Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 3]


Abramelin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Welcome to the thread, Demiurg.

... the book of Philippus Breuker, (Opkomst en bloei van het Friese nationalisme 1740-1875)

I did not know of that book. It sounds interesting. Thank you for pointing it out.

... gives arguments why Eelco Verwijs should be given this role. [...]

... the books that Verwijs left to the university library of Leiden. In this way he could see the topics Verwijs interested at some point. He even found written strokes at passages that are relevant to main themes of the OLB.

Is it certain that he had these books and made these strokes before he got to know the OLB?

Some arguments against Verwijs' involvement are:

1) As Jensma also points out, the language of the OLB does not correspond with Verwijs' ideas about certain etymologies. For example:

Posted 28 by Othar, November 2011, 07:02 PM

Both Dutch OLB-translators Ottema and Jensma interpreted FORÁNA as the old-Westfrisian village Vroonen (Vronen or Vrone), that was destroyed in 1297.

FORÁNA in OLB means "in front" (Dutch: vooraan).

Jensma's theory (2004) is that language expert Eelco Verwijs (1830-1880) was involved (one of three) in creating the manuscript, but in his 1863 publication (and lecture) "De namen der vrouw bij den Germaan" (the Germanic words for 'woman'), he suggests that the name of the village Vronen was derived from the Oldfrisian word FRÁN (vroom; sacred, pious).

This fact does not support Jensma's theory.

2) In 1867, Verwijs wrote to state officials, asking for money to have it translated and bought from Over de Linden. He was about to make a carreer and would not have risked to be caught as a fraud. He would have had to work on it for many years -in absolute secrecy-, using lots of classical sources as inspiration. With so much talent, he could have made something that had less suspicious elements in it, being more a crowd pleaser. And why would he have kept the manuscript untranslated for 4 years, until it was passed on to Winkler and later to Ottema? What was all the correspondence with Over de Linden needed for? If not honor or money, what was his motive?

3) How can Over de Linden's involvement be explained? (Have you read "Het geheim van het Oera-Linda-Boek" by M. de Jong, 1927?)

I mentioned this in the response on the blogs of one the topic-members and he even let the response through.

What blog was that and why would the owner not let your post through?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title translated: historical notes and clarifications to the OLB

In this booklet, Ottema gives many examples of classical sources that confirm things that are mentioned in the OLB.

I made a list of these sources:

Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Numeri, Josua

Aelius Lampridius - Alexander Severus. 60

Arrianus - de expeditione Alexandri L.VI. 17,18,19,20,28; Hist. Indica c. 33

Caesar - Bell. Gall. I 31; III 12; VI 14,22,23,25

Aulus Cornelius Celsus - Lib. IV. 11

Dio Cassius - 53

Diodorus Siculus - V.27

Dionysius Halicarnassensis - L XIV

Festus Avienus - Ora maritima

Flavius Vopiscus - Aurel: 44; Numer: 13

Herodotus - L. V. 16; II. 125,126

Justinus - XLIII 3 (a°. 60O v. Ch.)

Livius - XXI. 8

Lucanus Pharsalia - 1. 445

Plinius - Hist. Nat. VIII 17; IX 57

Plutarchus - de Virt: Mulierum, Vol. 11 246; vita Demetrii p. 899; Epilogus ad vitam Antonii. p. 957

Pomponius Mela - I 5; III 6.

Strabo - II 99,102; IV 195; VII 291; XIV p. 712; XV 717; L I. 37,60

Suetonius Vitellius - 14.

Tacitus - Germ. 3,7,8,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,20,21,23,26,35,44; Hist. IV 61,65; Annal II. 6

Vegetius [1528,1781] - artis veterinariae L 111. 45 [Publius Vegetius Renatus around 450-500 AD]

Golumella - de re rustica, IV. 14 [Lucius Iunius Moderatus Columella, ovl. ca. 70 CE]

He would have had to work on it for many years -in absolute secrecy-, using lots of classical sources as inspiration.

In this thread we have found many more sources that confirm the OLB (some of which will not or hardly have been available in the 19th century.

Verwijs was a linguist who had to work for a living.

Would Verwijs have had the free time and motivation to use so many sources, and then also add and change things that were in that time (and still now for some) unbelievable for many. And if he had, what would have been his purpose? It just makes no sense.

The most simple explanation is usually the best and that is that Over de Linden got it in 1848 from his aunt or cousin, who had it from his grandfather Andries.

The paper looks like 13th Century Arabic paper, it has the same waterlines.

Why does the archive Tresoar not have this possibility checked?

It should be very easy.

That they don't is suspect.

If the paper is of the 19th century, it can still be a copy of an older original, but if the paper is medieval, it can hardly be a forgery.

(Then the ink would have to be carbon dated.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Jensma also points out, the language of the OLB does not correspond with Verwijs' ideas about certain etymologies.

Jensma (2004) "De Gemaskerde God", p. 306:

[Het] "... valt op, dat er maar zo weinig overeenkomsten zijn tussen Verwijs' oeuvre en het Oera Linda-boek."

(It is striking, that there is so little correspondence between Verwijs' works and the OLB.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think about this thing and why hasn't anyone of you noticed this?

It simply is not relevant. I have established - after initially rejecting it - that the OLB is genuine. Anyone who argues the opposite clearly is wrong and therefore his arguments are of no interest whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the thread, Demiurg.

I did not know of that book. It sounds interesting. Thank you for pointing it out.

<..>

What blog was that and why would the owner not let your post through?

Well, actually it was yours :-)

But I sense from this response you haven't seen it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It simply is not relevant. I have established - after initially rejecting it - that the OLB is genuine. Anyone who argues the opposite clearly is wrong and therefore his arguments are of no interest whatsoever.

You have established...?

Edited by Demiurg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some points, I will respond later:

Is it certain that he had these books and made these strokes before he got to know the OLB?

In history there's never absolute certainty. But from documents we know the OLB was found in 1867, and Verwijs was given it to read that same year. The books of Verwijs and his involvement in main themes of the OLB are from the first half of the 1860ies, for specific themes like the indo-european languages its in the period 1859-1862. (Breuker, pp432) It's hard to think Verwijs knew about the OLB before it came out in the open in 1867, except when he was somehow involved.

2) In 1867, Verwijs wrote to state officials, asking for money to have it translated and bought from Over de Linden. He was about to make a carreer and would not have risked to be caught as a fraud. He would have had to work on it for many years -in absolute secrecy-, using lots of classical sources as inspiration. With so much talent, he could have made something that had less suspicious elements in it, being more a crowd pleaser. And why would he have kept the manuscript untranslated for 4 years, until it was passed on to Winkler and later to Ottema? What was all the correspondence with Over de Linden needed for? If not honor or money, what was his motive?

The risk for his career is at least the reason he never would have step forward. But is it a reason not to create it? I can't see why.

What was his motive? Well, we can't ask. But there are lots of motives possible, to start with, just for fun. I can imagine that very well. If you work with a few guys on a joke like this, with all the subtle jokes, or satirical comments on 19th century culture, all your questions seem a bit unimportant to me. Why work on it for four years in secrecy? Well, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who argues the opposite clearly is wrong and therefore his arguments are of no interest whatsoever.

My position is different.

With all that I know now, I believe without doubts that OLB is authentic.

However, I am open to and interested in good arguments against the authenticity.

I don't fully exclude the possibility that I might be wrong after all.

Well, actually it was yours :-)

But I sense from this response you haven't seen it.

I have checked both ALDFRYAS and FRYSKEDNIS, but nothing there.

Can you link to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The books of Verwijs and his involvement in main themes of the OLB are from the first half of the 1860ies, for specific themes like the indo-european languages its in the period 1859-1862.

They may be published before 1867, but does that mean he got and read them before that year?

He was a linguist. That he was interested in Indo-European languages, is in no way suspicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The etymology of Latin "templum" (temple) is not clear:

source

Latin "tempus" = time

OLB: "T.ANFANG" = the beginning (of time) and related (an other name of?) to WR.ALDA (the most ancient one)

Tamfana (Tacitus Annals I-50-51) temple of the Germanic Marsi, that was destroyed by Roman army. The notion that Tamfana was a goddess has no base, it is an assumption.

So "templum" might originally be a place where (the beginning) of Time was contemplated.

Interesting connection, temple and time.

