Claudius Ptolemaios deciphered ?

[Simplex]

Hello, I'd like to recommend the following book:
Andreas Kleineberg, Christian Marx, Eberhard Knobloch, Dieter Lelgemann
Germania Und Die Insel Thule (Germania And the Island Of Thule)
Die Entschlüsselung von Ptolemaos’ “Atlas der Oikumene” (Decoding Ptolemaios “Atlas Of The Oikumene”
[=Geographike Hyphegesis /?????????? ???????? ]
Darmstadt 2010 (Wissenschaftliche Buchgemeinschaft)
This book basically deals with transferring geographic data given in Claudius Ptolemaios’ works onto modern cards and identifying modern locations and landscapes with it.
In this volume the Roman provinces Gallia Belgica, Germania Inferior, Germania Superior are treated, alongside the Germania Magna (Germania Megale/
Some words beforehand:
Most of the links listed are in German, a natural thing with a german publication that has been tranlated into other languages yet.
1. I’m still not finished „digesting“ what I’ve read there.
2. German Wikipedia is already referring to it
[url:2270s55j]http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographike_Hyphegesis#Interpretation_durch_Dieter_Lelgemann_und_andere[/url]
International Wikipedia is not. (= as to Dec. 20th,2010)
3. Since german magazines like the SPIEGEL (yes, the very magazine that published the infamous “Che Guevara im Nebelland” –diddy on the Varusschlacht :roll: ) or newspapers like the Sueddeutsche Zeitung (Munich)
[url:2270s55j]http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/ptolemaeus-korrigiert-eine-neue-vermessung-der-alten-welt-1.826706[/url]
have already published “on it” a lot of different folks feel “inspired” to publish their “wisdom” – most of what I’ve seen here doesn’t qualify as “sensible” or “well thought-out” or plain speculative.
[url:2270s55j]http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,719602-2,00.html[/url]
[url:2270s55j]http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,720513,00.html[/url]
The latter is in English.
(Big thanks to D.B. Campbell here for bringing that one to my attention)
Further references:
History Magazine (In German):
[url:2270s55j]http://history.mediaquell.com/2010/10/19/germania-und-die-insel-thule-rezension-3422/[/url]
Examples of the “more interesting than just amusing” kind
On Leipzig (In German) :
[url:2270s55j]http://www.l-iz.de/Bildung/Zeitreise/2010/09/Ausgelesen-Ist-Leipzig-schon-2.000-Jahre-alt.html[/url]
Dr. Michael Gechter on e.g. Bergisch-Gladbach
[url:2270s55j]http://www.rhein-berg-online.ksta.de/html/artikel/1285338012821.shtml[/url]
(One of the better statements on the case)
On Hannover:
[url:2270s55j]http://www.neuepresse.de/Hannover/Uebersicht/Hannover-viel-aelter-als-gedacht[/url]
(Older than you thought --- how old did ya think, seriously ? :mrgreen: )
On Frankfurt/Oder:
[url:2270s55j]http://www.portal-schwedt.de/stadtportrait/downloads/mozcolancorum.pdf[/url]
On Amberg
Amberg= Marobudum ----the Marcomannic capital ?
[url:2270s55j]http://www.schauhuette.de/blog/archives/352[/url]
(Well ?!)
Definitely less „inspired“:
A statement of a leading german archeologist concerning this book and the identification of the site as Mattiacum.
[url:2270s55j]http://www.roemerforum-lahnau.de/aktuell.htm[/url]
(What problems does he have ? hock:
Who said “Si tacuisses …..” here ?! :mrgreen:
[url:2270s55j]http://audiolatinproverbs.blogspot.com/2007/01/si-tacuisses-philosophus-mansisses.html[/url]
Maybe more something like “RTFM”.
[Full words may lead to having this thread closed ?! :mrgreen: ]
Therefore:
[url:2270s55j]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM[/url]
BTW:
A very interesting map on the subject:
[url:2270s55j]http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=113227378687572833113.000490b1bb0ecad317036[/url]
Yes, and I just ran into a polish “echo” on that subject with instructive maps.
[url:2270s55j]http://adamfularz.salon24.pl/254068,odkodowano-wspolrzedne-antycznej-mapy-polski-ze-150-roku-n-e[/url]
The “cultural” formats on one of the major german TV-stations (ZDF) have also set towards this topic:
[url:2270s55j]http://aspekte.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/3/0,1872,8172387,00.html[/url]
EDIT: A brief review in English here:
[url:2270s55j]http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread621886/pg1[/url]
…voila, en francais:
[url:2270s55j]http://decouvertes-archeologiques.blogspot.com/2010/10/des-chercheurs-de-berlin-dechiffrent-la.html[/url]
4.This book is a result of “interdisciplinary research” and , as I’m thinking more of a scientic publication than a popular one.(Works for it have begun as far back as 2004.)
5.It is therefore tempting just to view the charts published therein and taking its data give selectively, using the adjoined remarks the same way.
