Gudmund Schütte.

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

. (page 6 of 17)
Online LibraryGudmund SchüttePtolemy's maps of northern Europe, a reconstruction of the prototypes → online text (page 6 of 17)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

d. = Prot. Bi {= B2). Bohemia and eastern Germany are well furnished
both with tribes and towns, and this is the case in both duplicate-
series of a repetition-milieu.

e. = Prot. F, A long part of the coast directly east of the Vistula is
occupied by the lonely name of Venedai = Wends. No towns in this
section of the prototype.

f. = Prot. E. The extreme easterly part of the European north-coast,
in return, is filled with an overwhelming mass of displaced tribes,
tightly compressed. No towns in this section of the prototype.

g. — Prot. Sk. The island of Scandia contains only tribes. These are
correctly localised, as regards their mutual positions, but too tightly

It will strike the observer that each of the types mentioned is cha-
racterized by distinctly individual features. Whereas such inequalities
would be effaced within the territory of the Roman Empire, they could
not disappear in foreign peripheral regions which supplied a less abundant
mass of cartographic material. The contrasts here persist, thus forming
a means of pointing out the various local elements which have been suc-
cessively combined with the framework of the collective prototype.

f. Occurrence of Duplicates.

We assume that the duplicate series Ad and Ac belong to the col-
lective prototype A, because they re-appear on the Tab. Peuting. Burg-
iones is — Buroi Bi\ cf. BVR Tab. Peuting.

Otherwise, the names from the area of A only re appear in the dis-
placed prototypes, and in F.

Gaul and Belgium. *Namnitai, Ratomagos, *Bagakon, Askiburgion,
Morinoi, Vaggiones A =■ Namnetai, Ratomagos, Bogadion, Askalingion,
roMorinoi, Vaggiones C\ the first four names belong to the contents
of the Tab. Peuting.

N. Germany. Lakkobardoi A = Laggobardoi D.

Cimbric Chersonese. Charudes A — Farodinoi (/??).

E. Germany. The entire series of A — Bi re-appears in B2.

Baltic coast. Teuton . . Ouirunoi A — Teutones Auarpoi F, Auarinoi E.

North-eastern Dacia. Karpianoi A = Harpioi with town Harpis F.


We do not count the two Marionis, as we regard that of Prot. C as
a distortion of Matilone Tab. Peuting.

The line of duplicates in A and F stretching from the Baltic to the

Black Sea roughly corresponds to the western frontier of the "ethno-topic

denomination". It might be tempting to regard Ouirunon (read: *Ouari-

non) as an ethno-topic annexe to Auarpoi (read: *Ouarinoi) F. But we

have seen above that the "^'Ouarinoi of A, connected with *Ouarinon, were

already within the Latin stage distorted into *Viruni, and then corrected

back into . ^^. .. And the distortion started from the town *Ouarinon,
* viruni

which was "nostrified" after the well-known Roman town Virunum in
Noricum. Thus it is scarcely possible to assign Ouirunon to Prot. F.
It would at any rate require that the prototypes A and F had been
amalgamated at a very early stage,

A third alternative must be taken into account, namely that the
duplicates Teuton . . Ouirunoi = Teutones Auarpoi might belong t5 the
twin prototypes Bi & B2. — Our reason for assigning the said dupli-
cates to A and F is found in the triple equation: Ouirunoi A — Auarpoi
F = Anarinoi E, As Prot. E is an obvious duplicate of F, the pre-
sence of *Ouarinoi in the one seems to involve its presence in the other.

g. Linguistic Marks.

Ptolemy's bad orthography in numerous cases reflects his prototypes,
betraying a contrast between Latin and Greek ones. The assumable
collective prototype A — or the local prototypes harmonizing with its
framework — obviously would belong to the Latin set.

We observe the following types of Latin residuals: non-translated
Latin words such as Munition; non- transcribed Latin terminations such
as -us, -um, -/; -o or -on or one (instead of the correct Greek from -dn)\
misunderstood Latin correcture in Teutonoaroi-Virunoi ; misreadings
pointing towards Latin types such as 6Uessones; non transcribed Latin
spellings -ng, -nk.

