Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

[Abramelin]

"and that OLB mentions Askars being asked to go help the Rus in Russia."

Can you tell me where in the OLB we can read about that?

-

Were those Prasi blond and blue-eyed, is it known they came from far away?

Was there a king called Friso in the Nanda Emipre?

-

The Magiar were the priest caste of a people called Finns, and probably the "Mager" from Willem van Haren's poem; these Magiar were Zoroastrians, like WvH's Friso.

-

Is the OLB version of Friso a Zoroastrian?

-

How is it possible for a group of people (Fryans) to live among a totally unrelated people (Indians) for 1200 years, and not change looks, religion and language.

[NO-ID-EA]

"and that OLB mentions Askars being asked to go help the Rus in Russia."

Can you tell me where in the OLB we can read about that?

-

Were those Prasi blond and blue-eyed, is it known they came from far away?

Was there a king called Friso in the Nanda Emipre?

-

The Magiar were the priest caste of a people called Finns, and probably the "Mager" from Willem van Haren's poem; these Magiar were Zoroastrians, like WvH's Friso.

-

Is the OLB version of Friso a Zoroastrian?

-

How is it possible for a group of people (Fryans) to live among a totally unrelated people (Indians) for 1200 years, and not change looks, religion and language.

Its not possible for them not to change , who said they would not change ? ...after all this time they would probably consider themselves Indians , but they could be aware from their traditions that they originally came from somewhere else.

www.raiputana.htmlplanet.com/scy_raj/scy_raj1.html

The Scythic origins of the Rajput race.............Chapter 1 ... about the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire , N.west and Western India was under the control of Scythic Empires, the scythic or Saka,SaccaKingdom stretched from the vindyas to the Oxus , from Bihar to Persia.

These mainly Sun worshipping and Zoroastrian kingdoms eventually collapsed as a result of Buddhism ...

Colonel Todd..."it is a singular fact that there is no available datafor pre 4th century Rajput families , all of whom were brought from the North there was a grand irruption of Getic races from central Asia, who established themselves in kingdoms in the Punjab and on the Indus . The Sakas are clearly distinct from the Aryas ,and Sogdians and Cathii are all representative of Scythian races ."..........."in addition the Sakas include Greek legends ,this indicates they were absorbed into the Rajputs of today, who possess a considerable Greek legacy ."

Chapter 2......Anthropologic Evidence.............The Rajputs belong to a Dolicocephalic (long heads) caucasoidal race and are one of the first races to enter India ,The Rajputs are related to Scythic races , are Tall and Fair , closely resembling their Scythic forbears , not unlike the Parthian Kings.

Chapter 3 ......Caesar informs us that the Celts of Britain would not eat either the Hare , the Goose , or Domestic Fowl ,The Rajputs will hunt the first , but will not eat them , Nor the Goose , as it is sacred top the God of hunting (Hara ) they will eat Jungle fowl , but will not eat any type of domesticated fowl .

Stone circles.... the Jesuits found stone circles among the Rajput Architecture .....Baron Metcalfe noted " it would not require great ingenuity to prove an analogy , if not a common origin between the druidic circles , and the Indo-Scythian monuments of the ancient Rajputs.

The Scythic Saccae worshipped a god calles "Gaeto Syrus " the Roman Sol , Sanskrit Surya , Nordic Thor ( the commentators of Edda mention the nordics pronounced Th as SS).... indeed the Saccae may well be the ancestors of Saxons in Europe , thus Sanskrit Surya may be derived from Scythic Syrus.

Unlike other Indians their religion is decidedly non Brahamanic , and they do not revere the vedas , nor do they consider the Brahmin s racial supremacy.

Look i am interested in trying to find out who the OLB people became when they went to India , if thats at all possible , if you have no interest in that , then just ignore my posts . no problem .

[The_Spartan]

Sorry, NO-ID-EA, the link doesn't work, for us to read the complete thread instead of the jumble you have posted.

Could you refer to a valid /working link?

Moreover, i have emailed a Rajput Historian about this particular claims/references given by you and i hope he could set the matter straight.

[Abramelin]

Sorry, NO-ID-EA, the link doesn't work, for us to read the complete thread instead of the jumble you have posted.

Could you refer to a valid /working link?

Moreover, i have emailed a Rajput Historian about this particular claims/references given by you and i hope he could set the matter straight.

I think this is the right link:

http://rajputana.htmlplanet.com/scy_raj/scy_raj1.html

[The_Spartan]

I think this is the right link:

http://rajputana.htm...j/scy_raj1.html

and look at the references of the article

1. `Punjab Castes', Sir Denzil Ibbetson, 1916, part of `Panjab Ethnography', Simla, 1883 (Report on Census of 1881, Punjab); reprinted in `Landmarks of Indian Anthropology', Vol. 17., Cosmo Publications, New Delhi 1987.
   
