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

A statement in the OLB itself must proof that its 13th century?

You said you had seen no arguments to prove that it's from the 13th century.

The date given in the document itself is one.

The claim that the paper would be obviously 19th century is bogus.

Modern research (Kardinaal, v.d. Grijn, Porck, 2006) does not even establish that.

Sample of OLB paper and of Latin-Arabic manuscript, dated before 1195 CE, from Toledo Spain:

vergelijkYT.jpg

More and bigger samples here.

Edited by Othar
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The claim that the paper would be obviously 19th century is bogus.

More and bigger samples here.

Before answering the rest of it:

Are these samples produced from woodpulp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L.F. Over de Linden "Waarheid en Leugen" (1877).

In which it says "And a partial translation, in the rough, by Dr. E. Verwijs in 1867". So Verwijs did make a - known - partial translation. Where is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For strong arguments against the validity of BV's conclusion, I refer to L.F. Over de Linden "Waarheid en Leugen" (1877).

I have read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably, yes. Perhaps combined with pulp from recycled paper or cloth. See wiki "history of paper".

https://en.wikipedia...in_papermaking:

"Then in the 1830s and 1840s, two men on two different continents took up the challenge, [...] began experiments with wood but using the same technique used in paper making; instead of pulping rags, they thought about pulping wood. And at about the same time, by mid-1844, they announced their findings. They invented a machine which extracted the fibres from wood (exactly as with rags) and made paper from it."

I'm not a paper expert, but why do you think that arabic paper was using woodpulp before the 1900s?

Edited by Demiurg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... why do you think that arabic paper was using woodpulp before the 1900s?

"Islamic world - The use of water-powered pulp mills for preparing the pulp material used in papermaking, dates back to Samarkand in the 8th century, ..."

And at Pulp I found: "Pulp is a lignocellulosic fibrous material prepared by chemically or mechanically separating cellulose fibres from wood, fiber crops or waste paper."

But I'm no paper expert either. What I do know though, is that the 2006 investigation did not get a clear result and that their decision to beforehand exclude the possibility that it's Medieval, based on the 1876 observation, is a mistake.

If it was 19th C. machine made, it should have been very easy to establish at what factory it was made and when.

I will try to find out more about the material used for Arab paper pulp.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first wire mold for making paper is identified in Spain dating to 1150. Bamboo molds were common in China, but it was not readily available in Europe.

The bamboo allowed the mold to be flexible, but the European rigid wire mold, was better suited to the formation of rag fiber. Europeans also invented the Fence or Deckle, which keeps the paper within bonds (Hunter 1943, 115).

The earliest paper was called 'cloth parchment', but it often contained wood and straw in addition to cloth. All these raw materials were beaten to a fine pulp and mixed with water. Sheets of paper were then pressed out, dried and hardened.

(http://www.dartfordarchive.org.uk/technology/paper.shtml)

my underlining, found here

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw: Eelco Verwijs was also very interested in mythology, he also wrote a groundbreaking book on Sinterklaas.

Thanks for the tip. I have learned that mr. Ottema did in fact compare Oera Linda book to many old sources, yet I can't but to help notice they're like all Roman or Greek sources of the classical civilisation. I'm like: dude, where's my Nordic stuff? To my best knowledge, Dutch are of Nordic stock culturally, racially and linguistically. Why weren't they back in the day (or today) paying any attention to the Northern European sources? Like: story of Hygelac attacking the Frisians. Or the Frisian studies by well known author and researcher Tolkien.

We have here in Finland somewhat similar situation with the so-called Väinämöinen's mythology. Of it has been written and commented much since the 1980s when it became public knowledge. All authors, save for two persons, have compared it to various 19th and 20th century sources and then possibly some old really ancient foreign material like Bible. When obviously the contents must be checked against those other Nordic sources that give insight into the same time and place, as the story that is to be checked for validity. Same thing with Oera Linda book or Irminsaga: in the latter case the authors look for various 19th and 20th century esoteric sources and only occasionally glimpse at the actual sources from the heathen era. Even though it mentions Brennus twice, for example (Flowers 2001, 104, 109). How about this, do you recognise anything from Oera Linda book?

Way to the mothers

Maya faeki kloig, Kat ar sunur fraeg,

Kat ar mani Sunur, Mani kat ar pertisur

Maya faeki kloig. (Flowers 2001, 106.)

