Ott Posted November 5, 2013 #4576 Share Posted November 5, 2013 We've been here before. Does this look like a 19th century handwritten "f" to you, Knul? By some, the OLB 'runskrift' was interpreted as 19th century handwriting. But it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted November 5, 2013 #4577 Share Posted November 5, 2013 (edited) We've been here before. Does this look like a 19th century handwritten "f" to you, Knul? By some, the OLB 'runskrift' was interpreted as 19th century handwriting. But it isn't. Even Ottema doubted, that the OLB script was authentic. He confirms in his letter of June 9, 1872 to Cornelis over de Linden, that the runskrift could not be older than hundred years. Aparently you know better than Ottema. Edited November 5, 2013 by Knul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted November 5, 2013 #4578 Share Posted November 5, 2013 (edited) Gij zult zien dat ik het fantasie runskrift, dat in het H.S. voorkomt, heb laten varen. Dat is een bijvoegsel van veel lateren tijd, en zuiver fictie, dus onecht. You will see that I have left out the fantasy-'runskrift' from the manuscript. That was added much later and pure fiction, thus inauthentic. Ik ben tot de eenvoudige overtuiging gekomen, dat het standskrift is de groote letter in den cirkel geteekend en het runskrift dat wat men in de gewone schriften gebruikt en waarin het geheele H.S. geschreven is. I have come to the simple conviction, that the 'standskrift' is the big letter, drawn in the circle, and that the runskrift that what was used in common writing and in which the whole manuscript was written. Men zou het eerste theoretisch en het laatste praktisch schrift kunnen noemen. Met veele vriendelijke groeten aan uwe familie. The first might be called theoretic and the other practical writing. With many friendly greetings to your family. ~ Answer from Cornelis Over de Linden to this, dated 11 june 1872: Thanks for the translation. It has been discussed here before, that Ottema adapted the script page. However, if you have a medieval text with a part of it written in a 19th c. handwriting withe same hand, the whole manuscript can not be older than the 19th c. Edited November 5, 2013 by Knul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted November 5, 2013 #4579 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Aparently you know better than Ottema. Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted November 5, 2013 #4580 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Brief van J.G. Ottema aan Cornelis over de Linden d.d. 9 juni 1872 De figuren die in het H.S. als runskrift geteekend zijn behooren er niet toe. De soort van lettertrek wijst uit dat zij er (vroegstens) in het begin der vorige eeuw bij kunnen geteekend zijn. Hiddo oera Linda had dat alfabet in runskrift weggelaten, als onnodig, omdat het boek zelf in runskrift geschreven was. Maar wat voor hem niet nodig was, is voor mij bij den druk nodig om aan te geven door welke letters ik de letters van het runskrift tracht aan te duiden. Door middel van die opgave kan men ten allen tijde naar de gedrukte tekst het boek in zijn oorspronkelijk schrift herstellen. Ik wou om een mooi ding, dat die fantasieletters er nooit gestaan hadden, want zij hebben al meer dan te veel kwaad gedaan., terwijl het zien daarvan de menschen in den waan heeft gebracht en doen zeggen, dat schrift kan niet meer dan honderd jaar oud zijn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted November 5, 2013 #4581 Share Posted November 5, 2013 ... a part of it written in a 19th c. handwriting... Why do you believe that is 19th century handwriting? Did you ever have a good look at it? You have ignored my post with the letter "f". That (for example) is in no way 19th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted November 5, 2013 #4582 Share Posted November 5, 2013 (edited) Thanks for that other fragment - I will translate it later today. Edited November 5, 2013 by gestur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted November 5, 2013 #4583 Share Posted November 5, 2013 (edited) Why do you believe that is 19th century handwriting? Did you ever have a good look at it? You have ignored my post with the letter "f". That (for example) is in no way 19th century. In tthis case I rather trust Ottema and all the other experts. By the way I am busy with mediëval 'litterae ignotae' (unknown scripts), but none looks like the OLB script at all. Edited November 5, 2013 by Knul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted November 5, 2013 #4584 Share Posted November 5, 2013 I rather trust Ottema and all the other experts. What "all other