[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

[Abramelin]

Modern Yemen has been thrown into that Herodotus quote, he does NOT say that at all, he says Erythraean Sea, full stop.

Began AT ONCE. They had the ships already with them. They traded Assyrian and Egyptian wares straight off.

cormac informs me though that Phoenicians are indigenous to the area, all Canaanites, so where is the Erythraean Sea on the Levant?

In the OLB it actually mentions something I've long thought about.

Teunis and Inka are actually at Cadiz, an already established trading colony BEFORE they arrive at Tyre.

The Erythraean Sea could actually be the Western Ocean, since the island of Erythraea, as in the Red cows of Geryon, the red sunset, etc. Hera's Island of the apples is said (by Strabo I think) to be in the area of Gades also.

Think about it, the Phoenicians, pop up from some sea called Red, settle in Tyre and AT ONCE begin to make long sea voyages, straight to the opposide side of the ocean. Did they already know it was there?

Virgil has Aeneas landing in Carthage, with Dido there, a Tyrian, after the Trojan War, c. 1200BC apparently.

Carthage shows archaeology from c. 800BC. Cadiz from 1000BC of Phoenician influence.

How does Aeneas leave the Trojan war and arrive in a city that is non existant at the time by around 400 years?

Virgil made it up and got it wrong?

The Trojan War was later than we think?

Don't forget it's Virgil's work that gave Rome it's heritage from Romulus through the Latium people, where Aeneas lands, and gets it on with Lavinia. In Alba Longa.

Edit to add: The Aneid gives us an alternative, and possibly complementary meaning of the name Alban. The Trojans used to call themselves Albans while they were in Latium, giving the impression that their name had something in common with the giant called Albion who was killed by Hercules. It seems that Alban (Albion) must be a very ancient name.

http://www.annomundi.com/history/alban.htm

Alba - Alban - Albania - Illyria - from where the tribe called the Bruges is from - that became Phrygians. Also the area of Dardani - from where the tribe of Dardanus is from - to the Troad. All part of Thrace, all Pelasgians, all Trojans and allies.

According to the Library and Epitome of Apollodorus, Illyrius was the youngest son of Cadmus and Harmonia who eventually ruled Illyria and became the eponymous ancestor of the whole Illyrian people.

Cadmus and Harmonia eventually ruled Illyria and their son Illyrius became the ancestor of the whole Illyria people. How about that?

Cadmus the Phoenician was the ancestor through Illyrius of the Albanians.

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

An alternate genealogy is that Illyrius was the son of Polyphemus the Cyclops (son of Poseidon). All the sons of Polyphemus migrated from Sicily.

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

Of course Herodotus doesn't mention Yemen; that country didn't even exist under that name back then.

And yes, they 'began at once'. As soon as they arrived in what's now Lebanon, they started building ships. I can buy that.

And Herodotus' source were the Persians. Both the 'Red Sea' and the 'Indian Ocean' were called Erythraean Sea at some point in history.

You say Cormac said the Phoenicians were indigenous to the area. Great, so no genetic connections with people from northern Europe.

-

I know how you love to connect things based on nothing but myth and words. Well, did you know several Aesti tribes had 'galli' in their names, names given to them by the Romans? Semigallians. Latgallians, Gallindians...

And about those Canaanites... Google 'Cananefates', a tribe living at the coast of The Netherlands some 2000 years ago. Their name means something like 'leek masters'. And leek is family of onions. Did you know you can dye wool/clothing/paper RED with red onions combined with vinigar?

On their way to Lebanon they must have discovered a better way to color their clothes: myrex, a snail (purple dye), and become known in the whole of the Mediterranean because of that.

[Otharus]

Well, truth be told, I am now quite convinced I know who was behind the OLB: Joost Halbertsma.

...

Together with his work, and what I found out about Joost Halbertsma myself, I think I can safely say the case is closed.