I have no clue what it actually says, but notice "mothers" in the title and "Kat" in the text. I'm not able to tell whether "Maya" is female name like Maija, or corruption of Magy (like Gylve was). Anyway, please compare:

Very many of the sailors and soldiers to whom this proceeding was displeasing went away secretly, taking Kat with them. But Kat, who did not wish to appear before either the mother or the general assembly, jumped overboard. (Sandbach 1876)
The topics that Breuker can link from Verwijs to the OLB are just a few. The most important link he works out is to a book called 'Altnordisches leben' van Weinhold (1856) I can give and translate quotes if you want. This is about runen and alphabets. he also mentions books of Verwijs about the Indo-European linguistic theory of the time.
That would be great, Demiurg! You maybe aware that the Irminsaga is all about the runes and the Väinämöinen's mythology about the alphabet. So it could be of use not just for researching one source, but three sources.
There's also hardly any development in the different stages of the OLB, even if they should be written centurys apart.

That is a good point. Clearly some parts of it are meant to be read as literal word-for-word copies (letter of Hiddo starting with Okke my son...), but maybe some other parts were re-written already in the olden days? Like Geoffrey of Monmouth compressed many stories into one book in his 12th century History of Kings of Britain, maybe Hiddo's predecessors in the early 1200s or late 1100s could have taken the Monmouth's example and done just that.

Moreover, wouldn't there be at work the same issue as with the mediaval monks who copied old texts. That is, they made small errors which were copied over and over, resulting over time in a bit newer language or meaning. Wouldn't such a process make the language appear newer and newer with every small mistake? By mistake I mean here both copying an incorrect letter or whole incorrect word. The latter could come about especially if the copyist has to guess an old word's actual meaning.

Interesting analogy. But let's say we see a piece of armour at a painting that's not saved. You can see what the painter's intentions are and if he is trustworthy with the other equipment he's portrating. If his other gear is accurate with reality, than the one piece of gear that we don't know might have existed too. How trustworthy is the manuscript of the OLB?
As I have not yet finished my line by line study of the Oera Linda book and am merely halfway through it, I can't yet give my full insight on the general trustworthyness of it as a source. So far it seems to echo other old sources in spirit, in details and in rhetorical ways of telling the narrative. Apparently either the author was a good specialist of Nordic mythology (think as in J. R. R. Tolkien's calibre), or the story genuinely has roots on old mythos that was not limited just to Frisians, but also known by some Scandinavians, us the Finns and other peoples. Edited by FromFinland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I distinctly remember having investigated the name. Yet when I search in my various books there is no mention of it.

I can reconstruct a bit of it using Aryan roots (subjective choice):

Kar = to make

Kar (Har) = to curve or to roll

Gar = to assemble

Ghar = to wind about

This in the context of the space elevator, which at that time was situated in 'India'.

In Dutch we still have the word 'garen' (= yarn = thread). Garen is made and wound around.

So, yes, in my opinion there are arguments that the Germanna were occupied in 'India' in making yarn, i.e. the space elevator cables.

I found it in my book about Zwarte Piet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats a good point. Clearly some parts of it are meant to be read as literal word-for-word copies (letter of Hiddo starting with Okke my son...), but maybe some other parts were re-written already in the olden days? Like Geoffrey of Monmouth compressed many stories into one book in his 12th century History of Kings of Britain, maybe Hiddo's predecessors in the early 1200s or late 1100s could have taken the Monmouth's example and done just that.

Moreover, wouldn't there be at work the same issue as with the mediaval monks who copied old texts. That is, they made small errors which were copied over and over, resulting over time in a bit newer language or meaning. Wouldn't such a process make the language appear newer and newer with every small mistake? By mistake I mean here both copying an incorrect letter or whole incorrect word. The latter could come about especially if the copyist has to guess an old word's actual meaning.

So take the Okke letter...............Hidde has taken here at this crisis some decisions , he has embraced the importance that his ancestors have placed on this book and saved it from a flood ( whether of water , or enemies ) the written history of his people , saving three things most precious to him ... his wife , his son , and the BOOK .

It has become wet through , probably rendering the ink on many of the pages unreadable ....which is where i think he has indicated the wavy lines after some paragraphs ....... but he has decided to re-write all he can read from what is left undamaged...........At various times his people have made , and exported paper.... but he tells us he is re-writing it on some foreign paper he has obtained ( in the 13th C )

The book... even if up to now has been written by different people in different periods , using the language of the period of the writer..( although we dont know that this was an original copy handed down to Hidde, any of Hidde's ancestors could have re-written out their own copies ,especially if they had been given the same instructions as Hidde gives to Okke , to get his children to do it)

but the book Hidde has is now destroyed...... and his wet copy will not be handed down.....does he copy it word for word , letter for letter.. using words , spellings , place names etc that may already have fallen into non use ,and may be hard for him in the 1200's to translate even, and will therefore only get harder and harder for later generations to understand ,

or does he take the opportunity to give to his son a copy using the words current to his lifetime......which will be understood for much longer...

.but may also serve to make future readers consider the language in it seem too modern .....

what would you do ??? ...

also , would you , if you became the owner later in the 1800's , give out this one treasured copy that you have , or would you copy pages in order to give out for a translation , maybe using paper from the Docks where you work..... how do we know if the book that Tresour have is the 1200's copy by Hidde , and not one made by one of Okke's descendants , following Hidde's instructions , and copying it out onto any other paper he/she found available in his/her lifetime. maybe or maybe not

updating words , or spellings as they thought either necessary , or helpful .

we really need a scientific appraisal of the paper ......even though this will not tell us whether the "story" is a fraud or not , we will at least have a better idea of a starting date , and maybe some of those people who have been accused , might yet be exonerated ....

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

how do we know if the book that Tresour have is the 1200's copy by Hidde , and not one made by one of Okke's descendants , following Hidde's instructions , and copying it out onto any other paper he/she found available in his/her lifetime. maybe or maybe not

updating words , or spellings as they thought either necessary , or helpful .

we really need a scientific appraisal of the paper ......even though this will not tell us whether the "story" is a fraud or not , we will at least have a better idea of a starting date , and maybe some of those people who have been accused , might yet be exonerated ....

Indeed. It is my impression, though, that the OLB was hardly ever copied. The extant book was not reproduced for six hundred years, and then only because the previous copy had been water damaged. That previous copy may very well have been the original one, enduring for thousands of years. Or maybe it originally was written on animal skins and later copied onto papyrus or paper made from rags.

A double blind C14 analysis does not cost all that much, I suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recently uploaded PDF files:

1256 (?) 'Oera Linda' Manuscript, copied by Hidde Oera Linda (?)

1865 "De Namen der Vrouw bij den Germaan", by Eelco Verwijs

1871 "Oud Friesch Handschrift, in het bezit van den Heer C. Over de Linden te Helder", by Montanus de Haan Hettema

1876 "De Deventer Courant en het Oera Linda Boek", by Jan G. Ottema

1876 "De onechtheid van het Oera Linda-Bôk...", by Jan Beckering Vinckers

1877 "Wie heeft het Oera-Linda-Boek geschreven?", by Jan Beckering Vinckers

1877 "De Schrijver van Thet Oera-Linda Bôk is NIET Cornelis Over de Linden", by Gerrit Jansen

1877 "Beweerd maar niet bewezen", by Leendert F. over de Linden

1930 "De houding van Dr. Eelco Verwijs ten opzichte van het Oera-Linda-Boek en het Friesch Genootschap", by Pieter C.J.A. Boeles

1934 "Herman Wirth und die Ura-Linda-Chronik", by Arthur Hübner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to the list of recently uploaded PDF's, here are some relevant sources from elsewhere on the web.

1872 "Thet Oera Linda Bok" (1st print, Dutch), by Jan G. Ottema

1873 "Geschiedkundige aanteekeningen en ophelderingen bij Thet Oera Linda Bok", by Jan G. Ottema

1874 "De Koninkijke Akademie en het Oera Linda Boek", by Jan G. Ottema

1874 "Naar aanleiding van Thet Oera Linda Bok", published anonymously but written by Anne J. Vitringa

1875 "Historische Skizzen auf Grundlage von Thet Oera Linda Bok" (German translation of Vitringa, 1874), by H. Otto

1876 "The Oera Linda Book" (English translation), by William R. Sandbach

1933 "Die Ura Linda Chronik" (German), by Herman Wirth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said you had seen no arguments to prove that it's from the 13th century.

The date given in the document itself is one.

The claim that the paper would be obviously 19th century is bogus.

Modern research (Kardinaal, v.d. Grijn, Porck, 2006) does not even establish that.

Sample of OLB paper and of Latin-Arabic manuscript, dated before 1195 CE, from Toledo Spain:

vergelijkYT.jpg

More and bigger samples here.

Here's the complete paper from 2006:

http://oeralinda.blogspot.nl/search/label/4-%20The%20Oera%20Linda%20Boek%20-%20A%20literary%20forgery%20and%20its%20paper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With apologies to those who don't read Dutch, here is another great source (PDF) that was not previously available online:

1912 "Aanvulling van de Brochure Beweerd, maar niet bewezen", by Leendert F. Over de Linden

And I also found one that I had not read before:

1996 "Gespeelde traditie. Het Oera Linda Bok en de uitvinding van het Friese verleden", by Goffe Th. Jensma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arab paper probably contained plant (or tree) material, since they learned it from the Chinese.

You can't make that assumption. The Chinese used plant material, but the medieval paper we know, also from the Arabs is made of cloths or parchment.

The quote you gave that it might have some wood-addition. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I never have heard it before and they don't back it up with some study.

I'm sceptical about this link.

But back to your first statements about it:

The claim that the paper would be obviously 19th century is bogus.

Modern research (Kardinaal, v.d. Grijn, Porck, 2006) does not even establish that.

They did establish that. They didn't only found woodfibre, they also found soda and mechanical fibers, which proofs that it must be 19th century paper. As mechinal paper based on woodpulp only started after the 1830ies.

https://en.wikipedia..._in_papermaking

They dated part of the papers of the 1850ies, and another of the 1860ies.

I saw other statements of you that they haven't done their report, but the article that Abrahelim has put on his blog is a report. Even if they promised there would be a more extensive report, which never came. You assumed that they found that the paper wouldn't be 19th cenury after all, but it makes more sense to assume (if you must assume anything) that they just didn't found a place to publish.

Based on external factors we must conclude that the OLB-manuscript is made between the 1830ies (probabley 1850ies) ann the 1860ies.

If this wasn't the case and the OLB wasn't dubious, you could take an internal dating (13th century) serious. But as the external factors proofs its 19th century, to come up with an date that is mentioned in the text says nothing. Its in fact a kind of circular reasoning.

Edited by Demiurg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, we disagree. In my opinion, it is based on a model which is based on questionable assumptions. For strong arguments against the validity of BV's conclusion, I refer to L.F. Over de Linden "Waarheid en Leugen" (1877).

It seems that your answer to everything is that it's based on the assumption that the OLB is 19th century.

You point to the article from L. Over de Linden from 1877 and say he's making strong arguments against the work of Beckering Vinckers.

I've read 'Beweerd maar niet bewezen' that you linked. (and part of Waarheid en leugen, so I guess the one you're referring to) Over de Linden says he will establish that the inauthenticity of the OLB is not proven by BV. But in fact he goes on for over 40 pages without refuting even one linguistic argument that BV has given. Not once he evaluate the detailed examples of reflexions etc, that BV went trough in his article.

How can you call this good arguments?

Edited by Demiurg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't make that assumption. The Chinese used plant material, but the medieval paper we know, also from the Arabs is made of cloths or parchment.

If the Chinese used plant material for paper making, and the Arabs learnt it from them, it would simply make sense that the Arabs would use similar materials. I said "probably". It remains a guess indeed, until a study would confirm this.

Is there a study claiming that Arab paper never contained wood- or plant pulp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did establish that. They didn't only found woodfibre, they also found soda and mechanical fibers, which proofs that it must be 19th century paper. [...] They dated part of the papers of the 1850ies, and another of the 1860ies.

How do you explain that in the more recent publication (2011), no clear statement is given about the results?

I will answer in more detail later.

Relevant sources:

2006 The Oera Linda Boek - A literary forgery and its paper, by Porck, Van der Grijn and Kardinaal (some discussion here)

2011 Het Oera Linda Boek , een ‘cold case’ en ‘hot item’, by Porck, Van der Grijn and Kardinaal (English translation here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw other statements of you that they haven't done their report, but the article that Abrahelim has put on his blog is a report. Even if they promised there would be a more extensive report, which never came. You assumed that they found that the paper wouldn't be 19th cenury after all, but it makes more sense to assume (if you must assume anything) that they just didn't found a place to publish.

