Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood


Riaan

Recommended Posts

I was reading the reviews of Alewyn's book on Amazon, and saw that people also had read/reviewed another book about the OLB:

The Oera Linda Book: A Neo-Pagan Fantasy Novel - Wyatt Kaldenberg

http://www.amazon.com/Oera-Linda-Book-Neo-Pagan-Fantasy/dp/1463618522/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t

Book Description

Publication Date: June 18, 2011

The Oera Linda Book has a long and controversial history. Most people believe it is a hoax. Very few people believe it is a genuine manuscript handed down from Heathen times generation to generation until today.

In his introduction, Mr. Wyatt Kaldenberg gives his theory that The Oera Linda Book is a fantasy novel, mistaken for an authentic Heathen text. Mr. Kaldenberg tells us, When Bram Stokers Dracula, Orson Wells The War of the Worlds, and the Blair Witch Project all first came out many people believed they were true because they were epistolary fiction.

Were they hoaxes just because some people mistook them for being true? I think not. I believe The Oera Linda Book is fiction people misconstrued as non-fiction.

Kaldenberg goes on, In 1978, I was first sent a copy of The Oera Linda Book by N.J. Teraplin who was, at the time, the former leader of the recently disbanded Runic Society out of Milwaukee. Teraplin believed the book to be genuine. I had a number of problems with it. However, N.J. Teraplin was a true believer in the book, and he saw it as a sort of Heathen Bible.

The leader of the Odinist Fellowship, Else Christensen, published The Oera Linda Book in about 1979 and sold it through The Odinist newsletter. It was the topic of some debate among American Heathens during the 1970s and early 80s, then it faded out of fashion in the mid-1980s. No one really talks about it any more.

Kaldenberg continues, The Oera Linda Book has a remarkable history. It was very popular for a few years after it was first published, then it was discredited and fell from the limelight. The Oera Linda Book has greatly influenced the liberal New Age movement and is the source of many of Wiccas basic ideas. The Wiccan myth that secret pagan knowledge was passed down from generation to generation to today comes largely from the Oera Linda Book. The idea that Europe was dominated by Goddess worship, until a male sky God cult invaded our homeland and suppressed the original feminist society comes from the Oera Linda Book.

Much of the New Age recreation of the old lost continent of Atlantis myth into a modern day myth came from the Oera Linda Book and other sources. The Oera Linda Book ties all these New Age occult ideas together with liberalism and egalitarianism.

The Oera Linda Book, begins, You must preserve these books with body and soul. They contain the history of all our people, as well as of our forefathers. Last year I saved them in the flood, as well as you and your mother; but they got wet, and therefore began to perish. In order not to lose them, I copied them on foreign paper. In case you inherit them, you must copy them likewise, and your children must do so too, so that they may never be lost. Written at Liuwert, in the three thousand four hundred and forty-ninth year after Atland was submergedthat is, according to the Christian reckoning, the year 1256.

The Oera Linda Book ends with, Thereupon all was confusion. Askar, who thought that all was going on well, landed with his ships on the other side of the Scheldt; but there they were already aware of his coming, and were on their guard. He had to flee as quickly as he had come, and was himself taken prisoner. The Gauls did not know whom they had taken, so he was afterwards exchanged for a noble Gaul whom Askars people had taken with them. While all this was going on, the Magyars went about audaciously over the lands of our neighbours. Near Egmuda, where formerly the citadel Forana had stood, they built a church larger and richer than that which Askar had built at Staveren. They said afterwards that Askar had lost the battle against the Gauls, because the people did not believe that Wodin could help them, and therefore they would not pray to him. They went about stealing young children, whom they kept and brought up in the mysteries of their abominable doctrines. Were there people who…

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I clearly said "two reviews ON AMAZON" which is a very likely place for anyone to look. I don't pay people to do reviews like some authors do. I have also placed other reviews here before and your silence was deafening (as were Knul and Abramelin's). Your absolutely biased and irrational attacks on me should be very obvious by now to anyone following this discussion. In fact some PM’s I received labelled you as a “thread killer” – very apt! I do not think you have much credibility left - be thankful for your pseudonym here.

As for academic reviews, you should know that this takes time, i.e. if you have a credible academic background. Academics need to study the material, sources and references, do their own research and discuss it with colleagues. They do not simply read something and then express an opinion – unlike you who has not even read the book or who knows nothing of the OLB’s or Dutch history.

I hope you and I are still around when the OLB is officially vindicated which, I must admit, may take years. When that happens, your response could be interesting.

As for now, I will continue to ignore your tunnel vision and inability to see the greater picture.

Yes, I realize it could take time for academics to reach a conclusion about your book. But YOU are the one who's brought up these 2 reviews as if they're somehow meaningful, in and of themselves, and therefore validate the overall accuracy of your book. They're not and they don't. And even a few other reviews that may be mentioned in this thread, that still doesn't answer the question of how many and out of how many books sold. As we both know, anyone can write a review. In and of itself, that doesn't really mean much. That's why I asked.

As to others possible opinion of me, I'm not really concerned, as I'm not of a mindset to play "Let's Pretend".

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alewyn, I will answer you using a different font color and inside your post:

And didn't and don't you still ignore the discussions - here and in the available analyses - about linguistics and etymology? You even admitted in this thread that it's not your kind of thing. OK, well, I agree it's not much of my thing either, but it IS an important part of the analysis of the OLB, or at least it should be.

The problem I have with linguistics and etymology is that there is so much guesswork and opinions. Where did a word originate? In Greek? Latin? Proto-Frisian? It is impossible do get to hard facts – especially over 4000 years + of very volatile and fluid history. That is why I based my book on hard historical and scientific facts that came to the fore since the OLB appeared and which was not known in the 19th century. As I (and Otharus) pointed out before, none of these facts in the OLB have been proven wrong in more than 140 years.

The only reason there is no 100 % convincing and definite proof of it being a hoax/fabrication is just because all the possible suspects are long dead. And that is your luck. No one left a note saying "I did it, and here's why...".

The possible suspects were not dead in the 19th century when the hoax theory was started. In fact, all the “suspects” categorically denied any involvement. Yet, Dutch academics still refuse to acknowledge this. Why?

True, but first you must show us this truth, and up to now you failed.

No Abe, I have not failed. You, in fact, are the only one who has read my book and refuse to accept the evidence I gave. One Frenchman (I can’t offhand recall his name but I gave it here before) knows the OLB very well. In fact, he lectured Dutch, French and Latin and he has translated the OLB into French. He has also studied the Dutch writings about the OLB and he agrees with my conclusions.

Find the date of that impact that created the Burckle Crater; up to now it's nowhere near the OLB date of 2194 BC.

Scientists claim that the Burckle Impact occurred during the third millennium BC. The point I tried to clarify in my second edition, is that, if it did strike in the third millennium BC, it could not have happened any time other than ca 2200 BC. I have included much more scientific evidence and references to global floods and tsunamis and the demise of many ancient civilizations, etc. etc in my latest edition.

This is how I worded my conclusion:

“If these scientists are correct in suggesting that the impact occurred in the third millennium BC, it is highly unlikely that it could have happened any time other than 2200 BC. We have seen ample historical, archaeological and geological evidence that a devastating global disaster happened in ca 2200 BC. We do not have the same evidence for 2500 BC or even 2900 BC. Had the Burckle Impact struck earth some 300 to 700 years before the 4.2 ka BP event, the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Akkad, Harappa, etc. would have been destroyed then and not in 2200 BC as all the evidence suggest. There would have been insufficient time for these ancient civilizations to have recovered and reached an advanced level of development in such a short space of time. It is therefore suggested that the Burckle Asteroid impacted during, and was a major contributor to, the 4.2ka BP Event.”

Find remnants of one of those OLB citadels; there must have been many of them and not just in the present Netherlands. Nothing has been found so far, anywhere.

You yourself has given evidence of longhouses (7000 years ago) and ringwaldburchs(?). How can you now say there is no evidence of this. In any event, how did anybody in the 19th century know that these existed 4000 years ago (and before)?

I have included your evidence in my second edition. Thanks for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OLB Manuscript ~ part 10 of 11

friescheoudhedenOLB1875_10.jpg

Dutch

En toch besloot deze geleerde met:

"Hoewel niets echtheid uitsluit, en we niets hebben ontdekt dat van vervalsing overtuigt, toch is er iets dat onze argwaan wekt in de delen die te maken hebben met de Grieks-Romeinse oudheid."

We hebben geen enkele twijfel aan de eerlijkheid en openhartigheid van de heren Over de Linden en dr. Ottema.

We zij er stellig van overtuigd dat, indien er sprake zou zijn van een vervalsing, zij daar niet aan hebben meegewerkt.

We hebben twijfels, maar deze zijn niet sterk genoeg om daarom het OLB definitief te verwerpen."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

English

And yet this scholar concluded:

"Although nothing excludes authenticity, and we discovered nothing that convinces of a forgery, still there is something suspicious about the parts that deal with Greek-Roman antiquity.

We have no doubts about the honesty and frankness of the gentlemen Over de Linden and Ottema.

We are convinced that, if it would be a forgery, they have not participated in making it.

We have doubts, but they are not strong enough to make us definitely reject the OLB."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-1- The problem I have with linguistics and etymology is that there is so much guesswork and opinions. Where did a word originate? In Greek? Latin? Proto-Frisian? It is impossible do get to hard facts – especially over 4000 years + of very volatile and fluid history. That is why I based my book on hard historical and scientific facts that came to the fore since the OLB appeared and which was not known in the 19th century. As I (and Otharus) pointed out before, none of these facts in the OLB have been proven wrong in more than 140 years.

-2- The possible suspects were not dead in the 19th century when the hoax theory was started. In fact, all the “suspects” categorically denied any involvement. Yet, Dutch academics still refuse to acknowledge this. Why?

-3- No Abe, I have not failed. You, in fact, are the only one who has read my book and refuse to accept the evidence I gave. One Frenchman (I can’t offhand recall his name but I gave it here before) knows the OLB very well. In fact, he lectured Dutch, French and Latin and he has translated the OLB into French. He has also studied the Dutch writings about the OLB and he agrees with my conclusions.

-4- Scientists claim that the Burckle Impact occurred during the third millennium BC. The point I tried to clarify in my second edition, is that, if it did strike in the third millennium BC, it could not have happened any time other than ca 2200 BC. I have included much more scientific evidence and references to global floods and tsunamis and the demise of many ancient civilizations, etc. etc in my latest edition.

This is how I worded my conclusion:

“If these scientists are correct in suggesting that the impact occurred in the third millennium BC, it is highly unlikely that it could have happened any time other than 2200 BC. We have seen ample historical, archaeological and geological evidence that a devastating global disaster happened in ca 2200 BC. We do not have the same evidence for 2500 BC or even 2900 BC. Had the Burckle Impact struck earth some 300 to 700 years before the 4.2 ka BP event, the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Akkad, Harappa, etc. would have been destroyed then and not in 2200 BC as all the evidence suggest. There would have been insufficient time for these ancient civilizations to have recovered and reached an advanced level of development in such a short space of time. It is therefore suggested that the Burckle Asteroid impacted during, and was a major contributor to, the 4.2ka BP Event.”

-5- You yourself has given evidence of longhouses (7000 years ago) and ringwaldburchs(?). How can you now say there is no evidence of this. In any event, how did anybody in the 19th century know that these existed 4000 years ago (and before)?

I have included your evidence in my second edition. Thanks for that.

-1- Not all of linguistics is just guesswork and opinions, and it would have been great if any of the resident linguists here would have shown up in this thread.

"Hard historical" facts? A lot of what you mentioned as reliable sources (fi. Greek, Roman) were known in the 19th century. And you have talked about the Minoan Civilization as an example of what was NOT known in the 19th century, but I have shown you what was known about legendary Greek "Minos" and it fits the OLB "Minno" like a glove.

And those scientific facts (a period of severe droughts in the Middle East, Egypt, Mesopotamia) only prove the weather had changed and that people went on the move. But nothing at all about all those other natural disasters that were mentioned in the OLB ("When the bad time came..."). The OLB creates a scary image of Biblical end-time proportions, but we still haven't seen anything in geological records that proves that scenario.

-2- One of the 'suspects', Halbertsma, died before the OLB was even published.

And I did read Haverschmidt's letter in which he indeed denied having had anything to do with the OLB. But did you read it too? If someone created a hoax, and then discovers the effect it has on the public, an effect he would never have dreamt of but most probably would not have hoped for (meant as an innocent but elaborate hoax created to entertain an idea, but never meant to make people's careers go down the drain), is it not plausible that the one who created it would deny every accusation against his person?

-3- I assume you mean a Frisian or Dutch writer who published in French. If you Google "VVra Linda" (instead of "Oera Linda") you will find him and his book.

(EDIT: http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rbph_0035-0818_1980_num_58_1_5650_t1_0221_0000_3 )

I have read your book, and I haven't really read any convincing evidence, just possibilities.

-4- I can only say this: let's wait till they find the exact date of that impact. Btw, I already read online about scientific doubts about it even having been an impact.

-5- Yes, I posted about 'longhouses' (in Elsloo if I remember correctly), but they were 3000 years before the OLB timeline. And yes, they did know about 'longhouses' in the 19th century.

(EDIT: http://structuralarchaeology.blogspot.com/2009/08/33-elsloo-32-neolithic-longhouse-made.html)

And those ringwallburchts are from much more recent times: around the time the Vikings started their invasions. They never found those burchts from the times the OLB talks about. And they do not even look like they should have looked if they had been OLB kind of citadels.

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no doubts about the honesty and frankness of the gentlemen Over de Linden and Ottema.

We are convinced that, if it would be a forgery, they have not participated in making it.

We have doubts, but they are not strong enough to make us definitely reject the OLB."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This is pretty much how I sum it up for me too.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pretty much how I sum it up for me too.

And yet this scholar concluded:

"Although nothing excludes authenticity, and we discovered nothing that convinces of a forgery, still there is something suspicious about the parts that deal with Greek-Roman antiquity.

We have no doubts about the honesty and frankness of the gentlemen Over de Linden and Ottema.

We are convinced that, if it would be a forgery, they have not participated in making it.

We have doubts, but they are not strong enough to make us definitely reject the OLB."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OLB Manuscript ~ part 11 of 11

friescheoudhedenOLB1875_11.jpg

Dutch

Het gaat in ieder geval om een merkwaardig boek.

Sommigen zien in het OLB een verheerlijking van het Friese verleden.

Het boek zal nauwkeurig onderzocht blijven worden, zolang het moeilijk is, om in oude volksgeschiedenis te bepalen wat mythe, sage of versierde overlevering is.

Toch zal iedereen die het boek gelezen heeft moeten toegeven, dat delen van de inhoud waardevol zijn.

We zijn het dan ook helemaal eens met het volgende oordeel van de Deventer geleerde:

"Hoewel ik van het boek ben gaan houden, zie ik de resultaten van een wetenschappellijk onderzoek met vertrouwen tegemoet.

Want, zelfs als het op historische gronden overtuigend zou worden weerlegd, dan toch zal het boek als allegorie, als fictie een hoge ethische waarde blijven behouden."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

English

We can anyway call this book remarkable.

Some see the OLB as an idolization of the Frisian past.

The book will remain subject of meticulous research, as long as it is hard to determine what part of old history is myth, saga, or embellished tradition.

Yet anyone who has read the book will have to admit, that parts of the content are valuable.

Therefore we fully agree with the following statement of the scholar from Deventer:

"Although I have fallen in love with the book, I confidently look forward to the results of a scientific examination.

Because, even if it would be convincingly refuted on historic grounds, it would still keep its great ethical value as an allegory, as fiction."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Although nothing excludes authenticity, and we discovered nothing that convinces of a forgery, still there is something suspicious about the parts that deal with Greek-Roman antiquity."

It's only normal that a (newly discovered) North-European viewpoint of the same story will be different from the (known for ages) Greek and Latin part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet this scholar concluded:

"Although nothing excludes authenticity, and we discovered nothing that convinces of a forgery, still there is something suspicious about the parts that deal with Greek-Roman antiquity.

We have no doubts about the honesty and frankness of the gentlemen Over de Linden and Ottema.

We are convinced that, if it would be a forgery, they have not participated in making it.

We have doubts, but they are not strong enough to make us definitely reject the OLB."

So? I only agreed with the 3 lines I quoted.

The only thing suspicious about Greek and Roman antiquity is the incredible maze of fictitious backgrounds they gave themselves, called myths.

Spell edit: Fictitious is a tricky word.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So? I only agreed with the 3 lines I quoted.

The only thing suspicious about Greek and Roman antiquity is the incredible maze of ficticious backgrounds they gave themselves, called myths.

And I agreed with the sentence I underlined.

This is not about Greek and Roman antiquity being suspicious, it's about the parts of the OLB that deal with Greek-Roman antiquity being suspicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only normal that a (newly discovered) North-European viewpoint of the same story will be different from the (known for ages) Greek and Latin part.

True, but the assumption here is that it's the same story. Without evidence to substantiate or deny it, it's not wise to assume anything.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only normal that a (newly discovered) North-European viewpoint of the same story will be different from the (known for ages) Greek and Latin part.

It is to be expected that in general things will be the same and more or less confirm other sources, some things will be different, but not that the whole story gets reversed a 180 degrees.

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I agreed with the sentence I underlined.

This is not about Greek and Roman antiquity being suspicious, it's about the parts of the OLB that deal with Greek-Roman antiquity being suspicious.

I know that.

But the opposite is really true. The OLB is very unsuspicious, so much so, it's almost impossible to detect if it's real or not, as you said, no UFO's, no monsters or strangeness, no, it's almost too ordinary isn't it, revealing how simple it is, too simple, so simple it makes perfect sense. :innocent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is to be expected that some things will be the same, some things will be different, not that the whole story gets reversed a 180 degrees.

I don't agree that is the case anyway.

Ottema was a specialist of Greek-Roman antiquity and he found nothing that could not be true.

But it's an interesting point that parts of it don't agree with what was known or believed in the 19th century about Greek-Roman antiquity.

You claim the supposed hoaxers knew everything that was to be known at that time.

Why would they include things that make the text suspicious if they want to make people believe and accept that it's true?

Or didn't they want that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree that is the case anyway.

Ottema was a specialist of Greek-Roman antiquity and he found nothing that could not be true.

But it's an interesting point that parts of it don't agree with what was known or believed in the 19th century about Greek-Roman antiquity.

You claim the supposed hoaxers knew everything that was to be known at that time.

Why would they include things that make the text suspicious if they want to make people believe and accept that it's true?

Or didn't they want that?

Yeah, my fault, I was busy editing. This is what I wanted to say:

"It is to be expected that in general things will be the same and more or less confirm other sources, some things will be different, but not that the whole story gets reversed a 180 degrees."

I think Jensma wrote a whole book about why they wanted people to find out eventually the OLB wasn't what it seemed to be at first sight: an ancient manuscript.

And judging from Halbertsma's online library - just to name one of the possible suspects - he knew a whole lot, up to a point it is almost unbelievable he read it all. But if you read some of his works, you'll see him referencing to ancient writers quite often. His books were obviously not meant to collect dust on the shelves or to impress less literate people.

Ottema didn't find anything that could not be true, you say. I agree, and I have been singing the same song for 2 years now: that was the intention of the writers, that it all 'could be true' or 'could have happened'.

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that.

But the opposite is really true. The OLB is very unsuspicious, so much so, it's almost impossible to detect if it's real or not, as you said, no UFO's, no monsters or strangeness, no, it's almost too ordinary isn't it, revealing how simple it is, too simple, so simple it makes perfect sense. :innocent:

The only weird things happening in the OLB are a couple of burgtmaidens/femmes walking on water.

That looks like some Christian 'miracle' had slipped into the narrative, and I think it was intentional.

And then we have that burghtfemme called "Tutia" of Kadik who happened to have the same name as the most famous Vestal Virgin, Tutia... a pre-Christian nun from the looks of it.

And then that whole episode in the OLB where Gosa speaks like she is quoting directly from the Bible.

And let's not forget about the OLB "Jesos"...

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another reason why it is most unlikely (I'd say impossible) that Joost Halbertsma (1789-1869) was involved in the supposed (by Knul and Abe) fabrication of the OLB.

In 1867 Cornelis Over de Linden started corresponding with dr. Eelco Verwijs from the Fries Genootschap about the manuscript, and in the same year Verwijs reported to the government.

If - as Knul claims - Over de Linden and Stadermann had created their forgery based on Halbertsma's work, there are two possibilities:

1. Halbertsma knew about the forgery and agreed.

2. They had used his text without his agreement.

If 1. is true, Halbertsma risked being accused of forgery. With his place in society it is unthinkable that he would risk this.

If 2. is true, Over de Linden risked that Halbertsma (still alive in 1867) would spoil the forgery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another reason why it is most unlikely (I'd say impossible) that Joost Halbertsma (1789-1869) was involved in the supposed (by Knul and Abe) fabrication of the OLB.

In 1867 Cornelis Over de Linden started corresponding with dr. Eelco Verwijs from the Fries Genootschap about the manuscript, and in the same year Verwijs reported to the government.

If - as Knul claims - Over de Linden and Stadermann had created their forgery based on Halbertsma's work, there are two possibilities:

1. Halbertsma knew about the forgery and agreed.

2. They had used his text without his agreement.

If 1. is true, Halbertsma risked being accused of forgery. With his place in society it is unthinkable that he would risk this.

If 2. is true, Over de Linden risked that Halbertsma (still alive in 1867) would spoil the forgery.

-2- But the book was published after Halbertsma's death; he may not even have known someone had used/stolen his fable about ancient Frisian history, or that people were busy communicating (letters) about it.

If no one would have known Halbertsma had created that fable (or would even have wanted to create the fable), no one would have asked him about it.

.

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only weird things happening in the OLB are a couple of burgtmaidens/femmes walking on water.

That looks like some Christian 'miracle' had slipped into the narrative, and I think it was intentional.

And then we have that burghtfemme called "Tutia" of Kadik who happened to have the same name as the most famous Vestal Virgin, Tutia... a pre-Christian nun from the looks of it.

And then that whole episode in the OLB where Gosa speaks like she is quoting directly from the Bible.

And let's not forget about the OLB "Jesos"...

.

I can only find this name in Finnish. The English version of Tuntia is from a Germanic language too. Strange name for a Roman Vestal Virgin then. I wonder where this 'legend' actually sprang from.

Finnish[edit] PronunciationIPA: [ˈt̪ut̪i.ɑˣ]

Rhymes: --utiɑ

Hyphenation: tu‧ti‧a

[edit] Verbtutia

1.(childish) to sleep

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tutia

Finnish[edit] Etymology From a Germanic language, compare stund, Stunde.

[edit] Noun unit of time

h

Previous: minuutti

Next: vuorokausi

tunti

1.An hour (unit of time).

2.A lesson, class

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tunti

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tuntia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The English version you mentoned is the one by Sandbach.

He simply made an error translating (or based on Ottema's error, not sure), but the original manuscript has "Tutia" as the name of that burghtfemme of Kadik.

Anyway, enter "Tutia" in the search tool for this thread.

Knul once said "Tutia" was a misspelling, and that Sandbach corrected it into "Tuntia".

No way hosay.

Tutia the Burgtmaiden >> Tutia the Veste Virgin >> Tutia the Vestal Virgin.

A Dutch word for stronghold, fortress or maybe even citadel is VESTING, and it comes from the medieval VESTE.

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-2- But the book was published after Halbertsma's death; he may not even have known someone had used/stolen his fable about ancient Frisian history, or that people were busy communicating (letters) about it.

He was an honorary member of the Genootschap and still alive in 1867, when it was first discussed there.

It is unthinkable that he has not heard about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was an honorary member of the Genootschap and still alive in 1867, when it was first discussed there.

It is unthinkable that he has not heard about it.

Then it's even better: he heard about it and kept his mouth shut, just to see the story unfold.

I don't know what I would do if someone publishes one of my concoctions believing it to be a real authentic and ancient manuscript. Maybe I'd just sit back and have an eternal grin on my face, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The English version you mentoned is the one by Sandbach.

He simply made an error translating (or based on Ottema's error, not sure), but the original manuscript has "Tutia" as the name of that burghtfemme of Kadik.

Anyway, enter "Tutia" in the search tool for this thread.

Knul once said "Tutia" was a misspelling, and that Sandbach corrected it into "Tuntia".

No way hosay.

Tutia the Burgtmaiden >> Tutia the Veste Virgin >> Tutia the Vestal Virgin.

A Dutch word for stronghold, fortress or maybe even citadel is VESTING, and it comes from the medieval VESTE.

.

I know the OLB says Tutia, that's why I gave it first.

But since it is Tuntia in English this may be a correct translation, the name may really be the same, keeping that in mind, it goes through to what sounds like tutor, - 2.A lesson, class (Finnish tuntia)

and I know what veste is, but the real point is not that they were at a fortress or stronghold, but they were tutors of the ways and if you check tutor into Latin you get GUARDIAN, PROTECTOR.

THAT is what Tutia really was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know the OLB says Tutia, that's why I gave it first.

But since it is Tuntia in English this may be a correct translation, the name may really be the same, keeping that in mind, it goes through to what sounds like tutor, - 2.A lesson, class (Finnish tuntia)

and I know what veste is, but the real point is not that they were at a fortress or stronghold, but they were tutors of the ways and if you check tutor into Latin you get GUARDIAN, PROTECTOR.

THAT is what Tutia really was.

Fine with me. I already said it came from Latin/the Romans.

The burghtfemmes/maidens may have been protectors of knowledge and laws, just like the Vestal Virgins 'coincidentally', but if you are right, they all should have been called "Tutia".

And how can you say "Tuntia" may be a correct translation into English? It's quite obvious Sandbach must've assumed "Tutia" should have been "Tuntia" because that name already showed up in the OLB.

He corrected/changed something of the originl text because of an assumption; I'd say that is a big no-no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.