View Diagrams  Download Paper  Download Images 

Within my previous texts CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4 and CgMt1 and CgMt2 I discuss the complete works of Marinus the Tyrian and Claudius Ptolemy. These texts were written in 2009 and 2010 and within them I noted that the Mediterranean Sea from Calpe to Issus, 62 degrees, with a length of either 62 x 404 or 62 x 400, that is 25408 or 24800 Stades, but that the actual length of the Mediterranean Sea as given could be expressed as c41.5 degrees x 600 Stades = 24900 Stades, with the 600 Stades being the latitudinal measure, but more importantly the longitudinal measure of a degree at the Equator.
I concluded that Marinus/Ptolemy by using a latitudinal degree of 500 Stades x 185m required to extend the longitude to facilitate the coastlines, particularly the northern littoral correctly and could only achieve this by extending the longitude. I showed conclusively it was not a progressive expansion but rather varied by the amount of east/west littoral it was necessary to accommodate. The basic north/south littorals had little consequential effect on the longitude.


Those papers written in 2009/2010 have been read by many persons both from my website and Academia page, but it has not affected the volume of purely mathematical base papers endeavouring to explain the longitude by the ever increasing numbers of formulae, instead of returning to the basics of cartography. Draw the map and understand how the construction parameters force unfortunate decisions upon the cartographer particularly when the basic data, the latitudinal degree length that was chosen is wrong. More importantly it was not even challenged by these authors. Thus the map produced becomes a fanciful depiction, when it could be correctly drawn given that basic latitudes of Poleis are correct numerically. Thus I set down the cartographic answer to the problem which the mathematically formulaic based papers fail to do, the expansion from 41.483 to 62 degrees.

Claudius Ptolemy in Book 1, chapter 11 of Geographike Hyphegesis, entitles it; “On the computations that Marinus improperly made for the longitudinal dimensions of the oikoumene” , and states the following;
“Furthermore, (he has taken into account) the fact that one degree of the earth- in accordance with the surface measurements that are generally agreed upon- while an arc similar to (one degree of the Equator) on the parallel through Rhodes, (that is , the parallel 36 from the Equator) contains approximately 400 Stades. (We may ignore, in such a rough determination, the slight excess over (400) that follows from the (exact) ratio of the parallels.”

Note; Ptolemy gives the exact ratio as 93/115, which is the cosine for 36.03 degrees (0.808696) and thus a longitudinal degree would be 404.348 (404 8/23) and in all probability noted as 404 1/3 Stades for mathematical calculations on the abacus. Is this a slight excess?


At the end of Book 1, chapter 12, Ptolemy writes;
“And according to Marinos, on the basis of the individual numbers of stades that he assumes, and reckoning as on the same parallel, the distance from the meridian through the Isles of the Blest to the Sacred Cape of Spain amounts to 2 ½ degrees; that from thence to the mouth of the Baetis, and from the Baetis to the Straits and Calpe each amounts to 2 ½ degrees. And, of the following (intervals) that from the Straits to Caralis in Sardinia amounts to 25 degrees, that from Caralis to Lilybaeum in Sicily to 4 ½ degrees, that from thence to Pachynus to 3 degrees, and next that from Pachynus to Taernus in Lakonia to 10 degrees, that from thence to Rhodes 8 ¼ degrees, that from Rhodes to Issus, 11 ¼ degrees, that from Issus to (Hieropolis) on the Euphrates to 2 ½ degrees. Thus the sum of this distance is 72 degrees.”
If the map of the Mediterranean Sea by Ptolemy is studied the parallel of 36N is utilised from Calpe to Issus as follows; Caralis, 32 30E, 36N; Lilybaeum, 37E, 36N; Pachynus 40E, 36 20N, but Taernus is 50E, 34 20N (or 34 35N) {and is therefore more likely to have been mixed up with Scyllaem Prom at 52 30E, 36 05N}; Rhodes is 58 40E, 36N and Issus is 69 30E, 36 10N. Thus we have the 62 degrees from Calpe to Issus defined.
However, if you wish to set out this map, the Latitudes of the major identifying towns/features must be taken into account. They are in many instances numerically correct and are thus squeezed into a reduced world circumference. The appendix list those used.


