Misplaced Pages

Talk:Capidava: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:24, 6 April 2011 editCodrinb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,417 edits →Not in citation given← Previous edit Revision as of 17:08, 6 April 2011 edit undoAnonimu (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,933 edits →Not in citation given: bsNext edit →
Line 83: Line 83:
::Claim clearly attributed to Parvan, and then goes to describe what Dio said. The key phrase is '''Desi inca neidentificata in teren''' (still not localised), thus disproving the claim made in the lead that Capidava was a Getic centre.] (]) 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC) ::Claim clearly attributed to Parvan, and then goes to describe what Dio said. The key phrase is '''Desi inca neidentificata in teren''' (still not localised), thus disproving the claim made in the lead that Capidava was a Getic centre.] (]) 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
::: For the last time, your are confusing or maybe trying to confuse 3rd party readers who are not so knowledgeable about the Capidava subject. Capidava is not simply or just ''the'' Roman fort. The Romans conquered ''something'' and ''somebody'' here. Namely, a Geto-Dacian power center, as stated by all ancient and modern sources, with plenty of detail and arguments. Whether or not the Getic settlement (which was mostly likely leveled Roman style) is exactly on the spot of the Roman fort (although consensus is that it was) is irrelevant. If in the future, a Getic settlement is identified in a nearby spot, but not exactly the Roman one, we can update he article, create separate sections or even split the article into Dacian Capidava and Roman Capidava, like ] is. Until such times or evidence, the article is focused on "all things Capidava", covering all we know about the name, the location, the historical periods. The name is Geto-Dacian, we know that numerous native Dacians were inhabiting Capidava before and during Roman times, that a Getic king had his center of power here. Obviously, the Roman times section receives the due weight and has a lot of details, since we obviously have more records and the Romans "wrote the history" from that point on. But to remove properly sourced content about the Geto-Dacian times and to rename the "Dacian town" section to "Pre-Roman settlement", when we know exactly who lived there before and after the conquest, is preposterous, completely unreasonable and simply trying to force a marginal POV. But enough quarrels. A huge amount of time and energy was wasted for a non-issue, when so much content needs work. --] (]) 15:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC) ::: For the last time, your are confusing or maybe trying to confuse 3rd party readers who are not so knowledgeable about the Capidava subject. Capidava is not simply or just ''the'' Roman fort. The Romans conquered ''something'' and ''somebody'' here. Namely, a Geto-Dacian power center, as stated by all ancient and modern sources, with plenty of detail and arguments. Whether or not the Getic settlement (which was mostly likely leveled Roman style) is exactly on the spot of the Roman fort (although consensus is that it was) is irrelevant. If in the future, a Getic settlement is identified in a nearby spot, but not exactly the Roman one, we can update he article, create separate sections or even split the article into Dacian Capidava and Roman Capidava, like ] is. Until such times or evidence, the article is focused on "all things Capidava", covering all we know about the name, the location, the historical periods. The name is Geto-Dacian, we know that numerous native Dacians were inhabiting Capidava before and during Roman times, that a Getic king had his center of power here. Obviously, the Roman times section receives the due weight and has a lot of details, since we obviously have more records and the Romans "wrote the history" from that point on. But to remove properly sourced content about the Geto-Dacian times and to rename the "Dacian town" section to "Pre-Roman settlement", when we know exactly who lived there before and after the conquest, is preposterous, completely unreasonable and simply trying to force a marginal POV. But enough quarrels. A huge amount of time and energy was wasted for a non-issue, when so much content needs work. --] (]) 15:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
::::You have a very creative imagination... Romans conquered nobody at Capidava, they just found a nice spot on the Danube and build a fort there to defend the frontier. Several archaeologist who studied the remains, including the one leading the research nowadays, confirmed there's no pre-Roman settlement on the spot. No ancient source calls Capidava Getic... moreover the name itself is mentioned only some decades after the Romans build a fort here. Parvan, a nationalist archaeologist, claimed it was Getic center, even if no ancient author said that, and he had no archaelogical proofs to support the claim. There's simply no motivation to state as fact an obsolete claim that finds no support in modern academia. To put it simple, the pre-Roman Getic settlement '''at Capidava''' is as real as the Dacian colonisation of Mesoamerica.] (]) 17:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


== Dacian pagus / Pagus Dacic == == Dacian pagus / Pagus Dacic ==

Revision as of 17:08, 6 April 2011

WikiProject iconHistory Unassessed High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClassical Greece and Rome Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArchaeology Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistoric sites Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRomania Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
This article contains a translation of Capidava from ro.wikipedia.

