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

In time they would name these lands Angle-land, and it is tempting to speculate that the word Angle was derived from, or thought of as a pun on, the name of Ing."[7] According to the Trojan genealogy of Nennius in the Historia Brittonum, Mannus becomes "Alanus" and Ing, his son, becomes Neugio. The three sons of Neugio are named Boganus, Vandalus, and Saxo—from whom came the peoples of the Bogari, the Vandals, and the Saxons and Thuringii.

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

Sure, maybe Ing and Ang are the same. Ing land. Angle-land.

Maybe Ing though is actually the word angle, fish hook, too. That could have Freyr as a kind of God such as the ankh represents.

Maybe they are angels of later, messengers of God. The ankh (angel) are the messengers of God, the receiver. As granpa pointed out, the Cadeucus itself was meant to receive the messages from God - and Hermes, who held it, was the messenger.

New-Dawn123.jpg

Because I actually think the Gutians that overran Mesopotamia were actually Gothic/Nordic types, c. 2200BC, I can see how it could have easily all come into Sumeria, and then spread into Egypt and surrounds.

Inkishush or Inkicuc (proto-ON 'Ingvi's-son'?) was a Gutian ruler in Sumer from ca. 2135 BC to 2129 BC. Inkishush is the first Gutian ruler mentioned in the Sumerian King List.

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

You will have a very hard time finding a reliable source for that last sentence in your post; this part I mean: proto-ON 'Ingvi's-son'.

You have quoted it in this thread before, and I say someone just made it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this is about an explanation for the name of the Angels (Anglos).

What do you think is more probable:

-1- that they adopted some Egyptian symbol and maybe changed their tribal name accordingly, or

-2- that they were part of a larger group of tribes who venerated a Nordic fertility god called Yngvi a god after even an ancient Scaninavian royal dinasty called themselves, the Yngling, with Yngling meaning "descendant of Frey"?

Even Tacitus already talked about the "Ingaevones", Germanic tribes living near the North Sea.

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

Frey was called by another name, Yngve; and this name Yngve was considered long after in his race as a name of honour, so that his descendants have since been called Ynglinger.

--

A strophe of the Anglo-Saxon rune poem (c. 1100) records that:

Ing was first among the East Danes seen by men

This may refer to the origins of the worship of Ingui in the tribal areas that Tacitus mentions in his Germania as being populated by the Inguieonnic tribes. A later Danish chronicler lists Ingui was one of three brothers that the Danish tribes descended from. The strophe also states that "then he (Ingui) went back over the waves, his wagon behind him" which could connect Ingui to earlier conceptions of the wagon processions of Nerthus, and the later Scandinavian conceptions of Freyr's wagon journeys.

Ingui is mentioned also in some later Anglo-Saxon literature under varying forms of his name, such as "For what doth Ingeld have to do with Christ", and the variants used in Beowulf to designate the kings as 'leader of the friends of Ing'. The compound Ingui-Frea (OE) and Yngvi-Freyr (ON) likely refer to the connection between the god and the Germanic kings' role as priests during the sacrifices in the pagan period, as Frea and Freyr are titles meaning 'Lord'.

The Swedish royal dynasty was known as the Ynglings from their descent from Yngvi-Freyr. This is supported by Tacitus, who wrote about the Germans: "In their ancient songs, their only way of remembering or recording the past they celebrate an earth-born god Tuisco, and his son Mannus, as the origin of their race, as their founders. To Mannus they assign three sons, from whose names, they say, the coast tribes are called Ingaevones; those of the interior, Herminones; all the rest, Istaevones".

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

.

As a Dane I rather like this turn of the present thread :P That said, I rather like this thread as it is vastly different from most other threads.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have a very hard time finding a reliable source for that last sentence in your post; this part I mean: proto-ON 'Ingvi's-son'.

You have quoted it in this thread before, and I say someone just made it up.

Possibly, but it's not a new idea. Assyriologist Julius Oppert first opened up the can of worms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Oppert

Hitti.JPG

http://aleximreh.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/gotvand-land-of-goti-in-iran/

The mere suggestion that these Aryans may have been in Sumeria was so destructive to Semitic theories, it has been brushed under the carpet.

You, Abe, you say something should be found from the OLB, everything can be found...

Next to nothing is known about their origins, as no "Gutian" artifacts have surfaced from that time; little information is gleaned from the contemporary sources.[4] Nothing is known of their language either, apart from those Sumerian king names, and that it was distinct from other known languages of the region (such as Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian, Hittite and Elamite).

