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

Posted (edited)

Thâ Faesta êremoder wêre, heth hju-r thaet run ieftha hlâpande skrift fon mâkad. Ther Witkêning, thaet is Sêkêning, Godfrêiath thene alda, heth thêr asvndergana telnomar fon mâkad fâr stand aend rvnskrift bêde.

When Fasta was Eeremoeder she made a running hand out of it. The Witkoning—that is, the Sea-king, Godfried the Old—made separate numbers for the set hand and for the runic hand.

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

We all here have been over the meaning of this name 'Witkening' for many pages. "Wit" could have meant 'wise', 'wet' or 'white'.

But for me the most logical assumption would be that 'Wit' is nothing more or less than 'Jute', based on what the Frisians themselves said, and then we would get a Godfried the king of the Jutes.

This doesn't prove or disprove the OLB, for it never says when this Godfried introduced these numerals. It could have been at any time, and it doesn't necessarily have to be by the notoriuous Godfried the Viking (known as Godfried the Seaking in the Netherlands) who started raiding the Frisian coasts in the 9th century.

The OLB only uses numerals for the numbering of the pages, and for the numbering in the several lists of laws/regulations. In the text itself it uses the cumbersome way of spelling out a date in many words (like in 1256/"Okke my son", or in so and so many years after the submergence of Aldland) ..... like they were still not very familiar with the use of Godfried's or any numerals.

Maybe the numerals they DID use were added much later.

Or.... but you all know what I think.

+++++

EDIT:

This is what I meant:

Skrêven to Ljuwert. Nêi âtland svnken is thaet thria thû sondfjvwer hvndred aend njugon aend fjvwertigoste jêr, thaet is nei kersten rêknong that tvelfhvndred sex aend fiftigoste jêr. Hidde tobinomath oera Linda. - Wâk.

Written at Liuwert, in the three thousand four hundred and forty-ninth year after Atland was submerged—that is, according to the Christian reckoning, the year 1256

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have often wondered (ok, not really) why there are no other examples of the OLB script to be found anywhere else, not in Europe, not in North Africa, not in the Middle East, not in India/Punjab.

One of the arguments was that the script was put onto paper, and so those other examples may have degraded over time. That may have been the case in the Netherlands because of the composition of the soil here, though they did find wooden tablets with Roman script, and in Friesland of all places, lol), but that can hardly be the case for all of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East or the Punjab.

And, of course, these Fryans also used the script for inscriptions on stone or brick (their 'citadels').

No, we are supposed to believe all that was left of a civilization the size of the later Roman Empire was found in a tiny village in the Netherlands.

Now look what still can be found (of Roman writing), on degradable material:

Hocgracili.jpg

The Vindolanda tablets are "the oldest surviving handwritten documents in Britain". They are also probably our best source of information about life on Hadrian's Wall. Written on fragments of thin, post-card sized wooden leaf-tablets with carbon-based ink, the tablets date to the 1st and 2nd centuries AD (roughly contemporary with Hadrian's Wall). Although similar records on papyrus were known from elsewhere in the Roman Empire, wooden tablets with ink text had not been recovered until 1973, when archaeologist Robin Birley discovered these artefacts at the site of a Roman fort in Vindolanda, northern England.

The wood tablets found at Vindolanda were the first known surviving examples of the use of ink letters in the Roman period. The use of ink tablets was documented in contemporary records and Herodian in the third century AD wrote "a writing-tablet of the kind that were made from lime-wood, cut into thin sheets and folded face-to-face by being bent".

The Vindolanda tablets are made from birch, alder and oak that grew locally, in contrast to stylus tablets, another type of writing tablet used in Roman Britain, which were imported and made from non-native wood. The tablets are 0.25–3mm thick with a typical size being 20x8cm (the size of a modern postcard). They were scored down the middle and folded to form diptychs with ink writing on the inner faces, the ink being carbon, gum arabic and water. Nearly 500 tablets were excavated in the 1970s and 1980s

The tablets are written in forms of Roman cursive script, considered to be the forerunner of joined up writing, which varies in style by author. With few exceptions they have been classified as Old Roman Cursive.

The writing from Vindolanda appears as if it were written in a different alphabet from the Latin capitals used for inscriptions from other periods. The script is derived from the capital writing of the late first century BC and the first century AD. The text rarely shows the unusual or distorted letter-forms or the extravagant ligatures to be found in Greek papyri of the same period.

http://en.wikipedia....dolanda_tablets

http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The Roman script of my former post is also called "Tironian notes", a kind of Roman shorthand.