Gnomons; the latitudes are considerably easier to ascertain as accurate when determining the base poleis of a map, as the Roman Empire normally erected a gnomon in each poleis to regulate the hours. But of course the equinoctial days produced a shadow length which when compared to the height of the gnomon produced the latitude ratio for the poleis position. Both Pliny, see my texts CgPl/1 and CgPl/2 and Vitruvius, texts CgVt/1 and CgVt/2 state that the Gnomon ratio for Rome was 9:8 and thus is 41 39N degrees latitude. Claudius Ptolemy states 41 54N and 12 30E.
Vitruvius, Book 9, chapter 7, Making the Analemma, states the following;

Rome, 9:8 = 41.63N and Geog = 41.67N. Ptolemy = 41.9N
Athens, 4:3 = 36.87N and Geog = 37.97N, Ptolemy = 37.25N
Rhodes, 7:5 = 35.54N and Geog = 36.00N, Ptolemy = 36N
Tarentum, 11:9 = 39.29N and Geog = 40.5N, Ptolemy = 40N
Alexandria, 5:3 = 30.964N and Geog = 31.217N, Ptolemy = 31N

The Analemma is of course the means to determine the hours, latitudes, sunrise and the length of the day to determine the Roman daytime hours.
Thus we must ask the question of Ptolemy; if the latitudes were well known and tabulated, and hence the distances latitudinally between the poleis known, why was the 500 stadia degree accepted by you?
The knowledge was universal in the Roman World and Alexandria was supposedly the major poleis in that world concerning knowledge of that time. Did Claudius Ptolemy live in a bubble without Roman data? Why are the Poleis of the N African littoral so geographically wrong? It is as if CP has totally ignored the Gnomon ratios for these major poleis situate along the coast! Thus we see the first of many deceptions in his layout.

If you have a real world measure per degree latitude of 600 stades and reduce it to 500 stades, it is the same as compressing a balloon; the N/S reduces and the E/W expands. But of course if the geographical profile of the Mediterranean Sea was to be drawn on the balloon, when compressed the countries which have a basic N/S alignment would clash with the limiting coast of N Africa, and those coastlines would no longer be the correct geographical length.
Hence, if you wish to reduce the geographical size of the Earth’s sphere by 6:5 ratio and maintain the correct, or as near correct as practical coastal lengths then the N/S aligned counties such as Italy will require slewing eastwards and the whole Mediterranean Sea length increased to accommodate that coastline. Eastward slewing because of the fixed Pillars!
Why is this correct? Marinus the Tyrian and Claudius Ptolemy have used correct or near correct latitudes numerically for the major poleis of the Mediterranean Sea and hence the only solution to maintaining the coastal length is to slew the coastal form eastwards from the limiting position of the Pillars of Herakles, Calpe and Abila which must align (nearly).
Thus there is only that single parameter for setting out the new profile squeezed into the reduced latitudinal measure of 500 stades in a longitudinal direction.
Now we arrive at the next parameter, the coastline of Northern Mediterranean shores from Iberia to Turkey and the Levant, and of course, it is far longer than the N African coastline which must be sacrificed to ensure the northern coastline is correct, or as near as possible.
The coastal lengths are as follows; Spain, from Calpe to the Pyrenees, geog = 7300 stades, CP = 8740 stades. France etc from the Pyrenees to Genoa, geog = 4260, but CP = 4320 stades. Italy from Genoa to Rhegium, geog = 6825 but CP = 5570 stades.
But Genoa is geog 44 24N with CP = 42 50N and hence if we extend Italy by 1.567 x 500 = 783 stades, we have 783 + 5570 = 6353 stades to the geog length of 6825 stades. This though would also mean the France measurement extending by 2150 stades and thus becomes 5370 stades as opposed to the geog 4260 stades measure. However it must be clearly stated that this is a northwards movement of Genoa and thus would not affect the overall longitudinal measurement. Are we thus witnessing a decision by Marinos/Ptolemy that they realised the east/west was paramount and sacrificed the north/south distances?

Given that Marinos and Ptolemy knew the correct numerical coordinates for the major poleis around the Mediterranean Sea, we can use those to indicate the movement that is induced into the map by the usage of 500 stades per degree. The three diagrams use a simple measurement to indicate the differences and the growing expansion as the whole Mediterranean Sea is elongated to ensure the coastline of the northern littoral is drawn similar to its geographical length. Although, as has just been illustrated the coastline expansion is a variable feast it is also quite obvious the reason for the expansion longitudinally. The three diagrams are set out from the 36N parallel just as the original maps by Marinus and Ptolemy were. Thus we can immediately see by the movements indicated how the northern littoral affected the decision on the overall length of the Mediterranean Sea.




If we accept that the northern coastline is paramount, as is so obvious from the actual maps and their coordinates given, then that could have led to an exponential length of the Mediterranean Sea if in fact the whole coastline was used rather than a practical decision upon what constitutes longitudinal measure. There are northern shore climactics which can easily be seen from the maps. From Calpe the first is the Pyrenees, then the Gulf of Genoa, the Toe of Italy and then the Peloponnese and then to Turkey and the Cnidus Peninsula and on to Issus. Set these out correctly length by length and a framework for a new map becomes available.
Why, because practically all other distances are N/S as already noted and need not affect the longitudinal measurement. They can be realistic or falsified to suit the coastline length, but the major points, some as Book 1, chapter 12 are crucial to the overall length of the Mediterranean Sea to enable a maps construction.
Thus if we compare these, Geographical to Ptolemaic we can immediately understand the expansion. Simplified it is;
Calpe to Rhegium
geog. 5 24W to 15 38E = 21.033 x 485 = 10200 stades
CP. 7 30E to 39 50 E = 32.333 x 404 = 13060 stades. Expansion is 1.28
Rhegium to Taernus
geog. 15 38E to 22 28E = 6.84 x 485 = 3317 stades
CP. 39 50E to 50 00E = 10.167 x 404 = 4108 stades. Expansion is 1.238
Taernus to Cnidus
geog. 22 28 E to 27.22E = 4.897 x 485 = 2375 stades
CP. 50 00E to 56 15E = 6.25 x 404 = 2525 stades. Expansion is 1.063



But alternatively to illustrate the expansion northward is not decisive in the longitudinal planning we have the following measures:
Rhegium to Athens
geog. 15 38E to 23 46E = 8.134 x 485 = 3945 stades
CP. 29 50E to 52 45E = 12.917 x 404 = 5220 stades. Expansion is 1.323
Athens to Cnidus
geog. 23 46E to 27 22E = 3.6 x 485 = 1750 stades
CP. 56 15E to 69 20E = 3.8 x 404 = 1535 stades. REDUCTION is 0.877.
Cnidus to Issus
geog. 27 22E to 36 07E = 8.784 x 485 = 4260 stades
CP. 56 15E to 69 20E = 13.083 x 404 = 5285 stades. Expansion is 1.241
But Calpe to Alexander in Issus, the extent discussed is as follows;
geog. 5 24W to 36 05E = 41.45 x 485 = 20100
CP. 7 30E to 69 30E = 62 x 404 = 25048. Expansion is 1.246
However now we must discuss the overall length of 62 degrees at 404 stades per degree, which equals 25048 stades. An intriguing possibility arises from the natural mathematics of the Mediterranean Sea. Thus we have 25048 divided by the actual longitude of c41.45 and the resultant is a longitude of 604.29 per degree. But if we use Ptolemy’s suggested measure of 400 stadia per degree we have 62 x 400 = 24800 divided by c41.45 = 598.31 stades. Hence it is a simple hypothesis to opine that Marinos/Claudius Ptolemy limited the length of the Mediterranean Sea to suit its geographical longitude at the Equator, and thus c41.45 x 600 = 24870 stades or 401.129 per degree for 62 degrees. Is this the slight excess?
The question to be posited is obviously; did Ptolemy know the actual geographical degree as 600 stades or 75 mpm and thus found he was unable to re-compute the longitudes correctly as he was in fact just copying the map of Marinos the Tyrian. If we continue this discourse and now include the North African coastline then it becomes so very apparent that he has worked the northern littoral to fit the 62 degrees and then reversed the process for the southern littoral.
Study the Levant coastline from Issus to Gaza. It is Geog. Issus 36 10E / 35 37N; Gaza, 34 28E / 31 30N and thus they are 5.116 degrees or 3070 stades N/S and 1.693 degrees or 824 stades E/W giving a direct distance of 3178 stades. But using the Ptolemaic units we have; Issus 36 10N / 69 30E with Gaza 31 30N and 64 45E and thus the N/S distance is 4.667 x 500 = 2333 stades and the E/W distance is 4.75 x 415 = 1969 stades, and a direct distance of 3052 stades which we may consider basically a correct slewed distance to fit the reduced latitudinal spread. But the coastline changes from a basic bearing of N15E to N40E, a monstrous change which no mariner or geographer of the age would have accepted.
Following on from that, Gaza to Alexandria is noted by CP as 1820 stades with the co-ordinates used , latitudes 31 30N and 31 00N and with longitudes 64 45E and 60 30E, and is thus longitude 4.25 degrees x 428.6 = 1820 stades. But Geographically it is latitude Gaza 31 30N with Alexandria at 31 13N and longitudinally 34 28E and 29 55E, giving 4.55 degrees longitude, virtually the same as CP but of course it is in fact 4.55 x 514.3 = 2340 stades and a reduction by CP in the distance therefore to 78%.


This sudden reduction in the Ptolemaic/geographic longitudinal distance can be shown to exist from Leptis Magna to Gaza; Leptis/Cyrene = CP 3392/geog 3877; Cyrene/Alexandria, CP 4549/geog 4532 and Alexandria to Gaza, CP 1836/geog 2315. Thus we have totals, CP 9777 and geog 10724 stades and a reduction to 91%.
The opposing north coastal points, Rhegium/Taernus/Antalya/Issus total CP = 4355 + 5032 + 2934 = 12321 stades where as the geog distances are, 3381 + 4026 + 2635 = 10042 stadia and an expansion of 1.227.
There is no reason for the reduction as shown; the N African coast line from Abila to Gaza is 7 50E/35 40N to 64 45E/31 30N, with a direct distance at 36N of 56.917 x 404 = 22994 stades , where as it is geographically only 37.767 x 485 = 19287 stades, a 1.192 expansion, some 3700 stades extra. In other words the N African coastline is a complete falsehood which need not have been so visually awry and could have merely stretched the simple coastlines to suit the northern littoral length required, whilst maintaining the profile.



