|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
--SieBot 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello all. This is my new Commons account. My old account (Dipa 1965, observe the blank space!) will no longer be maintained. --Dipa1965 (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Dipa, Unfortunately, I don't have anymore the original map without the border anymore. Nevertheless, if you send me a copy of a corrected map, adding the borders that you assume to be correct, I'd be happy to help you to make it as accurate as possible. Anyway, you must keep in mind that the exact boudaries of a land that never existed as an ethnical state is a gamble. I wish you could give me some sources... Best regards, --Trbz1461 (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi,and happy new year ! Thank you for your reply. I agree with you about the two different ways to determine the limits of Pontus :
- 1. The limits may be ethnical. Then, a question of temporality holds sway, as we know that this region has always been multi-ethnical (greek, georgian, laze, armenian, turkish...), and the population has changed several times, from the greek colonization to the 1915 genocide.
- 2. The limits may be religious. But, once again, the same question prevails.
- This is the reason why I chosed to fix the limit of Pontus from its geography. I did this map for an article about Pontus as a region, then I was in a similar approach to the early 20th century geographic paradigm, trying to fix what made Pontus a region. As there was nothing satisfying that could be done with ethnical or religious categories, I had to dig the old geomorphological limits out. From west to east, it's not easy to find the geologic limits of Pontus, I had to use the ethnical datas, annexing Sinop which is theorically part of Paphlagonia, but which used to be one of the main greek cities on the northern coasts of Asia minor. But from north to south, I assumed that Pontus was limited by the Black Sea and its mountains... It remains one possibility to fix the boundaries of Pontus, but I admit that there several variants could be.
- Maybe my goal to draw a classical map of Pontus was not a good starting point. Perhaps we'd rather say that Pontus has its obvious center with cities like Trebizond, Kerasonte or Amissos, and a fluctuant periphery. This region couldn't have boundaries, wich is a contemporay concept, but only "eschatiai" (I would use the greek word as I ignore how to translate in english the french word "marches"). Finally, this discussion about the limits of Pontus is quite anachronistic...
- Kindest regards
- Greetings Dita,
- I’m not fond of this map based on the 6 bishoprics and this is one of the reasons why I have made my own map. First, the patriarcate never had the goal to create ethnically consistent territories with its bishoprics. Second, the south-western part including Tokat cannot be part of Pontus, in my opinion. Moreover, if you look at this map, published in my french article about Pontus (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Map_of_Pontus.jpg) you can notice that Tokat, and, of course, the lands that are located southern of this place are not included in the republic of Pontus. Anyway, all the maps of this republic must show boundaries that overflow the limits of Pontus : those who wanted to create an independant country in Pontus tried to take the more lands they could, as they knew that they could never get all their claims. This is why Wilson gave Trebizond to Armenia, in order to let most of the Greeks live under a christian rule, but Sinop remained in Turkey. So, my map, even if I’m not fully satisfied of it is still the less worst map of Pontus...--Trbz1461 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)