experts"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted November 5, 2013 #4585 Share Posted November 5, 2013 What "all other experts"? medievists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted November 5, 2013 #4586 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Brief van J.G. Ottema aan Cornelis over de Linden d.d. 9 juni 1872De figuren die in het H.S. als runskrift geteekend zijn behooren er niet toe. De soort van lettertrek wijst uit dat zij er (vroegstens) in het begin der vorige eeuw bij kunnen geteekend zijn. Hiddo oera Linda had dat alfabet in runskrift weggelaten, als onnodig, omdat het boek zelf in runskrift geschreven was. Maar wat voor hem niet nodig was, is voor mij bij den druk nodig om aan te geven door welke letters ik de letters van het runskrift tracht aan te duiden. Door middel van die opgave kan men ten allen tijde naar de gedrukte tekst het boek in zijn oorspronkelijk schrift herstellen. Ik wou om een mooi ding, dat die fantasieletters er nooit gestaan hadden, want zij hebben al meer dan te veel kwaad gedaan., terwijl het zien daarvan de menschen in den waan heeft gebracht en doen zeggen, dat schrift kan niet meer dan honderd jaar oud zijn. The symbols that were written in the manuscript as being 'runskrift', don't belong to it. The sort of letterdrawing proves that they may have been added (at the earliest) in the early 18th century. Hiddo Oera Linda did not include that alfabet in runskrift, as it was not needed, while the book itself was written in runskrift. But what was not needed for him, is needed for me in this printed edition, to indicate which printing letters represent which runskrift letters. By means of that table, one can at any time use the printed text to reproduce the book in its original script. I would dearly wish that these fantasyletters would not have been there, as they already have done more than too much harm, having people who saw them get the illusion and declare, that the manuscript can not be more than a century old. Again, for the record: I disagree with Ottema in this. I see no reason to believe that the letters are not authentic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted November 5, 2013 #4587 Share Posted November 5, 2013 (edited) Thanks for that other fragment - I will translate it later today. Gestur, I have not seen this runscript used in the OLB except on the alphabet page. I note that Over de Linden has written this: have come to the simple conviction, that the 'standskrift' is the big letter, drawn in the circle, and that the runskrift that what was used in common writing and in which the whole manuscript was written. Now I see that is it written in the above text you have here. What book is this in? The original that you have seen? The copy Knul has does not have it and I recall you saying it was not an original. Is this runscript used like your example throughout the original - as Over de Linden has stated? Edited November 5, 2013 by The Puzzler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted November 5, 2013 #4588 Share Posted November 5, 2013 (edited) Gestur, I have not seen this runscript used in the OLB except on the alphabet page. I note that Over de Linden has written this: have come to the simple conviction, that the 'standskrift' is the big letter, drawn in the circle, and that the runskrift that what was used in common writing and in which the whole manuscript was written. Now I see that is it written in the above text you have here. What book is this in? The original that you have seen? The copy Knul has does not have it and I recall you saying it was not an original. Is this runscript used like your example throughout the original - as Over de Linden has stated? No it is the own reconstruction by Gestur. Nicely done. Ottema described them as 19th c. phantasy letters, but that could not be possible, because the MS did not leave empty space for such purposes. The runskript forms an integral part of the MS and were written with the same hand. So it disapproves the authenticity of the OLB. Ottema knew this and tried to hide the phantasy letters in his publication and in his presentations, but - alas - they were on the original as was discovered by Overwijn. So Ottema himself faked the book. Edited November 5, 2013 by Knul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted November 6, 2013 #4589 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Brief van J.G. Ottema aan Cornelis over de Linden d.d. 12 juni 1872 Gij hebt zeker mijn vorigen brief en mijne bedoeling niet goed begrepen. Ik wil trachten duidelijker te zijn. Het Standschrift is de lettervorm in het jol geteekend, dat Staand