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)

Heh, but a chain is as strong as it weakest shackle:

madam comes from Latin: mea domina

++

EDIT:

Lol, no problems with having fun at all: I 'found out' this morning that the, ahem... etymology of Jadebusen is "worn out old mare drinking to excess".

.

Your missing my point. Where did Latin come from - don't say Greek. madam is nothing more than my dame, my lady, but what is my dame? It's really relative to DAM - mother shield.

People were in Latium, they had a life before the Greeks turned up.

In fact, their life revolved around lamps, hearths, Virgin maidens, so I would expect to find the language of the OLB in Latium prior to it's change, that is, from Etruscan - Latin words to Greek Latin words.

Did mea domina go into Latin from Northern Europe as my dam first - then it was changed so it comes out all fancy as mea domina?

I keep seeing a pattern of French and Frisian.

The same thing applies to Phoenicia - the language of the OLB could be the base for Phoenician and Latin.

You can tell me then, how to get domina from mistress. Domina is dam. The Latin did get their words from somewhere, they didn't make them up, the base for their words is where you stop - it comes from Latin ....and what? That seems to be good enough to accept - you don't think their own words are actually derived from words the same as most other IE languages...?

Lyda = Le (French the) da (dam)

The Dam - that is the Matriarch.

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

In a roundabout way I just told you this same thing -

Dominus is the Latin word for master or owner. As a title of sovereignty the term under the Roman Republic had all the associations of the Greek Tyrannos; refused during the early principate, it finally became an official title of the Roman Emperors under Diocletian (this is where the term dominate, used to describe a political system of Roman Empire in 284-476, is derived from). Dominus, the French equivalent being "sieur", was the Latin title of the feudal, superior and mesne, lords, and also an ecclesiastical and academical title. The ecclesiastical title was rendered in English "sir", which was a common prefix before the Reformation for parsons,

o is for male a is for female - like Maria and Mario.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read who was in Latium first:

Before the Indo-European tribes reached central Italy, Latium was possessed by a race of unknown origin,2 men of short stature and dark complexion, who had not yet learned the use of metallic implements. They are usually classed as members of the Mediterranean race. The Indo-European invaders began to enter Italy from the north and east during the third millennium B.C., and continued to come in wave after wave until they mastered the greater part of Italy. In the marshes of the Po valley the sites of the earlier of these immigrants can still be identified in the peculiarly formed "terremare" or "pile-dwelling." From a some what later period date the "Villanova" cemeteries of Umbria and Tuscany, which have yielded archæologists so rich a fund of treasure. It was doubtless a branch of this immigrating race which took possession of Latium some time before the millennium that ended with the birth of Christ.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Roman_Imperialism/The_People_of_Rome_and_Latium

We have the little dark Med. people.

Then the INDO EUROPEAN invaders came in from the NORTH and east during the 3RD MILLENIUM BC.

They lived in PILE DWELLINGS.

People from the North who lived on pile dwellings were in Latium after the indigenous Meds. in the 3rd millenium BC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It is not known when the last eruption of Ararat occurred; there are no historic or recent observations of large-scale activity recorded. It seems that Ararat was active in the 3rd millennium BC; under the pyroclastic flows, artifacts from the early Bronze Age and remains of human bodies have been found.

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

An interesting Wiki site: Timelines of environmental history - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_environmental_history

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Davis (1996) has reminded us of Clube and Napier's impact theory, and asked 'Where is the archaeological and geological evidence for the role of their 'Taurid Demons' in human history? The abrupt climate change at 2200 BC, regardless of an improbable impact explanation, situates hemispheric social collapse in a global, but ultimately cosmic, context." [Harvey Weiss: Late Third Millennium Abrupt Climate Change and Social Collapse in West Asia and Egypt. In: H Dalfes, G Kukla, H Weiss (eds.) Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse. Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer Verlag 1997, p. 719/20]

During the last two decades, researchers have discovered compelling evidence for abrupt climate change and civilization collapse in addition to sea level changes, catastrophic inundations and widespread seismic activity in many areas of the world at around 2200/2300 BC. Climatological proxy data together with sudden changes in lacustrine, fluvial and aeolian deposits have been detected in the archaeological, geological and climatological records. The most comprehensive survey of this particular climate disaster which coincided with (and most likely caused) the collapse of mankind's first urban civilizations can be found in the above mentioned volume on "Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse." Although there is still considerable disagreement about the "absolute" date of this catastrophe, a growing number of scholars agree that we are indeed dealing with an abrupt natural disaster with devastating effects on civilizations in West Asia, Europe and North Africa, but which was perhaps a global event.