2. `Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han', or `The Central and Western Rapoot States of India', Lieut.-Col. James Tod in 2 vols., York Place, 1832, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.; reprint K.M.N. Publishers, New Delhi 1971.
   
3. `The Rajpoot Tribes', by C.T.Metcalfe, reprinted in `Landmarks in Indian Anthropology', vol.52 (i) & (ii), Cosmo Publications, N.Delhi 1987; p.1-257 in vol. 52(i), p.257ff in vol. 52(ii)
   
4. `New South Asia Policy and Collapse of the Brahminist Empire in South Asia', by G.S.Khalsa, published by Dr.Paramjit Singh Ajrawat, Sikh Educational Press, Canada 1997.
   
5. `The People of India' , by Sir H.H.Risley, 1915 2nd ed., ed. by Sir W. Crooke 1969
   

Ant and all of the references are studies dating to the1st 20 years of last century.

Loads and Lots of water have flown under the bridge since then.

New methods, including DNA analysis, tracking are now available.

The author of the article has not made the effort to base his research on scientific aspects also, but purely on anecdotal history.

[Abramelin]

and look at the references of the article

Ant and all of the references are studies dating to the1st 20 years of last century.

Loads and Lots of water have flown under the bridge since then.

New methods, including DNA analysis, tracking are now available.

The author of the article has not made the effort to base his research on scientific aspects also, but purely on anecdotal history.

Most are even older than that:

1881, 1883, 1832, 1987, 1997, 1915

http://rajputana.htmlplanet.com/scy_raj/scy_rajr.html

[Abramelin]

Its not possible for them not to change , who said they would not change ? ...after all this time they would probably consider themselves Indians , but they could be aware from their traditions that they originally came from somewhere else.

<snip>

Look i am interested in trying to find out who the OLB people became when they went to India , if thats at all possible , if you have no interest in that , then just ignore my posts . no problem .

The OLB never mentions Friso and his people as looking foreign, talking a foreign language, or having a foreign religion.

The same thing a Van den Bergh (19th century, decades before the OLB was published) wondered about concerning Friso, king of the Gangarides and Prasiates.

Page 347 of:

De Nederlandsche volksromans: eene bijdrage tot de geschiedenis onzer letterkunde.

Laurens Philippe Charles Van den Bergh

http://books.google....prasii"&f=false

I have said in part -1- of this thread thatr we should keep our eyes on this guy, Van den Bergh...

On page 244/245 of the pdf, he mentions 3 large migrations:

-1- from Middle-Asia to Europe, other parts of Asia and Northern Africa

-2- the great migration after the fall of Troy, when both the Troyans and the Greeks settled new colonies

-3- the migrations after the death of Alexander the Great.

Sounds familiar?

Page 262 Friso, or the origin of the Frisians

More than 3 centuries BC there was an empire along the shores of the Ganges, and it was called Fresia, also called Prasia or Pharasia. It was called Fresia bcause of its wealth.

Van den Bergh really believes this myth could be true, and also tries to explain the language 'problem'.

.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Some tidbits:

India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile.

http://archive.worldhistoria.com/printer_friendly_posts.asp?TID=10828

The ancient Greek name for the Himalayas, Hemodos is derived from the Sanskrit Haimavata or the Prakrit Haimota, both meaning “snowy”.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah14112/abstract;jsessionid=1FDC7782CDDDDF83E998BB333D9FCBB3.d02t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

Through the mist of vague reports and Jonesian misinterpretation it is difficult to recreate the course of events that led to the revolt at Beas which came as a serious jolt to Alexander's plans. Did the army refuse to fight the Prasii or only to march eastwards? The important point which all the writers miss is that the empire of the Prasii was not in the east as Jones taught but lay westward in the Gedrosia-Carmania-Seistan area. If Alexander had really wanted to move eastward it could not have been to conquer the Prasii. If he had learnt that the fertile plains of the Ganges were only few days march away and wanted to be there for mere expansion of his Empire, he could have expected little resistance.

http://www.newsfinder.org/site/more/poisoning_of_alexander_part_2/

Taxila

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=227240&st=510#entry4331893

Liudgert, father of Gosa was born west of the Punjab:

http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/#bx

[The_Spartan]

After 261 pages of discussion on the Orea Linda, may i ask all of you debaters, is there any authenticity to the book?

Is it a true account of History or is it a Hoax?

or is it some propaganda Fiction created to deliberately discredit someone?

or is it Just a work of fiction?

[Abramelin]

After 261 pages of discussion on the Orea Linda, may i ask all of you debaters, is there any authenticity to the book?

Is it a true account of History or is it a Hoax?

or is it some propaganda Fiction created to deliberately discredit someone?

or is it Just a work of fiction?

