[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

[The Puzzler]

The Chronicle of Fredegar in turn reveals that the Franks believed the Sicambri to be a tribe of Scythian or Cimmerian descent, who had changed their name to Franks in honour of their chieftain Franco in 11 BC.

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

The OLB also says the Franks called themselves Franks after their leader Frank (Franco above). Dated at 11BC here.

If you read the Scythian article, one could amost picture the Fryans as being of a Scythian type, short or medium length tunics, tall, blonde or red hair, Euro types, the pointy hats are a sure sign they were everywhere, so they seem to be Tocharians as well as developed into Celtic types and it's mentioned they had blue eyes as well.

Based on such accounts of Scythian founders of certain Germanic as well as Celtic tribes, British historiography in the British Empire period such as Sharon Turner in his History of the Anglo-Saxons, made them the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons.

Edited March 3, 2012 by The Puzzler

[Van Gorp]

You seem to state it as fact that science has already all the answers as to when the climate change happened and what caused it. See Abe's post above:

Secondly, how do you explain the Book of Enoch's description? (as well as the OLB and all the other ancient scribes I quoted here before)

Thirdly, how do you explain the global floods and tsunamis and the demise of all those civilizations that collapsed suddenly and all at the same time in ca 2200 BC if the changes occured "gradually" over thousands of years?

Fourthly how do you explain the sudden change in the salinity of the North African fresh water lakes and the sudden increase in the salt content of the ground at Tell Leilan - all around 2200 BC (and how come North Africa turned into desert after ca 2000 BC.)

Why don't you "speculate" a bit and give us a single scenario that explain all these happenings around 2200 BC? (Please don't try to tell us all these events were not connected because that would be very naïve)

My so-called "speculation" is based on my interpretation of scientific facts and I stand by what I said here and in my book.

If it comes to speculation: glad to join the bus.

My idea:

1) First of all: Duinkerke and Calais transgressions are not proven to be wrong, only claimed to be wrong.

You can't ignore this subject when talking about the lowlands and OLB.

It's obvious: no solid ground is found for claiming that this theory "doesn't stand anymore".

Too ridiculous to come with C14, blocking WIKI editors who tell otherwise ...

The guy that pretends that this theory is outdated even admits it's other theories give less certainty about what transpired!

As usual, the denying comes from people who didn't bother to investigate open minded.

Not conveniant for Dutch history so we tell it's outdated.

2) Reconsider all what Delahaye/Ijpelaan and others have investigated, and you'll make it yourself way easier. It fits perfectly with OLB, if you just open the 'Frisian' box!

Sorry for the Dutch, but I think they are close to face their own fabricated history and replace it with the truth -> that land is younger than pretended.

4) Many names in OLB point to Nord-Pas-De-Calais-Bethuwe-Artois (Artesië)-...: another thing difficult to ignore.

Well, you can choose to do but that's your choice leaving out the obvious.

5) Mining activities in neighbourhood and Britain via Channel connect the dots

I think Halouin (sorry Alewyn, phonetical writing takes over sometimes ;-) needs to go further with his work: i like him.

Schrieck thought that the 'Romain' scribes where Romanizing events when talking about 'big fires and burning rivers'.

I think Schrieck hadn't the occasion yet to see 'The Matrix' to be pointed to fact 'How deep the rabbit's hole goes' :-)

Europa depending M�nster 1489(Zuid up, North below) Notice Nederland: half flooded!

Delahaye's text about transgressions and dates

Een landwaartse verschuiving van de kustlijn.

