Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 3]

[Abramelin]

6 minutes ago, Piney said:

The term penny wasn't used until Offa.in 790. Which means it was a later addition.

So the next is nonsense then:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/penny

[jaylemurph]

4 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

And I did not see any reference to those critiques.

I sincerely doubt you went looking for them. People who make serious methodological errors don’t just stop when moving to new data sets. 

This guy says what you want to hear and that’s /all/ that matters to you. Not that he’s disavowed as a crank by experts in his own field — experts who knowledge base is considerably wider than your own. 

—Jaylemurph 

[jaylemurph]

2 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

So the next is nonsense then:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/penny

So expertise knowledge is okay when it supports what you want it to say but it’s not when it’s not saying what you want to hear. 

You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. 

—Jaylemurph 

[Thanos5150]

8 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

No, actually it doesn't. At best it pushes the date of the intact skeleton back 1000 years prior to the 3500 BC date while placing NO DATE on the flood event itself. And the Penn Museum is a bit ambiguous IMO anyway as it says first: 

But it does though. If the man dates to 4500BC and his grave was dug into the silt deposits then the flood that put them there is at least that old. It is also helpful if you don't cherry pick what you quote of me to remove the greater context:

"If we use a little common sense and we know the late Ubaid Period ended around c.4,000BC this tells you what about the age of this flood"? 

Quoting Kramer:

Quote

Woolley, however, noted that this so-called virgin soil [at Ur] was not nearly as deep down as he had expected, and he told the worker to keep on digging. He did so rather grudgingly, and went through eight feet of absolutely clean soil, without any sign of human activity. Suddenly, immediately below this “empty” stratum, there appeared pottery vessels and stone implements readily recognizable as belonging to the prehistoric Ubaid period of occupation. Woolley was convinced then and there that he had the “Flood.” But since he could scarcely argue convincingly for the Deluge on the strength of a pit a yard square, he dug the following season a rectangle some seventy-five feet by sixty and went down sixty-four feet deep. And here, too, above the Ubaid remains, he found a deposit of clean, water-laid soil, this time eleven feet thick. All in all Woolley sank fourteen pits at various points down to sea-level, or approximately so, and in virtually every case he encountered some clean water-laid soil overlying Ubaid remains. 

This 11ft silt is located above the Ubaid remains in which Ubaid Late Period graves were cut into it. What else can this all mean other than this flood took place at some point during their occupation of c. 5500-4000BC? The "3500BC" date is from Woolley's day and it is generally accepted the Ubaid civilization ended sometime around c. 4000BC. Even Kramer writing in the 1960's notes that this event dates to "at least 3500BC" which our understanding of the Ubaid and dating in general has pushed this back to more like "at least c. 4000BC" and more likely "at least 4500BC" if the dating is secure for this burial.  

Quote

 

Then later it states: 

So which is it, you can't have it both ways and in either case the skeleton circa 4500 BC is irrelevant to the previous 6000 BC speculation at any rate. 

 

It is not both ways. Woolley labeled it as such at the time, but as it turned out this is not what it actually was and is part of the greater context outlined above. No, it does jibe with the c. 6,000BC date, which is ok as despite this being evidence of "an" event that this does not therefore qualify it as "the" event. Given the upheavals and climactic changes leading up to this period, which ended around this time as well, it stands to reason this was just one of many such lingering effects. But at least we can dispel the outdated and impractical notion that this Flood Myth was derived from the typical flooding events of the 3rd millennium which are erroneously repeated as "fact".  

[snip]

In the future you can add these to your list:

Quote

Don't forget the Mt Etna tsunami I listed that wiped out the Levantine Coast c. 6300BC.

And the Black Sea Holocene Flood which has a consensus range of c. 7,000-5,000BC with one of the studies I cited settling on c. 7300BC.  Ryan and Pitman (2003) revised their dating to c. 6400BC. A 2020 study argues c. 7000BC.

Regardless, all of these dates are estimates, some subjective, hence the "circa" which which can have +/- ranges of 400yrs or more. I think what we can be reasonable certain of is that the earlier 7th millennium was plagued by several catastrophic disasters along with drastic climate changes with the Lake Agassiz event being the likely catalyst.

Romer:

Quote

In distant prehistoric times, both the Nile's flow and intrusions into the [Mediterranean] sea into its delta had been so violent as to delete all record of earlier human activity [in the greater Delta/coastal regions]. In the seventh millennium BC [c. 6,000BC], for example, the Nile had flowed so fiercely through its delta that it had channeled into a single outflow into the Mediterranean, the so-called "Great River", which had run from due north from the ending of the valley's limestone cliffs.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Abramelin]

11 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

I sincerely doubt you went looking for them. People who make serious methodological errors don’t just stop when moving to new data sets. 

This guy says what you want to hear and that’s /all/ that matters to you. Not that he’s disavowed as a crank by experts in his own field — experts who knowledge base is considerably wider than your own. 

—Jaylemurph 

And you may assume whatever you like, but I did read that wiki page, and couldn't find any link to the origins of those critiques. On most wiki pages, like the one about Vennemann, there are references to critical reviews, like both Piney and I posted.

 

Edited September 8, 2020 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

11 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

But it does though. If the man dates to 4500BC and his grave was dug into the silt deposits then the flood that put them there is at least that old. It is also helpful if you don't cherry pick what you quote of me to remove the greater context:

"If we use a little common sense and we know the late Ubaid Period ended around c.4,000BC this tells you what about the age of this flood"? 

Quoting Kramer:

This 11ft silt is located above the Ubaid remains in which Ubaid Late Period graves were cut into it. What else can this all mean other than this flood took place at some point during their occupation of c. 5500-4000BC? The "3500BC" date is from Woolley's day and it is generally accepted the Ubaid civilization ended sometime around c. 4000BC. Even Kramer writing in the 1960's notes that this event dates to "at least 3500BC" which our understanding of the Ubaid and dating in general has pushed this back to more like "at least c. 4000BC" and more likely "at least 4500BC" if the dating is secure for this burial.  

It is not both ways. Woolley labeled it as such at the time, but as it turned out this is not what it actually was and is part of the greater context outlined above. No, it does jibe with the c. 6,000BC date, which is ok as despite this being evidence of "an" event that this does not therefore qualify it as "the" event. Given the upheavals and climactic changes leading up to this period, which ended around this time as well, it stands to reason this was just one of many such lingering effects. But at least we can dispel the outdated and impractical notion that this Flood Myth was derived from the typical flooding events of the 3rd millennium which are erroneously repeated as "fact".  

[snip]

In the future you can add these to your list:

 

That's not what you said though, you specifically said it pushed the flood back 1000 years, fact is there is no information as to the dating of that particular flood event so neither you, nor we, know how far back that particular flood event actually was. 

Robert A. Carter and Graham Phillip's paper from 2006 "Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East"  (2006) places the end of the Ubaid Perod to circa 3800 BC which means your problem with any dating being wrong by up to 400 years is effectively irrelevant to the discussion. 

No they don't jive. There's a 1500 year difference, if you had a problem with the dating being wrong by up to 400 years than even you have to admit 1500 years is a major screwup. And if it's not "the" flood then what is the point in supporting the earlier event since it's just one of many? 

No, as you don't know what the origin of the story was. You just have one, rather unlikely IMO, possibility which conveniently ignores the thunder and lightning, storm surge and high winds that Essan mentioned previously. There's really not a better time for that IMO than during the major part of the Persian Gulf's Marine Introgression 4000 BC - 3000 BC.

cormac

 

[Thanos5150]

12 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

That's not what you said though, you specifically said it pushed the flood back 1000 years,

That is what I said and I just said it again. Where is the confusion? 

Quote

fact is there is no information as to the dating of that particular flood event so neither you, nor we, know how far back that particular flood event actually was. 

The guy dating to 4500BC who was buried in it gives us some idea how far it goers back. What else have we been talking about? 

Quote

Robert A. Carter and Graham Phillip's paper from 2006 "Beyond the Ubaid: Transformation and Integration in the late prehistoric societies of the Middle East"  (2006) places the end of the Ubaid Perod to circa 3800 BC which means your problem with any dating being wrong by up to 400 years is effectively irrelevant to the discussion. 

Please. For one, well gee I guess if this source say it that's just it then. Maybe you want to actually read it. I did not use this date because it is based on the last appearance of the Arabian-Ubaid bifacial period found in southeast Arabia/Oman coast with no attested Ubaid style pottery from this later period and is an outlier to Ubaid culture with no evidence of direct relation other than the continuation of this shared lithic tradition. Regardless, Ubaid culture ended c. 4000BC.  The last bit of your comment is unintelligible. 

Quote

No they don't jive. There's a 1500 year difference, if you had a problem with the dating being wrong by up to 400 years than even you have to admit 1500 years is a major screwup. And if it's not "the" flood then what is the point in supporting the earlier event since it's just one of many?

400yrs? WTF are you talking about? You are part of this discussion so I should not have to explain it to you. I just said this-just because Ur had a flooding event does not mean this was "the" event. You're the one throwing these later oft regurgitated Mesopotamian floods-I am just trying to help you understand what it actually means as obviously you are just parroting quotes.  

Quote

No, as you don't know what the origin of the story was. You just have one, rather unlikely IMO, possibility which conveniently ignores the thunder and lightning, storm surge and high winds that Essan mentioned previously. There's really not a better time for that IMO than during the major part of the Persian Gulf's Marine Introgression 4000 BC - 3000 BC.

I sure don't and never said I did. And no, there are more possibilities, say like this that I have quoted how many times now: Don't forget the Mt Etna tsunami I listed that wiped out the Levantine Coast c. 6300BC. Or, again, say all those migrants that fled to the Danube region.

And as far as what the tale actually says maybe you'd want to refer to the oldest version yet found and not the later Babylonian or even worse Biblical tale. The Eridu Genesis, the oldest and the only Flood Myth found actually written in the Sumerian language, tells us: 

Quote

 

All the evil winds, all stormy winds gathered into one

and with them, then, the flood was sweeping over the cities of

the half-bushel baskets

for seven days and seven nights.

After the flood had swept over the country,

after the evil wind had tossed the big boat

about on the great waters,

the sun came out spreading light

over heaven and earth.

 

Sorry, not seeing any of this "thunder and lightening and storm surge" business-not even rain. What it does describe however is something quite different-an event where "all the evil winds, all the stormy winds gathered into one and with them, then, the flood was seeping over the cities...."    This sounds a hell of a lot something other than a "rain storm". Hmm. I wonder what kind of phenomenon causes a flood of water to sweep over land...

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Thanos5150

[JonnyMcA]

On 9/3/2020 at 10:18 PM, Ozymandias said:

Whatever about what people believe, I am an evidence based man requiring empirical proof.

You may be familiar with the work of Mike Baillie out of Queen's University Belfast. He is an ecological physicist who specialises in dendrochronology. Partly as a result of his researches Ireland now has a unique unbroken chronology of oak tree-ring growth extending backwards in time for 7300 years. I mention it because, amid the speculative smoke and mirrors of the fringe element, he has identified a number of periods within the sequence where something of an environmental disaster evidently occurred. There were years when these trees underwent extreme stress resulting in virtually no growth; for example, 3195BC, 2354BC, 1628BC, etc, but in particular that ten year period following 2354BC when Irish oaks undoubtedly experienced an extraordinary environmental event. possibly continuous heavy rainfall and major flooding. 

What impressed him - because of its empirical nature - was the fact that that period was especially significant for many reasons, not least because it occurs during the time when Ireland transitioned from the Neolithic into the Bronze Age. There is other hard physical evidence in support of this: glass shards in Ireland from the Hekla 4 eruption have been dated to 2310 +/- 20 cal BC. So something catastrophic may have precipitated major social changes about that time. As with all archaeology, hard facts become ground for further speculation and Baillie (and others) conjecture that this disaster may have facilitated population removal and replacement together with the introduction of new metal-working technologies, etc.  

But what makes this even more intriguing is what was recorded in the Lebor Gabála Érenn and certain Irish Annals (Anno Mundi section: https://celt.ucc.ie/published/T100005A/text002.html). For the year 2380BC and the forty-year period following they record that 9000 people died in Ireland and the country lay waste for 30 years. 'Lakes erupted' and a new invasion of people, the Nemedians, arrived to repopulate the country. How could annalists with no scientific knowledge or understanding of tree-ring chronology or glass shard analysis have been independently able to record that something environmentally disastrous happened in Ireland in the mid-24th century BC that fundamentally changed Irish society? Apparently, it was the persistence of folk memory to endure over time in an isolated and conservative island nation on the periphery of Europe.   

If the combined testimony of the tree-ring chronology, the glass shards and the Irish annals are not to be taken as indicative of a possible flood disaster - certainly some kind of environmental cataclysm - then maybe Isaac Newton and Edmund Halley are more credible sources of information. Based on a different scientific basis both thought that Noah's (or The Great Biblical) Flood was caused by a comet in 2341BC, and Archbishop Ussher, using the internal evidence of the Bible (for what that is worth) dated the Flood to 2349BC. 

For those interested, there is a brief synopsis of the Irish tree ring evidence as well as a list of "dated events" which appear to coincide with the 2350 BC event, in this free to download paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301621337_Why_we_shouldn't_ignore_the_mid-24th_century_BC_when_discussing_the_2200-2000_BC_climate_anomaly

The paper is a contribution to a collection of conference papers investigating the effects of the so called 4.2Ka event (or 2200 BC event) on societies and cultures at living at that time, and it hypothesises that the vector that caused the 2350 BC climate/environmental event observed in Irish tree rings, may be linked to the cause of the apparent sudden onset (sudden as observed in the same Irish tree rings) of the centuries-long 2200 BC event; the vector being of cosmic origin. Whether the hypothesis is correct or not, it does, at least in my opinion, make for an entertaining read.

Jonny

[Essan]

7 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Sorry, not seeing any of this "thunder and lightening and storm surge" business-not even rain. What it does describe however is something quite different-an event where "all the evil winds, all the stormy winds gathered into one and with them, then, the flood was seeping over the cities...."    This sounds a hell of a lot something other than a "rain storm". Hmm. I wonder what kind of phenomenon causes a flood of water to sweep over land...

 

That earliest account is quite sparse.   In Atrahasis, it's expanded a bit   

The outlook of the weather changed.
Adad  began to roar in the clouds. [thunder?]

Adad was roaring in the clouds.
The winds were furious as he set forth

Anzu rent the sky with his talons [lightning?]

... the flood came forth.
Its power came upon the peoples like a battle, [storm surge?]
one person did not see another,
they could not recognize each other in the catastrophe.

The deluge belowed like a bull, [torrential rain?]
The wind resounded like a screaming eagle. [hurricane winds?]
The darkness was dense, the sun was gone,

[Compare and contrast with a tropical cyclone making landfall]


All of which just offers one potential explanation for one of many hundreds of different floods stories from around the world, most of which derive from different events in different places at different times (some of the American ones may be eye witness accounts of the Missoula Floods, for example).

Always intrigued me that there is nothing in British mythology that appears to derive from the Storegga North Sea tsunami and the final flooding of Doggerland though.   Although one specific element of that event does crop up in the much later, Greek, Atlantis story as told by Plato.  

Edited September 9, 2020 by Essan

[Thanos5150]

3 hours ago, Essan said:

That earliest account is quite sparse. In Atrahasis, it's expanded a bit     

Kind of the point of what I said right? If we want to get closest to the original we go to the earliest sources. We can see over time how the story gets embellished further and further. 

As far as this event being a cyclone, there have been 64 to have hit the Arabian Peninsula in the last 150yrs and none ever recorded to have entered the Persian Gulf. The Indian Ocean (Arabian Sea/Bay of Bengal) has a yearly cyclone season. For this story to have originated with residents in these areas this darn Flood would have been a relatively common if not yearly occurrence. They wouldn't have to keep telling the same story again and again-they could just tell the story of what happened that year.  

Quote

All of which just offers one potential explanation for one of many hundreds of different floods stories from around the world, most of which derive from different events in different places at different times (some of the American ones may be eye witness accounts of the Missoula Floods, for example). 

As said before, with several examples given, regardless of these places and times, many versions of the story found around the world are so similar in fundamental detail it is highly unlikely if not impossible it was derived independently from different flooding events. Instead of being the greatest event in human history, in reality it was just the greatest story. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Abramelin]

On 9/8/2020 at 1:27 AM, jaylemurph said:

So expertise knowledge is okay when it supports what you want it to say but it’s not when it’s not saying what you want to hear. 

You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. 

—Jaylemurph 

You haven't shown expertise knowledge, you posted a link to a wiki page. And that wiki page was opiniated, but without any references to where that opinion came from.

I could have been YOU who wrote that page...

[Essan]

21 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

As far as this event being a cyclone, there have been 64 to have hit the Arabian Peninsula in the last 150yrs and none ever recorded to have entered the Persian Gulf.

That's the point.   It was a very unusual (but not impossible) event.  

But it wasn't the inspiration for the quite different flood stories told elsewhere in the world, which were variously based on the Missoula floods, post-glacial sea level rises, major river flooding, or, in many cases, are simply "just-so" stories to explain fossil shells found on hill tops.

 

[Thanos5150]

2 hours ago, Essan said:

That's the point.   It was a very unusual (but not impossible) event.
 

I am not sure how you get that from this: As far as this event being a cyclone, there have been 64 to have hit the Arabian Peninsula in the last 150yrs and none ever recorded to have entered the Persian Gulf.

For a cyclone to enter the Persian Gulf is not "unusual"- its 0 for 64. 

Quote

But it wasn't the inspiration for the quite different flood stories told elsewhere in the world, which were variously based on the , post-glacial sea level rises, major river flooding, or, in many cases, are simply "just-so" stories to explain fossil shells found on hill tops.

Umm, yeah.... You keep repeating that regardless of what else is said. As catastrophic as the Missoula Floods were, these occurred in the Pacific North West some 15,000+ years ago.   

There is zero rational explanation or logic path these floods would be what inspired the Flood myths. Best of luck to you. 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Essan]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

I am not sure how you get that from this: As far as this event being a cyclone, there have been 64 to have hit the Arabian Peninsula in the last 150yrs and none ever recorded to have entered the Persian Gulf.

For a cyclone to enter the Persian Gulf is not "unusual"- its 0 for 64. 

Umm, yeah.... You keep repeating that regardless of what else is said. As catastrophic as the Missoula Floods were, these occurred in the Pacific North West some 15,000+ years ago.   

There is zero rational explanation or logic path these floods would be what inspired the Flood myths. Best of luck to you. 

So American floods myths couldn't have been inspired by it?   They must derive from something that happened thousands of miles away long after those who told such tales had migrated to the Americas ......  If you say so.

Edit: and because a tropical cyclone hasn't entered the Persian Gulf in 150 years it means none could have done so thousands of years ago, something which is meteorologically quite possible, if not usual.  And would explain why it was remembered as a notable event.   Unlike, for example, riverine floods in Mesopotamia.  

I may be wrong.  But IMO I offer a valid and quite possible - if somewhat mundane for some people - explanation.   

Edited September 10, 2020 by Essan

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Enough with the insults (and racially charged commentary) please.

[Ott]

On 7/31/2020 at 6:46 PM, Abramelin said:

What I think no one really explained properly, is why a ms, socalled written around 600 bce, is flooded with borrowings from Latin at a time the Latins/Romans were just a minor tribe.

How would you know they are "borrowings" and not the other way around?

Also, between 600 BCE and the current copy, some words may have been edited/ modernised by copyists.

[Ott]

On 8/12/2020 at 5:19 PM, Abramelin said:

I do wonder about where the socalled 'regulars' are hanging out now.

If 'regulars' includes me, I can say that I have settled back in the Netherlands and now have four children, so that has kept me busy much of the time.

Yesterday, the best introduction into the Oera Linda book to date (imo) was published:

 

 

[Abramelin]

3 hours ago, Ott said:

How would you know they are "borrowings" and not the other way around?

Also, between 600 BCE and the current copy, some words may have been edited/ modernised by copyists.

Well, welcome back. If you dropped by today, then you have missed a lot...

If words from the original ms have been edited/modernised by copyists, then how can you be sure the original ms is as old as you think it is?

And, it must be the weather or something, but just before this post I read a large part of your blog.

[Thanos5150]

On 9/10/2020 at 10:46 AM, Essan said:

So American floods myths couldn't have been inspired by it?   They must derive from something that happened thousands of miles away long after those who told such tales had migrated to the Americas ......  If you say so.

Again, these floods occurred in the Pacific Northwest over 15,000yrs ago. The only people that would have known of the Missoula floods were the people who lived there and those they came in contact with.

The first written accounts of the Flood are found in Mesopotamia dating to the 3rd millennium BC. I've already listed several events that happened in this region c.6000 BC, some 7,000+yrs after the Missoula floods, and another perhaps 4500BC. How do you think this story got to Mesopotamia from the Pacific Northwest prior to the 3rd millennium? Or ever?  

Edited September 13, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Ott]

19 hours ago, Abramelin said:

If words from the original ms have been edited/modernised by copyists, then how can you be sure the original ms is as old as you think it is?

It is no different than with copies of other ancient texts.

And I have never been sure about the age of the ms.

It could be a post 13th century copy made to look older.

[Abramelin]

Looks like you changed your mind about the OLB.

What happened?

[Ott]

No, why?

[Abramelin]

On 9/14/2020 at 9:21 AM, Ott said:

It could be a post 13th century copy made to look older.

Why would someone even try to make a ms look older than it actually is?

[Ott]

Nostalgia; because owner loved the original (which may have been falling apart, or was in possession of a family member, for example), and he/she wanted the copy to look more like it.

[Abramelin]

What about forgery? You know, in this case to make it appear centuries older than it actually is, so people who were able to read the ms would be convinced that the narrative was at least as ancient as the paper used?

I don't think nostalgia would be a motive to create something that looked as old as something - let's say - your grandfather wrote.

You would probably write it on more durable material, using ink that was able to last for another long time.

But that's just what I would probably do.

 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Abramelin