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

Another possible reference:

source

Very interesting, especially the reference to Nearchus. Carmania eventually gave its name to modern Kerman Province in eastern Iran, but in ancient times its borders fluctuated quite considerably.

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/carmania-region-east-of-fars-province

Also interesting is how the Carmanians are described as similar to the Persians in some ways, but not in others. In particular, we may assume that among the similarities were the fire temples with their eternal flames, which played an essential role in the Zoroastrian religion of Persia.

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.

No, and I didn't put it that way either.

what I said was: "..Indo-European language is rooted in a culture that is brought to India by Frisians"

And that seems clearly implied by 'the advise of Gosa', page 158 ff.

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.

First of all: there is no external evidence (so far) that such a colony ever has been established. I gave you the change to come up with some piece of evidence and you came with a quote of Ottema who speculated (it seems to me its no more than that) that Minnigara must be a Frisian name and therefor a Frisian colony. This is so silly, because it sounds Sanskit in the first place. Words/names ending with -gara is quite typical in Sanskrit. If you want to claim a word Frisian, you have to back it up with solid etymological arguments. Did Ottema?

And second: you should read 'Gosa's Advise'.(pp158ff) The context of that passage is: Gosa is the new folkmother chosen around 300 BC, shortly after the return of the Gertmannen from India. Further in the text are sayings of Gosa mentioned. One of this is Gosa's advise, a reflection on language, but in a way also on the rebuilding after the second 'Erge tijd' (bad time). Gosa claims there was originally one godly language that could be understood by everyone. Bad priests corrupted language by introducing other/secret languages. With Texel as centre, this godly language should be learned and spread again.

What is the meaning of all this? Obviously it is a alteration of the Babel Tower-story where all different languages is seen as an moral corruption of mankind. But besides it's a folktale to proof that the language of the Frisians is the least corrupt language and closest related to the godly language. That's why Texel should be the centre of the reintroduction of one worldly language.

That's the internal context, but if we put this fragment into historical context. In the text the advise comes shortly after Frisians who went to / return from the Indian penisula where they founded a colony. So we have Frisians associated with the one godly language, and they brought their culture to India. In the time the OLB came out in the open, there were hot debates about Indo-European and the idea was that one core-language was the basis for all languages in Europe en parts of Asia. (August Schleicher published his main work in 1861)

From recent resaerch (Philippus Breuker) we know that Eelco Verwijs was in the early 1860ies studying/interested in this thesis, he cited Schleicher (Breuker, pp401). OLB doesn't literally say that Frisian language was the core of Indo-European language, but behind the context of 19th century debate, it's obvious thats what the OLB is implying.

Edited by Demiurg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Ottersma who speculated ...

His name was Ottema.

This is so silly, because it sounds Sanskit in the first place. Words/names ending with -gara is quite typical in Sanskrit.

Why is that "silly"? There may still be a relation to the Frisian GARA.

Obviously it is a alteration of the Babel Tower-story where all different languages is seen as an moral corruption of mankind.

How is this obvious? Only if one first assumes that OLB is a modern fabrication. Otherwise, it can just be another source referring to a similar principle.

Eelco Verwijs was in the early 1860ies studying/interested in this thesis

Many more people will have been interested, specially linguists. Does that make them all suspects?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, and I didn't put it that way either.

what I said was: "..Indo-European language is rooted in a culture that is brought to India by Frisians"

And that seems clearly implied by 'the advise of Gosa', page 158 ff.

First of all: there is no external evidence (so far) that such a colony ever has been established. I gave you the change to come up with some piece of evidence and you came with a quote of Ottersma who speculated (it seems to me its no more than that) that Minnigara must be a Frisian name and therefor a Frisian colony. This is so silly, because it sounds Sanskit in the first place. Words/names ending with -gara is quite typical in Sanskrit. If you want to claim a word Frisian, you have to back it up with solid etymological arguments. Did Ottersma?

And second: you should read 'Gosa's Advise'.(pp158ff) The context of that passage is: Gosa is the new folkmother chosen around 300 BC, shortly after the return of the Gertmannen from India. Further in the text are sayings of Gosa mentioned. One of this is Gosa's advise, a reflection on language, but in a way also on the rebuilding after the second 'Erge tijd' (bad time). Gosa claims there was originally one godly language that could be understood by everyone. Bad priests corrupted language by introducing other/secret languages. With Texel as centre, this godly language should be learned and spread again.

What is the meaning of all this? Obviously it is a alteration of the Babel Tower-story where all different languages is seen as an moral corruption of mankind. But besides it's a folktale to proof that the language of the Frisians is the least corrupt language and closest related to the godly language. That's why Texel should be the centre of the reintroduction of one worldly language.

That's the internal context, but if we put this fragment into historical context. In the text the advise comes shortly after Frisians who went to / return from the Indian penisula where they founded a colony. So we have Frisians associated with the one godly language, and they brought their culture to India. In the time the OLB came out in the open, there were hot debates about Indo-European and the idea was that one core-language was the basis for all languages in Europe en parts of Asia. (August Schleicher published his main work in 1861)

From recent resaerch (Philippus Breuker) we know that Eelco Verwijs was in the early 1860ies studying/interested in this thesis, he cited Schleicher (Breuker, pp401). OLB doesn't literally say that Frisian language was the core of Indo-European language, but behind the context of 19th century debate, it's obvious thats what the OLB is implying.

It's only "obvious" if you assume the OLB is a fake. In fact, Gosa says no such thing, and nothing in her advice can be construed as referring to the Indo-European languages. What she says is that all mankind once had a single language, not just the Indo-Europeans, but everyone. This is an extremely common myth found in many culures from around the world. Note that just because Gosa believes it to be true, doesn't make it so.

You're right to say that her advice was probably prompted by the return of the Gertmanna, whose speech had diverged from that spoken in Friesland due to their long separation from their ancestral homeland. This does not imply they introduced Indo-European languages to India. Instead it implies that just like all settlers everywhere, they were influenced by their neighbours.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

These similarities can be explained in different ways.

But in the 1860ies the theory that Indo-European had one common core was a new and popular scientific theory. To understand the OLB, that's crucial information.

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

With the knowledge we have at the moment about what went on in the Netherlands 3500 years ago (not much), it's not. And it would be more than spectacular if some evidence pops up to back up a statement like that.

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.

We can only speak of things we have sources for. The real illusion here is to think you can make all sorts of claims as long as there is no evidence against it. It really doesn't work that way.

The language of the OLB could very well be the main shared ancestor of German, Dutch, Frisian, Danish, Swedish, Norse, Icelandic, English.

No, it can not. The close relation in syntax with modern germanic languages (mainly modern Dutch/Frisian) excludes that possibility.

If it is a 19th century fabrication, it is an utterly good reconstruction.

It's very good for the satirical purpose it has. Not only experts should be able to read it and therefor it's good. It looks old and ordinary folks with some knowledge of modern Frisian could easily read it.

But if the reconstruction should look authentic, it shouldn't just contain old-frisian of oldfrisian-like words, it has to be constructed as an old-germanic language. But than only a handful people would have been able to read it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the Punjab colony

Fragments in the Oera Linda Book

[072/01] - [075/07] About the Gértmanna

(Ottema/ Sandbach p.100-105)

[120/15] - [130/20] Ljudgért's diary

(Ottema/ Sandbach p.164-177)

[163/15] - [168/19] Ljudgért's letter

(Ottema/ Sandbach p.220-227)

Comments about these fragments

1) Ottema (1872) "Thet Oera Linda Bok": see Introduction p.XIII-XVII. In translation Sandbach (1876), this is p.XII-XVI

2) Ottema (1873) "Geschiedkundige aanteekeningen en ophelderingen bij Thet Oera Linda Bok" (historic notes and clarifications; new translations by me)

P.90 [064/14]: SKRIFFILT

In Strabo XV.717, Nearchus reports to Alexander, that in the lower Indus of India there is a people that does not write on palm leaves, but "on heavily compressed cotton"; that must be writing felt. The further description of this people indicates that he refers to Frisian settlers (Gértmen).