You can ask any of us, but I think you will get a different answer from each one.

In my opinion it is a fabrication.

Why was it created? That's another question.

Who did it? Several 19th century 'suspects', like Over de Linden, Halbertsma, Haverschmidt, Verwijs, Van den Bergh, and others.

It's kind of interesting to see how people - including me - reason. When you believe it is a true account of ancient European history, you will dig up old sources, like the writings of the ancient Romans and Greeks, or old Frisian legends, and see them as proof of the validity of the OLB. When you think it's a fabrication, you will use these same sources as proof it is a fabrication because these ancient writers/writings were known by the socalled suspects from the 19th century. Halbertsma, for one, had an incredibly extensive library on many topics and he spoke/understood many languages (French, German, English, Dutch, Frisian, Old Frisian, Old German, Gothic, Latin, Greek). Over de Linden also had lots of books covering many topics in the OLB.

And it's 261 + 776 = 1037 pages in total, lol. You forgot about part -1- of this thread.

.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Abramelin

[Van Gorp]

I don't have any issue with it being considered a fabrication.

Which account of history isn't?

[Abramelin]

I don't have any issue with it being considered a fabrication.

Which account of history isn't?

No, for you it is just an opportunity to post your play with language and etymology.

But all the others participating in this thread want to know how much of the MS is about real history and how much is not.

The nucleus of the OLB is this: there was once a European civilization (of before 2194 BCE to several centuries BCE) which stood for all things good, that influenced moral, language and culture in other countries (like around the Med, the Middle East and India). After a (global?) disaster (2194 BCE) things changed. Foreign people invaded Fryan (European) territory, and a couple of thousand years later all memory of this once great civilization was gone or diluted. And it were the fanatic Christians who finally did them in.

.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Abramelin

[Van Gorp]

No, for you it is just an opportunity to post your play with language and etymology.

But all the others participating in this thread want to know how much of the MS is about real history and how much is not.

The nucleus is this: there was once a European civilization (of before 2194 BCE to several centuries BCE) which stood for all things good, that influenced moral, language and culture in other countries (like around the Med, the Middle East and India).

Not totally so Abe, I'm also truely interested in what is real the MS is saying.

Only thing is I don't think all the other 'sources' by which the account of OLB is compared with is that genuine/scientific.

The sceptism about OLB is far greater than for all the other accounts (eg Tacitus: where is the search for prove of authenticity in that)

Known history is a fest of linking assumptions. Possibility: Greek script could be later than Latin script for instance.

The years mentionned in OLB makes it hard to believe, but imo just added to fit the framework people are used to.

[Knul]

After 261 pages of discussion on the Orea Linda, may i ask all of you debaters, is there any authenticity to the book?

Is it a true account of History or is it a Hoax?

or is it some propaganda Fiction created to deliberately discredit someone?

or is it Just a work of fiction?

My view: It's a hoax, written 1836-1845 by Dr. J.H. Halbertsma in a simplified Oldfrisian language. Halbertsma was a baptist minister, linguist and novellist (together with his two brothers).The year 1836 is meaningful, because in the OLB the word 'eigendommelijkheid' is used, which has been characterized as a new word by Mr. Jacob van Lennep in his Roos van Dekema (1836). The text of Halbertsma has been transcribed in juul-script by bookseller and printer Ernst Stadermann (Den Helder), friend of the owner of the MS Cornelis over de Linden. The key for the transcription is given in the OLB. The OLB is a draft text for a printer. When Stadermann died april 1867 the work had not yet been finished and parts were hidden in an eal smokery in Enkhuizen in order to get an old natural coating. Cornelis over de Linden then tried to sell the transcribed MS, but couldn't find anyone to translate the text.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Knul

[Abramelin]

Not totally so Abe, I'm also truely interested in what is real the MS is saying.

Only thing is I don't think all the other 'sources' by which the account of OLB is compared with is that genuine/scientific.

The sceptism about OLB is far greater than for all the other accounts (eg Tacitus: where is the search for prove of authenticity in that)

Known history is a fest of linking assumptions. Possibility: Greek script could be later than Latin script for instance.

The years mentionned in OLB makes it hard to believe, but imo just added to fit the framework people are used to.

The older sources may not be genuine, but they were available in the 19th century.

[Mario Dantas]

Proto-Indo-Europeans

The Proto-Indo-Europeans were the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE), areconstructed prehistoric language of Eurasia.

Knowledge of them comes chiefly from the linguistic reconstruction, along with material evidence from archaeology and archaeogenetics. According to some archaeologists, PIE speakers cannot be assumed to have been a single, identifiable people or tribe, but were a group of loosely related populations ancestral to the later, still partially prehistoric, Bronze Age Indo-Europeans. This view is held especially by archaeologists who posit an original homeland of vast extent and immense time depth. However, this view is not shared by linguists, as proto-languages generally occupy small geographical areas over a very limited time span, and are generally spoken by close-knit communities such as a single small tribe.