Geto-Dacian center ?

To my best knowledge, nobody could archaeologically prove that a Getic settlement pre-dated the Roman fort, which is dated anyway only to the time of the Dacian wars, much later that the establishment of the Roman rule over the region. I don't consider the name enough to call this Roman fort Geto-Dacian (sic). Is there any source supporting such claim?Anonimu ([[User ta lk:Anonimu|talk]]) 22:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is still under works so more content is planned to be added along this lines. There are Dacian ceramics and objects, some in the Constanta Museum. Planning to add pictures and content on that. But for one, check the Dacian town section. It is properly sourced and clarifies that statement. The city name is obviously Geto-Dacian, and unlike other davae it withstand the test of time. That says something too. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Any source for Dacian ceramics pre-dating the Roman fort? The Getic name doesn't confirm a pre-existent settlement on the spot, it's just that a rather late Getic toponym for a Roman fort. As for withstanding the test of time, as basically every Roman settlement in the region (excepting the dubious claims about Harsova and Constanta), no ancient name was preserved. So the name only says that the Romanian authorities didn't like the name Calachioi for one of the best preserved Roman forts on the Romanian controlled part of the Danube, so they decided to resurrect an ancient name.Anonimu (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
If you are genuinely interested in the subject and want to be constructive, let's search for them together. I am working on that. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


According to scholars, the Dacian Capidava is correctly identified. I didn’t find any doubt among them. Boldwin (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Sources from 90 years ago? In the mean time over 20 archaeological missions have studied Capidava and found no trace of a pre-Roman settlements on the spot. I suggest you update your knowledge base... we're not in the 1930s you know.Anonimu (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable source that is doubting the Dacian Capidava's location at the current identified spot of Topalu commune ? Boldwin (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
If there is no newer research proving the 90 years old knowledge wrong, the sources are just fine. Not only fine, but good as the information came from reliable, respected archaeologists like Pârvan, Florescu and most recently Opriş who spent a lot of their time on site. --Codrin.B (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The article currently says "fortified Geto-Dacian center". But the two more recent sources do not support that claim:

  •  : (assumed) pre-Roman settlements, Roman fort ("mici garnizoane romane s-au instalat in vechile asezari dacice de pe malul Dunarii, intre altele si la Capidava", "Imparatul Traian, in cadrul pregatirilor razboaielor daco-romane avea sa construiasca, cu detasamente ale Legiunilor V Macedonica de la Troesmis si XI Claudia de la Durostorum un castellum pe stanca de la Capidava" a.k.a. "fortul de la Capidava", "Toponimul getic de Capidava - insemnand cetatea de la cotitura- confirma o locuire preromana, pozitia geografica deosebita explicand insemnatatea asezarii bastinase, loc care permitea comunicatia intre dacii din Dobrogea si cei din Campia Munteana")
  • : "The camp was raised in early 2nd century, duirng Emperor Trajan's reign, as a defence element of the Danubian limes. Capidava must have been built by a detachment of Legion XI Claudia, brought by Trajan to Durostorum after the conquest of Dacia." (nothing about a pre-Roman camp/fort/etc) On the same site, there's this text, translated after Opriş (see the previous ref): "old Dacian settlements", "mperor Trajan would build a castellum on the cliff at Capidava the fort at Cpidava". And here is the research history, as you can see it's all about Roman and Byzantine periods. Daizus (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Roman Capidava took its name from the nearby old Geto-Dacic dava ‘settlement’ Florescu and Miclea (1980)
Here: http://www.capidava.ro/territorium.php it can be seen Suceveanu's opinion ( 1991 p. 31, 51-52, 55)) about the nearby (civitas ?; vicus ?) pre-Roman settlement related to the traco-getic name....Boldwin (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
And how is that proving the pre-Roman settlement was fortified, as stated in the lead? Also Suceveanu doesn't say "nearby" but "la o oarecare distanta de cetate". Daizus (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Daizus, leaving aside ancient sources, common sense and logic, there are four (!) archaeologists and historians who spent significant times of there careers at Capidava, and who saying "Geto-Dacian center". Are you accusing all of them of OR? This is ridiculous.
Regarding sources specifically, this is from capidava.ro, by Opris in 2006 (!). I will cite directly the paper, if citing the site is confusing and makes it hard to find the info.
Regarding being a Roman center, of courses it is! But this doesn't meant it wasn't a Dacian center before. They are not mutually exclusive. Your quotes above prove nothing and the info is already used in the Roman section of the article.--Codrin.B (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The cimec source says this "The Getic toponym of Capidava - meaning the curve fortified settlement - confirms a pre-Roman dwelling, while the special geographic position explains the significance of the local settlement, a place that made possible the communication between the Dacians in Dobrudja and those in the Wallachian Plain. Tabula Peutingeriana provided accurate data on the distances between Axiopolis, Capidava and Carsium. These distances coincide with the distances between the present localities of Hinog - Capidava and Capidava - Harşova. The check on the table can be made through the uncovering of a marking pillar in the locality of Seimenii Mici that indicates the distance of 18,000 feet from Axiopolis to Capidava, that is 27 km."
Pârvan in Getica: pp 54-55 (1982 edition) or 88-89 (1926 edtion): "Am avea deci regatul lui Roles Între Durostonlln-Abritus-Axiopolis, regatul lui Dapyx spre Capidava-Carsium, cu interiorul spre Ulmetum-Histria (e de fapt aici cel de-al doilea mare centru dacic al Dobrogei: territorium Capidavense). --Codrin.B (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Three of your four sources only say there was pre-Roman settlement. Nothing about fortifications. The "fortified" part is your OR. The rest of your reply is sophistry. Daizus (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the POV tag for the emphasis on "Geto-Dacians" and the undue weight given to some minority/obsolete views. Examples:

  • The article starts with Capidava was Geto-Dacian settlement. Wrong! Most sources (including those quoted for the "Geto-Dacian settlement") emphasize

it was first and foremost a Roman fort. The pre-Roman settlement might have not been in the same place (see above "la o oarecare distanta de cetate").

Providing plenty references for the "Geto-Dacian center" statement. The name of the settlement is obviously Dacian not Latin. Obviously Romans didn't created a city out of nothing and picked a Dacian name for it out of lack of imagination. There is more need for archaeological work, but marking the city as just Roman is illogical and plenty of evidence shows otherwise. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The modern village Capidava only recently was renamed that way, the article misleads the reader to believe there's a sort of continuity.
There is nothing in the article leading to such conclusions. Please contribute a section about the "renaming" in modern times.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It is POV, but also it goes against WP:PSTS by mentioning Calidava as a valid name in the lead (wheres this is a scribal error).
It is an important attestation present in Tabula Peutingeriana. Obviously the form has to be mentioned, even if is an scribal error. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It mentions Dacians attested epigraphically, but no Romans at all. Moreover that mention falls under WP:OR, because Tsinna, Zura et Tsiru, the sons of Bassus, raised that epitaph in the Roman fort Capidava, not in a "Dacian town" as presented in the article.

The Roman and Byzantine times, obviously important, are given more than due weight in there respective sections, which are not even finalized yet.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Many statements are supported only by obsolete refs. E.g. "By 130-150 AD the former Dacian center Capidava was already Romanized" (Pârvan), whereas all the recent refs state clearly Capidava was a Roman fort built by Trajan. Daizus (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing obsolete here. The Roman and Byzantine times, obviously important, are given more than due weight in there respective sections, which are not even finalized yet.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Based on the responses, none of these claims stand and I see not reason to keep the tag for the entire article. Mark paragraphs/sources instead, if anything left unclarified and start constructive conversation here.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the sources don't spell "fortified", although that's the meaning of "dava", but all four of them state "important Geto-Dacian center", which would be plainly ridiculous to be assumed as unfortified. Even if there are no stones to point to. I have to say Daizus, you show a great team spirit and your are very inclined for collaboration.... I am VERY disappointed by your attitude. Even if your are right 100%, your attitude and lack of respect for other's work, your inability to diplomatically say what you think and stir people where your want, work against you. Dai cu barda frate, nu sti sa te comporti intre oameni. Not only that there are so few that spend time writing articles about Dacia, but the few who do, you manage to chase away. I never seen a positive comment from you, a thank you, a "good job" on that section. Nothing. 100% sour grape. Who's purpose does it serve? --Codrin.B (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What makes a "Dacian town"? A town run by the Dacians or a town where Dacians still live after the Roman conquest? Or maybe both? Your comments are exaggerations, and full of sophistry. The lead has all the variants, including Calidava, scribal error, but needs to be mentioned. Why would you even pick on such a think if not just out of a desire for conflict? --Codrin.B (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Who said something about continuity in Capidava the village? What part is misleading? This is completely invented by you. You know when then name was used again? Bring the source and put the info there. --Codrin.B (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
With your insults (both in English and in Romanian), and with your attitude (adding an tag is "lack of respect"?), your project just lost one of its members. Keep up the good work! Daizus (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
This is not MY project. If you care about Dacia and have a genuine interest in making the information available in English to the world (most of if it is not), then you do it, project or not. Misplaced Pages, and yes this project too, needs team players, good communicators, people who can say thank you, make a compliment, have dialog, not just put "or" tag all over the place without even attempting a dialog. I am not offended by the tag, but by the negativity, lack of respect, lack of diplomacy, by people who spend time deleting instead of adding. That offends me. You could have written a note on my page "Codrin, great work on Capidava, thanks for the effort on creating the article and obtaining all the pictures. But I think some parts need some work, since they might be interpreted as OR". Did you do that? No! You shoot without a warning, like this is a war zone, not a friendly, academic, collaborative environment. I don't hold grudges but can't accept ill treatment either. You do what you wish. Your great contributions will be missed, your negativity not at all.--Codrin.B (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
There was discussion before adding that tag and I haven't deleted anything. You can be thankful I'm not reporting you for blatant violations of WP:NPA, but I will if you continue in the same manner.
I care about this only as long as there is a slight chance of improvement. I'm already tired of checking every ref, just because people are not genuinely interested in making information available, but in using Misplaced Pages to promote their own theories, their own views. And getting insulted for that is really too much. Au revoir! Daizus (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You only see other peoples insults and failed to see how your behavior can insult others. Happy April Fouls Day!--Codrin.B (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

settlement and/or center

There are similar articles about towns of ancient times e.g. Vindobana, Mesembria that are presented in a similar way: http://en.wikipedia.org/Vindobona : Vindobona (Celtic/Gaulish windo- "fair/white/blessed", bona "base/bottom", presumably so-named from its geological/topological position, was originally a Celtic settlement, and later a Roman military camp on the site of the modern city of Vienna in Austria

A statement as “Capidava was originally a Geto-Dacian settlement and/or center is supported also by Barnea and Bantas (1979), Pippidi (1976) Miclea and Florescu (1980), Scorpan (1997), Pop, Bolovan and Andea (2006)

It takes a great deal of efforts and resources to translate into English articles about Dacia. I understand how frustration could make people nervous . Codrin’s efforts should be appreciated. Not too many of us are translating and/or bringing more information regarding the ancient history Boldwin (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Good points and thanks for support and positive contributions. Now we have 8 references on the lead section for the "Geto-Dacian center". It's great that we have them but I think we should only keep a few, the most recent and reliable. It is unnecessary to have more than 2-3 sources saying the same thing and doesn't look good esthetically. We should use the content from other 5-6 references in the "Dacian town" and other relevant sections, to expand there what various authors say. Best. --Codrin.B (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Not in citation given

  • Regarding the Dapyx/Pârvan/Cassius Dio reference
    • This is the Cassius Dio text. Quote: "While he was thus engaged, Roles, who had become embroiled with Dapyx, himself also king of p75a tribe of the Getae, sent for him. Crassus went to his aid, and by hurling the horse of his opponents back upon their infantry he so thoroughly terrified the latter also that what followed was no longer a battle but a great slaughter of fleeing men of both arms. 2 Next he cut off Dapyx, who had taken refuge in a fort, and besieged him. "
Irrelevant. Dio doesn't talk about Capidava. That the fort was Capidava is just Parvan claim and every modern historian who mentions a possible pre-Roman settlement at Capidava is very careful to attribute the otherwise unproven claim to Parvan.Anonimu (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Pârvan references it throughout pp. 85-89 of the 1926 edition of Getica starting with this fragment "Avem, din fericire, stiri amanuntite despre contralovitura romana Cassius Dio (LI 23 si urm.) ne-a pastrat un raport foarte pretios asupra expeditiei lui Marcus Crassus la Dunarea de Jos, in a. 29 Ca si actiunea lui Varro Luculus din a. 72...." on page 85. and culminating with "Imprejuraririle povestite acum (26, 1-6) nu numai ne confirma localizarile date mai sus pentru campania din a. 29, dar nedau noi amanunte pretioase despre Getii din Dobrogea. Regatul lui Dapyx se arata a fi vecin si anume, mai la Nord ca acel al lui Roles. deoarece vedem pe Crassus dupa trecerea Haemului biruind intâiu în câmp deschis pe Dapyx, apoi asediindu-l într-o fortareata unde se refugiase, fireste, mai înlauntrul tării, si apoi cucerind Genuc1a care era chiar catre gurile Dunarii. Am avea deci regatul lui Roles Între Durostonlln-Abritus-Axiopolis, regatul lui Dapyx spre Capidava-Carsium, cu interiorul spre Ulmetum-Histria (e de fapt aici cel de-al doilea mare centru dacic al Dobrogei: territorium Capidavense" on page 89.--Codrin.B (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Just Parvan's claim, nothing to support it, and probably politically motivated, considering that at the time Romania's claim to Dobruja on "historical" ground was rather frail.Anonimu (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Ioan Opriș/capidava.ro the MAIN ARCHAEOLOGIST ON SITE TODAY, backs the statement claim here. Quote: "In chiar hotarele acelui territorium Capidavense, constituit mai tarziu de catre autoritatea romana provinciala, identifica Vasile Parvan regatul lui Dapyx (iar burgul acestuia chiar la Capidava). Dinastul get isi intindea asadar stapanirea asupra intregului spatiu central dobrogean, din zona Capidava-Carsium de-a lungul Dunarii, si mergand inspre rasarit, catre Ulmetum si Histria. Sursele literare antice (mai precis Cassius Dio, in Istoria romana, LI, 26, 1-4) ni-l prezinta in conflict cu Roles, un alt conducator getic local, al carui regat ocupa intreg sudul Dobrogei, intre Durostorum-Abritus-Axiopolis. Atacul declansat in 28 i.Hr. asupra lui Roles, aliat al Romei (purtand titlul de "prieten si aliat al poporului roman"), va conduce la interventia prompta, in cursul aceluiasi an, a lui Marcus Licinius Crassus, proconsulul Macedoniei. Nepotul triumvirului intreprinde o campanie fulgeratoare, soldata cu distrugerea nucleelor de putere ale getilor central si nord-dobrogeni, condusi de Dapyx si Zyraxes. Dapyx va fi curand asediat in chiar fortareata sa (gr. φρούριον), care sfarseste prin a fi cucerita de generalul roman, dupa tradarea unor greci mercenari sau localnici vorbitori de elina din randul trupelor regelui get. Sfarsitul acestuia este unul tragic, caci, asemenea lui Decebal mai tarziu, el alege calea eroica a sinuciderii, urmat de ceilalti fruntasi geti. Toponimul getic initial confirma nu doar existenta, dar si insemnatatea locuirii preromane. Desi inca neidentificata in teren, aceasta se bucura de o pozitie geografica si strategica privilegiate, jucand, fara indoiala, un rol important pentru contactele dintre getii dobrogeni si cei din Campia Munteana."
Claim clearly attributed to Parvan, and then goes to describe what Dio said. The key phrase is Desi inca neidentificata in teren (still not localised), thus disproving the claim made in the lead that Capidava was a Getic centre.Anonimu (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
For the last time, your are confusing or maybe trying to confuse 3rd party readers who are not so knowledgeable about the Capidava subject. Capidava is not simply or just the Roman fort. The Romans conquered something and somebody here. Namely, a Geto-Dacian power center, as stated by all ancient and modern sources, with plenty of detail and arguments. Whether or not the Getic settlement (which was mostly likely leveled Roman style) is exactly on the spot of the Roman fort (although consensus is that it was) is irrelevant. If in the future, a Getic settlement is identified in a nearby spot, but not exactly the Roman one, we can update he article, create separate sections or even split the article into Dacian Capidava and Roman Capidava, like Sarmizegetusa is. Until such times or evidence, the article is focused on "all things Capidava", covering all we know about the name, the location, the historical periods. The name is Geto-Dacian, we know that numerous native Dacians were inhabiting Capidava before and during Roman times, that a Getic king had his center of power here. Obviously, the Roman times section receives the due weight and has a lot of details, since we obviously have more records and the Romans "wrote the history" from that point on. But to remove properly sourced content about the Geto-Dacian times and to rename the "Dacian town" section to "Pre-Roman settlement", when we know exactly who lived there before and after the conquest, is preposterous, completely unreasonable and simply trying to force a marginal POV. But enough quarrels. A huge amount of time and energy was wasted for a non-issue, when so much content needs work. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
You have a very creative imagination... Romans conquered nobody at Capidava, they just found a nice spot on the Danube and build a fort there to defend the frontier. Several archaeologist who studied the remains, including the one leading the research nowadays, confirmed there's no pre-Roman settlement on the spot. No ancient source calls Capidava Getic... moreover the name itself is mentioned only some decades after the Romans build a fort here. Parvan, a nationalist archaeologist, claimed it was Getic center, even if no ancient author said that, and he had no archaelogical proofs to support the claim. There's simply no motivation to state as fact an obsolete claim that finds no support in modern academia. To put it simple, the pre-Roman Getic settlement at Capidava is as real as the Dacian colonisation of Mesoamerica.Anonimu (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Dacian pagus / Pagus Dacic

Wow,guess what... Parvan again .Anonimu (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The fragment talks about the Roman-era organisation at Capidava, no reason for this to be in the section about a still archaeologically unknown (and probably never present on the spot) Getic settlement.Anonimu (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Page 78

http://books.google.ca/books?ei=F-eWTfORGbCK0QGOtYGKDA&ct=result&id=AEgLAAAAIAAJ&dq=capidava&q=Aurelius+Hermes+

    • Acest monument ar avea o importanta documentara cu atat mai mare cu cat ar fi primul care ar denumi forma administrative a asezarii civile de la Capidava, considerata pina acum a fi fost un pagus pe baza inscriptiei lui Aurelius HermesBoldwin (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Same as above.Anonimu (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Gajewska |1974|p=92| Les materiaux archeologiques ont un caractere mixte romain et geto-daceBoldwin (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Not enough context to verify citation.Anonimu (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Anonimu, all your replies are pure sophistry. You bring no serious evidence to sustain your theories. Your views are simply not shared by any authors or research. It is obvious that you want the removal at any price of Geto-Dacian elements from this clearly originally Geto-Dacian settlement. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Vasile Pârvan

Vasile Pârvan is a reputable, very respected world class historian and archaeologist. He has done some of the most in depth research into the Geto-Dacian history. Many future archaeologists use his work as the most important reference and rightfully so. In lieu of scientific evidence that contradicts Pârvan's work (which is admittedly aging), to attempt to simply denigrate and present Pârvan in a bad light is very sad, unscrupulous and plainly shameless. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No, he is an obsolete archaeologist, who wrote according to the mainstream Romanian paradigm at the time (i.e. the history of the lands of Romania as a continuous march towards the Romanian ethnic state), which is now regarded as non-scientific or even anti-scientific. While he is still highly regarded (and rightly so) as a pioneer of archaeology in Romania, his theories are nowadays rarely taken at their face value. The case of Capidava is telling: every modern historian writing about a supposed Getic settlement at Capidava is very careful to attribute such claims to Parvan himself, refusing to internalise his theories as they are fully aware that there's nothing to support them. As for scientific evidence to contradict Parvan: Parvan didn't present any in support, so there's not much to contradict. Even so, the statement of the "MAIN ARCHAEOLOGIST ON SITE TODAY" is pretty clear: that supposed Getic settlement is nowhere to be found at Capidava.Anonimu (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Barna and Bantos

Anonimu, you added your own comment before a proper referenced statement. Your note should be added after the referenced statement, and you should make it with an appropriate reference

Barna and Bantos said

  • In 1969, in the ancient Geto-Dacian settlement of Capidava that subsequently become a Roman fortress, it was discovered a pitcher (of local make, in the Roman-Byzantine tradition) which – beside the sign of the cross and the Greek alphabet – carries the name Petre (the specifically Romanian form of Peter) (Barna and Bantos 1979, page 13)

Anonimu opinion's

  • In 1969, in the ancient Geto-Dacian settlement of Capidava that subsequently become a Roman fortress, it was discovered a pitcher (of local make, in the Roman-Byzantine tradition) which – beside the sign of the cross and the Greek alphabet – carries the name Petre (a Romanian variant and the Bulgarian and Greek vocative form of Peter) (Barna and Bantos 1979, page 13)

Please correct it to the way it wasBoldwin (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if it's true, I'll amend that by adding a source.Anonimu (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Following the claim ?

Parvan

  • Capidava is a dacic pagus / Capidava is a Dacian Pagus. (There is a lot of discussions about this administrative form
Parvan!

Opris

  • Toponimul getic de Capidava - insemnand cetatea de la cotitura- confirma o locuire preromana,= Toponym Getic Capidava - meaning the city at the bend- confirms a pre-Roman occupation,
Pre-Roman occupation yes... nothing about important Getic centre.

Cimec:

  • City/Town/Village Capidava, List of Historic Monuments 2004 Reference CT-I-m-B-02604.02, Class/ Type settlement Period (Date) Latène (sec. V - II a. Chr.) Culture/ Cultural phase geto-dacică Geto-Dacian National Archaeological Record of Romania (RAN) 63063.05
Not a secondary source.
  • The importance of Capidava, both during the pre-Roman and Roman periods from the point of view of the limes, by the deployment of a military station here and by the development of a civil centre,
Says nothing about a pre-Roman centre at Capidava, considering both the military station and the civil centre are archaeologically attributed to Romans.

Pop et al. who say : ”

  • Many, even the initially indigenous centers developed due to the presence of the Roman army. Besides those already mentioned, there were also Halmrys, Salsovia, Capidava and Arrubium, p. 112
The "even" in there is a clear refusal to assume the categorisation of all the mentioned locations as indigenous centres (i.e. Getic remains are known at Halmyris, but not at Capidava).Anonimu (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Pippidi & 1976 • listed Capiadava among other Roman castra built on the place of ' the old Geto-Dacian settlements p. 288. Boldwin Boldwin (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)(talk) 13:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the sources suggest a pre-Roman settlement at Capidava despite the lack of archaeological proofs, however all these cherry-picked suggestions pale compared to the abundant and clear attribution of Capidava as a Roman military and civil centre, and half of the research at Capidava is about the Roman settlement (the other half is about the mediaeval Capidava, period which is under-represented in the article). To call the complex a "Geto-Dacian" centre is a gross overstatement, and is not surprising that such claims came from someone who thinks the Dacians had a fully developed writing system, despite the lack of any evidence.Anonimu (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cemetery excavated at Capidava

Moreover, in the cemetery excavated at Capidava only graves of specific Roman provincial type were found. You have to provide here full citation from Rome and the Black Sea .... since, the same author in the same article is saying "... army on its arrival in this region found a lot of local tribes dwelling in fortified sites according to their traditional habits..." And, the cemetery note is about the middle of the second century Boldwin Boldwin (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)(talk) 14:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

1. The author doesn't speak about local tribes at Capidava. 2.Of course it's about the second century... there are no earlier remains on the spot.Anonimu (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


Thank you. Boldwin (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Petculescu is not talking necessarily about the fort Capidava. He saying the followings " Even in the cemeteries at Capidava and Noviodunum, the only ones on the limes excavated to some extent, only graves of specific Roman provincial types were found including a few funeral assemblages containing military equipment"Boldwin (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Our article talks about the cemetery too.Anonimu (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Since there are attested Getic and Roman settlements, what cemeteries are you talking about? Also, you have to add the full citation about non-existence of pre-Roman settlement that you referenced by Irimia, since archaeologists have presented their these evidences on the reports? Opris, who you cited, considers the possibility that the Getic fort had been rased to the ground by Romans, and he considers this based on archaeological findings dated pre-Roman era Boldwin (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What attested Getic settlement?
Irimia: "Există, astfel, aşezări din epoca romană care poartă nume autohtone, fără ca în acele puncte sau în vecinătatea lor să se fi descoperit aşezări semnificative (ex. vicus Buteridava, vicus Arcidava şi kóme Chora Dagei în regio Histriae, sau vicus Asbolodina şi vicus Amlaidina în teritoriul callatian, ori Capidava, eventual şi Carsium),după cum există şi unele aşezări getice importante ale căror nume antic nu ne este cunoscut. În câteva cazuri pare posibilă totuşi, acceptarea concordanței între aşezările autohtone mai vechi identificate în teren şi înregistrarea în izvoarele scrise a obiectivelor romane care le‐au preluat numele (ex. Sacidava şi Sucidava moesică)."
What archaeologist? I've seen no archaeological proofs about a Getic settlement presented here, to the contrary (see Opris and Irimia).
Opris just wonders about the possibility, without offering a definite statement (such arguments is rather weak in archaeology, just ask around). He mentions some Iron Age finds at two locations some 4 km off Capidava, yet no Getic finds at Capidava.Anonimu (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


Suceveanu (1991)

In jurul fortificatiei se va articula rapid o puternica comunitate locala, formata din veterani, cetateni romani si autohtoni, alaturi de un numar important de alti greco-romani (ultimii apar mai ales in cursul secolului al III-lea), comunitate bine atestata prin numeroasele descoperiri cu caracter epigrafic (SUCEVEANU 1991, p. 64-65, 110-111). Comunitatea respectiva cuprindea vechiul habitat indigen (civitas ?; vicus ?), identificat la o oarecare distanta de cetate - caracterul efectiv al locuirii preromane fiind inextricabil legat de chiar numele traco-getic pe care il poarta cetatea romana de mai tarziu - , si asezarea militara din jurul lagarului (canabae sau, mai degraba, vicus) (SUCEVEANU 1991, p. 31, 51-52, 55).Boldwin (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, so we have a Roman-era civil settlement populated by Roman and locals (just like every other Roman era settlement across the Empire). The indigenous settlement identified "at some distance from the fort" is probably that 4 km off the fort mentioned by Opris, Florescu, and the Cimec link - BTW, as every 4th grade history book (used to) explain, the second period of the Iron Age is known in Romanian historiography as La Tene (the first would be Hallstatt), so no reason to imply that the two are separate. Still nothing to support an important pre-Roman settlement at Capidava.Anonimu (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


For archaeological evidences see Diaconu, Florescu, 1958, Irimia, Cheluţă-Georgescu 1982,also notes and Florescu 1958Boldwin (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You copied this from somewhere? BTW, Irimia in "Irimia, Cheluţă-Georgescu 1982" is the same Irimia who in 2007 said that no "significant" Getic settlement was identified at Capidava. So either you didn't read those sources, or Irimia changed his mind... In either case the most recent opinion of Irimia prevails.Anonimu (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Categories: