Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

[Abramelin]

You make it more complicated than it is.

" Angelara, zo heette (noemde) men tevoren de buitenvissers, omdat ze alleen met angel en kol visten en nimmer met netten."

"Angelara, so the 'seafishermen' (fishermen in the open water) were named in earlier times, because they only caught fish with angel (hook) or kol (lines), and never with nets."

(http://gtb.inl.nl/iW...rn=buitenvisser)

Angelara sâ hêton mân to fora tha butafiskar

Angelara zo (ge)heten te voren de Butafiskar

The Angelara were men heretofor called the Butafiskar

Now I'm thinking: maybe it's just the other way round, like you, Otharus suggested:

Angelara zo (ge)heten mannen te voren de Butafiskar: Angelara, as the Butafiskar were called before.

Yes, chronologically that would fit a lot better, but is it linguistically correct??

From anglers to sea fishers, from Angli to Batavi?

Hmm....

+++++

EDIT:

Check this map, http://upload.wikime...a_Magna_jpg.jpg , and look up the Angli (Denmark), Batavi (Netherlands), Angili (Germany, east of the Catti), Catti (Germany, and related to the Batavi).

Btw, the Angrivari in NW Germany are often also seen as part of the Angli

.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

But if the OLB does indeed hint at the Batavi (Butavis/Butafiska), then there should also be some sort of a hint at the Cananefates in the OLB because these tribes existed alongside each other and south of the Frisii.

[Van Gorp]

But if the OLB does indeed hint at the Batavi (Butavis/Butafiska), then there should also be some sort of a hint at the Cananefates in the OLB because these tribes existed alongside each other and south of the Frisii.

Yes Abe, that's a creative approach :-)

Well if you ask me, if that would be the case like you suggested we can look at Roman texts linked with Batavi, Caninefates and see what is mentionned OLB.

Roman text tribes mentionned in relation with Caninefates and possible hint in OLB: Frisii (pretended OLB writers?), Sicambri (Sekaemper?), Batavi (Butafiska?), Marsaci (Marsata?), Sturi (Sturar?)

Quickly scan of which are not linked (correct me if wrong): Kâd-hêmar, Landsâton, Holtsâton, Wodsâta -> all four not related with sea anymore but with land/wood

Little sidetrack:

By diving into the text I came across these lines about the progress of life, all changes (probably allready discussed, but for me i just saw it) -> the extended version of Rene Descartes' "Je pense donc je suis" :-)

Thervmbe ne mêi irtha selva, ner eng skepsle ni sedsa: ik ben, men wel ik was. Ak ne mêi nên ma^enniska navt ne sedsa ik tha^enk, men blât, ik thochte.

So neither the earth nor any other created object can say, I am; but rather, I was. So no man can say, I think; but rather, I thought.

[Abramelin]

That was also Knul's idea: Descartes.

--

The Holtsâton/ Wodsâta showed up on a map of Denmark/Schleswig-Holstein, as I showed in part -1- of this thread. They lived in the woods.

Both the Kâd-hêmar and the Landsâton were landkubbers.

[Abramelin]

The Cananefates remain an enigma.

I jokingly once equated them with the Canaanites by just leaving out the -F- in Cananefates : Cananeates. I stretched the joke by saying they were not 'leek masters' as you can read on any page about them, but 'red onion masters', dying cloth with the dye extracted from red onions. Red onions are members of the leek family. The Phoenicians (Canaanites) died cloth purple with the dye they extracted from 'murex'.

But then we have one possible etymology for the name of the Dutch sea goddess "Nehalennia":

Some people think that the name Nehalennia is derived from the Hebrew words ‘nahal’, meaning to guide and ‘aniah’ meaning ship. This would indicate the meaning to be ‘guide the ship’, i.e. he who guides the ship(s).

http://www.neeltjeja...gin-of-the-name

And Nehalennia was often depicted with her left foot on a ship. People made offerings to her during Roman times for a safe voyage across of the North Sea.

And... then we have Theo Vennemann, the German linguist, who has a theory that says that Punic/Phoenician influenced NW Germanic languages.

The next is a couple of quotes from someone not agreeing with Vennemann's theory:

Abstract

In this review article we evaluate Theo Vennemann’s provocative theories on the role of

Afroasiatic and Vasconic (e.g. Basque) languages in the pre-historic development of Indo-European

languages in Europe as presented in the volume Europa Vasconica-Europa Semitica, a collection of

27 of Vennemann’s essays. First, Vennemann argues that after the last ice age most of Central and

Western Europe was inhabited by speakers of Vasconic languages, the only survivor of which is

Basque. These speakers formed a substrate to the later-arriving Indo-Europeans. The primary

evidence for the presence of Vasconic throughout much of Europe is drawn from the Old European

hydronyms originally identified by Hans Krahe as Indo-European and reanalyzed by Vennemann as

Vasconic. Second, Vennemann maintains that Afroasiatic speakers colonized coastal regions of

Western and Northern Europe beginning in the fifth millennium BCE. According to his theory, these

speakers formed a superstrate or adstrate in Northern Europe and had a profound impact on the lexical

and structural development of Germanic. In the British Isles the language of these colonizers, which

Vennemann calls ‘‘Semitidic’’ (also ‘‘Atlantic’’), had a strong substratal influence on the structural

development of Insular Celtic. In this essay we examine the evidence for and against Vennemann’s

theories and his methodology.

# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Europa Vasconica-Europa Semitica is a provocative, stimulating and imaginative

collection of 27 dense essays by one of themost creative thinkers in diachronic linguistics

of our era, Theo Vennemann (whose name is not infrequently suffixed with the tag

genannt Nierfeld). At the hefty price of about $175.00 for its 977 printed pages,more than

60% of it written in German, the book is not for the casually curious reader. Evaluating

this work is a serious challenge, because it confronts the reader on nearly every page with

argumentation, theory, and novel proposals, together with an array of languages (viz.

Basque and a range of Afroasiatic languages, as well as more familiar IE languages such

as Germanic, Celtic and Italic) which may not fall within the competence of a single

reader, or reviewer.

In general terms, the ideas which underlie the two main theses of Europa Vasconica-

Europa Semitica are the following (summarized from the Introduction): After the last iceage,

which ended about 11,000 years ago, Indo-European agriculturists, possibly

originating in the Pannonian Basin of central Europe, migrated further into Europe in the

sixth millennium BCE, arriving in Scandinavia beginning around the fourth millennium

BCE. The migrating Indo-Europeans encountered other, non-IE people, who had started to

settle there already in the eighth millennium BCE, i.e. several millennia after the last iceage,

and had already named the European rivers, lakes, mountains and settlements. Thus

the oldest water names are probably the oldest ‘‘linguistic documents’’ in Europe north

of the Alps. The structure of these names betrays an agglutinating language with initial

accent, no vowel quantity and a predominant vowel a. The language family responsible

for these names is called by V ‘‘Vasconic’’, whose only surviving descendant is the

Basque language of the Pyrenees. Additionally, there are toponyms on the Atlantic

littoral which are neither Vasconic nor Indo-European. The prehistoric language

responsible for these names (and other linguistic effects) is called by V the ‘‘Semitidic’’

(also ‘‘Atlantic’’), group of languages, i.e. languages related to the Mediterranean

Hamito-Semitic languages,2 which were spoken along the European Atlantic seaboard

from the fifth millennium BCE until the first millennium CE. These languages are held

to have influenced the Indo-European languages of the northwest littoral from the fifth

millennium BCE onward.

The first thesis, which is in some ways the more radical of the two if for no other reason

than the historical obscurity of Basque itself, is a fundamental revision of Krahe’s

alteuropa¨isch hypothesis, which uses hydronyms as the critical data for establishing the

linguistic character of ‘‘Old Europe’’ as Indo-European. V’s central claim is that speakers

of Vasconic languages named the previously unnamed waterways and places of Pre-Indo-

European Europe. According to V a significant number of these names survived the

repopulation of Europe by the Indo-Europeans and even persist into modern times. Thus

for V, Krahe’s alteuropa¨isch hydronyms and toponyms are not Indo-European of any age;

they are Vasconic.

The second thesis, no less controversial but partly identifiable in previous literature (e.g.

the work of Morris Jones and Pokorny), has several subparts:

a. The Semitidic languages of the Atlantic seaboard gave many loanwords to

Indo-European, especially the western languages.

b. Germanic was shaped both lexically and structurally by a Semitic, probably

Phoenician superstratum.

c. The strong substratal influence present in the Insular Celtic languages is due

to the far-reaching Semitidic influence on Western Europe.

2. The Semitidic (Atlantic) hypothesis

The basic idea behind the Semitidic (Atlantic) hypothesis is that speakers of Hamito-

Semitic languages exerted a superstratal influence on the Indo-European populations of

northwest Europe, especially Germanic, and substratal influences on the coastal languages,

especially Insular Celtic, beginning in the 5th millennium BCE. These influences are

manifest in a variety of ways: on the non-linguistic side, V sees superstratal influence in the

Germanic Vanir myth (outlined in chap. 11 of this volume), which contains numerous

cultural features not easily recognizable as Indo-European. Among the themes Videntifies

are incest and marriage between sisters and brothers, and the harnessed team of cats

(probably lions) of the goddess Freya. According to Velements of this myth can be linked

to Semitic mythologies and he even proposes an etymological connection between

Germanic and Semitic gods such as Balder and Bacal (see in this vein Vennemann 2004,

forthcoming). Another example of non-linguistic evidence attributed by V to Atlantic

seafarers are the megalithic monuments of western Europe, which ‘‘are relics of a highly

developed society and may well be such vestiges of an Atlantic culture’’ (xvii).

Linguistic effects caused by the Atlantic languages include toponyms and other

common terms (‘‘appellatives’’), as well as forms and patterns in the structure of West

European languages. Likely examples of toponyms and hydronyms are The Solent, Solund,

Isles of Scilly; the river names Tay, Taw; and the Pit-names of Pictland such as Pittenweem.

Examples of Atlantic appellatives include administrative labels such as the ‘‘ruler’’ word in

Germanic (e.g. Germ. Adel); and the ‘‘house’’ word (Eng. house, Germ. Haus). On the nonlexical

side, Vattributes various aspects of Germanic ablaut to Atlantic influence. Opening

up the possibility of Atlantic influence on such a core structural feature as internal vowel

alternation of verbal forms (‘‘Germanic ablauting verbs have been lexically enriched and

grammatically systematized and functionalized by the Semitic-speaking peoples’’ (xix))

allows V to reinvestigate the etymologies of a number of Germanic strong verbs, in

particular those with the consonant p. Such verbs are unusual from an IE point of view

because they contradict the PIE ‘‘labial gap’’ (with Gmc. p the Grimm’s Law outcome of

the rare PIE . V thus proposes new Atlantic etymologies for these verbs. Further

non-lexical influence by Atlantic languages is claimed by V to be responsible for anomalous

structures in Celtic, most prominently the head-initial word order characteristic of Insular

Celtic languages, a feature which V claims can be attributed to Atlantic influence.

