Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 3]

[Ott]

15 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

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?

If it were a 19th C. forgery, aimed at falsely convincing people it was ancient, it would not have contained so many elements that seemed less believable then, than they do nowadays.

- - -

The Tollense Valley battle (ca. 13th century BCE) required a well organized Nordic Bronze Age civilization, as described in the Oera Linda-book but unheard of in 19th century Netherlands.

 

[Abramelin]

Here a link:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle

I may be wrong, but the only thing mentioned in the OLB of around 1200 bce, is the arrival of Ulysses.

In this thread I have posted about the mayhem happening around Europe around 1200 bce, and that it amazed me (well, not really) that nothing was mentioned about this turmoil taking place all over Europe.

So please, where in the OLB is this bronze age battle described?

 

[Abramelin]

1 hour ago, Ott said:

If it were a 19th C. forgery, aimed at falsely convincing people it was ancient, it would not have contained so many elements that seemed less believable then, than they do nowadays.

I have posted about what was supposed to be unknown during the 19th century, but was actually known.

Lung disease among cows, pile dwellings, Minos, and I forgot about the rest.

 

Edited September 15, 2020 by Abramelin

[seasmith]

 

Blonde Scandinavians Or Well-Travelled Southern Europeans?

 

  ""  The study is the biggest genetic study of Vikings ever. The researchers have sequenced the genome of 442 bone fragments from the Viking Age, from all over Europe, and they have made some rather surprising discoveries. Among other things, the Vikings may not be quite as Nordic as as hitherto believed. "The Vikings had a lot more genes from Southern and Eastern Europe than we anticipated. They frequently had children with people from other parts of the world. In fact, they also tend to be dark-haired rather than blond, which is otherwise consider an established Viking-trait," Professor at Lundbeck Foundation Center for Geogenetics at the GLOBE Institute at the University of Copenhagen, Eske Willerslev, explains."

≥≤

"Some researchers and intellectuals have been of the opinion that in the North, we have a tendency to romanticize the Viking Age, because it is our own, and a very specific history. They have argued that the Viking Age wasn't really an Age at all, but rather part of the Iron Age. However, with this new study we're able to establish that the Viking Age was indeed something special. The Vikings travelled much farther, had lots of Southern European genes and were very likely part of a much more extensive cultural exchange with the rest of the world than any contemporary peasant society," Eske Willerslev concludes. ""

∫∫∫∫∫∫∫∫∫∫∫∫

9/16/2020. 

https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2020/09/blonde-scandinavians-or-well-travelled.html

 

[jaylemurph]

34 minutes ago, seasmith said:

"Some researchers and intellectuals have been of the opinion that in the North, we have a tendency to romanticize the Viking Age, because it is our own, and a very specific history. They have argued that the Viking Age wasn't really an Age at all, but rather part of the Iron Age. However, with this new study we're able to establish that the Viking Age was indeed something special. The Vikings travelled much farther, had lots of Southern European genes and were very likely part of a much more extensive cultural exchange with the rest of the world than any contemporary peasant society,"

I’m not sure what kind of blog source you’re pulling this from and/or how exactly you’ve doctored the text — you’re clearly not presenting it in its original format — but it does not correctly portray the current consensus among historians as to Viking culture. 

It seems to be conveying a relatively uniformed, popular view of them.

—Jaylemurph 

[Thanos5150]

4 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

I’m not sure what kind of blog source you’re pulling this from and/or how exactly you’ve doctored the text — you’re clearly not presenting it in its original format — but it does not correctly portray the current consensus among historians as to Viking culture. 

It seems to be conveying a relatively uniformed, popular view of them.

—Jaylemurph 

The article seasmith linked. Also found here: University of Copenhagen Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences: Blonde Scandinavians or well-travelled Southern Europeans? New research busts myths about Vikings. Compare to what seasmith quotes:

Quote

“Some researchers and intellectuals have been of the opinion that in the North, we have a tendency to romanticize the Viking Age, because it is our own, and a very specific history. They have argued that the Viking Age wasn’t really an Age at all, but rather part of the Iron Age. However, with this new study we’re able to establish that the Viking Age was indeed something special. The Vikings travelled much farther, had lots of Southern European genes and were very likely part of a much more extensive cultural exchange with the rest of the world than any contemporary peasant society,” Eske Willerslev concludes.

Verbatim. It is not a "blog". Seasmith has not "doctored" the text. It is in its "original form".    

They quote the authors of the featured Nature article: Population genomics of the Viking world

[jaylemurph]

If it’s not a blog, why is it hosted on blogspot?

And he has certainly not presented the text as published: he’s futzed with fonts, added his own editorial material (with carets and underscores), and elided text and images. 

And it still doesn’t reflect historical consensus. Even if it does quote a Nature article, though quite what a natural science journal has to do with history is beyond me. 

—Jaylemurph 

[Thanos5150]

1 hour ago, jaylemurph said:

If it’s not a blog, why is it hosted on blogspot?

 

You have the original source, also provided in seasmith's link, so this should not be an issue for you. As I linked before: University of Copenhagen Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences: Blonde Scandinavians or well-travelled Southern Europeans? New research busts myths about Vikings. This is the original source which the authors of the Nature article are faculty members and gives their contact information at the end of the article. From the bottom of the article seasmith quoted: Source: The University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences [September 16, 2020].  

Quote

And he has certainly not presented the text as published: he’s futzed with fonts, added his own editorial material (with carets and underscores), and elided text and images. 

Your insinuation is that as a result seasmith has somehow tried to deceive, which wonky copy and pasting aside, is obviously not the case.   

Quote

And it still doesn’t reflect historical consensus. Even if it does quote a Nature article, though quite what a natural science journal has to do with history is beyond me. 

