Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

[Ott]

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.

Translation:

You must have misunderstood my last letter and what I meant. I will try to be more clear.

The Standskrift is the letterform drawn in the Yol; this standing script is the standard, the model; but for daily use to unwieldy and difficult.

Thus the manuscript was also not written in Standskrift. Fàsta derived her simplified Runskrift from it, by taking the letter out of the Yol and making the letters of equal size.

In this Runskrift the manuscript was written. This script is the Run, and not the symbols on page 46. When you take a good look at them, you will see:

1. that they were written with a goose quill and not with pencil as is the whole manuscript

2. that the ink is pale and of a kind, very different from the pure black ink of the manuscript

The old ink does not contain iron and does not bleach or rust, as does the later ink with iron. The old 13th century ink is more like the Chinese ink.

Moreover, if that script was the daily or walking script, then the manuscript should have been written in it. And to write that would have been much more difficult. I have tried it and found that writing with those curls is slower.

The Runskrift was taken over by the Krekalanders and as evidence of what Runskrift is, I herewith send you a sample of Oldgreek writing, and a Greek alfabet with the Frisian letters under it.

This will show you, that the Greeks took over almost all letter-shapes, although they were sometimes mistaken in their use. But it provides enough proof that they imitated the Frisian script.

Hiddo Oera Linda did not need to add the Runscript to his alfabet as the whole manuscript was Runscript. Therefore he left the space open and not filled up. This open space was used by someone later to experiment.

