Talk:Dacia Ripensis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Taliata, not Tanata

Jaroslav Šašel quotes Procopius but the text of De Aedificiis is corrupted. The name of that castle is Taliata, not Tanata, with ΛΙ being misread as N. Primary sources: Talia[tis] in Antonine Itinerary, Faliatis in Tabula Peutingeriana and Taliatis in Ravenna Cosmography. Also in Notitia Dignitatum, in partibus Orientis, there's an auxilium Taliatense under the dux of Moesia Prima.

I appreciate you use secondary and not primary sources. But it's easy to find materials on Google Books on Taliata, even on the fact that Tanata should be read Taliata Daizus (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just checked the article on JStor. The Procopian Tanata is further explained in footnote 19: "a slightly corrupt record of the name Taliatae, present-day Donji Milanovac". Daizus (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: I don't think those fortifications were all raised by Trajan. In any case Procopius wrote of Justinian's fortification program (some were new, some were repaired). Daizus (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked all the castles in that list. Zernês is Dierna (in Vulgar Latin Zerna), Doukepratou is Ducipratum, Kapoutboes might be Caput Fossae and Zanes is Diana (in Vulgar Latin Zana) Daizus (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Great info. Feel free to add content and references to the articleCodrin.B (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed Šašel is wrong about placing Viminacium and Singidunum in Dacia Ripensis. For the moment I think it's best to remove the text about Trajanic foundations (and also please note this province did not really exist during the reign of Trajan, therefore such information should rather be included in other articles). Daizus (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Greek name

I've checked Loring's article (p. 330) and there he only explained Ρειπήσιος from his inscription by Latin Ripensis (cf. Dacia Ripensis and Noricus Ripensis). That's not the Greek name of Dacia Ripensis, however, which was Parapotamia or Ripesia. Daizus (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The History section

The history should follow a chronology. It's confusing to narrate the capture of Ratiaria before the capture of Castra Martis or to end this section with a note on Aurelian.

"It is unclear whether Aurelian or the Emperor Diocletian replaced Dacia Aureliana with two provinces" vs "Aurelian developed Dacia Ripensis". Did Aurelian create this province or not?

The paragraph on Huns and Avars is unsupported by the quoted reference (Jones 1988) which is about the misfortunes of Ratiaria, not of the entire province. Daizus (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is said the province was established by Aurelian in 283 AD, but that is impossible since Aurelian was murdered in 275. The reference supporting the claim is mis-quoted. "The date must be AD 283" not for the creation of this province, but for an inscription which is presented on p. 134-5. For an Aurelianic creation Bury also quotes from the Breviarum of Festus (8.2): per Aurelianum duae Daciae factae sunt (full quote: per Aurelianum translatis exinde Romanis, duae Daciae in regionibus Moesiae ac Dardaniae factae sunt). This point of view must be balanced by the one supporting a post-Aurelian creation (unfortunately in Dacia Aureliana the only bibliography is a pseudo-scholarly book which is often referenced in articles on Dacian topics)

Considering the amount of dubious information, I'm tagging the article. See you next year! Daizus (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)