Copyright
Gudmund Schütte.

Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe, a reconstruction of the prototypes online

. (page 10 of 17)
Online LibraryGudmund SchüttePtolemy's maps of northern Europe, a reconstruction of the prototypes → online text (page 10 of 17)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


are represented as follows:

' DAGPETOPORIANI

Hostia fl. Danubii

LOGIVE' REGI.



The above words written with capital letters are to be read thus: LOGI
VI REGI(S) DAG(I) PETOPORIANI, i. e. "the six places of the Dacian
king Petoporus", and refer to a historical king Pieporus who was obliged
to take shelter on Roman territory towards the end of the second
century A. D. But the author of the Tabula has regarded these words
as two tribal names, placing one half south of the Danube, and the
other north-east of the Garpathian mountains. If he could commit such
blunders, it is not too much to assume that he has transplanted the
Dacian towns *Sangidava and Garsidava to Moesia.

The result of the above considerations is that the Tabula Peuting-
eriana shows, on certain points, a deterioration of the system of roads
as represented by the pre-Ptolemaic map of Dacia. Here, Ptolemy proves
superior, although his map contains no lines of roads.

Taking it as a whole, the combined evidence of the Ptolemaic proto-
types Ad and Ae, verified by the Tabula, speaks so distinctly that it
enables us to reconstruct the pre-Ptolemaic system of road lines with
approximate certainty.



§ 22. LOCAL PROTOTYPES Ac, Ad & Ae 83

e. Statistical Features.

The physical map Ac contained mountains and rivers, perhaps also
some tribes.

Ad and Ae were itineraries. We have mentioned above that the
western limit of Ae seems to have been the river Theiss or Danube, cf.
p. 79. The occurrence of tribes in both prototypes would appear from
the duplicate Biefoi Ad = Piefigoi Ae. In other cases_, the so-called
tribes were in reality inhabitants of towns; cf. Predavensioi Ad = Buri-
davensioi Ae = Burridava Tab. Peut. ; Saldensioi Ae = Sallis Ad, Saldis
Tab. Peut. ; Potulatensioi Ae = Paloda Ad = Potula Anon. Rav. The
name Albokensioi (*Albonensioi.^) evidently belongs to this class which
besides re-appears in Moesia: Piarensioi = inhabitants of Appiaria; cf.
C. Mtiller I, p. 444 & 463.

We notice the absence of the "ethno-topic denomination" which
characterizes the neighbouring prototype F. And still, there would
have been sufficient opportunity of introducing it, as so many alleged
tribal names are in reality simple derivations of place-names. Due
north-east of Dacia, several instances of the "ethno-topic" nomenclature
appear: Harpioi with town Harpis, Tyragetai along the river Tyras,
Amadokoi with Amadokian mountains & lake and town Amadoka, etc.

The principal contents of Ad and Ae were series of towns, connected
by road-lines.

In the independent northern periphery of Dacia, assigned to the
Ptolemaic "Sarmatia", no towns are recorded. This absence of towns
forms a contrast from the scheme of Bi which continues the town series
towards the mouth of the Vistula on the Germanic side of the river.

The Ptolemaic map of Dacia contains two towns of the first class,
viz. Zarmize-gethusa and Salinai. Both are used as points of astronomic
observation and on the map decorated with three towers ; Zarmize-gethusa
is besides distinguished by the adjective "royal". The duplicate Zermi-
zirga Prot. Ae misses the distinctive mark. The same representation of
the duplicates appears on the Tabula Peutingeriana: Sarmategte with
vignette, and Germizera without. Zarmize-gethusa is the well-known
residence of the Dacian king Dekabalos; hence the adjective "royal".
It may be regarded as probable that the place had some sort of distin-
guishing vignette already in Prot. Ad. — Salinai must have been an im-
portant saltern. It belongs to the very limited class of civil Roman
establishments, appearing on the Ptolemaic map. The class has only two
other representatives, viz. Hydata and Pirum (dupl. Pinon); and Salinai
is the only establishment of industrial character.