Jensma (2004) p.189:

"J.G. van der Meij worked for many years on his Notes on the OLB* and compared virtually all publications and even handwritings of Halbertsma with the OLB. In my opinion he forgot to ask himself at least one important question: how exclusive are all similarities that he found? With his method almost any frequent writer of the 19th century can be 'proven' to be the OLB author." (improvised translation by me)

Also, there should have been a link between Halbertsma and de Over de Linden family, which would not have gone unnoticed.

Sorry Abram, nice try, but if it was that easy, Jensma would have written his thesis about this simple solution in stead of his complex Haverschmidt-Verwijs-Over de Linden conspiracy theory.

*Kanttekeningen bij het Oera Linda-boek

[Otharus]

* It was you who said that the OLB is being surpressed here in The Netherlands, but I have seen lists of publications in The Netherlands from the 19th to the 21th century that are quite huge; only the latest work on the OLB - Alewyn's book - has not been added to the lists yet.

The number of publications does not prove that it's not a taboo to believe the OLB is true as virtually all of them are attempts to prove it's a hoax and to ridicule anyone who even considers to take it seriously.

A historian of good reputation can loose all of his/her credibility if it becomes known that he/she even considers the possibility that OLB is true. Note that even Jensma, who wrote his thesis about OLB did not even investigate the possibility that it could be real. No academic 'of good name' will risk ending the same way as Ottema.

Remember:

Beckering Vinckers' (1876): "I have reached my goal; I aimed at ridiculing the language of the OLB."

The sad thing is that he not only aggressively 'ridiculed' OLB but also translator/ publisher Ottema, who was practically excommunicated, got isolated, became paranoid and suicidal as a result.

Two more fragments to illustrate how 'believers' were not only ridiculed (1972), but even discredited (2004).

S.J. van der Molen (1972)

"From time to time, the ever unknown author of this manuscript succeeds in troubling minds and making victims. The youngest victim (apparently not in years: the man already published in 1940) is dr. phil. Frans J. Los, who recently published: The Ura Linda Manuscripts as Source of History"

Jensma (2004; page 17)

"This Ottema was followed by a long row of believers of suspicious character. Of them SS-Führer Heinrich Himmler is most notorious, but he was certainly not the only one. Theosophists, nazi's, New Agers and right extremists of various sorts explained and still explain this OLB as an authentic and important source for our knowledge of western civilisation."

Edited November 16, 2010 by Otharus

[Abramelin]

Jensma (2004) p.189:

"J.G. van der Meij worked for many years on his Notes on the OLB* and compared virtually all publications and even handwritings of Halbertsma with the OLB. In my opinion he forgot to ask himself at least one important question: how exclusive are all similarities that he found? With his method almost any frequent writer of the 19th century can be 'proven' to be the OLB author." (improvised translation by me)

Also, there should have been a link between Halbertsma and de Over de Linden family, which would not have gone unnoticed.

Sorry Abram, nice try, but if it was that easy, Jensma would have written his thesis about this simple solution in stead of his complex Haverschmidt-Verwijs-Over de Linden conspiracy theory.

*Kanttekeningen bij het Oera Linda-boek

Well, just recently I am in contact with someone who actually investigated Halbertsma (and brother) as main 'suspect'.

And like I said to Alewyn, I have read Wim Zaal's book, and I will post and translate the relevant pages of his book, soon.

[Abramelin]

Nothing but the OLB tells us about some grand culture that existed over all of Europe (according to Alewyn's interpretation of the OLB).

Science has a couple of names for a culture that existed around 2200 BC : Corded Ware Culture, and Beaker Culture.

They co-existed during some time in European history.

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

http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/europe/northern_eastern/2750-750BC/Thecordedwareculture

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

Nothing of these finds gives us the impression it was an advanced culture.

And non of the clay pots belonging to these cultures had any inscriptions on them even remotely resembling the OLB Juul/Jol/Running script of the OLB.

No great buildings/structures (like temples and citadels; not the megaliths. they were never even mentioned in the OLB) belonging to these cultures have ever been found.

Just a thought..

.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Abramelin

[Otharus]

No great buildings/structures (like temples and citadels; not the megaliths. they were never even mentioned in the OLB) belonging to these cultures have ever been found.

Just a thought..