schrift is de Standaard, het model, maar voor het dagelijks gebruik te omslachtig en te moeyelijk. Zoo is ook het H.S. niet in Standschrift geschreven. Fasta heeft er het runskrift van gemaakt door de zaak te vereenvoudigen, door de letter van het jol te ontdoen en daarbij de letters gelijk van grootte te maken. In dat runschrift is ook het H.S. geschreven. Dit letterschrift is het run, dus niet de figuurtjes op pag. 46.Als gij dit goed bekijkt, dan zult gij zien: 1e. dat zij met een ganzenschacht geschreven zijn en niet met het penseel zoo als het geheele H.S. 2e. dat de inkt verbleekt is en van een geheel andere soort als de zuiver zwarte onverbleekte inkt van het H.S. De oude inkt is niet ijzerhoudend en verbleekt of verroest niet, zoo als de latere ijzerhoudende inkt. Die oude inkt in de 13e eeuw komt meer met de Chinese inkt overeen. Bovendien als dat schrift het dagelijksche of loopend schrift was, dan had het H.S. in dat schrift moeten geschreven zijn. En dat schrift zoude juist veel moeyelijker geweest zijn. Ik heb er de proef van genomen en bevonden dat met die frisen en krolnen niet vlug schrijven is. Het runskrift is door de Krekalanders overgenomen en tot een bewijs dus wat runskrift is, zend ik u hierbij een staaltje van oud grieksch schrift, benevens een grieksch alfabet met de Friesche letters eronder. Daaruit zult gij zien, dat de Grieken bijna alle lettervormen hebben aangenomen, schoon ze zich wel eens vergist hebben in de aanwending. Doch het bewijst genoeg dat zij het Friesche schrift hebben nagebootst. Nu had Hiddo oera Linda niet nodig bij zijn alfabet op te geven hoe het runskrift er uitzag. Het heele H.S. was runskrift. Hij heeft daarom de ruimte open en oningevuld gelaten. Van die opene ruimte is later door iemand gebruik gemaakt om te beproeven. Die krulletters hebben met het origineele H.S. evenmin iets te maken als de pagineering. Zij behoren er niet toe en dienen trouwens ook nergens voor, omdat er geen geschrift bestaat met zulke letters geschreven. Het is en blijft een fantasie-alfabet. (specimen in Grieks schrift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted November 6, 2013 #4590 Share Posted November 6, 2013 (edited) Gestur, what is your opinion of the following ? The matter is most relevant, because swetsaren is commonly translated as Zwitsers (Suisse). Brief van J.G. Ottema aan Cornelis over de Linden d.d. 21 augustus 1872 [...] De woorden swetsaren; swetnata komen af van swette, grens, grensscheiding, nog niet in onbruik, b.v. de Sneeker vaart wordt nog wel de Swette* genoemd, als de oude grens tusschen Oostergo en Westergo. Swetsar zijn volken die aan elkaar grensen, maar swetnata (grensgenoten) menschen die binnen dezelfde grenzen woonen. In beide gevallen dus wel naburen, doch in het laatste tevens landgenoten. [...] * In Dutch you may find the name Zwetsloot. s. http://www.encyclo.nl/begrip/Zwetsloot . Edited November 6, 2013 by Knul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted November 6, 2013 Author #4591 Share Posted November 6, 2013 This video explains why nothing significant about our ancient past will be found or reveiled as long as our land is occupied by enemy forces. Archaeology and propaganda-driven politics. I have posted more than enough archeological evidence of cultures in the Netherlands thousands of years older than anything OLB. I can't watch videos on this crap computer, so tell me in words what it's all about, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted November 6, 2013 Author #4592 Share Posted November 6, 2013 In tthis case I rather trust Ottema and all the other experts. By the way I am busy with mediëval 'litterae ignotae' (unknown scripts), but none looks like the OLB script at all. Ottema suggested that "Aldland/Atland" was the thousands of years ago submerged area west of Denmark. I hope you understand that that idea of his was wrong, based on what the OLB itself tells us about Aldland. And he shouldn't be blamed for his mistakes: he didn't have the easy access to ancient sources like we have now. But he was often wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted November 6, 2013 #4593 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Ottema suggested that "Aldland/Atland" was the thousands of years ago submerged area west of Denmark. I hope you understand that that idea of his was wrong, based on what the OLB itself tells us about Aldland. And he shouldn't be blamed for his mistakes: he didn't have the easy access to ancient sources like we have now. But he was often wrong. The biblical flood, which destroyed Aldland covered the whole known world. It happened in 2193 BC. The OLB refers to this