[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

[Abramelin]

The arrogance in the aforegoing leaves one utterly without words.

The arrogance, that was my intention.

Apparently you never read that I am regularly being accused of having an 'agenda' and whatnot.

.

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with the OLB.

I know.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

This is an important source for who wants to know how the early 19th century Dutch thought about their ancient past.

I already like Van Lennep's introduction (sorry no translation yet):

Men heeft veel over het nuttige of nadeelige der historische romans geschreven en getwist: en het is mijne bedoeling niet, te dezer plaatse dit vraagpunt op nieuw te berde te brengen. Dat ik mij aan het opstellen en uitgeven van dergelijke verhalen bezondig, is een bewijs, dat ik de soort voorsta en mijn gevoelen te dien opzichte kan niet onpartijdig zijn. Slechts dit geloof ik te kunnen vaststellen, dat de rechte kennis der waarheid minder schade lijdt door een roman dan door een dagblad of een geschiedkundig werk. Dit moge bij den eersten opslag een paradox schijnen; maar niets is er, dat meer heeft van een paradox dan een nieuw denkbeeld: — en de verklaring mijner stelling is dood eenvoudig. De lezer van een roman is reeds door den tytel gewaarschuwd, dat hij waarheid en verdichting door een gemengd zal vinden: en hij heeft het zichzelf te wijten, zoo hij alles voor goede munt opneemt. De dagblad- en historieschrijver daarentegen beloven waarheid: — en hoevelen onder hen zijn er, die woord houden?

And then the title of part I "ALWART".

As "Alward" (which sounds the same), this is an anagram of "Wralda".

Coincidence?

Ignore them grumpy bears, Abe.

You did a good job.

ALWART, yes, I thought the same as you did, but left it out because even I thought that connection was a bit too vague.

[Abramelin]

Overeenkomsten met Jacob van Lennep

Het is hier de plaats om te wijzen op overeenkomsten tussen Joost Halbertsma en Jacob van Lennep (1802-1868), bekend schrijver van historische Romans als De roos van Dekama. Een opvallende verschijning in De roos van Dekama is Madzy, wiens naam toch wel erg veel lijkt op Magi, de aanvoerder van de Finnen en Magyaren in het Oera Linda Boek. De Madscharen komen we trouwens ook tegen in De roos van Dekama evenals de Alfader, in het Oera Linda Boek Alfoder genoemd. De Magyaren (van Lennep’s Madscharen), die zichzelf nog steeds beschouwen als afstammelingen van de Hunnen, verlieten in de negende eeuw hun toenmalige woonplaats aan de Wolga en terroriseerden het Frankische rijk. Hendrik de Vogelaar kon ze in de tiende eeuw uit zijn stamland Saksen verdrijven, zoals Olberts verhaalt. Zijn zoon Otto de Grote versloeg ze in de slag bij de Lech in Beieren. Daarna trokken de Magyaren zich terug en stichtten Hongarije. Ze bekeerden zich tot het Christendom en werden een gerespecteerd Europees volk.Er lijkt van toeval geen sprake te zijn, wanneer we opmerken, dat Joost Halbertsma in 1836 samen met Jacob van Lennep en Freerk Dirks Fontein een wandeling maakte door Gaasterland en bij die gelegenheid de lucht van een overoud verleden opsnoven. Freerk Dirks Fontein (1777-1843) was een koopman-geleerde uit Harlingen. Hij was een van de mede-oprichters van het Friesch Genootschap. De relatie tussen J.H. Halbertsma en Jacob van Lennep zou wel eens interessante informatie voor het Oera Linda Boek kunnen opleveren.

s. www.rodinbook.nl

Translation:

Similarities with Jacob van Lennep

This is the place to point out similarities between Joost Halbertsma and Jacob van Lennep (1802-1868), author of historical novels known as The Rose of Dekama ("De Roos van Dekama").

A striking appearance in The Rose of Dekama is Madzy, whose name is still very much like the Magi, the leader of the Finns and the Magyars of the Oera Linda Book.

