Supplement to: Formal Out-of-Sample Blind Test and Extended Model Validation for Model v8

Last updated: v8[-Preview] (June 10, 2026)

Scientific analysis based on the primary source: Mildner, S. (2026). Geodynamic Reinterpretation Model for Ptolemy’s Germania Magna: General Model Description, Cartometric Foundations, (v8.0Preview). EarthArXiv (Preprint). https://doi.org/10.31223/X5KB51
(📥 Download NEW-v9.0-PDF) 

Builds upon: Mildner, S. (2025/2026). A new interpretation of Ptolemy's Germania Magna: Employing computer-assisted image distortion of a medieval map by Donnus Nicolaus Germanus to examine post-glacial geodynamics in Europe. EarthArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31223/X5313T
(📥 Download v5.0-PDF) (descriptive main publication)

Code and data archive: Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.10968193

1. Background and Version History

The companion article established that the kinematic block-deformation model (Model B) outperforms the affine baseline (Model A) by 29–49% in a genuine 70/30 out-of-sample blind test, with the G6 rotation prediction ($r_B=7.5\text{ km}$, estimated from a single training point) representing the strongest individual result. The parsimony argument in §14 of the primary preprint invokes the Akaike Information Criterion conceptually to motivate the significance of the blind-test result. This article presents the Extended Validation Suite underpinning the v8 Model Description.

Changes in v8[-Preview] relative to v7.3:

- The identification of S-C (Carrodunum) has been refined from the Kamenz–Spreetal/Nochten area to Bernsdorf (14.05°E, 51.38°N; Elster Cluster member). The cartometric residual $\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =-70.0\text{ km}$ is unchanged. The Bernsdorf identification resolves a residual geographic ambiguity and is used as the primary reference for all v8 EC cluster statistics.
- As a consequence of the Bernsdorf calibration, the Model B residuals for the two blind-test EC points S6 and S7 shift marginally: $r_B(\text{S6})=31.8\text{ km}$ (was 28.5 km) and $r_B(\text{S7})=35.2\text{ km}$ (was 33.2 km). Both Wilcoxon results are identical to v7.3.
- The one-sample $t$-statistic for the EC cluster is updated to $t=-15.0$ under the v8 Bernsdorf identification; it remains far beyond any practical significance threshold.
- New: Falsification Test T39 — Moran's I spatial autocorrelation of the 22-point residual field (Section 10).
- New: Computational reproducibility appendix; full data and code archived at Zenodo (Section 13).

Crustal Stress Fields, Translation-Glide Kinematics along the Zechstein Décollement, Biaxial Tension along the Bramsche–Český Kráter Axis, and the Herzberg Seismic Event of 2024

Last updated: to Version v6 (May 25, 2026)

Scientific analysis based on the primary source: Mildner, S. (2026). Geodynamic Reinterpretation Model for Ptolemy’s Germania Magna: General Model Description, Cartometric Foundations, (v6). EarthArXiv (Preprint). https://doi.org/10.31223/X5KB51
(📥 Download NEW-v9.0-PDF) 

Scientific supplementary analysis to:

> Mildner, S. (2026). Geodynamic Reinterpretation Model for Ptolemy's Germania Magna: General Model Description, Cartometric Foundations, Extended Evidence Analysis, and Impact Hypothesis (Version 6). EarthArXiv (Preprint). https://doi.org/10.31223/X5KB51

> Mildner, S. (2025/2026). A new interpretation of Ptolemy's Germania Magna: Employing computer-assisted image distortion of a medieval map by Donnus Nicolaus Germanus to examine post-glacial geodynamics in Europe. EarthArXiv (Preprint). https://doi.org/10.31223/X5313T

> Mildner, S. (2026). Mildner's Geodynamic Reinterpretation Model for Ptolemy's Historical Coordinates. ancientmaps-geography.com.

The scientific study of the historical geography of Central Europe, particularly the so-called Germania Magna, has traditionally been governed by an interdisciplinary paradigm that primarily relies on archaeological findings, philological text analyses, and a gradualist, geological basic assumption. In recent times, the research work of Sven Mildner (https://www.germania-magna.de), which combines a multidisciplinary, computer-assisted distortion analysis of the medieval cartography of Donnus Nicolaus Germanus – based on Claudius Ptolemy – with neocatastrophist, geodynamic models, has triggered an unorthodox re-evaluation of these established constants.¹ The present research report synthesizes the far-reaching implications arising from this approach, situates them within the philosophy of science, and focuses particularly on the regional geological perspective of the Saxon-Bohemian area.

The central thesis of the present research discussion postulates that the transmitted Ptolemaic maps are not erroneous depictions of a static ancient world, but rather precise and accurate representations of a geography that existed prior to a massive geodynamic upheaval.¹ This assumption necessitates a radical shift in perspective: The topography of Central Europe was, in historically tangible times – specifically during the Late Antiquity and the Migration Period – subjected to drastic, cataclysmic changes triggered by cosmogenic impact events and the resulting tectonic reactivations.¹ This approach requires a fundamental re-examination of the causalities behind the loss of ancient geographical knowledge, the collapse of Late Antique power structures, the apparent discrepancy in ancient place coordinates, and the physical plausibility of impact chronologies in the Bohemian Massif.³