Ever thought about wood?

There used to lots more of it (in the 'Wooden Age') than nowadays and it burns quite well once set on fire by an enemy.

Do you know of Greek, Latin (or other ancient) sources that mention the megaliths?

Some more food for thought;

English, German, Dutch, Frisian, the Scandic languages, (and probably more that I'm not familiar with) clearly have a shared 'ancestor'; they stem from the same 'root'.

1) In 12 BC the Frisians saved a Roman fleet (from Drusus) when it had gotten in trouble in the Waddenzee.

2) The Frisians of that time were already known to have a varied agriculture and to trade on distant shores.

(De Rand van het Rijk ~ De Romeinen in de Lage Landen, p.109; chapter 6 Chauken en Friezen)

(BTW just started reading Rodinbook site; looks interesting.)

Edited November 17, 2010 by Otharus

[Abramelin]

Ever thought about wood?

There used to lots more of it (in the 'Wooden Age') than nowadays and it burns quite well once set on fire by an enemy.

Do you know of Greek, Latin (or other ancient) sources that mention the megaliths?

Some more food for thought;

English, German, Dutch, Frisian, the Scandic languages, (and probably more that I'm not familiar with) clearly have a shared 'ancestor'; they stem from the same 'root'.

1) In 12 BC the Frisians saved a Roman fleet (from Drusus) when it had gotten in trouble in the Waddenzee.

2) The Frisians of that time were already known to have a varied agriculture and to trade on distant shores.

(De Rand van het Rijk ~ De Romeinen in de Lage Landen, p.109; chapter 6 Chauken en Friezen)

(BTW just started reading Rodinbook site; looks interesting.)

I thought about wood, yes,, but the OLB never mentioned megalithic structures, or how they contructed them.

And I do know about Drusus; I posted about him many times before.

And the Greek and Latin people came long after the construction of the megaliths, so yeah, they never mentioned them in their writings.

The Rodin site will be a lot more interesting after you read what the creator of that site added what I sent him.

Just wait....

[Otharus]

A copy I made earlier from Wirth's Ura Linda Chronik (1933), for those interested.

Some Frisians must have had a special liking for the 'Jol' (wheel) shape, long before OLB was published.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Otharus

[Otharus]

... but the OLB never mentioned megalithic structures, or how they contructed them.

Why do you think the Fryas constructed them?

Aren't the megaliths much older?

The Rodin site will be a lot more interesting after you read what the creator of that site added what I sent him.

I have read the whole site now but am far from impressed by the wafer-thin evidence.

Part of his theory is nonsense as I will show later when I have more time.

Did you send him anything you did not post here before?

I trust you'll let us know when it is added.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Otharus

[Abramelin]

Why do you think the Fryas constructed them?

Aren't the megaliths much older?

I have read the whole site now but am far from impressed by the wafer-thin evidence.

Part of his theory is nonsense as I will show later when I have more time.

Did you send him anything you did not post here before?

I trust you'll let us know when it is added.

Many megaliths were constucted around 1500- 2000 BC. Many older, some younger.

The evidence is not wafer thin, it's huge. But it all depends on your 'belief'. For me the OLB is just some book, for many others it's what they have dreamt of for many years, and no horses will be able to drag them from the idea of it being a revelation.

And yes, I sent the creator of that site something I did not post here before.

It are a couple of pages from Wim Zaal's book. And I promised to post a translation of those pages, here.

.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

Nothing but the OLB tells us about some grand culture that existed over all of Europe (according to Alewyn's interpretation of the OLB).

Science has a couple of names for a culture that existed around 2200 BC : Corded Ware Culture, and Beaker Culture.

They co-existed during some time in European history.

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

http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/europe/northern_eastern/2750-750BC/Thecordedwareculture

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

Nothing of these finds gives us the impression it was an advanced culture.

And non of the clay pots belonging to these cultures had any inscriptions on them even remotely resembling the OLB Juul/Jol/Running script of the OLB.

No great buildings/structures (like temples and citadels; not the megaliths. they were never even mentioned in the OLB) belonging to these cultures have ever been found.