Er wordt gesproken over de Calais Transgressie van 4000 - 2000 VC. Daarnaast over de Duinkerkse Transgressie

De Duinkerkse transgressie I, II en III. Een meer bepaalde indeling is deze

De II = van 400 - 800 NC

De IIIa = van 800 -1050

Uit de Website van Antwerpen: Ten tijde van de Romeinen vloeide de Schelde nog in de Maas ter hoogte van Vlaardingen. De Duinkerkse transgressies in de vroege Middeleeuwen veroorzaakten erosie in Zeeland. De Schelde kon dan rechtstreeks naar de Noordzee vloeien (naar Vandamme, 1986). In de 11e en 12e eeuw, met de laatste Duinkerkse transgressie, is de Honte als zeearm doorgestoken en verlegde de Schelde langs die weg zijn verbinding naar zee.

[Otharus]

"Over den loop der Rivieren door het land der Friezen en Batavieren in het Romeinsche Tijdperk" by Dr. J.G. Ottema in De Vrije Fries 4 (1846) p.125.

Not published online before (as far as I know):

Jan Ottema´s pre-OLB Land der Friezen (1851)

(reconstruction of ca. year zero)

p. 49 of "Het Fries Genootschap 1827-2002" (2002)

Edited March 3, 2012 by Otharus

[Otharus]

Even professional liars leave traces that make it possible - for people who read between the lines - to reconstruct some truth.

Here is another reveiling fragment of

"Om de erfenis van Friso ~ 175 jaar Fries Genootschap" by Goffe Jensma, published in "Het Fries Genootschap 1827-2002" (2002), from chapter 3: "Voorgeschiedenis, 1750-1827"

(translation, for original see attached scan; p.26)

The Frisian Society (Fries Genootschap) might not have been founded, if king Willem I [(1772–1843)] would not have convoked all 'patriotic historians and linguists' by Royal Order of 23 December 1826, to submit proposals for the concoction of a 'General Netherlandic History'.

Until then an enterprise like that had not been undertaken, despite of 'the great importance of such a history, that aims at cultivating love for the fatherland, stimulating civic virtue and maintaining the national character'.

At this occasion he had also promised money for plausible proposals, even if they would not be awarded.

Binkes [(founding secretary)] in his report referred to this Royal Order, which proves that the orientation of the Frisian Society at its own Frisian history, primarily has to be seen as a contribution to Netherlandic nation building.

The members of the Frisian Society considered the scientific Frisian historiography as part of a more comprehensive Netherlandic historiography, just like they saw Friesland as an integral part of the 'Kingdom of the Netherlands'.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Otharus

[Abramelin]

Not published online before (as far as I know):

Jan Ottema´s pre-OLB Land der Friezen (1851)

(reconstruction of ca. year zero)

p. 49 of "Het Fries Genootschap 1827-2002" (2002)

Yes, it was, but it's a map originally made by Bilderdijk, or better: Ottema's map was based on Bilderdijk's with a few adaptations. I'm not sure, but I think I read somewhere Ottema even saying he had used that other map to construct his own.

Here's the map again:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/36839/36839-h/36839-h.htm#Schetskaart

And click on the link on that site, and the size of the map will explode to something huge.

.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

If it comes to speculation: glad to join the bus.

My idea:

1) First of all: Duinkerke and Calais transgressions are not proven to be wrong, only claimed to be wrong.

You can't ignore this subject when talking about the lowlands and OLB.

It's obvious: no solid ground is found for claiming that this theory "doesn't stand anymore".

Too ridiculous to come with C14, blocking WIKI editors who tell otherwise ...

The guy that pretends that this theory is outdated even admits it's other theories give less certainty about what transpired!

As usual, the denying comes from people who didn't bother to investigate open minded.

Not conveniant for Dutch history so we tell it's outdated.

2) Reconsider all what Delahaye/Ijpelaan and others have investigated, and you'll make it yourself way easier. It fits perfectly with OLB, if you just open the 'Frisian' box!

Sorry for the Dutch, but I think they are close to face their own fabricated history and replace it with the truth -> that land is younger than pretended.

4) Many names in OLB point to Nord-Pas-De-Calais-Bethuwe-Artois (Artesië)-...: another thing difficult to ignore.