Btw, we also encounter the Madscharen in The Rose of Dekama, like Alfader who's called Alfoder in the Oera Linda Book.

The Magyars (van Lennep's Madscharen), who still consider themseves descendants of the Huns, left their former home on the Volga in the 9th century and terrorized the Frankish empire. Henry de Vogelaar ("the Fowler"), was able to drive them from his homeland Saxony, as Olberts recounts. His son Otto the Great defeated them in the battle of the Lech in Bavaria. After that the Magyars retreated and founded Hungary. They converted to Christianity and became a respected European people.

This doesn't seem to be a coincidence, when we notice that Joost Halbertsma in 1836 along with Jacob van Lennep and Freerk Dirks Fountein made ​​a trip through Gaasterland and on that occasion heard of a rumour of an ancient past. Freerk Dirks Fontein (1777-1843) was a merchant-scholar from Harlingen. He was one of the co-founders of the Friesch Genootschap ("Frisian Academy"). The relationship between J.H. Halbertsma and Jacob van Lennep could well provide interesting information for the Oera Linda Book.

http://rodinbook.nl/olbpersbericht.html

.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Abramelin

[Otharus]

Translation:

Similarities with Jacob van Lennep

[...] A striking appearance in The Rose of Dekama is Madzy, whose name is still very much like the Magi, the leader of the Finns and the Magyars of the Oera Linda Book.

Abe, you really take this crap seriously?!

The woman's name Madzy has as much to do with the MAGY, als 'sir' Hettema with SYRHED (another one of Knul's revelations).

Edited November 26, 2011 by Otharus

[Abramelin]

Abe, you really take this crap seriously?!

The woman's name Madzy has as much to do with the MAGY, als 'sir' Hettema with SYRHED (another one of Knul's revelations).

Heh, I only translated.

But the "Madzy" thing sounded a bit - let's say - unlikely to me too.

[Abramelin]

And no doubt you will all be pleased to hear what name Van Lennep gives - while talking about the Romans - to the Mediterranean (or "Middellandse Zee" in Dutch):

Middelzee

(you must scroll down a bit when you open the link).

The best thing to do is download the book; that's what I did.

Anyway, the message is: some 30 years before the OLB was published some Dutch writer used the name "Middelzee" for the Mediterranean.

So there we have 2 Middle Seas: one in Friesland, and the one we know now as Mediterranean (Middellandse Zee).

.

Btw, I just read an index to Van Lennep's book, "De Roos van Dekama", and it shows he knew of the Frisian "Middelzee" too, despite the fact that by his time it was long gone:

Middelzee = een inham tussen Ooster- en Westergoo. In de loop der eeuwen geheel ingepolderd.

Middelzee = an inlet between Easter- and Westergo. Over the centuries, completely reclaimed.

http://cf.hum.uva.nl/dsp/ljc/jlennep/Dekama/dekaword.html#Olderman

[Otharus]

Translation:

This is the place to point out similarities between Joost Halbertsma and Jacob van Lennep (1802-1868) [...] Freerk Dirks Fontein (1777-1843) was a merchant-scholar from Harlingen.

I can think of another explanation for the 'similarities' between some elements of the OLB and some of the ideas of

Joost Halbertsma (1789-1869),

Jacob van Lennep (1802-1868) and

Freerk Fontein (1777-1843).

Jan Over de Linden (ca.1718-1794) was book-printer, publisher and trader in Enkhuizen.

Until now, none of his publications are identified but that does not mean they did not exist.

If he indeed owned the manuscript he may have published some of it's information and it's also possible that he (or one of his forefathers) invited people he trusted, to have a look at it or discuss it. They may have promised to keep the secret of the manuscript, while being allowed to use it as inspiration.

All speculation of course, just like the stuff the hoax theories are made of.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Otharus

[Knul]

I can think of another explanation for the 'similarities' between some elements of the OLB and some of the ideas of

Joost Halbertsma (1789-1869),

Jacob van Lennep (1802-1868) and

Freerk Fontein (1777-1843).