Now compare that with the "run(ning) script" of the OLB.... Yes, I know, not many have really seen these letters because they are in the original manuscript, and not in Ottema's or Sandbach's books.

The next image has both: the top table is the run(ning) script of the OLB (but nowhere really used in the OLB, but it's below every letter in the table on page 46 of the original mansucript), the bottom is a table with Tironian script.

In the original mansucript:

http://images.tresoa...php?p=48&pm=212

And conveniently left out by both Ottema and Sandbach...

I have encircled some of the obvious resemblences between the two (click on the image to enlarge it):

OLB_TIRONIAN.jpg

I have posted about this before:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=184645&st=10155&p=4202959entry4202959

Tironian notes (notae Tironianae) is a system of shorthand said to have been invented by Cicero's scribe Marcus Tullius Tiro. Tiro's system consisted of about 4,000 signs,[citation needed] somewhat extended in classical times to 5,000 signs. In the European Medieval period, Tironian notes were taught in monasteries and the system was extended to about 13,000 signs (see scribal abbreviations). The use of Tironian notes declined after 1100 but some use can still be seen through the 17th century.

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

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And now have a look at one of the forms of the OLB letter -O- :

OLB_letter.jpg

It has a MODERN diacritical mark, a dead give-away, I'd like to say.

No wonder Ottema (and Sandbach) left a copy of the run-script out of their books.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what is the etymological origin of the name "Texel/Texland"? I can't find much but it seems quite ancient and predates the introduction of the sheep industry.

Does it mean "Place of Texts"? As in Frya's Tex?

Seems like Texel would have been not only an outpost of the mainland, but also a jumping off point to Doggerland. Like 5,000 years ago.

Tex, very interesting ...

What Schrieck thought …

Scythisch, Teuto-Cimbrisch, Belgo-Celtisch, Euro-Indisch, Friesch if you like, are all connected and visible in placenames along their route.

When taking into account the language and places Scythe passed by, it’s not that odd to find the same names. All bearing a meaning, and at the end verifiable with the nature of the surroundings. Scythisch language was primarly spoken, more modern languages wrote it down in their own local tongue. We see those written languages not anymore as coming from local phonetic variants of one spoken language system.

Most probable meanings of Tex/Tax are

T’Es -> water

T’Hagh -> forest (Taxilo -> T’Haghs Hil Hon -> Forested Hill)

T’Hogh S -> high (Toxandria -> T’Hogh Sandrn -> Higher Sands)

Tusch -> between, interwoven (Text or Textile).

Btw Text is called Text because a text is inter-woven (een uit-ge-breide tekst is elaborated, and it’s better to read between (tussen) the lines). Breien means making long-threated. Lowlands are both known for their ‘Wevers’ (Textile) as for their ‘Printing’ (Text) -> both related to Tusschen.

Tex-Land: T’Es Land -> Es/As: water or T’Haghs-Land -> Land of the Sax (because the Saxen are the ‘s Haghsen)

Thessalia: T’Es-Hael (like Uyt-Heal -> Italia, Hael is kind of extension) -> extended water

Thessalonica: T’Es-Hael-Hohen-Yc -> the high border at the extension of the water

Tecelia: Teg-Hel -> Opposite-Declination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

De naam Texel is afgeleid van het Germaanse woord tehswa, dat 'rechts' betekent (vgl. het Latijnse woord dexter). De x staat er dus om etymologische redenen, maar de uitspraak wijkt daarvan af.

The name Texel is derived from the Germanic word tehswa that 'right' means (cf. the Latin word dexter). So the x stands there for etymological reasons, but the pronounciation deviates from it.

http://taaladvies.ne...vies/vraag/788/

And the -x- according to a former post is only there because it resembled a ligature for a double -s- .

Everything points to the fact we can forget about any -x- .

The hillforts in south-east Scotland were supposed to have been built by a Saxon or Frisian tribe, and those hillforts were called "Laws". Makes one think, eh?

Even the ancient Punjab city "Taxila" is about laws and such.

Of course we could apply an OLB distortion for Texel....

If Texel is derived from a word meaning 'right' - and then 'right' in the meaning of a direction - we could force it to mean 'right' as in 'law'...

;)

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

De naam Texel is afgeleid van het Germaanse woord tehswa, dat 'rechts' betekent (vgl. het Latijnse woord dexter). De x staat er dus om etymologische redenen, maar de uitspraak wijkt daarvan af.

