Disputatio:Alexandria antiqua

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Andrew, which period of Alexandria does this article cover? I could add things on its earliest history and archaeology, up to the late Roman period, but if necessary I could also add things on the Byzantine history of the site.--Xaverius 15:02, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I intended the city that has the ancient street plan -- to describe it and its buildings as it was. I don't know when the street plan changed: do you? I saw a mention of a tsunami in the 4th century: I don't know whether this is true and whether it caused a big change, or whether the big change came at some later time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:19, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably at some point during the late Umayyad or eben the Abbasid period. I doubt that it was greatly modified during the early Islamic phase. However, the end of the annona clearly marked the economic purpose of the city, so it may have declined greately then. The Islamic conquest could be generally be considered as a turning point, so this article could cover the period 330sBC-642AD.--Xaverius 15:30, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes good sense. It's for something I'm writing (as often). I'm especially interested in the Royal Palace area (in Greek often Akra = "the promontory"). Anything you happen to know or any good references would be really useful! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:17, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The text I'm typing in now is much too long for a single quotation, but I'm getting it all typed in from the Latin translation of Strabo before I lose it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:11, 7 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about the terminus post quem? As you'll have noticed, I've been giving information on names in all our "ancient Egyptian cities" articles. While the Egyptians did adopt and/or adapt the name "Alaxandria," they also continued to use "Rhacotis," and in fact so far as I know that still seems to be the usual name even in Coptic. This being the case, I'm not sure it makes sense to have separate articles for Alexandria antiqua and Rhacotis. --Iustinus (disputatio) 14:24, 26 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier Rhacotis, I take it, was obliterated. If anything is known about it, one might allow it its own article, but I don't know whether anything is. It's up to you, really! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:28, 26 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I know nothing about the archaeology, but as you can no doubt surmise, I am more interested in the linguistics here. There is continuity in the Egyptian use of the name, if not in the infrastructure (and btw, Rhacotis means "Construction Site" in Egyptian!) I see en does have a separate article, or at least a stub, on Rhacotis, but my concern is less about what should be located under what lemma, and more about getting the Egyptian name(s) mentioned. --Iustinus (disputatio) 16:15, 26 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to just add a new section for the names in different languages, and include the bit about Rhacotis there. What do you think? --Iustinus (disputatio) 22:14, 28 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inundatio[fontem recensere]

We can argue about how to say "tsunami" or even "flood," but surely in the context of Egypt "inundatio" is a very dangerous word to use without qualifiers. --Iustinus (disputatio) 01:06, 29 Augusti 2012 (UTC)[reply]