The knowledge of the actual latitudinal measure could be easily discovered in the Tunisian/African Roman province, precisely where the Roman Geometres through their land surveying for the massive centuriation project that took place there. They confirmed the degree of latitude as 75 mpm of 8 stades thus the degree was known as 600 stades of 0.185Km. Study the landscape from Sousse/Hadrumetum to Sfax/Taphura and Thaenae. The direct route by Roman Road is Sousse/El Djem/Sfax, which is from 35 50N to 34 49N and thence to Thaenae at 34 41N, a total of 690 stades.
CP notes that Hadrumetum Colonia is situate 32 40N and Thaenae is 31 40N, a perfect degree of latitude. But of course Marinos/CP have slewed the coast from 36 40E to 38 30E, 778 stades with thus a direct distance of 925 stades. Even the Roman Road from Hadrumetum via Leptis Magna, Tusdro Colonia, Usula Civitas to Thenis Colonia only totals 111mpm or 888 stades.
Therefore we must assume that as no knowledgeable person of that era be it a sailor or traveller would contemplate the coastline being shown as a basic 57/33 degree angle, that is from Sousse SEbyE instead of a basic south bearing, then we can safely assume the works of Marinos and the CP were unknown or not shown to educated Romans. Neither was the work of Marinos or CP compared to the extant data the Roman State had in its archives apropos the route mileages. Alexandria was not a backwater in the Roman Empire and thus there is all the more reason to consider that Marinos and CP worked in a vacuum of their own using outdated material.

Can that be proven?
If we study the geographical alignment of 9 00E geog, from Genoa through Corsica/Sardinia to N Africa at Annaba, it is a simple exercise to co-relate the two distance measures CP/geog.
Genoa; Corsica; Sardinia; Hippo Regio; Thabraca Colonia.

Marinos/Ptolemy Geographical
Genoa; 42 50N/30 00E Genoa; 44 24N/8 56E
Corsica N; 41 35N/31 20E Corsica N; 43 00N/9 24E
Corsica S; 39 10N/31 00E Corsica S; 41 23N/ 9 10E
Sardinia N; 39 20N/31 30E Sardinia N; 41 15N/9 12E
Sardinia S; 35 55N/32 00E Sardinia S; 39 08N/9 29E
Africa HR; 32 15N/30 20E Africa HR; 36 50N 7 46E
Africa T; 32 20N/31 15E Africa T; 36 55N/8 45E

Thus calculating the overall distances first, we have;
Mt/CP = 42 50N to 32 20N = 10.5 x 500 = 5250 stades
Geog = 44 24N to 36 55N = 7.48 x 600 = 4490 stades, and thus an expansion of 1.169
Individually, Corsica is CP/1208 stades and Geog/970 stades, with expansion 1.245
Sardinia is CP/1708 stades and Geog/1272 stades with expansion 1.343
Africa from Sardinia is CP/1792 stades and Geog/1328 stades with expansion 1.349.
But if we return to the CP overall distance from Genoa to Thabraca, 5250 stades, which geographically is 7.483 degrees we have a simple latitudinal degree of 701.56 stadia.


Thus, step forward Eratosthenes with the latitudinal degree of 700 stades x 157.5m equalling approximately 600 x 185m, and being 110.25Km against 111Km geographical.
Therefore we may assume that the distance measures of Marinos/CP along the geog 9 00E longitude were taken as standard stades and divided by 500 to provide the latitudinal definition for these Poleis. From this simple error we have total distortion of the N African coastal form by a southerly tilt being induced instead of the contrary northerly tilt from Abila to Cape Bon. Another test may be made at a Marseille/Skikda (Rusicada) alignment. Geographically it is from, 43 18N/5 22E to 36 50N/6 58E and thus 3880 stades N/S, or 3955 direct. CP has 43 05N/24 30E to 32 30N/27 45E and is thus 5291 stades N/S or 5467 direct. Geographically it is 6.467 degrees and this would provide a latitudinal degree of 818 stades. If CP had used 700 stades then Skikda would be over 1 degree further north, but he has positioned it latitudinally as per Thabraca (geog 36 55N) at 32 20N.
Thus I can opine that Marinos and CP knew the relative latitudes of some N African Poleis but chose to completely ignore reality. They must have had the gnomon ratios!