Somewhat less conclusive, but still noteworthy are the following two
peculiarities :

Constant spelling -ones with "omikron" (not with "omega").

Constant spelling -aou, -eou (not -au, -eu).

In these two cases, no analogy could be found in a Latin prototype,
because the Latin alphabet lacks a similar distinction. Still we believe
that the said orthographic features are residuals pointing towards Latin

It seems that the Greek transcription with "omikron" was the estab-
lished rule for such Latin names which had no settled Greek orthography


of their own. It was quite natural, because the letter "o" was the same
in both alphabets. But this conventional rule did not harmonize with
the tendency of the spoken Qreek language. At least in Ptolemy's atlas,
the eastern maps obviously prefer -ones (with "omega"), and we must
suppose that the orthography in these parts of the world was mainly
based on the principles of the Greek language and represents the verna-
cular phonetic tendencies of this idiom. Hence we draw the conclusion
that a constant spelling with -ones ("omikron") points to the presence
of a Latin prototype, from which the letter "o" was mechanically inherited
instead of introducing the more vernacular Greek orthography with "omega".

As to the spellings -aou, -eou, etc., it might at the first sight seem
natural to regard these as indicating a Greek prototype, because no
distinction between -aou and -a?i, -eou and -eu existed in the Latin
alphabet. But although the Greeks possess the distinction, lacking in
the Latin alphabet, they practically do not use it within their own
"sphere of interest". Whereas the Romans, in spite of the want of distin-
guishing letters, seem to have actually observed the distinction in their
spoken language. This again must have been noticed by the Greek car-
tographer who transcribed the Roman maps in his own language. The pre-
sence of the distinction, therefore, seems to be a trace of Latin prototypes.

So much about the Latin marks generally. We shall now regard
their geographical distribution.

Britain: (H)orrea, Tarvedum, Verubium, Virvedrum.

Spain and Portugal: Aistuaria, 2 Lukos, Libunka, Konkana, Segis-
amonkulon; Lakippo, Baisippo, Akinippo, Oiasso, Asso, Mago, Ursone,
Sisapone, Alauona. (The correct Greek form is introduced into the
names of the important mercantile centres: Tarrakon, Barkinon, Oliosip-
pon = Tarragona, Barcelona, Lissabon.)

Gaul and Belgium : Agrippinensis (Latin adjective) ; Tungroi, Obrinkas
(Cod. Vatic. 191); Kessero, Karkaso; Kossion; (the correct Greek form
in the important name Narbon); Piktones, Senones, ((5)uessones, Redones,
Vaggiones, Loggones (all with "omikron"; no exceptions).

Cimbric Chersonese: Misreading Fundusioi for *Eudusioi (Eudoses
Tacitus); Saxones (beside Sigulones)-

Germany: appellative "Munition" and the identical Bunition (and
Uirition, again = Munition.?); termination -one, on(e) in Munition etc.,
Singone, Grauionarion (= Grinarione Tab. Peuting), Fleum, Semanus,
"town" Lugi-dunon = the tribe of Lugoi Dunoi. ; correcture "vari" above
Virunoi, mistaken by Ptolemy for Latin plural; Alkimoennis; Tenkeroi
(Vat. 191), Angrivarioi, Singone, Asanka (and LAKKOBARDOI <

Pannonia: Saldis (Latin dat. plur.), Akuminkon (two places), Akvinkon.

Illyria: Kurkum, Oouporum, Stulpi, Ausankalei.

46 Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe

Italy: Angulos, Anxana (Vat. 191).

Sarmatia: *Transmontanoi, Karpianoi (Latin termination); Piengitai.

Dacia: Salinai, Pirum, Angustia (misreading for Augusta), Sangidaua,

Moesia: Karsum, Singidunon.

Egypt: Karkum.

We have not registered the cases of the spellings -aou, -eou, because
they are too frequent; e. g. Treoua in N. Germany, Deouona in S. W.
Germany, Seouakes and Karaouagkas in Noricum, Noouai in Moesia.

As contrast to the Latin residuals, the Greek ones must be considered.
We shall name some instances.
/ Denomination Skythai (instead of the Latin correspondence Sarmatai).

Greek descriptive words: alsos (in Limios alsos).

Misreadings, pointing towards Greek types: ^uarinoi, ^uarpoi <
(9uarinoi, POYriK^IOI < POYriK^IOL

Constant spelling GG (not NG): Laggobardoi, Aggeiloi.

Constant spelling -ones (with "omega", not with "omikron"): Gythones.

Constant spelling -AU, -EU (not -AOU, -EOU): Nauaroi, Sauaroi,

Regarding the distinction of prototypes, most of these marks are not
so conclusive .as the Latin ones. For the introduction of Greek lexical
and orthographic emendations could be undertaken even at the very last
stage before the issue. Nevertheless, we may suppose that pure domi-
nation of Greek marks and absence of any Latin residuals will in most
cases point towards Greek prototypes.

From this presumption we may except the regions with predominating
Greek nationality and besides some important mercantile centres with
traditional Greek orthography. At such places, a Greek editor would
naturally efface any traces of Latin prototypes. As a matter of fact, the
toleration of Latin residuals within Greek domains is almost excluded
(solitary exception: Karkum in Egypt, Codex_ Urbinas 82, noticed by J.

The result of our observations is that the predominance of the La-
tinisms agres with the above-mentioned characteristics of Prot. A. We
stated above that the duplicates Teuton- Ouirinoi Karpianoi — Teutones
Auarpoi Harpioi mark a line of contact between the prototypes A and
F, at the same time forming the western frontier of the "ethno-topic
denomination", peculiar to the latter prototype. Exactly the same con-
trast appears through the linguistic criteria: on the one side we have
the Latin .correcture *"vari" above Ouirunoi, and the Latin termination
in Karpianoi, — on the other we have the Greek misreading Auarpoi
instead of Ouarinoi.


Various classes of evidences could scarcely support eachother in a
more satisfactory manner.

As we mentioned, it is of course not strictly necessary that all of the
Latinisms observed must originate from the collective prototype A]
several might have been introduced from local prototypes. We therefore
shall repeat the cases concerned, when commenting on those local proto-
types, which harmonize with the framework of A. But, taking it as a
whole, it can scarcely be doubted that the Latinisms are a practical
means of pointing out generally the sphere of Prot. A.

h. Literary Milieu.

In order to orientate the reader about the general milieu, we shall
give two chronological lists. The one contains a series of described
events, political or mercantile, which influenced the history of geography
in northern Europe before Ptolemy's times. The other contains the most
important geographical and historical publications before Ptolemy. We
include some works from the period after Ptolemy's death, because they
may reflect his sources.

List of political and mercantile events.
58 B. C. Caesar fights the Swabians and other Germans on both

sides of the Rhine, "Bell. Gall." I, IV, VI etc.

12 B.C. seq. Drusus and Tiberius begin the occupation of north-
western Germany. Vellejus II, 97, Dio Cassius LIV, 31.

c. 2 B. C. King Marbod of Bohemia establishes the great Swabian

Empire. Strabo VII, 290, Tacitus, "Ann." II, 45.

B. C. Domitius Ahenobarbus settles a flock of Hermundures

within a territory left vacant by Marbod's Marcomans.
Dio LV, 10. Firm mercantile relations between the
Romans and Hermundures are established, lasting for
more than a century. Tacitus, "Germania" ch. 41.

5 A. D. Tiberius camps on the border of the lower Elbe. The

Roman navy visits the Cimbric Chersonese. Augustus
"Monum. Ancyr.", Strabo VII, 293, Vellejus II, 106,
Pliny II, 167.