How convenient (for the anti-Goths were Gutians crowd) NOTHING can be found from the Gutians, no artifacts, nothing. :ph34r:

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, an essential translating error by Ottema (1876), copied by Sandbach (1876) and Raubenheimer (2011).

Context:

The Denamarka were occupied by the Magí (1602 after Aldland had sank) and the Mother didn't want them back, because the people there would already have been bastardised and wasted.

79_3.jpg

OLB, original manuscript [page 079/ line 18]

THJU MODER NILDET NAVT WÉR.HA

Dutch: Ottema p.111

De Moeder wilde het niet weren

English: Sandbach p.111; Raubenheimer (2nd edition, 2011) p.369

The mother would not prevent it

Correct translation:

Dutch: De Moeder wilde het niet weer (=terug) hebben

English: The Mother didn't want to have it back

I think Dutch weer (again, back) = whither. So the sentence would read: thju moder nildet wither ha.On the other hand Dutch weren = wera. Are there other possibilities ? I think of the meaning [ge]weren = ergens mee instemmen, akkoord gaan, Eng. to agree, German gewaehren, billigen, eiverstanden sein.

Edited by Knul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's wera in different forms in the Frisian dictionary.

wer - ha may become wera

wer-a (1) 1 und häufiger?, war-a (2), afries., sw. M. (n): nhd. Besitzer; ne. owner;

Hw.: s. *war-a (1); E.: s. germ. *warjan, sw. V., wehren, abhalten, schützen; idg.

*øer- (5), V., schließen, decken, schützen, retten, wehren, abwehren, Pokorny

1160; L.: Hh 127b

wer-a (2) 1, war-a (3), afries., sw. V. (1): nhd. Gewähr leisten, einstehen; ne. be

liable; Hw.: vgl. ahd. werÐn* (1); Q.: E, AA 102; E.: s. germ. *wera, Sb., Vertrag,

Bündnis; vgl. idg. *øer- (11), *øerý-, Sb., Freundlichkeit, Pokorny 1165; L.: Hh

127b, Rh 1136a, AA 102

wer-a (3) 16, war-a (4), afries., sw. V. (1): nhd. verteidigen, abwehren; ne. defend;

ÜG.: lat. dÐfendere AB (94, 6); Vw.: s. bi-, *of-; Hw.: s. wer-e-re; vgl. got.

warjan*, an. verja (4), ae. w’rian (1), as. werian* (2), ahd. werien* (1); Q.: E, R,

W, H, B, AB (94, 6), AA 102; E.: germ. *warjan, sw. V., wehren, abhalten,

schützen; idg. *øer- (5), V., schließen, decken, schützen, retten, wehren, abwehren,

Pokorny 1160; W.: nfries. werren, V., verteidigen, abwehren; L.: Hh 127b, Rh

1136b, AA 102

wÐr-a (1) 6, afries., sw. V. (1): nhd. beweisen; ne. prove; Hw.: s. wÐr-ia; vgl. ahd.

wõren*; Q.: R, W, S; E.: germ. *wÐrjan, *wÚrjan, sw. V., beweisen; s. idg. *øer-

(11), *øerý-. Sb., Freundlichkeit, Pokorny 1165; L.: Hh 127b, Rh 1136b

wÐr-a (2), afries., Konj., Präp.: Vw.: s. wÐr-e

http://www.koeblergerhard.de/germanistischewoerterbuecher/altfriesischeswoerterbuch/afries-W.pdf

I could see it as 'the mother would not BE LIABLE'.

She wasn't going to be liable in taking them back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dutch weer (again, back) = whither. So the sentence would read: thju moder nildet wither ha.On the other hand Dutch weren = wera. Are there other possibilities ? I think of the meaning [ge]weren = ergens mee instemmen, akkoord gaan, Eng. to agree, German gewaehren, billigen, eiverstanden sein.

WITHER and WÉR are both used in that meaning.

In other fragments WÉR also means again/back:

[067/22]

WILST WÉR FRY WÉSA ÀND VNDER MINA RÉD ÀND HODA LÉVA. TJÀN UT THEN. WÉPNE SKILUN THI WRDA. ÀND IK SKIL WÁKA O.ER THI.

Do you want to be free again... (etc.)