Just a thought..

.

OK Abe. I'm just about thoughted out on all this I tell ya.

Citadels:

A citadel is a fortress for protecting a town, sometimes incorporating a castle.

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

In Central Europe, the Celts built large fortified settlements known as oppida, whose walls seem partially influenced by those built in the Mediterranean. The fortifications were continuously being expanded and improved.

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

Oppidum (plural oppida) is a Latin word meaning the main settlement in any administrative area of ancient Rome. The word is derived from the earlier Latin ob-pedum, "enclosed space," possibly from the Proto-Indo-European *pedóm-, "occupied space" or "footprint."

Julius Caesar described the larger Celtic Iron Age settlements he encountered in Gaul as oppida, and the term is now used to describe the large pre-Roman towns that existed all across Western and Central Europe. Many oppida grew from hill forts, although by no means did all of them have significant defensive functions. Oppida surrounded by earthworks are known as enclosed oppida. The main features of the oppida are the architectural construction of the walls and gates, the spacious layout and commanding view of the surrounding area.

The development of oppida was a milestone in the urbanisation of the continent as they were the first large settlements north of the Mediterranean that could genuinely be described as towns. Caesar pointed out that each tribe of Gaul would have several oppida but that they were not all of equal importance, perhaps implying some form of hierarchy.

In conquered lands, the Romans used the infrastructure of the oppida to administer the empire, and many became full Roman towns. This often involved a change of location from the hilltop into the plain.

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

Celtic Gaul did have a kind of citadel, which is really just a fortress, such as the Acropolis, it doesn't have to be an elaborate citadel.

Going back to what they wrote on, that wagrum, it's wicker-work wall - space. Like a wicker man, wicker, not brick or stone.

Wicker work is often elaborated weaved knots too, very Celtic. I reckon the Gordion Knot was Celtic too, a knot that is hard to undo...who else is tying knots like the Celts??

So, we could essentially be looking at wicker-work oppida styled fortresses, which imo would be LONG gone.

[Otharus]

The evidence is not wafer thin, it's huge. But it all depends on your 'belief'.

Indeed, I stick to my conclusion that it's flimsy.

Some early comments on www.rodinbook.nl (“Van Himmelum tot Himalaya”?) by Menno M.A. Knul; a theory about the so-called Oera Linda Book (OLB).

The first sentence of the "Press Release" (Persbericht) already contains an untruth:

"That the Oera Linda Book is a mystification, was already proven in the 19th century, ..."

Is there any serious modern researcher that dares to reproduce the widely accepted 'proof' given in 1876 by J. Beckering Vinckers?

Knul claims to have proven that the Halbertsma brothers Eeltje (1797-1858) and Joost (1789-1869) created OLB.

His 'evidence' is flimsy though, some of it hilarious.

Example:

The names LIKO and HIDDO of the last two 'known' copyists of the manuscript would be a reference to one of the supposed mystificators: Eeltje Hiddes Halbertsma.

OKKE would refer to the mysterious Ocko Scarlensis. Even more hilarious is the suggestion that the name SYRHED would be a reference to “Sir Hettema”.

Why would there only be a hidden reference to Eeltje and not to Joost? If it would be proven that Eeltje had written OLB, then LIKO and HIDDO might have been a reference, not the other way around. Liko, Hidde and Okke are common Frisian names.

In the "press release" Knul presents the following as 'proof' that the Halbertsma's did it:

- Joost Halbertsma wrote an article about chronology, an important theme of OLB.

- J.H. wrote an article about old-Frisian and old-English, as well as an article about the etymology of "Sellemaand", an old name for february.

As 'proof', Knul presents a table with old English names of the months and 6 months that are mentioned in OLB.

Four of them are similar:

Wulfamonath/ wolfamonath,

solmonath/ sellamonath,

hrethmonath/ herdemonath,

windmonath/ winnemonath;

BUT TWO OF THEM ARE NOT:

thrimilce/ minnemonath,

weodmonath/ arnemonath.

So what does this prove?

