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 11
Abramelin

Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

6,100 posts in this topic

Well thank you Mr.Smith,i have been trying to find an unbiased critique of O'Connors work for some time , but all i could find were blogs which trotted out the same claims as wiki almost word for word , without giving any information as to why O'Connors work was claimed as a forgery.....and your post #5126 had even less information than most......however your link to Macalisters review on JSTOR looks as though it will give me much more detail on the reasons for the establishment rejections......and i thank you for that..........and apologise for my reply to #5126.

knowing some of O'Connors life history , and the politics at the time in which he lived around the United Irishmen Rebellion of 1798, and the fact that he was claiming royal descent from the high kings of Ireland through the O'Connor Kerry (Ciar-Raigh) clan of noble Gaelic families, and that both his brothers Robert and Arthur were staunch active Orange Protestant government supporters had made him a marked man.he was so much a Gaelic royalist even his brother Robert tried to have him hanged.

So it seems highly likely that O'Connors book was the last thing the Government wanted to be seen to have any credibility , for other clan heads to be able to claim descent from the Gaelic high kings. it is while being imprisoned in Dublin Castle that O'Connor had the time to write his Chronicle , from the ancient rolls that he says were passed down through his family ,and that Government officials entered his cell , and confiscated 10 of the 14 animal skin rolls written in the Phoenician characters in the Scythian language which he was using to write it.(Luckily he only had 10 in prison with him as 4 were still at his home )......now of course this is one of the proofs used against him.........that he cannot produce his source material.

I will again attempt to read the rest of the JSTOR review.....but when i have tried to enrol in the past , i have not been able to do so , as i needed to be a member of a college or university , or other affiliated organisation but i will have another try.......but again i thank you for your link.

Here is the scholarly review:

Chronicles.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

R. A. S. Macalister

Irish Historical Studies

Vol. 2, No. 7 (Mar., 1941), pp. 335-337

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea of "root races" is traceable to theosophical teaching (again, 19th century).

The Theosophical Society was founded in 1875, three years after the first OLB-translation was published.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You suggest that all my sources are discredited ones, while your only example was Dr. Wirth (1885-1981), who was a co-founder of SS Ahnenerbe (in 1935), but who was also forbidden to teach and publish by the Nazi regime.

Even if he was my only source, the assumption that he was or has been a national socialist or an anti-semite, does not on it self exclude the possibility that some of his claims may have been right or valid.

Also, I can quote someone without agreeing with everything he said. I may even quote him in order to oppose his views.

If you want to accuse me of having made any improper statement in the OLB-debate, then I challenge you to be specific.

Just search google scholar and type: "Oera Linda Book forgery", "Oera Linda Book hoax". Here's three academic sources showing Oera Linda Book is a forgery:

François HaverSchmidt, Eelco Verwijs and Cornelis over de Linden intended their forgery of an Old Frisian manuscript, later known as the Oera Linda Book, to be a temporary hoax to fool some nationalist Frisians and orthodox Christians and as an experiential exemplary exercise in reading the Holy Bible in a non-fundamentalist, symbolical way. Despite several obvious clues that the text could not be genuine, it turned out otherwise: the learned Frisian J.G. Ottema took the book seriously as a chronicle of Frisian history, religion and mythology, and soon he published a text edition – followed by more editions and translations. At this time, nobody interpreted the Oera Linda Book as a text directed against the orthodox Reformed, and the jokers did not dare to speak up. Too many other features of the text appealed to nationalist Frisians as well as pre-war National Socialists and post-war New Age believers, for instance: the connection of the Frisians with Atlantis, their early use of a rune alphabet, their civilizing Western Europe, their pre-Christian monotheism and belief in an omnipresent being, their matriarchy with folksmothers and borough-maidens, and their freedom-loving mode of life. Instead of criticizing the orthodox Reformed way of believing, a new belief was unwittingly created with the Oera Linda Book.

http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/fabl.2007.48.issue-3-4/fabl.2007.019/fabl.2007.019.xml

The manuscript of the Oera Linda book first appeared on the scene in 1867. It professed to date from the 13th century and presented an account of Friesian history from 557 BC to 1256 AD. Goffe Jensma argues convincingly that the manuscript is in fact a forgery written in pseudo-Runes on paper produced after 1850. It is also evidently a hoax, devised to gain sympathy for a certain approach of 19th century religion. Jensma identifies no less than four authors: the intellectual writer Piet Paaltjens (the pseudonym of François Haversmidt), the material scribe Cornelis Over de Linden, the translator, and the editor

Eelco Verwijs. Jensma is not totally convinced that the philologist Verwijs, who came from Holland, intended to make a fool of the chauvinistic members of the Friesian Academy, who believed the text to be authentic. Instead, he viewed the Oera Linda more as a playful parody on the fantastic historiography about the Friesian past written by 16th century Friesian humanists.

http://www.bmgn-lchr.nl/index.php/bmgn/article/view/6451

image.jpg

FRISIAN STUDIES

K. FOKKEMA

The Year's Work in Modern Language Studies

Vol. 8, (30 June 1937), pp. 228-232

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continued...

This paper explores the ideological complexity of issues connected with matriarchal myth within National Socialism's view of women and motherhood by examining the controversy over the Ura-Linda-Chronik, which purported to demonstrate that the Germanic ‘Urvolk’ was organised along matriarchal lines. Exposed as a clear forgery soon after its publication in 1872, it was forgotten until 1933, when its republication by the ‘völkisch’ scholar Herman Wirth provoked a far-reaching debate on theories of matriarchy and patriarchy, masculinity and femininity in the ‘völkisch’ movement and on the role of women in the construction of the Third Reich.

http://onlinelibrary...0375.x/abstract

Herman Wirth, co-founder

of the Ahnenerbe organization, attempted to

prove that northern Europe was the cradle of

Western civilization and was taken in by the

'Ura-Linda-Chronicle', an obvious forgery

(Jacob-Friesen 1934: 130-5). Herman Willc,

another of these extremists, interpreted thc

megaliths of Scandinavia as Germanic temples.

identified as the inspiration for Greek and

Roman temples as well as early medieval

churches (Jacob-Friesen 1950: 2-3).

A critical faction. consisting of archaeologists

like K.H. Jacob-Friesen, Ernst Wahle and Carl

Schuchhardt, were cautious in their opposition

yet managed to hold on to their positions.

Jacob-Friesen openly criticized the lunatic

fringe, especially Herman Wirth and his sup-

port of the Ura-Linda-Chronile. In a 1934

artide he claimed to speak for the professiotial

mainstream in warning against the excesses of

nationalistic and racist manipulation of

archaeological data (1934).

http://www.karant.pi.../Propaganda.pdf

If you had any intellectual honesty you would admit it was a forgery. I mean its not as if it is even a recent controversy, it was exposed as a hoax over a century ago and its only supporters were the Nazi "lunatic fringe".

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had any intellectual honesty you would admit it was a forgery. I mean its not as if it is even a recent controversy, it was exposed as a hoax over a century ago and its only supporters were the Nazi "lunatic fringe".

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Theosophical Society was founded in 1875, three years after the first OLB-translation was published.

Yes, and Blavatsky visited Belgium a couple of years before.You know, just after the OLB was published.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reading New Dawn magazine about the Nebra Sky Disc, found in Saxony, Germany dating to 200 years before anything that represented the sky anywhere else and these words echoed in my ears, so I'll type it...

"The implications behind the disc’s existence were so enormous , that the initial reaction of some authoritative specialists was to deny the disc’s authenticity."

The link to that magazine:

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/

Hmmm....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why are you here, mr. Smith?

Why are YOU here, Otharus/Gestur/H.L.Himmler (Stormfront site)?

http://www.stormfron.../forum/t931830/

(sorry, Menno)

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to own Robert Scrutton's The Other Atlantis (1977) which covers the Oera Linda Book and "Atland". I binned the book though about 6 or 7 years back, it is pseudo-history like von Daniken . Atland shouldn't be linked to Atlantis. "Atland" is clearly a completely fictional place and there are no historians or scholars (unlike Atlantis) who argue otherwise. Academic credibility weeds out all the junk and nonsense, that is simply why I use it. If there are no academics (i. e. experts) who take "Atland" to be real then I think we can easily conclude it never existed. The consensus is Oera Linda Book was a forgery.

There were ancient trade routes connecting northern europe to southern europe, but that's all it was - trade. The Oera Linda Book in contrast describes Frisians as having founded all ancient civilizations in the Mediterranean and beyond. It is nothing but fantasy. You might as well claim Eskimos founded Minoan Crete.

Although I am not a supporter of the OLB ( I am convinced it is fake as hell), I have to say (again) that Scrutton's book is based on anything BUT the OLB.

He never read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don´t know. Smaller floods may not have been recorded.

+++

The title of my blog and videos does not have to refer to the flood from which the OLB was saved.

Smaller floods may have happened, but smaller floods don't tend to drown people. And in the province of Groningen there was a monastery that was in contact with Leeuwarden (Friesland). None of the monks recorded any greater or minor flood during 1255 CE.

+++

Well, which flood does your blog refer to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are YOU here, Otharus/Gestur/H.L.Himmler (Stormfront site)?

http://www.stormfron.../forum/t931830/

(sorry, Menno)

.

Why is that not a surprise? Anyway, very good responses you had. I translated it with google. No matter what sources I put up, Gestur will reject them for his silly conspiracy theory, so i'm not expecting a serious reply from him.

Anyway a tip: if you search "Ura Linda Book" as opposed to "Oera Linda Book" you get a lot more scholarly literature exposing it as a forgery online archives. There's actually no shortage of papers completely dismissing the Oera Linda Book I found on google scholar.

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's three academic sources showing Oera Linda Book is a forgery:

[1] http://www.degruyter...bl.2007.019.xml

[2] http://www.bmgn-lchr...ticle/view/6451

[3] FRISIAN STUDIES - K. FOKKEMA

These sources don't argue why OLB has to be a forgery, they assume it:

1. "How to Deal with Holy Books in an Age of Emerging Science. The Oera Linda Book as a New Age Bible", Goffe Jensma (2008).

This article discusses as the title says, it is not about the question why OLB can't be authentic. It refers to Jensma's PhD thesis "De Gemaskerde God" (2004). This study investigated the theory that OLB was created by Haverschmidt, Verwijs and Over de Linden, assuming - not argueing - that it was fake. Jensmas work did not lead to consensus among the specialists:

Jensma acquired his PhD with his Haverschmidt-thesis at the faculty of Theology in Groningen, on December 6, 2004.

Three days later the theory was debated in the presence of the following specialists:

- Dr Eric Cossee, professor of Dutch church history

- Dr Marita Mathijsen, professor of Dutch language and literature

- Dr Henk Meijering, emeritus professor Oldfrisian and Oldsaxon

The next day (Dec. 10) a report appeared in de leading Frisian newspaper (Leeuwarder Courant: "Van het Oera Linda-boek, de Friese kip en de zeespiegel"), which stated:

"Although the speakers without exception praised Jensma's work, he had not been able to convince any of them of his truth that François Haverschmidt is the main author of the Oera Linda-book."

And:

"Emeritus professor Frisian, Henk Meijering, teasingly labelled Jensma's thesis a <scientific novel through which he had acquired his doctorate>."

2. "Het Oera Linda-boek. Falsificatie of mystificatie?", W. Prevenier (2006)

This article is a review of Jensma's book. As the titles says, it deals with the question forgery or hoax, not authentic or forgery/ hoax.

3. "The Year's Work in Modern Language Studies", K. Fokkema (1937)

This is not the report of a study, it is a survey of publications.

4. "'Männerbund' and 'Mutterrecht': Herman Wirth, Sophie Rogge-Börner and the Ura-Linda-Chronik", Peter Davies (2007)

"This paper explores the ideological complexity of issues connected with matriarchal myth [...] by examining the controversy over the Ura-Linda-Chronik [...]"

Again, this article assumes OLB is forgery, but does not argue why. That is not what the article is about.

5. "The past as propaganda: totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany", Bettina Arnol (1990)

This is not a study of the OLB, but the reference to "Herman Wirth's Ura-Linda-Chronik und die deutschen Vorgeschichtsforscher", K.H. Jacob-Friesen (1934) is interesting. Let's see if we can find that.

~ ~ ~

A note in general:

You keep making the mistake of reasoning like "it is fake because everyone says so" or "... because that has always been known".

These arguments are invalid (argumentum ad populum & ad antiquitam).

The argument you made about 19th century race-taxonomy might have been valid, but I refuted it.

Edited by gestur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... its only supporters were the Nazi "lunatic fringe".

As Abramelin can confirm, that label does not apply to Overwijn and Raubenheimer, to name just two examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and Blavatsky visited Belgium a couple of years before. You know, just after the OLB was published.

Indeed, she may have been inspired by it, or by people who were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are YOU here [...] ?

To entertain and educate myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of the monks recorded any greater or minor flood during 1255 CE.

We still can't be sure they recorded all floods.

Neither is it sure that Hidde referred to a Frisan flood.

They may have moved after that flood.

All speculation I know, but all possible.

Well, which flood does your blog refer to?

Like I said, the archetypal, which is not the same as the mythical.

And, come to think about it, also the flood of nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link to that magazine:

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/

Hmmm....