[153/09]

THÉRVMBE NIL HI NÉNE MODER WÉR

Therefore he doesn't want to have a mother back/again

WÉR is a multifunctional word as it can also mean:

- "was"; the past tense singular of "to be" (german: war)

- the root of "to defend" (dutch: weer)

- where (dutch: waar)

- true (dutch: waar)

- in expression INA WÉR; busy (dutch: in de weer)

From the context, it's clear that in the fragment I posted, it means back/again twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can go with whatever you like but I wouldn't write off what I said - wer-a as having been wer-ha once, to be liable. In that sentence it's not wer it's wer-ha.

OLB, original manuscript [page 079/ line 18]

THJU MODER NILDET NAVT WÉR.HA

Dutch: Ottema p.111

De Moeder wilde het niet weren

English: Sandbach p.111; Raubenheimer (2nd edition, 2011) p.369

The mother would not prevent it

Correct translation:

Dutch: De Moeder wilde het niet weer (=terug) hebben

English: The Mother didn't want to have it back

The Mother would not be liable.

This is wer-hed:

wÐr-hê-d 472, wÐr-d, wÆr-d, afries., st. F. (i): nhd. Wahrheit, Wahrhaftigkeit; ne.

truth, truthfulness; Hw.: vgl. anfrk. warheid, as. wârhÐd*, ahd. wõrheit, mnd.

wârhêit, mnl. waerheit; Q.: W, S, AA 197; I.: Lbd. lat. vÐritõs; E.: s. wÐr, *hê-d;

L.: Hh 127b, Rh 1140b, AA 197

As truth, truthfulness, this is a relative word to one form of wer-a, as it meant prove, in other words, to prove your truth, all about that type of thing.

wer-a (3) 16, war-a (4), afries., sw. V. (1): nhd. verteidigen, abwehren; ne. defend;

ÜG.: lat. dÐfendere AB (94, 6); Vw.: s. bi-, *of-; Hw.: s. wer-e-re; vgl. got.

warjan*, an. verja (4), ae. wrian (1), as. werian* (2), ahd. werien* (1); Q.: E, R,

W, H, B, AB (94, 6), AA 102; E.: germ. *warjan, sw. V., wehren, abhalten,

schützen; idg. *øer- (5), V., schließen, decken, schützen, retten, wehren, abwehren,

Pokorny 1160; W.: nfries. werren, V., verteidigen, abwehren; L.: Hh 127b, Rh

1136b, AA 102

wÐr-a (1) 6, afries., sw. V. (1): nhd. beweisen; ne. prove; Hw.: s. wÐr-ia; vgl. ahd.

wõren*; Q.: R, W, S; E.: germ. *wÐrjan, *wÚrjan, sw. V., beweisen; s. idg. *øer-

(11), *øerý-. Sb., Freundlichkeit, Pokorny 1165; L.: Hh 127b, Rh 1136b

What I said, to be liable, is another wera:

wer-a (2) 1, war-a (3), afries., sw. V. (1): nhd. Gewähr leisten, einstehen; ne. be

liable; Hw.: vgl. ahd. werÐn* (1); Q.: E, AA 102; E.: s. germ. *wera, Sb., Vertrag,

Bündnis; vgl. idg. *øer- (11), *øerý-, Sb., Freundlichkeit, Pokorny 1165; L.: Hh

127b, Rh 1136a, AA 102

All these words would be relative to defending the truth, being liable.

Liable meaning:

liable[lahy-uh-buhl] Adsli·a·ble   /ˈlaɪəbəl/ Show Spelled[lahy-uh-buhl] Show IPA

adjective

1. legally responsible: You are liable for the damage caused by your action.

Synonyms

1. obliged, accountable

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liable

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can go with whatever you like but I wouldn't write off what I said - wer-a as having been wer-ha once, to be liable. In that sentence it's not wer it's wer-ha.

It's possible that all those words are somehow originally related, but let's be practical and to the point.

How would you translate this then (page 79):

page79wer_ha.jpg

Give it your best shot!

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that all those words are somehow originally related, but let's be practical and to the point.

How would you translate this then (page 79):

page79wer_ha.jpg

Give it your best shot!

:tu:

You were speaking about that word and considered changing it, Knul asked if there might be anything else that could fit and I gave you an alternative, that seems quite likely imo. No need for me to strain my brain trying to translate this whole text right now. That is my alternative word for wer-ha.

I'll give you this though:

nildet will be: n-i-l-l-a 60, n-e-l-l-a, afries., sw. V. (1): nhd. nicht wollen (V.); ne. not want (V.);

Hw.: s. wi-l-l-a (2); Q.: B, E, W, R, H, L 9; E.: s. ne, wi-l-l-a (2); L.: Hh 76a, Rh

944a

navt= not/naught or born/navel

wer-ha= be liable

Could be something like: (the) Mother (did) not want to bear the liability (of it).

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be something like: (the) Mother (did) not want to bear the liability (of it).

Doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly, but it's not a new idea. Assyriologist Julius Oppert first opened up the can of worms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Oppert

Hitti.JPG

http://aleximreh.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/gotvand-land-of-goti-in-iran/

The mere suggestion that these Aryans may have been in Sumeria was so destructive to Semitic theories, it has been brushed under the carpet.

You, Abe, you say something should be found from the OLB, everything can be found...

Next to nothing is known about their origins, as no "Gutian" artifacts have surfaced from that time; little information is gleaned from the contemporary sources.[4] Nothing is known of their language either, apart from those Sumerian king names, and that it was distinct from other known languages of the region (such as Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian, Hittite and Elamite).

How convenient (for the anti-Goths were Gutians crowd) NOTHING can be found from the Gutians, no artifacts, nothing. :ph34r:

Lol, with your quote you prove me right: "Next to nothing is known about their origins", so anyone is free to make up what they want.

And like I posted long ago, it became quite popular in the 19th century to consider Northern Europe the craddle of "Aryan" civilization, no doubt based on or supported by the works of someone like Oppert.

And this, "Ingvi's-son" as the explanation for the name of one of their kings... Check the Old Norse dictionary for something like "shush" meaning "son". There's nothing even close to that word meaning "son".

Anyone can write a Wiki page, and I always check the sources before I quote from it, but you will find no source for that etymology.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dutch weer (again, back) = whither. So the sentence would read: thju moder nildet wither ha.On the other hand Dutch weren = wera. Are there other possibilities ? I think of the meaning [ge]weren = ergens mee instemmen, akkoord gaan, Eng. to agree, German gewaehren, billigen, eiverstanden sein.

Menno, I just read you transliterated the sentence Otharus started about like this:

Thju Moder wildet navt wêrha (OLB page 79)

http://rodinbook.nl/olboriginelepaginering.html

I guess that -w- instead of an -n- in 'wildet' was a typo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Menno, I just read you transliterated the sentence Otharus started about like this:

Thju Moder wildet navt wêrha (OLB page 79)

http://rodinbook.nl/olboriginelepaginering.html

I guess that -w- instead of an -n- in 'wildet' was a typo.

Plus wêr and ha are separated by a dot in the manuscript.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The next writer, Edred Thorsson (real name Stephen E. Flowers) wrote a book about runes, their history and use:

Runelore: a handbook of esoteric runology - Edred Thorsson

http://books.google.nl/books?id=TL_lPRMWAdMC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=Runelore+edred+thorsson&source=bl&ots=kUW4gApLPM&sig=Bb8ciPZjK1cEYgH_-KRgbSYk-eg&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=4_sOT9boC8WhOtHWrJcD&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Runelore%20edred%20thorsson&f=false

I once bought the book because I was interested in Vikings and their writing, not because of the 'divination' stuff.

OK, now read Page 57/58 (Fig. 4.1: 'Hex' sign ) and page 122 (about the 'hagalaz' rune / Fig. 9.1).

I read the book, but nowhere did he mention the OLB.

Hex_sign.jpg

Hagalaz_rune.jpg

+++++

EDIT:

What he has to say about the origin of the runes is also quite interesting:

Runes_Etruscan.jpg

Here a Wiki about that Negau helmet:

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

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus wêr and ha are separated by a dot in the manuscript.

I have corrected wildet in nildet, though the mistake is Ottema's (see: 2nd edition page 110 line 5). In fact I am not allowed to correct his text, but in this case the mistake was clear. In fact I was bothered about the dot in the word wêr.ha as it should indicate a single word or verb, because this dot does not indicate the end of a sentence. The verb could be wêr.ha = waarhebben, Eng. acknowledge, accept, agree with. Otharus did not comment on this. The matter has been discussed before and then I accepted Otharus view, but now there is some doubt. In the example 153/09 lacks the dot.

Edited by Knul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense or I wouldn't have said it.

The mother would not accept the responsibility or liability of their return so didn't want them back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have corrected wildet in nildet, though the mistake is Ottema's (see: 2nd edition page 110 line 5). In fact I am not allowed to correct his text, but in this case the mistake was clear. In fact I was bothered about the dot in the word wêr.ha as it should indicate a single word or verb, because this dot does not indicate the end of a sentence. The verb could be wêr.ha = waarhebben, Eng. acknowledge, accept, agree with. Otharus did not comment on this. The matter has been discussed before and then I accepted Otharus view, but now there is some doubt. In the example 153/09 lacks the dot.

Instead of correcting Ottema's text, you could add notes to show where he went wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was bothered about the dot in the word wêr.ha as it should indicate a single word or verb, because this dot does not indicate the end of a sentence.

The verb could be wêr.ha = waarhebben, Eng. acknowledge, accept, agree with.

Otharus did not comment on this.

The matter has been discussed before and then I accepted Otharus view, but now there is some doubt.

In the example 153/09 lacks the dot.

Dots are not always used consequently in the text, in fact, the spelling has much variety anyway.

In my opinion, the dot here can mean two things:

- the copyist wrote the words too closely together and decided to seperate them with a dot

- the combination was indeed used as a seperable verb (samengesteld werkwoord); weer-hebben = weer-krijgen = terug-krijgen (like weer-spreken, weg-lopen etc.)

Anyway, from the context, it's quite obvious (imo) that the sentence says that the Mother didn't want to have the Denmarks back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes perfect sense or I wouldn't have said it.

Ofcourse it must have made some sort of sentence to you.

I should have said that it made less sense to me than WÉR.HA = weer-hebben = have back (retrieve).

You must be extremely intelligent, but when I invited you to try and translate that fragment, I highly overestimated you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I have been wondering about throughout this thread is that no other example of the OLB script has been found anywhere, except in the OLB itself.

Did these northern Europeans have a script? Did they write?

According to a former post of mine here, one of the earliest Germanic sentences (on the Negau helmet, 300 BCE) was written in Etruscan.

And then this (runes):

Cornelius Tacitus, Germany and its Tribes (chapter 10)

Alfred John Church, William Jackson Brodribb, Ed.

Augury and divination by lot no people practise more diligently. The use of the lots is simple. A little bough is lopped off a fruit-bearing tree, and cut into small pieces; these are distinguished by certain marks, and thrown carelessly and at random over a white garment. In public questions the priest of the particular state, in private the father of the family, invokes the gods, and, with his eyes towards heaven, takes up each piece three times, and finds in them a meaning according to the mark previously impressed on them. If they prove unfavourable, there is no further consultation that day about the matter; if they sanction it, the confirmation of augury is still required. For they are also familiar with the practice of consulting the notes and the flight of birds. It is peculiar to this people to seek omens and monitions from horses. Kept at the public expense, in these same woods and groves, are white horses, pure from the taint of earthly labour; these are yoked to a sacred car, and accompanied by the priest and the king, or chief of the tribe, who note their neighings and snortings. No species of augury is more trusted, not only by the people and by the nobility, but also by the priests, who regard themselves as the ministers of the gods, and the horses as acquainted with their will. They have also another method of observing auspices, by which they seek to learn the result of an important war. Having taken, by whatever means, a prisoner from the tribe with whom they are at war, they pit him against a picked man of their own tribe, each combatant using the weapons of their country. The victory of the one or the other is accepted as an indication of the issue.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Tac.+Ger.+10&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0083

And Greek:

The Gallic War (De Bello Gallico) by Julius Caesar

Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb

Book I Chapter 29: March of the Helvetii. Census of the Helvetii.[58 BC]

In the camp of the Helvetii, lists were found, drawn up in Greek characters, and were brought to Caesar, in which an estimate had been drawn up, name by name, of the number which had gone forth from their country of those who were able to bear arms and likewise the boys, the old men, and the women, separately.

http://romansonline.com/Src_Frame.asp?DocID=Dbg_Bk01_29

So, we do have examples/indications of the use of runes, and of Etruscan and Greek characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about ancient European script...

Does anyone remember that find of a Minoan ship near Denmark I posted about ages ago? (post 1944 http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=184645&st=1935&p=3670892entry3670892 )

Well, it gets better (read the whole article):

bilde.jpg

tegn2.jpg

Linear A inscription discovered in 1987 on a rock panel in Kongsberg, Norway, approx. 1700 BC. The Linear A signs beneath were photocopied from “Inscribed Tablets and Pithos of Linear A System from Zakro”, by N. Platonos and W. Brice (1975). The cup form of the pi sign is characteristic also of the pi sign pecked into the rock, but this copy is from the Norwegian semitist, Ph.D. Kjell Aartun’s list in Die Minoische Schrift. Band I. The rock panel, with pictures of carvings, is described under chapter 5 Kongsberg.

http://jarnaes.wordpress.com/1-minoan-crete-linear-a/

But still... NO other examples of the OLB script, anywhere.

Why? Did they feel ashamed of their script?

If this Linear A inscription is really what they think it is, why is it (already in 1700 BC) so totally different from the OLB script?

209grammikh-a-site.jpg

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the OLB:

WHAT IS WRITTEN HEREUNDER IS INSCRIBED ON THE WALLS OF WARABURGT.

(...)

In her time Finda also invented a mode of writing, but that was so high-flown and full of flourishes that her descendants have soon lost the meaning of it.

Afterwards they learned our writingthat is, the Finns, the Thyriers, and the Krekalanders but they did not know that it was taken from the Juul, and must therefore always be written round like the sun. Furthermore, they wished that their writing should be illegible by other people, because they always had matters to conceal. In doing this they acted very unwisely, because their children could only with great difficulty read the writings of their predecessors, whereas our most ancient writings are as easy to read as those that were written yesterday.

http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/

Those Minoans of my former post must have been those Krekalanders.

Linear A seems to have been used as a complete syllabary around 19001800 BC, although several signs appear earlier as mason marks. It is possible that the Trojan Linear A scripts that were discovered by Heinrich Schliemann and one inscription from central Crete, as well as a few similar potters' marks from Lahun, Egypt (12th dynasty), come from an earlier period, ca. 21001900 BC, which coincides with the construction of the first palaces.

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

So, if we believe the OLB then these Cretans rejected the OLB script as early as 2100 BC, and only because they didn't understand it was created using the Yule wheel, and because they wished their writing to be illegible by other people.

The OLB looks clear and simple, Linear A doesn't look anything like that. Would anyone seriously believe that they rejected the OLB script for the reasons mentioned?

The Phoenician script was adopted by most peoples the Phoenicians encountered because.... it was practical and easy to use.

"No" says the OLB, "they made it complicated because they were dumb, and to hide the true meanning of what was written".

Yeah, right.

+++++++

EDIT:

And let's not forget that we can still read what the "Heinde Krekalanders" wrote, the Romans I mean... "they wished that their writing should be illegible by other people"

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit more about those Minoans: http://jarnaes.wordpress.com/kongsberg/

(Scroll to:)

Rock panel with carvings (Helleristning) I

Petroglyphs

Near to this cup mark, there is a figure which may represent a boat. With the high, upright stern and prow, equally high as what could be the mast, it looks like a ship rendered on a Mycenean vase from late Minoan time ( Ernst Kjellberg og Gösta Säflund, Græsk og Romersk Kunst, 1962, p. 31). To the left is the Linear A inscription, with the signs tu yu pi ti. The ship figure is pecked into the rock with the same technique as used in the inscription and the cup mark.

...and so on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about ancient European script...

Does anyone remember that find of a Minoan ship near Denmark I posted about ages ago? (post 1944 http://www.unexplain...2 )

Well, it gets better (read the whole article):

bilde.jpg

tegn2.jpg

Linear A inscription discovered in 1987 on a rock panel in Kongsberg, Norway, approx. 1700 BC. The Linear A signs beneath were photocopied from "Inscribed Tablets and Pithos of Linear A System from Zakro", by N. Platonos and W. Brice (1975). The cup form of the pi sign is characteristic also of the pi sign pecked into the rock, but this copy is from the Norwegian semitist, Ph.D. Kjell Aartun's list in Die Minoische Schrift. Band I. The rock panel, with pictures of carvings, is described under chapter 5 Kongsberg.

http://jarnaes.wordp...crete-linear-a/

But still... NO other examples of the OLB script, anywhere.

Why? Did they feel ashamed of their script?

If this Linear A inscription is really what they think it is, why is it (already in 1700 BC) so totally different from the OLB script?

209grammikh-a-site.jpg

.

The so called Linear A inscription of Kongsberg might well be a hoax. The article says, that Dr. Aartun translated the text, but ... Linear A has not yet been deciphered at all. The same applies to the Diskos of Phaistos, which shows up in the article.So far only the later Linear B has been deciphered and appears to be Greek.

Edited by Knul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of correcting Ottema's text, you could add notes to show where he went wrong?

I just render Ottema's text like Sandbach's, Wirth's, etc. as it has been printed. I found many mistakes in Ottema's transcription and translation and I do not agree with many of his footnotes. I rather deal with the OLB itself than with the shortcomings of its transriptions, etc.I understood, that you are busy with the proper transcription. So you may add such remarks.

Edited by Knul

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.