After reading the book and understanding the larger part of it ( Defintinely here not the Math and scientific Geographical technical terms, I’ll have to admit :oops: ) , I feel that there are two caveats are essential:
I)Computing and correcting the longitude and latitude data given by Ptolemy does not yield in locating places more precise than 10-20 km. (See below)
II)In the charts given there is a column “S” (Sicherheit/Certainty). This tends to be overlooked by most reviewers.
All in all only a number of about 12 places are rated “s” (sicher/certain) , mostly places which already have been identified beyond doubt my other means (epipgraphy/excavations etc.).
About the same number of places is rated “w” (wahrscheinlich/probable), the rest shows a “u” (unsicher/uncertain), which in essence means it can be any place up to 20kms around.
6.The interdisciplinary approach of this book means that the folks involved have different backgrounds:
Andreas Kleineberg is scientific assistant with the Institute of Geodesia (?) and Geographical Informations Technique at the Technical University of Berlin (D), the specialist for ancient languages in the team,
[url:2270s55j]http://www.gis.tu-berlin.de/menue/mitarbeiter/andreas_kleineberg/[/url]
Christian Marx., also at TUB is the Informatics specialist.
[url:2270s55j]http://www.gis.tu-berlin.de/menue/mitarbeiter/christian_marx/[/url]
Professor Eberhard Knobloch , Historian, is President of the European Society for the Historic Sciences since 2006 and also a former member of this universities’ body of scientists, “serving” as teacher at high-schools and as professor of Mathematics well before that time.
Publications:
[url:2270s55j]http://www.philosophie.tu-berlin.de/uploads/media/knobloch_lit_2010_10_14.pdf[/url]
Dieter Lelgeman is Professor emeritus for astronomical and physical (?) Geodesia at the TU of Berlin.
(A picture speaks more than a 1000 words:
[url:2270s55j]http://www.pro-physik.de/Phy/leadArticle.do?laid=12075%20%20!)[/url]
[url:2270s55j]http://www.gis.tu-berlin.de/menue/mitarbeiter/dieter_lelgemann/[/url]
This man is definitely not a novice to this stuff. :wink:
BTW:
A little essay about the history of Geodesia:
[url:2270s55j]http://mca.bv.tu-berlin.de/~lelge/gdg/gdg.html[/url]
( Yikes …… MATH !!!! hock: )
No archeologist ?! Can this work ?! :roll:
7.Last but not least:
Yes there is more than a scant probability that the island of Thule may be the island of SMOLA Trondheim/Norway. (O.K. the “O” actually is an more like an “OE” here, as is customary to Scandinavian languages)
Norwegian review on the results up to 2008:
[url:2270s55j]http://www.ringeriksporten.no/Nyheter_2008/2008_608.html[/url]
Slightly OT:
Dieter Lelgemann:
On the Ancient Determination of the Meridian Arc Length by Eratosthenes of Kyrene (In English)
[url:2270s55j]http://www.fig.net/pub/athens/papers/wshs1/wshs1_1_lelgemann.pdf[/url]
O.K. --- back to the subject:
A) The contents:
The book is divided in 6 parts:
I)The Introduction
It deals with the perspective and stature of Ptolemaios “geography”.
Together with Tacitus’ “Germania” it is the chief source about Germania during the times of the roman high-empire.
Ptolemy was born around 100 AD and died about 170AD, so he was roughly a contemporary of Tacitus, but as opposed to him, it was unlikely that Ptolemy himself had a closer look (=visit)on the northern territory of the Roman Empire, for he was living at Alexandria, the “science capital” of the greco-roman world.
Since he wrote this works at ca. 150AD he only had access to sources before that date – the “early” roman empire.
A short mentioning of Ptolemy’s way of annotating the coordinates is also given by now, before dealing with the problems associated with identifying real-world places with them.
The biggest problem when dealing with this works is that no “original “ has “come upon us” – only a couple of more or less complete and somewhat different copies (= 53 in Greek Language only) . The latest find stemming from about 1300 AD, found about 5 (?) years ago at the Topkapi Serai, Istanbul, Turkey, which shed a little bit more light onto the affairs. The oldest one Papyrus Rylands 522 from about 200AD. The introduction then goes on dealing with
the different “lines “ of copies and how they act as a source of mistakes, his sources and Ptolemy’s method of computing for the geographic situation of the places and landscapes mentioned.
The next part is dealing with the “rectification” of Ptolemy’s data, beginning with an explanation of the limits of
“exactness” posed on it by the use of an “original” max. resolution of 5’ only – and only in a part of the data supplied by Ptolemy.