Another (but maybe indirectly related) view is that the word “temple” makes me also think of the words “dompel” (see dimple as a small pit, little pool) and “damp-hal”.

Not only because of the similarity in pronounciation, but also in meaning.

Dompelen is the iteratief form of dompen, which means to submerge (in water -> see baptizing, doop).

Thumpilo as a whirlpool can then be explained likewise, it makes you ‘dompel’ under the water or submerges one.

A dump is a kind of dip filled with water or something else, well if you look at the temple of our heads I can imagine that temple is used (among others) in a sense of dipping.

Dompen, dempen, dimmen are also connected with making less intensive, covering, moderation -> temperen, to tame (temmen, tam or dam).

To domesticate, domus or dome can be regarded the same: covering/taming/restricting/indammen -> controlled or limited. See the word “dumb”.

Damp (in the meaning of smoke) is a causatief of the covering of fire which produces the smoke.

So the damp-hal or the domp-poel can be regarded as a hall where ritual incense smoke or ritual submerging in water is carried out. Not too far from the usage of a temple i assume. A further step can take one to think whether ‘temple’ was always a building, or in previous time just the ‘dimple’ (water reservoir) where veneration/rituals were carried out in nature. If you look at the temples as places with often also a thermae function the circle is round.

I also do think tijd (tide, time) is related to the root of the word ‘tij-en’ (to stretch from past to future), just as the word tuin (a garden encircled with a spanned fence). Span and time seem then to be clearly connected. If you look at this root of stretching in the form of a certain continuity over a timeperiod, tempus/temper/temperature/tempo makes total sense too imo.

I understand you think otherwise, but if Tamfana is to be considered as a person, I wonder if Dimpna and Tamfana are connected and have to do with controlling and limiting excess (Dimpna being the patroness against epilepsie and being possessed).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are interesting considerations. I recall that there used to be this location (temple?) in Greece where people were cured of their diseases. The procedure was to have them bathe in the sea, next in fresh water (and next maybe in the hospital itself). They lay down on a bed and fell asleep (anaesthetized). The next morning they woke up with their malady cured. It was prohibited to witness what went on inside this building after the people fell asleep. When one curious boy or man climbed a tree to look inside, he fell down (was pushed), a branch pierced both of his eyes, so that he was blind. He was admitted to this 'hospital', and the next morning both eyes had grown back.

Then there was the temple of the Sibyl, which was associated with lake Avernus, which I in my translation of Aeneid VI identify as a pool of a particular kind of rocket fuel. It was also associated with this (from my translation):

106. One thing I ask: because it is said that here there is a door of the king of the

107. Underworld and the pool which is dark because of the Acheron pouring back,

This door and this pool in my opinion are identical. The latter in my opinion is a repeat in other terms of the first. The pool is the door; in this case a one way stargate, which led back from the Underworld to Cumae on Earth.

In my opinion the temple of the Sibyl was an exception in being associated with a spaceport and a stargate. Nearly all temples in those days - say 99 % or even more - will have had available only telecommunication equipment; not a spaceport nor a stargate.

Then in Latin there are:

Tempe - a beautiful, sweet valley.

Temptatio - attack by a disease.

Temetum - a drugged / intoxicating / stupefying drink.

Timére - to fear. (Implying 'to tremble' - my favourite for my interpretation of 'templum' by its Aryan roots.)

Edited by Ell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position is different.

With all that I know now, I believe without doubts that OLB is authentic.

However, I am open to and interested in good arguments against the authenticity.

I don't fully exclude the possibility that I might be wrong after all.

This is more reasonable.

In historical science, absolute proof doesn't exist.

I have checked both ALDFRYAS and FRYSKEDNIS, but nothing there.

Can you link to it?

It was this article.

http://fryskednis.blogspot.be/2016/03/hoax-theory-claims-debunked.html

It didn't seem to get wrong at the time. But anyway, I told you the same thing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may be published before 1867, but does that mean he got and read them before that year?

He was a linguist. That he was interested in Indo-European languages, is in no way suspicious.

He also quoted these particular books in his Franeker-period. That's before 1862.

The point is not that he was just interested in Indo-European languages, but that he highlighted passages that appeared as themes in the OLB.

Breuker give other examples too, for instance about the sunwheel in a book 'Altnordisches leben' of Weinhold.

But the Indo-languages is a striking example, because the debate about one Indo-European source for the whole language-group is typical for the 19th century. To create a narrative that Fryslan was the birthplace of Indo-European and transported this to the Indian peninsula is one (of many) hilarious satirical themes in the OLB. It's a comment on 19th century intellectual debate.

Edited by Demiurg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breuker give other examples too,...

Does he (or do you) also have an explanation for how it came into the possession of Over de Linden and why Verwijs did not earlier either pass on the manuscript to someone else to translate or to withdraw it from public attention altogether?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does he (or do you) also have an explanation for how it came into the possession of Over de Linden and why Verwijs did not earlier either pass on the manuscript to someone else to translate or to withdraw it from public attention altogether?

He thinks Over de Linden became involved through Haverschmidt, who was working in Den Helder in the early 1860ies. About how things progress, he declares it uncertain why Over de Linden was given the manuscript. To me it's clear that the OLB was created bij Haverschmidt, Verwijs en Over de Linden: the first two had their fingerprints in the text, the last came out with the manuscript. But some questions about how things progress will never fully explained, i guess.

Some other things you mentioned:

I have read big parts of De Jong, but it's about 10 years ago, when I was just started reading about OLB.

About Jensma's vision that Verwijs is not the main author. This is the point where Breuker criticises him. He says Verwijs' has more (in dutch) 'venijn' and he noticed this kind of satire in the text of OLB too.

Anyway, if you want Breuker' opinion more clear, you could read the book. It's not only about OLB, but also about the Frysk genootschap ans some keyfigures in the Frysk movement, about the Franeker academie etc.

Edited by Demiurg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so that is more or less Jensma's theory which has been discussed at length here.

I find it all very far fetched and none of the arguments against authenticity are convincing to me.

I don't see any "hilarious satirical themes" as you call them.

It's only hilarious if you assume beforehand that it is fake.

But anyway, thanks for the book tip.

I will keep it in mind.

And always interested in new good arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so that is more or less Jensma's theory which has been discussed at length here.

In a way you can say that, but apart from the three creators en the dating, Breuker has another view on many points.

And the similarities he found between the themes of OLB and the themes Verwijs highlighted in his books is an important and new addition to the OLB-iterature.

That's why I was so amazed that nothing of it has entered this threat.

I find it all very far fetched and none of the arguments against authenticity are convincing to me.

I don't see any "hilarious satirical themes" as you call them.

You don't see a historical problem with the narrative that Indo-European language is rooted in a culture that is brought to India by Frisians?

Edited by Demiurg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't see a historical problem with the narrative that Indo-European language is rooted in a culture that is brought to India by Frisians?

The "Indo-European" language model is based on similarities between Sanskrit and the European languages.

These similarities can be explained in different ways.

The languages can have a shared origin, or one can have been influenced by the other.

It is very well possible that the language in NW India was enriched by influences from NW Europe.

The same goes for Old Greek: the similarities can be explained by influences from NW Europe.

That we have more accepted written records from Greece and India creates the illusion that these languages are older, but it does not have to be so.

The language of the OLB could very well be the main shared ancestor of German, Dutch, Frisian, Danish, Swedish, Norse, Icelandic, English. If it is a 19th century fabrication, it is an utterly good reconstruction.

To speak of Frisian may be misleading. People tend to think of the Dutch province Friesland and if they are better informed, they know that there is the region Westfriesland in North-Holland, East- and Northfriesland in NW-Germany. Floris II, comes (graaf, count) of Frisia started to call himself "comes de Hollant" in 1100 ('his' territory not having changed).

It is known that Frisians settled in places where they traded. What is now the Netherlands must have been a very strategic area: river delta (Rhine going deep into Germany), sweet and salt water, much wood (oak, perfect for ship-building), etc.

I would refer to these people as proto-Frisians or Fryas as per OLB. The same way how nowaday Friesland is much smaller that that of the early Middle Ages, it can have been bigger and more significant in earlier ages.

Edited by Othar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a way you can say that, but apart from the three creators en the dating, Breuker has another view on many points.