Jan Over de Linden (ca.1718-1794) was book-printer, publisher and trader in Enkhuizen.

Until now, none of his publications are identified but that does not mean they did not exist.

If he indeed owned the manuscript he may have published some of it's information and it's also possible that he (or one of his forefathers) invited people he trusted, to have a look at it or discuss it. They may have promised to keep the secret of the manuscript, while being allowed to use it as inspiration.

All speculation of course, just like the stuff the hoax theories are made of.

Willem Bilderdijk was a mutual friend of van Lennep and Joost Halbertsma (who possessed all of his books). It would be worthwile to take Bilderdijk into account.

Jan over de Linden founded a bookshop in Enkhuizen. As far as I know he came from Leeuwarden, which would explain the Frisian origin of Cornelis over de Linden.

The identification of Syrhed with Sir Hettema is a revelation by Mr. G.J. van der Mey (not by me).

Edited November 26, 2011 by Knul

[Abramelin]

Willem Bilderdijk was a mutual friend of van Lennep and Joost Halbertsma (who possessed all of his books). It would be worthwile to take Bilderdijk into account.

Jan over de Linden founded a bookshop in Enkhuizen. As far as I know he came from Leeuwarden, which would explain the Frisian origin of Cornelis over de Linden.

The identification of Syrhed with Sir Hettema is a revelation by Mr. G.J. van der Mey (not by me).

Syrhed simply means "sieraad" (adornment, finery, preciostity).

It's the Old Frisian spelling of the Dutch word "sieraad".

si-r-hê-d

http://www.koeblergerhard.de/germanistischewoerterbuecher/altfriesischeswoerterbuch/afries-S.pdf

.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Abramelin

[Knul]

Syrhed simply means "sieraad" (adornment, finery, preciostity).

It's the Old Frisian spelling of the Dutch word "sieraad".

si-r-hê-d

http://www.koeblergerhard.de/germanistischewoerterbuecher/altfriesischeswoerterbuch/afries-S.pdf

.

I know.

[Abramelin]

I know.

Great.

What's this thing about a Hettema then?

Because Van der Meij said so?

I am a skeptic, but I am not desperate.

I do know I post stuff that will make people wonder in what state I am in, but I only post it because - at that moment - it's my thing. it's what *I* found out.

Being arrogant and all that again, no doubt.

[Abramelin]

Please post something substantial.

I know, I posted about "Kadik" being "Katwijk", but that town is called "Kattik" in local dialect, and it was an important harbour during Roman times. They are even now digging for archeological proof it was an important harbour.

"Madzy" is a girl's name... I have known a "Margie", and I can tell you she didn't remind me of any Hun, although she loved to call me "hun"...

[Knul]

Great.

What's this thing about a Hettema then?

Because Van der Meij said so?

I am a skeptic, but I am not desperate.

I do know I post stuff that will make people wonder in what state I am in, but I only post it because - at that moment - it's my thing. it's what *I* found out.

Being arrogant and all that again, no doubt.

Van der Mey has tried to identify members of the Frisian Society under names, which are recorded in the OLB. We have no idea, who are meant by Storo, Enoch (eenoog ?), Apol, Abelo, Dunros etc. This aspect has not yet been investigated.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Knul

[Knul]

Please post something substantial.

I know, I posted about "Kadik" being "Katwijk", but that town is called "Kattik" in local dialect, and it was an important harbour during Roman times. They are even now digging for archeological proof it was an important harbour.

"Madzy" is a girl's name... I have known a "Margie", and I can tell you she didn't remind me of any Hun, although she loved to call me "hun"...

Madzy has been omitted in the index on the Roos van Dekema.

Het boek is genoemd naar de zeer mooie adellijke Madzy van Dekema, een Friezin, die bij vele ridders meer, uitvoerige beschreven, innerlijke strijd oplevert dan de roman aan gevechten laat zien. Een uitzondering moet worden gemaakt voor de werkelijk grandioos beschreven belegering door de Hollanders van een Friese abdij.