- J.H. was mennonite and wrote a book about Buddhism. Knul claims that OLB contains a passage "about the unknown years of Jesus Christ". This is not correct, it is Knul's interpretation. OLB, page 136-141 is about a character known as JES-US, FO, KRIS-EN and BUDA who lived around 600 BC. Another possible interpretation is that the myths about the (supposed) historical Jesus of Nazareth are partly based on this older 'Jesus'. J. of N. will surely not have been the first with that name.

- J.H. published about traces of the Gothic language in Frisian. According to Knul OLB was mostly written in Old-Rüstringian, an east-Frisian dialect.

- J.H. studied in Amsterdam from 1807 till 1813 and appreciated the language of commoners. OLB contains a few words that are only known to have existed in the old-Amsterdam dialect (examples: Foddik and Faliekant). Again, a totally different interpretation of this is also possible; OLB is real because traces of its language can be found in various northern European dialects.

Also, the supposed role played by Cornelis over de Linden stays vague, but it's possible that “Van Himmelum tot Himalaya” (is this actually a published book?) gives some answers.

In summary:

The website www.rodinbook.nl is not at all convincing, it also looks like it's not finished yet (which would mean that the press release is premature).

So-called proof was selectively collected to support the Halbertsma's theory, not to test it.

Who is the author Menno Knul and (how) is his book available so it can be properly reviewed?

Edited November 18, 2010 by Otharus

[Otharus]

For me the OLB is just some book, for many others it's what they have dreamt of for many years, and no horses will be able to drag them from the idea of it being a revelation.

1) I don't believe that for you "OLB is just some book".

Why would you spend so much time here if that was true?

2) Since I got to know about OLB (and read it in the original language; this was june/july 2009),

I have tried to find proof that OLB is indeed a mystification.

I cannot find it and am still open to any convincing evidence.

But the more I know, the more likely it seems to me that the unbelievable is true after all.

[Otharus]

I agree, Od is probably a life force...

On third thought...

Since OLB's "GOD" = good (english), goed (dutch), gut (german), god (swedish); all virtually sounding the same,

and "HOD" = hood (english), hoed (dutch), Hut (german); again the same sound AND the same meaning,

"OD" may have survived in dutch as "oed" or "oet".

Now we happen to have this mysterious expression "oetlul", that no-one knows the etymology of (as far as I know).

"Lul" is slang for penis, but "Oet" is otherwise unknown.

The combination "oetlul" is used in Dutch as an invective, but in the context of OLB's creation myth it suddenly starts to make sense;

"Wralda's ood (dutch: oed or oet, german: Ut) penetrated them, and now they gave birth to 12 sons and 12 daughters, every Joltime twins." (OLB page 6)

(Or, like Hans Teeuwen would say: "Allah, met z'n dikke ...!")

Edited November 18, 2010 by Otharus

[Otharus]

"Wralda's ood (dutch: oed or oet, german: Ut) penetrated them, and now they gave birth to 12 sons and 12 daughters, every Joltime twins." (OLB page 6)

[The Puzzler]

lol fair enough.

[The Puzzler]

I think the Phrygian Galli and the Celtic Druids are the same.

Why wouldn't they be, considering the Phrygians are said to come from Europe.

Then this came back into Rome, thru the Magna Mater (Great Mother) and then dispersed itself through Europe in a Romanised form after the conquering of the Celtic Gaul people.

[Abramelin]

1) I don't believe that for you "OLB is just some book".

Why would you spend so much time here if that was true?

2) Since I got to know about OLB (and read it in the original language; this was june/july 2009),

I have tried to find proof that OLB is indeed a mystification.

I cannot find it and am still open to any convincing evidence.

But the more I know, the more likely it seems to me that the unbelievable is true after all.

For me the OLB is like a fascinating puzzle, a detective story.

But I think you will agree with me (and I dont'say you are one of them) that the OLB is for many people much more than just an alternative history of ancient Europe; 'Holy Book' is the proper expression here. And wasn't it Wirth who called it the 'Nordic Bible'?

[Abramelin]

Indeed, I stick to my conclusion that it's flimsy.