9 A. D. The Roman dominion over interior Germany is destroyed.

Vellejus II, 117, Dio LVI, 18.

17 A. D. King Marbod's great Swabian Empire breaks down.

Tacitus, "Ann." II, 44—46.

48 . Ptolemy's maps of northern Europe

21 A. D. seq. The Romans repeatedly interfere with the conflicts

of German tribes in Bohemia and Moravia. Tacitus,
"Ann." II, 63; XII, 29; "Germ." ch. 42.

47 A. D. After repeated campaigns in north-western Germany,

^ the Romans definitely give up the coast between

the Elbe and the Zuider Sea. Tacitus, "Ann."
XI, 20.

Betw. 54 & 68 A. D. A firm mercantile connection with the Prussian
Amber Coast is established. Pliny XXXVII, 45.

69 — 70 A. D. Rebellion of the Batavian chief Civilis against

Rome. Tacitus, "Historiae" IV, 12 seq.

c. 85 A. D. Masyos, king of the Semnones about the lower Elbe,

makes a voyage to Rome. Dio LXVII, 5.

c. 90 A. D. Establishment of the Roman Limes district between

the middle Rhine and upper Danube. Tacitus,
"Germ." ch. 36.

Shortly bef. 98 A. D. The Boructres in north-western Germany are de-
feated and "almost exterminated" by their neigh-
bours. Tacitus, "Germ." 36.

105 A. D. Trajanus conquers the Dacian regions south and

east of the Carpathian mountains.

Betw. 1 17 & 138 A. D. Hadrianus completes the fortification wall of the
Roman Limes district between the Rhine and the

166—180 A. D. The Romans are engaged in war with the nations

beyond the middle Danube, such as the Marcomans
in Bohemia and the Dacians in Poland. Dio LXXI
seq., Jul. Capitolinus XXII seq.

List of publications.
27 — 20 B. C. Agrippa, "Commentarii" ^).

7 B. C. Map of the world, made by order of Augustus

(Chorographia Augusti; lost).

before 14 A. D. Augustus, Monumentum Ancyranum.

^) Cf. MtiUenhoft", "Deutsche Altertumskunde", III, p. 212 seq.


c. 1 8 A. D. Strabo, Geographia.

29 A. D. Vellejus Paterculus, Historia Romana.

c. 40 or 50 A. D. Pomponius Mela, Chorographia.

']'] A. D. Plinius, Naturalis Historia.

97 A. D. Tacitus, Historiae.

98 A. D. — , Germania.
c. 115 A. D. — , Annaies.
c. 211 — 229 A. D. Die Cassius.

c. 286 — 305 A. D. Julius Capitolinus, Bellum Marcomannicum.
4th century A. D. Itinerarium Antonini.
4th — A. D. Tabula Peutingeriana.

At first sight, it may seem a difficult if not hopeless task to attempt
to make positive statements concerning the literary milieu of Prot. A.
For as long as the contents and limits of the prototype are not even
approximately pointed out, we have no firm base for making literary

This is true. Nevertheless, we^ may for argument's sake set forth
some provisional remarks.

It is natural to suppose that the original foundation of Prot. A was
the lost Chorographia Augusti, the Imperial Roman map of the world,
finished in the year 7 B. C. and later no doubt subjected to several

The Roman horizon towards the north was greatly enlarged through
the naval explorations along the German and Danish coasts in the year
5 A. D., and through the contemporary and subsequent undertakings in
interior Germany, military as well as mercantile. The last important in-
cidents of this epoch are: the intermeddling of Rome with the affairs of
Bohemians and Quades, about 21 — 50 A. D., and the establishment of
a firm mercantile connection with the Prussian amber coast, about 60 A. D.
The new discoveries were described in the local prototypes A, Aa, and
Bi, resp. a physical map of Germany, a map of the German and the
Danish coasts, and a map of the road to the amber coast, cf. §§ 19,
20, 23. They were indubitably introduced into the framework of the Im-
perial map of the world, in consequence of its repeated revisions. Corre-



spending literary milieus are represented by the geographers, Strabo,
Mela, Pliny, and Tacitus.

During the reign of Domitianus, (8i — 96), the corner of Germany
between the middle Rhine and upper Danube was transformed into a
Roman '^Limes district", and its frontier walls were completed under the
Emperors Trajanus and Hadrianus the latter of whom reigned since 1 1 5
A. D. In the year 105, Trajanus conquered the part of Dacia lying be-
tween the river Theiss and the Black Sea. Through these conquests, the
Roman Empire obtained its largest extension along the northern side of
the Danube. The cartographic results were the local prototypes Ab =
the Limes district, and Ac, Ad 81 Ae = Dacia.

These maps were also introduced into the framework of the collective
map. Their main contents were placed correctly, even if several details
were misinterpreted.

With the additions mentioned, Prot. A seems to have reached its
accomplishment. We have assumed above that the relative correct Ptol.
localisation of the prototypes Ad, Ac, Ad & Ae, etc. was due to another
cartographer than the one who introduced Prot. 32, C, D, and E in
the most confused manner. Besides, the linguistic marks of the more or
less correctly localised prototypes point towards Latin authorship, whereas
at least two of the displaced prototypes contain Greek marks.

Whereas the additions to the Augustean horizon are in previous lite-
rature only reflected by descriptive works, now at last the literary milieu
supplies a correspondence in cartographic form, viz. the Tabula Peutin-
geriana. It is a most prominent feature of this document that it contains
the Roman Limes district and Roman Dacia, thus representing the stand
of the Empire after the large conquests in the beginning of the second
century A. D. The existing edition of the Tabula, it is true, introduces
elements from a somewhat later epoch, — freshly formed German tribal
names such as Franks and Allemans, and numerous place-names betraying
the spreading of Roman nationality throughout Dacia; at the same time,
the entire Cimbric Chersonese and the greater number of details from
the lost Roman province in northern Germany have been left out, —
evidently because these regions had long since passed out of Rome's
practical sphere of interest. Nevertheless, the correspondence with our
assumed Ptolemaic Prot. A is unmistakable. We also notice that the
frontier wall of the Limes is traceable on the Tabula, as in A (= Ab\
and that the exact correspondence of the Dacian towns in both docu-
ments betrays that Prot. A contained the same road-system as the

Supposing that the author of the Tabula extracted Prot. A or a
closely related map, we should draw attention to a negative fact which
may perhaps be of some importance to our conclusions. The Tabula


contains no single trace of displacements corresponding to the Ptol.
localisation of the prototypes B2, C, D, and E, There is a most inti-
mate correspondence, it is true, between the Tabula and the displaced
Ptol. prototype C, but the names concerned on the Tabula all correctly
hold their place in Belgium, exactly as the corresponding section does
in the assumed Prot. A\ cf. e. g. the names Namnetes, Ratomagus,
Bagacum, and Asciburgium, appearing with relatively correct localisation
in Prot. A and on the Tabula, and with displacement in the Ptol. section
derived from Prot. C.

It must of course be admitted that the Tabula leaves out the larger
part of that area within which the Ptol. displacements occur. Con-
sequently, the negative evidence is not so valuable as it would have
been if the area concerned had been copiously represented. Nevertheless,
there are sufficient regions where displacements of the Ptolemaic sort
might have been expected: the *Redones from Rennes might have been
banished to the middle Loire, the *Namnetes from Nantes to the Seine;
*Langobardi might have occurred at the middle Rhine, *Usipii near the
Schwarzwald, *Chattuarii at the source of the Danube, etc. In our
opinion, it is not very likely that these and similar displacements should
have occurred in the source of the Tabula, and all have happened to be
eradicated by the author of this map, — quite accidentally. It is a far
more reasonable alternative to suppose that hardly any such displace-
ments occurred in the source, extracted by him. There is one exception,
it is true, but it only confirms the main rule. We have^ stated above
that the localisation of Prot, Ab, Ad & Ae within our assumable Prot. A
betrays some errors, e. g. Ad and Ae have been incorrectly combined.
It is all the more worth noticing that the section Dacia of the Tabula
contains exactly the same incorrect combination of the two prototypes

To sum up, we hold that the internal examination of Ptolemy's maps,
supplemented by the comparison with the Tabula Peutingeriana, seems
to point towards the existence of a collective prototype A as defined

The next question is: who was the author?

