Talk:Vulcanal
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Location, location, location?[edit]
There is confusion in some related articles (Rostra, Graecostasis, etc) regarding the location of the Vulcanal. The Rostra article says it was "Underneath the Lapis Niger", but my source (Grant, Michael (1970), The Roman Forum, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson; Photos by Werner Forman, pg 214 — including a map, pg 44) — places it about 40 meters away (behind the New Rostra, built around the time of Julius Caesar's assassination). It may be that much older sources (ca. 1900) place it nearer (under) the Lapis Niger, but that expert opinion on this has changed. Any expert assistance would be appreciated. Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Added diagram and reference specifying the location. Valerius Tygart (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure that is what that illustration indicates. At any rate the image seems to make a few other mistakes. The area itself is the "Area of the Vulcanal", which is also referred to as the archaic Comitium space. Should we be using a diagram for this page that (A) is from the imperial period when the alter did not exist in that spot (there is no reference anywhere I can find to substantiate that the Vulcanal was in the spot indicated by text in the image. Maybe it was moved?) and (B)Use an image that the subect isn't the main focus?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- The location of the Vulcanal on the 1926 map is exactly the same as the location indicated on the diagram in the 1970 Grant book mentioned above. (Also, that spot correlates with the verbal description given in the Richardson book I cited.) Not sure what other mistakes you're referring to. Valerius Tygart (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure that is what that illustration indicates. At any rate the image seems to make a few other mistakes. The area itself is the "Area of the Vulcanal", which is also referred to as the archaic Comitium space. Should we be using a diagram for this page that (A) is from the imperial period when the alter did not exist in that spot (there is no reference anywhere I can find to substantiate that the Vulcanal was in the spot indicated by text in the image. Maybe it was moved?) and (B)Use an image that the subect isn't the main focus?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- What is this?[1]--Amadscientist (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I've seen this website. It's unreliable & has several errors in it. There is really no doubt that the Lapis Niger & the Vulcanal were 2 separate sites some distance apart. At least 35 meters, or more like 40. (See the respective articles in Richardson. The two sites are discussed as not overlapping at all.) Valerius Tygart (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- What is this?[1]--Amadscientist (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
To conclusive The article makes a number of conclusions that cannot be substantiated in mainstream research. There are a number of translated documents and a number of researchers that disagree with the assements being made here. There are no absolutes going back this far in Romes history. The space you claim is the spot is not mentioned in any research I have, or any reconstruction made. I think you are trying to push a conclusion to facts and that is simply not scientific nor acceptable. There may be a few scholars that have agree with these assesments but they seem to be on the fringe. Are they wrong? Who knows.....but the article makes claims not substantiated by main stream research.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are very much mistaken. Please see the two references that substantiate the article as regards the location of the Vulcanal:
- Grant, Michael (1970), The Roman Forum, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson; Photos by Werner Forman, pg 214.
- Richardson, Jr., L. (1992), A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pg 432.
- These books are also consistent with the map from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Is there something about these books that you don't like? Or do you have reputable, countervailing sources?? If not, I don't know what you're going on about... The article is correct & well referenced. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's not it. I actually think this makes since for a number of reasons but I am simply not sure how you are using the reference. There is basic information that disputes these claims and you don't address why these claims out weigh mainstream or older mainstream thought. Are you basing the location off written wording or the map itself? How does such information not correspond with the UCLA reconstructions or the Rome Reborn etc. Does this theory support any other theory that may have helped to alter the accepted topography? That sort of thing. Look, the suggestus, alter and and monuments under the Lapis Niger have many duel myths as does much of the comitium.. So for this to be the current and accepted understanding of the topography, there will be explanations as to why it is and why it has been mistaken. expanding on the article could help clear up a lot of questions.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm having some trouble with your attempts at the English language, but I will do my best.
- You're saying that there is " basic information that disputes these claims" and that the article contradicts "older mainstream thought"... What sources are you referring to?? Please bring them forward for evaluation.
- You ask am I "basing the location off written wording or the map itself?" OK, the Grant book indicates the location in wording & a map. The Richardson book has the location in wording. The Britannica has a map. All three are consistent with one another.
- You ask "How does such information not correspond with the UCLA reconstructions or the Rome Reborn"? These are not primary sources. They are collections of images based on the scholarly sources. I looked them over & I can see no reference to the Vulcanal there. Can you find such?
- You ask "Does this theory support any other theory that may have helped to alter the accepted topography?" What does this mean? The Vulcanal was where it was according to the sources cited. Again, do you have any reliable sources that contradict what the article says? If so, bring them on...
- You seem hung up on the idea that the Vulcanal & Lapis Niger were on the same spot. Nothing reliable I have seen suggests that. They were separate & some distance apart & always were. What have you seen that contradicts that?
- Valerius Tygart (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also: This site may help you: [2].Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm having some trouble with your attempts at the English language, but I will do my best.
- That's not it. I actually think this makes since for a number of reasons but I am simply not sure how you are using the reference. There is basic information that disputes these claims and you don't address why these claims out weigh mainstream or older mainstream thought. Are you basing the location off written wording or the map itself? How does such information not correspond with the UCLA reconstructions or the Rome Reborn etc. Does this theory support any other theory that may have helped to alter the accepted topography? That sort of thing. Look, the suggestus, alter and and monuments under the Lapis Niger have many duel myths as does much of the comitium.. So for this to be the current and accepted understanding of the topography, there will be explanations as to why it is and why it has been mistaken. expanding on the article could help clear up a lot of questions.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Categorization[edit]
Category:1st-century religious buildings is a container cat, but I'm unsure what subcat is appropriate for this. --Slivicon (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)