Questioning the Atland timeline

[ott]

Written in Liuwert, in the three thousand, four hundred, and forty-ninth year [3448] after Atland sank. That is in the Christian reckoning, the twelve hundred and fifty-sixth year [1255].

Hidde's linking the Atland timeline to the Christian one, in his letter of instruction, can be tempting to take it for granted.

However, 452 (!) years earlier, Liko — caring about his ancestral hertiage — didn’t use the old system (unless Hidde left it out, e.g. because he thought it was wrong) and neither was it used in the most recent part (chapter Z Era of Askar). The last time it was used was (only once) by Frethorik, but this may have been a symbolic/estimated year:

All this happened 1888 years after Atland sank.

His wife Wilyo didn’t use it herself, but included the text about Yesus of Kashmir with its (symbolic/estimated?) year 1600 in the Atland system, for the birth of Yesus/Buda:

It was sixteen hundred years since Atland sank (...)

His son Koneread didn’t use the Atland timeline and neither did grandson Beden in his few opening lines that were saved.

Texts from the era before Frethorik’s time (i.e. Adela's time) only have one reference to the Atland timeline, again (ca.) 1600 for its most significant event: The attack on Fryasburg and Medeasblik, in which the Folksmother was murdered by the supreme Magy (he fell as well) and the main sacred Lamp extinguished.

(ch. N1) How we lost our Denmarks, sixteen hundred and two years after Aldland perished (…) (ch. N2) Two years later, the Magy himself came with a fleet (…)

I will formulate a few preliminary theses here that can be substantiated later:

• Hidde’s linking the Atland timeline to the Christian one is unreliable. He may have calculated it based on a year of the (Biblical?) flood, as it was then assumed by the Christian authorities.

• Datings of the old histories (chapters K, L, M) in part I (Book of the Adela-Followers) are unreliable. Already in Adela’s time, these seem to have been ancient and may have been oral histories, written down in much more recent times.

• Most reliable way of linking the histories of Oera Linda to our timeline would be through
  1) Geological changes described in chapters S1 and S4
  2) Events in Alexanders time, also known from classic sources, described in chapter S3.

Can anyone say or find out when and how the events of Alexander’s time were dated in classical chronology?
He would have died 323 BCE.

My preliminary hypothesis is that Yesus'/Buda's birth year was our real year zero (according to OL the year 1600 in the Atland timeline) and that Frethorik and Friso lived ca. 1700 years ago.

[ott]

Also, does anyone know of a northern-European cataclism (with Earth changes), reliably dated in our first millennium, which could be related to the events described by Frethorik?

[ott]

For reference, a blog post from March 2019:

Chronology of Oera Linda

Note to B. Liko Ovira Linda
It is remarkable that Liko writes "they want to obliterate all traces of our ancestral heritage" and yet dates his writing by referring to the year in 'KERSTEN' reckoning: 803, rather than using the system 'after Atland sank'. Had the latter system already gotten out of use? In that case, how trustworthy is the key provided by Hidde on page 00a, using both systems (1256th KERSTEN and 3449th ÁTLAND)? If Yesus/Buda is the same as Buddha, than ca. 600 BCE seems to be right. Also, if Friso's fleet arrived ca. 300 BCE, then this corresponds with the conventional dating of Alexander the Great.
On the other hand, there are good arguments for theories in which the first millennium was in fact considerably shorter than 1000 years (at least 300 up to perhaps 700 years). See for example Toronto 2016 lecture by dr. Gunnar Heinsohn* and listen to the 1 hour interview in German of dr. Herbert Illig.

[Nordic]

In Frethorik's account the line "Earth tilted northward and sank down, lower and lower." is textually related to Old Norse tale of death of Balder in ch. 49 of Gylfaginning: "en niðr ok norðr liggr helvegr" or 'Hel-road (underworld of death) is down and north'. As king Gylfa of Gylfaginning is the same as Odin and Gylfa in Ynglingasaga and Gylfa of Frá Fornjóti, textually related to corresponding OL Wodin and Magus episode, this is perhaps not a coincidence but either a textual loan, or common Germanic concept. Rest of the Nanna-Balder underworld story in Gylfaginning is similar to Inanna's underworld story, preceding the 300s BC date by a lot.

The line: "the North, pushing forth mountains of ice and stones" is perhaps textually related to Gylfaginning ch. 6 line of Audhumla cow licking "hrímsteinana" or 'rime/ice-stone'. An argument against this parallel is the otherwise very explicit and realistic tone in Frethorik's account, perhaps pointing to a mere coincidence of attested phenomena.

If the geological catastrophe took mostly place in Netherlands and Scandinavia regions, there may be very little or no currently surviving textual references to it. Whatever buildings would have been damaged would have been quetly repaired. Here is one source on those times, said by Wikipedia to be based on now lost contemporary accounts. I did not see any cataclysms mentioned, though I did notice a reference to the Demetrius to have "launched the greatest ships after this siege​ and after the death of his father", perhaps suggesting he had witnessed or heard of the Frisian marine capabilities of his own or preceding Alexander's days.

books.jpg (164.21 KiB) Viewed 577 times

[Coco]

In this context, Laurent Guyénot's Anno Domini and Alewyn J. Raubenheimer's Chronicles From Pre-Celtic Europe are particularly pertinent. Guyénot's work is largely influenced by Gunnar Heinsohn's, with a majority of Heinsohn's papers being accessible here. Notably, Guyénot's Anno Domini, initially published in parts under a pseudonym, offers a more comprehensive account. Raubenheimer's work does not explicitly address chronology revision, yet some of his conclusions imply a need for such a revision. Heinsohn's introduction to chronology revision can be found in his article Tenth Century Collapse. One potential approach is to divide areas into different zones, each with its own era, as Heinsohn did with Europe. This method can help identify historical duplicates. As illustrated on page 120 of Anno Domini:

700 — 930s: Northern Roman Empire (Aachen)
300 — 530=640: Eastern Roman Empire (Constantinople)
0 — 230s: Western Roman Empire (Rome)

The "Northern Roman Empire" is synonymous with the Frankish Kingdom, which collaborated with the Roman Empire as foederati. The subsequent continuation of this entity following the natural disaster in the 930s CE is known as the Holy Roman Empire. As illustrated in another useful diagram on page 176, the majority of the world, with the exception of Europe, is relatively well synchronized, even within the confines of official Scaligerian chronology. This suggests that the arrival of Alexander the Great in Punjab in the 300s BCE is likely to be accurate. At this juncture, it appears imperative to align the temporal framework of northern, southern, and eastern Europe. That is to say, the sequence of events in Friesland, Germany, and other regions must be synchronized with those in Italy, Spain, and Greece, and those in Anatolia. The culmination of these events should occur in the 930s CE.

A related topic is Britain's history, which is relevant to the discussion. Contrary to the commonly taught narrative, it is unlikely that Frisians, Saxons, Angles, and Jutes collectively sailed to Britain and conquered it from the ground up. Instead, my hypothesis is that since Britain was inhabited by banished Fryas (Brits) and an indeterminate admixture of Romans and Gola, the emerging kingdoms in Britain were constituted by groups of these Brits who seized power in the power vacuum left behind by the Romans upon their withdrawal. Consequently, the offspring of the banished Angles, who congregated in East Anglia, which bears resemblance to Angeln (possibly explaining their decision to settle there from antiquity) established the Anglish (or English) Kingdom. In a similar manner, the progeny of the banished Saxons established their Saxon Kingdom (Wessex) to the south of the Angles in Britain, mirroring the geographical distribution of Saxons and Angles in Europe. However, the phantom years in the Scaligerian timeline, coupled with the prevalent notion that Gaelic-speaking peoples are indigenous to the British Isles, have compelled historians to devise the concept of the Dark Ages and the invasion theory in an attempt to comprehend Britain's history.

[Bert van Baar]

Questioning any timeline?
Does anyone kwons the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky on history of the last ages to which he believes that earth was threatend by several cosmic events? His books, halfway 20th century, Like ages in chaos, worlds in collision talk about events on cosmic scale that describes something like Oera Linda describes too, but then with lots of historical proof.
His books were also dicarded by the official historians of his time, like Oera Linda.
They are worth reading ….
Regards
Bert van Baar

[Coco]

The rejection of a theory by the mainstream does not necessarily indicate the veracity of the theory's claims. It is possible to find numerous examples of ideas that were ultimately deemed to be a futile expenditure of time. In recent times, there has even been a discernible trend of deliberately marketing concepts as "suppressed" in order to gain traction.

Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision postulates that a natural catastrophe occurred between 1500 and 1400 BC, influenced by a passing comet. This postulation is predicated on the acceptance of the Copernican model of the universe. Notwithstanding, there is documentation of an ancient natural catastrophe occurring circa 2194 BC in numerous cultures worldwide. This phenomenon is discussed in great detail by Alewyn J. Raubenheimer in his book Chronicles From Pre-Celtic Europe.

[Wil Helm]

If we ago along with what OLB is suggesting:
what we think in persons of Budha, Krishna and Jesus, are in fact constructs based on 1 and the same historical figure...

than we could look at the "Kersten reckoning" from OLB in still another way,
meaning counting from the OLB year of the Kersten figure, 1600 years after Atland sank.

So
Liko wrote in year 803 after 1600-> approx 2403 after Atland
Hidde wrote in year 1256 after 1600 -> approx 2856 after Atland

Hidde makes it clear with his calculation (3449 after Atland), that there is somehow created "a gap" of 593 years.
Oddly enough this is really the year difference between where modern scholars place Budha and Jesus. Taking into account that now is agreed on for 623 BC as birth, and 30 years later (593 BC) Budha reached his enlightenment. Exactly how Blavatsky stated it also.

But if there is created a fictional era of 593 years (on purpose or by misunderstanding) on top of the OLB original 'kersten' to get to what we consider nowadays the Kersten Reckoning, we can assume that Hidde did not write in our 1256 AD, but 1848-1849 AD!

The time period when Cornelis (with his son) allegedly received the manuscripts from his aunt.

[Coco]

Jesus and Buddha were probably the same individual, but other theories have been advanced in a previous thread.

According to the discrepancy between the years mentioned in Hidde's letter, the sinking of Aldland can be dated to 1256−3449−1=2194 BCE, accounting for the lack of year zero. The narrative of Jesus/Buda in the OLB transpires 1600 years later: 2194−1600=594 BCE. It should be noted that 1600 may be an estimate. Assuming that 803 "after Christian/Kersten reckoning" signifies following the Jesus/Buda narrative rather than the Anno Domini year, Liko's letter would have been composed in 803−594=209 CE. However, according to him, it is the year 803 CE, resulting in a discrepancy of 803−209=594 years.

A similar discrepancy can be observed in Hidde's letter, which is dated 3449 years after the sinking of Aldland but 1256 years "after Christian/Kersten reckoning," which, when subtracting the gap between the two Jesuses, is equivalent to 1256−594=662 CE.

Note that Liko might not have written the Christian year in his letter originally; instead it might have been added by a later copyist, such as Hidde.

The numbers align as follows:

• 594 BCE: Jesus/Buda story, dated using OLB's Aldland reckoning and Hidde's year gap
• 594 years: gap between Liko's 803 CE and the date 803 years after Jesus/Buda (209 CE)
• 594 years: gap between Hidde's 1256 CE and the date 1256 years after Jesus/Buda (662 CE)

One hypothesis posits that an additional 594 years were appended to the life of Jesus/Buda, thereby rendering him more ancient and facilitating the integration of fantastical elements into his narrative, such as his resurrection. Laurent Guyénot has demonstrated how the annals of Roman and Greek history were extended into the past to enhance their perceived antiquity and prestige. Another theory posits that the catastrophic event in the 930s CE (in Scaligerian chronology) was so traumatic that it was artificially moved back into history as a coping mechanism. A third argument suggests that the phantom years were inserted to align the catastrophic event with the prophecy of Armageddon described in Revelation 20:1-6, which claims that Satan will be released after 1000 years; in the minds of the people, the event was perceived as Armageddon.

The discrepancy identified by Gunnar Heinsohn, based on the analysis of sediment layers, is approximately 700 years. This differs from the discrepancy identified by Liko as 700−594=106 years. This discrepancy represents the margin of error. This is exemplified by Heinsohn's finding that Constantinople experienced a single significant catastrophe in both the years 530 and 640 CE, suggesting that these years are duplicates with a margin of error of 110 years, which closely aligns with the calculated margin of 106 years.

It is noteworthy that Raubenheimer determined that the year 2193 BCE (with a one-year discrepancy) was already recognized by the Frisians, independently of the Oera Linda Book. From page 32 of his publication entitled Chronicles From Pre-Celtic Europe:

In the 19th century Netherlands, the date of 2193 BC not unique to the Oera Linda Book. The date also appeared in the Frisian Volksalmanak (National Calendar) as the date of the Biblical Deluge or Noah's Flood. The calendar was widely circulated long before Cornelis over de Linden received the manuscript from his aunt, Mrs. Aafje Meylhoff, in August 1848. Proponents of the Hoax Theory claim that the so-called porpetrators of the hoax merely quoted this date from Frisian tradition which, in turn, was derived from Biblical chronology. This date for the Biblical Flood, however, is not used anywhere else in Christian or Jewish literature. If one accepts that the Bible was the source of the Oera Linda Book's date for the Deluge, one would then also expect the author(s) to have used the Biblical description of the disaster. This, however, is not the case.

It is conceivable that the Frisians committed a one-year calculation error when converting to the church's dating system, resulting in the number 2193 being retained. This error is a common occurrence.

Who is Blavatsky, and in which publication does this individual discuss the date of Buddha?

[Wil Helm]

I do not understand why you add 593 years to 1255 AD. If we have established that 1255 is wrong due to its inherent gap from the “real” date, then what is the point of adding anything to it? That would be like creating a gap twice its original size.

Who is Blavatsky and in what book does this person talk about the date 593 BC?

Well, because I take the line to investigate whether the "Kersten Reckoning" in OLB could have pointed to the Kersten in OLB, not our timeline AD Christian era with 593 extra years. I do not think 1255/1256 per se "is wrong". Meaning going from the vision that our modern AD timeline-counting incorporated that extra 593 (phantom?) years from the original counting from Jessos and the 1256 in OLB didn't. That is the stand i take for sake of investigation. I only notice than that 1256 after Jessos must be 1848/1849 in our stretched timeline after Jesus.

Fe:
If we say we are now living in 2024, in the line of thought above, we actually live in the year 1427 after Jessos/Jesus/Budha/Krishna.

People living/writing in 1848/1849, could have thought the same, and telling it was actually 1256 years from Jessos. It may be confusing but it actually is an alternative view to try to give reason behind the beginning confusing calculation of 3449 years after Atland making equal to 1256 AD, while based on OLB Jessos it should have been 2856 years after Atland.


"Madame Blavatsky", was an occultist, spirit medium, and author who co-founded the Theosophical Society in 1875"
See The Theosophical Glossary, (1892) for the mentionning of 592 BC as year of enlightenment of Budha.