big flood as is shown on the pages of the Frisian Almanak. It is a waste of time to look for a historical, archeological or geological evidence for this. You won't find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NO-ID-EA Posted November 7, 2013 #4594 Share Posted November 7, 2013 Reading about English early history , and county hereditary customs ........a fairly rare usage was called in England borough english, in france Mainete , and in Northern regions Jungsten - recht , this was a common law , whereby the youngest son inherited the fathers land , and dwelling house , as opposed to the eldest son , which was the norm in most of the world, the book goes on to say that this custom was only seen in a few northern european countries, and also some far flung , and remote and disconnected regions.......it was prevalent in the Ugrian tribes of the Ural mountains , some spread out slavic tribes/communities, and has also been found in central asia , on the confines of China, in the mountains of Arracan, and as far away as among New Zealand Maoris, the Author also says... another place where youngest son inherits, and is prevalent with no explanation which he can find , is in the Punjab , and at the border of Burma , and the very eastern part of the Bay of Bengal. Surprisingly he says no examples of it can be found in Scotland , or Ireland , but it appears in Wales and the Shetland Isles , Cornwall, Devon, Flanders and Brittany. The Danish towns of Derby , Stamford , Leicester, Nottingham , Stafford and Gloucester., and it can also be found in Piccardy , Artois, Hainault , Arras, Amiens ,. Lille and St.Omer, at Grimsberghe in Brabant. He goes on to say that the Jus Theelactiaim ( custom in the Theele lands ) continued up to the 18th C in the Theele Boers , where an inherited allotment was indivisible by law, it went in the first instance to the youngest son intact , and on the death of that son*( actually the way it is worded it is not clear to me whether it passes down through the next youngest , until all the sons are dead ?) at which point it is returned to the whole community.........apparently this was prevalent in Westphalia under Saxon Law. In the Odenwald there are properties called the "Hofguter" which again cannot be divided, but go to the youngest son , in the absence of which ,they go to the eldest daughter ..........apparently there are only minor indications of Junior right in Denmark , and on the Scandinavian mainland , but youngest also has the right in Bornholm ( which was a kingdom in its own right ),,, and in some republics in Lubeck, ........In Northern Russia primogeniture reigns, but in Southern and Western Russia the youngest son inherits the family home( hearth ) but could divide the land up between his brothers and sisters .. The author seemed quite suprised at how far flung , and seemingly un-related some of these places were where Jungsten-Recht was documented , and thought that there was no reason why they could not have been devised completely independently ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,however i wonder how much OLB could explain some of these outlying places , notably of course the Punjab , where in the Kanga district....the Kanets of Kodh Sowur , also known as Vands ( have a law where the land is indivisible , and goes to the youngest son ) ( Topper..p182,183.. punjab customary laws ) and( page 192 for Frisic Theelland laws ) . Then from speculation we have the request of the newly forming Russian tribes for the scans to send a Rus ? leader to rule over there unruly bands, i have often wondered about New Zealand being New Zeeland , the tall mummies found in China which had garments of tartan material ,( makes you wonder about Scots , amd also Dardania ?)and in my wildest moments where i have said that i think the 10 tribes came to Scandinavia (Ljud) the Punjab Kanets.....differently aspirated could be Kainites . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted November 7, 2013 #4595 Share Posted November 7, 2013 (edited) medievists. Menno, do you know this book? Pierre Trouillez, De Germanen en het christendom, Een bewogen ontmoeting 5de-7de eeuw I am reading it and think it's very interesting (will quote from it later). Edited November 7, 2013 by gestur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted November 7, 2013 #4596 Share Posted November 7, 2013 I note that Over de Linden has written this: have come to the simple conviction, that the 'standskrift' is the big letter... No, that was Ottema, not OdL. And as Knul already replied, that was a reconstruction by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted November 7, 