Accueil > Documentations scientifiques > Revues archivées > Omaly sy Anio > Archives > Omaly sy Anio (Hier et Aujourd’hui) : revue d’études historiques, volume 1-2, (...) > La Géographie greco-romaine a-t-elle connu Madagascar ? Le point de la (...)
-
La Géographie greco-romaine a-t-elle connu Madagascar ? Le point de la question
Omaly sy Anio (Hier et Aujourd’hui) : revue d’études historiques, volume 1-2, janvier - décembre 1975, pp. 11-41Auteur : Janvier Y.
Mots clés : GEOGRAPHIE HISTORIQUE/GEOGRAPHIE ANTIQUE/HISTOIRE/ANTIQUITE/MADAGASCAR
[ MLA ] Moa nahalala an’i Madagasikara ve ny jeografian’ny Grika sy ny Romana ? Izay fantatra ny amin’izany amin’izao fotoana izao.
Sady mikasika ny mpanao tantara momba an’i Madagasikara izany no mikasika koa ny momba ny Grika sy ny Romana fahagola. Tsy maintsy dinihina indray ny filazan’izy ireo ny momba izany satria samy hafa loatra ny valinteniny.
I – Alohan’izany anefa tsy maintsy marihina tsara ny momba ny jeografia fahagola sy ny mbola tsy fahombiazany, ny fanazavana mety ho azo avy amin’ny fampitahana ity resaka ity sy ny niandohan’ny mponina teto Madagasikara ; ny loharano nanovozantsika ny Tantara.
II – Nanomboka tamin’ny taon-jato faha-IV talohan’I Kristy dia misy filazana an-tsoratra nataon’ny Grika miresaka ireo nosy any lavitra any amin’ny Ranomasina Indiana. Ny “Phebol” izay lazaina fa nataon’i Pseudo-Aristote dia tsy isalasalana fa ara-keviny fotsiny no ilazany ny fisian’ireo. Tsy maintsy fakafakaina kokoa anefa ny fitantarana naton’i Diodore de Sicile momba ilay Nosy misy mponina izay notsidihin’izany Iamboulos izany, izay toy ny paradisa an-tany hono. Ao ny angano sy ny filazana marina, kanefa raha voamarina tsara ilay vorona goavana (aepyornis) tantarainy ao dia mety ho azo lazaina fa i Madagasikara tokoa io nosy io, ary raha izany dia toa azo arahina indray ilay filazana fa nisy mponina teto talohan’ny Bantou, taon-jato maro talohan’i Kristy – Ilay “Cerné” izay resahin’i Pline l’Ancien – araka ny filazan’i Ephore dia mety ho fahatsiarovana ilay nosin’i Iamboulos.
III – Taorian’izany, ny hany filazana izay azo heverina miresaka an’i Madagasikara dia ny momba ilay nosy “Ménouthias” voalaza ao amin’ny “Périple de la mer Erythrée” sy lazain’i Ptolémée. Tsy fantatra marina ny fotoana nivoahan’ireo loharanon-tantara roa ireo ka manahirana ny fandinihana azy, ary manjary mifandaka be ihany ny vokatra azon’ny mpanao tantara sasany ; toa an’i Grandidier dia mihevitra fa i Madagasikara no voatondro amin’izy ireo ihany, ary ny hafa kosa indray milaza fa tsy Madagasikara mihitsy akory no voaresaka ao. Mitsikera izany rehetra izany indray ny mpanoratra eto (fandinihana ny fototry ny saritany fahizay, ny fotoana sy ny làlana nombana, filazana mikasika ilay nosy), ka ny hevitra notsongaina tamin’izany dia ny hoe : tsy mety ho Madagasikara mihitsy akory ity Ménouthias voalaza ity. Nony taty aoriana (teo amin’ny taona 400 teo ho eo) raha miresaka indray an’i Ménouthias i Marcien d’Héraclée, dia avy amin’izay voalazan’i Ptolémée izany. Nanomboka tamin’izay fotoana izay koa dia nitontongana ny jeografia fahagola koa saika tsy hita ao intsony ny ranomasina Indiana.
Koa mitsimbadika tanteraka mihitsy raha izany ny hevitr’i Grandidier. Angamba nety ho tazana tao ihany ny nosy Madagasikara tamin’ny fiandohan’ny vanim-potoana hellénistique, kanefa hadinon’ny Romana izy tato aoriana, na dia mety ho avy teto amintsika aza ireo kiran-tsoratra nentin’ny Sambo “romana”. Boky 70 no nampiasaina.[ EN ] Did Graeco-Roman geography know Madagascar ? That question concerns at the same time the historians of Madagascar and those of classical Antiquity ; the extreme diversity of their answers compels to look again into them.
Télécharger
I – Some preliminaries are absolutely essential such as antique geography and its limits, mutual lighting on the present question and peopling of Madagascar, finally as our sources.
II – From the IVth century B.C., some Greek writings placed distant islands in the Indian Ocean. The “Phebol” of Pseudo-Aristotle might be not a true answer but rather a preconceived idea. We must longer longer stay at the description given by Diodorus of Sicily of an inhabited paradisiac island where one Iamboulos would have lived. In this mixing of fabulous elements and positive details, the identification of the big birds of the text to the aepyornis would be determinant to justify recognizing Madagascar as that island, which would rehabilitate the idea of a prebantu peopling several centuries ago before the Christian era. The “Cerne” Pliny the Elder mentioned from Ephoros would be a remembrance of the island of Iamboulos.
III – Later on the only indications where one believed to recognize Madagascar concern an island named “Menuthias” quoted in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea and by Ptolemy. These two sources whore unsettled dates do not help to analysis were so much different that one noticed Madagascar sometimes in both of them (Grandidier), sometimes in the one or the other and sometimes in none. The author debated again over their respective arguments such as angular co-ordinates, time and direction of trip, description of the island and over their means of information. He conclued that Menuthias was not in any way Madagascar. Later on (about in 400) Marcian of Heracleia told of Menuthias, it was drawn from Ptolemy ; from that time, decline of antique geography threw back into darkness almost the entire Indian Ocean.
Grandidier’s conclusion are henceforth completely inverted. The island of Madagascar might have been put in an appearance in the beginning of the Hellenistic age, but the Roman world did forget it afterwards even if a part of tortoise-shells carried by the “Roman” ships were perhaps coming from.
Bibliography including 70 titles.