Here's a better link as it goes to this particular issue, which is much more down to earth than the regular issues, which I haven't even been buying anymore, but this Ancient Civilizations special issue caught my eye from the Unexplained Mysteries Home Page, here's the link to this issue:

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/special-issues/new-dawn-special-issue-vol-8-no-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking for something and found this older part I felt warranted some more attention, it was when Alewyn was here and he had this in his post:

1. Homer said that Ulysses went to “fertile Scheria”, the land of the Phaeacians.

2. Your quote: “Two centuries ago, Charles-Joseph de Grave argued that the Underworld visited by Odysseus was the islands at the mouth of the river Rhine.”

(In the same area as the mouth of the Schelde).

3. Your quote: “Ulysses also, in all those fabled wanderings of his, is supposed by some to have reached the northern sea and visited German lands”

Scheria also sounds somewhat like Schelde I reckon. The area around the Schelde may have been called Scheria here, with the Phaeacians as Frisians/Fryans, as Alewyn has it. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=184645&st=3180

Abe had this bit:

Tacitus: Germania, Chapter 3

Ulysses also, in all those fabled wanderings of his, is supposed by some to have reached the northern sea and visited German lands, and to have founded and named Asciburgium, a town on the Rhine inhabited to this day. They even add that an altar consecrated by Ulysses and inscribed also with the name of his father Laertes was discovered long ago at this same place, and that certain barrows with monuments upon them bearing Greek inscriptions still exist on the borders of Germany and Raetia. I do not intend to argue either for or against these assertions; each man must accept or reject them as he feels inclined.

http://www.unrv.com/...tusgermania.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking for something and found this older part I felt warranted some more attention, it was when Alewyn was here and he had this in his post:

1. Homer said that Ulysses went to “fertile Scheria”, the land of the Phaeacians.

2. Your quote: “Two centuries ago, Charles-Joseph de Grave argued that the Underworld visited by Odysseus was the islands at the mouth of the river Rhine.”

(In the same area as the mouth of the Schelde).

3. Your quote: “Ulysses also, in all those fabled wanderings of his, is supposed by some to have reached the northern sea and visited German lands”

Scheria also sounds somewhat like Schelde I reckon. The area around the Schelde may have been called Scheria here, with the Phaeacians as Frisians/Fryans, as Alewyn has it. http://www.unexplain...=184645&st=3180

Abe had this bit:

Tacitus: Germania, Chapter 3

Ulysses also, in all those fabled wanderings of his, is supposed by some to have reached the northern sea and visited German lands, and to have founded and named Asciburgium, a town on the Rhine inhabited to this day. They even add that an altar consecrated by Ulysses and inscribed also with the name of his father Laertes was discovered long ago at this same place, and that certain barrows with monuments upon them bearing Greek inscriptions still exist on the borders of Germany and Raetia. I do not intend to argue either for or against these assertions; each man must accept or reject them as he feels inclined.

http://www.unrv.com/...tusgermania.php

Very interesting Puzzler.

In fact the 'Schorre' around the Schelde are still called like that.

http://www.scheldeschorren.be/cms/

Again some nice etymologie: schorre is said to be related with 'scheren' or 'schuren', English shore is also related.

Schorre are the fields/land formed by the slib in the estuarium.

Edited by Van Gorp
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the scholarly review:

Chronicles.jpg

image.jpg

image.jpg

R. A. S. Macalister

Irish Historical Studies

Vol. 2, No. 7 (Mar., 1941), pp. 335-337

the above review is very disappointing ..and i was really looking forward to reading it.........So that is what a scholarly review looks like ?, should it not break down the history the writer claims , and show how it is wrong by proofs to the contrary ?......... this is nothing but a rant in flowery language , just full of one mans opinion , so we get told the work was evaluated and found to be a fake by the scholar Macalister........but as per usual the scholar does not have to show his proof , but just make accusations , and allude to the other mans insanity.....and that is supposed to be good enough reason to write him and his book off for ever ....same old story......

Edited by NO-ID-EA
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Smith seems to think that all scholars are always right, simply because they are scholars.

How naive.

The fact that they often strongly disagree with eachother, or later were proven to have been wrong says enough.

Also cases of serious scientific fraud are known, or cases where they are paid to push through a certain opinion (serving political, religious or economic interests).

Alas, for too many 'science' has become like a just another dogmatic religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Smith seems to think that all scholars are always right, simply because they are scholars.

How naive.

The fact that they often strongly disagree with eachother, or later were proven to have been wrong says enough.