The name Texel is derived from the Germanic word tehswa that 'right' means (cf. the Latin word dexter). So the x stands there for etymological reasons, but the pronounciation deviates from it.

http://taaladvies.ne...vies/vraag/788/

And the -x- according to a former post is only there because it resembled a ligature for a double -s- .

Everything points to the fact we can forget about any -x- .

The hillforts in south-east Scotland were supposed to have been built by a Saxon or Frisian tribe, and those hillforts were called "Laws". Makes one think, eh?

Even the ancient Punjab city "Taxila" is about laws and such.

Of course we could apply an OLB distortion for Texel....

If Texel is derived from a word meaning 'right' - and then 'right' in the meaning of a direction - we could force it to mean 'right' as in 'law'...

;)

.

Your post and Van Gorps are both different but interesting variations. The x is there. So, to me, from below - Texland, could be 'the land where the textus (characters used in a document) was made' - which is how it is described in the OLB.

The name Texel is Frisian, but because of historical sound-changes in Dutch, where all -x- sounds have been replaced with -s- sounds (compare for instance English Fox, Frisian Fokse, German Fuchs with Dutch Vos), the name is typically pronounced Tessel in Dutch.

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

Text actually goes through to weaver - the weaver is often a backbone to many cultures - weaving, I could name many, even Freya has a spindle, to Sleeping Beauty, Ariadne, Spider Mothers, so many.

This might represent the laws/text/scripture of that culture.

text (n.) dictionary.gif late 14c., "wording of anything written," from O.Fr. texte, O.N.Fr. tixte (12c.), from M.L. textus "the Scriptures, text, treatise," in L.L. "written account, content, characters used in a document," from L. textus "style or texture of a work," lit. "thing woven," from pp. stem of texere "to weave," from PIE root *tek- "make" (see texture).

An ancient metaphor: thought is a thread, and the raconteur is a spinner of yarns -- but the true storyteller, the poet, is a weaver. The scribes made this old and audible abstraction into a new and visible fact. After long practice, their work took on such an even, flexible texture that they called the written page a textus, which means cloth.

http://www.etymonlin...x.php?term=text

dexter:
'right' means (cf. the Latin word dexter)

dictionary.gif

1520s, from M.Fr. dexterité (16c.), from L. dexteritatem (nom. dexteritas) "readiness, skillfulness, prosperity," from dexter "skillful," also "right (hand)" (cf. O.Fr. destre, Sp. diestro, etc.), from PIE root *deks- "on the right hand," hence "south" to one facing east (cf. Skt. daksinah "on the right hand, southern, skillful;" Avestan dashina- "on the right hand;" Gk. dexios "on the right hand," also "fortunate, clever;" O.Ir. dess "on the right hand, southern;" Welsh deheu; Gaulish Dexsiva, name of a goddess of fortune; Goth. taihswa; Lith. desinas; O.C.S. desnu, Rus. desnoj). The Latin form is with the comparative suffix -ter, thus meaning etymologically "the better direction." M.E. dester meant "right hand," and in heraldry dexter means "on the right side."

PIE root deks - dexter PIE root tek - text make/weaving is being rather skillful with your right hand really... I think the words could connect - through Gothic. (I think Gothic entered the Levant and Sumeria with the Gutians c 2200BC, as you know).

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As I showed you, the -X- in Texel is based on a ligature that only resembled an -X- , but was meant to mean -SS- .

So you should say "Tessel", and not "Texel".

For the rest you repeat what has already been posted, lol (dont keep doing that or this thread will explode again).

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The OLB mentions a stand(ing) script and a run(ning) script, and it shows both of them in 2 rows: stand(ing) script on top inside a wheel, run(ning) script right below it. Sandbach and Ottema, in their books, do not even publish the OLB running script, but below all those wheels they post a small version of the standing script PLUS a modern cursive latin letter to transliterate it.

So, from Sandbach/Ottema's book you get the impression that the OLB run script is only a small version of the OLB stand script inside those wheels, right? But that is simply false, as you can see when you compare their plates with the original. The original run script is totally different from the stand script, as you can see in that square raster I made and posted.

In other words... this is not just some minor mistake, this is HUGE.

Original:

OLB_script_original.jpg

Sandbach/Ottema:

OLB_script.jpg

The REAL run script (copied from the original MS, from below the rows with the Yule wheel-letters) :

Raster_Runscript.jpg

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it has been staring me in the face from the moment I started contributing to this thread, but "the quarter just refused to drop down the vending machine" :

Het OLB bevat een pagina waarop beide schriften zijn afgebeeld. Maar in Ottema's facsimile is het runschrift verdwenen; Ottema's runschrift is een op schrijfletters lijkende variant van het standschrift!

Hij zal hebben gemeend dat het originele runschrift er te modern uitzag en een argument tegen de echtheid kon worden. Dit zou ook verklaren waarom hij in 1877 verhinderd heeft dat enkele bladen van het manuscript werden geëxposeerd, iets waarvoor men beslist het interessante letterblad zou hebben uitgekozen.

http://www.skepsis.nl/oeralinda.html

The OLB contains a page which shows both scripts. But in Ottema's facsimile the run-script has disappeared; Ottema's run-script is a running script like variant of the stand-script!

He must have thought that the original run-script looked too modern in appearance and could be an argument against its authenticity. This would also explain why in 1877 he prevented some pages of the manuscript to be exhibited, something for which they would explicitly have chosen for the interesting letter sheet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I showed you, the -X- in Texel is based on a ligature that only resembled an -X- , but was meant to mean -SS- .

So you should say "Tessel", and not "Texel".

But according to at least one account, the -ss- was a later corruption by some Dutch:

The name Texel is Frisian, but because of historical sound-changes in Dutch, where all -x- sounds have been replaced with -s- sounds (compare for instance English Fox, Frisian Fokse, German Fuchs with Dutch Vos), the name is typically pronounced Tessel in Dutch.

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

This would suggest a more ancient use of -x- in the name. Maybe Dutch sailors found 'Tessel' easier to pronounce after spending an evening carousing in the harbor town at Oudeschild. And the name stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not according to the ancient Germanic stem of the name Texel.

And when I combine that with that -x- like ligature which isn't an -x- at all, I am convinced the original spelling had no -x- or -ks- in it.

But yes, the -x- often changed into -ss- , but here is something else going on.

Anyway, after my former post I feel kind of empty... you know, you read an exciting 10,000 pages long book, and then you turn the last page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, after my former post I feel kind of empty... you know, you read an exciting 10,000 pages long book, and then you turn the last page.

Good news...in this case, out there somewhere, lurks a prequel to that long book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, you know, if Texel originally meant "South Land", then how about some area called "North Land"?

And hey, some scifi writer, Stephen Baxter, used that name, "Northland" for his book about Doggerland.

And aside from 'north' being a direction meaning 'left', it is etymologically related to Greek, Gothic (?), and Sanskrit words meaning "Hell", underworld, Place of the Dead.

And maybe you remember from the Doggerland thread that I kept repeating that an old Frisian word for the North Sea is "Hel" (and similar forms). I assumed it was derived from another word that had nothing to do with any underworld, and that it only later got associated with something 'hellish' because of the nature of the North Sea (floods, people drowning, and so on).

From what I learned "north" had do do with 'death' because of the ecliptic and the position of the sun.

OK, I am not going to go off topic; there is still another thread I can post all that in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I could register at that site, and tell them what I know about all this critical info, but I am not on some personal 'man hunt', lol.

“Not on some personal 'man hunt’”? How noble!

Yet, only two days later (12/6) you arrived on that site under the name “Vrank_Bouleen”, with guns blazing and your customary personal attacks on me.

To crown it all “Vrank_Bouleen” would quote something on Historum that “Abramelin” posted on UM to create the impression that “others” agreed with “Vrank”.

Man, you are really something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

“Not on some personal 'man hunt’”? How noble!

Yet, only two days later (12/6) you arrived on that site under the name “Vrank_Bouleen”, with guns blazing and your customary personal attacks on me.

To crown it all “Vrank_Bouleen” would quote something on Historum that “Abramelin” posted on UM to create the impression that “others” agreed with “Vrank”.

Man, you are really something else.

Yes I did, and that username is an anagram of my true full name.

But I was not "after you", so I kept my promise.

And now you are bluntly LYING, cause I did not attack you in any way.

For everyone: check this site, and read what I posted:

http://www.historum....nda-book-5.html and try to find where I 'attacked' Alewyn..

The only "bad" thing I said overthere is that you tend to get personal when you are driven into a corner.

For me this thing is over. The OLB is a hoax, 100 %, and Ottema knew it.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should ask for psychological treatment.

I may be drunk, but that problem is over next morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone could use some gentle treatment, … no offence :-)

So Ottema falsified a false document in your opinion?

What should have been the goal by this.

I interprete the slightly different running script as his ‘modern’ interpretation of the running script mentionned in the document.

How could we otherwise be able to communicate about the exact running script that is mentionned.

For instance the running ‘a’ in the manuscript, try to type it on your keyboard :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If anyone could use some gentle treatment, … no offence :-)

So Ottema falsified a false document in your opinion?

What should have been the goal by this.

I interprete the slightly different running script as his ‘modern’ interpretation of the running script mentionned in the document.

How could we otherwise be able to communicate about the exact running script that is mentionned.

For instance the running ‘a’ in the manuscript, try to type it on your keyboard :-)

His goal? To hide info because he himself knew that the ORIGINAL run script was totally different - and much too modern - from what he added under those Yule wheels. The exhibition would have (and had) exposed him.

The original run script is not 'slightly' different, it is TOTALLY different from what Ottema wanted us to believe is the run script to be. His 'run script' was nothing but a smaller version of the stand script, those letters in Yule wheels.

This is the original run script:

Raster_Runscript.jpg

Does that look anything like the run script used for the OLB as we know of?

I thought not.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now have a look at one of the forms of the OLB letter -O- :

OLB_letter.jpg

It has a MODERN diacritical mark, a dead give-away, I'd like to say.

No wonder Ottema (and Sandbach) left a copy of the run-script out of their books.

.

Since when is a circumflex ^ modern?

In the polytonic orthography of Ancient Greek, the circumflex marked long vowels that were pronounced with high and then falling pitch. Its shape was originally a combination of the acute and grave accents (^), but later a variant similar to the tilde (~) was also used.

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

It's like the tilde, also used in the OLB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree with van gorp.

The yellow page is original, the original run script does not appear that modern to me. (It might have been created to be used as a kind of shorthand in the first place).

The white page, is actually quite different from the original and not a copy of it but a complete rewritten page - note the E's are swapped around and an added letter ng is also at the bottom - so the page is reworked - but the run script is simply English cursive - run script - running writing - as if Sandbach has made the copy and written in small standscript underneath - then also added the cursive Latin/English letter of the time next to it, so English readers knew what the letter really was.

Doesn't seem like any conspiracy to me.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when is a circumflex ^ modern?

In the polytonic orthography of Ancient Greek, the circumflex marked long vowels that were pronounced with high and then falling pitch. Its shape was originally a combination of the acute and grave accents (^), but later a variant similar to the tilde (~) was also used.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Circumflex

It's like the tilde, also used in the OLB.

It's USE here is modern. Yes, the Greeks used it, and then the rest of the Europeans started using it in the late middle ages.

Modern Westfrisian and West Lauwers also use it, but on more vowels than just -O- .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree with van gorp.

The yellow page is original, the original run script does not appear that modern to me. (It might have been created to be used as a kind of shorthand in the first place).

The white page, is actually quite different from the original and not a copy of it but a complete rewritten page - note the E's are swapped around and an added letter ng is also at the bottom - so the page is reworked - but the run script is simply English cursive - run script - running writing - as if Sandbach has made the copy and written in small standscript underneath - then also added the cursive Latin/English letter of the time next to it, so English readers knew what the letter really was.

Doesn't seem like any conspiracy to me.

On Ottema/Sandbach's letter sheet the run script is only a smaller form of the stand script. Not 'running' as we are supposed to believe according to their letter sheets, just smaller.

On the original letter sheet the run script is totally different from the stand script, and yes, it is a real running script. And modern, if you knew how they wrote running script back then (= 19th century).

Plus, Ottema wanted to prevent the exhibition of exactly THAT letter sheet.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STANDRUN_OTTSAND.jpgSTANDRUN_ORIGINAL.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As I quoted several posts ago, others had also seen the difference between Ottema's run script and the original run script.

And today I found an online copy of Ottema's book on which someone added some remarks in modern Frisian on that same letter sheet.

This is that online sheet:

OLB_OTTEMA_lettersheet.gif

From: http://www.dbnl.org/...t01_01_0022.php

I enlarged these remarks, and I translated them into Dutch and English, as far as I was able to see it:

OLB_OTTEMA_lettersheet_remark2.jpg

Dit teken komt in het handschrift van C. over de Linden niet (Frisian: "net") voor. Ottema heeft dit zomaar .... Waarom? (Hwerum?)

This symbol doesn't occur in C. over de Linden's manuscript. Ottema just .... Why?

OLB_OTTEMA_lettersheet_remark.jpg

Ottema heeft dit verkeerd opgegeven: het is geen zuiver afschrift van het handschrift van C. od Linden. Het runschrift dat Ottema lopend/(ge)lijk (?) maakte is standschrift.

Ottema has reproduced this incorrectly. It is not a pure copy of C. od. Linden's manuscript. Ottema has equalized the run script with the standing script.

.

Edited by Abramelin

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.