Some early comments on www.rodinbook.nl (Van Himmelum tot Himalaya?) by Menno M.A. Knul; a theory about the so-called Oera Linda Book (OLB).

The first sentence of the "Press Release" (Persbericht) already contains an untruth:

"That the Oera Linda Book is a mystification, was already proven in the 19th century, ..."

Is there any serious modern researcher that dares to reproduce the widely accepted 'proof' given in 1876 by J. Beckering Vinckers?

Knul claims to have proven that the Halbertsma brothers Eeltje (1797-1858) and Joost (1789-1869) created OLB.

His 'evidence' is flimsy though, some of it hilarious.

Example:

The names LIKO and HIDDO of the last two 'known' copyists of the manuscript would be a reference to one of the supposed mystificators: Eeltje Hiddes Halbertsma.

OKKE would refer to the mysterious Ocko Scarlensis. Even more hilarious is the suggestion that the name SYRHED would be a reference to Sir Hettema.

Why would there only be a hidden reference to Eeltje and not to Joost? If it would be proven that Eeltje had written OLB, then LIKO and HIDDO might have been a reference, not the other way around. Liko, Hidde and Okke are common Frisian names.

In the "press release" Knul presents the following as 'proof' that the Halbertsma's did it:

- Joost Halbertsma wrote an article about chronology, an important theme of OLB.

- J.H. wrote an article about old-Frisian and old-English, as well as an article about the etymology of "Sellemaand", an old name for february.

As 'proof', Knul presents a table with old English names of the months and 6 months that are mentioned in OLB.

Four of them are similar:

Wulfamonath/ wolfamonath,

solmonath/ sellamonath,

hrethmonath/ herdemonath,

windmonath/ winnemonath;

BUT TWO OF THEM ARE NOT:

thrimilce/ minnemonath,

weodmonath/ arnemonath.

So what does this prove?

- J.H. was mennonite and wrote a book about Buddhism. Knul claims that OLB contains a passage "about the unknown years of Jesus Christ". This is not correct, it is Knul's interpretation. OLB, page 136-141 is about a character known as JES-US, FO, KRIS-EN and BUDA who lived around 600 BC. Another possible interpretation is that the myths about the (supposed) historical Jesus of Nazareth are partly based on this older 'Jesus'. J. of N. will surely not have been the first with that name.

- J.H. published about traces of the Gothic language in Frisian. According to Knul OLB was mostly written in Old-Rüstringian, an east-Frisian dialect.

- J.H. studied in Amsterdam from 1807 till 1813 and appreciated the language of commoners. OLB contains a few words that are only known to have existed in the old-Amsterdam dialect (examples: Foddik and Faliekant). Again, a totally different interpretation of this is also possible; OLB is real because traces of its language can be found in various northern European dialects.

Also, the supposed role played by Cornelis over de Linden stays vague, but it's possible that Van Himmelum tot Himalaya (is this actually a published book?) gives some answers.

In summary:

The website www.rodinbook.nl is not at all convincing, it also looks like it's not finished yet (which would mean that the press release is premature).

So-called proof was selectively collected to support the Halbertsma's theory, not to test it.

Who is the author Menno Knul and (how) is his book available so it can be properly reviewed?

Short reply: indeed, Knul's webiste isn't finished. He has a lot more yet unpublished material to prove his point.

And as far as I know he hasn't published his research in a book.

-

"- J.H. was mennonite and wrote a book about Buddhism. Knul claims that OLB contains a passage "about the unknown years of Jesus Christ". This is not correct, it is Knul's interpretation. OLB, page 136-141 is about a character known as JES-US, FO, KRIS-EN and BUDA who lived around 600 BC. Another possible interpretation is that the myths about the (supposed) historical Jesus of Nazareth are partly based on this older 'Jesus'. J. of N. will surely not have been the first with that name."

Jesus, Fu, Krishna, Buddha.... Jes-os, Fo, Kris-en, Buda..

Of course it's Knul's interpretation, those 'unknown years of Jesus in India'. But those ideas were already popular in the 19th century. J. Halbertsma must have known about them.