Also cases of serious scientific fraud are known, or cases where they are paid to push through a certain opinion (serving political, religious or economic interests).

Alas, for too many 'science' has become like a just another dogmatic religion.

Too true g.

When Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola first encountered the Magdalenian paintings of the Altamira cave, Cantabria, Spain in 1879, the academics of the time considered them hoaxes.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Cave_painting

When the discovery was first made public in 1880, it led to a bitter public controversy between experts which continued into the early 20th century, as many of them did not believe prehistoric man had the intellectual capacity to produce any kind of artistic expression.

http://en.wikipedia..../Altamira_(cave)

Many times, these 'experts' are simply forming opinions based on their own personal beliefs.

In 1879, amateur archaeologist Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola was led by his eight year-old daughter María to discover the cave's drawings.[3] The cave was excavated by Sautuola and archaeologist Juan Vilanova y Piera from the University of Madrid, resulting in a much acclaimed publication in 1880 which interpreted the paintings as Paleolithic in origin. The French specialists, led by Gabriel de Mortillet and Emile Cartailhac, were particularly adamant in rejecting the hypothesis of Sautuola and Piera, and their findings were loudly ridiculed at the 1880 Prehistorical Congress in Lisbon. Due to the supreme artistic quality, and the exceptional state of conservation of the paintings, Sautuola was even accused of forgery. A fellow countryman maintained that the paintings had been produced by a contemporary artist, on Sautuola's orders.

It was not until 1902, when several other findings of prehistoric paintings had served to render the hypothesis of the extreme antiquity of the Altamira paintings less offensive, that the scientific society retracted their opposition to the Spaniards. That year, Emile Cartailhac emphatically admitted his mistake in the famous article, "Mea culpa d'un sceptique", published in the journal L'Anthropologie. Sautuola, having died 14 years earlier, did not live to enjoy his rehabilitation.

Edited by The Puzzler
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting Puzzler.

In fact the 'Schorre' around the Schelde are still called like that.

http://www.scheldeschorren.be/cms/

Again some nice etymologie: schorre is said to be related with 'scheren' or 'schuren', English shore is also related.

Schorre are the fields/land formed by the slib in the estuarium.

More on the subject for the ones interested:

As the work of C.J. De Grave (transl: "Republic of the Eylsian fields or ancient world", though Fleming, was written in French, an English summary of the concerned part can be found here. As also mentionned by De Grave, Vredius has also mentionned the story.

http://books.google.be/books?id=a203AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA493&lpg=PA493&dq=vredius+ulysses&source=bl&ots=kO_aACFpza&sig=x-4v8bWTPI-XL4_iROzuKq3utD4&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=uN8RU6e_GIaf7gbL34H4Aw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=vredius%20ulysses&f=false

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smith seems to think that all scholars are always right, simply because they are scholars.

Oh, I forgot, the ones who are not right - in his opinion - are pseudo-scientists...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-read what I posted a page or so back. Using the scientific consensus is not an appeal to authority or majority. Here's another post that explains:

A common claim among various kinds of pseudoscientists such as creationists or climate change denialists is that appealing to scientific consensus is either an appeal to the popularity of a position or an appeal to an authority and that therefore, appealing to scientific consensus is a logical fallacy.

However, appealing to scientific consensus is not the claim that “the scientific community is an authority or that it is a popular position, and therefore correct”, but rather, there is an additional premise in the appeal to scientific consensus that does not normally exist in the average appeal to authority. To elucidate the difference, let us see how this plays out.

P1. There is a scientific consensus on X (evolution, global warming, HIV causing AIDS or whatever).

Now, had we gone straight from this to the conclusion that X is true, it would have been an argument from authority or appeal to popularity. However, let us not forget our additional premise.

P2. If there is a scientific consensus on X, then it is probably the case that X is a reasonable scientific conclusion supported by most different lines of converging evidence.

In general, the scientific community as a whole is very conservative in making strong statements, because as we all know, making categorical statements may come back to haunt you. So we can be reasonably sure that, in the majority of cases, a consensus position is at the very least support by most currently known evidence. It is easy to see how the following conclusion follows.

C. It is probably the case that X is a reasonable scientific conclusion supported by most different lines of converging evidence (from P1 and P2 by modus ponens).

Too be sure, the scientific community is not infallible or always right. However, when the majority of the evidence available supports a position, it is reasonable to hold it as a tentative conclusion regardless.

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/08/20/appeal-to-scientific-consensus-is-not-an-appeal-to-popularity-or-authority/

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 11

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.