Marinos the Tyrian put together a jumble of cartographic detail to set down his vision of the oikoumene. Where he obtained the latitudinal degree from of 500 stades (supposedly 185m each) is unknown, but, CP accepted the measure without any attempt to prove it.
The words used are, “Furthermore, [he has taken into account] the fact that one degree (of such as the great circle is 360) contains 500 stades on the surface of the earth – in accordance with the surface measurements that are generally agreed upon – …”
Naturally, if Marinos distance of 500 stades were geographically correct then the stade would be 222 metres and thus 450 Assyrian Cubits or 600 Egyptian Remen of 0.3704m. Curiously that would mean the 600 stadia degree of 75mpm is therefore 600 x 600 or 360,000 Remen. Eratosthenes 157.5m stade is 300 Royal Cubits of 0.525m, but the whole saga becomes a mathematical minefield open to all to interpret. But if it was surveyed in the past then this is the prime case of the unit measure of the stade being one length and assumed to be another because of the same name! However, the above may be discussed ad infinitum, but we can be certain that the 62 degrees from Calpe to Issus is a 400 stade per degree distance measure and that those longitudinal 62 degrees are awry.
But the resultant map having a latitudinal degree of 500 stades is the prime cause for the distorted Mediterranean Sea map that can be drawn from the spurious coordinates within CP’s Geographike Hyphegesis. To portray the correct northern littorals or the perceived correct northern littorals on a reduced latitudinal scale when many Poleis were known to have numerically equivalent geographical latitudinal figures could only lead to the coastline being stretched longitudinally from the Pillars of Herakles eastwards.
The facts borne out by this investigation indicate that neither Marinos nor CP had definitive distance measures at their disposal but were gathered from various sources and thus the coastal lengths are awry. The number of Stade measures is confusing enough particularly if you do not even consider that there could be a different measure involved.
But, the overall length of the Mediterranean Sea had to be limited to a known distance such that all other distances could be ascertained and the coastal form controlled. The basic expansion is 1.245, where- as the 500/600 change is a 1.2 expansion or 5/6 reduction.
Thus I opine that as CP, who has shown himself to be a very capable mathematician, had knowledge of the actual latitudinal positions of a large number of Poleis, and sought to impose his fantastic idea of those Poleis being positioned by a latitude/longitude notation, he knew the correct latitudinal degree but could not reproduce the map of Marinos because of the obvious errors in the form of the littorals. CP would have required an accurate portrayal of the Mediterranean Sea littorals to make sense of the actual latitudinal measures available and hence be able to produce a “Geographical” map.
That the Roman empire of that period had such a geographic map is not in doubt, as the progression from c150AD to c1200AD and the Portolan Charts makes so very clear in their accuracy without there being the ability to survey the Mediterranean Sea and produce such a map.
Thus it is open to opine that the work of CP (and probably hence Marinos) was not seen nor was it available to Roman Scholars who could have aided the maps construction, or criticised its portrayal. Thus I consider the work by CP to be no more than a rewrite of the work undertaken by Marinos the Tyrian, in a time limited fashion which meant CP just accepted the whole text of Marinos, purported to correct it and in fact did not.
Thus I use the header falsehoods and sleight of hand.

In appendix D, The breadth of the Mediterranean Sea according to Marinos and Ptolemy, within Berggren and Jones excellent annotated translation we read;
“Marinos’ stade figures evidently reflect the same state of geographical knowledge as Strabo’s, and their total is only about 20% in excess of the true distance. Expressed in degrees, however, the interval from the Sacred Cape to Issos is about 50% too large (67° instead of the correct 45°) because of the error in Marinos’ assumption that 1° of the Equator equals 400 stades”.
But I have often pondered upon the simplicity for a poor understanding of various measurements in ancient times. Consider this, 62 degrees from Calpe to Issus is actually geographically 20136 stades, and Marinos/CP state that it is the product of 93/115 x500 for the longitudinal measure at 36N, and is actually 404.348 stades (400 possible by CP).
But 20316 stades divided by 62 =324.77 stades. Or 324 24/31 and conversely 400 x 93/115 = 323.478 stades, or 323 11/23. Curious mathematics undoubtedly but as has been shown in many texts, unit figures are used which are thought to be identical in length because of the name are then applied mistakenly by others to arrive at spurious measurements because the basic measure was misunderstood by virtue of that same name. It is a simple mistake, but possibly the reason why the Mediterranean sea is 62 degrees in length as both hypotheses, the actual length at the Equator and the double use of the 93/115 ratio produce quite acceptable solutions to this conundrum.
I suggest therefore that the use of formulae and statistics be banned from the examination of the text by Marinos/Claudius Ptolemy, Geographike Hyphegesis, and actual measurements and cartographical possibilities are explored. But that requires researchers to be able to draw maps and understand the complexity of a construction, as well as the data required to determine the coastal profiles. If they were all to try to draw the map from the data which Marinos/CP have provided, then I think many texts would not have seen the light of day. The detail is just not there and unless you have a coastal sketch it is impossible to draw.