O.K. my time is limited , so this is end of part 1.
Further part(s) as soon as time allows.

Greez

Simplex

I'm sparing up the more spectacular "data" for next time. 8)

[Jona Lendering]

I own a copy; we discussed it here. I was not impressed by the research. Where I could control it, they ignored important locations, even placing Flevum, a fort in the country of the Frisians, in the land of the Chauci, at Appingedam. The least they could have done, was discuss the most common identification (Velsen), but apparently, the writers had no access to modern archaeological publications.

That does not mean that it is bad, though - only that I remain a bit sceptical (as always).

[Simplex]

Sorry folks,
....being away from the forum " too long " sometimes gets you into trouble, --- obvioiusly :oops: .
Does it make sense to continue here ??
Right now I don't know. Let's wait and see.
With no archeologist in the "Ptolemaios"-team one could have expected it : Yes, Jona, I too found that there IS a constant lack of use of archeological information throughout, -- not only that of recent knowledge.
They seem to have placed the (modern) locations nearest the data they computed, so I understood -- not necessarily utmost carefully.
The data on Appingedam ist rated "u" in the S column, BTW.
But does that really disqualify the geographical findings ?
I don't think so -- they gave a statement about the exactness of their finding.
And they put a "brake " into their findings themselves by adding the column "S".
But methinks they went further on in researching Ptolemy than any others I know of.
(O.K. -- I'll have to admit I didn't work myself through their sources list)
That's why I tried to give caveats and as many informations around the book as I could.
This is (still) a project at a Technical University and I think they went on to different centers of gravity in their research than they would have done e.g. at the Humboldt university.
(With archeologists "on-board" )
Another question here : Does the "enthusiasm" of some "local patriots" and the likes ( >links) disqualify this book ?! :roll:
IMHO: no.
But what really worries me is that me and most people I know seem to be somewhat "at a loss" judging the data computed in this book simply because lack of specialist knowledge with "Geodäsie".
(Are there any geographers on this forum, who are able to help out there ??)
Feel free to move or close the thread ( or not ) for the better of this forum.
I'll have no problem with that. No "hard feelings" on my side, then, at least. :|

Greez

Simplex

Data are not necessarily informations. :mrgreen:

[D B Campbell]

Thanks for your report, Siggi. I have been swithering over whether to buy this book or not.

But what really worries me is that me and most people I know seem to be somewhat "at a loss" judging the data computed in this book simply because lack of specialist knowledge with "Geodäsie".

In my opinion (which may turn out to be wrong :wink: ), the main problem to be overcome is a historiographical one. Where did Ptolemy get his data from? Archaeologists in Scotland have been discussing the British section of the Geography for some time, and it seems most likely that the Scottish placenames derived from a Flavian military source. (In other words, the date of Ptolemy himself is almost irrelevant -- it is the date of his source that we should seek.)

When we turn to Germany, the first question I would ask is: what was Ptolemy's source? I would immediately assume it to be an Augustan military source. (When else did a pre-Antonine expedition gather geographical data from Germania Magna?) And, like the placenames in Scotland, I would expect some to be linked with military bases and others to be "native" sites (whatever that means, in practice).

I wonder if this book addresses these problems, before launching into the "more glamorous" task (certainly, from the perspective of the ordinary newspaper-reading, documentary-watching man in the street) of "guessing" which modern towns line up (however approximately) with Ptolemy's ancient placenames.

