Talk:Kaninë
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Βατο in topic Removal of Papadopoulos (2016) & reverting to source on older archaeological research (1974)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Removal of Papadopoulos (2016) & reverting to source on older archaeological research (1974) edit
It's obvious that replacing works on modern research and insisting on quite older works isn't the most productive way of editing ([[1]]. On the possible identification of Thronium with Kanina there is also [[2]] (2018) "aber noch nicht identifizierten Stadt Thronion (> Triport oder > Kanina?)". [[3]] "At some stage Apollonia seems to have taken over Thronium , another Greek city probably sited near Kanina ., etc. Alexikoua (talk)
- User:Maleschreiber has a point, the site of ancient Thronion has not yet been identified, you can not include opinions as facts. Zindel et al. (2018) report both Triport and Kanina as possibilities. Also Cabanes (2011) proposes Triport. Nevertheless, the Euboean-Trojan legend should be presented as a mythological account, not a historical fact. So far there is no archaeological evidence to support its historicity. – Βατο (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Papadopoulos (2016) is reporting a hypothesis which reflects an educated guess on the part of older Albanian archaeologists. Molla (2017) is a detailed archaeological study of the site - it is the most recent source. The argument that the fortress of Kanina is ... Thronium would make 0 sense to anyone who read about the architectural details of this fort. Kanina was a small hilltop fort which overlooked the Shushica river. The walls in its oldest phase - which is younger than the era of Thronium - have 21m max length. There is no older habitation stratum in the area and the village (below the hill) is a medieval development. If this information is available to all authors who report that it "may be" Thronium I don't think that anyone will again suggest that a small hilltop fort with a max wall length at 21m could have been the site of a city. If anyone lived in the Kanina I phase, it was probably a small clan and it certainly wasn't the site of a city. All data so far point that not even a clan lived there but it was just an outpost because they wouldn't have easy access to water resources. They would have to go down to the river level every day from their hilltop position (380 m altitude) just to transport water.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- Molla (2017) doesn't refute Papadopoulos' research she does not describe antiquity phase & neither rejects the possibility of Kanina being ancient Thronium. If you disagree with Papadopoulos as well as Winnifrith, there is an wp:RSN to fill. By the way why you insist to restore outdated works of the 70s that label Kanina as Illyrian?Alexikoua (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Zindel et al. (2018) also label it an Illyrian fortress. The 70s source can easly be replaced, but I suggest to do this also in other articles that rely on old publications, otherwise you just use double standards. As for the Thronion hypothesis, it is not supported by archaeological findings. Furthermore, Thronion was located on the coast, the hilltop settlement of Kanina can hardly be considered an ancient Greek city. On the other hand, Cabanes' hypothesis of Triport is supported by the earliest archeological findings of the area (pottery dated to the 7th century BC, walls dated to the 6th century BC). Winnifrith's statement of the location of ancient Thronion near Kanina can be added with due weight, but describing the hilltop of Kanina as an ancient Greek city is inaccurate. – Βατο (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Zindel, Lippert, Lahi, Kiel (2018) presented by Bato here also provide a possible link of Kanina with Thronium [[4]]. So many historians provide a specific statement (+Winnifrith, Papadopoulos also. I don't know why this piece of (over-cited) information should be removed.Alexikoua (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- It can be inlcuded if appropriately worded. Your previous wording was not balanced. Nevertheless, you insist in providing an information that is very unlikely. The site of Kanina does not provide any evidence for such a location of Thronium. On the other hand, the site of Triport placed on the coast does. See recent publications that specifically fucus on these subjects (not just mentionings in passing). – Βατο (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Zindel, Lippert, Lahi, Kiel (2018) presented by Bato here also provide a possible link of Kanina with Thronium [[4]]. So many historians provide a specific statement (+Winnifrith, Papadopoulos also. I don't know why this piece of (over-cited) information should be removed.Alexikoua (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Zindel et al. (2018) also label it an Illyrian fortress. The 70s source can easly be replaced, but I suggest to do this also in other articles that rely on old publications, otherwise you just use double standards. As for the Thronion hypothesis, it is not supported by archaeological findings. Furthermore, Thronion was located on the coast, the hilltop settlement of Kanina can hardly be considered an ancient Greek city. On the other hand, Cabanes' hypothesis of Triport is supported by the earliest archeological findings of the area (pottery dated to the 7th century BC, walls dated to the 6th century BC). Winnifrith's statement of the location of ancient Thronion near Kanina can be added with due weight, but describing the hilltop of Kanina as an ancient Greek city is inaccurate. – Βατο (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Molla (2017) doesn't refute Papadopoulos' research she does not describe antiquity phase & neither rejects the possibility of Kanina being ancient Thronium. If you disagree with Papadopoulos as well as Winnifrith, there is an wp:RSN to fill. By the way why you insist to restore outdated works of the 70s that label Kanina as Illyrian?Alexikoua (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Papadopoulos (2016) is reporting a hypothesis which reflects an educated guess on the part of older Albanian archaeologists. Molla (2017) is a detailed archaeological study of the site - it is the most recent source. The argument that the fortress of Kanina is ... Thronium would make 0 sense to anyone who read about the architectural details of this fort. Kanina was a small hilltop fort which overlooked the Shushica river. The walls in its oldest phase - which is younger than the era of Thronium - have 21m max length. There is no older habitation stratum in the area and the village (below the hill) is a medieval development. If this information is available to all authors who report that it "may be" Thronium I don't think that anyone will again suggest that a small hilltop fort with a max wall length at 21m could have been the site of a city. If anyone lived in the Kanina I phase, it was probably a small clan and it certainly wasn't the site of a city. All data so far point that not even a clan lived there but it was just an outpost because they wouldn't have easy access to water resources. They would have to go down to the river level every day from their hilltop position (380 m altitude) just to transport water.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)