CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Argedava

potential Dacian fortified settlement

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJul 19, 2026
Entity authorityQ1927347
Source-derived summary

Argedava (Argedauon, Sargedava, Sargedauon, Zargedava, Zargedauon, Ancient Greek: Αργεδαυον, Σαργεδαυον) was potentially an important Dacian town mentioned in the Decree of Dionysopolis (48 BC), and maybe located at Popești, a district in the town of Mihăilești, Giurgiu County, Muntenia, Romania.

Decree of Dionysopolis

The decree, a fragmentary marble inscription, is located in the National Museum in Sofia. It was written by the citizens of Dionysopolis to Akornion, who is said in the text to have met somebody's father in Argedauon. In a later section, the inscription also refers to the Dacian king Burebista and mentions that Akornion was his chief adviser (Ancient Greek: πρῶτοσφίλος, literally "first friend"). According to the text, Akornion was also sent as an ambassador of Burebista to Pompey.

This has led to the assumption that the mentioned Argedava was Burebista's capital of the Dacian kingdom. Regarding the location of Argedava and historians opinions are split in two groups. One school of thought, led by historians Constantin Daicoviciu and Hadrian Daicoviciu, assumes that the inscription talks about Argidava and place the potential capital of Burebista at Vărădia, Caraș-Severin County, Romania. The forms Argidava and Arcidava found in other ancient sources like Ptolemy's Geographia (c. 150 AD) and Tabula Peutingeriana (2nd century AD), clearly place a town with those names at this geographical location.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Argedava” as potential Dacian fortified settlement. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Argedava, potential and Dacian.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current 216-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Argedava, potential and Dacian providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Argedava”, the useful work is to connect “potential Dacian fortified settlement” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 19, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1927347. Authority coordinates are 44.325, 25.907. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 1 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Argedava”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Argedava primary sources, Argedava archive and Argedava research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Argedava”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from Argedava” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.