared forever, in times immediately after floods, the "truce of the dikes" would override personal grudges for the common good (209). A thirteenth-century document records the oath of Rustringen: "We Frisians will defend our land, whether the tide be ebbing or flowing. We well fight day and night so that all Frisians may be free, for as long as the wind blows through the lods and the world remains" (210).

The increase in flooding danger during the 1200s again altered the political geography significantly. Increased flood risks called for more comprehensive dike systems (211) and more integrated, systematic work than ever. Thus, it was in the 1200s that early institutions concerning water management like waterschappen (waterships), dijkgraaf (lord of the dykes) were established often under the central authority of those like the Count of Holland (212). Also in 1237, the Hollandse Waard was formed. Soon after, Count William II and Count Floris V of Holland laid down a whole series of laws on dykes known as dijkwet in attempt to establish social order (213). Some regional institutions like the Hoofdwaterschap in the Rhine area that was established in 1255 became powerful companies whose influence even exists today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of liked this line:

"A thirteenth-century document records the oath of Rustringen:

"We Frisians will defend our land, whether the tide be ebbing or flowing. We well fight day and night so that all Frisians may be free, for as long as the wind blows through the lods and the world remains."

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I kind of liked this line:

"A thirteenth-century document records the oath of Rustringen:

"We Frisians will defend our land, whether the tide be ebbing or flowing. We well fight day and night so that all Frisians may be free, for as long as the wind blows through the lods and the world remains."

:)

Don't trust anything, even though it sounds nice.... sigh.

So here is a different version of that oath:

"There is a certain grandeur in the oath of Rustringen recorded in an old thirteenth-century document:

'We Frisians will defend our land with five arms: with sword and buckler, with spade, fork and spear, whether the tide be ebbing of flowing. We will fight day and night so that all Frisians may be free, both now and hereafter, as long as the wind blows through the clouds and the world remains.'

http://books.google.nl/books?id=uugOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=%22the+oath+of+Rustringen%22&source=bl&ots=A0vXO8vtEa&sig=Lr6Mz1rmkZDRNfliQ9ABv3ltSp0&hl=nl&ei=ISLJTZSyL4GAOpfazOoH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20oath%20of%20Rustringen%22&f=false

OK, and now to find the original Frisian text.

+++++++++++++++++++

EDIT:

Not found the original text yet, but I found something close and nowhere else then on the Taaldacht site (that gives me hope Van Renswoude can actually answer my question):

Ak skilu wí úse lond wera mith egge and mith orde and mith thá brúna skelde with thena stápa helm and with thene ráda skeld and with thet unriuchte hêrskipi.

(Ook zullen wij ons land verdedigen met zwaard en met speer en met het bruine schild tegen de hoge helm en tegen het rode schild en tegen de onrechte heerschappij.)

http://taaldacht.nl/2011/01/17/saksemarken-land-van-de-hoge-helm-en-het-rode-schild/

In English:

Also we will defend our land with sword and spear and with the brown shield against the high helmet and against the red shield and against the injust lordship/rule

And it is indeed a text from Rüstringen:

http://books.google.nl/books?id=wx-2mUd4KzEC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=mith+egge+and+mith+orde+and+mith+tha+bruna+skelde&source=bl&ots=kJ549XV6QJ&sig=GcjmrrPf7DCAH6Rw_n9wQVDRjT0&hl=nl&ei=vSzJTcWOBM3n-gb9yLzIBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=mith%20egge%20and%20mith%20orde%20and%20mith%20tha%20bruna%20skelde&f=false

.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way, they recorded every flood, and just now I found an interesting document about it

So for this you trust the Frisian 'fantastic' historiography?

A memory fresh-up:

Water-floods in Friesland

(source: "It aade Friesche Terp, of KRONYK der GESCHIEDENISSEN van de VRYE FRIESEN", 3rd edition 1834, p.334-339)

- 333 North Holland; Zijpe/ Roman city "Grebbe", half hour north of Wieringen would have been lost

- 435 Frl.

- 516 Frl.

- 570 or 533 [or both]

- 584

- 586 or 626, or both, in Frl./ 4 years later Adgillus started making floodmounds and terps, first dykes

- 792 or 793 many people and cattle lost, several cities, villages, forests and lands lost

- 806 St.-Thomas flood, Frl./ from this one till mid 12th century several floods in Friesland, North-Holland, Zeeland and Flanders, specially 839

- 1164 beginning of the year; St.-Julians flood; thousands of people and cattle lost

- 1178 All-Saints flood; "all-destroying"/ sea came up to Utrecht/ partly caused by "greedy Frisian abotts" who had been digging in the lands

- 1200 part of Frl.

- 1212 "terrible waterflood" in North-Holland

- 1219 january; Marcellus flood, "incomparable", much destruction between Wezer and Schelde, thousands of lives lost.

- 1220, '21, 22, 23, 24 every year; as well as in '27/30/37/46/48,49,50/57/62/66/73/77/85/87,88/90; utterly disasterous years for Friesland. In this century Ezonsstad, Camminghaburg near Leeuwarden, Britsenburg at the Middelzee, Wartena partly, and Grind completely disappeared.

- 1313, as well as in '34/36/61/77/80/87.

- 1400 the "Friesche vloed"; important for the rise of Amsterdam because of the widening of Marsdiep.

- 1403 third Catharina's flood

- 1421 St.-Elisabeth's flood; 72 villages in South-Holland's Waard flooded, 20 completely lost.

- 1425,26,27,28,29 every year, '34/37/46/64/70/74/77/97

- 1502,03/09/16.17/20/24,25 (3 floods in one year)/30,31,32 (31 and 32 possibly the same flood)/52/59

- 1570 All-saints flood; "reshaped the coastlines from France to Norway", "indescribable", ca. 20.000 dead in Frl.

- 1572,73/75/77,78; some dykes and dams were built

- 1610 south-west corner; 1623/25/43.

- 1651 St.-Pieters flood, after river floods in january in the Netherlands; the following months in Frl. and terrible for North Holland.

- 1665/75.

- 1701/03/15/17; "7 kersflood" mainly in East Friesland

- 1731 a plague of worms eating wooden foundation of dykes ("paalworm").

- 1775,76 in Frl.

- 1825 destruction at coastlines from North-Jutland to France.

The publication where this is taken from is considered by dr. Jensma c.s. to be part of the tradition of Frisian "fantasy based" historiography...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for this you trust the Frisian 'fantastic' historiography?

A memory fresh-up:

I won't have to trust anything, I am just looking for the sources the OLB writers used, heh. If someone lied through his teeth, and wrote down 1255 as the date for some flood, that's fine with me.

Btw, never noticed this one:

"1220, '21, 22, 23, 24 every year; as well as in '27/30/37/46/48,49,50/57/62/66/73/77/85/87,88/90; utterly disasterous years for Friesland. In this century Ezonsstad, Camminghaburg near Leeuwarden, Britsenburg at the Middelzee, Wartena partly, and Grind completely disappeared."

Close but again no cigar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I got an email from someone not posting in this thread, asking me if there was another (Frisian) source for the date of 2193 BC, that most famous date in the OLB.

Well, again, the date should be 2194 BC because they substracted 2 dates, and came out millenia before BC, and forgot there is no year Zero.

Anyway, Otharus already posted that other source long ago - De Friesche Volks Almanak - but here it is again (and I added a screenshot):

Friesche Volks Almanak - of 1839

http://images.tresoar.nl/wumkes/periodieken/fa/fa_1839.pdf

2193BC-FriescheVolksalmanak-1839.jpg

TIJDPERKEN = Eras

First underlined sentence :

The year after the birth of our Lord J.C.: 1839

Second underlined sentence:

(Years passed) Since the Flood: 4032

1839-4032= -2193 ... or 2194 BC.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Btw, never noticed this one:

"1220, '21, 22, 23, 24 every year; as well as in '27/30/37/46/48,49,50/57/62/66/73/77/85/87,88/90; utterly disasterous years for Friesland. In this century Ezonsstad, Camminghaburg near Leeuwarden, Britsenburg at the Middelzee, Wartena partly, and Grind completely disappeared."

Close but again no cigar.

The site Otharus got the dates of floods from says a bit more:

1251 Jever: Sturmflut

1257 Dedesdorf. Sturmflut

1262 Jever: Sturmflut, die den Glockenturm von Wittewierum ins Schwanken bringt

1277 Dedesdorf: Sturmflut. D. Ramsauer: "Erste Weihnachts

1282 Jever: Sturmflut

1285 Jever: Sturmflut

1288 Jever: Sturmflut

1290 Jever: Sturmflut

http://www.klausdede.de/index.php?content=weserundjade⊂=07

The Jever what was once Rüstringen, and Dedesdorf is opposite Rüstringen County.

("Sturmflut" = storm flood).

Still, no flood at 1255.

Btw, the book also gives a really nice and very detailed version of the Friso ("Frieso") story...

+++++++++++++

EDIT:

Other sources are even more detailed:

In den jaare 1257, den 10de van October, is Friesland weder door een watervloed overstroomt geworden; waar door de dyk in Groningerland, by Zonda, daar de rivier de Fivela met nieuw werk bedykt was, omverre wierd geworpen, en voorts het water over het land stroomde.

In den jaare 1262 wierd in Friesland eene aardbeevinge gevoelt, welke Groningen mede trof, inzonderheid het klooster Wittewyrum, waar door de toren instortte: hier op volgde een watervloed door de dyken, met verbreeking van de zyl Fismar, in den Oldambte.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33563/33563-h/33563-h.htm

In short: on the 10th of October, 1257 Friesland was again flooded by a breach of a dike in Gronningen, the province east of the province of Friesland.

And in 1262 they felt an earthquake in Friesland, one also felt in Groningen, that caused a tower of a monastary to collapse followed by yet another flood through the breached dikes.

___

The Jade Bay is what was eventually formed during those floods, and what flooded Rüstringen:

Nowadays it is generally supposed that

catastrophic floods at the beginning of the 13th

century initiated the formation of the Jade Bay

and thus led to the division of the region into two

independent political entities: “Bovenjadingen”

and “Butjadingen”. The name Butjadingen derives

from the Low German word “buten” and the name

of the river Jade. “Buten” means “outside”, hence

the name “Butjadingen” can be interpreted as “the

land on the other side of the Jade river”.

http://www.waddensea-secretariat.org/news/symposia/Symposium-2009/Proceedings/8-68-a-Eichfeld-landscape-settlement-Heete.pdf

.

Edited by Abramelin

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.