File talk:Centum Satem map.png

Problem with Diachronic Map

This map is incorrect in what refers to the en:Iberian peninsula, since it reverses the geographical/linguistic areas. In Iberia the area presented in blue should be grey and the one in grey should be blue. In fact the one presently in blue was globaly the area of the en:Iberian language and en:Tartessian language (non-Indo-European languages), while the one presently in gray was in fact the one with Celtic and Proto-Celtic languages. See, for instance, this detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples and Languages of Iberia. This needs to be corrected. The situation in Iberia should look something like the map shown below. The Ogre 01:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In green, the Indo-European areas of Iberia about 200 BCE

Furthermore it needs further information, like historical period covered. The Ogre 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, this has been pointed out before. feel free to fix it. Remember that the map is only intended as a very rough indication of the areals affected, it can never be "precise" because we simply don't know the area with any precision. I would just leave out Iberia altogether. Dbachmann 10:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

which is centum and which is satem?

should a reader just assume one is centum=red and the satem=blue?--Esteban.barahona (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline is key

The term "diachronic" is the effective one. You can't single out any one time and criticize the map as being true or false at that time. In Spain, for example, the very location of the major contention, the border is being drawn at the western edge of Hispania Citerior. Under the Carthaginians the region to the east was within the range of non-Indo-European speakers, while Celtic speakers prevailed to the west, more or less. The Basques are just being ignored. After Rome took the region from the Carthaginians they imposed their language on it so it became centum-speaking. I think the map needs to make up its mind about whether it is diachronic or static. In a diachronic map one expects to see isogloss lines for different periods, not one period. If one period is to be selected, we need to say which one, and make the map correspond to it and stop calling it diachronic. Currently one shade is being use to denote the original area. We need more shades for more time periods, at least a few more. If that is too complex for one map, then maybe a square of four maps showing a sequence would be better. This is a complex situation that needs more time and enthusiasm.24.61.158.203 10:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just wrong.

Its questionable in some areas and wrong in others:

1. The time. It is mixing various periods.
2. Baltic spoken in Estonia? There is no evidence of that whatsoever, except for common material culture. BUT- material culture does not equal language.
3. The range of Armenian- it is too big, and it includes areas where Armenian has NEVER been spoken as a first language by the native population- i.e. Lazistan, Caucasian Albania... Armenians aren't native there if you haven't noticed.
4. General problems as it relies on MATERIAL CULTURE and not language. Like, Srubna, what? For all we know, they could've been satemized later- may I remind you that if aliens discovered the ruins of Europe some time in the future, English and French would probably been called Satem (as they have now under gone the /k/->/s/ shift).
5. The map is influenced by politics, just like the other one on the Centum-Satem page (that I just removed, because it is much worse than this one, calling Romanian satem and all...).
6. Armenian and Albanian... we have no records of their ancient forms (except a very tiny Illyrian corpus, if Illyrian is Albanian's ancestor, that is). We have utterly no clue what they were, even if they are "satem" now (but on that, may I remind you that if that rule is applied, modern English and French would be satem too...)
7. We also do not really know when the Baltic groups and Slavic were satemized. They could've still been centum two thousand years ago, who knows?
8. We really know nothing about the language of the ancient inhabitants of Crimea.
9. Thracian, Phrygian and Dacian were probably satem. But it shows blue on their range of southern Thracian and Phrygian...
10. The Satem extends too far south into the North Caucasus... that was Sindika/Maeotae there (Circassians... they aren't Indo-European, you know).
11. In Iberia... I don't know what to say, that is just unacceptable. Iberian and Tartessian were not even Indo-European... so why does it show it on their ranges then?
12. Why the blankness in Scotland and southern Norway? Are Saami supposed to live there or something?
13. Celtic should extend father east... Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc... these were Celtic regions back in Ancient times.

...in general, like many other things, this map needs serious work (and if that isn't possible, deletion...). It is not authoritative. --Yalens (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That is only too correct. I wonder how the otherwise well-informed DBachmann could compile such a confused map. Moreover, Armenian - generally accepted as next neighbour to Greek and Albanian - moved only later into its historical seats, as did Tocharian. And, the Anatolian langs were in Asia Minor before Armenian, but did not become Satemized. HJJHolm (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried to improve it since this, and since the main sources in palaeo-linguistics, but I was reverted as "dubious" ! This discourages helping WP. --Claude Zygiel (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)