When, between 1980 and 1988, the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS) published Moe Mandelkehr's pioneering research papers on archaeological, geological and climatological evidence for global climate and social catastrophes at around 2300 BC, Moe had gathered more than 350 references to back up his hypothesis with scientific data.

Now, almost 20 years later, 40 researchers from around the world have compiled the a.m. volume on the same event(s), analyzing and summarizing some 1700 references on abrupt climate change and social collapse around 4200/4300 BP.

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04m.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hundreds of years after the event, a cuneiform collection of "prodigies," omen predictions of the collapse of Akkad, preserved the record that "many stars were falling from the sky"

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04m.htm

This sounds like the term Aristotle uses as though he is aware of this record of events and he is describing the Phaethon event in his telling of this.

Wiki says: In Aristotle's Meteorology, Aristotle says, "...the stars...fell from heaven at the time of Phaethon's downfall."

Aristotle ACTUALLY says:

Let us now explain the origin, cause, and nature of the milky way. And here too let us begin by discussing the statements of others on the subject.

(1) Of the so-called Pythagoreans some say that this is the path of one of the stars that fell from heaven at the time of Phaethon's downfall. Others say that the sun used once to move in this circle and that this region was scorched or met with some other affection of this kind, because of the sun and its motion.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/meteorology.1.i.html

Mention of great destruction in Achaea too...

The great comet which appeared at the time of the earthquake in Achaea and the tidal wave rose due west; and many have been known to appear in the south. Again in the archonship of Euclees, son of Molon, at Athens there appeared a comet in the north in the month Gamelion, the sun being about the winter solstice. Yet they themselves admit that reflection over so great a space is an impossibility.

Actually this Part 1 of Meteorology by Aristotle is really interesting, because they really don't know yet how alot of phenomenon is produced properly yet and Aristotle attemps to find out more.

According to Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata, "...in the time of Crotopus occurred the burning of Phaethon, and the deluges of Deucalion

I believe the stories of Phoroneus also tie in with the time of Crotopus and the flood of Deucalion...

In Greek mythology, Phoroneus (Φορωνεύς) was a culture-hero of the Argolid, fire-bringer, primordial king of Argos and son of the river god Inachus and either Melia, the primordial ash-tree nymph[1] or Argia, the embodiment of the Argolid itself: "Inachus, son of Oceanus, begat Phoroneus[2] by his sister Argia," wrote Hyginus, in Fabulae 143. Hyginus' genealogy expresses the position of Phoroneus as one[3] of the primordial men, whose local identities differed in the various regions of Greece,[4] and who had for a mother the essential spirit of the very earth of Argos herself, Argia. He was the primordial king in the Peloponnesus, authorized by Zeus: "Formerly Zeus himself had ruled over men, but Hermes created a confusion of human speech, which spoiled Zeus' pleasure in this Rule".[5] Phoroneus introduced both the worship of Hera and the use of fire and the forge.[6] Poseidon and Hera had vied for the land: when the primeval waters had receded, Phoroneus "was the first to gather the people together into a community; for they had up to then been living as scattered and lonesome families".

Phoroneus is the first man mentioned in Timaeus. He introduced fire, the forge (metalwork) and Hera.

The primeval waters receeding would have been the flood waters from the same deluge mentioned, the time of Crotopus.

It appears that Phoroneus with Hera and metal working arrived in Greece just after the Flood - he was seen as the first man who was in control after the people got back on their feet, from the flooding (of Deucalion).

Hermes created a confusion of speech because new people with different language arrived on the scene.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here is the full text of the scans, which I have produced earlier.

Bron: E. Molenaar, Het Geheimzinnige Handschrift van de Familie Over de Linden.

Can you please post or mail the rest too? I would love to study it.

Note: In my opinion there is no reference to the small Oera Linda Boek at all, but to the Worp of Thabor, which was as voluminous as a Statenbijbel.

The "Worp of Thabor" was in Latin and old-Dutch (hence not in "strange language" or "strange script") and it was not about the Over de Linden family. Therefore the W.T. does not match with the witness reports (1,2,3,5) summarized in post #4830.

The letters of Cornelis over de Linden to Eelco Verwijs show, that Over de Linden did not understand the text at all and that he got interested in it only, when Eelco Verwijs told him, that the small booklet dealt with his family history.

I suppose he feigned innocence and naivety, to avoid appearing too eager. He will indeed not have understood the text himself, but apparently he had heard things about it, even before he obtained it in 1848 (ancient family history, royal domains with Linden trees, etcetera).

I read (don't remember where at the moment) that he initially believed that the book contained information about a family treasure, which would explain why he was so eager to get it (1845-1848) and why he waited so long asking for help with the translation.