The Proto-Indo-Europeans in this sense likely lived during the late Neolithic, or roughly the 4th millennium BCE. Mainstream scholarship places them in the forest-steppe zone immediately to the north of the western end of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe. Some archaeologists would extend the time depth of PIE to the middle Neolithic (5500 to 4500 BCE) or even the early Neolithic (7500 to 5500 BCE), and suggest alternative location hypotheses.

By the late 3rd millennium BCE, offshoots of the Proto-Indo-Europeans had reached Anatolia, the Aegean, Western Europe, Central Asia and southern Siberia.^[1]

Culture

The following traits of the Proto-Indo-Europeans and their environment are widely agreed-upon but still hypothetical due to their reconstructed nature. Some of the basic facts are:

• stockbreeding and animal husbandry, including domesticated cattle, horses, and dogs^[2]
  
• agriculture and cereal cultivation, including technology commonly ascribed to late Neolithic farming communities, e.g., the plow^[3]
  
• a climate with winter snow^[4]
  
• transportation by or across water^[2]
  
• the solid wheel,^[2] used for wagons, but not yet chariots with spoked wheels^[5]
  
• worship of a sky god,^[3] *dyeus ph₂tēr (lit. "sky father"; > Ancient Greek Ζεύς (πατήρ) / Zeus (patēr); *dieu-ph₂tēr > Latin Jupiter; IllyrianDeipaturos)^[6][7]
  
• oral heroic poetry or song lyrics that used stock phrases such as imperishable fame^[2] and wine-dark sea
  
• a patrilineal kinship system based on relationships between men^[2]
  

The Proto-Indo-Europeans were a patrilineal society, relying largely on agriculture, but partly on animal husbandry, notably of cattle and sheep. They had domesticated horses – *eḱwos (cf. Latin equus). The cow (*gwous) played a central role, in religion and mythology as well as in daily life. A man's wealth would have been measured by the number of his animals (small livestock), *peḱus (cf. English fee, Latin pecunia).

They practiced a polytheistic religion centered on sacrificial rites, probably administered by a priestly caste. Burials in barrows or tombchambers apply to the kurgan culture, in accordance with the original version of the Kurgan hypothesis, but not to the previous Sredny Stog culture nor to the contemporary Corded Ware culture, both of which cultures are also generally associated with PIE. Important leaders would have been buried with their belongings in kurgans, and possibly also with members of their households or wives (human sacrifice, suttee).

Many Indo-European societies know a threefold division of priests, a warrior class, and a class of peasants or husbandmen. Such a division was suggested for the Proto-Indo-European society by Georges Dumézil.

If there was a separate class of warriors, it probably consisted of single young men. They would have followed a separate warrior codeunacceptable in the society outside their peer-group. Traces of initiation rites in several Indo-European societies suggest that this group identified itself with wolves or dogs (see also Berserker, werewolf).

As for technology, reconstruction indicates a culture of the late Neolithic bordering on the early Bronze Age, with tools and weapons of very likely of "natural bronze" (i.e., made from copper ore naturally rich in silicon or arsenic). Silver and gold were known, but not silver smelting (as PIE has no word for lead, a by-product of silver smelting), thus suggesting that silver was imported. Sheep were kept for wool, and textiles werewoven. The wheel was known, certainly for ox-drawn wagons.

History of research

There have been many attempts to claim that particular prehistoric cultures can be identified with the Proto-Indo-European-speaking peoples, but all have been speculative. All attempts to identify an actual people with an unattested language depend on a sound reconstruction of that language that allows identification of cultural concepts and environmental factors which may be associated with particular cultures (such as the use of metals, agriculture vs. pastoralism, geographically distinctive plants and animals, etc.).

The scholars of the 19th century who first tackled the question of the Indo-Europeans' original homeland (also called Urheimat, from German), were essentially confined to linguistic evidence. A rough localization was attempted by reconstructing the names of plants and animals (importantly the beech and the salmon) as well as the culture and technology (a Bronze Age culture centered on animal husbandry and havingdomesticated the horse). The scholarly opinions became basically divided between a European hypothesis, positing migration from Europe to Asia, and an Asian hypothesis, holding that the migration took place in the opposite direction.

In early 20th century scientific racism, the question was associated with the expansion of a supposed "Aryan race".^[8] The question is still contentious within some flavours of ethnic nationalism (see also Indigenous Aryans).

A series of major advances occurred in the 1970s due to the convergence of several factors. First, the radiocarbon dating method, invented in 1949, had, by the 1970s, become sufficiently inexpensive to be applied on a mass scale. Through dendrochronology (tree-ring dating), radiocarbon dates could be calibrated to a much higher degree of accuracy. And finally, before the 1970s, parts of Eastern Europe and Central Asia had been off limits to Western scholars, while non-Western archaeologists did not have access to publication in Western peer-reviewed journals. This problem was at least partly addressed by the pioneering work of Marija Gimbutas, assisted by Colin Renfrew, organizing expeditions and arranging for more academic collaboration between Western and non-Western scholars.

The Kurgan hypothesis, currently the most widely held theory, is based on linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence, but is not universally accepted.^[9][10] It suggests PIE origin in the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the Chalcolithic.^{[citation needed]} A minority of scholars prefers theAnatolian hypothesis, suggesting origin in Anatolia during the Neolithic. Other theories (Armenian hypothesis, Out of India theory, Paleolithic Continuity Theory) have only marginal scientific support.

Urheimat hypotheses

There have been a huge variety of ideas of the location of the first speakers of Proto-Indo-European, few of which have survived scrutiny by academic specialists in Indo-European studies sufficiently well to be included in modern academic debate.^[11]The three remaining contenders are summarized here.

In the 20th century, Marija Gimbutas created the Kurgan hypothesis. The name is taken from the kurgans (burial mounds) of the Eurasian steppes. The hypothesis is that the Indo-Europeans were a nomadic tribe of the Pontic-Caspian steppe(now Eastern Ukraine and Southern Russia) and expanded in several waves during the 3rd millennium BC. Their expansion coincided with the taming of the horse. Leaving archaeological signs of their presence (see battle-axe people), they subjugated the peaceful European Neolithic farmers of Gimbutas' Old Europe. As Gimbutas' beliefs evolved, she put increasing emphasis on the patriarchal, patrilinear nature of the invading culture, sharply contrasting it with the supposedly egalitarian, if not matrilinear culture of the invaded, to a point of formulating essentially feminist archaeology. A modified form of this theory by JP Mallory, dating the migrations earlier to around 3500 BC and putting less insistence on their violent or quasi-military nature, remains the most widely held view of the Proto-Indo-European Urheimat.

The Anatolian hypothesis is that the Indo-European languages spread peacefully into Europe from Asia Minor from around 7000 BCE with theadvance of farming (wave of advance). The leading propagator of the theory is Colin Renfrew. The culture of the Indo-Europeans as inferred by linguistic reconstruction contradicts this theory, since early Neolithic cultures had neither the horse, nor the wheel, nor metal, terms for all of which are securely reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. Renfrew dismisses this argument, comparing such reconstructions to the presence of the word "café" in all modern Romance languages not necessarily implying that the Ancient Romans had them too. Another counter-argument is the fact that ancient Anatolia is known to have been inhabited by non-Indo-European people, namely the Hattians, Khalib/Karub, andKhaldi/Kardi; though this does not preclude the possibility that the earliest Indo-European speakers may have been there too.

Using stochastic models of word evolution to study the presence or absence of different words across Indo-European languages, Gray and Atkinson suggest that the origin of Indo-European goes back about 8500 years, the first split being that of Hittite from the rest, supporting theIndo-Hittite hypothesis. They attempt to avoid one problem associated with traditional glottochronology – that of linguistic borrowing. However they inherit the main problems of glottochronology, including the lack of proof that languages have a steady rate of lexical replacement. Their calculations rely entirely on Swadesh lists, and while the results are quite robust for well attested branches, their crucial calculation of the age of Hittite rests on a 200–word Swadesh list of one single language.^[12] A more recent paper analyzing 24 mostly ancient languages, including three Anatolian languages, produced the same time estimates and early Anatolian split.^[13] These claims are still controversial, however, and most traditional linguists consider these methods too inaccurate to prove the Anatolian hypothesis.^[14]

The Armenian hypothesis is based on the Glottalic theory and suggests that the Proto-Indo-European language was spoken during the 4th millennium BCE in the Armenian Highland. It is an Indo-Hittite model and does not include the Anatolian languages in its scenario. The phonological peculiarities of PIE proposed in the Glottalic theory would be best preserved in the Armenian language and the Germanic languages, the former assuming the role of the dialect which remained in situ, implied to be particularly archaic in spite of its late attestation.Proto-Greek would be practically equivalent to Mycenean Greek and date to the 17th century BCE, closely associating Greek migration to Greece with the Indo-Aryan migration to India at about the same time (viz., Indo-European expansion at the transition to the Late Bronze Age, including the possibility of Indo-European Kassites). The Armenian hypothesis argues for the latest possible date of Proto-Indo-European (sansAnatolian), a full millennium later than the mainstream Kurgan hypothesis. In this, it figures as an opposite to the Anatolian hypothesis, in spite of the geographical proximity of the respective Urheimaten suggested, diverging from the time-frame suggested there by a full three millennia.^[15]

Genetics

The rise of archaeogenetic evidence which uses genetic analysis to trace migration patterns also added new elements to the origins puzzle. In terms of genetics, thesubclade R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198) is the most commonly associated with Indo-European speakers. Most discussions purportedly of R1a origins are actually about the origins of the dominant R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198) subclade. Data so far collected indicates that there are two widely separated areas of high frequency, one in Eastern Europe, around Poland and the Russian core, and the other in South Asia, around North India. The historical and prehistoric possible reasons for this are the subject of on-going discussion and attention amongst population geneticists and genetic genealogists, and are considered to be of potential interest to linguists and archaeologists also.

