• TITLU în română: Localizarea Vicinei reluată. Există vreo soluţie finală?
  • Subiect: The paper comments the recent opinions expressed by Virgil Ciocîltan and Denis Căprăroiu about the location of Vicina, the first one at Măcin, and the second one at Axiopolis. The etymology and the interpretation of the cartographic sources would plead for Măcin, while the proposal to locate at Axiopolis is based on the distance mentioned in the portolan Il compasso da navigare. Any attempt to locate Vicina must be in agreement with what results from the Genoese sources: the amplitude of the trade fulfilled there, which indicates terrestrial relations with markets and with supply places for stuff exported by Vicina to Hungary and to the Golden Horde. Taking into account this necessary condition of the terrestrial connection, Axiopolis is excluded, because a road by Bărăgan to Cernavodă is not conceivable. The pair of harbors Măcin-Brăila could match this condition because Brăila took the function of Vicina after its disappearance. No coins dated between the l3th- l4th centuries were recovered by archaeological researches or by stray finds after the destruction of the buildings in Măcin. Such coins should have to exist in such a commercial centre. The second objection which excludes Măcin is the position of Vicina on the frontier between the Byzantine-Genoese state organization and the Golden Horde. Therefore, I consider that Vicina was a place developed near Isaccea, or even Isaccea. A large concentration of coins dated to the period when Vicina flourished exists there. Another worthy proposal, according to Marcu Botzan, is an island near the Danube bend, which was later destroyed by the water.
  • Limba de redactare: engleză
  • Vezi publicația: Etudes Byzantines et Post-Byzantines
  • Editura: Editura Academiei Române
  • Loc publicare: Bucureşti
  • Anul publicaţiei: 2016
  • Referinţă bibliografică pentru nr. revistă: VII; anul 2016
  • Paginaţia: 61-75
  • Navigare în nr. revistă:  |<  <  4 / 14   >  >|