Rome: Day One

This is basically the work of a crank with an ax to grind, but one who’s also a trained archaeologist with a deep knowledge of Roman history and his tradecraft. This allows him to obscure his crackpottery to a large extent with a facade of analysis, apparently plausible at first glance. The gist of Prof. Carandini’s argument is that, rather than simply myths made from whole cloth, the ancient, foundational tales of Romulus and Remus and their fatal clash are indeed based in fact and that substantial support for this thesis can be found in Rome’s oldest archaeological remains. Through extensive diagrams, the author sets forth various remains (post holes, spaces that functioned as hearths) that he contends were originally part of such structures as the original Sanctuary of Vesta and the Domus Regia (House Of The King), home of the legendary first kings of Rome.Carandini has the advantage of being an authority in his field plus the added cachet of a prestigious publisher. In the balance against his argument is the fact that most authorities on early Roman history find little merit to his argument. Despite continued, extensive excavation in Rome for several centuries, physical evidence for events described in early Roman history prior to the 5th Century BCE is basically lacking. Carandini does what he can with what he has, but the fact is that the scant remains he points to as Romulus’s house and other legendary structures can be interpreted in a number of ways. The author has no written evidence found on site to support his theory, admittedly a difficult test to meet when discussing such a distant period (approx. 750 BCE, over 2,700 years ago).Ultimately, however, I think Prof. Carandini undermines his own credibility and thus his argument. I refer to the absurd comparison he makes between the footprint of the UK Prime Minister’s residence at 10 Downing Street and that of the Forbidden Palace in Peking (with supporting diagrams), which he uses in all seriousness to support the contention that this neatly illustrates the dichotomy between the Western love for democracy and, on the other hand, Eastern despotism. This is a ridiculous, Orientalist argument that resorts to such broad stereotypes, it should simply be dismissed out of hand. Anyone who makes such reactionary arguments in the 21st Century shouldn’t be taken seriously. This is not a worthwhile work of scholarship, popular or otherwise.The only way that this book might be of interest is as a brief, readable account of Rome’s mythical foundation, that is, the miraculous birth of Romulus and Remus, their suckling by a she wolf, etc. If you do read this book, please do so cum grano salis, as the Romans used to say.

The chief controversies surrounding Rome's early years (did Romulus really exist? did Rome have a discrete founding event? when did Rome become a self-governing city? how did Rome get its name?) have vexed historians for centuries and will probably never be settled, but Carandini's hugely ambitious interpretation of recent archeological work near the Palatine adds considerably to the arguments in favor of an actual Romulus. Carandini's Romulus is a hero straight out of Livy -- a displaced youth from Alba Longa with royal lineage and twin brother Remus. Carandini makes a case not just for an actual founder, not just for an actual founder presiding over an actual founding event, but for an actual founder presiding over an actual founding event actually taking place on the legendary date of 21 April. The evidence Carandini marshals for the historicity of the early chapters in Livy's "Ab Urbe" won't be dismissed easily, despite howls of protest from the anti-Romulus camp. Carandini will always have his detractors, but his work has made possible a serious discussion of Livy among academic historians...

I gave "Rome, Day One" three stars with a heavy heart, because the book IS interesting. Having read anglo historians on ancient Rome, I have found it refreshing to be able to read an Italian archeological perspective and, besides, the often too dismissive historian view of Roman ancient tradition is unconvincing. Andrea Carandini believes that there is a structured core of truth about the Remus and Romulus story of the foundation of Rome, and he describes, with more detail than anybody else I've read, how the foundation could have happened. The illustrations are black, white and gray toned, but they are a banquet for the hungry eyes of everybody curious about how Rome really was like in the beginning. If other professional historians understood the power of illustration as Carandini does, their books would be so much better appreciated than they are!The book has two aims: first, as stated above, to mix tradition and archeology in order to recreate the foundation of Rome, and the second is to present Rome, together with Greece, as distinct in terms of political organization from the ancient eastern states and empires, the democratic versus totalitarian roots of, respectively, the "West"and the "East" (indeed, Carandini extends this distinction to our own days in his "Conclusion", in a oversimplified manner).The first objective is met finely, albeit with the same dismissiveness towards alternative views that historians show to the traditional account. I would like to know who thinks differently and why, and thus I probably would appreciate more Carandini's views. Instead, throughout the book, Carandini frequently reminds us that he has been excavating in the area for twenty years. Although this is not the only argument supporting his views, it feels like the number of years is very important in the matter, at least to him. It is and it is not, because one could have excavated for 40 years and end up finding little, while one luck digging season... Anyway, my point is that I would like to see more explaining and less bragging.Another thing that bothered me is that he rarely mentions anybody else's archeological efforts, and he writes as if everything of importance have been found by him and his team. Maybe it is so, but maybe it isn't.Finally, the author would have much helped his argument if he further clarified the comparison between early Roman foundation traditions and those that appeared after the Greek introduction of Troy, Aeneas, and other such characters in the story. He should have done it because the book is not for the specialist. This is very important because it would have supported his choice of sources for the traditional account.Bottom line: if you like to read about the history of Rome, particularly early Rome, you must read this book, because it is so fascinating. Only be prepared for a different sort of scholarship than that of British and American historians.