" 

 == Ancient Napoca and present day Cluj-Napoca == 

 ""There are no references to urban settlement on the site for the better part of a millennium thereafter"" (Brubaker et al. 2006, p.89) (  ) 
 :A few observations: 
 :# Just because Mr. Brubaker doesn't know about any, it doesn't mean that there are none or that there won't be any ever found. I guess this topic has to be expanded anyway as it has only one view (WP:NPOV). Even if it was theoretical gap of one millennium, which to me defines logic and common sense given the city is in the middle of Europe and on the path of migrations, and there was no known asteroid, volcano eruption or ice age in that period. It was a simple conquest by others, which happen throughout the history all the time. The native population was wiped out, assimilated, enslaved, dominated (most likely in my opinion), whatever. But it doesn't make sense to assume a waste land for 1000 years, after a significant ancient history and with so many invaders. 
 :# The Dacian and Roman ruins and artifacts are in the middle of the medieval city and not 50 km away as in other situations. Even if there are speculations that the native Daco-Roman population disappeared or was wiped out by the new invaders, the new comers obviously built their ""new"" town exactly on top of the ruined ancient city. They even probably named it after the Castrum Clus/clausa as described in the etymology, thus they insured continuity and created a clear link to the ancient city. Napoca was under new management. Why they didn't call it Napoca anymore? There are many possibilities, one being a desire to impose a new culture, to erase previous history. 
 :# Having the Napoca name appended back to Cluj, is questionable and debatable, can be deemed political or protochronistic, but at the end of the day, not entirely unfair, as the city obviously has a very significant and rich ancient history that happen exactly in the same place where the medieval Cluj was. The municipium is depicted as a major city on Tabula Peutingeriana section of Roman Dacia, on equal footing with Apula, Axiopolis, Ratiaria, Serdica and this speaks about the importance, size etc. So the ancient history part of the city deserves it equal share on an encyclopedic article like this. Cluj-Napoca is obviously not just a medieval city. 
 :# The section on ancient history also doesn't mentions the Celtic presence at all. See also Celts in Transylvania and also the National Museum of Transylvanian History. Nothing about rich archaeological finds either. A lot of content is missing and deserves its place here. 
   "