M J Ferrar October 2016.


Gibraltar 36 07N/5 24W 36 15N/7 30E
Cartegena 37 38N/0 59W 37 55N/ 12 15E
Tarraco 41 05N/1 07E 40 40N/16 20E
Barcinum 41 30N/2 00E 41 00N/17 15E
Narbon Colonia 43 11N/3 00E 43 15N/21 30E
Marseille 43 18N/5 23E 43 05N/24 30E
Genoa 44 24N/8 56E 42 50N/30 00E
Rome 41 54N/12 30E 41 40N/36 40E
Naples 40 50N/14 05E 40 55N/40 00E
Rhegium 38 07N/15 38E 38 15N/39 50E
Tarentum 40 30N/17 11E 40 00N/41 30E
Ancona 43 37N/13 30E 43 40N/36 30E
Aquileia 45 47N/13 22E 45 00N/34 00E
Messena 38 10N/15 32E 38 30N/39 30E
Thessaloniki 40 38N/23 00E 40 20N/49 50E
Athens 37 58N/23 46E 37 15N/52 45E
Rethymna 35 15N/24 40E 35 05N/53 30E
Anamur 36 08N/32 58E 36 50N/65 10E
Issus 36 51N/36 10E 36 25N/69 20E
Alex/Issus 36 37N/36 03E 36 10N/69 30E
Paphos 34 45N/32 25E 35 00N/64 30E
Amathus 34 42N/33 09E 35 00N/65 45E
Rhodes 36 00N/28 00E 36 00N/58 40E
Cnidus 36 42N/27 22E 36 00N/56 15E
Abila 35 52N/5 18W 35 40N/7 50E
Oran/Quiza 35 37N/0 39W 34 00N/13 20E
Igilgili 36 52N/5 50E 32 00N/24 00E
Rusicada 36 50N/6 58E 32 30N/27 45E
Thabraca 36 55N/8 45E 32 20N/31 15E
Leptis magna 32 38N/14 16E 31 40N/42 00E
Berenice 32 11N/20 03E 31 20N/47 45E
Alexandria 31 13N/29 55E 31 00N/60 30E
Pelusium 31 02N/32 32E 31 10N/63 15E
El Arish 31 08N/33 48E 31 50N/64 40E
Gaza 31 30N/34 28E 31 30N/64 45E
Sidon 33 38N/35 28E 33 30N/67 10E
Tripolis 34 31N/35 52E 34 20N/67 30E

It is interesting to note that from Abila there are no corresponding latitudes until Berenice. It is as though Marinos/CP have totally ignored the Roman Analemma gnomon from their N African colonies, which are numerous and would all have had the ability to tell the hours from a shadow gnomon. This avoidance is tantamount to fiddling the data when it does not suit and should surely have rung alarm bells in the mind of such an accomplished mathematician as Claudius Ptolemy. Thus I consider it all to be based upon falsehoods and sleight of hand to fit the data to suit the prejudices of the measurement. What a conclusion!

M J Ferrar October 2016.