Well, you can choose to do but that's your choice leaving out the obvious.

5) Mining activities in neighbourhood and Britain via Channel connect the dots

I think Halouin (sorry Alewyn, phonetical writing takes over sometimes ;-) needs to go further with his work: i like him.

Schrieck thought that the 'Romain' scribes where Romanizing events when talking about 'big fires and burning rivers'.

I think Schrieck hadn't the occasion yet to see 'The Matrix' to be pointed to fact 'How deep the rabbit's hole goes' :-)

Europa depending M�nster 1489(Zuid up, North below) Notice Nederland: half flooded!

Delahaye's text about transgressions and dates

Een landwaartse verschuiving van de kustlijn.

Er wordt gesproken over de Calais Transgressie van 4000 - 2000 VC. Daarnaast over de Duinkerkse Transgressie

De Duinkerkse transgressie I, II en III. Een meer bepaalde indeling is deze

De II = van 400 - 800 NC

De IIIa = van 800 -1050

Uit de Website van Antwerpen: Ten tijde van de Romeinen vloeide de Schelde nog in de Maas ter hoogte van Vlaardingen. De Duinkerkse transgressies in de vroege Middeleeuwen veroorzaakten erosie in Zeeland. De Schelde kon dan rechtstreeks naar de Noordzee vloeien (naar Vandamme, 1986). In de 11e en 12e eeuw, met de laatste Duinkerkse transgressie, is de Honte als zeearm doorgestoken en verlegde de Schelde langs die weg zijn verbinding naar zee.

I posted this long ago, but have a look at this Dutch Wiki about the Dunkirk Transgressions:

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duinkerke-transgressies

And a Delahaye also used a map based on Ptolemy. What he conveniently left out is that both Scotland and Denmark are rotated clockwise on that map. If the Netherlands were flooded as he thought to have proven by that map, then Denmark and Scotland should now also look different.

And Ptolemy depicted Scandinavia as an island. Is it, you think?

.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Abramelin

[Otharus]

Yes, it was, but it's a map originally made by Bilderdijk, or better: Ottema's map was based on Bilderdijk's with a few adaptations.

I'm not sure, but I think I read somewhere Ottema even saying he had used that other map to construct his own.

OK thanks, it had not been posted in this thread yet, had it?

[Abramelin]

OK thanks, it had not been posted in this thread yet, had it?

Great, I got a "Whoops!!" notification.

....sigh... I will try again.

===========

Not Ottema's map itself as far as I remember, But I did save that map on PhotoBucket years ago, and I am sure I have posted that link in my former post also long ago.

Another thing: I have been staring at some 16th and 17th century map of the Netherlands.

Here's on from North-Holland:

http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/cgi/i/image/image-idx?sid=4723015a3932a74092ba08e65cf7c61b;med=1;q1=carto;rgn1=carto_all;size=20;c=carto;lasttype=boolean;view=entry;lastview=thumbfull;subview=detail;cc=carto;entryid=x-404694314;viewid=WX008.TIF;start=241;resnum=257

I have tried to find Knul's ringdijk in Andijk ("Waraburcht"?) but I can't evenfind Andijk, lol.

Or is it "Oudendijk" (between Medemblik and Enkhuizen, at the coast) ?

.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Abramelin

[Otharus]

Another thing: I have been staring at some 16th and 17th century map of the Netherlands.

Here's on from North-Holland:

http://...

On my screen I get "Missing Plug-in", can't see the map.

Can you prt-sc and post it?

[Abramelin]

On my screen I get "Missing Plug-in", can't see the map.

Can you prt-sc and post it?

Here it is:

(north is to the right)

++++++

I checked a modern map, and Andijk must be further to the east, so it's not Oudendijk. But on that old map there is no Andijk to be found. And no ringdike either, but maybe that's because of the scale used for the map.