New research is like that sometimes, right? Whether it quotes the Nature article is irrelevant as it clearly quotes the authors who wrote it in direct response to the study in the Nature article. You have to pay for the article so this is the press release to promote it. This is how it works.

You don't understand how natural science relates to history...? If the linked article wasn't a clue, how about radiocarbon dating? Geology? Paleoclimatology? Paleontology? Or say cosmic-ray muon radiography? 

Edited September 17, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Abramelin]

So, those Vikings were not the blonds as we all thought they were.

I think I have an idea where those blond Vikings came from..they mixed with blond-haired Frisians:

https://www.medievalists.net/2017/03/friends-vassals-foes-relations-representations-frisians-scandinavians-viking-age/

And then click on the link at the end of the article to get to the paper.

[Essan]

I find Science Daily is the most reliable/unbiased resource for a summary of science based stories such as this

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200916113544.htm

[Abramelin]

8 hours ago, Abramelin said:

So, those Vikings were not the blonds as we all thought they were.

I think I have an idea where those blond Vikings came from..they mixed with blond-haired Frisians:

https://www.medievalists.net/2017/03/friends-vassals-foes-relations-representations-frisians-scandinavians-viking-age/

And then click on the link at the end of the article to get to the paper.

And in case anyone has doubts about Frisians taking part in the Viking raids, then read about how they behaved during the crusades, just a short while after the 'Age of the Vikings':

https://pure.knaw.nl/portal/en/publications/frisian-fighters-and-the-crusade

and download the pdf.

 

[Abramelin]

Ott, have you found the link in the OLB to that  bronze age battle in ancient Germany?

Sorry, but I am very curious to know what I may have missed.

[Ott]

17 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Ott, have you found the link in the OLB to that  bronze age battle in ancient Germany?

You really should read more carefully next time (I get bored easily.

I wrote:

" The Tollense Valley battle (...) required a well organized Nordic Bronze Age civilization, as described in the Oera Linda-book but unheard of in 19th century Netherlands. "

It does not describe the battle (which it does not have to if it is authentic), but it does describe a civilization (before and after the time the battle is estimated to have occurred) that would have been required for such a battle.

Such a civilization in that era and area was unheard of in the 19th century, but now it no longer is.

[Abramelin]

I have read your post well enough, and if the OLB is as authentic as you think it is, why doesn't it describe that major battle? Not important enough?

Same thing with the turmoil all over Europe around 1200 bce: not a single word about it in the OLB.

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Here a link concerning the sampled dna of the victims of that battle:

https://indo-european.eu/2020/07/local-tollense-valley-battlefield-warriors-rich-in-haplogroups-r1b-and-i2a/

[Abramelin]

You know, if you want something that might prove the OLB to be an authentic ms about ancient European history, then the next could be something worthwile to read:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/20/dutch-invaders-stonehenge-ancient-britons

Now, the OLB claims that, before 2094 bce, Brittain was a penal colony. So, every unwanted person was expelled from Europe/the Fryan empire (or whatever you want to call it), and sent overthere. The question is, how long before 2094 bce did that start?

[Abramelin]

This is a better link:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/did-dutch-invaders-wipe-out-bronze-age-britons-during-construction-021400

Maybe even better:

https://www.nature.com/news/ancient-genome-study-finds-bronze-age-beaker-culture-invaded-britain-1.21996

Edited September 19, 2020 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Btw., I remembered I once actually started a thread about what happened around 1200 bce in Europe, and in that thread the bronze age battle is mentioned:

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/249093-what-happened-around-1200-bce/

The battle is mentioned in post 3 of that thread.

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Abramelin

[Ott]

2 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I have read your post well enough, and if the OLB is as authentic as you think it is, why doesn't it describe that major battle? Not important enough?

They may have wanted to forget it, to name just one possibility.

Thousands of 'major' events must be lacking. What else would you expect?

[Abramelin]

19 minutes ago, Ott said:

They may have wanted to forget it, to name just one possibility.

Thousands of 'major' events must be lacking. What else would you expect?

Maybe you should have a look at the thread I linked to in my former post.

 

[Abramelin]

1 hour ago, Ott said:

They may have wanted to forget it, to name just one possibility.

Thousands of 'major' events must be lacking. What else would you expect?

My point: the major events that were known in the 19th century show up in the OLB (in a way.. ), but those that weren't known in the 19th century don't.

 

Edit:

Hallo Rabiya!

 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

3 hours ago, Ott said:

They may have wanted to forget it, to name just one possibility.

Thousands of 'major' events must be lacking. What else would you expect?

As you most certainly know, the one(s) who created the OLB was/were very meticulous.

But his/her/their main problem was, that they depended on history as was known in the 19th century.

[jaylemurph]

Is it really important to post to your own thread 5+ times in a row, or are you just manipulating the system to keep your thread on the top of the forum page?

—Jaylemurph 

[Abramelin]

1 minute ago, jaylemurph said:

Is it really important to post to your own thread 5+ times in a row, or are you just manipulating the system to keep your thread on the top of the forum page?

—Jaylemurph 

I have a hard time trying to post, using a smartphone. And editing is even a greater pain.

Sorry.

[Abramelin]

18 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I have read your post well enough, and if the OLB is as authentic as you think it is, why doesn't it describe that major battle? Not important enough?

Same thing with the turmoil all over Europe around 1200 bce: not a single word about it in the OLB.

 

And here a link to a pdf about that period:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/1200BC_abstracts.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiFnImArvfrAhXDsKQKHXunCOsQFjAMegQIDBAB&usg=AOvVaw17FQM8O8TpkHdkgS7TJ1ht