V suggests that these Semitidic influences on Celtic may

have lasted into the Phoenician period. He asserts (594):

From about 5000 BC onward, Semitidic peoples, bearers of the megalithic culture,

moved north along the Atlantic coast to all the islands and up the navigable rivers as

seafaring colonizers, until they reached southern Sweden in the middle of the third

millennium. . . . At the dawn of history we find the western Mediterranean dominated

by Phoenicians, a Semitic people. . . . I assume the megalithic culture to have spread

along the Atlantic coast from the south and west of the Iberian Peninsula and France

(5th millennium) via Ireland and Britain (4th millennium) all the way to Sweden (3rd

millennium) and thus to have its origin in the coastal regions between the western

Mediterranean and the Atlantic, where I locate the homeland of the Semitic peoples.12

Since V identifies the Phoenicians among the likely Semitic-speaking travelers who

have introduced their language and culture along the Atlantic coast, it might be useful to

point out a few of the known characteristics of these people, since little is known about

possible earlier Atlantic settlers. The Phoenicians were seafaring Semitic-speaking traders

from the area of what is now the coastal plain of Lebanon and Syria. They established

settlements all over the Mediterranean, in Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Sicily, Sardinia,

Southern France, Southern Spain, and above all, North Africa (Hetzron, 1987b:656).

Comprising more than just a group of traders, Phoenician society was highly literate and

complex. Phoenicians left behind relics of their institutions everywhere they visited—

temples, figurines, some art, and most importantly for the present discussion, inscriptions

(the Phoenician script is the direct ancestor of the Greek and Roman alphabets).

Everywhere the Phoenicians went they seemed to write something down, the earliest

inscription stemming from Byblos and dating to ca. 1000 BCE. This is a problem for such

northerly settlements as V proposes for them because there are no Phoenician inscriptions

north of central Spain, none on the British Isles or Scandinavia, and none so early as would

be required for the scenario which V envisions for these locales. This is not to say that they

(Phoenicians or some other Semitic-speaking travelers) might not have visited these places,

nor are we denying that Semitic-speaking people may have been responsible for the

megaliths found in the northern European area,13 only that their linguistic influence could

not have been so great if there was an insufficient presence there to establish linguistic

monuments. And in any case, V does little more than assert his assumptions on the

Phoenicians and other Atlantics rather than to establish them with firm linguistic evidence.

On this matter we cannot accept V’s postulation of such highly disputed attributes of

material culture or folklore such as the Vanir myth or for that matter the megaliths

themselves to the Atlantic peoples as acceptable substitutes for direct linguistic evidence,

specifically inscriptions.

Furthermore, for Semitidic-speaking settlers to be responsible for such monuments as

the megaliths they would have had to be in a powerful elite position, controlling everyone

who would be responsible for the construction of the monuments, just as with the Egyptian

pharaohs. Such control would require an elaborate, probably sedentary monarchical

society with a significant population, for which there is no external evidence (beyond the

megaliths and the purported linguistic effects of Semitidic on Germanic and Celtic) in the

early period relevant for this proposal. In any case, the northern megaliths cannot be dated

much before the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1500–800 BCE).

In fairness to V’s chronological scenario, it must be pointed out that other prominent

archaeologists such as Renfrew have argued for a much earlier Celtic settlement, perhaps

as early as 4000 BCE (1987:249), though more recently (1999:284–285) he places Proto-

Celtic later, sometime after 3000 BCE (similarly Germanic). The early date would seem to

fit with V’s view of the Celtic population of the British Isles. But V’s view of the

establishment of the megaliths by Semitidic settlers is not supported by Renfrew or other

mainstream archaeologists. Renfrew (1987:31) states that the megalithic tombs

characteristic of parts of western and northwestern Europe from Iberia to Britain to

Denmark probably have a local European origin, though he allows that they are a puzzle

that still needs to be resolved.

V sets the Atlantic background of the Picts to use in his linguistic arguments

concerning the element Pit- in Pit-names, which are part of his larger position on British

place-names.20 The Pit-names appear in more than three hundred names such as

Pittenweem, Pitochry, Pitsligo, Pitbladdo and so on, and have been the subject of acute

controversy (see the map in Watson, 1926, reproduced in Jackson, 1955:147). The Pitwords

were connected by Jackson with other Celtic forms (1955:148), suggesting a

Celtic pett ‘‘parcel of land or farmland’’. It is restricted to Celtic and a few Latin

borrowings, and is otherwise unknown in IE languages. V seizes this distribution to

connect it with a Hamito-Semitic root *fit- ‘‘land’’ as reconstructed by Orel and Stolbova

(1995, no. 809). He proposes a link with the Semitic *pitt- ‘‘area, region’’, manifested

prominently in Akkad. pittu ‘‘area, vicinity’’. Working this in with some other

Afroasiatic data from Cushitic and Omotic, V concludes that ‘‘Whatever the details of

the relationship of these words within Afro-Asiatic may turn out to be, my impression is

that this set of correspondences confirms the thesis that pett-/pit- in the Pit-names

continues a native Pictish word, and also the superordinate thesis that Pictish was related

to Semitic’’ (502).

20 V’s proposals for Atlantic-based place and water names include, in addition to the Pit-names, the name of the

strait Solent (England), the island Solund (Norway), and the Isles of Scilly (in the Atlantic off the southwest coast

of England), which he derives from Sem. *slc ‘‘rock, cliff’’ (following Coates, 1988); the rivers Tay (Pictland/

Scotland), Taw (England) and several Spanish/Portuguese river names (Tajo, Tejo), which he connects with a

putative, but apparently non-existent Hausa form tagus ‘‘river (with an estuary)’’, the only time Hausa is invoked

in an Atlantic etymology (after Stumfohl, 1989; non vidimus); and the Pit-names, and others (on which see

Sheynin’s 2004 critique). Examples of appellatives include administrative labels such as the ‘‘ruler’’ word (Germ.

Adel, OE æ el-), which V connects with Hebr. Ks: yly (more properly K¯as: i¯l) and Arab. Kat¯alun (and Kati¯lun) ‘‘noble,{read thisyourslef in the pdf because the phonetic characters don't show up properly]

nobility, etc.’’, though the cognacy of the Hebrew and Arabic forms is in doubt because of the /s: /-/u/

correspondence; and the Gmc. *sibjo¯ ‘‘family’’ (Eng. sib, Germ. Sippe), which V relates to the Semitic root

*s?ph:

‘‘family’’ (this root occurs only in Northwest Semitic, viz. Ugaritic s?ph:

, Phoenician and Punic s?ph:

, and

Hebr. mis?p ¯ah: ¯ah). For general critique see Kitson (1996), who reasserts the Indo-European character of most

of the place names analyzed by V in his critique of one of the best-known of the chapters V has devoted to

the topic, namely V 1994 (chap. 6 of this volume).

2.3. The Semitidic superstratum in Germanic

V has rightly taken a closer look at the widely held view that a substrate is responsible

for the non-Indo-European portion of the Germanic lexicon. V (1) observes that a variety of

lexical items with no known cognates outside of Germanic can be divided into the

following semantic fields: 1. warfare and weapons (sword), 2. sea and navigation (sea), 3.

law (steal), 4. state and communal life ( folk), 5. husbandry, house building, settlement

(house), 6. other expressions of advanced civilization (Germ. Zeit ‘‘time’’), 7. names of

animals and plants (eel), 8. expressions from numerous spheres of daily life (drink). He

argues that it is highly unlikely that the pre-Germanic people would have borrowed the

lexical items in categories 1, 3, and 4 from a substrate population of hunter-gatherers.

Analogies are drawn from numerous contact situations in which a superstrate language

influences the lexicon of the recipient language precisely in those semantic fields (see also

in this vein Polome´, 1986). Examples given by V include Norman French borrowings in

Middle English, Frankish lexical influence on the development of French, Gothic and

Arabic loanwords in Spanish, Langobardic and Gothic loanwords in Italian, Turkish

loanwords throughout the Balkans, and Middle Low German loanwords in Danish and

Swedish.

All the allegedly analogous situations outlined above, with the exception of Low

German, involve subjugation of an indigenous population by an invading group. On this

basis, V argues that the lexical items in categories 1, 3, and 4 above must have been

borrowed from the language of a superstrate, or possibly adstrate, population that

subjugated the pre-Germanic population. The Low German situation points to trade as

another vehicle for the introduction of cultural loanwords, as Low German was the

language of the Hanseatic League, a trading federation centered in the Baltic, and not the

language of a conquering people. On the basis of these presumed parallels, V attempts to

identify a likely superstrate in northern Europe at the time of Indo-European settlement. He

points to the one hundred meter long West Kennet Long Burrow dated to 3250 BCE and

other large structures as indicative of an advanced society that could serve as a superstrate

to relatively primitive Indo-Europeans (16–17). In numerous articles, V argues that

Semitidic speakers formed the superstrate that provided Germanic with the non-Indo-

European portion of its cultural vocabulary.

2.4.1. Volk

V argues (665–666) that the quintessentially Germanic word Volk ‘‘people’’ (OE folc,

OFris. Folk, OS folc, OHG folc, ON folk) has a Semitidic etymology, based ultimately on a

root meaning ‘‘to split, divide’’. The argument rests semantically on the proposal that the

original meaning of Volk is not ‘‘people’’ but rather ‘‘division of an army’’. V takes Volk

back to an Semitidic root of the structure *plg with the basic meaning ‘‘to divide’’ (cf. Hebr.

plg ‘‘to divide’’, and with enlargement, plgh ‘‘section’’). V surmises that the word was an

early loan which underwent Grimm’s Law. V’s semantic arguments are based on the

concept inherent in the English military term ‘‘division’’, obviously based on divide, Lat.

di¯vi¯dere, that is, a portion of an army that has been segmented from the main body. But the

problem here is that Lat. di¯vi¯dere and its nominalized form di¯visio are never used in a

military context (OLD, s.v.). The notion of a division as a part of an army is a modern

concept, not an ancient one, first occurring in written English in 1597 in Shakespeare

(OED, s.v.). In fact, the oldest evidence we have from any military organization for the

http://cls.psu.edu/p.../LINGUA1158.pdf

Interesting is the critique on Vennemann's etymology of the Germanic word "volk/folk". The Dutch and English etymology sites we have often quoted from seem to agree with him:

folk (n.)

O.E. folc "common people, laity; men; people, nation, tribe; multitude; troop, army," from P.Gmc. *folkom (cf. O.Fris. folk, M.Du. volc, Ger. Volk "people"), from P.Gmc. *fulka-, perhaps originally "host of warriors;" cf. O.N. folk "people," also "army, detachment;" and Lith. pulkas "crowd," O.C.S. pluku "division of an army," both believed to have been borrowed from Proto-Germanic. Old English folcstede could mean both "dwelling-place" and "battlefield."

http://www.etymonlin...owed_in_frame=0

http://www.etymologi.../trefwoord/volk

http://gtb.inl.nl/iW...b=ONW&id=ID3710

Peleg , Modern Péleg / Páleg Tiberian Péle / Pale ; "division") is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible as one of the two sons of Eber, an ancestor of the Israelites, according to the "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10-11 and 1 Chronicles 1. Peleg's son was Reu, born when Peleg was thirty, and he had other sons and daughters. According to the Hebrew Bible, Peleg lived to the age of 239 years. (Genesis 11:16-19)

In the Septuagint and some Christian Bibles derived from it, Peleg is called Phaleg and his father is called Heber. His son is called Ragau, born when Phaleg was 130 years old, and he had other sons and daughters. According to the Septuagint, Phaleg lived to an age of 339 years. (Septuagint Genesis 11:16-19) Modern translations generally use the names and dating as in the Masoretic Hebrew text. (compare Genesis 11:16-19)

Peleg is a common surname in Israel, also being the root lettering for sailing (lahaflig) and a military half-bivouac tent (peleg-ohel). The meaning of Peleg in English is "brook", a little river.

