Claudius Ptolemaios deciphered ?

[Rumo]

It's my understanding that there are rather a lot of manuscripts to collate, but didn't Otto Cunz sort out the text for Germania? (Of course, we all make mistakes sometimes; Ptolemy, Cunz, and me. )

In his map of Moesia Superior at some point Ptolemy listed the poleis along the Danube (3.9.3). Two of them are ??????? and ?????. I don't know if these are the forms in all manuscripts, this what some modern editions have (like Nobbe's).

In Itinerarium Antonini we find this sequence: Talia[tis] – Egeta. In Tabula Peutingeriana we have: Faliatis - two more stations - Egeta. In the work of the anonymous geographer from Ravenna (walking this road in opposite direction): Egeta - two stations (probably the same two which are on TP) - Taliatis. The first name is also confirmed by Notitia Dignitatum in partibus Orientis. Under dux Moesiae Primae (XLI) we find auxilium Taliatense, Taliata and praefectus militum exploratorum, Taliatae. In TP the T was misread F, otherwise all these documents support each other.
The name of Taliata (Taliatis) also makes sense in Latin: (petra) taliata = cut (stone).

Both errors in Ptolemy can be explained as copying errors, common in Greek paleography: ?? was read N, ? was read ?.

We're lucky in this case to have several sources which we can use to infer the real names. But what can we do about the regions deep in the Barbaricum (which is the case for Germania)? And let's say we might have a chance when names are mentioned by other sources, but what about coordinates (which in Greek they are also represented by letters)?

Which makes me wonder at the wisdom of announcing that (e.g.) Salzkotten is 2,000 years old, because Ptolemy names a polis in the approximate neighbourhood. (Or am I misrepresenting the book's researches?)

This is also what I tried to say. I don't know what's in the book, but at least those articles went too far (in my opinion) when announcing some German towns are 2,000 years old.