Just like the page numbers, those curly letters have nothing to do with the manuscript. They don't belong to it and serve no purpose anyway, because no document exists that is written with such letters. It is and remains a fantasy-alfabet. (added a sample in Greek script)

~~~

In a following post, I will add what Jensma wrote about this, and what my comments are.

To avoid misunderstanding:

I don't agree with Ottema. In my opinion, the whole manuscript was written in Standskrift and the curly Runscrift can very well be authentic. More detail later.

[Ott]

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 .

1 [026/23]

THAT HI VSA SWETSAR BIRAWATH

that he bereaves our neighbors

2 [026/25]

VSA SWETNATA WILLON THÀT WROKEN HÀVA

our neighbors want to have that avenged

3 [029/21]

SAHWERSA VSA SWETHNATA EN DÉL LÁND HÀVE

when our neighbors have a part of land

4 [029/27]

SAHWERSA THÉR SWETHNATA ET SÉMNE KYVA

when neighbors quarrel together

5 [070/21]

WITH HJARA SWETSAR TO STRIDANDE

fighting with their neighbors

6 [109/22]

THA SWETSAR JEFTHA PÀLENGGAR FON DA HÉINDE KRÉKA LANDER

the 'swetsar' or pàlenggar' (neighbors) of the near Krékalanders

SWETSAR - 1, 5, 6

SWETNATA - 2

SWETHNATA - 3, 4

Note:

[210/18]

VSA BÜRA RA LANDA

the lands of our neighbors

1 2 3 4 5 6

Ottema naburen landgenooten naburen naburen naburen naburen

Overwijn buren landgenoten buren buren buren buren

Jensma naburen naburen buren naburen naburen Zwitserse buren*

*voetnoot Jensma: "Dubbelzinnig: SWETSAR, waarmee hier de Zwitsers wordt aangeduid, stamt van Oudfries Swethe- grens, en betekent dus ook grensbewoner."

Wiarda Oldfrisian Dictionary, 1786 (selection):

Swet, Suet - der Schweis (Switserland)

swet, suet, sues - nahe, was nahe anlieget, Nachbarschaft, Gränze (near, what lies near, neighborhood, border)

suetha - Gränzscheidung (border)

swetten - angrenzen (to border)

Sweta - Gränzpfahl (border-pole)

swesost, swetnoet - nächst, nachbarlich (near, neighboring)

suen ethon - Mitgenossen, Collegen (fellow, collegue)

Swethen, Suethan - Nachbaren (neighbors)

Sued noten - Nachbaren, eigentlich nachbarliche Genossen, sehe Naet (neighbors)

-

Naet, nath, not - ein Genosse, Geselle (partner, companion)

My notes to this:

SWETSAR is more 'aangrenzenden', and SWETNATA 'grensgenoten', but there's hardly a difference. Buren (neighbors) for both is a liberal, but acceptable translation. Note that two varieties are used in fragment 1 and 2, only 2 lines apart. Also note that SWET, SWÉT means sweet in OLB.

IMO, it is possible that the name "Switserland" is derived from SWETSARLAND.

Jensma translated assuming that OLB is full of intended pun/ ambiguities (dubbelzinnigheden), to which I don't agree. He likewise translated FRYAS (sometimes) with 'vrije Friezen'.

[Ott]

I have posted more than enough archeological evidence of cultures in the Netherlands thousands of years older than anything OLB.

I said nothing significant.

[Ott]

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.

We are talking about these fragments ("RUN"-script, the curly letters/ numbers under the wheel-mode letters/ numbers):

"If part of a book is written in the same hand..."

I believe Hidde made both the Stand- and the Run-script (I see no reason why he couldn't have), but it is impossible to prove.

"... and this same hand belongs to a later century (as Ottema admits)..."

Ottema <assumed> it, but there is no evidence. The ink was never tested, as far as I know. It seems obvious that the RUN is written with a different pen and ink, but that does not mean it must have been a different hand that wrote it.

"... the whole book is written in a later century."

This conclusion fails, because both arguments (same hand, later century) are invalid (not proven).

[Ott]

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.

Once more: That the Runscript would be from the 19th century (or any other than the 13th C.) is not proven.

That Ottema may have felt bad about having manipulated page 46 - against the strong advice of Cornelis Over de Linden! - could very well be.

It was indeed a huge mistake to do this.

As long as we don't have a suicide note or trustable witness report, we can only speculate about how and why Ottema died. Like I said - we can't even be sure that it was suicide.

The suggestion that Eekhoff might have had anything to do with it, sounds like wild speculation to me.

[Knul]

[/size]

In a following post, I will add what Jensma wrote about this, and what my comments are.

To avoid misunderstanding:

I don't agree with Ottema. In my opinion, the whole manuscript was written in Standskrift and the curly Runscrift can very well be authentic. More detail later.

Thanks for the translation. It is abvious, that Ottema got stuck in his own theory about the runskript.

We are talking about these fragments ("RUN"-script, the curly letters/ numbers under the wheel-mode letters/ numbers):

"If part of a book is written in the same hand..."

I believe Hidde made both the Stand- and the Run-script (I see no reason why he couldn't have), but it is impossible to prove.

"... and this same hand belongs to a later century (as Ottema admits)..."

Ottema <assumed> it, but there is no evidence. The ink was never tested, as far as I know. It seems obvious that the RUN is written with a different pen and ink, but that does not mean it must have been a different hand that wrote it.

"... the whole book is written in a later century."

This conclusion fails, because both arguments (same hand, later century) are invalid (not proven).

Just compare the words STAND and RUN, obviously in the same hand.

[Ott]

Just compare the words STAND and RUN, obviously in the same hand.

Yes, to that I would agree.

And I do believe that the same hand made the 'curly' letters.

But I don't see why they can't be authentic (copied by Hidde from an older original).

[Knul]

Yes, to that I would agree.

And I do believe that the same hand made the 'curly' letters.