Out of 10 human male remains assigned to the Andronovo horizon from the Krasnoyarsk region, 9 possessed the R1a Y-chromosome haplogroup and one C-M130 haplogroup (xC3). mtDNA haplogroups of nine individuals assigned to the same Andronovo horizon and region were as follows: U4 (2 individuals), U2e, U5a1, Z, T1, T4, H, and K2b.

90% of the Bronze Age period mtDNA haplogroups were of west Eurasian origin and the study determined that at least 60% of the individuals overall (out of the 26 Bronze and Iron Age human remains' samples of the study that could be tested) had light hair and blue or green eyes.^[16]

A 2004 study also established that during the Bronze Age/Iron Age period, the majority of the population of Kazakhstan (part of the Andronovo culture during Bronze Age), was of west Eurasian origin (with mtDNA haplogroups such as U, H, HV, T, I and W), and that prior to the 13th–7th centuries BCE, all samples from Kazakhstan belonged to European lineages.^[17]

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and Alberto Piazza argue that Renfrew and Gimbutas reinforce rather than contradict each other. Cavalli-Sforza (2000) states that "It is clear that, genetically speaking, peoples of the Kurgan steppe descended at least in part from people of the Middle Eastern Neolithic who immigrated there from Turkey." Piazza & Cavalli-Sforza (2006) state that:

if the expansions began at 9,500 years ago from Anatolia and at 6,000 years ago from the

Yamnaya culture

region, then a 3,500-year period elapsed during their migration to the

Volga

-

Don

region from Anatolia, probably through the

Balkans

. There a completely new, mostly pastoral culture developed under the stimulus of an environment unfavourable to standard agriculture, but offering new attractive possibilities. Our hypothesis is, therefore, that Indo-European languages derived from a secondary expansion from the

Yamnaya culture

region after the Neolithic farmers, possibly coming from Anatolia and settled there, developing pastoral nomadism.

Spencer Wells suggests in a (2001) study that the origin, distribution and age of the R1a1 haplotype points to an ancient migration, possibly corresponding to the spread by the Kurgan people in their expansion across the Eurasian steppe around 3000 BCE. About his old teacher Cavalli-Sforza's proposal, Wells (2002) states that "there is nothing to contradict this model, although the genetic patterns do not provide clear support either", and instead argues that the evidence is much stronger for Gimbutas' model:

While we see substantial genetic and archaeological evidence for an Indo-European migration originating in the southern Russian steppes, there is little evidence for a similarly massive Indo-European migration from the Middle East to Europe. One possibility is that, as a much earlier migration (8,000 years old, as opposed to 4,000), the genetic signals carried by Indo-European-speaking farmers may simply have dispersed over the years. There is clearly

some

genetic evidence for migration from the Middle East, as Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues showed, but the signal is not strong enough for us to trace the distribution of Neolithic languages throughout the entirety of Indo-European-speaking Europe.

Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup R1a1, thought to have originated in the Eurasian Steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas, is associated with the Kurgan culture, or the "Indus Valley"^[18] the Indo-European languages, as well as with the postglacial Ahrensburg culture which has been suggested to have spread the haplogroup originally.^[19] Alternatively, it has been suggested that R1a arrived in southern Scandinavia during the time of the Corded Ware culture.^[20] The mutations that characterize haplogroup R1a occurred ~10,000 years bp. Its defining mutation (M17) occurred about 10,000 to 14,000 years ago. Ornella Semino et al. propose a postglacial spread of the R1a1 haplogroup from north of the Black Sea during the time of the Late Glacial Maximum, subsequently magnified by the expansion of the Kurgan culture into Europe and eastward.^[21]

http://en.wikipedia....-Indo-Europeans

Edited May 9, 2013 by Mario Dantas

[The_Spartan]

Does Mario think that we are incapable of doing a google search or look up PIE on wikipedia???

[Van Gorp]

...

The year 1836 is meaningful, because in the OLB the word 'eigendommelijkheid' is used, which has been characterized as a new word by Mr. Jacob van Lennep in his Roos van Dekema (1836).

...

What do you understand with 'new' word? Only as of 1800's?