P.104 [074/18]: THRUCH THA STRÉTE

Strabo L.I.37. Eratosthenes wrote, that in earlier times the land at the pillars of Hercules had not separated yet, and that ... (see intro in first ed. 1872)

P.104 [074/20] PANG.AB

Remarkable is that this name Pentshab here only refers to the rivers (... weak argument)

P.164 [120/13] FON UT SIN DÉI.BOK

The content of Liudgért's diary is confirmed by the travel journal of Nearchus which is partly saved by Arrianus in "Anabasis Alexandrou".

Nearchus writes, that the land between the arms of the Indus was called "Pattala" in the Indian language, but the inhabitants called it "Delta", indicating that they were Frisians, since "delte" means "low land" in Frisian. He further names their city Pattala, but he is wrong, since Arrianus (Periplus Erythraei maris) names Minnagara as the city of Pattalene. (See my introduction p. XIV.) Nearchus does not name Wichhirte and Liudgert, but he distinguishes them as firts and second commander: "archón" and "hyparchos" for seaking and rear admiral.

[120/24] BRUDA HINNA

Arrianus L.VI.17. Alexander was informed that the second commander of the Pattalians had fled and left the land with most of his people, which made Alexander hurry to get there.

[120/32] SÉR KINDLIK SNAKKANDE

Arrianus VI.17. The supreme commander of the Pattalians submitted his land, himself, and all that was his to him, but Alexander restored him in his territory and ordered him to prepare for welcoming his army.

[121/20] LÉT THA SKÉPA HALA

Arrianus VI.17. When he arrived at Pattala he found the city and the land deserted, so he sent some troops to chase the refugees and when he had captured some, he sent them to the others, to reassure them, that they could return without fear, as they were permitted to remain in their city and farm the land as before. Thus most of them returned.

[122/07] HÉDER THÉR OF SKÉPA MÁKAD

Arrianus VI.18. So he had other ships built, and sent light armored troops to the area that was closer to the coast; there he found some of the Indians, who further showed them the way.

[122/08] NW WILDER SELVA SÉ.KÉNING WERTHA

Arrianus VI.19. He himself sailed out of the mouth of the Indus, into the ocean, saying that he wanted to see if there was more land to be found, close in that sea. But I think it was mostly, to be able to say that he had sailed on the great sea, beyond India.

(to be continued)

Demiurg, I will reply to you later.

Edited by Othar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only "obvious" if you assume the OLB is a fake.

That's not an assumption, but a conclusion drawn from my reading of the text en the relevant literature.

Maybe you are projecting the way you evaluate the OLB.

Although I'm not sure you really believe the OLB to be authentic. Some others probably are, but in your case I'm not so sure.

Why would you, if you believe in authenticity, create fake-sects in honour of the OLB on internet?

Edited by Demiurg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To understand the OLB, that's crucial information.

You mean: to understand it in the way you do (as being a 19th century fabrication)

With the knowledge we have at the moment about what went on in the Netherlands 3500 years ago (not much), it's not.

Do you mean not much knowledge or not much went on?

And why would it not be possible "that the language in NW India was enriched by influences from NW Europe"?

We can only speak of things we have sources for. The real illusion here is to think you can make all sorts of claims as long as there is no evidence against it.

We can make theories and hypotheses, based on reason. My "claim" was based on the fact that languages are older than their written records of it. Example: Aboriginals in Australia spoke their language long before it was first written down in the last century or so.

No, it can not. The close relation in syntax with modern germanic languages (mainly modern Dutch/Frisian) excludes that possibility.

Why? The syntax of modern Germanic languages may in fact look much more like the old dialects, than the improvised, Latin-inspired language that the monks wrote, when they tried to create a written form of the language of the "people" (thjuds, diets, deutsch, dutch). They had learned to read and write in Latin, which is not a spoken language (what common people speak), but a lingua franca, to carry information, similar to our computer language, or the 'language' used in tweets.

Not only experts should be able to read it and therefor it's good. It looks old and ordinary folks with some knowledge of modern Frisian could easily read it.

Verwijs wrote several times to Over de Linden (a.o.) that he had problems translating (being an expert!!!). That is why it was delayed 5 years until finally Ottema did it. I will find these letter fragments and post them. It is good evidence against Verwijs' involvement.

Edited by Othar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you, if you believe in authenticity, create fake-sects in honour of the OLB on internet?

That is a good point, I have wondered about that too. I thought (and hope) that Tony already deleted all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not an assumption, but a conclusion drawn from my reading of the text en the relevant literature.

Then read it like this:

It's only "obvious" if you have already concluded the OLB is a fake.

After all, the theme of a primal common language that later degenerates into many varieties is very well possible in an other genuine old text. The old testament does not have to be the only and oldest source for that.

Edited by Othar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean: to understand it in the way you do (as being a 19th century fabrication)

No, it's crucial information anyhow. If you want to look at the OLB seriously, you have to take the timeframe in which it popped up into consideration.

It's really striking how much the OLB says about the 19th century and how little about older times.

Do you mean not much knowledge or not much went on?

I mean that not much went on, let's say before Roman times.

And why would it not be possible "that the language in NW India was enriched by influences from NW Europe"?

Because if the region was a seafaring culture before (!) vedic times, we should know it.

There should also be a serious urban and therefore literary culture.

We know quite certain there wasn't.

Is it possible? Theoretical speaking, everything is possible.

We can make theories and hypotheses, based on reason.

Not to be unfriendly, but I guess you have no alpha- but a beta-background.

I'm a historian and can tell that it doesn't work like that. beta's start with hypotheses, alpha's (at least historians) start with sources.

You connect bits of information from sources with each other with reason. You don't take one bit from a source and speculate till you have a story.

Let's say the OLB is authentic, then we have one medieval Frisian claiming his grand-grand-grandfathers lived in India. In the field, nobody would take you serious if you take take claim for a fact without a broader case based in sources. And thats when we assume the OLB to be authentic.

My "claim" was based on the fact that languages are older than their written records of it. Example: Aboriginals in Australia spoke their language long before it was first written down in the last century or so.

But we know how germanic languages have developed, so we know if the OLB-language fits in what we know. And it does: in modern Dutch/Frisian.

Why? The syntax of modern Germanic languages may in fact look much more like the old dialects, than the improvised, Latin-inspired language that the monks wrote, when they tried to create a written form of the language of the "people" (thjuds, diets, deutsch, dutch). They had learned to read and write in Latin, which is not a spoken language (what common people speak), but a lingua franca, to carry information, similar to our computer language, or the 'language' used in tweets.

This is simply not true. I have read a lot of middle Dutch, of times when literary Dutch developed (and the time OLB was supposedly written), and it is grammatically speaking not like Latin. There were no written rules, so they just wrote in the way they spoke. The syntax of OLB is more like modern Dutch than like middle Dutch.

Verwijs wrote several times to Over de Linden (a.o.) that he had problems translating (being an expert!!!). That is why it was delayed 5 years until finally Ottema did it. I will find these letter fragments and post them. It is good evidence against Verwijs' involvement.

And when you read that, all the alarm-bells most have gone off. Verwijs is not just an expert, he was one of the foremost experts in that time. His dictionary is still the standard for every historian. I have no special training in old-frisian (although I'm familiar with some middle-germanic languages) but I could read the OLB right away the first time I opened it. The idea that it took a heavyweight expert as Verwijs 5 years to see through the OLB is just impossible. Maybe you should consider the possibility that he lied.

Edited by Demiurg
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some facts that undermine the theory in which Verwijs would have been involved in creating the OLB.

A. Fragment of "Friesche Oudheden", Published by the Friesch Genootschap (1875) Page 48-50.

med_gallery_137752_7_7655.jpg

Translation:

The Over de Linden family in Den Helder has an old manuscript, of which script, language and content are unknown. It was passed on from generation to generation, with the advice to keep it with care, as a family-treasure. The owner thought it was written in Old-Frisian, and that it might contain information about ancient ancestors.

When Dr. Eelco Verwijs, archivist-biblothecarian of Fryslân, heard about this, he informed the government. He was instructed to examine it. On 17 December 1867 he reported his first conclusions. The owner has given him permission to transcribe and translate the manuscript.

Thanks to the persevering zeal and care of Dr. Jan Ottema, the content was understood and translated. In detail he reported the results of his accurate examination in a meeting of the Frisian Society on 10 February 1871. This report was printed and distributed, and lead to a great common interest in this curious piece.

B. Correspondence Verwijs

1867 June 28 - Verwijs to J.F. Jansen

"This morning I copied a whole speech which is not all clear to me yet, but which, as far as I could judge from the copy, is most curious."

1867 Oct. 13 - Verwijs to C. Over de Linden

"As I said, I was overjoyed with the discovery and told many of my friends. Part of it was quite easy to understand and, although seeming to be of younger age, not different from the language of the Old Frisian laws from the 13th and 14th century. But there were also fragments, that I didn't and still don't understand and that will take much meticulous study, before I can clarify them."

1867 Oct. 16 - Verwijs to Over de Linden

"I really can't promise you the translation of a separate part, as there are difficulties in it, that may take weeks of study." and "may I do a proposal to negotiate with you about selling it?"

1867 Oct. 17 - Over de Linden to Verwijs

"One can´t take an inherited family treasure, that is advised to be protected in this way, from ones children, so it can´t be sold. [...] I don´t want to sell it for any price"

1867 Oct. 19 - Verwijs to Over de Linden

"It certainly is a manuscript from one of your ancestors - which means your family is very old - , that was copied many times and by all means deserves to become known. [...] The importance of the manuscript will give the ancient name of the Oera Linda's a radiance, brighter than any of the oldest noble families."

1867 Dec. 17 - Verwijs to the Provincial Executive of Friesland

"He demanded explicitly that the old manuscript would first all be translated for him. When this was done, and he knew the content, he would by no means object publication, as long as it did not contain anything that could compromise his family."

1868 Nov. 21 - Verwijs to Over de Linden

"The case is of enough interest to me, to finally dive into it properly."

1869 May 17 - Verwijs to Over de Linden

"Then I hope to take the whole with me in this summer holiday and start translating."

1869 Nov. 11 - Verwijs to Over de Linden

"I finally return the manuscript to you, but you will be sorry that the translation is still missing. [...] Here and there translation is very easy and it can be done at first sight; but other parts contain difficulties, that take much time and study. But I hope to be able to help you soon now."

1869 Nov. 11 - Verwijs to J. Winkler

"Here and there translation is easy, but there are also quite some difficulties and unknown words. I know that if I would start, I would not rest before I have solved them, and that way I would spend much too much time on it. [...] The case is of much interest to me, so I don't want to fully withdraw from it. [...] Such an etymological quest is very much of my liking, [...] It's odd that it contains some very old words and that also the forms point at a previous linguistic era, while other expressions sound so very modern."

[Verwijs could not (or hardly) imagine that some expressions were old, which does not prove that they could not in fact have been old.]

Edited by Othar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really striking how much the OLB says about the 19th century and how little about older times.

It literally says nothing about the 19th century, things can merely be interpreted as such.

That it says little about older times is a bold statement.

Dr. Arthur Hübner (1934) mainly saw many references to the French Revolution.

What you find much depends on what you are looking for.

In history certain themes keep repeating themselves. One might as well theorise that the OLB is all about the time we are living in right now.

I mean that not much went on, let's say before Roman times.

Based on the little archaeological finds and written sources? There was perfect oak wood here and other materials that don't last. It is not impossible that much more went on here than most of us imagine. It is not impossible that the things described in the OLB actually happened near the North Sea coast.

... argument from incredulity, which is a fallacy (variant of argument from ignorance):

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.

Because if the region was a seafaring culture before (!) vedic times, we should know it.

There should also be a serious urban and therefore literary culture.

We know quite certain there wasn't.

How can we be so certain? The medieval establishment is very well known for its burning of (even Christian) books that were considered heretical. If not burnt or otherwise lost, much may be hiding in private collections. What we have is a fraction of what must have existed.

I guess you have no alpha- but a beta-background.

I'm a historian and can tell that it doesn't work like that. beta's start with hypotheses, alpha's (at least historians) start with sources.

You connect bits of information from sources with each other with reason. You don't take one bit from a source and speculate till you have a story.

Let's say the OLB is authentic, then we have one medieval Frisian claiming his grand-grand-grandfathers lived in India. In the field, nobody would take you serious if you take take claim for a fact without a broader case based in sources. And thats when we assume the OLB to be authentic.

Yes, at highschool and university I was more into the hard sciences. But I have also done (self-educated) research in archives (started with family history).

So, starting from sources, why can't one take the so-called 'fantastic' Frisian historiography and the OLB as sources and check the similarities and differences with each other and with other classical sources, like we have done much in this thread?

I know, you will say that the OLB is also based on this alleged fantasy based historiography.

So let's not call it "history" (as in the university taught 'science'), but analysis of sources. (And OLB's paper should be properly investigated, finally.)

But we know how germanic languages have developed...

You are talking about written language, not spoken.

De Haan Hettema was a (much published) specialist in Old Frisian, including the dialects, and he concluded that the OLB language was the purest and oldest he could imagine.

The syntax of OLB is more like modern Dutch than like middle Dutch.

German and Dutch syntax are also very similar. The rural dialects would all have 'evolved' (or degenerated) in the same way. These dialects are more likely to reflect the medieval language than these written sources. (I have read many too. Much of it is poetry, official or religious texts.) So Why did Verwijs have so much trouble translating it then?

I could read the OLB right away the first time I opened it. The idea that it took a heavyweight expert as Verwijs 5 years to see through the OLB is just impossible. Maybe you should consider the possibility that he lied.

You had a translation at hand from the start.

We are still making improvements in this thread.

If he lied, he risked losing his reputation.

He was also busy with other things, I know, and he feared being fooled. Those are other reasons why he may have hesitated to dive deeper into it.

Edited by Othar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A useful exercise is to make a list of claims made by the OLB that were not known in the 1870s. I'll start with the following.

The distribution of the megalithic culture in Northern and Western Europe during the late Neolithic period corresponds exactly with the extent of Frisian settlement immediately prior to 2194 BC described in the OLB. In the 1870s archaeology was in its infancy, and no one had yet carried out surveys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another significant letter that does not fit in the hoax theory:

1877 May 4 - Dr. J.G. Ottema to L.F. Over de Linden

These days I realised something concerning Beckering Vinckers' accusation of a cunningly devised plan.

Your father did not have a plan to have the manuscript printed or made public. Under pressure of Verwijs, and when the content was still unknown to him, he had initially agreed, but when he got disappointed that Verwijs did not keep his promise [to translate the manuscript], your father believed he was no longer bound to the permission he had given. Please read our letters from early 1871 (I think), and you will see how he resisted with tooth and nail against my plan for publication. Someone who wants to mislead the world would not do that, he would have grabbed the opportunity to carry out his deception with both hands. Kuipers [the printer] and I almost had to force him, and harsh words were exchanged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Abe, I told you why in the post. Basically because the Latin that comes through French and often into Dutch, is not the same etymology as the seemingly earlier Fryan. The OLB gives us Nyhellenias etymology, any other etymology that derives from later languages are later etymologies is what I mean. You need to retread my post on Texel/Tessel. One is from token but the Dutch variation Tessel could come from tassel words simply because the older language and meaning gets lost within a new one. I'd have to retread your post and see exactly how I responded.

First a correction:

Gaeilge for Absolute Beginners - complete course (online pdf)

From Lesson 82:

buicéad (bwi-KAY*D), an buicéad, an bhuicéid (uh vwi-KAY*D), na buicéid; bucket, the bucket, of the bucket, the buckets.

(...)

oileán (IL-aw*n), an t-oileán, an oileáin (un IL-aw*-in), na hoileáin (nuh HIL-aw*-in; island, etc

na hoileáin (nuh HIL-aw*-in)= The IslandS (plural)

=

OK, you say "later languages". As there is no proof that the language used in the OLB is 2600 years old - and I am convinced it is not - than anything goes as an etymology for Nehalennia.

And I know about the Tessel thing: I posted about it years ago. My latest try was with the Dutch verb "bedisselen".... check that one with the search tool for this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A useful exercise is to make a list of claims made by the OLB that were not known in the 1870s. I'll start with the following.

The distribution of the megalithic culture in Northern and Western Europe during the late Neolithic period corresponds exactly with the extent of Frisian settlement immediately prior to 2194 BC described in the OLB. In the 1870s archaeology was in its infancy, and no one had yet carried out surveys.

What in the OLB makes you think that the Fryans started with the megalithic culture? It maywell be 6-7000 years old, but not a word about it in the OLB.

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really gelling with the Fryan/Frisian/Phrygian thing either, more sufficient evidence is needed for me also.

If you can find it, check prof. Bremmer's paper: Friesland in Old English literature.

It all based on a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About Alewyn's theory that the Phaeacians were Fryans:

One major problem with the Phaeakians being Fryans is that the story with Ulysses mentions a King Alkinous. The story takes place around the beginning of the 12th century BCE. and at that time the Fryans had no kings yet, they had "Mothers"; it was Friso who started kingship around the beginning of the 3d century BCE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the OLB makes you think that the Fryans started with the megalithic culture? It maywell be 6-7000 years old, but not a word about it in the OLB.

.

The OLB doesn't say. All it says is that by 2194 BC the Frisians covered an area precisely corresponding to that of the megalithic culture at exactly the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Demiurg, it is good to have a real ;-) historian here.

May I ask if you are M.A. or Dr. and what was your thesis or dissertation about?

2) Ottema (1873) "Geschiedkundige aanteekeningen en ophelderingen bij Thet Oera Linda Bok" (historic notes and clarifications; new translations by me)

[...]

(to be continued)

[122/14] TIMBER HLOTHA

Arrianus VI.18. There Alexander had a shipyard and carpentry sheds built. And VI 20. Hephaestion was hired to supervise the building of the shipyard and the carpentry sheds.

[122/30] VMB.EN NY THORP TO MAKJANDE

Arrianus VI.20. Returning to the ships, he sailed to Pattala and had another shipyard and other carpentry sheds built.

[123/01] VMBE ÉNE BURCH TO BVWANDE

Arrianus VI.18. He ordered Hephaestion to build a burgh in Pattala. And 19: Returning to Pattala, he saw that the burgh had been built.

[123/14] NY.GÉRT.MANJA

In Carmania, Arrianus "Hist. Indica" c.33. They arrived in a place called Neoptana and 100 stadia further at the river Anamis and the city Harmozia. They went ashore there and rested happily of the many efforts.

[123/18] NÉARCHUS GVNG WAL VP

Arrianus "Anabasis Alexandrou" VI.28. Nearchus reached the shore of Carmanie and went to Alexander with a small group, reporting all he had seen on his sea voyage.

(to be continued)

Edited by Othar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OLB doesn't say. All it says is that by 2194 BC the Frisians covered an area precisely corresponding to that of the megalithic culture at exactly the same time.

The megalithic culture covers mostly west and north-western Europe, and including the western Mediterranean. According to the OLB the Fryan territory stretched to - at least - Latvia.

What I am wondering about is why we here all about those burghs or citadels, but not a single word about cromlechs, dolmen, megalithic graves, and so on. And several were still being constructed well after 2194 BCE, and within the Fryan territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The megalithic culture covers mostly west and north-western Europe, and including the western Mediterranean. According to the OLB the Fryan territory stretched to - at least - Latvia.

What I am wondering about is why we here all about those burghs or citadels, but not a single word about cromlechs, dolmen, megalithic graves, and so on. And several were still being constructed well after 2194 BCE, and within the Fryan territory.

The megalithic culture extended quite far along the Baltic coast, and also included southern Sweden, exactly as specified in the OLB.

Building techniques and styles change over centuries and millennia. At some point the Frisians switched from stone to brick, no doubt gradually, as their structures became larger and more elaborate. Brick, however, doesn't survive as well as stone. By the time the OLB was written down, the change to brick had been completed long before.

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.