But I don't see why they can't be authentic (copied by Hidde from an older original).

Because such letters did not yet exist in mediëval manuscripts. I agree with Ottema, that the writer didn't use the jol-script (circles), but made his own script, just capitals. Capitals can never be called runskrift. It's simply not speedy.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Knul

[Knul]

1 [026/23]

.

IMO, it is possible that the name "Switserland" is derived from SWETSARLAND.

Jensma translated assuming that OLB is full of intended pun/ ambiguities (dubbelzinnigheden), to which I don't agree. He likewise translated FRYAS (sometimes) with 'vrije Friezen'.

You probably noticed that the word swetzar is also used for neighbours of the Geek people. So it cannot be reserved for Switzerland alone. As for fun: there may be a relation with the Dutch word zwetser (kletskousen) like the Greek called their neighbours barbaroi (people who say brbrbr), what no one could understand. As a matter of fact Northern Italy could be indicated instead of Swizerland, because Magna Grecia was only the south of Italy. Pole houses were known in Northern Italy. I have myself done some excavations on Isola la Belle in the Lago de Varese, but similar sites you may find at the Lago Maggiore, etc.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Knul

[Ott]

You probably noticed that the word swetzar is also used for neighbours of the Geek people. So it cannot be reserved for Switzerland alone. As for fun: there may be a relation with the Dutch word zwetser (kletskousen) like the Greek called their neighbours barbaroi (people who say brbrbr), what no one could understand. As a matter of fact Northern Italy could be indicated instead of Swizerland, because Magna Grecia was only the south of Italy. Pole houses were known in Northern Italy. I have myself done some excavations on Isola la Belle in the Lago de Varese, but similar sites you may find at the Lago Maggiore, etc.

It says "Héinde Krékalander" (inhabitants of the near Krékalands). That is where Rome was according to OLB, therefore probably Italy.

Yes, I thought the same of Zwetsen.

[Ott]

Because such letters did not yet exist in mediëval manuscripts.

Weren't there Roman sources that said the 'barbarians' wrote in a script similar to Greek? Whatever that script really was, none of it was saved.

Those medieval manuscripts would not have been written in everyday handwriting, but in calligraphy.

At school I learned an oldfashioned handwriting (the sort that you don't have to lift your pen from the paper between every letter), but when I wrote down my genealogy I used block letters that were more easy to read.

Many people can write in more than one script. The Standscript, based on the Yol, will have been what for us is a printing letter, while the Runscript would have been for everyday use on paper (berk - birken - perkament /// beuk - buch - book /// pompebledar - pompier/ pampier - papier) that would have fallen apart or burnt.

The old manuscripts we have, were kept by monks (or other authorities). Why is virtually nothing saved from the vanquished? Right, because they were vanquished.

Liko warned his descendants for a good reason.

nihil sub sole novum

Capitals can never be called runskrift. It's simply not speedy.

Some of them look like our (handwriting) capitals, but not all.

And my reconstruction showed that they can be written in a flowing line.

The A, Á, À, F are different, we don't have the reversed Y (usually transcribed as Í) or the NG letter.

It will have been fast for a trained hand, and more practical than the Standscript, because every time you lift your pen from the paper or put it back on again, the ink can make a stain. It's easier to keep the pen on the paper. But it would have been more difficult to read for a random reader as there would be more variety (just like today).

When you have to fill out a form, they usually ask you to use 'block letters'.

~

A quote from Multatuli (1820-1887) is applicable here.

"Ik trek voor die echtheid geen party. God bewaarme! Ik heb te weinig gegevens. En bovendien, er komen ook passages in voor die te kinderachtig zyn om van te spreken. Maar juist hierin ligt 'n nieuwe waarschuwing tegen snel oordelen en hoovaardig verwerpen. Want meent men dat de toch altyd zeer bekwame vervalscher niet op de hoogte was om intezien dat die zwakke zotte passages hem diskrediteeren zouden? Geen schooljongen zelfs zou van Neef Teunis hebben durven spreken." (volgens Jensma: 22-10-1875)

Translated:

"I will not judge the authenticity. God save me! I have too little information. And besides, there are fragments that are too childish for words. But exactly that is another warning against fast judgement and haughty rejection. Because why would the supposed masterforger not have understood that those weak, silly parts would make people suspicious? No schoolboy even would have dared speak of Neef (nephew) Tunis (for Neptune)."

If we assume that it is all fake, then the forger has made an extreme effort to make it look old (paper, language, script, spelling variety, etc.), while at the same time adding things (like the alfabet page) that make it utterly unbelievable (for the people of his time).

How much sense does this make?

Edited November 8, 2013 by gestur

[Saru]

Just a general note for this thread as a reminder to please avoid copy and pasting large amounts of text from other sites/sources

Thank you.

[Knul]

How much sense does this make?

Pecunia non olet.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Knul

[Ott]

Pecunia non olet.

You mean, that the forger tried to sell it for money?

How could the mastermind (that he must have been) have been so stupid, as to add something that people would most likely not believe?

[Knul]

Just a general note for this thread as a reminder to please avoid copy and pasting large amounts of text from other sites/sources

Thank you.

