Archaeologica.org

According to legend, Rome was founded in 733 BC by the twins Romulus and Remus, sons of the war god Mars and a priestess, and reared by a female wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus).

A few days ago, though, all of Italy could follow live TV coverage of the excavation in Rome of a grave with female remains and accessories that was firmly dated at about 1.000 BC...
More graves of that period are expected to be found at the same location.

So much for legends...

Rome proves to be at least 300 years older than we already thought!

Perhaps there is a hint of truth in the legend, perhaps these people were taken over by the people who created what we call Rome?

well...descendants anyway.

Rome wasn't built in a day.
..............

Maybe
the antecedent "hut" village
shouldn't be called "Rome."
But if they find Romulus and Remus down
there, then maybe they can push the date back
300 years.

When I was in Rome about 15 years ago, the
Forum was a vast chasm of ruins, with trees
growing out of the ancient walls. Luckily it was
preserved all this time, and it can be excavated
at leisure,
without fighting developers.

Maybe they will find the tomb of the she-wolf that suckled them next.

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/p ... omulus.jpg

FreeThinker wrote:Maybe they will find the tomb of the she-wolf that suckled them next.

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/p ... omulus.jpg

Bitch coulda' laid down at least.

Sai Rei wrote:Perhaps there is a hint of truth in the legend, perhaps these people were taken over by the people who created what we call Rome?

well...descendants anyway.

Absolutely. Why history provides us with no examples of one group displacing another and stealing their stuff, does it?

[quote="FreeThinker"]Maybe they will find the tomb of the she-wolf that suckled them next.
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/p ... omulus.jpg[/quote]

Since that tomb is below the one just opened, that'd be a 300+ year old wolf bitch then...

What about the Etruscans? Weren't they around before the Romans?

I'm kinda confused about the mother of R and R. According to one show I saw, she was a Vestal Virgin and got into quite a bit of trouble over being pregnant. I think the father was some big shot or a god or something like that. Anyway, I thought that the Vestal Virgins came only after Rome and its pantheon of gods was established. Seems the little village was pretty active long before the boys were born.

[quote="Leona Conner"]What about the Etruscans? Weren't they around before the Romans?

I'm kinda confused about the mother of R and R. According to one show I saw, she was a Vestal Virgin and got into quite a bit of trouble over being pregnant. I think the father was some big shot or a god or something like that. Anyway, I thought that the Vestal Virgins came only after Rome and its pantheon of gods was established. Seems the little village was pretty active long before the boys were born.[/quote]

Indeed, Leona. There is considerable evidence that early Rome was founded and dominated by Etruscans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscans.

I haven't thought about the Etruscans much lately. BUt in my college art history classes we learned that they preceded the Romans.
Trying to memorize the stylistic differences between the Et.'s and the Romans, I never mastered the facts and concepts that are called
migration and diffusion.
And frankly, European History is really a muddle to me. The "map" was redrawn so many times due to invasions and alliances, and war after war, especially during the middle ages...
I am reading a book about the Mongol Empire,and it is just about impossible to follow the account of campaigns and battles. The empire included parts of Poland and Hungary, possibly Austria, and of course, Russia.
Anyway, this ties in with the levels of occupation in ancient cities.
I never quite believed it, but the impression I had in college was that
the streets eventually filled up with sand and dust and melted mudbricks
until the people couldn't get in their doors anymore, and they just said,
"heck, lets bury it all and start another layer! And meanwhile, let's have a new art style! We were tired of all those old pots and statues, anyway!"
But now I think that conquest was the engine that caused these layers by a series of intentional sackings and re-landscapings...
Sorry about the length of this, but I bet some of you can "relate" to this! And I bet some of you know whether Etruscanism diffused upward into Romanism, or was displaced and buried thereby.[/list]

Stan,
This might help-
http://www.online-archaeology.co.uk
It's not exclusively devoted to British archaeology btw.

Thanks, REalist.

[quote="stan"][...] whether Etruscanism diffused upward into Romanism, or was displaced and buried thereby.[/list][/quote]

The present school of thought is that Romulus and Remus were Etruscans. Romulus in all humility declared himself King of all he surveyed and named the (Etruscan) town where he lived appropriately after himself and the capital of his kingdom: Rome.
So Romulus really was an Etruscan who went into business for himself. A separatist! Not unsuccessfully as it turned out. Possibly helped by playing the Etruscans, the Phoenicians and the Greeks skillfully against eachother. The mix certainly defines Roman culture...

Of course...Rome was named after Romulus!

My head is spinning. Must retire and sleep on all this.

Good to "chat" with everybody tonight.