I was referring to the heralded (in 2011) final report:

"Het onderzoek is in de afrondingsfase en nog niet volledig voltooid. [...] Inmiddels is weer een periode van aanvullend onderzoek afgerond en wordt een afsluitende publicatie voorbereid (planning: 2013)."

(The research is in the final stage and not completely finished. [...] By now yet another phase of additional research is finished and a final publication is prepared (planning: 2013).)

Tresoar has its own newsletter and Jensma (who supervised the research) has many contacts in the extended network of (subsidised) publications in Friesland. If the report would be any good at all (i.e. have any welcome conclusions), it would be most easy to have it published. And why not simply put in on the internet? If they tried but didn't find a place to have it printed, this can only mean that the report is of inferior quality.

Edited by Othar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You point to the article from L. Over de Linden from 1877 and say he's making strong arguments against the work of Beckering Vinckers.

[...] he goes on for over 40 pages without refuting even one linguistic argument that BV has given. Not once he evaluate the detailed examples of reflexions etc, that BV went trough in his article.

He does not have to, because he argues against the overall validity of BV's assumption that OLB can't be authentic if it would contain linguistic errors.

Pages 21-23:

Zou dat nu werkelijk zoo zijn, dat geen geschrift met fouten tegen de taalregels, meer echt is? Dus alle documenten van vroegeren of lateren tijd, waarin is gezondigd tegen de taalwetten, omtrent geslacht, getal, declinatie en conjugatie warden eenvoudig als onecht afgewezen? Wat zal er dan bitter weinig in de archieven meer waarde hebben. In velen zal geen document meer overblijven, als, volgens de opgegeven stelling, onechte wordt uitgezocht en uitgeworpen. Wat zal er op die manier worden van zoovele stukken, van mannen uit den tegenwoordigen tijd, die zich in de wetenschap naam hebben weten te verwerven, maar, wat nog al bij velen, die overigens eene flinke wetenschappelijke opvoeding hebben genoten, het geval is, — aan de studie der moedertaal niet het grootste gewigt hechten en daardoor die taal soms ellendig havenen. Of mogen de latere geschriften wel en die van 1256 geen taalfouten bevatten? 't Kon zijn, omdat er toen minder scholen en minder leerboeken en minder meesters waren dan tegenwoordig; ieder was toen voor een groot deel zijn eigen leermeester, en ieder meester hield er zijn eigene spelling en taalregels op na, waardoor de variëteiten in de schrijfwijze van Fransch, Duitsch, Friesch of welke taal ook, bijna zoo groot in aantal waren als de schrijvers. Zoo zal 't zeker ook geweest zijn met de schrijvers van 't O.L.B. Ieder in zijn eigen taal en stijl, zoo goed als zij 't konden, en op een wijze om begrepen te kunnen worden niet in wartaal — hebben zij opgeteekend alles wat zij aan de vergetelheid wenschten te ontrukken. Men schreef geen stuk om te dienen als proeve van taal en stijl. Wat zij schreven is wellicht met tallooze zonden tegen geslacht, naamval, gebruik van vocalen, wijze van vervoegen, en wat voor taalzonden men meer begaan kon, maar toch zoodanig, dat zij begrepen kunnen worden, hoezeer niet in de taal, die volgens den heer B.V. alleen den naam verdient van regtschapen Friesch.

Maar is dat noodig? Hoeveel geschreven stukken uit den tegenwoordigen tijd getuigen niet voor het gezond verstand en de flinke geestesontwikkeling van de schrijvers en, die toch een alles behalve regtschapen Nederduitsch opleveren.

Zijn die stukken nu onecht, d.w.z. zijn ze niet uit den opgegeven tijd? Bestaan ze uit wartaal?

Neen, zeg ik op dit laatste, tenzij aan dat woord eene andere beteekenis wordt gehecht, dan in 't algemeen wordt gedaan. 't Hangt maar of van de definitie. Is 't geschreven zoodanig, dat met den besten wil ter wereld, de gedachte van den schrijver er niet uit op te maken is, dan mag er m.i. slechts van wartaal gesproken worden?

Doch dat zal men van het HS zeker niet kunnen getuigen. Hoe ware 't ook anders te vertalen geweest? Hoe kon de taal er van, door gezaghebbende personen, dan zoo worden geprezen? Hoe kan het beschouwd worden als de pennevrucht van een geleerden Fries?

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.