The Athos Atlas, differing from the context and from the Urbinas
Atlas, assigns Salinai to the second class only, expressed by a vignette





84 Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe

with five battlements. This scheme is certainly not original, but still the
variety may be derived from classical sources. At least, it is worth
noticing that the Athos Atlas, differing from the context, places also
Praitoria Augusta in the second class. As this town, according to its
name, must have been an important Roman garrison, the mark of the
second class indicates a correct knowledge of its rank. — The Tabula
Peutingeriana represents Salinis without vignette and so far is rather
akin to the Athos Atlas than to the ordinary Ptolemaic scheme.

Hydata, i. e. "Baths", lacks distinctive marks in context and atlas, but
the Ptol. description still attributes to the place a certain importance,
appearing from the fact that its Latin name has been translated into
Greek. On the Tabula, the corresponding town Ad Aquas has the usual
vignette denoting bathing establishments.

Ptolemy has another Greek translation on Dacian ground, viz. Zeugma,
i. e. "Bridge" = Pons Trajani. It is the important military bridge
built by the Emperor Trajanus near the Iron Gate.

It is perhaps possible that Salinai, Ad Aquas, and Pons Trajani,
had some distinguishing marks at the pre-Ptolemaic stage, but we must
leave the question undecided.

f. Occurrence of Duplicates.

It will scarcely be necessary to point out the identity of all the
names, indicated as duplicates of eachother on Fig. 14. In most cases,
the identity will appear obvious from the corresponding order of the
entire series, originally taken from itineraries. Only in some few cases,
our assumptions require more detailed commentaries.

The royal Dacian capital Zarmizegethusa is generally assumed to be
different from the neighbouring Zermizirga, or Germizirga, — as the
name is written in Codd, Paris 1403 & Vatican. Palatin. 314. C. Miiller
re-discovers Germizirga in the town Germisara, mentioned by a Latin
inscription ("no. 1395"), and again identified with Germizera of the
Tabula Peutingeriana, = Germigera of the Anonymus Ravennas. The
distance from Zarmizegethusa to Germigera seems indeed insuperable.
But, as a matter of fact, the chasm between these apparently irreconcil-
able forms is filled out by a large number of orthographic varieties. We
have already mentioned the varieties of Zermizirga; those of Zarmize-
gethusa are still more numerous. Ptolemaic MSS. : Zarmigethusa,
Sarmisegethusa, etc.; inscriptions Zarmizegetusa & Sarmizegetusa; Tab.
Peut. Sarmategte; Anon. Rav. Sarmazege; Dio Cassius LXVIII, 9: Zer-
mizegethusa; cf. the river ibd. ch. 14: Sargetias, i. e. *Sar(mati)-getias.
It is obvious that there existed several pronounciations, viz. one Sarma-
tian, another Dacian, a third Roman, and the result was a chameleonlike
spelling. When one name was thus spelt Zermizegethusa, Sarmazege,



§ 22. LOCAL PROTOTYPES Ac, Ad & Ae S$

Sarmategte, (Sargetia-), there is practically little divergence from the form
Zermizirga. On the Ptol. map, the two are placed close to eachother,
and modern cartographers still reduce the distance, assuming a localisation
which would make the one a suburb of the other from the point of view
of a Londoner. After all we must take it for granted that these would-
be-separate towns with almost identical names of a solitary type are in
reality one and the same.