[NO-ID-EA]

I am not hiding Guys , but i am afraid Thursday night is pub and darts night after work , so i have only just got home .probably a little worse for wear , best for me not

to comment too much tonight , but suffice to say i think a lot of what is in OLB could be a true history , i think the problem about modern words should not worry

us too much because words could easily have been updated when it was copied to save it in the 13th C , he would have wanted his descendants to be able to read it .

so could have updated extinct or outdated words .......of course if some can be proven to be 18th C words , this is more of a worry .

Edited May 9, 2013 by NO-ID-EA

[Abramelin]

My view: It's a hoax, written 1836-1845 by Dr. J.H. Halbertsma in a simplified Oldfrisian language. Halbertsma was a baptist minister, linguist and novellist (together with his two brothers).The year 1836 is meaningful, because in the OLB the word 'eigendommelijkheid' is used, which has been characterized as a new word by Mr. Jacob van Lennep in his Roos van Dekema (1836). The text of Halbertsma has been transcribed in juul-script by bookseller and printer Ernst Stadermann (Den Helder), friend of the owner of the MS Cornelis over de Linden. The key for the transcription is given in the OLB. The OLB is a draft text for a printer. When Stadermann died april 1867 the work had not yet been finished and parts were hidden in an eal smokery in Enkhuizen in order to get an old natural coating. Cornelis over de Linden then tried to sell the transcribed MS, but couldn't find anyone to translate the text.

From the OLB:

Nêidam er nw wist, thaet luk aend sêlighêd fon irtha flya mot, jef boshêd düged bidroga mêi, alsa heth er an thju tâl êne rjuchtfêrdige aejendomlikhêd faest bonden.

Sandbach:

As he knew that happiness and holiness would flee from the earth when wickedness could overcome virtue, he has attached to the language an equitable property.

http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/#bw

Van Lennep calls the word "nieuwerwets", or newfangled.

De Roos van Dekama

Mr. J. Van Lennep.

Leiden.—A.W. Sijthoff.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19161/19161-h/19161-h.htm

And this source (a decade later) calls it something like an ugly Germanism:

Op grond hiervan prijzen wij de lezing met vrijmoedigheid aan. - Taal en stijl zijn niet vrij van Germanismen, waartoe, onzes inziens, ook het woord eigendommelijkheid behoort, waarvan wij ons, in navolging van den Schrijver, met weêrzin bediend hebben.

Vaderlandsche letteroefeningen. Jaargang 1846

http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_vad003184601_01/_vad003184601_01_0003.php

[wondertemple]

The, Oera Linda Book (OLB) reference to the Great Flood happened in 2807 BC, 306 years from 3113 BC. The date of 2193/ 2194 BC is used since the Hindu and Vatican astronomical revision of time and dating took place in 538 AD.

The Flood at that time was thought to have been 1,656 years prior, or Before Christ. Yet 32 BC was year zero to the ancients who reckoned by the Earth Count of 3761 BC. The year 3728 was considered a zero point because 919 or so years prior, was the year 2807 BC. So 2808 – 1888 = 920 and 920 – 614 = 306 BC or, 306 year dilemma in history between cataclysmic events?

The point is, 3113 (Fourth Age Maya)-306 = 2807 (Date of Comet hit Indian Ocean formed crater) - 614 (Missing time hypothesis number) = 2193/2194 = Confused date for the Great Flood - 1656 (years Creation- Flood backward) = 538 AD when Kali Yuga of Creation by the Hindu ended and the Beast with seven heads reigned instead.

The number of added time was equal to a sothic cycle between 1458 and 1460 years, beyond the 1656 years. Yes, the Flood happened in 2194 when the 614 years added to the calendar due to the manipulation of 297 year segments are taken into consideration 2194 (Flood of Yu/Sinking of At-land) + 614 = 2808 (Flood Comet Date).

Which direction was time going?

“3114 BC” was only 614 years before 3728. 3728 was 32 BC. So, this is why the chicimec maya calendar is said to be 647 years (614 +33) different than the toltec calendar.

As above cited, the same 614 years can be found from 2807- 614 = 2194. And my favorite, 2808 - 1888 = 920; “2808-3728 = 920.”

Just for the Record Venus the Planet ties into these years between events, that are/were 920 + 68 years apart, 920 + 68 = 988 = Return date of Quetzalcoatl.

920 BC and 68 AD are both Venus Transits recorded by Nasa.

But here is how it is demonstrated that 4033 (year zero Boturini Christ Birth) - 920 = 3113 BC. (in this case 3113 is 2194 which is really 920 BC!) This is just like 4066 (Boturini calculation of Crucifixion of Christ/Venus/Quetzalcoatl) - 920 = 3147 BC (another flood/gods date) "4066 - 305 = 3761(Nippur Calendar)" "3113 - 305 = 2808". The other fact is that 920 years between cataclysms is established yet what of 306 BC?