Yes there is more than a scant probability that the island of Thule may be the island of SMOLA Trondheim/Norway.

British archaeologists/classicists are pretty well convinced that Thule was Shetland.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I had read that it was Pytheas the Greek who first recorded travel to Britain.
I recall some debate in the book as to whether it was Britain or perhaps Iceland refered to as Thule....but it's been some time since I read the book.
No one ever seems to mention him though. :?

[Jona Lendering]

When we turn to Germany, the first question I would ask is: what was Ptolemy's source?

The map of Agrippa with some first century additions, if I recall correctly. (Bizarre! I read the book, and cannot remember exactly! I have too much on mu mind.)

British archaeologists/classicists are pretty well convinced that Thule was Shetland.

Yup. What surprised me is that our German friends did not ask the question whether all sources refer to the same place. Compare the use of "Caucasus" by Alexander's men: for the Hindu Kush. They knew a name, only knew it was very high and east of the Black Sea, so when they crossed the Hindu Kush, they identified it incorrectly.

I had read that it was Pytheas the Greek who first recorded travel to Britain. I recall some debate in the book as to whether it was Britain or perhaps Iceland refered to as Thule....but it's been some time since I read the book.

Barry Cunliffe, The Extraordinary Voyage of Pytheas the Greek, credibly identifies Thule with Iceland and makes it clear why Norway is impossible. I really liked that little book. At the same time, that Pytheas visited Iceland does not mean that Agricola, who only knew the name of the almost legendary place, could not use the name for the Shetland Mainland.

[D B Campbell]

When we turn to Germany, the first question I would ask is: what was Ptolemy's source?

The map of Agrippa with some first century additions, if I recall correctly.

That would certainly make sense. However, does it also make sense that all of the sites recorded in the late first century BC continued under occupation into modern times?!

[Rumo]

Mapping Ptolemy's maps to modern coordinates may be not that simple. See also the articles from e-Perimetron , for example, Angeliki Tsorlini's Spatial distribution of Ptolemy’s Geographia coordinate differences in North Mediterranean eliminating systematic effects

Even with archaeological studies, I don't think Ptolemy's maps for Germania can be entirely decoded.

I haven't read the book so I don't know how they map the ancient coordinates to modern ones. But there might also errors in coordinates and names, some which are impossible to recover. Such errors might have happened early in the manuscript tradition (and thus present in all extant copies) or even in Ptolemy's work (as he was copying from other sources).

Also, despite what some may think, some of the settlements are quite modest even though Ptolemy called them poleis. There are also known settlements and (administrative) regions which are not on his maps.

[D B Campbell]

Mapping Ptolemy's maps to modern coordinates may be not that simple. See also the articles from e-Perimetron , for example, Angeliki Tsorlini's Spatial distribution of Ptolemy’s Geographia coordinate differences in North Mediterranean eliminating systematic effects

This is a journal that I didn't know about, so many thanks for the reference.

... there might also errors in coordinates and names, some which are impossible to recover. Such errors might have happened early in the manuscript tradition (and thus present in all extant copies) or even in Ptolemy's work (as he was copying from other sources).

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. )

Also, despite what some may think, some of the settlements are quite modest even though Ptolemy called them poleis. There are also known settlements and (administrative) regions which are not on his maps.

All very true. 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?)

[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.

[Simplex]

Dear fellow RATers/resses,
…....time did not allow for me to do this follow-up earlier.
Some may even be embarrassed that I did not answer their postings in that thread.:oops:
My apologies for that, but it seemed (still seem) to have problems getting notified on threads that I’ve participated in --- I’m not sure whether this also applied to PMs addressed at me, the last ones, however, did come through.
Besides that, Jasper is in the know and we’re in the process to sort this out completely, so to speak.mile:

On with part 2
(My apologies for misspellings insufficient use of language etc. etc. …)
The authors then go on describing the areas for which they worked out the correction factors and the identifications.
These are: Gallia Belgica (Chapter 9 of Ptolemaios’ works), Germania Magna (Chapter 11), Raetia Et Vindelicia ( Chapter 12) and Noricum (Chapter 13). Thule is dealt with in the last chapter of the book.
For every part there is given a general introduction (referring to the maps enclosed), Coordinates and Identifications
of the places and landscapes mentioned -- as tables -, remarks and references to each identification and the literature to which is referred.
The tables hold the following data:
a) Sucessive numbering of each place/landscape referenced to the maps, --in the order which Ptolemy used.
(Only the names where Ptolemy gives coordinates are referred to, here.)
b) The contemporary denomination of these places/landscapes with the coordinates in longitude and latitude as given by Ptolemy.
( As Latin was not only the official but also the common language in the western provinces, their denominations are used according to : Müller, Carolus—Claudii Ptolemaei Geographica, 2 Volumes, Paris 1883-1901, Edition with commentaries and a latin translation of Ptolemaios’ parts/books I-V –; this excludes, however, the names given in the part about Germania Magna, where the original expressions given by Ptolemy are added )
c) Modern name and coordinates of that place/landscape
d) The transformed ptolemeian coordinates, their transformation-parameters and their translations.
(The data of which are given in the appendices)
e) The difference between modern and translated/transformed coordinates
f) The transformation units (TE) , showing which places share the same transformation parameters or the same systematic differences (Scale [?) , Translation)
g) The scale of certainty of identification (S) [already mentioned]
The following criteria were applied here:
1) The coordinates
2) Results of archeologic and ancient histories research
3) Topographical facts
4) Possibility of deducting the modern names from the antique one.
h) The sources of the antique coordinates:
1) The “Omega”-type of reviews/codices
2) The “Ksi/Xi”- type of review/codex
3) The “M”-type = according to Müllers book [mentioned above]
4) The “m”-type = according to Müller’s book, but mentioned as incertain
5) The “N”-type = according to
Nobbe, C.F.A. – Claudii Ptolemaei Geographica, 3 Volumes, Leipzig 1843-1845, reprinted Hildesheim
1966; Ptolemaios’ books I-VIII .
6) The “A”-type = Alternativ proposition, presumed misspelling/mistake

The reference part of this chapter (~2 ½ pages) is divided into
a) the text-versions employed and
b) further literature used.

The mapping in chapter 2 -- “Germania Magna” -- starts off with enumerating the problems in associated with the special problems to deal with therein, which are aggravated by the following facts:
 Most of the names given by Ptolemy in this part were not mentioned in further antique sources, which excludes using other contemporary literature.
 The antique names given here do customarily not correspond with modern names .
Identification by linguistic methods is quite delicate here.
Ethnic changes/developments [through the times]also may have changed the linguistic situation of an area.
 Archeologic sites in Germania Magna, as opposed to those in the “graeco-roman world” tend not to bring up epigraphic evidence.
 Continuity in settlement since the times of Ptolemy cannot always be assumed-
 Names and coordinates often differ between the various manuscripts used.
 The lesser precision of Ptolemaios’ coordinates given for the Germania Magna inevitably results in a lesser precision of the coordinates transformed and thus aggravates the identification of places.
All in all Germania Magna appears to be stretched a bit.

The book then goes on to review the ways by that informations could have gained for Ptolemy.
It joins the main line of arguments here that for this part of the Roman Empire the sources must have been for most part military , then diplomatic, further on to a lesser extent commercial and from exiled Germanic nobles.

Next, obvious deviations/distortions of Ptolemy’s data as opposed to reality are given:
1) The course of the Rhine is given as north to south entirely. No account is given for his parts going east- west.
The easternmost mouth of it therefore appears to be north of Mogontiacum.
2) The mouth of the Inn [into the Danube] appears to be too far west.
3) The spring of the Danube according to Ptolemy is sited near Augusta Raurica.
4) The northmost course of the Danube is shown near it’s Big Bend rather than at Castra Regina.
5) The mouth of river Vistula which marks the north-eastern border of Germania Magnia is shown near the most southeastern point near the Danubes big bend, -- at Vac/Hungary. Actually, both points do share
[only] the same Longitude.
6) The Cimbrian Peninsula (Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark) is shows itself distorted towards northeast.
7) The coast shows to be 2° to far north, which can be explained by the method of astronomical determination of latitude performed by measuring the duration of the longest day as the basis of calculations.
[This seems to be Dr. Lelgemann’s very own turf]
8) The coast-line of the Baltic sea is shown in a straight course at 56° latitude.
Lastly further short reference is taken towards the assumptions of one or more “splits” in the coherence of Ptolemy’s representation .