Another equation which may at the first sight seem questionable is
*Potula Ac = Paloda or Polonda Ad. The two Ptol. towns do not
occupy corresponding positions within the duplicate series of Ac and Ad.
And both of the differing forms seem to be confirmed by the literary
test material: Potula is mentioned by the Anon. Ravennas, whereas the
Tab. Peuting. contains the form Pelendoua recalling the Ptolemaic Polonda,
However, a more detailed examination leaves no doubt that Potula of
the Anon. Ravennas is precisely the Pelendoua of the Tabula. These
two authorities generally register the same series of names, but there is
a difference of arrangement in so far, as the Anon. Ravennas introduces
a distinction between two districts, ^^Mysia", and ^'Dacia". Thus, e. g.,
the author makes a break in the route Sarmazege— *Tierna (Tema) at
Augmonia which is the last station within the so-called district of Mysia.
The "Dacian" part of the route is read from the opposite end, and
when Tibis (Tibiscum) is reached the author states expressly that it is
connected with Agmonia in the district of Mysia: "quae coniungitur cum
civitate Agmonia patriae Mysiae". When describing the other routes,
he does not point out the continuation from Mysia to Dacia, but in
spite of the interrupted enumeration, no single fragment of any route is
omitted. We are thus able to state that the Peutingerian series Romula,
Castris novis, Pelendoua . . Drubetis is rendered by the Anon. Ravennas
thus: Romula, Canonia, Potula, Bacaucis. Canonia is evidently a mis-
understood abbreviation Ca. noua = Castra nova, and the following Po-
tula must be identical with Pelendoua, at the same time coinciding with
the place of the Potulatensioi on the Ptol. map.

Our equation Karrodunon Ac = Karsidava Ad is supported by the
Tabula which replaces Karrodunon by Cersie = Gertie of the Anon. Rav.
It seems to be the present Krosno north of the Carpathian mountains,
cf. p. 8i.

Singidava Ad, Zargidava Ad, and Sangidava Ae, seem to represent
a case of triplication. Zargidava = Sagadava of the Tabula, Sancidapa
of the Anon. Rav.; Sangidava =: Acidava of the Tabula, and Sacidava of
the Anon. Rav. We have discussed on p. 80, how it can be explained
that the author of Prot. Ad repeats the name of the station. The dis-
placed localisation of Sagadava on the Tabula is pointed out on p. 81.

Argidava Ae has no Ptolemaic duplicate. When C. Miiller places the



86 Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe

name near the Theiss, i. e. within the area of Prot. Ad, it is due to a
conjecture of Wilberg's. But on the Tabula, the place actually belongs
to the duplicate series, appearing as Arcidava near the Theiss = Prot.
Ad, and as Acidava near the Aluta = Prot. Ae. The form Acidava is
different from its above-mentioned namesake which is a mutilated form
of Sancidava == Sangidava Ptol.

In "The Scott. Geogr. Mag." XXX, p. 66, we assumed that the
duplicate series of Ad & Ae continued west of the middle Danube,
finally reaching the northern corner of the Adriatic. They would con-
tain, e. g., two Mursella in Pannonia, Sirota = Sisopa ibd., and in Istria
Alvona = Alvon, i. e. the ancient and present Albona. These cases
are perhaps too scattered to form a solid basis for assuming the con-
tinuation of the two prototypes west of the Danube. But the duplicate
Sallis Ad = Saldensioi Ae at any rate shows that they contained some
parts of the Cisdanubian provinces, viz. the Pannonian district round the
inferior Save*).

The possibility is not excluded that the so-called Dacian tribe Al-
bokensioi north-west of Saldensioi may be a misreading of *Albonensioi.
In this case, it would belong to Ae and its duplicate would be Alvona,
belonging to Ad, whereas Alvon would be a triplicate form, derived from
another prototype. Neither the Tab. Peuting., nor the Anon. Ravennas,
it is true, connect Saldis and Albona through a direct route. But on the
Tabula, a route from Saldis to Aquileja almost touches Albona (Alvona),
and the Anon. Ravennas represents Albona as the starting point of an
lUyrian route (p. 224, ed. Pinder & Parthey).

The duplicates which the surrounding prototypes have in common
are so few that they do not contribute essentially to illustrate the
making of the Ptolemaic Dacia. We have noticed: Karpianoi = Harpioi
F, and Burgiones = Lugoi Buroi Bi, Kuriones Bi. Cf. § 26 & 23.



g. Linguistic Marks.

Latinisms prevail in Dacia and its surroundings.

Dacia: the Latin word Salinai; Firum; A^^ustia, Sa;2^idava, Singi-
dava, Zar^idava (< *Za;s5^idava).