2013 #4597 Share Posted November 7, 2013 So it disapproves the authenticity of the OLB. I don't understand. Can you try to explain more clearly please? Brief van J.G. Ottema aan Cornelis over de Linden d.d. 12 juni 1872 Thank you, I plan to translate this tomorrow. And I will also answer about Swetsar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted November 7, 2013 #4598 Share Posted November 7, 2013 (edited) Menno, do you know this book? Pierre Trouillez, De Germanen en het christendom, Een bewogen ontmoeting 5de-7de eeuw I am reading it and think it's very interesting (will quote from it later). Didn't know. On the same site I found Alexander de Grote Door Wim Schüling op 27 oktober 2013 Alexander de Grote geldt als één van de grootste veroveraars van de klassieke oudheid. Na zijn dood in 323 voor Christus werd hij een bijna mythologische persoon. Maar wat is er precies waar van al die verhalen rondom Alexander de Grote? Al tijdens zijn leven was Alexander de Grote een zwaar bewierookte persoon. Hij gold als één van de grootste veroveraars van de klassieke oudheid. Daarnaast zou hij met de verspreiding van de Hellenistische cultuur grote voorspoed hebben gebracht naar het westen van Azië. Door de plotselinge dood van Alexander in 323 voor Christus werd hij een bijna mythologische persoon. De vraag is of al deze verhalen kloppen. Edited November 8, 2013 by Saru Trimmed for length 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted November 7, 2013 #4599 Share Posted November 7, 2013 (edited) No, that was Ottema, not OdL. And as Knul already replied, that was a reconstruction by me. If part of a book is written in the same hand and this same hand belongs to a later century (as Ottema admits), the whole book is written in a later century. Ottema writes, that Hidde left a space for this later addition, but that is not correct, because in the OLB empty spaces are always filled up with 'snakes'' (typographical sign for empty lines). Edited November 7, 2013 by Knul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted November 7, 2013 #4600 Share Posted November 7, 2013 (edited) It has been said that Ottema committed suicide, when he found out, that the OLB was fake (Jensma), but the real reason could well be, that someone found, that Ottema changed the plate of letters and left out the 19th century runskript. The someone could be Wopke Eekhoff, antiquarian and bookseller in Leeuwarden, who cooperated in the distribution of the OLB. It has been questioned, why Eekhoff kept silent in the discussions about the OLB. Van der Mey/Hellinga suggested that this had something te do with Halbertsma (see below), but more obvious is, that it has something to do with Ottema. Eekhoff knew the original manuscript, at least from the meetings of the Frisian Society and could easily see, that Ottema changed the letter plate, because he distributed the OLB himself. This was certainly a crime, as the whole nation was deceived by Ottema. A good reason to commit suicide. Waarom Eekhoff zweeg, die vraag werd ook gesteld door Professor Hellinga (p. 1). . . en het antwoord daarop is bij gebrek aan dadelijke inlichtingen van Eekhoff zelve moeilijk te geven. Toch vinden we in de correspondentie van Halbertsma een passage die ons mogelijk twee dingen kan vertellen, n. l. wie de auteur is van 't OLB en waarom Eekhoff nimmer openlijk commentaar heeft gegeven op de Kroniek. Ondanks zijn door de Halbertsma Stichting. , 100 onbekende brieven'' uitgegeven. In één daarvan schrijft Ds. Joost aan zijn neef Dr. Klaas Halbertsma in Grouw: ‘Gedurende 20 jaren heeft Eekhoff mij met veel ijver en accuratesse in mijn Friese recherches gediend, maar opeens is hij in zijn ware daglicht voor de dag gekomen. . . ik verzoek u dringend om mijn naam evenmin als mijn persoon in enig de minste aanraking te brengen met een sujet, waarvan ik walg en zulks te meer, daar ik hem ter bevordering mijner recherches vertrouwelijke communicaties heb gedaan waarvan een man van zijn conscientie, in cas van een openbare breuk,den zeer wonderlijk gebruik zou kunnen maken’. Zou Eekhoff door Halbertsma iets zijn verteld over de Oera Linda Kroniek. Waarom zweeg Eekhoff vroeg Prof. Hellinga - Zweeg hij omdat hij toch niet zo'n laag sujet was als waarvoor Ds. Joost hem hield. Want welke andere vertrouwelijkheden zouden tussen deze heren kunnen zijn uitgewisseld, anders dan de mededeling dat Halbertsma dit of dat behoefde voor een Kroniek of een verhaal over de Friese geschiedenis, dan wel iets meer over de opzet om deze mystificatie t. z. t. rond te krijgen! Tot zover Eekhoff. Edited November 7, 2013 by Knul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts