Ruins may support tale of Rome's origin (Romulus & Remus Given Boost)

Washington Times ^ | 2/19/05 | Rachel Sanderson

[nickcarraway]

Italian archaeologists digging in the Forum have unearthed the ruins of a palace they say confirms the legend of Rome's birth -- a discovery that may force the rewriting of Western history.

Most contemporary historians dismiss as fable the tale that Romulus founded Rome in 753 B.C. and built a walled city on the slopes of the Palatine hill where he and his twin brother, Remus, were suckled by a wolf in their infancy.

Andrea Carandini of Rome's La Sapienza University has spent 20 years trying to prove the skeptics wrong and last month he and his team hit on the final piece of a puzzle he believes shows the myth has root in fact.

"Archaeology and legend appear to go better together than contemporary historians thought," Mr. Carandini said in an interview before presentation of his findings this weekend.

"We now have all the elements to show that part of the legend may very well be true."

[nickcarraway]

ping

[1FASTGLOCK45]

Romulus and Roke? i'm going to have to start getting back into studying history again.

[GeronL]

Has anyone seen the ads for the 'rock opera' HERO?? Set in the futuristic NYC or something?? really interesting...

[Plutarch]

Ancient Rome bump:

[Hetty_Fauxvert]

You know, I have never understood why "historians" are so often inclined to dismiss ancient history! Granted, the part about being suckled by a wolf is a little out there, but why didn't they believe that there were actual brothers named Romulus and Remus, one became king and one got axed? There are so many instances of ancient history being "disproved" by historians and then being proved true after all -- the discovery of Troy being a rather spectacular instance of that. This snobbish and elitist idea that historians of the ancient world couldn't be trusted on anything at all presupposes that people of the ancient world were stupid. Well, they weren't stupid. Often ignorant, yes, but their brains were as good as ours, and oral traditions are often quite accurate. After all, think about how the ancients transmitted information. Until writing became common, they just plain memorized things and gave them back verbally. Apprenticed storytellers were required to memorize Homer -- all of it! -- and be able to spout it back accurately before they became masters. So I don't at all see why modern historians are so quick to dismiss ancient stories as being rubbish.

Getting off my soapbox now ....

[UCANSEE2]

Ah, Deimos and Phobos. Were they born from the collision that left a giant scrape across the face of Mars?

[JimSEA]

You have said it for me as well. The "scholars" seem especially keen to disprove the Bible. They don't have a good track record however. In what I have read, it seems more often than not that the old tales are based on fact.

[Independent_Libertarian]

All myth has a base in reality. I’m surprised, and hadn’t realized, that historians didn’t think the story was true. I agree with Hetty_Fauxvert about the ‘wolf’ part being a little questionable; but I’ve always thought that the brothers were real.

[Tax Government]

Maybe it was a domesticated dog that looked something like a wolf.

[trebb]

You know, I have never understood why "historians" are so often inclined to dismiss ancient history!

Good use of "quotes" - many "historians" enjoy adding their own twist/slant/bent to what they see as the salient facts. Why should they listen to others' versions when it's so much more fun to make up their own?

[aruanan]

There are so many instances of ancient history being "disproved" by historians and then being proved true after all -- the discovery of Troy being a rather spectacular instance of that.

Don't forget the "There were no such people as Hittites--oops."

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

You have made a lucid, perfect point. Thank you.

[Mariposaman]

Rumor has it that the ancient, past it's prime channel: CNN, was founded by Bevis and Butthead.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

It is something that bothers me too.

In all fairness they have been burned a time or two. The Egyptian Kings list springs to mind. There were at least three Pharaohs that we know were removed from the list.

But usually the stories prove to be more accurate then not. They may leave out a bit, as the Kings List did, but what is there is generally more or less accurate.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Myth may not but legend usually does.

[Pietro]

".... have never understood why "historians" are so often inclined to dismiss ancient history!"

Actually the answer is quite simple; publish or perish.

And no one ever got noticed for observing that the sky is blue. Ergo, challenge accepted truths and get your face on TV. have idiot reporters fawn over you, get quoted in the nyslimes, etc. You don't even need definitive substantiation for your point if it challenges a widely held belief. Afterall, who in their right mind thinks that Abe Lincoln was gay?

This unfortunate malady extends throughout academe and includes not only the "soft" social sciences but the "hard" sciences as well.

The elite of academe are are quickly becoming a self-parody whether they realize it or not. They are marginalizing themselves to the point of irrelevance. I can see the time, as described by H. Hesse in "The Glassbead Game", when scholars have become an esoteric society little attended to by the culture at large.

Such is the price they pay for self-indulgent gamesmanship that ignores the wisdom of the "common" man.

[sully777]

It is written by Reuters, which is allowed in full text.

---

Ruins may support tale of Rome's origin

By Rachel Sanderson
REUTERS NEWS AGENCY February 19, 2005

ROME — Italian archaeologists digging in the Forum have unearthed the ruins of a palace they say confirms the legend of Rome's birth -- a discovery that may force the rewriting of Western history.
    Most contemporary historians dismiss as fable the tale that Romulus founded Rome in 753 B.C. and built a walled city on the slopes of the Palatine hill where he and his twin brother, Remus, were suckled by a wolf in their infancy.
    Andrea Carandini of Rome's La Sapienza University has spent 20 years trying to prove the skeptics wrong and last month he and his team hit on the final piece of a puzzle he believes shows the myth has root in fact.

    "Archaeology and legend appear to go better together than contemporary historians thought," Mr. Carandini said in an interview before presentation of his findings this weekend.
    "We now have all the elements to show that part of the legend may very well be true."
    The source of Mr. Carandini's confidence is the discovery of traces of an 8th century B.C. house of regal proportions on the edge of the Forum that dates from the period of the Eternal City's legendary founding.
    Found 10 yards or so beneath pines growing on the surface of the Palatine and under centuries of construction from classical to Renaissance times, the palace had a courtyard and covered inner area spanning an estimated 3,800 square feet.
    Wooden columns marked its entrances, ceramics decorated it and seats were located against the walls of a grand central hall.
    It is located by the Sanctuary of Vesta, the Roman goddess of the hearth, close to the slopes of the Palatine, the site of the earliest traces of Roman civilization and where legend has it Romulus killed Remus before building Rome.
    Most historians have always dismissed Rome's founding myth because they argued the Eternal City was just a huddle of wattle huts at the time Roman historian Livy described Romulus fortifying the Palatine and showing "outward symbols of power."
    Mr. Carandini, who has also found traces of sanctuaries, a defensive wall and a shingle Forum floor dating from the same period, said that view will now have to change.
    "It is exceptional, a find of maximum importance," he said. "It could only be a palace fit for a king." Scholars elsewhere, when asked for their reaction to the finds, tended to be more cautious.
    "The palace is completely convincing. In the 8th century B.C. people tended to live in tiny, sub-oval huts. This structure is much larger and rectangular. But this does not have a direct link to the Romulus myth," said Elizabeth Fentress, an archaeology research fellow at the British School in Rome.
    "The tradition is based on royalty and an orderly community, but that does not mean that Romulus killed Remus."

[sully777]

You know, I have never understood why "historians" are so often inclined to dismiss ancient history! Granted, the part about being suckled by a wolf is a little out there, but why didn't they believe that there were actual brothers named Romulus and Remus, one became king and one got axed? There are so many instances of ancient history being "disproved" by historians and then being proved true after all -- the discovery of Troy being a rather spectacular instance of that...

---

I'm partial to Celtic history, particularly Irish history. Irish history is so thorough yet there is an unrelenting attempt to paint it as myth, legend, hearsay, and untruth. Archeologists are proving once again not to believe everything the Caesars' and the Albion Courts write.

[q_an_a]

all you need to do to answer your question is to look at the history of the Communist states and what historians said about them. You can barely find the history of the Stalin gulag - in American history books - so finding the background of the founding of Rome would seem no more surprising. Your point, however you make take my comment, is well made AND I agree with your assesment.