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

+++

Back to the Cananefates.

Cananefates

Kinneret

Nefat Kinneret, an Israeli nefat in Northern Israel

village, geographical area, settlement, area within a nation, administrative area within a nation, Israeli nefat, populated place

http://www.evi.com/q..._nefat_kinneret

Canannefat = Knn nft, or Canaan Nefat?

Hell, maybe some Phoenician ships stranded on the west coast of the Netherlands during a storm, and were unable to repair their ships, stayed where they stranded, and settled there. After several centuries they were thoroughly Germanized by the surrounding tribes, and both Tacitus and Caesar just assumed - and maybe wrongly so - that they had close ties with the Batavians and before that, the C(h)atti.

The Cananefates were a very small tribe, and that is to be expected if they were the offspring of people traveling the seas and had stranded there (and liked all those Nordic women, lol)..

Btw: one of the possible etymologies of their name mentions "kaan" or boat, canoe. And no, that name was an old Germanic word, not a loan from the Carib Indians.

All this may sound farfetched, but there are now indications the Minoans visited this side, the south-east coasts of the North Sea around the middle of the second millenium BCE, and who knows, their 'teachers' the Phoenicians maybe even earlier.

.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Abramelin

[Van Gorp]

Just an idea, maybe going further then the exact interpretation of OLB .... could be applicable for interpretation of much of old historical/mythical accounts.

What if (and i know maybe this is subject for a total seperate thread) but we can apply it also to OLB.

common tribe/personal names like Magyars/Kathars/Minerva/Adela/ ... are more generalisations for a group of people/religion/culture followers than only geographic or personal pinpoints.

Some examples:

• the rape of a woman does come in in quite a few and different accounts: could be the symbolical rape of a religious thought/people/culture by a more aggressive cultural movement 'spoiling' the former belief/culture (in a sense like capitalism/consumarism is spoiling the folk christmas idea of just being together celebrating the birth of the new sun)
  
• the lands under Magy's rule could be more/else than the geographical entities/lands conquered by Magyars but could also point to the upcoming influence of the rule of the Magister (generaal overste)like we have with the Dominican order which was at a certain time in middleages given the task to help carry out the inquisition
  
• Angelare/Sturar/Liethouwers all pointing also to a kind of 'profession' or common activity
  
• Maybe all these people are not that much to be located besides each other but part of a bigger whole where indeed the Angelare were not living in the woods :-) but maybe also not a real seperate tribe as we understand it as forming a fix geographicaly seperate tribe.
  
• the reason that the Caninefates were not that a big 'tribe' could then be explained as not being of a large number just because they were the (selected) cavalerie
  

[Abramelin]

Just an idea, maybe going further then the exact interpretation of OLB .... could be applicable for interpretation of much of old historical/mythical accounts.

What if (and i know maybe this is subject for a total seperate thread) but we can apply it also to OLB.

common tribe/personal names like Magyars/Kathars/Minerva/Adela/ ... are more generalisations for a group of people/religion/culture followers than only geographic or personal pinpoints.

ME: Where do the Kathars show up in the OLB? I did mention them in part -1 of this thread, btw.

Some examples:

the rape of a woman does come in in quite a few and different accounts: could be the symbolical rape of a religious thought/people/culture by a more aggressive cultural movement 'spoiling' the former belief/culture (in a sense like capitalism/consumarism is spoiling the folk christmas idea of just being together celebrating the birth of the new sun)

ME: the OLB does mention women being raped, but those stories do not sound that symbolical to me

the lands under Magy's rule could be more/else than the geographical entities/lands conquered by Magyars but could also point to the upcoming influence of the rule of the Magister (generaal overste)like we have with the Dominican order which was at a certain time in middleages given the task to help carry out the inquisition

ME: Magister is Latin for "master" or "teacher." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magister

Angelare/Sturar/Liethouwers all pointing also to a kind of 'profession' or common activity

ME: Could also be based on socalled 'folk-etymology' and nothing to do with the real meaning of their names.

Like explaining the name 'Crete' as (in Dutch:) 'Kreet' (= scream) because these people screamed, and so on. As though other people never scream, or angle, or steer, or.. and so on.

Maybe all these people are not that much to be located besides each other but part of a bigger whole where indeed the Angelare were not living in the woods :-) but maybe also not a real seperate tribe as we understand it as forming a fix geographicaly seperate tribe.

ME: the OLB tells us the Fryans were known under many different names, and then we get that whole list of names of which you quoted three. The OLB also tells us where these sub-tribes lived, and quite detailed.

the reason that the Caninefates were not that a big 'tribe' could then be explained as not being of a large number just because they were the (selected) cavalerie

ME: But so were the Batavians, and even much more so.

++++

But I think I get what you are trying to convey: we should not consider the OLB to be a literal account (chronicle) of real historical events, but rather a symbolical way of showing how different 'philosophies' and/or cultures clash(ed).

Isn't that exactly what people like Goffe Jensma said?

.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

In this post,

http://www.unexplain...#entry4533054

I explained what kind of material the Fryans used to make paper.

But there is more.

What kind of paper was used for the MS as we know it?

That depends on what you believe: is the OLB a recent fabrication or an authentic, 13th century MS.

OK, here it goes:

Okke min svn.