==

I still like it that J. Halbertsma was the first ( to my knowledge ) who used the word 'Oudlanders' for the Frisians, as opposed to the immigrants in The Bildt from Holland.

--

And oh irony... Alewyn ends the last chapter of his book (page 279) with a quote from no one else but Joost Halbertsma, "Bread, butter and green cheese...".

.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

OK Abe. I'm just about thoughted out on all this I tell ya.

Citadels:

A citadel is a fortress for protecting a town, sometimes incorporating a castle.

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

In Central Europe, the Celts built large fortified settlements known as oppida, whose walls seem partially influenced by those built in the Mediterranean. The fortifications were continuously being expanded and improved.

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

Oppidum (plural oppida) is a Latin word meaning the main settlement in any administrative area of ancient Rome. The word is derived from the earlier Latin ob-pedum, "enclosed space," possibly from the Proto-Indo-European *pedóm-, "occupied space" or "footprint."

Julius Caesar described the larger Celtic Iron Age settlements he encountered in Gaul as oppida, and the term is now used to describe the large pre-Roman towns that existed all across Western and Central Europe. Many oppida grew from hill forts, although by no means did all of them have significant defensive functions. Oppida surrounded by earthworks are known as enclosed oppida. The main features of the oppida are the architectural construction of the walls and gates, the spacious layout and commanding view of the surrounding area.

The development of oppida was a milestone in the urbanisation of the continent as they were the first large settlements north of the Mediterranean that could genuinely be described as towns. Caesar pointed out that each tribe of Gaul would have several oppida but that they were not all of equal importance, perhaps implying some form of hierarchy.

In conquered lands, the Romans used the infrastructure of the oppida to administer the empire, and many became full Roman towns. This often involved a change of location from the hilltop into the plain.

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

Celtic Gaul did have a kind of citadel, which is really just a fortress, such as the Acropolis, it doesn't have to be an elaborate citadel.

Going back to what they wrote on, that wagrum, it's wicker-work wall - space. Like a wicker man, wicker, not brick or stone.

Wicker work is often elaborated weaved knots too, very Celtic. I reckon the Gordion Knot was Celtic too, a knot that is hard to undo...who else is tying knots like the Celts??

So, we could essentially be looking at wicker-work oppida styled fortresses, which imo would be LONG gone.

A citadel was not just a fortress, it was a star-shaped fortress protecting a city. You have Alewyn's book, so you will know what I mean.

If anything, they could be nothing but the socalled 'ringwalburchten', but they are from lot more recent times (800 - 1000 AD) and circular. Wicker work or not, they know how these ringwalburghten looked like, and some were 1500 years old.

And why do you skip past my remark about megaliths?

The Frya people surely must not only have known about them, but also have built them.

.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

The number of publications does not prove that it's not a taboo to believe the OLB is true as virtually all of them are attempts to prove it's a hoax and to ridicule anyone who even considers to take it seriously.

A historian of good reputation can loose all of his/her credibility if it becomes known that he/she even considers the possibility that OLB is true. Note that even Jensma, who wrote his thesis about OLB did not even investigate the possibility that it could be real. No academic 'of good name' will risk ending the same way as Ottema.

Remember:

No, you suggested the OLB was being surpressed, and that means that the book is being hidden from the public, and not to be talked about. You even suggested this surpression had something to do with the 'unconscious fear' of the Dutch for disasters like floodings, or in short, "Let's not make them any more scared than they already are".

Allowing for critical and skeptical views on some manuscript or book is not the same as surpressing it.

Anyone reading this thread will make up his/her own mind: based on what all of us here posted they will either think it's a fabulation or that it's a true ancient account of Frisian/Fryan/European history.