~ ~ ~

Menno, your website shows a scan of the newspaper article "Het waren de Halbertsma's, het was Haverschmidt", from the Leeuwarder Courant of 20-11-2010, but the resolution is too low to be read. Can you please post or mail a scan with a higher resolution? I think it could be very interesting for the discussion.

artikel%20LC.jpg-for-web-xlarge.jpg

Edited by Otharus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Davis (1996) has reminded us of Clube and Napier's impact theory, and asked 'Where is the archaeological and geological evidence for the role of their 'Taurid Demons' in human history? The abrupt climate change at 2200 BC, regardless of an improbable impact explanation, situates hemispheric social collapse in a global, but ultimately cosmic, context." [Harvey Weiss: Late Third Millennium Abrupt Climate Change and Social Collapse in West Asia and Egypt. In: H Dalfes, G Kukla, H Weiss (eds.) Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse. Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer Verlag 1997, p. 719/20]

During the last two decades, researchers have discovered compelling evidence for abrupt climate change and civilization collapse in addition to sea level changes, catastrophic inundations and widespread seismic activity in many areas of the world at around 2200/2300 BC. Climatological proxy data together with sudden changes in lacustrine, fluvial and aeolian deposits have been detected in the archaeological, geological and climatological records. The most comprehensive survey of this particular climate disaster which coincided with (and most likely caused) the collapse of mankind's first urban civilizations can be found in the above mentioned volume on "Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse." Although there is still considerable disagreement about the "absolute" date of this catastrophe, a growing number of scholars agree that we are indeed dealing with an abrupt natural disaster with devastating effects on civilizations in West Asia, Europe and North Africa, but which was perhaps a global event.

When, between 1980 and 1988, the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS) published Moe Mandelkehr's pioneering research papers on archaeological, geological and climatological evidence for global climate and social catastrophes at around 2300 BC, Moe had gathered more than 350 references to back up his hypothesis with scientific data.

Now, almost 20 years later, 40 researchers from around the world have compiled the a.m. volume on the same event(s), analyzing and summarizing some 1700 references on abrupt climate change and social collapse around 4200/4300 BP.

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04m.htm

Puzzler,

I think we have to accept that we shall never ever convince Abe and ol' Geronimo. They are just not interested in the truth. To them this is just a game to see who is best at wordplay. Did you notice how Abe just side-stepped this one about Spain:

This was followed by a renewed phase of instability ( 4200–4100 cal. years BP) indicated by the presence of fine storm-lain deposits and thicker, probably tsunami-induced shelly deposits.”

All your and Otharus' language studies are right up their (the proponents of the hoax theory's) alley. They will keep you busy for years.

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puzzler,

I think we have to accept that we shall never ever convince Abe and ol' Geronimo. They are just not interested in the truth. To them this is just a game to see who is best at wordplay. Did you notice how Abe just side-stepped this one about Spain:

All your and Otharus' language studies are right up their (the proponents of the hoax theory's) alley. They will keep you busy for years.

Enjoy.

I'll give the words a rest for a while. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Delfzijl megalithic tombs were covered with mud... GRADUALLY.

No signs of any catastrophic events here around 2200 BC, Alewyn.

You could make a case for 3000 BC as easy as you can create a case for 2200 BC.

--

And all I want is proof all this happened in 2200 BC, in Europe. That's volcanoes erupting, lands submerging, lands rising, mountains crumbling down, mountains rising up, rivers diverting their course, wildfires all over the place.

And that place is.. EUROPE, for THAT area is what the OLB is talkinmg about.

.

==

"In the first period of the third phase ( 5200–4200 cal. years BP)".

That is a THOUSAND YEARS !! Hello?

.

Abe,

Not having grown up in a town or city and not being quite so familiar with the communal life in Europe, it took me quite some time to figure this one out.

It has only now dawned on me that this UM site is in effect no more than an internet piazza, plaza or town square. The locals drop in everyday to share a glass of vino, ale, whisky, cup of tea or whatever, have a good yarn and just laze the time away. They would share trivialities, local gossip and generally no one takes anybody else very seriously. It is actually quite a necessary part of social interaction. From that point of view, I must confess, I enjoy the discussions and acquaintances I made here over the last (almost) one year.

The mistake I made was to think that one could have a serious debate here on matters of academic interest. Please accept my apologies. I shall in future try to refrain from placing too much value on most of the discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes, Abe, maybe you could take it up with these guys...

Now, almost 20 years later, 40 researchers from around the world have compiled the a.m. volume on the same event(s), analyzing and summarizing some 1700 references on abrupt climate change and social collapse around 4200/4300 BP.

Your insistance on absolutes is getting on my nerves to say the least.

Again, you don't really know when this event occurred, what you know is the date in a context of Christian Reckoning.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's in question here?

The validity of the book itself?

Or the 'fantastical' history given in the story?

Does the validity of the book compromise the contents of the book?

Does it make it any less true a history if the timeframe is not exact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some remarks on older questions:

1. You may find a readable version of the article in LC on the home page of www.rodinbook.nl.

2. It would be preferred to use the DRW translitteration to compare the OLB text with Oldfrisian sources, incl. Riustringian. DRW stands for Deutsches Rechtswoerterbuch.

3. I have not published a book titled From Himmelum to Himalaya, but use the website www.rodinbook.nl instead to publish my ideas about the OLB and its authorship. A website is not static, but can be improved with new research results. Only part of the information is actually published on the website, the major part is not, because of current research, copy right and so on.

4. The best way to find out about the OLB is to read the letters between Cornelis over de Linden and Eelco Verwijs, between Eelco Verwijs and Johan Winkler and between Cornelis over de Linden and J.G. Ottema, published under Brieven on www.rodinbook.nl. If you come across of any letter not published in this collection, please let me know.

Knul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Abe, there is no Year 0. I've never heard it used, tell me, what happened in year 0?

There is, without doubt, information out that establishes that between 2300BC (the date for Biblical Flood) and 2200BC (date for the OLB flooding etc) the Earth had some sort of change.

----------

I'll add to this post rather than make a new one.

I was curious about the name of the Finns named by the Fryans because they (Fryans) were inferior to them in there bloody festivals.

I kept thinking the word was something for inferior but couldn't get anything.

Finna heten it said.

The rest of the sentence says this:

Thaet folk nêth navt ênis en nôme, thrvch vs send hja Finna hêten, hwand afskên hjara fêrsta algadur drov aend blodich send, thach send hja thêr alsa fin vp

Now I see the explanation - they were FINER.

This compares with the English translation: formal This people have not even a name; but we call them Finns, because although all the festivals are melancholy and bloody, they are so formal that we are inferior to them in that respect.

So, the ones they named Finns were called that because the word means FINE - Formal. Your finery is your formal wear, the finest.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/f%C3%ADnna

Does anyone think it's something else?

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read who was in Latium first:

Before the Indo-European tribes reached central Italy, Latium was possessed by a race of unknown origin,2 men of short stature and dark complexion, who had not yet learned the use of metallic implements. They are usually classed as members of the Mediterranean race. The Indo-European invaders began to enter Italy from the north and east during the third millennium B.C., and continued to come in wave after wave until they mastered the greater part of Italy. In the marshes of the Po valley the sites of the earlier of these immigrants can still be identified in the peculiarly formed "terremare" or "pile-dwelling." From a some what later period date the "Villanova" cemeteries of Umbria and Tuscany, which have yielded archæologists so rich a fund of treasure. It was doubtless a branch of this immigrating race which took possession of Latium some time before the millennium that ended with the birth of Christ.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Roman_Imperialism/The_People_of_Rome_and_Latium

We have the little dark Med. people.

Then the INDO EUROPEAN invaders came in from the NORTH and east during the 3RD MILLENIUM BC.

They lived in PILE DWELLINGS.

People from the North who lived on pile dwellings were in Latium after the indigenous Meds. in the 3rd millenium BC.

Puzz, it doesn't matter who was where first, it is simply a known fact that MADAM comes from Latin MEA DOMINA.

Let's say there is a word in the Dutch language, like 'pietsaa'. And we know it's from the Italian, "pizza".

Does it matter if there were Chinese living in Italy before the Italians lived there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abe, there is no Year 0. I've never heard it used, tell me, what happened in year 0?

You are telling me??

I have been telling that since the moment we mentioned the 2193 BC date..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are telling me??

I have been telling that since the moment we mentioned the 2193 BC date..

Oh, OK then, we're all good on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puzz, it doesn't matter who was where first, it is simply a known fact that MADAM comes from Latin MEA DOMINA.

Let's say there is a word in the Dutch language, like 'pietsaa'. And we know it's from the Italian, "pizza".

Does it matter if there were Chinese living in Italy before the Italians lived there?

I think it matters, in this case, because we are trying to identify if the Fryans were in Italy with their factories. Well, I am anyway.

I think they were and I think they are the Latin people, of Latium.

So, if they were, the Latin words should have come from the Frisian/Fryan words.

Mea domina meaning would be the meaning of Fryan madam, who had it first and it became a Latin word.

A circle - into Italy - is Latin base word - out of Italy again and seems like it's a Latin word but it might actually have come into Latium from the Fryans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Davis (1996) has reminded us of Clube and Napier's impact theory, and asked 'Where is the archaeological and geological evidence for the role of their 'Taurid Demons' in human history? The abrupt climate change at 2200 BC, regardless of an improbable impact explanation, situates hemispheric social collapse in a global, but ultimately cosmic, context." [Harvey Weiss: Late Third Millennium Abrupt Climate Change and Social Collapse in West Asia and Egypt. In: H Dalfes, G Kukla, H Weiss (eds.) Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse. Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer Verlag 1997, p. 719/20]

During the last two decades, researchers have discovered compelling evidence for abrupt climate change and civilization collapse in addition to sea level changes, catastrophic inundations and widespread seismic activity in many areas of the world at around 2200/2300 BC. Climatological proxy data together with sudden changes in lacustrine, fluvial and aeolian deposits have been detected in the archaeological, geological and climatological records. The most comprehensive survey of this particular climate disaster which coincided with (and most likely caused) the collapse of mankind's first urban civilizations can be found in the above mentioned volume on "Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse." Although there is still considerable disagreement about the "absolute" date of this catastrophe, a growing number of scholars agree that we are indeed dealing with an abrupt natural disaster with devastating effects on civilizations in West Asia, Europe and North Africa, but which was perhaps a global event.

When, between 1980 and 1988, the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS) published Moe Mandelkehr's pioneering research papers on archaeological, geological and climatological evidence for global climate and social catastrophes at around 2300 BC, Moe had gathered more than 350 references to back up his hypothesis with scientific data.

Now, almost 20 years later, 40 researchers from around the world have compiled the a.m. volume on the same event(s), analyzing and summarizing some 1700 references on abrupt climate change and social collapse around 4200/4300 BP.

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04m.htm

OK, now we are getting somewhere: civilizations in Europe were also effected.

Of course I'd like to more about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, OK then, we're all good on that.

OK, lol, a few pages back I even explained it, and also (with a screenshot) where the date 2194 BC came from: the Frisian Volksalmanak.

Of course the BIG question is: where did the compilers of the almanak get the date from in their turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You forgot to mention the Hong Shan culture in China, North Africa’s desertification, the shrinking and eventual disappearance of the Mega Lakes after 2200 BC, your Delfzijl megalithic tombs that was covered with mud since 2200 BC, etc. etc.

Also check this site:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6R-4GPW9NJ-2&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F20%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1750133241&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ca90370b4bd5c9e7cde19004b52ba864&searchtype=a

Evidence of high-energy events in the geological record: Mid-holocene evolution of the southwestern Doñana National Park (SW Spain)

“ In the first period of the third phase ( 5200–4200 cal. years BP), estuarine infilling was probably the dominant process, with the accumulation of phyllosilicate-rich clays in the lagoon bed. This was followed by a renewed phase of instability ( 4200–4100 cal. years BP) indicated by the presence of fine storm-lain deposits and thicker, probably tsunami-induced shelly deposits.”

You might want to check how the Los Millares (S/E Spain) settlement got destroyed in 2200 BC: by extensive fires...

But the explanation is that is was destroyed by fire during wars.

Btw, I have read somewhere about a submarine volcano, west of Portugal, Mt.Tores something, causing this flood/tsunami.

+++

EDIT:

During the period of 2600 B.C. to 2400 B.C. there were signs of stress beginning to appear in the Millaren culture. Their fortifications were reinforced and enlarged to their maximum extent indicating violent encounters or war with the neighboring peoples from the west and north of them. It was in this period that the first Maritime Bell Beaker pottery appeared among the Millarens. The pottery spread quickly throughout the region on the existing maritime trade networks. By 2400 B.C. the social stress facing the Millarens began to worsen into a crisis and the large settlements began to depopulate. The graves of the elites were increasingly accompanied with weapons indicating the violent nature of the time. By 2200 B.C. the town of Los Millares was abandoned after a sequence of catastrophes (probably large-scale warfare). There is evidence of widespread fires and damage to the fortifications. But amid the destruction, the first settlements of the El Argar arose to take their place. The period began with the use of bronze in the Aegean in 2600 B.C. and ended in 2200 B.C. with it being used by the Beaker people in Britain.

http://www.minoanatlantis.com/Minoan_Spain.php

+++

EDIT:

And the submarine volcano is the "Torre Seamount".

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Abe,

Not having grown up in a town or city and not being quite so familiar with the communal life in Europe, it took me quite some time to figure this one out.

It has only now dawned on me that this UM site is in effect no more than an internet piazza, plaza or town square. The locals drop in everyday to share a glass of vino, ale, whisky, cup of tea or whatever, have a good yarn and just laze the time away. They would share trivialities, local gossip and generally no one takes anybody else very seriously. It is actually quite a necessary part of social interaction. From that point of view, I must confess, I enjoy the discussions and acquaintances I made here over the last (almost) one year.

The mistake I made was to think that one could have a serious debate here on matters of academic interest. Please accept my apologies. I shall in future try to refrain from placing too much value on most of the discussions.

?? What is this then? Are the rest of us allowed to make a joke now and then, or only you?

I think I have contributed more then enough serious posts to this discussion.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

?? What is this then? Are the rest of us allowed to make a joke now and then, or only you?

I think I have contributed more then enough serious posts to this discussion.

.

Abe,

To spell it out to you: I am not talking about our lighter moments or jokes here. I enjoy those as much as anyone else.

I am talking about your absolute refusal and chronic denial in accepting the irrefutable scientific evidence that the 4.2 ka BP event was world-wide, including in Europe. Your excuse is that you want "hard evidence". I gave you an extract of a geological report giving evidence of tsunamis in 4300/4200 BC in SW Spain which you just simply ignore. Instead you quote an older, meaningless date and then say one could equally make a case for a world-wide disaster in 3000 BC. Add to that your insistance that everything in the OLB was known in the 19th century. Now, do you realy expect me to take you serious any longer?

I have given abundant evidence in my book and here that the OLB's history is true and that many of the facts were not known in the 19th century. Now compare my facts with the speculation of the "Hoax Theorists". They all disagree with each other and none of them has given any facts whatsoever - i.e.none, zilch, nothing - just speculation. Yet, you believe they are right! Would you say you are objective?

Edited by Alewyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Abe,

To spell it out to you: I am not talking about our lighter moments or jokes here. I enjoy those as much as anyone else.

I am talking about your absolute refusal and chronic denial in accepting the irrefutable scientific evidence that the 4.2 ka BP event was world-wide, including in Europe. Your excuse is that you want "hard evidence". I gave you an extract of a geological report giving evidence of tsunamis in 4300/4200 BC in SW Spain which you just simply ignore. Instead you quote an older, meaningless date and then say one could equally make a case for a world-wide disaster in 3000 BC. Add to that your insistance that everything in the OLB was known in the 19th century. Now, do you realy expect me to take you serious any longer?

I have given abundant evidence in my book and here that the OLB's history is true and that many of the facts were not known in the 19th century. Now compare my facts with the speculation of the "Hoax Theorists". They all disagree with each other and none of them has given any facts whatsoever - i.e.none, zilch, nothing - just speculation. Yet, you believe they are right! Would you say you are objective?

I think you forgot what Otharus said about my presence here, as skeptic, and how my 'behaviour' could be usefull in a way. Remember that?

You also remember about what I said about Los Millares, or about the Torre Seamount? Or what I posted several pages back, about the latest scientific theory to explain geological fast rising and submerging islands (in connection with your theory about Friesland Island being Aldland), or about the Dunkirk Transgression at around 300 BC?

Think again before you say I am not serious...

Let me give you a hint: if I kiss your rear-end all the time, you will never feel challenged to prove your point.

THe OLB is considered a hoax or whatever name they want to call it. People have been discussing about it for 150 years !!

I know you are sincere, but scientists will need a lot more to be convinced, and I - in my very own irritating way - am helping you accomplishing that.

I still have LOTS of doubts, but I take your words seriously, although I am also quite certain that you think I don't.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found an interesting article, and a most interesting line.. "circa 2200 BC (now 2350 BC)

(2) THIRD MILLENNIUM BC CLIMATE CHANGE & OLD WORLD COLLAPSE

From: JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE 25,2 (1998), pp. 185-86

Book Review

By Mike Baillie m.baillie@qub.ac.uk

Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse.

Dalfes, H.N., Kukla, G. and Weiss, H. (Eds) 1996

Springer-Verlag (Published in cooperation with NATO

Scientific Affairs Division), Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Barcelona,

Budapest, Hong Kong, London, Milan, Paris, Santa Clara, Singapore,

Tokyo

ISBN 3-540-61892-9

xiv, 728 pages, 156 figures, 35 tables

price DM 398,-; öS 2905.40; sFr 347,-; £ 172.-

This volume represents a brave attempt to bring together the evidence

for an environmental event in the later third millennium BC.

Thirty-three papers attempt to assemble the evidence from various

natural records and from archaeology. Their success is inevitably

constrained by the one key factor critical in any such endeavour -

chronological resolution. Thus, as a preliminary to the review I feel

it is necessary to set the scene from a chronological standpoint.

The problem posed by Dalfes, Kukla and Weiss is an inherently

interesting one. At the time the papers were assembled Weiss and

Courty were of the opinion that somewhere around 2200 BC there had

been a truly catastrophic environmental event. There was also a lot of

evidence pointing to the centuries between, say, 2300 BC and 1900 BC

representing some sort of environmental downturn, with widely altered

precipitation patterns. So a major question could be couched as

follows.. Were the widespread effects in Asia, Africa and Eastern

Europe actually the result of a general decline over some centuries,

or were they the result of an initial catastrophic trigger event with

longer-term implications? This is a general problem in studies of the

past where dating resolution is poor and where it is impossible to

relate different strands of evidence in real time. It is well typified

by the "suck in and smear" effects suggested in Baillie (1991). These

contrary effects represent a serious impediment to understanding past

phenomena. Abrupt or "point" events tend to be smeared by radiocarbon

dating. Thus radiocarbon effectively conceals abrupt events. The

converse case is where precisely-dated events, e.g. abrupt

environmental downturns deduced from tree-rings, tend to "suck in"

proximate but poorly dated evidence. In such cases it is easy to

envisage the creation of false horizons.

The present volume could be viewed as an exposition on exactly these

concepts. However, it is also important to know that new evidence,

deduced since the volume was produced, has actually made these points

even more emphatically. It is known that an abrupt downturn in Irish

oaks at 2354-2345 BC (Baillie 1995) falls close to the Icelandic Hekla

4 tephra horizon dated to 2310+/-20 CalBC by the wiggle-matching of

high precision radiocarbon dates (Hall et al. 1994). Courty (1997) has

now revised the dating of the original c.2200 BC abrupt environmental

event seen at Tell Leilan, in Syria, to c.2350 BC! Thus this volume of

papers has now to be seen against the existence of what may well be a

very dramatic and widespread environmental downturn - a classic point

event - the nature of which is hinted at by the report of both tephra

and glass spherules at and around the destruction layer at Tell

Leilan.

Do the contributing authors succeed in convincing the reader of the

existence, and chronology, of the proposed environmental change(s)?

The contributions (and I will mention only a few) start with Hassan

covering the breakdown known as the First Intermediate Period in

Egypt, given as 2180-2134 BC, though these cannot be true calendrical

dates. Hassan discusses the issue of the Nile floods in the context of

lake levels in Africa and suffers immediately the problem of

attempting to handle traditional historical dates in Egypt and

radiocarbon chronologies in Africa. Elsewhere Butzer quantifies the

difficulties by pointing out that at Lake Turkana, even with 15

radiocarbon determinations the dating of an abrupt rise in level

around 2150-2050 BC has "a relatively course resolution of +/-100

years". Butzer questions the very idea of a global event and sees no

good evidence for an abrupt change to "greater aridity affecting the

Near East" between 2400-1900 BC.

These few lines nicely exemplify the difficulties. Are we looking at,

or for, an event starting at 2400 or 2350 or 2200 or 2180 BC? Butzer

with his "2400-1900 BCE" has broadened the debate to a full half

millennium - a time period so long that we could reasonably expect

some environmental changes to be recorded in most areas. Courty and

Weiss remind us that there are possibly related socio-economic

disturbances from Egypt, Palestine, the Indus and the Aegean, but of

course there is no good evidence to link these possibly-related

collapses chronologically. Virtually the same applies in the Aegean

handled by Manning. While traditionally there is an Aegean wave of

collapse around 2200 BC, the dating is poor. The Early Helladic II

civilization collapses just when it seems to be at its peak, but what

date is the collapse? Is it c.2350 BC, or c.2200 BC? Manning points

to a related episode of severe soil erosion, unfortunately dated by a

single radiocarbon determination, which calibrates to 2900-2350 CalBC,

but ends up concluding that whatever the date of the EHII collapse the

date of the start of the succeeding EHIII is "after c.2300-2200 BC

(again with no precision)".

Really this is the joy of the whole book. Whether looking at evidence

from the Indus collapse, from drought in Bohemia, from pollen

sequences in Turkey or the Near East or Italy or from varves in

Germany, just about everyone thinks they can see evidence for

environmental change somewhere in the late third millennium BCE.

No-one can specify whether its initiation is really abrupt, nor when

that initiation was. Courty and Weiss have set a series of hares

running with their apparently abrupt and catastrophic event at c2200

BC (now c2350 BC). Can anyone else catch up? Students can be set

endless projects to mine this book in search of the answer.