Thissa boka mot i mith lif aend sêle wârja. Se vmbifattath thju skêdnise fon vs êle folk âk fon vsa êthlum. Vrlêden jêr haeb ik tham ut-er flod hred tolik mith thi aend thinra moder. Tha hja wêron wet wrden; thêr thrvch gvngon hja aefternei vrdarva. Vmbe hja navt to vrlysa haeb ik-ra vp wrlandisk pampyer wrskrêven.

Okke my son.

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.

As you see, "wrlandisk" is being translated as "foreign". In old-fashioned Dutch that would be "overlands"., or 'from abroad".

ov-er-lan-d-ich 1, ov-er-lon-d-ich, ov-er-len-d-ich, afries., Adj.: nhd. ausländisch;

ne. foreign; Hw.: s. lan-d; Q.: W; E.: s. ov-er, *lan-d-ich

http://www.koeblerge...ch/afries-O.pdf

Now, if you believe the MS is what it purports to be, a 13th century copy of a copy of a copy..... of an ancient family chronicle, then that translation will suffice.

But if you - like me - believe the MS is a 19th century creation, then things become a bit different.

overlandsch, overlansch, averlentsch, averlensch

Dutch:

Uit of van het “overlant”, uit of van het eene of andere ver gelegen land (vgl. overlant), bepaaldelijk uit dat gedeelte van Duitschland, dat gewoonlijk met den naam “Overland” wordt bestempeld, uit Westfalen en de Rijnprovincie.

English:

From or of the "overlant", from some or other far away country, specifically from that part of Germany that's commonly labeled "Overland", from Westphalia and the Rhine Province.

http://gtb.inl.nl/iW...db=MNW&id=40684

http://en.wikipedia....e_of_Westphalia

http://en.wikipedia..../Rhine_Province

http://commons.wikim...ince.svg&page=1

That's quite a large area, but it's bordering at the east / north-east of Maastricht:

Within the first few years after the appearance of the Oera Linda Book, its recent origin was established not only based on the exceptional claims being made, but also because of a number of anachronisms it contained. Research was performed on the quality of the paper, and it was claimed to have come from a papermill in Maastricht circa 1850.

http://en.wikipedia....Oera_Linda_Book

But we can narrow the area down.

There are also a couple of cities in east Germany and Switzerland with the name Oberland (German for "Overland") :

• Oberland am Rennsteig,
  
• Vogtländisches Oberland,
  

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

The cities called "Oberland" in Germany are in the German federal state of Thuringia (GER: Thüringen).

What a nice coincidence... the German friend and neighbour of Cornelis Over de Linden in Den Helder (Netherlands), Ernst Stadermann (born in Ohrdruf, bookbinder in Erfurt, lived also in Hildburghausen - source: http://rodinbook.nl/...adermann.html ) came from that same federal state. This guy is important as I hope you all know, because he had a lot of knowledge of ancient languages, of book binding, of philosophies, he was a rebel, and a lot more.

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

Did he bring the paper along when he fled from Germany? The same type of paper Over de Linden/he/whoever used to create this 'ancient manuscript'?

.++

EDIT:

Knul, quit messing with your 'rodinbook' website.

Every time I post a link to your site, it is dead within a day.

EDIT:

It's ok now, no, it's even better, lol.

.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Abramelin

[Van Gorp]

From the same webpage of Knul i read:

Mr E. Stadermann, bookbinder and interpreter to Den Helder.

This person was highly developed and highly gifted, had the same ideas as in the book are displayed.

???

So he was highly developed and had the same ideas as expressed in OLB.

This looks to me more an affirmation that what is expressed in OLB is no rascale.

[Abramelin]

And to me it looks like the one who delivered the paper for the OLB, the same guy with knowledge of how to make paper look 'ancient', the same guy who knew of old languages. also delivered the ideas expressed in the OLB.

.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Abramelin

[NO-ID-EA]

i must have missunderstood you here Abe , you cant be saying that in the 19th Century these men went to the trouble of forging a book , composing different parts of it that they pretended were written in different ages ,with the different spellings of the same words ( as Otharus was pointing out )to make it more convincing.

and then told us where they got the modern paper from , surely that does not make any sense ??

Edited November 21, 2012 by NO-ID-EA

[Abramelin]

i must have missunderstood you here Abe , you cant be saying that in the 19th Century these men went to the trouble of forging a book , composing different parts of it that they pretended were written in different ages ,with the different spellings of the same words ( as Otharus was pointing out )to make it more convincing.

and then told us where they got the modern paper from , surely that does not make any sense ??

They did not tell us directly where the paper came from: the only word is "wrlandisk", and could indeed mean nothing but "foreign" or "overlands" in old-fashened Dutch.

But it's at least an interesting coincidence that this Stadermann was born in and lived and worked close by the Thüringer "Overlands".

And what is sense? If you want to make money by creating a hoax like an 'ancient manuscript', you will make sure you will leave out any anachronisms or other mistakes.

If it is supposed to be some sort of elaborate joke, you enter things only some will understand and let them and you have a good laugh at those who fall for it.

[Knul]

In this post,

http://www.unexplain...#entry4533054

I explained what kind of material the Fryans used to make paper.

[...]

There are also a couple of cities in east Germany and Switzerland with the name Oberland (German for "Overland") :

• Oberland am Rennsteig,
  
• Vogtländisches Oberland,
  

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

The cities called "Oberland" in Germany are in the German federal state of Thuringia (GER: Thüringen).

What a nice coincidence... the German friend and neighbour of Cornelis Over de Linden in Den Helder (Netherlands), Ernst Stadermann (born in Ohrdruf, bookbinder in Erfurt, lived also in Hildburghausen - source: http://rodinbook.nl/...adermann.html ) came from that same federal state. This guy is important as I hope you all know, because he had a lot of knowledge of ancient languages, of book binding, of philosophies, he was a rebel, and a lot more.

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

Did he bring the paper along when he fled from Germany? The same type of paper Over de Linden/he/whoever used to create this 'ancient manuscript'?

.++

EDIT:

Knul, quit messing with your 'rodinbook' website.

Every time I post a link to your site, it is dead within a day.

EDIT:

It's ok now, no, it's even better, lol.

.

The word wrlandisk = foreign belongs to the text by Halbertsma, not to the supposed translation by Stadermann. It must be a coincidence, but a nice one.

[Knul]

The story of the OLB before Over de Linden showed the manuscript pertains to the period of time from 1845 to 1867, which equals with the arrival of Stadermann in Den Helder in 1845 and his dead April 13th, 1867. I found, that Stadermann founded a bookshop and printery in Den Helder, besides he did some translation work for the marine. Probably Stadermann wanted to print the OLB in his own printery.

[Van Gorp]

And to me it looks like the one who delivered the paper for the OLB, the same guy with knowledge of how to make paper look 'ancient', the same guy who knew of old languages. also delivered the ideas expressed in the OLB.

.

Hmm, let's take that as possibility: if not genuine manuscript, he delivered the ideas.

But he himself believed in the ideas expressed, though highly educated?

[Abramelin]

The word wrlandisk = foreign belongs to the text by Halbertsma, not to the supposed translation by Stadermann. It must be a coincidence, but a nice one.

And how about this coincidence:

19300000 J.H. Halbertsma. Fryslân (Wize út Berner Oberland) op 'e nij biwurke fen J.Paardekoper. Ljouwert, 1930.

19300000 J.H. Halbertsma. Friesland (Jokes from Berner Oberland), according to a new edition by J.Paardekoper. Leeuwarden, 1930.

http://www.rodinbook...gievervolg.html

Alas. Berner Oberland is in Switzerland.

+++

Waren de oorspronkelijke bewoners van het Berner Oberland Friezen?.

Were the original inhabitants of Berner Oberland Frisians?

http://books.google....AAJ&redir_esc=y

This is about the legend I have mentioned in part -1- of this thread.

It's this post: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=184645&st=8430#entry4139552

According to legend, the Frisians had a colony in Switzerland. They called it "Su-rijck", which means "South State", and which is supposed to be the origin of the name Zürich.

The Frisians had created that colony amongst descendents of their ancestors, ancestors who had settled there on their way to Rome around 111 BC. And it was 'half-way to Rome', so they called it "haele wey" which later became "Helvetia".

.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

The story of the OLB before Over de Linden showed the manuscript pertains to the period of time from 1845 to 1867, which equals with the arrival of Stadermann in Den Helder in 1845 and his dead April 13th, 1867. I found, that Stadermann founded a bookshop and printery in Den Helder, besides he did some translation work for the marine. Probably Stadermann wanted to print the OLB in his own printery.

Knul, now you are here again, I wanted to ask you: is it possible Stadermann used paper from Germany for his printshop, or that he had it sent over, or that his wife, who came to the Netherlands some time later, brought it along with her?

"Iedereen gevoelt wat een man als Cornelis over de Linden aan een vriend als Ernest Stadermann moest hebben. Van hoeveel nut kon Stadermann zijn vriend Cornelis over de Linden op taal-, aardrijks- en geschiedkundig gebied, in 't verschaffen van papier etc. niet zijn !!!' Bron: Dhr. Berk in J. Beckering Vinckers, Wie heeft het Oera Linda Boek geschreven, Kampen 1877."

Everyone feels what it must have been for a Cornelis Over de Linden to have a friend like Ernest Stadermann. How much could Stadermann have been of benefit to his friend Cornelis Over de Linden concerning language, geography and history, in providing paper, etc. !!! Source: Mr. Berk in J. Beckering Vincker's, "Who wrote the Oera Linda book?", Kampen 1977.

http://rodinbook.nl/olbstadermann.html

[Abramelin]

Hmm, let's take that as possibility: if not genuine manuscript, he delivered the ideas.

But he himself believed in the ideas expressed, though highly educated?

Considering Stadermann's revolutionary ideas for which he had to flee his home country, that might well be true.

[Abramelin]

According to legend, the Frisians had a colony in Switzerland. They called it "Su-rijck", which means "South State", and which is supposed to be the origin of the name Zürich.

The Frisians had created that colony amongst descendents of their ancestors, ancestors who had settled there on their way to Rome around 111 BC. And it was 'half-way to Rome', so they called it "haele wey" which later became "Helvetia".

A whole book about it (in Dutch):

OVER EENE NEDERZETTING OF VOLKPLANTING DER FRIESEN IN ZWITSERLAND,

BENEVENS EENIGE AANMERKINGEN over DEN TOCHT DER FRIESEN NAAR ROME.

(About a Frisian settlement or colony in Switzerland, and some remarks about the journey of the Frisians to Rome)

http://images.tresoa...0001-1839-1.pdf

http://www30.us.arch...chgoog_djvu.txt

•E. Binkes, 'Over eene nederzetting of volkplanting der Friesen in Zwitserland, benevens eenige aanmerkingen over den tocht der Friesen naar Rome,' De Vrije Fries 1 (1839) 1-63 [online].

http://www.friesgeno...ands/dvfina.htm

.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

This one is for Otharus:

"Ecce cadit Mater Frisiae" = "Here falls the Mother of Frisia"

Vroonen.

(Overwijn thought it meant they pulled down a statue of Freya, but he just made that one up)

http://www.dwangburc...wb/phebust2.htm

http://www.archiefal...toID=PR 1002831

http://www.archiefal...3&frase=alkmaar prent -opvoering&rpp=30&cp=24&CollectionID=5&RecordID=15875&PhotoID=PR 1002831

http://www.archive.o...kngoog_djvu.txt

.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

What we need here is a cryptographer.

Someone who is able to find hidden messages in texts.

I have this strong feeling that the answer lies in some secret code, hidden in the text.

And you can bet I have tried to find it, for years now.

.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Abramelin

[NO-ID-EA]

I can maybe see why you may think so........the oppressive church in previous times forcing people to form secret societies.......that was certainly a good thread from the "L"

but if you think OLB is a coded message it would be so much more impressive than "L"s unreadable text , to be an understandable book , in a true known language that also encompasses a hidden code , that would be an unbelieveable feat.

however it does make me think more about the possibility of 4 or 5 guys getting together in some secret cabal to invent a historical story, seeing as this sort of thing seems to have been more common in 18th/19th C

Have you read any of Anatoly T FomenKo's History,fiction or Science ? books Abe ????

Edited November 22, 2012 by NO-ID-EA

[Abramelin]

I can maybe see why you may think so........the oppressive church in previous times forcing people to form secret societies.......that was certainly a good thread from the "L"

but if you think OLB is a coded message it would be so much more impressive than "L"s unreadable text , to be an understandable book , in a true known language that also encompasses a hidden code , that would be an unbelieveable feat.

however it does make me think more about the possibility of 4 or 5 guys getting together in some secret cabal to invent a historical story, seeing as this sort of thing seems to have been more common in 18th/19th C

Have you read any of Anatoly T FomenKo's History,fiction or Science ? books Abe ????

I read some of Fomenko's work online, and I don't think much of it. He (and others) accuse historians of leaving out unwanted things and at the same time does it himself to 'prove' his pet theory.

=

There are a couple of reasons why I had to think of some 'hidden message' in the OLB.

First is Over de Linden's connection with/interest in Freemasonry

Second is that every page of the OLB consists of 32 lines, and 2 pages appear to be missing.

The OLB alphabet consists of 32 letters, while it actually uses 34: the ;letters -W- and -GS- , though used, do not show up in the explaining letter sheet.

Maybe, again, all this is just another coincidence, sure.

Maybe not.

[Abramelin]

There are a couple of reasons why I had to think of some 'hidden message' in the OLB.

First is Over de Linden's connection with/interest in Freemasonry

Second is that every page of the OLB consists of 32 lines, and 2 pages appear to be missing.

The OLB alphabet consists of 32 letters, while it actually uses 34: the ;letters -W- and -GS- , though used, do not show up in the explaining letter sheet.

Maybe, again, all this is just another coincidence, sure.

Maybe not.

THE MYSTERIES OF THE KABBALAH

AND

FREEMASONRY

Posted May, 1999

A Paper by Bro. Raymond L. Schwartz, Harmony Lodge No. 8, Newton, New Jersey, U. S. A.

Winner of the 1989 Phoenix Prize Competition

The Hebrew alphabet has 32 letters, which also serve as numbers. Some Kabbalists manipulate words and numbers for explaining much about the universe and the works of God. The number 32 denotes the number of degrees in the Scottish Rite. The Hebrew letters Yod, Heh, and Vav are an important symbol in the Royal Arch degree. Hebraically, these letters form the name of God and this is also a magnificent centerpiece of the Royal Arch degree. There is no question that the Kabbalistic En-Sof and the masonic manipulation of these letters are conceptually related.

The Kabbalists argue that there are 32 paths of widsom, which lead to knowledge about God. It is interesting to note that the Babylonia version of the Talmud has 32 tractates. Again, the number 32 is a significant feature in both the Kabbalah and Freemasonry.

http://www.2be1ask1.com/library/kabbalah.html

The Number "32" : is also very important in Freemasonry. There were only 32 Degrees in the

Scottish Rite,, until Albert Pike introduced the 33rd Degree in 1832. Since then, "33" has become very

important. But, still there are signs of the "32" in our society. For instance water liquefies after "32"

Degrees. Was Fahrenheit a Mason? Probably. Where did we get the idea of "Degrees" to measure heat.

I think it had something to do with Jaques De Moley being burned at the stake in 1314. The "Heat" of

fire would later be measured in degrees. Unless someone can point out that they used the term

"Degrees" to measure heat back in the 1100's and 1200's, which I highly doubt.

http://www.encognitive.com/node/10270

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/freemasons_control_world.htm

http://www.transformason.org/papers/masonic_rings.html

[NO-ID-EA]

I read some of Fomenko's work online, and I don't think much of it. He (and others) accuse historians of leaving out unwanted things and at the same time does it himself to 'prove' his pet theory.

=

There are a couple of reasons why I had to think of some 'hidden message' in the OLB.

First is Over de Linden's connection with/interest in Freemasonry

Second is that every page of the OLB consists of 32 lines, and 2 pages appear to be missing.

The OLB alphabet consists of 32 letters, while it actually uses 34: the ;letters -W- and -GS- , though used, do not show up in the explaining letter sheet.

Maybe, again, all this is just another coincidence, sure.

Maybe not.

Fomenko definitely has a problem with Scaligers chronology..........but if he is right in his book 4 about Rome,Britain, Troy etc all occuring much later in history than admitted

and that Europe was overrun by the Monguls.. who were the Rus-sians...... who then dominated Europe for a couple of centuries

he seems to think once the Mongul empire collapsed, European Elites got together to carve up Europe between themselves , and re-wrote the history books to remove the facts........leaving place names like Rosshire , Ross Common behind.

This would be a possible reason why a book like OLB , has to be deemed a fraud , because if they admit the earlier history, they have to then explain the missing years while we were under the Rus