(north is up)

.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Abramelin

[Otharus]

I checked a modern map, and Andijk must be further to the east, so it's not Oudendijk. But on that old map there is no Andijk to be found. And no ringdike either, but maybe that's because of the scale used for the map.

The Oudendijk on that map is now known as Onderdijk.

[Abramelin]

The Oudendijk on that map is now known as Onderdijk.

Yeah, it does indeed look that way.

I hope Knul shows up and tells us how old that ringdike in Andijk is. Can't find anything about it.

[Van Gorp]

I posted this long ago, but have a look at this Dutch Wiki about the Dunkirk Transgressions:

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duinkerke-transgressies

And a Delahaye also used a map based on Ptolemy. What he conveniently left out is that both Scotland and Denmark are rotated clockwise on that map. If the Netherlands were flooded as he thought to have proven by that map, then Denmark and Scotland should now also look different.

And Ptolemy depicted Scandinavia as an island. Is it, you think?

.

It's not that you posted it long ago, all is said & done :-)

Exactly my point that WIKI link. I also know the initial article was different, I can give a link to:

Original

PS: The original poster is blocked now.

I also had a view how it came about:

A (sker) : "Hey, can anybody give me some info about those costline transgressions?"

B (etween) : "You should contact specialist C"

C (pesialict): "The current page should be altered because hassle with C14 determination (sic!), but no problem we have a new theorie. I don't have the time to give many in depth insights here for WIKI, but it's the latest view we accept so can you can take also. Though i admit, not that much explaining but at least we can start the process to tackle that annoying transgression theory. That's the way it goes in science world."

D (oubter) : "I didn't knew that there was new theory replacing the much examined (local on the field) transgression facts. I can hear many other specialists still referring to this fact"

B (etween) : "People for god sake! Keep up a little with the latest news will you. We are getting nowhere if you don't accept what our cpesialict has just said."

Danemark looks quite different on Ptomelys maps, but there is point: Ptolemy's maps have a artistic edge. But what old maps didn't if i take a quick view :-)

Delahaye went way further than just building his case on maps.

As he was appointed scientific archivist in Nijmegen, I think he had a sources and manuscripts a volonté.

Fine thing is, the man did something with it.

But what science is needed to locate European area's that where last flooded? The ones that are hasting theirselves to prevent the same now lol

[Abramelin]

I have news for you: LOOK at Ptolemy's map.

If you want to believe his impression of how the Low Lands must have looked like 2000 years ago, then you will also have to believe how he thought Scotland looked like, or Denmark, or Scandinavia. But you conveniently left that out.

And the Dunkirk Transgression theories have been abandoned decades ago, based on new scientific finds.

And Delahaye based a lot of his theories on what he knew of scientific finds.

Alas, science evolves fast, but people's minds and opinions do not.

++++++

EDIT:

Ptolemy's charts have nothing to do with art. The guy was a scientist.

He gave us all coordinates in his scriptures, and by that we built his charts.

.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Abramelin

[Van Gorp]

I have news for you: LOOK at Ptolemy's map.

If you want to believe his impression of how the Low Lands must have looked like 2000 years ago, then you will also have to believe how he thought Scotland looked like, or Denmark, or Scandinavia. But you conveniently left that out.

And the Dunkirk Transgression theories have been abandoned decades ago, based on new scientific finds.

And Delahaye based a lot of his theories on what he knew of scientific finds.

Alas, science evolves fast, but people's minds and opinions do not.

++++++

EDIT:

Ptolemy's charts have nothing to do with art. The guy was a scientist.

He gave us all coordinates in his scriptures, and by that we built his charts.

.

Ptomely fetish Abe? ;-)

You bring up Ptomely, I don't care.

I believe in the analyses done by Delahaye(as Nijmegens archivaris) on different fields, understated by other investigations as done by Ijpelaan, understated by historical works of people living there.

You can keep repeating that Duinkerke regression was abanded decades ago, that happens to be something not usefull for me. Not just in this case, but in general.