920-306 = 614 (the number of years between 32 BC and as 3728 of the world, and 3114, (Maya fourth Age Birth of Venus/Calendar event) + 614 years = 3728.

An additional 306 years = 4034 of Creation of the world at which point Boturini places the Incarnation of the Word(of CHrist). The real Crucifixion was in 69 AD at the Transit of Venus this event was 305 years from the year 3761. I have also deduced a 305 year period from the Migration of the Toltec from Scotland towards Tula or Ancient Mexico. The day many giants fell in Mexico was in 63 BC and 439 years later the remnant toltecs were suppressed by the Romans. Hopeforisrael ministries, John D. Keyser. " 376 (ad)-- THE VERY YEAR THE ROMANS DROVE OUT THE SCOTS AND SUPPRESSED THE PAINTED RED MEN OF PICTLAND! Is this mere coincidence? THEIR MIGRATION TOOK THEM OVER WATER AND LAND TILL THEY REACHED JALISCO IN MEXICO."

376 AD – 306 = 70 AD when the temple in Jerusalem/zarahemla was destroyed, the temple of winds that ended the third age at the Crucifixion of Quetzalcoatl. And 62/63 BC was another Transit of Venus when many giants and Lamanites were destroyed. The Remnant nation was the Toltec.

[Abramelin]

Ah, the Book of Mormon....

Say, Wondertemple, the date of the impact of a comet into the Indian Ocean is said to be between 3000 and 2800 BCE, And it is not even sure at all the Burckle Crater was created by an impact.

Welcome to UM.

,

Edited May 10, 2013 by Abramelin

[Van Gorp]

From the OLB:

Nêidam er nw wist, thaet luk aend sêlighêd fon irtha flya mot, jef boshêd düged bidroga mêi, alsa heth er an thju tâl êne rjuchtfêrdige aejendomlikhêd faest bonden.

Sandbach:

As he knew that happiness and holiness would flee from the earth when wickedness could overcome virtue, he has attached to the language an equitable property.

http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/#bw

Van Lennep calls the word "nieuwerwets", or newfangled.

De Roos van Dekama

Mr. J. Van Lennep.

Leiden.—A.W. Sijthoff.

http://www.gutenberg...1-h/19161-h.htm

And this source (a decade later) calls it something like an ugly Germanism:

Op grond hiervan prijzen wij de lezing met vrijmoedigheid aan. - Taal en stijl zijn niet vrij van Germanismen, waartoe, onzes inziens, ook het woord eigendommelijkheid behoort, waarvan wij ons, in navolging van den Schrijver, met weêrzin bediend hebben.

Vaderlandsche letteroefeningen. Jaargang 1846

http://www.dbnl.org/...601_01_0003.php

I'm waiting for Knul's reply. It's not that the word is being used since 1836.

Argument doesn't stand for the falcification as he sees it.

[Abramelin]

I'm waiting for Knul's reply. It's not that the word is being used since 1836.

Argument doesn't stand for the falcification as he sees it.

It was used as early as 1827:

http://books.google....ijkheid&f=false

And notice this is a translation from German into Dutch.

And this is from 1822:

http://books.google....ijkheid&f=false

Is dat goed Nederlands? (is this proper Dutch?)

author: Charivarius

B. Duitse woorden in Nederlandse vorm (German words in a Dutch form)

eigendommelijk

http://www.dbnl.org/...a01_01_0015.php

Apparently everyone considered it to be a Germanism, and no one said, "Hey, it's Old Frisian !"

The original German words are "Eigentümlichkeit" and "Eigentümlich".

The Old Frisian form is:

êg-en-dæ-m-hê-d* 1, âin-dæ-m-hê-d, afries., st. F. (i): nhd. Eigentum, Unfreiheit;

ne. bondage; Q.:

http://koeblergerhar...rieswbhinw.html

There's no êg-en-dæ-m-LIK-hê-d in Old Frisian, or EigentümKeit /EigentümHeit in German.

+++++

EDIT:

Here they use an example of "eygendommelijcke" with Goblerus' "Den spieghele der rechte":

http://gtb.inl.nl/iW...=WNT&id=M015751

And that's from 1560:

http://books.google....ENT900000059302

But you won't find an ancient example of "eigendommelijkHEID".

.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Abramelin

[NO-ID-EA]

Sorry, NO-ID-EA, the link doesn't work, for us to read the complete thread instead of the jumble you have posted.

Could you refer to a valid /working link?

Moreover, i have emailed a Rajput Historian about this particular claims/references given by you and i hope he could set the matter straight.

I apologise for my "Jumbled post " but note Abe has corrected the link , and hope that either yourself or your Rajput Historian can throw some " un-Jumbled "

light on the subject . thanks for your time .