One chronological fact is evident: he must have been at work still
after 115 A. D., in order to introduce the Vallum Hadriani and the
established system of Roman roads in Dacia.

The observation would be conclusive as to the autorship, if we as-
sumed with A. Herrmann^) that the years about icx) A. D. were the
epoch when Marinus was composing his atlas. Then the author of Yxo\..A
would simply have been Marinus himself. In this case, the displaced

') "Zeitschrift des Vereins ftlr Erdkunde zu Berlin", 1915.



prototypes B2, C, D, and E, would most likely have been introduced by
his editorial heir, Ptolemy,

However, we see no strict necessity for placing the working of Ma-
rinus as early as 100—120 A. D. This date cannot be deduced from
the Ptolemaic preface which makes no mention of his lifetime. As Ptolemy
most probably lived to witness the beginning of the Marcomannian war,
166 A. D., nothing prevents us from placing the work of his predecessor
about 140.

Then the author of Prot. A would have been an anonymous carto-
grapher. He would most likely have been of Roman nationality, as the
area of Prot. A is so constantly characterized by Latin marks. His
anonymity cannot surprise us, as we ignore equally the author of the
Chorographia Augusti from the year 7 B. C. Perhaps, the author of
Prot. A was only a revisor who introduced the latest acquired local maps
into the otherwise ready-made collective map.

The subsequent development would be clear: Marinus would have
introduced the entire series of displaced maps, such as B2, C, D, and
E (perhaps also the correctly localised collective map F\ Ptolemy would
have added nothing, except those few Asiatic and African maps which
he enumerates in his preface, ch. XVIII.

Our assumption seems to agree with the literary portraits of Marinus
and Ptolemy, such as we may draw them on the base of the latter's
work. Marinus, according to Ptolemy, was a gatherer of material, whose
energy in collecting was enormous^ but whose power of criticism was
characterized as insufficient. Such qualities would correspond exactly to
the uncritical introduction of original maps, with absurd localisation,
evidently undertaken in order to fill out bare spots. Ptolemy, on the
other hand, according to his own words, has only contributed little to
the collection of fresh material. He puts the main stress on the astrono-
mical fixation of the localities, and on the elimination of antiquated de-
tails. He has, it is true, tolerated numerous inherited wrong represen-
tations, and he has not always been sufficiently strict in carrying out his
own critical principles. But it is easily understood that Ptolemy dared
not correct his renowned predecessor's maps of peripheral northern re-
gions which lay far beyond his own horizon. And the partial lack of
systematic strictness is no sufficient reason for assuming that a critical
author like Ptolemy would indulge in uncritical heaping of material,
directly against his own principles.

i. Examination of Details.

See the corresponding sections in the §§ dealing with the local pro-
totypes A, Aa, Ad, Ac, Ad, and Bi, of which A is composed.


j. Conclusion.

Owing to the provisional impossibility of examining the entire Ptole-
maic atlas, our preceding researches consist too much of guess-work.
Such "pioneering hypotheses" are, however, necessary. And the reader
need not fear that the guessing will prevail equally in the following
paragraphs, dealing with the local prototypes: here, the sphere of research
will be easier overlooked and penetrated.


a. Summary of Contents.
Prot. A is an oro- and hydrographic map of Germany. It contains
the most detailed description of German mountains, known in classical
times; the rivers are represented with less detail. Latin language of
editing. Affinities with authors of the first century A. D., such as

1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Online LibraryGudmund SchüttePtolemy's maps of northern Europe, a reconstruction of the prototypes → online text (page 6 of 17)