.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Abramelin

[SlimJim22]

Just been reading up a little on Phrygia. They are said to originate in Anatolia around the 8th century bce. They were influenced by Assyrian and Babylonian culture more than others. Sennacherib turns up frequently and she may or may not be the same as Semiramis the mother of Tammuz. The belief in a dying god was transplanted with Cybele and attis becoming the new names. Looking at the names of places and people I can see no other words looking similar to those of the OLB. I did expect to find some thing. Is the mention of incidental names like Freya and Magyar enough to put it in the Baltic region? Surely there would be some other corespondances to convince me. Anything is possible though so no doubt we'd all like to see something that connects the OLB to the region beyond what was commonly known at the time. As sumerian texts were relatively recently translated, some connections with Sumer or Akkad would have lent some credence imo. We still know very little of europeean culture at this time and an oral tradition is possible but unlikely.

http://www.maravot.com/Phrygian1b.html

I'm swaying to the idea of it being a fabulation or perhaps a well meaning confusion. The Phrygians would later become the Khazars and they were a tricky bunch. They were a pagan kingdom who converted to talmudic judaism around the 8th century ad. It was these Khazar jews who settled Europe en masse. Phrygia was a hot bed of mystery cults in ancient times so it is conceivable that they would keep secrets over long periods but also be prone to distortion of facts and propaganda to make their position seem even more superior than it actually was. Pure speculation but it may be that some of the Frisian writers came from a dual heritage of Khazar jews and pagan Phrygians (smurfs). Is there any link between the OLB and zionism or aryanism? You said it was the nordic bible, why?

ETA lots of comfusing reports on Senacherib but he was not the same as Semiramis who is thought to be a mythical queen/deity.

http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/introduction/assyriankings.htm

None of it sounds Frisian to me but what do I know.

Edited November 19, 2010 by SlimJim22

[Abramelin]

Just been reading up a little on Phrygia. They are said to originate in Anatolia around the 8th century bce. They were influenced by Assyrian and Babylonian culture more than others. Sennacherib turns up frequently and she may or may not be the same as Semiramis the mother of Tammuz. The belief in a dying god was transplanted with Cybele and attis becoming the new names. Looking at the names of places and people I can see no other words looking similar to those of the OLB. I did expect to find some thing. Is the mention of incidental names like Freya and Magyar enough to put it in the Baltic region? Surely there would be some other corespondances to convince me. Anything is possible though so no doubt we'd all like to see something that connects the OLB to the region beyond what was commonly known at the time. As sumerian texts were relatively recently translated, some connections with Sumer or Akkad would have lent some credence imo. We still know very little of europeean culture at this time and an oral tradition is possible but unlikely.

http://www.maravot.com/Phrygian1b.html

I'm swaying to the idea of it being a fabulation or perhaps a well meaning confusion. The Phrygians would later become the Khazars and they were a tricky bunch. They were a pagan kingdom who converted to talmudic judaism around the 8th century ad. It was these Khazar jews who settled Europe en masse. Phrygia was a hot bed of mystery cults in ancient times so it is conceivable that they would keep secrets over long periods but also be prone to distortion of facts and propaganda to make their position seem even more superior than it actually was. Pure speculation but it may be that some of the Frisian writers came from a dual heritage of Khazar jews and pagan Phrygians (smurfs). Is there any link between the OLB and zionism or aryanism? You said it was the nordic bible, why?

Jim, it wasn't me who called it the Nordic Bible, that was Wirth.

Well, what is our Bible (the Old Testament) all about..? It's about a chosen people and their religion, it's about how superior their ethics and culture was compared to those of other people, and so on, and so on.

.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Abramelin

[Flashbangwollap]

Well, what is our Bible (the Old Testament) all about..? It's about a chosen people and their religion, it's about how superior their ethics and culture was compared to those of other people, and so on, and so on.

Very good point AB and still the same today.Much of the ceremony is kept away from us in the wider world. Wasn't it this which partly motivated Hitler?

Also interesting speculation Slim. Proof would be a breakthrough.

[Flashbangwollap]

Well, what is our Bible (the Old Testament) all about..? It's about a chosen people and their religion, it's about how superior their ethics and culture was compared to those of other people, and so on, and so on.

Very good point AB and still the same today.Much of the ceremony is kept away from us in the wider world. Wasn't it this which partly motivated Hitler?

Also interesting speculation Slim on Smurfs. Proof would be a breakthrough.