And the similarities he found between the themes of OLB and the themes Verwijs highlighted in his books is an important and new addition to the OLB-iterature.

That's why I was so amazed that nothing of it has entered this threat.

You don't see a historical problem with the narrative that Indo-European language is rooted in a culture that is brought to India by Frisians?

Nowhere in the OLB does it state that the Indo-European languages, as a group, were introduced to India by Frisians. What it does say is that a group of Frisians settled in the Punjab in the 16th century BC and formed a colony. The languages spoken around them by the native inhabitants may well have been Indo-European too, or Indo-European languages may have been introduced to India in some other way. The OLB is completely silent on the issue, and does not imply that the Indo-European languages spoken in India today are descended from the language of the Frisian colonists. Quite the reverse, since it makes it clear that the Frisian colony never extended beyond the Punjab, and was extinguished by Alexander, who never went further into India than the Punjab area. Furthermore, the colony may well not have covered the whole of the Punjab, and might have been quite small, as would be implied by its small population, that could be evacuated in a fleet of ships. Perhaps it was just a single city or small district.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nowhere in the OLB does it state that the Indo-European languages, as a group, were introduced to India by Frisians. What it does say is that a group of Frisians settled in the Punjab in the 16th century BC and formed a colony.

Before going on..

What external evidence is there, that a group of Frisians settled in the Punjab?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said.

Adding to that, they would have been there for 1224 years and explored all the seas they could find, which is a long time to leave some linguistic traces.

p.120:

NEI THÀT WI 12 MEL 100 ÀND TWIA.12 JÉR

BI THA FIF WÉTRUM SÉTEN HÉDE

THAHWILA VSA SÉ.KÀMPAR

ALLE SÉA BIFÁREN HÉDE THÉR TO FINDANE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before going on..

What external evidence is there, that a group of Frisians settled in the Punjab?

To quote Ottema (Sandbach's translation of his original introduction):

"In the accounts of Liudgert no names are given of planes where the Frieslanders lived in India. We only know that they first established themselves to the east of the Punjab, and afterwards moved to the west of those rivers. It is mentioned, moreover, as a striking fact, that in the summer the sun at midday was straight above their heads. They therefore lived within the tropics. We find in Ptolemy (see the map of Kiepert), exactly 24° N. on the west side of the Indus, the name Minnagara; and about six degrees east of that, in 22° N., another Minnagara. This name is pure Fries, the same as Walhallagara, Folsgara, and comes from Minna, the name of an Eeremoeder, in whose time the voyages of Teunis and his nephew Inca took place.

"The coincidence is too remarkable to be accidental, and not to prove that Minnagara was the headquarters of the Frisian colony. The establishment of the colonists in the Punjab in 1551 before Christ, and their journey thither, we find fully described in Adela’s book; and with the mention of one most remarkable circumstance, namely, that the Frisian mariners sailed through the strait which in those times still ran into the Red Sea."

It appears that this "Minnagara" may well have been the colony, just a single city (burch). Furthermore, that during the course of its history, it moved from one side of the Punjab to the other. An extensive search of ancient Indian texts, many of which are not likely to be available in translation, would probably reveal a lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on Minnagara:

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Minnagara

The earlier Minnagara was upstream of Barigaza (modern Bharuch, India), while the later one was a port on the coast, part of the modern city of Karachi, Pakistan. All of this area was part of the ancient region of the Punjab, which was larger than the modern province of that name.

The Frisian colonists in the Punjab called themselves the Gertmanna. Interestingly, Strabo mentions a group who lived in India called the Germanes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Frisian colonists in the Punjab called themselves the Gertmanna. Interestingly, Strabo mentions a group who lived in India called the Germanes.

Another possible reference:

GERMANIOI (also Karmanians, Carmanians), name of an ancient Persian tribe engaged in farming (Herodotus 1.125). Since this is the only mention of this name by Herodotus (it is absent from his list of Darius’s tributaries and Xerxes’s contingents), one may identify it with the name of Karmanioi, mentioned by Stephanus of Byzantium (Pauly-Wissowa, X/2, cols. 1955-56). Nearchus later refered to them as inhabitants of Carmania (q.v.), and observed that “they lived like the Persians, with whom they were neighbors and were similarly equipped for war” (Indica 38.1).

source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.