Sarmatia: the Latin adjective *transmontanoi ; the Latin termination
in Karpi^«oi; Pie«^itai.

Moesia: Karsum, Siw^idunon.

Pannonia: the Latin dative plur. in Salk*.y; two Akumi«/^on, Akvi;^>^on.



^) The following duplicates suggested in Pannonia inf. are questionable: Lussonion —
Lugionon, Berbis — Serbition. Karrodunon in Vindelicia is no duplicate of its Ptol. name-
sake in Pannonia, but must be amended into Parrodunon, cf. C. Miiller, I, p. 284.



§ 22. LOCAL PROTOTYPES Ac, Ai & At 8/

There are no typical Greek marks. The translation of Ad Aquas into
Hydata, and of Pons into Zeugma may have been undertaken by the
Ptol. constructor.

The presence of Latinisms and the absence of Greek marks forms a
contrast from the sphere of Prot. F,



h. Literary Milieu.

The physical map Ac may originate from the first century of our
era. The Romans would have been able to draw a "blind" map of
Dacia before actually conquering the country : this fact appears sufficiently
from Prot. A, i. e. Ptolemy's excellent physical map of unconquered
Germany. Already before our era, the Romans knew the dimensions of
Dacia, as it is stated by Agrippa in his Commentaries: "Dacia, Getica
finiuntur ab oriente desertis Sarmatiae, ab occidente flumine Vistula, a
septentrione Oceano, a meridie flumine Histro. quae patent in longitudine
milia passuum CCLXXX, in latitudine qua cognitum est milia passuura
CCCLXXXVI"; cf. Mullenhofif's "Germania antiqva", p. 49. — And
about this time, Dacia was regarded almost as a dependency of Rome,
see Strabo's Geography VII, p. 305, written in the first decades of
our era.

The itineraries Ad and Ae necessarily must represent a later stage.
As they contain the names of Imperial garrison cities, such as Praetoria
Augusta, it follows naturally that the date of origin should be later than
the Roman conquest of Dacia 105 A. D.

We have mentioned above that the combination of Prot. Ad and Ae
re-appears on the Tabula Peutingeriana. The next question is to define
the relations of these maps more exactly.

There must be a prehminary statement of three alternatives: —

1. The original itineraries might have been combined independently
by the Ptol. constructor and the author of the Tabula.

2. The Ptolemaic map of Dacia might be the source of the corre-
sponding section of the Tabula.

3. The Ptolemaic map of Dacia and the corresponding section of
the Tabula might be derived from a common source in which the
original local itineraries were already combined.

Alternative no. i may be regarded as excluded. The map of Dacia
in its Ptolemaic shape agrees too well with that of the Tabula. Even
if the towns mentioned are not always the same, not one route of the
Tabula is omitted on the Ptolemaic map of Dacia ^). And the Tabula has



^) The Anon. Ravennas contains one additional route, Phira — Gertie, see p. 82.



88 Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe

several Ptolemaic duplicates, viz. Tivisco — Tivisco, Sarmategte — Germizera,
Sucidava — Rusidava, Sagadava — (S)acidava.

Alternative no. 2 is equally excluded. For the Tabula contains a
system of road lines which does not appear on the Ptolemaic map. The
lines, it is true, are not always drawn correctly, but the general coin-
cidence with the Ptolemaic arrangement of towns is unmistakable and
thus points towards inheritance from an older source.

Alternative no. 3 is preferable. The Ptolemaic map of Dacia and the
Tabula are co-ordinate descendants of one large original .map which
already contained the prototype Ac, Ad and Ae in amalgamated form.
Both of the descendants preserve certain individual features of the
original: Ptolemy has -the relatively correct physical design and the larger
number of duplicates, whereas the Tabula has the road -system. It must
be added that the Tabula seems to have been influenced by the editorial
scheme of certain Ptolemaic MSS. Germizera of the Tabula recalls the
reading Germizirga in the Codd. Paris 1403 & Vatican. Palat. 314, instead
of Zermizirga; Pelendoua of the Tabula reminds Polonda in the Cod.
Vatican. 191, instead of Paloda.



After we have so far pointed out the genetic relations of the Ptole-
maic map and the Tabula, we may try to investigate the editorial chro-
nology still more exactly by means of the nomenclature.

Plrst stage. The physical map Ac, probably designed before the
Roman conquest of Dacia, and containing no detailed nomenclature.

Second stage. A pair of itineraries Ad & Ae, duplicates of each-
other, describing the lately conquered regions along the Danube, the
Theiss and the Aluta; containing one important garrison city, Praetoria
Augusta, and one more station with a Latin name, Pirum Ac (= Pinon
Ad); otherwise, the nomenclature is at this stage purely Dacian.

Third stage. The originally identical series af Ad & Ae are enlarged
with individual characteristics. Those oi Ae denote the constant spreading
of the Roman nationality, appearing in the names SaHnai and Hydata =
Salinis and Ad Aquas on the Tabula. Ulpianon, probably belonging to
Ae, is the garrison city of a Cohors Ulpia. Perhaps, Ad was at this
stage enlarged with the station *Pons (= Ptolemy's Zeugma). — The
most important enlargement since stage II is the continuation of the
route Saldis — Ziridava to Porolisson and through the Dukla defile to
Karsidava (Karrodunon) north of the Carpathian chain. This is a well-
known military and mercantile road, partially built by the Cohors Ulpia,
as stated in an inscription. Cf. under '^examination of details", p. 94.
It is a natural development that the individual contents of Prot. Ae advance
most con.spicuously in the northern regions.



§ 22. LOCAL PROTOTYPES Ac, Ad & Ae 89

Fourth stage. The prototypes Ac, Ad, and Ae, are amalgamated.
The road-system of Ad and Ae is still preserved. It is questionable
whether the process of amalgamation should be attributed to Marinus or
to a predecessor of his.

Fifth stage. The amalgamated map Acde is incorporated with the
Ptolemaic atlas. The road-system is eliminated. The nomenclature still
remains chiefly Dacian.

Sixth stage, post- Ptolemaic. The amalgamated map Acde is in-
corporated with the prototype of the Tabula Peutingeriana. Some 25
new names are introduced, almost all of Latin origin. The additions
contain only some three names of Dacian origin, viz. Bersovia, *Cebonie,
Arutela. Bersovia, a station on the present river Berzava, was already
mentioned by the Emperor Trajanus, and so it may be a mere accident
that the other non-Ptolemaic names of Dacian origin are not preserved
in any documents dating from before the times of the Tabula. *Cebonie
(Cedonie Tabula) is the present important town Cibin or Szeben on a
homonymous river. Arutela may be a mutilation of a Latin *Ara
Tutelae, according to C. Miiller, I, p. 447^). It is evident at any rate
that the Dacian map of the Tabula has been completed after the final
triumph of Roman nationality.

It remains to discuss the provenience of the Ptolemaic tribes Koisto-
bokoi *transmontanoi, Biessoi and Sabokoi in independent Dacia north
of -the Carpathian mountains. The Koistobokoi fought against Rome in
the Marcomannian war, according to Julius Capitolinus, Bell. Marcom.
ch. XXII. The Biessoi and Sabokoi probably did the same, according
to Miillenhoff's emendation of the corrupt names "-bessicobotes" in the
list given by Julius Capitolinus. Thus the part concerned of the Ptole-
maic map would seem to contain elements which were partially unknown
to the Romans, before the Marcomannian war burst out, i. e. 166 A. D.
Under this presumption, the elements concerned could not have belonged
to the stage before Ptolemy, but would have been introduced by him-
self. On the other hand, the possibility is not excluded that the said
Dacian tribes should have become known to the Romans even earlier,
owing to the intercourse on the mercantile road to the Prussian amber
coast since the age of Pliny. We must leave the question unsettled.



^) The name Brucia on the Tabula sounds non-Roman, but it is an illusion as appears
from the correct spelling Brutia, preserved by the Anon. Ravennas.



90 PTOLEMY S MAPS OF NORTHERN EUROPE



i. Examination of Details.



