File talk:Roman Empire 125.png

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Fenni[edit]

The Fenni are typically considered to be what are now known as Finns. Tacitus describes them to live beyond a sea, thus the only logical place for me would be in Southern Finland (which would be logical), not some other places. Definately not Poland! It is uncertain if the Fenni where Finns as we know them now, or perhaps hunter-gathering Sami people or something else, but they most definately lived in Finland, not in Poland. Also other things which was described about them (exteme poverty, strange conditions and habits) would be in line with being located in very remote Finland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.74.238 (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dacians as Slavs, Costoboci uncertain?[edit]

Dacians are marked with the same color as Slavs which is completely incorrect and unfortunate. While Costoboci and Carpi, considered by most historians as Dacian, are in a blue/uncertain color. While Bastarnae who are a Celtic-Germanic mix with possible Dacian elements is marked as Germanic for sure. This is raising serious questions about the map and its neutrality. I suggest at least a distinct Dacian color and section in the legend. See also similar map: commons:File:Roman Empire 125.png --Codrin.B (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Roman_Empire#Dacians as Slavs, Costoboci uncertain on the Roman Empire Map?--Codrin.B (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response (by User EraNavigator, responsible for advising on the map's content):
Firstly, the map does not purport to describe the ethnic or cultural attributes of the barbarian peoples. It simply indicates, using the best available evidence, to which broad linguistic group of the Indo-European family of languages the tongue of each people is likely to have belonged to. So the map does not claim that the Dacians were ethnic "Slavs": simply that the ancient Dacian language probably belonged to the Balto-Slavic grouping of languages. Please note the word "probable": this does not mean "certain": in fact, there is no certainty about any of these linguistic affiliations, just shades of probability. Where the available evidence does not support even probability, the affiliation is entered as "uncertain"
Supporting references are as follows:
  • Probable Germanic affiliation of BASTARNAE: TACITUS (ca, AD 100): Germania 46
  • Probable Balto-Slavic affiliation of Dacian: DURIDANOV, Ivan (1969) Die Thrakisch- und Dakisch-Baltischen Beziehungen (some online samples of Duridanov's work: http://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/thrac_9.html and http://groznijat.tripod.com/thrac/index.html)
  • Uncertain classification of COSTOBOCI: Cambridge Ancient History 2nd ed Vol XI (2000) p. 171
  • Uncertain classification of CARPI: Cambridge Ancient History 2nd Ed Vol XII (2005)
EraNavigator (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probable Balto-Slavic affiliation of Dacian: H. Krahe, Baltico-Illyrica. - "Festschrift für M. Vasmer..." Wiesbaden, 1956, p. 245.
  • Probable Balto-Slavic affiliation of Dacian: T. Sulimirski, "Ancient Southern Neighbours of the Baltic Tribes", Acta Baltico-Slavica, Bialystok, 1967, p. 6-17.
  • Probable Balto-Slavic affiliation of Dacian: Dr. Harvey E. Mayer, Lituanus, Volume 42, No.2 - Summer 1996 (http://www.lituanus.org/1996/96_2_06.htm)
Andrei (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know that there are sources that classify them differently, correct? Secondly, if you look at the articles using the map, they have nothing to do with linguistics but with political/ethnic/military groups and subjects. So you either remove this linguistics map from those articles or create a separate linguistics map for your theories and leave this one for political groupings. Too many things are mixed. Andrei suggested that we discussed on commons, so let's not talk in too many places. --Codrin.B (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tacitus is not a reliable source, per WP:RS ("When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.")
  • Duridanov does not claim Dacian is a Balto-Slavic language.
In your links you can read his conclusion: "in earlier times – probably in the III-th millennium BC, and before the realisation of the aforementioned sound shifts, – the Thracian language formed a close group with the Baltic (resp. Balto-Slavic), the Dacian and the 'Pelasgian' languages. More distant were its relations with the other Indo-European languages, and especially with Greek, the Italic and Celtic languages, which exhibit only isolated phonetic similarities with Thracian; the Tokharian and the Hittite were also distant." - in 3rd millenium BC Thracian, Dacian and "Pelasgian" (a pre-Greek Indo-European language) were closely related ("formed a close group") with Baltic (Balto-Slavic). However they were not Balto-Slavic languages.
  • CAH XII p. 215 (map) shows CARPI/DACI. therefore your map fails to follow this reference. Keep looking ;)Daizus (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dacian as Balto-Slavic is so far WP:OR (that's quite clear in the case of Duridanov and Mayer where you provided links that do not support your interpretation, and Mayer does not even qualify for a reliable source)
Do you really believe your "sources" are not verified? Daizus (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But they all say Dacian had certain affinities with the Baltic languages and this is more than enough for marking the Dacians as probably belonging to the Balto-Slavic linguistic group.
Andrei (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't - that's your original research. It is one thing to belong to a group, it's an entirely different thing to be related to that group. There are certain affinities between Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages or Germanic and Celtic languages, as well ( [1] ) and between many other languages and groups, yes so? If you don't know anything about linguistics, why do you even argue? Daizus (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing which says a lot about you and your research. They do not all say "Dacian had certain affinities with the Baltic languages ". Krahe's paper is about relations between Illyrian and Baltic languages ([2]). The truth is you haven't read that paper at all, but most probably you just copied the two references from this site. Daizus (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I argue for fun. I like to see how people react to what you call 'original research'. I support both Hamp's suggested links between Albanian and the Baltic languages and Duridanov's proven Dacian-Baltic connection. Of course this does not imply that Dacians were Balts or Slavs, we cannot talk about such ethnic identities in the 2nd century AD.

Yes you are right. I copied the references from the site you mentioned. Big deal. But if Illyrian had a 'privileged relation' with the Baltic languages than they might have formed a linguistic continuum together with the Thracians, Dacians and the Venedi and I'm not referring to the IE connection. For me the probable Balto-Slavic linguistic affiliation of the Daci has enough reasons in order to be present on the map.

Andrei (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Andrei, you argue here to push your own theories (or Era's). For a while I thought you care about facts, but in the end you just want to push a certain view, as you admitted in the discussions with your friend. You insult users who don't agree with you, you falsify evidence and references and you create content you know it's not reliable to promote these theories of yours. Here's one article I guess you haven't read: WP:OR
  • Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.
  • Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research.
  • Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source.
  • Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. Daizus (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it's fun to push my own theories when I see how much opposition they meet from people like you and Codrin. Of course I could surrender to your arguments but that would just end our battle and it will take some time to find some other pioneering theories to fight for. What facts are you talking about when we know so little about the Dacian language and based on what we know people like Duridanov have argued that a Dacian-Baltic connection existed beyond the obvious links shared by the IE languages. You should accuse Duridanov, Harvey Mayer or E. Hamp of doing original research, not me. I wish you good luck!

Andrei (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. They are scholars, you are not. You're supposed to create neutral content reflecting reliable and scholarly views. You are not. I only demand some neutral and sourced content, and apparently you're unable to provide it.
The theory of a Dacian-Baltic link is one thing, the Dacian as Balto-Slavic language is a different thing. Daizus (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that it would indeed be a stretch to label Dacians Balto-Slavic. Dazius, u have issues with a Balto-Slavic subgroup - most linguists do support it. ALthough, as ALexander SChenker said - the debate is really a matter of terminology, and one cannot seperate 'genetic' relatedness from ongoing secondary convergences. We no direct evidence as to what language the Aesti or Veneti spoke. However, most scholars have presumed that they spoke some form of Balto-Slavic. THis is not unreasnoable assumption, although admittedly not based on real proof. Ofcourse I am aware of Cruta's critique of JOrdanes, however you should also read Heather's rebuttle on this issue. Nevertheless, I accept that the Venethic were not "Slavs" , but this does not reule out that they might have spoken what I;d term as some kind of para-Balto-SLavic language. Because the linguistic nature of Basternae is also based from the word Basternae and none else.

Even grroups which have not been disputed to be Germanic , eg Hermanduri - how do we know what they actually spoke ?

If Andrei wants to leave Aesti & Veneti as Balto-Slavic, that;s fine, but he would have to source that back to a modern author, not Tacitus, becuase he had no knowledge of Balto-Slavic. But, Carpi and Costoboci would also have to be left as unknown

Otherwise, if this is going to be an ongoing problem, then (as I said) forego all the labelling, and have the barbarian tribes one colour

Hxseek (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have issues with Balto-Slavic group as a linguistic construct. It's valid and mainstream. However not all tribe-language associations on this map are mainstream, some are cherry-picked (see below on Carpi) and in some cases are not supported at all (Dacian as a Balto-Slavic language).
Most linguists/slavists (Z. Gołąb, H. Lunt, H. Birnbaum and many others) argued Common Slavic was a language with virtually no dialects, therefore the search for a Slavic Urheimat was usually the search for a region not too vast, such as the Pripet marshes (in today Belarus and Ukraine) and there were other proposals as well (in Pannonia, for example). A similar logic applies to Baltic group and many other similar cases of prehistoric languages. Following this beautiful essay by Don Ringe, in prehistoric Eastern Europe many different languages (probably also belonging to different groups and families) must have been spoken. The pre-IE languages were apparently even more diverse, and there's no evidence at all the barbarian Europe was entirely IE-speaking by AD 125. Celtic and Germanic languages might have been somewhat more widely spoken because of a combination of military, economic and social factors, not necessarily sheer numbers of (initial) speakers. Daizus (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see now the examples from this discussion.
CAH (one of the sources for this map) has Costoboci of uncertain origin, while showing a CARPI/DACI tribe attacking Dacia from east (in volume XII, p. 215). Peter Heather (mentioned by you) also believes Carpi are Dacians ( [3]) and so do many other scholars. I haven't really researched this extensively, but it seems that Carpi as a Dacian tribe is a mainstream position held by many authors today (probably using Zosimus and other circumstantial evidence). I agree with you this map is better without linguistic speculations. However the problem is: some of the scholars arguing the Veneti are Slavs, they also might argue (based on similar evidence and interpretations) the Carpi are Dacians. To use a source to show the Veneti are Slavs, but not also that Carpi are Dacians (because we don't like this second conclusion) is also original research.
You say no one would dispute Hermunduri are Germanic speakers. I'm not so sure about that. In Barbarian Tides (especially in chapter 7, "None of them were Germans"), Walter Goffart shows tribal groups such as Sciri and Herules were not Germans (in identity). After we deconstruct the literary sources, there are no reasons whatsoever to assume these Iron-Age tribes were all Germanic speakers (some were, some may have been not, and how can we know?). And Goffart is not alone in his skepticism.
As for Veneti (or Venedi), I'm not sure how many scholars would actually have them Slavs (or proto-Slavs, or whatever). Gołąb suggested they were not Slavs, but speakers of another Indo-European (but centum) language. As you noted, also Florin Curta denies their link with the Slavs. I don't know Heather's rebuttal, but I do know Heather's reading of Getica was both praised and criticized. Florin Curta's treatment of Jordanes is in full agreement with most studies today on Jordanes (Arne Søby Christensen with Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths, the chapters Goffart has on Jordanes in The Narrators of Barbarian History and in The Barbarian Tides, Andrew Merrils' "Jordanes" in History and Geography in Late Antiquity, etc - few would take Jordanes' ethnography at face value). Following our previous discussion, here's Guy Halsall on Peter Heather's reading of Getica ("Movers and Shakers" in Thomas Noble's From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms)
[Heather's] analysis irreparably damages the Getica's value for Gothic 'prehistory' yet, to reinstate the Gothic migration from the Baltic, he has to accept the value of at least a kernel of Jordanes' account; he accepts this on the basis of a reading of archaeological data which is itself driven by the uncritical 'pre-Heatherian' interpretation of Jordanes.
and
Heather refutes the idea of the Traditionskern, the core of tradition, 'borne' by a small, royal and aristocratic nucleus within the larger 'ethnic' group: myths which unified a greater body, composed of people of diverse origins. His work on Jordanes, mentined above, demolished the idea that such authentic bodies of tradition existed, and showed that the claims to long-standing Balt or Amal ruleships were so much fifth- or sixty-century eyewash. However, Heather deploys this refutation of the Traditionskern to argue that Gothic identity was not restricted to a small core but was widespread among a large body of freement. Surely this does not follow. Surely what his earlier, brilliant, analyses of Jordanes show is that even at the very political core of the Goths, Gothic tradition was malleable, and situationally-constructed Gothic identity 'up for the grabs'. The ineluctable lesson is not that access to 'genuine' Gothic tradition and identity was common but that it did not exist anywhere; Heather is hoist with his own scholarly petard.
My guess is Heather 'needs' the Veneti/Venedi and other populations there to secure and explain the Gothic migrations from the Baltic. But the truth is once Getica is no source for anything earlier than 5th century, we're left with less evidence to link the Veneti/Venedi to Sclavenes (Slavs). Daizus (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and what 'para-Balto-Slavic' means? :) Daizus (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I totaly agree with your first paragraph.