You still think science is ligna recta newer and better, all happy consensus of what is right and what is wrong?

Because who has abanded this theorie? Certainly not all the ones that did the investigations.

Maybe you or other readers? Fine, even other scientists, fine.

The thing is: the study of all those name switches from Nord-Pas-Calais-Noormandie-Artesia to Nederland even stands on its own.

Ijpelaan, stands on its own.

[Abramelin]

Ptomely fetish Abe? ;-)

You bring up Ptomely, I don't care.

I believe in the analyses done by Delahaye(as Nijmegens archivaris) on different fields, understated by other investigations as done by Ijpelaan, understated by historical works of people living there.

You can keep repeating that Duinkerke regression was abanded decades ago, that happens to be something not usefull for me. Not just in this case, but in general.

You still think science is ligna recta newer and better, all happy consensus of what is right and what is wrong?

Because who has abanded this theorie? Certainly not all the ones that did the investigations.

Maybe you or other readers? Fine, even other scientists, fine.

The thing is: the study of all those name switches from Nord-Pas-Calais-Noormandie-Artesia to Nederland even stands on its own.

Ijpelaan, stands on its own.

Delahaye USED Ptolemy's map, ok?

And science evolves, based on latest finds.

If you don't like it, then it is YOUR problem, not mine.

If it's "not useful to you", then ponder about why what would be really be 'useful' to you.

You just use whatever comes up your alley.

You come up with the most insane 'etymologies' even a 9 years old would feel ashamed of.

Delahaye is dead, and science evolved after he died. I can't help it, it is the way things go.

Delahaye was wrong, but he was no idiot.

In case you forgot: Delahaye was my 'hero', once.

But he has been proven wrong.

I didn' like it at all, but that is how things go.

People have ideas, theories, and then... they are proven wrong.

S**t happens, and we have to deal with it.

,.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Abramelin

[Van Gorp]

Delahaye USED Ptolemy's map, ok?

And science evolves, based on latest finds.

If you don't like it, then it is YOUR problem, not mine.

If it's "not useful to you", then ponder about why what would be really be 'useful' to you.

You just use whatever comes up your alley.

You come up with the most insane 'etymologies' even a 9 years old would feel ashamed of.

Delahaye is dead, and science evolved after he died. I can't help it, it is the way things go.

Delahaye was wrong, but he was no idiot.

In case you forgot: Delahaye was my 'hero', once.

But he has been proven wrong.

I didn' like it at all, but that is how things go.

People have ideas, theories, and then... they are proven wrong.

**** happens, and we have to deal with it.

Also a nice day Abe ;-)

I suppose it's just the communication style, and you're not really p***ed as i happen to sense a bit.

Those 9 year olds should not feel ashamed of anything, certainly not in case of alternative etymologies.

For them it's only wordplay.

I don't over-estimate myself in etymologie, i just practise sometimes linguistic freedom.

Admitting having found inspiration in real scientific and historical works that are not in line with i was told in school.

That gives me more insight in the meaning of words than the scientific or traditional etymologie (for me rather un-explaining concerning the true meaning of words).

Everybody can approach language at own insight, thank god.

For me just last remark about this, i accept your view and agree the traditional transgression model is being abanded more and more by science world (due to a more sophisticated model based on new science). No problem with that, i don't have to go along with that or oppose that neither. But only by that for me it is not proven that Delahaye was 'wrong', certainly not concerning the outcome of his studies.

Ijpelaan even suggests that those new studies you refer to (f.e. to my knowledge Baeten C. and others) don't make any difference for the conclusion of habitability, it just makes them more accurate :-) But that I leave to Ijpelaan

I must admit that Delahaye is not my hero. All credits for you, but i hope you can understand that does not make the case for any other one who wants to study what Delahaye did.

[Abramelin]

p***ed yes, but not "p***ed off by you", lol. More like p***ed in the ethanolic way, heh. Remember Ozzy Osbourne? When having an interview he always sort of excused himself for being 'p***ed', lol. I think the American word would be 'hammered'.

But the Dunkirk Transgressions Theory said that it all happened at the same time over a couple of ages, while they know now those floodings didn't happen at the same time all over the Netherlands and Flanders. They have found artifacts dating from a time the area they found those artifacts should have been flooded.

But Delahaye's theory about Nijmegen still holds strong, and I don't have any problems with that at all.

On the other hand, I do have doubts about his theory on Dorestad/Wijk bij Duurstede.

But what would any of his theories - even when proven true - do to the OLB?

The OLB narrative is about a period long before those transgressions.

[Knul]

Yeah, it does indeed look that way.

I hope Knul shows up and tells us how old that ringdike in Andijk is. Can't find anything about it.

I have no detailed old map of the area. So I refer to the OLB.

Here is the story (in Dutch):

[Pag.71-73]Dit staat aan de Waraburcht bij de Aldegamude gegrift. De Waraburcht is geen maagdenburcht, maar daarin werden alle uitheemse en buitenlandse dingen bewaard, die mee gebracht zijn door de zeelieden. Ze ligt drie palen, dat is een halftij ten zuiden van Medeasblik (Medemblik). Per etmaal is het tweekeer eb en vloed, elk gedurende zes uur. Onder halftij is drie uur te verstaan,overeenkomend met drie uur gaans, dat is 3 x 5 = 15 kilometer. Kunnen we aan de hand van deze afstand de ligging van de Waraburcht, Aldega en deAlde[r]gamude bepalen ? Op de eerste plaats was ik geneigd om aan de stad Hoorn^. te denken, ten zuiden van Medemblik, omdat in de Waraburcht (bewaarburcht) luxe goederen als schelpen,hoorns, wapens en klederen werden opgeslagen, die niet op de toelaatmarkten van Wieringen en Almenum (Harlingen) verkocht mochten worden. Luxe was immers in het door Calvinisme doordrongen Oera Linda Boek schadelijk voor de moraal vande Oude Friezen en in het bijzonder voor de jeugd, die daardoor een hekel (grijns)aan werken kreeg. De associatie met de Hoorn des Overvloeds is niet toevallig, want de huizen langs de Aldega of Alderga waren niet alleen rijk versierd, maar de schilden op de schepen blonken in de zon van het goud, waarmee ze omboord waren en de vrouwen droegen er gouden kronen op hun hoofden en sieraden om de armen en voeten. Luxe alom. Op de tweede plaats, omdat er sprake is van een havenplaats, waar schepen van eikenhout werden gebouwd. Het eikenhout zou afkomstig kunnen zijn van het Kreilerwoud, een groot bosrijk gebied, dat zich uitstrekte van de lijn Enkhuizen – Stavoren tot de Afsluitdijk. Dit oerbos is eerst ca. 1115 door het ontstaan van de Zuiderzee verloren gegaan. De Hollandse graaf Floris II de Vette heeft er nog een jachtconflict uitgevochten met de Friese edelman Gale Yges Galama, waarbij Galama werd geveld en Floris II de Vette zodanige verwondingen opliep, dat hij daaraan overleed. Zijn overlijden werd waarschijnlijk door zijn vrouw Petronella van Saksen geheim gehouden, omdat zijn kinderen nog te jong warenvoor erfopvolging en het graafschap in dat geval aan de Duitse keizer dreigde te vervallen. De eigendomsrechten zouden bovendien nog onderhandeld worden,maar dat hoefde niet meer, toen het land onder water was komen staan. Het probleem was van hogerhand opgelost. Als gevolg van de inbraak van de Zuiderzee werden de Kreil, Urk, Ens en Marken eilanden. Het eiland de Kreil is nog een poos asylum (d.w.z. gevangenis) geweest tot het ook onder de golven verdween. We vinden echter in West-Friesland een andere Horn, namelijk bij Andijk, eveneens zo'n drie uurgaans vanuit Medemblik. Daar treffen we de Oude Gouw, in het Westfries Ouwergouw aan (Aldega: alde= oude, ga =gouw), de Kleine Gouw, het buurtschap Horn, het Hornpad en de Hornsloot. De Oude Gouw mondt inEnkhuizen in de Zuiderzee uit, vanwaar de naam Alderga-munde, te vergelijken met Egmond = (H)egge-munde. Mogelijk hebben we hiermee de Waraburcht gelocaliseerd, langs de zeedijk inderdaad drie uur gaans (15 kilometer)vanaf Medemblik en een kwartier van Horn. De plaats Horn zelf lijkt gedeeltelijk door de Zuiderzee overspoeld tezijn. Mogelijk is de tegenwoordige plaats Hoorn gebouwd ter compensatie, zoals dat ook met Oud-Naarden en Naarden het geval is geweest. Hoorn lag in de vroege middeleeuwen verder van de Zuiderzee. De Hoornse Hop is echter pas tegen het einde van de 14^de eeuw ontstaan, nadat de oude zeedijk het had begeven.

Noot.

Piet Kistemaker Sr. schrijft over de Ouwergouw: 'Op een keer zoilde oom Stuk nei Streek met een vrachie piepers. Hoi was et Ouwergouw al voorboi, toe ie docht: ik loik wel dieper te leggen as aars... Op 't lest voelde ie hielkendal natteghoid... Nou, toe die ers achterom keek, wat kwam deer androiven? De boomvan de skuit, met de vracht! Hoi was met et bovenstik al vooruitzoild...!Vertaling: Op een keer zeilde oom Stuk met een vrachtje aardappelen. Hij was het Ouwergouw al voorbij, toen hij dacht: ik lijk wel dieper te liggen dan anders… Tenslotte voelde hij helemaal nattigheid… Nou, toen hij eens achterom keek, wat kwam daar aandrijven ? De boom van de schuit, met de vracht. Hij was met het bovenstuk al vooruitgezeild…! Bron: Piet Kistemaker Sr., Andijker muizen (42).

Edited March 4, 2012 by Knul

[Abramelin]

Oh brother, so I - or someone else - must translate for you?

[Knul]

Oh brother, so I - or someone else - must translate for you?

If you like.

[lilthor]

Oh brother, so I - or someone else - must translate for you?

Thank you in advance

[Knul]

OK thanks, it had not been posted in this thread yet, had it?

I draw your special attention to the location of the Brittenburg on the map of Ottema, not somewhere in the North Sea, but on the coast, close to Katwijk. Here are the coordinates, based on the oldest map of the Brittenburg by Ortelius (1562): 52,21015123º NB en 4,403288311º OL.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Knul

[Knul]

Abe, you wait for a confirmation by Halbertsma ? This is, what G.J. van der Mey (Kanttekeningen, 1978) tells:

Een geheel ander punt, maar ook zeer merkwaardig, is de afspraak of liever de belofte, die zijn broeder Dr. Eeltje Halbertsma hem deed om al zijn brieven te verbranden. Hierover schrijft Eeltje hem op 24-2-1844 (na een inleidend woord van Ds. C. P. Hoekema in Briefverkeer tussen Grouw en Deventer) als volgt: 'Het valt alleen maar te betreuren, dat deze correspondentie een hiaat vertoont, n.l. zo goed als ontbreken van alle brieven van Ds. Joost. De schuldige is de schrijver zelf. Immers in zijn brief van 24 februari 1844 schrijft Eeltje: 'Waarde Broeder ! Ik heb ingevolge uwe begeerte uwen brief verbrand gelijk ik met al uw schrifturen doe''. Was Joost bevreesd, dat zijn brieven aan Eeltje zouden rondslingeren, in handen zouden komen van Eeltjes vrouw, Baukje Fokkens, die toch al niet te veel met de Halbertsma's op had en via haar b.v. terecht zouden kunnen komen bij collega Van der Ploeg? Wij kunnen er op aan, dat de pittige stijl van Joost gestalte gaf aan een, even pittige inhoud, getuige andere geschriften en enkele bewaarde brieven, en dat deze inhoud voor sommige personen niet altijd even vleiend was. Dit verzoek had niets te maken met de scherpe pen van Halbertsma, want dan zou geen brief ongemoeid gebleven zijn, maar men wilde iets verbergen om ontdekking te voorkomen. De mededeling geeft steun aan het denkbeeld dat de fameuze Kroniek onderwerp is van de afspraak.

Summary: J.H. Halbertsma asked his brother to burn his letters. Obviously there was something to hide. The OLB ?

Edited March 5, 2012 by Knul

[Abramelin]

Abe, you wait for a confirmation by Halbertsma ? This is, what G.J. van der Mey (Kanttekeningen, 1978) tells:

Een geheel ander punt, maar ook zeer merkwaardig, is de afspraak of liever de belofte, die zijn broeder Dr. Eeltje Halbertsma hem deed om al zijn brieven te verbranden. Hierover schrijft Eeltje hem op 24-2-1844 (na een inleidend woord van Ds. C. P. Hoekema in Briefverkeer tussen Grouw en Deventer) als volgt: 'Het valt alleen maar te betreuren, dat deze correspondentie een hiaat vertoont, n.l. zo goed als ontbreken van alle brieven van Ds. Joost. De schuldige is de schrijver zelf. Immers in zijn brief van 24 februari 1844 schrijft Eeltje: 'Waarde Broeder ! Ik heb ingevolge uwe begeerte uwen brief verbrand gelijk ik met al uw schrifturen doe''. Was Joost bevreesd, dat zijn brieven aan Eeltje zouden rondslingeren, in handen zouden komen van Eeltjes vrouw, Baukje Fokkens, die toch al niet te veel met de Halbertsma's op had en via haar b.v. terecht zouden kunnen komen bij collega Van der Ploeg? Wij kunnen er op aan, dat de pittige stijl van Joost gestalte gaf aan een, even pittige inhoud, getuige andere geschriften en enkele bewaarde brieven, en dat deze inhoud voor sommige personen niet altijd even vleiend was. Dit verzoek had niets te maken met de scherpe pen van Halbertsma, want dan zou geen brief ongemoeid gebleven zijn, maar men wilde iets verbergen om ontdekking te voorkomen. De mededeling geeft steun aan het denkbeeld dat de fameuze Kroniek onderwerp is van de afspraak.

Summary: J.H. Halbertsma asked his brother to burn his letters. Obviously there was something to hide. The OLB ?

Translation:

A completely different point, but also very curious, is the appointment or rather the promise that his brother Dr. Eeltje Halbertsma made to him to burn all his letters. Eeltje writes about him on 2.24.1844 (after an introductory word by clergy C.P. Hoekema in "Letters between Grouw and Deventer") as follows: "It is only regrettable that this correspondence shows a gap, namely the absence of all letters of clergy Joost. The culprit is the writer himself. Indeed, in his letter of February 24, 1844 Eeltje writes: "My dear Brother! I burned your letter at your desire as I do with all your writings''. Was Joost afraid that his letters to Eeltje would be lying around, then come into the hands of Eeltjes wife Baukje Fokkens, who already did not think much of the Halbertsma's and through her could have turned up at his collegue Van der Ploeg? We can safely assume that the spirited style of Joost gave shape to an equally spirited content, as witnessed by other writings and some surviving letters, and that this content was not always very flattering for some people. This request had nothing to do with the sharp pen of Halbertsma, because then no letter would have remained untouched, but they wanted to hide something to avoid detection. This communication supports the idea that the famous Chronicle is the subject of the appointment.