It happened by mistake. Tried to correct, but the system did not answer properly. Sorry.

[Knul]

You mean, that the forger tried to sell it for money?

How could the mastermind (that he must have been) have been so stupid, as to add something that people would most likely not believe?

If you remeber well, Cornelis over de Linden tried to get a lot of money for the manuscript, even advised by Ottema. At the end no one wanted to buy it, not even the Worp MS. Stadermann and Son made money out of everything. Ottema was not interested in money. He did it because of

Honoris Causa.

I think we have similar goals, to find the truth. However, your truth is not my truth.

In vino veritas.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Knul

[NO-ID-EA]

We are talking about these fragments ("RUN"-script, the curly letters/ numbers under the wheel-mode letters/ numbers):

"If part of a book is written in the same hand..."

I believe Hidde made both the Stand- and the Run-script (I see no reason why he couldn't have), but it is impossible to prove.

"... and this same hand belongs to a later century (as Ottema admits)..."

Ottema <assumed> it, but there is no evidence. The ink was never tested, as far as I know. It seems obvious that the RUN is written with a different pen and ink, but that does not mean it must have been a different hand that wrote it.

"... the whole book is written in a later century."

This conclusion fails, because both arguments (same hand, later century) are invalid (not proven).

Agree , i do not see why , even if it was not on the ms Hidde was copying in 13th C , he may have thought it would be helpful for later readers to have a 13th c runscrift to compare the earlier script to....

i also do not know why it is being said that 13th C is too early for a runscrift........

http://medievalw.../scrindex.htm

shows plenty of running scripts for that time frame and even earlier.

Edited November 9, 2013 by NO-ID-EA

[Knul]

Agree , i do not see why , even if it was not on the ms Hidde was copying in 13th C , he may have thought it would be helpful for later readers to have a 13th c runscrift to compare the earlier script to....

i also do not know why it is being said that 13th C is too early for a runscrift........

http://medievalw.../.../scrindex.htm

shows plenty of running scripts for that time frame and even earlier.

It is not said, that 13th century is too early for runskript. On the contraray, in the 12th-13th century monks changed the script from capitals (majuskel) to small letters (minuskel), because that would speed up their copying labour. The problem is, that Gestur calls the OLB script (in majuskels) runskript, which isn't. The other problem is, that Ottema left the runskrift out, because the type used in the OLB is a modern type, not a mediebval.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Knul

[NO-ID-EA]

OK....... Thanks Knul.....why then do some of the commentators say the run scrift looks too modern ?

Edited November 9, 2013 by NO-ID-EA

[kmt_sesh]

Weren't there Roman sources that said the 'barbarians' wrote in a script similar to Greek? Whatever that script really was, none of it was saved.

...

I don't have a vested interest in this thread and was popping in only to check on things, but saw this.

As far back as the second century CE some tribes from Germania had adopted characters from the Latin script to develop the earliest-known form of runic writing. The adoption and development of most of these early runic characters are understood, but not all. The most common medium on which the script was used was wood...and surprisingly quite a lot of it has survived (mostly in the form of names and short phrases, probably to mark the possession of objects). Stone was also used, of course. Given that wood was so commonly used, however, the runes were comprised all of straight and diagonal lines. Curves were avoided in the carving process.

[Ott]

The problem is, that Gestur calls the OLB script (in majuskels) runskript, which isn't.

No, I don't.

That is Standskrift.

Where do you think I did?

[Ott]

... the type used in the OLB is a modern type, not a medieval.

It may look like a modern type to many, but you still ignore that the F is completely different and there is no modern NG letter.

There just is no other (pre-) medieval example available (yet).

With the current techniques, it should be very easy to determine age of paper and ink.

Yet, after many years of so-called research, there is no clear answer.

(If there would be, the official OLB-site would link to it.)

This says enough.

[Ott]

As far back as the second century CE some tribes from Germania had adopted characters from the Latin script...

In Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico (6,14) it says that the Gauls wrote 'with Greek letters'. This was about 50 BCE:

Magnum ibi numerum versuum ediscere dicuntur; itaque annos nonnulli vicenos in disciplina permanent. Neque fas esse existimant, ea literis mandare, cum in reliquis fere rebus, publicis privatisque rationibus, Graecis utantur literis. Id mihi duabus de causis instituisse videntur; quod neque in vulgum disciplinam efferri velint, neque eos, qui discant, literis confisos, minus memoriae studere....

[Knul]

No, I don't.

That is Standskrift.

Where do you think I did?

Standskrift is the jol script (in circles). The OLB letters differ from this jol script.

[Knul]

It may look like a modern type to many, but you still ignore that the F is completely different and there is no modern NG letter.

There just is no other (pre-) medieval example available (yet).

With the current techniques, it should be very easy to determine age of paper and ink.

Yet, after many years of so-called research, there is no clear answer.

(If there would be, the official OLB-site would link to it.)

This says enough.

There has been a recent investigation of the paper. It has been discussed here before. Abramelin will remember.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Knul