[Knul]

Abramelin, could we reconstruct which papers have been put in the case of Johan Winkler, in which he accused Verwijs, Haverschmidt and Cornelis over de Linden. So far there has not been published a complete inventarisation.

[The Puzzler]

Oct 1872 – Feb 1874. Essay by Cornelis over de Linden (Addressed to grandson Cornelis III). The text was published in J. Beckering Vinckers’ “Wie heeft het Oera-Linda-Boek geschreven” (“Who wrote the Oera Linda Book”) (Kampen 1877).

(My translation of the Dutch version posted by Knul a few weeks ago. Knul’s and Beckering Vinckers’ remarks have been omitted.)

To my grandson Cornelis and further descendents,

Everybody who has any interest in my manuscript, asks me how I obtained it. You may possibly do the same later but, as it is not certain that I will still be alive, I want to write it down here.

Introduction:

My great-grandfather (Jan over de Linden) had two sons, of which my (grand) father (Andries over de Linden) was the eldest. He thus became the possessor of the manuscript.

At the Town Council of Enkhuizen they received a request from The Hague to find my family tree. Mr. van Alpen, Inspector of Steam Affairs (?), asked me how I found the book. A representative of the Provincial Administration from Friesland advised me to deposit the manuscript in the archives of Friesland, with proof of ownership, whereupon my descendents could always get it, etc. The book is thus out in the open (in the world).

~~~~

(The end has not been published [apparently] on the request of L.F. over de Linden)

That was a very good read Alewyn. Seems to me this letter is true and correct.

Talking of all those 'intellectuals' of the late 19th Century.

Altamira (Spanish for 'high views') is a cave in Spain famous for its Upper Paleolithic cave paintings featuring drawings and polychrome rock paintings of wild mammals and human hands.

Its special relevance comes from the fact that it was the first cave in which prehistoric cave paintings were discovered. 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. The acknowledgement of the authenticity of the paintings, which finally came in 1902, changed forever the perception of prehistoric human beings.

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

It took 22 years for the European Cave art to be taken seriously. Their 'own beliefs' defined our historical knowledge at the time.

[The Puzzler]

Iceland or Island is interesting too, all those volcanoes, Mons Hekla and the like, emitting sulphur, looks like a sulphur works there, but what caught my eye here is the Crypts in the North, I'd never heard of these in Iceland, near the Knights on horses.

Italian cryptographer Giancarlo Gianazza, who has obviously been reading a bit too much of Dan Brown, claims to have found clues that point to a hidden crypt deep in Iceland’s barren southwest corner (in the improbably named Hrunamananahreppur region). His theory is that the Knights Templar made the then dangerous sea voyage to Iceland in 1217 to bury treasures plundered from the crusades far from prying eyes. The hope of Gianazza, is that the geological surveys and digging they’ve been involved in since 2004 will soon unearth a crypt housing religious artefacts, including the Holy Grail itself. This revelation was explained matter-of-factly to me by my Icelandic guide as he pointed out the site where they are digging for the crypt. He found it amusing that a group of foreigners would brave the cold to spend their days digging for hidden treasures of Iceland’s past, when all around them they could enjoy the abundant treasures of its present.

Maybe they should try the North east corner.

----------------

The map appears to be dated 1539.

It got its charter and current name in 1643, granted by Queen Christina, making it one of the now defunct Cities of Sweden.

That is Lindesberg.

But it is clearly written on the map.

I posted this a few days ago. But I was really curious to see if anyone had an answer to my question.

If the map is from 1539 why does it have a name on it that was not given until 1643? The English name, Lindesberg, not the Norse name is written on the map.

Anyone?

Map dated 1539:

Lindesberg clearly seen at the bottom of map, next to Uplandia:

Edited November 27, 2011 by The Puzzler

[Alewyn]

OK Alewyn, I am waiting for your 'compliments'.

I was "off-line" for two days (busy with other stuff) and am only now starting to catch up here.

Yes, I think you found remarkable stuff - well done.

[Alewyn]

Otharus once called me the "über-googler".

Puzz once posted that those "Hollanders" are an arrogant lot.

Damn, I am one of those 'Hollanders', and I will tell you an off-topic story, arrogant as I must be.

I once had a girlfriend who hadn't seen her father for like 30 years (she was 35 back then).

The guy had left his wife and kid (her) because some people had tricked him out of all his money (he was a cab driver and owned a small cab/taxi company.

She told me the whole drama, and I asked her, "Is it ok for you if I try to find him on the internet?"

Of course she said 'yes', but added that I must be crazy.

Well, I am quite crazy.... but I did find her father... hospitalized in some Salvation Army hospital (Utrecht/Netherlands), four days before he was about to die of liver cancer.

They met (she went along with me).

If I told you all the whole experience, I could fill a captivating documentary.

I find anything. Just give me time, and I will (that is one of the advantages of having no life).

LOL. "I am a very humble person; even if I have to say so myself" (joke).

In Afrikaans we have a fairly crude term for this - we call it "windgat".

Jokes aside. Just immagine what you can achieve if you change your mindset and see if you can prove the OLB to be authentic, instead of just repeating the unsubstantiated conjecture of your compatriots over the last 140 years.

[Alewyn]

Herewith my next translation of a Dutch document for non-Dutch readers:

Foreword to the second edition of the Oera Linda Book.

By Dr. J.G. Ottema

September 1876

The first edition of the Oera Linda Book has been sold out and as a result, the opportunity has arisen to publish a second edition. I welcome this opportunity because it allows me to correct some mistakes that crept in previously or to improve on a less accurate translation.

Since its first appearance, (and) even before it was printed, the book has been criticised and rejected. Many tried to prevent it from being published or distributed.

Not only within, but also ouside the country people rallied against the book as though the well-being of the country and people depended on its authenticity.

What did the poor book do to deserve such hatred and bitterness? Is the text and language such gibberish and nonsense that it does not deserve to be read; well, people do not read it. If they do read it, they will also read what I wrote in the Introduction, the Historical Notes, the Royal Academy and the Oera Linda Book, and De Deventer Newspaper and the Oera Linda Book. Yet, this is exactly what they don’t do. People do not want to be informed about the nature, the scope or the scientific value of the book. It is much easier and enjoyable to blindly reject and shout the book down than doing a serious examination thereof. Everyone, whether they only saw the book superficiously or heard about it, consider themselves qualified to express a derogatory opinion about it. Their verdict is triumphantly published in all newspapers, cheered on by the ignorant public and the country has been saved.

Now Messrs F. Muller and P. Smidt of Gelder, Amsterdam examined the paper of the manuscript and alleged in the Nederlandsch Spectator no. 32 of 5th August 1876 that the paper was manufactured during this century and more specifically within the last 25 years in the factory (paper mill) of Messrs Tielens and Schrammen in Maastricht.

Mr Muller based his views on the following grounds:

1. Paper of the 13th century was entirely made of cotton, thick, uneven, woolly (and) with uneven and unclear lines. This paper is thin, even, hard, here and there transparent with regular clear waterlines.

Answer:

Cotton Paper from the 13th century had to be specifically prepared by “polishing” before one could write thereon. The Arabians and Goths (?) did this in the same way as the Egyptians did with their paper and the Romans glossed their finer parchment by rubbing it with the tusks of wild pigs, apri dente levigatur (Plinius). To get an even surface they would burnish the paper with agate. By rubbing the paper the fibres became denser, smoother and thinner than it was.

Even so, one cannot call the paper of the Manuscript thin. The Manuscript consists of 96 pages of a thickness comparable to the best Dutch paper types which does not belong to the thinner varieties.

I must point out that the samples of paper that Mr Muller saw earlier were unprepared and unpolished and therefore we must disagree.

2. Paper from earlier times until about 1800 was thinner in the middle than outside the waterlines. This paper (the Manuscript) is even, which shows that it is from this century.

Answer:

I note that the reference to earlier times does not go back further than the 14th century when linen paper instead of cotton paper was increasingly used as paper manufacturing spread throughout Europe. This observation, therefore, does not apply to cotton paper from the 13th century and cannot be used as an argument that the manuscript dates from the present.

The distinction with present paper is evident in the following four important points:

a. The width of the horizontal waterlines. Over a distance of 33 millimetres one gets 16 horizontal lines so that the width of each line is 2 mm. Machine paper shows in this distance 17 to 18 such lines with a width of not more than 1.85mm. Heavy English mail paper has 20 such lines, each with a width of 1.65mm

b. The absence of chlorine. An experiment done in my presence by the late Mr. A.P.H. Kuipers showed that the paper did not react in the slightest with silver and therefore clearly did not contain any chlorine. All paper manufactured during this century have been treated with chlorine which in the same experiment with silver leaves a white residue.

c. The absence of starch, amylum. The experiment with an iodine solution produces a pure and brilliant violet colour on machine paper but on the manuscript it had no effect and left the brown colour of the iodine unchanged, at least not more than with any other natural plant manufactured fibres because there is no amylum present in plant material. The (Manuscript’s) paper, therefore, was manufactured without the addition of starch and thus not in the present century.

d. In examining the waterlines there is another big difference between machine produced paper and the Manuscript. In the first case the lines are very clear but in the latter they are almost invisible to such an extent that Dr E. Verwijs in a letter d.d. Leiden 1 Dec 1870 (i.e. after having had the manuscript in his hands for 3 years) wrote to me: “Further, the paper appears very suspicious. It appears that the paper was hung in smoke. If one tears the paper it appears whiter at the tear. There is no watermark to be found and I have never seen paper from the Middle Ages without a watermark and I cannot even imagine that.”

Dr Verwijs therefore has not seen a watermark in all this time even when he was looking for it. It was not possible when he had machine produced paper (to compare with)

3. The paper is coloured yellow but not naturally so.

Answer:

If the paper was (artificially) coloured, i.e. painted, the colouring would have penetrated the paper, but this is not the case. At the tear one can clearly see that the paper is white on the inside. The dirty yellowish black colour of the paper is solely the result of time and aging over more than six centuries.

The fact that the paper was so well preserved over this time and not damaged by damp or mildew is prove of the meticulous care taken to protect this precious family heirloom.

4. The paper was cut off very smoothly and evenly; Paper from the 13th century cannot be cut without ravelling.

Answer:

This may be the case with unpolished paper but proves nothing with polished and therefore denser paper and in any event it depends on the sharpness of the knife or scissors used.

5. The paper cuts makes me think of machine produced paper, where the perpendicular waterlines (pontuseaux) could be produced but I am not aware whether the horizontal lines of paper frames could be present; if so, then I regard it as proper machine produced paper not older than 25 to 30 years. Earlier than this one could not make lines on machine produced paper.

Answer:

I have in front of me an authentic statement of Messrs E. van Berk, P. Uurbanus, A.J. Leijer and T. Mooy resident in Den Helder wherein they give the assurance that between 1848 and 1850 the existence of the manuscript later published under the title of Thet Oera Linda Bok was already known.

This statement was published in its entirety in the Heldesche newspaper of 12 March 1876.

With this Mr. Muller’s argument collapses about machine produced paper which, according to his claim of 25 or 30 years, i.e. before 1848, paper could not have been made with horizontal waterlines.

The paper of the manuscript therefore was not made in the 19th century. From the 14th to the 18th century no paper was made without a watermark but in the manuscript there is no trace of a watermark.

It was thus also not manufacture in the 14th or later centuries. The only conclusion therefore is that the paper came from the 13th century.

6. The paper was bound into a book by means of holes. It is too hard around the holes to be old; also the method of binding is too modern and totally different from other old books; in addition less holes and thicker strands of parchment were used than is evident here.

Answer:

If Mr. Muller saw the complete manuscript he would have noticed that the spine nowhere shows any traces of glue. That proves that it was not bound by any modern methods, nor by string, parchment or strips but rather by a very simple and primitive method of securing with needle and thread in a cover of parchment which one still find in the trade such as with calendars and so forth.

This anyone can do and this is what Hiddo Oera Linda also did because he could not entrust the Manuscript to any (professional) book binders who (by and large) performed their work in monasteries. He warned his son about monks and that they must never see the Manuscript.

7. The writing is too new for an old document. The ink lies on the paper and has not affected the paper in any way which should have happened with an old document.

The ink is too black. In olden times the ink was lighter and with time it turned brown.

Answer:

In response to this I present the views of Wattenbach, in “Schriffcwesen im Mittelalter” (Middle Ages):

“In old manuscripts, the ink is black or brownish, always of a good to excellent quality. After 1300 AD, however, the ink often appears grey or yellowish and is sometimes quite faded.”

(The rest of the quote appears to explain the ingredients of the ink in German which I could not decipher)

What the ingredients of the ink was with which the Manuscript was written, I do not know; but I accept the statement of Wattenbach as to the good quality of the ink until the 13th century as proof of the Manuscript’s origin in the 13th century.

For these reasons I cannot associate myself or accept the opinions of Messrs Muller and Van Gelder whose opinions in any event are not without prejudice. They essentially asked the question whether the Manuscript’s paper in any way conforms to paper from the present time. This is however the second part of the issue. The first and more important part is how the writing compares to other manuscripts older than the 13th century.

In connection with this, I have one more remark to add. The writing was lined, possibly with lead but the age of the document caused the lines to fade and almost to disappear so much so that I could at first only suspect that the pages were ruled until Jhr(?) Hooft van Iddekinge pointed it out to me. When he first saw the manuscript he said that the paper was ruled and showed me the traces. Once I knew what to look for I could see the lines on every page. For this reason I redrew the lines on the facsimile of page 45 to show how meticulous the lines were drawn and the letters written between them. In fact it made me realise how much time and effort were spent on the Manuscript. From this I copied the script page for page onto normal ruled paper which would have taken some 300 hours. That would only be the copying. In addition, a fraudster would have had to compile the book, in a unique language which had to be different from known Frisian dialects which all differ in spelling, syntax, etc. Against this one would have had to invent a dialect that would have been spoken between the Flie and the Schelde. Lastly one would have had to invent letters and an alphabet that would be more suitable to the Frisian language than anything known.

In connection with the letters I must point out a very distinctive feature:

The alphabet had no q and s. The prefixes qu, se, sch and de c at the beginning of words were still unknown which prove that this document dated from before Roman times. The c is not use any different than ch.

In the Frisian Legal Books (Friesche Rechtboeken), the language adopted the Latin style of writing.and independent signs before vowals were lost together with the prefixes gs, ng, and th. The influence of Latin, especially since Charlemagne, simplified the alphabet by reducing the number of letters but it also made the alphabet less suitable to the unique sounds in the Frisian language. In this regard the Frisian style and spelling were corrupted to an extend that is still felt by present day authors.

A fraudster would have had to consider the spelling and the alphabet of the Old Frisian Laws without creating suspicion.

This (the Manuscript) is not some trivial task that some joker carried out just to fool somebody. To accept this is quite irregular. That however is nothing.

The negative criticism of modern science does not accept any irregularities. If they have decided that the Oera Linda book is not authentic then it must be false, whatever it takes. Now they search everywhere to find the culprit; there is even talk of a price on the head of the offender and a reward for anyone who turns him in. Yet, all this is in vain for the simple reason that such a person does not exist and never has.

In the meantime the public is frightened by the question: “Do you still believe in the Oera Linda Book?” My answer is: “Yes, Gentlemen”.

I have now spent almost six years in studying the book over and over from inside and outside, in the context of the old Greek and Latin literature but nowhere could I find any grounds for doubt. That is why I still believe that the Oera Linda Book is authentic and that is why I present the second edition.

Leeuwarden, Sept. 1876.

Dr. J.G. Ottema

Edited November 27, 2011 by Alewyn

[Abramelin]

I posted this a few days ago. But I was really curious to see if anyone had an answer to my question.

If the map is from 1539 why does it have a name on it that was not given until 1643? The English name, Lindesberg, not the Norse name is written on the map.

Anyone?

Map dated 1539:

Lindesberg clearly seen at the bottom of map, next to Uplandia:

Lindesberg is the Swedish name.

But first it was the name of a district, later a city got the name of the district:

The mining district Lindesberg was mentioned on the 16th century grand map Carta Marina.

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

Same thing here in the Dutch province of Zuidholland: there is an area called Westland, later a municipality was given the name of this district Westland.

[The Puzzler]

Lindesberg is the Swedish name.

But first it was the name of a district, later a city got the name of the district:

The mining district Lindesberg was mentioned on the 16th century grand map Carta Marina.

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

Same thing here in the Dutch province of Zuidholland: there is an area called Westland, later a municipality was given the name of this district Westland.

OK< goodo, thanks.

I don't know how I missed that info.

[Abramelin]

I was "off-line" for two days (busy with other stuff) and am only now starting to catch up here.

Yes, I think you found remarkable stuff - well done.

OK, so you agree that those stilt-houses ("paalwoningen" or "hutten op palen") were known before 1853?

It's interesting that Jakob van Lennep puts the Marezaten (Marsaten) in the middle of- or in the western part of the Netherlands, near/on a lake called "Meir". So the name would mean something like "seated on the Meir".

But the OLB suggests these Marsaten lived close to the Swiss.... as though the discovery of those stilt houses in 1853 forced the creator(s) of the OLB to re-locate them and move them much further inland into the direction of Switzerland.

[Abramelin]

Abramelin, could we reconstruct which papers have been put in the case of Johan Winkler, in which he accused Verwijs, Haverschmidt and Cornelis over de Linden. So far there has not been published a complete inventarisation.

I think it would be a great idea to use those newspaper archives. I didn't check it yet, but it could be that it's in one of the arcticles there.

http://www.archiefleeuwardercourant.nl/index.do

+++++++++++

EDIT:

You'll be interested what you can read in this article about Verwijs, and read about what he thought - 3 years before the OLB showed up for he first time - about the etymology of Leeuwarden...... "Linta( r )-wrda":

http://www.archiefleeuwardercourant.nl/vw/article.do?id=LC-19250729-7001&vw=org&lm=johan%2Cwinkler%2Coera%2Clinda

And here is an article that is a copy of Winkler's writings:

http://www.archiefleeuwardercourant.nl/vw/article.do?id=LC-19170507-9001&vw=org&lm=johan%2Cwinkler%2Coera%2Clinda

.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Abramelin

[Knul]

I think it would be a great idea to use those newspaper archives. I didn't check it yet, but it could be that it's in one of the arcticles there.

http://www.archiefleeuwardercourant.nl/index.do

+++++++++++

EDIT:

You'll be interested what you can read in this article about Verwijs, and read about what he thought - 3 years before the OLB showed up for he first time - about the etymology of Leeuwarden...... "Linta( r )-wrda":

http://www.archiefleeuwardercourant.nl/vw/article.do?id=LC-19250729-7001&vw=org&lm=johan%2Cwinkler%2Coera%2Clinda

And here is an article that is a copy of Winkler's writings:

http://www.archiefleeuwardercourant.nl/vw/article.do?id=LC-19170507-9001&vw=org&lm=johan%2Cwinkler%2Coera%2Clinda

.

One of th documents in the case of Winkler is his testament. I have put this text on my website under letters (brieven): Testament van Johan Winkler d.d. maart 1907 (opgenomen in het kistje). There are some other publications known (including an article in German), but not the full contents of the case.

I understand, that this Lindawrden disappeared in the Middelzee.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Knul