I also agree with your second point, for consistency and 'fairness', if we keep Venedi as Slavic, then Carpi be Dacians, given that mainstream scholarship consider them as such, respectively, despite doubts and criticisms.

For the side issue of Hermanduri - I said what you did - there is not any evidence that they actually spoke Germanic, incl Sciri, etc. I totally agree about Celtic and Germanic (and I add Slavic, later) spreading as languages of merceneries, traders, etc along the periphery of the 'civilized' Meditteranean world (in fact I am in the process of writing a peper on the appearance of GErmanic in central Europe). It is, however, interesting that all these spreading, 'warrior' languages (if we also include Scythian/ Sarmatian) were Indo-European ! !

Lastly, I also agree that Heather's position on Veneti/ Slavs (in his latest 2010 book - which he wrote some 50 page chapter on Slavs) obviously has something to do with his position on Goths and their supposed Baltic origins based on Getica.

A para-language is a concept I borrowed from David Anthony (The Horse , the wheel...). A "para"-language is one which is related to another langauge or langauge group, but not quite part of it, nor directly before it (as in a pre-language). Illustrative point: He sees Anatolian as para-Indo-European, not quite Indo-European becuase of some distinctive differences. I used it in regard to Baltic becuase, as you're probably aware, Balticists and linguists in general suppose a large Baltic Urheimat stretching from Berlin to the Volga before the Slavic and Germanic expansions in historic times, based on river names. I think this is a stretch to call it all "Baltic", becasue we have no idea exaclty what those langauges' relation would have been to historically attested Baltic. In any case, Baltic languages are so heterogeneous that East and West Baltic are no closer to each other than to SLavic. This fits with the archaeological picture of these remote 'forest peoples' who had a rather parochial existence, facilitating relatively adnvaced dialectical divergences Hxseek (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hxseek (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this nice discussion to my talk-page :) See you there! Daizus (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to accept the point of view shared by Daizus and Hxseek. I simply cannot make the Dacians Balto-Slavic because of lack of current evidence in support of this theory. I am more of a cartographer and I must admit that I don't have the patience to read more than 5 or 6 history books/year. I trust what more documented users like you say and I am sorry I prolonged this debate more than it was necessary.

However we still haven't reached a consensus regarding the Bastarnae and the Balto-Slavic linguistic group. I am eager to hear your conclusions.

Andrei (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unhistorical coast lines[edit]

It should be noted that the coast lines shown on this image are those of today, especially around the North Sea and the English Channel they are known to be quite a bit different from those of Antiquity. -- 77.7.145.127 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some Errors[edit]

Serdica was part of Thracia since the creation of this province in 46 AD. In addition the metropolis of Thracia was Phillippopolis, which is missing from the map. --Avidius (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isca Silurum[edit]

Should that actually say Isca Augusta? The wiki page for Isca Silurum is a redirect and the Isca Augusta page that is the target of the redirection says that there is no evidence that the place was called Isca Silurum in Roman Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.22.169.133 (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Roman_Empire_125.png&oldid=1077473418"