I cannot resist drawing attention to Harvey Weiss's concluding

remarks. Given their evidence for what appears to be a "blast from the

sky" at Tell Leilan, Weiss is put in the uncomfortable position of

being probably the first archaeologist to have to suggest an impact

from cometary debris in recent millennia. I have absolutely no

problems with that concept but Weiss does; he is torn between claiming

a "hit" and being cautious. He stakes his claim to immortality by

saying

The abrupt climate change at 2200 BC (now 2350 BC),

regardless of an improbable impact explanation,

situates hemispheric social collapse in a global,

but ultimately cosmic, context.

If Baillie (1998) ever sees print, Weiss is going to find strong

circumstantial support that he is probably correct on all counts.

With abrupt change in ancient records, previously obscured by poor

chronological control, more common than previously imagined.

Kukla presents a nice piece on the philosophical difficulty of

disproving events "it is more difficult to prove that something didn't

happen than that it did". This is much in keeping with the suck-in

effect, where loosely dated evidence may be drawn in to support an

event. It then becomes difficult to disprove the event as this would

require better dating of a range of poorly-dated phenomena. This

raises the question whether the act of postulating a significant event

circa 2200 BC (now 2350 BC) has actually created one? I don't

personally think it does. Sufficiently many of the 33 contributions

see evidence for environmental alteration in the later third

millennium BC that something has to have been going on. Their problem

is that in any period of three to four, to five, centuries there is

plenty of time for all sorts of environmental downturns in all sorts

of areas. The real question remains, is there any evidence for a

synchronous global, or even hemispheric, environmental event. Nothing

in the book currently proves that there was. However, the drawing

together of the several contributions provides the student with a mine

of relevant information. The book is a must for the library shelves of

any departments interested in environmental change or in the

archaeology of the third millennium BC or in systems collapse.

The book has typographical errors sprinkled throughout and several

papers clearly required more rigorous proof reading by the editors.

More damning in a volume of this kind is the lack of a consistent

convention on dates. This is particularly significant when the

intention is to see what happened in a tight period of a few centuries

some four millennia ago. Ideally all historical and

dendrochronological dates should have been AD and BC, or BCE. All

historical/archaeological dates older than 600 BC should have been

quoted with estimated errors; this would also apply to dates from

ice-cores and varve sequences. Raw radiocarbon ages should have been

presented as BP with quoted errors, while calibrated radiocarbon ages

should have been signalled as CalAD or CalBC and should have been

quoted with their calibrated 2-sigma ranges. Failure to enforce a

dating code means that the reader has to work hard to compare evidence

both within and between papers. None of these criticisms damage the

work as a whole.

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc022398.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Esus

Etymology:

Likely originally Aisus, possibly from the PIE *eis- "passion", or *ais- "to respect". Thus the name means either "The Furious One" (like the Germanic Wodanaz, with whom Esus is often compared), or "The Respected One."

The god Esunertus/*Aisunertos may be a variaton on Esus, his name meaning "strong Esus," from nerto- "strength, power"

Gallic (Continental Celtic) god, part of the trinity of "Taranus, Esus, and Teutates" according to Roman historian Lucan:

And those who pacify with blood accursed

Savage Teutates, Hesus' horrid shrines,

And Taranis' altars cruel as were those

Loved by Diana, goddess of the north

According to the Berne commentary on Lucan, Esus' human victims were sacrificed by being tied to a tree and flailed.

http://www.maryjones.us/jce/esus.html

From the OLB:

Although they knew that Jessos had taught that men should regulate and control their passions, they taught that men should stifle their passions, and that the perfection of humanity consisted in being as unfeeling as the cold stones.

http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/

I was only interested in this angle after seeing a variant on the Ichtys symbol that reminded me of the Jul wheel and Berber flag.

hgchp8fg3.jpg

the stars three axes as formed by an Ifor the Greek Iesus--and an X--for the Ch of Christusthe earliest and most widely used monogram for Jesus the Christ.

http://murraycreek.net/higher/chapter8.htm

What the OLB says of Jessos does not really link to this but the IX cross was being used as a metaphor by 16th century alchemists. The YUle wheel was already well known so probably irrelevant but I thought it was a bit of a coincidence. 'IF' the OLB is a hoax then it is a damn good one but may still hold kernels of truth here and there.

However, there is justifiable reason to believe that it is more than a hoax and I appreciate the efforts. Gettng certainty is a different prospect however.

Is there any mention in the OLB of 'cup marked stones' or anything like that? They are apparently found in many of regions mentioned in the OLB but in greater frequency on Northern Europe.

Edited by SlimJim22

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.