The book goes on to review the sight of Ptolemaios presentation, mentioning his inability to account for the UpperGerman/Reatian Limes at all. In that course he also attributes places obviously sited on the wrong bank of the Rhine . (Given here Asciburgium/Moers-Asberg; Mediolanum and Teuderium )
Although most of the places named seem to lie along trade routes like the Helweg ( which is a system of parallel roads and paths from the Rhine eastward with connection between them or even further) and along the the Amber Road [the course of which is not 100% clear but the fact is established, that it at some time connected the Baltic Sea with the Mediterranian Sea and that there must have been more than one parallel routing, too], Ptolemy doesn’t mention these routes as such.
He instead divides his description into 4 “Klimata” , the meaning of which is not equal to todays use of “klima”/”climate”.
The book goes on to explain this and defines it as “a strip of land which share the same angle towards sunrays coming in with respect to the horizon, therefore lieing under the same latitude” , their northern boundaries corresponding with 56° , 54° , 51°30’ and 48°30’ north. ( 18th , 17th, 16th and 15th Parallel Circle as proposed by Ptolemy for mapping.)
Following are statement on why Ptolemy may have chosen to use this.
Next are remarks on the possibility of exactly identifying names that Ptolemy mentions with modern locations/settlements. They clearly state that for the part on Germania Magna this is hardly possible as most of the settlements outside the Roman Empire usually have provable histories only from the [Early] Middle Ages.
So their calculations only make it possible to single out an area where this name could be attributed to, as they claim.
Even without Ptolemy mentioning trading routes as such, however a little bit more precision in locating such places can be derived, especially when they are sited along rivers and at/near fords. Taking the known course of the abovementioned trade-routes together with a close inspection of concentrated finds from roman times along them
does also help.

After a reference map the part with the tables starts.[The most abused part of the book ?]
All in all, the part for the Germania Magna lists 137 places/areas, 11 of which are marked “s” for “safe”, 10 as “w” for “probable” and the rest “u” for “incertain”. This goes on for about 4 pages, followed by the corresponding remarks for about 29 pages, giving a short justification along with a short summary of the scholarly discussion on the respective identification. [ It is here where this book shows clear and distinct weaknesses. To my impression, the one of the team in charge here has had a better focus on recent research exploits inclined to eastern territories than he has regarding the western part of the area which the book is discussing. That’s why we see “bugs” like Flevum, Jona , yes , at Velsen, not near Appingedam, and a “gap in knowledge” for places like Tarrodunum where the situation of finds yields more possibilities “in around 10-20 km circle” than just Riegel --- but both locations share the label “u” for “incertain”].
The part is closed with about 7 pages of referenced literature.
Next is a discussion about the proportions and scales of of Gallia Belgica, Germania Superior and Germania Inferior along with the shortcomings of Ptolemy’s perceptions of these areas. (2 pages)
The appropriate reference map follows.
Next is the list of 53 places and landmarks for these areas, 37 of them labeled “s” for “certain” , 5 of them “w” for “probable” and the rest labeled “u” for incertain, the larger scale of certainties enabled by archeological and epigraphical research that took place through the times.
More than 7 pages of remarks on the identifications are added, along withabout 3 pages of referenced literature.
Following are Raetia et Vindelicia, with two pages of general remarks on the area and Ptolemy’s perception of it.
After the map a list of 23 identified places and landscapes follows.
More than 6 pages of explanations are added with special reference to the identification of Augusta Vindelicorum (Augsburg/D) and Brigantium (Bregenz/A).
The list of referenced literature closes that chapter.
Last up on the list of the main part of this book is the chapter 5 on Noricum.
This starts with the customary introduction to the issues of this part , -- roughly more than one page,
After the reference map there are 4 pages of special remarks on the 18 places and landscapes dealt with in this chapter. (10 of them labeled “s”, 2 of them “w” , the remainder labeled “u”)
A bit more than a page of listed reference literature closes the main part of this book.
I’m omitting the part on Thule here unless some fellow RATers/resses feel the need to suggest this.
(Maybe some other member of this forum feels more competent to do this or to even add to the part I was reviewing)
Well --- opinions invited…but ….see top remarks of this posting ….

Onwards to other books of interest ……

Greez .... Over & Out 8)

Simplex