It remains to comment upon the details of the Ptolemaic Dacia and
Jazygia according to their positions within the system of routes.

In order to investigate the details of the Roman routes, C. Miiller
lays great stress on the road distances indicated by the Tabula Peutin-
geriana. We cannot admit this valuation as quite justified, so far as
Dacia is concerned. For the Tabula, as we have shown above, derives
its description of Dacia from a map which already contained the proto-
types Ad and Ae in the incorrectly amalgamated form. Moreover, the
Tabula adds to the confusion. Names such as Rusidava, Tivisco No. 2,
A(r)cidava No. 2, are introduced at wrong places, thus disturbing the
road measurements concerned. Cersie and Porolisson seem to be inter-
changed, etc. And whereas the final editor of the Tabula might easily
correct measurements within all the then existing provinces of the Em-
pire, he was prevented from undertaking such corrections in Dacia, be-
cause this province had been lost to the barbarians for a full century,
when the Tabula was published. — Under such circumstances, we regard
it as provisionally impossible to use the Dacian figures of the Tabula as
the basis for definite calculations. No positive results can be extracted
from them, until the genetic relations of Ptolemy's map and of the
Tabula have been thoroughly examined.

After these preliminary remarks, we shall give a general synopsis of
the routes concerned and then proceed to the examination of particulars.
(See Tab. p. 91.)



§ 22. LOCAL PROTOTYPES Ac, Ad & Ae



91















a














1












< g
























<l
























<^ ^
























fc4
























0"
























S^ <1
























^ <
























§ <3
























fS <
















































c



































^


-^ ^ ^












aT .2








,




c













e 1










< i <i




















-^ <












U cu










OS












cs" «r










<1 '3 <1












^

3












Ui












a &-












^












CJ «S












,-~v >












^ ^












. <] <1 ^






















•^ <1 <] -^












i s^










S < < s












.2 w










U < <1 fe4












1 2












. .












« rt










1 t t 1












0, Ph




































j\ ^ /t












^ .«'~










/^ ^ ^












.2 rt










AAA


C/3










•S .5










r<) CO


(U










13 13














■*->










c« C/i










^


J- |_^


D










^










v^


-^ — ' •>— '













d §












c"


0^










1- 1










« ^
3 2


'


(.1-1










<: <










a a*











>


^


■ a










< < . .


cc








rt
^




■ %










«r rt rt «r




C






'So

c

2"


"So

1




13

: :5

• N










(S)acidav
Sangidav
Singidav;
Zargidav;


>s






a


>•


<U I-












1


CO






2

N

i


1

N


1


V


X!

So


£5


rt




B

to
3

3

<3


4

3




«




3

1




d Aqua
Aquae,


1

1


'a

a

N


>


'35
3


0^ .2

1 'i






1


c


1


1


eS •






^




PL, CU






_





cS


<u


'rt' ?"


c




c






uridavensioi,
(u)redavensioi




">
H

!5


.2


N


N
>

a

T3

•<


.2), (Acidav
Argidav


<

2
'5


a


1


3

1


3






*5












a


*


Ph


n PQ cu • 1




of


<


f


1


8 §
.2 -^


<
*


<


■5


3~


'B




• t '5 :








|3




'u

^0




1


■5


3

a

<

.2"


3
a
<


«


a, Pie
ra), Bie
a, . . .










'to




'to










>


> c3 > 1




w






C




C








4J


o


R


rt c<t




''3
I


tn

1


1


1






3

H


£

Q


2

Q


3

P


c5


Zusid
(Zuro
Sukid


w C
























basi
ubia
>n




>S


>3


M


XI




■^


-i


M




v» "^ ^3


H


^


^


^


H ^


H


^


H


^


h


^ ^ ^


fl C .Si
























rt tuo


.




,


















S Q £


'-'




N




ro














i-


H-r




hh'




1— T


HH




d


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 17

Online LibraryGudmund SchüttePtolemy's maps of northern Europe, a reconstruction of the prototypes → online text (page 10 of 17)