What do you think?
Rate this book
Roma: Il primo giorno
Da vent’anni Andrea Carandini scava nello spazio tra Campidoglio e Foro romano, tra collina Velia e Palatino, alla ricerca delle tracce di Roma che precedono la data fatale del 21 aprile di circa 27 secoli fa. I risultati di questo lavoro, che ha riportato alla luce cose sorprendenti, si possono ora leggere nel suo Roma. Il primo giorno.
Corrado Augias, “Il Venerdì di Repubblica”
Come in tutti i miti del mondo, anche in quello romano si racconta l’origine di qualcosa che emerge dal nulla; così facendo, la leggenda esprime a un tempo una verità e una falsità. La fondazione di Roma è senz’altro un inizio epocale, che ha tuttavia altri importanti inizi alle sue spalle. Andrea Carandini porta alla luce millenni di memoria accumulata per raccontare le tracce di un abitato che ha segnato per sempre la nostra identità.
Corrado Augias, “Il Venerdì di Repubblica”
Come in tutti i miti del mondo, anche in quello romano si racconta l’origine di qualcosa che emerge dal nulla; così facendo, la leggenda esprime a un tempo una verità e una falsità. La fondazione di Roma è senz’altro un inizio epocale, che ha tuttavia altri importanti inizi alle sue spalle. Andrea Carandini porta alla luce millenni di memoria accumulata per raccontare le tracce di un abitato che ha segnato per sempre la nostra identità.
148 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2007
5 people are currently reading
109 people want to read
About the author
Andrea Carandini
53 books15 followersAndrea Carandini is professor of archaeology at the University of Rome, La Sapienza, and the author of many books. For more than two decades, he has supervised some of the most important archaeological excavations in Rome, and he was instrumental in the discovery of the ancient Palatine Wall and the earliest phase of the Sanctuary of Vesta.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
August 20, 2013
In Rome: Day One, Andrea Carandini is exercised about two things. The first is arguing for the superiority of the “Western syndrome” over the “Eastern syndrome.” The former is rooted in ancient Greece and Rome and is “a particular way of organizing life, a sacral-juridical-political-governmental model according to which the different governing bodies of the community…manage to live together by mitigating centralized power within a unique form of organization” (p. 117). The “Eastern syndrome” is “based intrinsically on cities and kingdoms and perpetually despotic in nature” (p. 118). The second matter is when Rome became a polis, a city-state in the technical sense of the word and an example of the “Western syndrome.”
Carandini’s first concern I find questionable. It’s only made explicit in the “Conclusion” of this short book, and the author sounds like a 19th century historian in his paeans to the self-evident superiority of Graeco-Roman political theory and the modern, Western European systems that developed from it. I’m not saying he doesn’t have a point to a limited extent, but – at least as it’s presented here – the argument is so simplistic and general that it borders on propaganda, and ignores the enormous amount of research and primary sources that would make mincemeat of his “syndromes.” Fortunately, you don’t need to care to enjoy the contents of this book.
The second question Carandini ponders is more germane to the book’s contents but it’s still a fine point in an academic debate that readers can ignore. Carandini comes down solidly on the side that argues Rome was a city-state from its foundation, which all agree was around 750 BC as the Romans themselves believed.* As he writes, “[t]his realization led us to conclude that the settlement of the Quirites…had endowed itself…with an urbs, a forum, a citadel (arx), and an ager, which together formed a regnum…governed by a rex and by other, secondary powers, in accordance with a sacred, juridical, and political dispensation of a constitutional character” (p. 116). In the course of proving his point, Carandini has written a marvelous book that, with a bit of the reader’s imagination, recreates Rome in its earliest days. The book has a plethora of illustrations, photos and diagrams (though none in color, alas) that take you into the lives of the city’s first citizens. My favorite is on page 98-99; an illustration of the “urban landscape of early Rome.” It’s a bucolic one of pastures, farms and copses, but scattered amongst these rural scenes are the buildings of an urban center – the Vestal sanctuary, its hut of Virgins, the Domus Regia, the fortifications on the Palatine, the Forum and the Capitolium.
If you’re at all interested in archaeology, especially Greek and Roman, then I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend this work. It’s too specialized for the general reader but I would also recommend it to Roman historians/history buffs. In that same vein, I’m reminded of and would recommend The Beginnings of Rome: Italy from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars, Ca 1,000-264 BC. It’s a broader look at early Rome and its rise to pre-eminence and, to my mind, more balanced in its considerations of “what it all means.”
* The other side of the argument maintains that Rome acquired the trappings of a city-state a century later, c. 650.
Carandini’s first concern I find questionable. It’s only made explicit in the “Conclusion” of this short book, and the author sounds like a 19th century historian in his paeans to the self-evident superiority of Graeco-Roman political theory and the modern, Western European systems that developed from it. I’m not saying he doesn’t have a point to a limited extent, but – at least as it’s presented here – the argument is so simplistic and general that it borders on propaganda, and ignores the enormous amount of research and primary sources that would make mincemeat of his “syndromes.” Fortunately, you don’t need to care to enjoy the contents of this book.
The second question Carandini ponders is more germane to the book’s contents but it’s still a fine point in an academic debate that readers can ignore. Carandini comes down solidly on the side that argues Rome was a city-state from its foundation, which all agree was around 750 BC as the Romans themselves believed.* As he writes, “[t]his realization led us to conclude that the settlement of the Quirites…had endowed itself…with an urbs, a forum, a citadel (arx), and an ager, which together formed a regnum…governed by a rex and by other, secondary powers, in accordance with a sacred, juridical, and political dispensation of a constitutional character” (p. 116). In the course of proving his point, Carandini has written a marvelous book that, with a bit of the reader’s imagination, recreates Rome in its earliest days. The book has a plethora of illustrations, photos and diagrams (though none in color, alas) that take you into the lives of the city’s first citizens. My favorite is on page 98-99; an illustration of the “urban landscape of early Rome.” It’s a bucolic one of pastures, farms and copses, but scattered amongst these rural scenes are the buildings of an urban center – the Vestal sanctuary, its hut of Virgins, the Domus Regia, the fortifications on the Palatine, the Forum and the Capitolium.
If you’re at all interested in archaeology, especially Greek and Roman, then I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend this work. It’s too specialized for the general reader but I would also recommend it to Roman historians/history buffs. In that same vein, I’m reminded of and would recommend The Beginnings of Rome: Italy from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars, Ca 1,000-264 BC. It’s a broader look at early Rome and its rise to pre-eminence and, to my mind, more balanced in its considerations of “what it all means.”
* The other side of the argument maintains that Rome acquired the trappings of a city-state a century later, c. 650.
February 1, 2021
“Possiamo pertanto ricostruire, in via teorica, una comunità fatta di 6600 giovani [...]; i bambini e i ragazzi, maschi e femmine, dovevano essere 8918,9 [...]; gli anziani dovevano essere 2318,9 [...]. L’intera comunità dei Quiriti doveva dunque ammontare a 17.837,8 individui circa”.
Ecco, sulla stima di una popolazione vissuta in un contesto ipotetico risalente a quasi tre millenni fa, una stima di 17.837,8 “circa” (CIRCA!!! no 20.000, nemmeno 18.000, bensì diciassettemilaottocentotrentasetta virgola otto, VIRGOLA OTTO!!!), ecco, su questa stima mi è partito l’embolo ed ho incendiato (metaforicamente) il libro.
Ecco, sulla stima di una popolazione vissuta in un contesto ipotetico risalente a quasi tre millenni fa, una stima di 17.837,8 “circa” (CIRCA!!! no 20.000, nemmeno 18.000, bensì diciassettemilaottocentotrentasetta virgola otto, VIRGOLA OTTO!!!), ecco, su questa stima mi è partito l’embolo ed ho incendiato (metaforicamente) il libro.
December 26, 2021
This book features the recent archeological findings in Rome by the author. Plenty of maps and figures, but I had a hard time following the narrative. I'm planning to reread it in the near future and hope to get a better grasp of his findings. The last section of the book was composed of several portions of ancient writings (Plutarch, Livy, Ovid, others) regarding the founding of Rome and these were very interesting.
February 19, 2012
5 stars? I suppose that's not a shock to anyone who knows me. Not knowing much more about archeology than the average man on the street made much of this seem somewhat new to me. I've been fascinated in both the history and the myth behind Rome's foundation for decades, and this offered a different perspective for me.
April 24, 2019
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.
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.
March 14, 2022
Refreshing... archaelogy meets tradition... and both are compatible!
December 30, 2022
3.5 stelline ma solo per la complessità di lettura. Ci ho messo tanto tempo proprio per questo. Tuttavia, come racconta Roma Carandini nessuno!
February 12, 2016
Although Princeton University published this book, it is clearly marketed to casual readers. There are a lot of illustrations and there are few references. Even the shape of the book screams mass-market, discount book. However, this book is not suitable for general readers. The author clearly assumes that his readers are familiar with both the mythology and the archeology. In this case, the reverse is more likely. Most college students learn about Rome beginning with Caesar - long after Day 1.
Most of the book is based on archeology. Carandini is a leading archeologist of urban Rome, possibly the foremost scholar. After reading this book, I have no doubt that he knows his skill masterfully. His identification and interpretation of the archeological record brings considerable weight to this book. However, he tends to interpose the mythology of Romulus and Remus on top of that archeology. Ultimately he accepts the mythology as being as factual as the archeology. He supports this assertion with excerpts from several ancient authors.
I can accept his interpretation of the archeological record. I appreciate his efforts to interpose the mythology onto the archeological record. However, I remain skeptical. Mythology serves the purpose of reinforcing cultural ties. In several spots he mentions Aeneas; but seems hesitant to include him because the mythology of Aeneas serves a different purpose than that of the twins. The result is confusing and sometimes repetitive.
It is fascinating how Carandini presents a full day of ritual to consecrate the grounds. Of course, here he assumes the reader is familiar with the rituals, religion, and architecture. I knew nothing about the different buildings or what made them so sacred. It was also difficult to understand the significance of the different places. Carandini pays lip service to the seven hills of Rome; but appears to indicate only 1-3 hills were involved in the first day's rituals. I am uncertain which ones formed the boundaries. At this point he adds the mythology of the twins in determining which hills to consecrate.
The rituals are a bit difficult to follow. Because his literary sources all agree on the story of the birds, it seems that a sort of divination (with birds) led them to determine when and where to locate the city. After this crucial decision, the remaining interpretations are difficult to follow. The architecture may have been symbolic or militaristic. The construction may have been wood and thatch or stone. The builders of ancient Rome apparently built unusually strong walls, so their mission may have anticipated war. Without identifying his sources, Carandini then begins a narrative on how Rome exploded in growth by warfare and welcoming run-away slaves, ex-patriots, and rebels.
Overall, the book is a bit difficult to follow. The organization is erratic and the author assumes the audience knows the material nearly as well as he knows it. Readers can learn something from the accompanying narrative. The rituals surrounding the establishment of a city are important to a greater understanding of the era. However, I think Carandini could have done more to explain the basics of his research and craft before diving into the material.
Most of the book is based on archeology. Carandini is a leading archeologist of urban Rome, possibly the foremost scholar. After reading this book, I have no doubt that he knows his skill masterfully. His identification and interpretation of the archeological record brings considerable weight to this book. However, he tends to interpose the mythology of Romulus and Remus on top of that archeology. Ultimately he accepts the mythology as being as factual as the archeology. He supports this assertion with excerpts from several ancient authors.
I can accept his interpretation of the archeological record. I appreciate his efforts to interpose the mythology onto the archeological record. However, I remain skeptical. Mythology serves the purpose of reinforcing cultural ties. In several spots he mentions Aeneas; but seems hesitant to include him because the mythology of Aeneas serves a different purpose than that of the twins. The result is confusing and sometimes repetitive.
It is fascinating how Carandini presents a full day of ritual to consecrate the grounds. Of course, here he assumes the reader is familiar with the rituals, religion, and architecture. I knew nothing about the different buildings or what made them so sacred. It was also difficult to understand the significance of the different places. Carandini pays lip service to the seven hills of Rome; but appears to indicate only 1-3 hills were involved in the first day's rituals. I am uncertain which ones formed the boundaries. At this point he adds the mythology of the twins in determining which hills to consecrate.
The rituals are a bit difficult to follow. Because his literary sources all agree on the story of the birds, it seems that a sort of divination (with birds) led them to determine when and where to locate the city. After this crucial decision, the remaining interpretations are difficult to follow. The architecture may have been symbolic or militaristic. The construction may have been wood and thatch or stone. The builders of ancient Rome apparently built unusually strong walls, so their mission may have anticipated war. Without identifying his sources, Carandini then begins a narrative on how Rome exploded in growth by warfare and welcoming run-away slaves, ex-patriots, and rebels.
Overall, the book is a bit difficult to follow. The organization is erratic and the author assumes the audience knows the material nearly as well as he knows it. Readers can learn something from the accompanying narrative. The rituals surrounding the establishment of a city are important to a greater understanding of the era. However, I think Carandini could have done more to explain the basics of his research and craft before diving into the material.
May 25, 2015
In this book, Carandini sets forth some fairly controversial theories about the "first day" of the Roman city and its subsequent evolution under its first ruler. Though Carandini draws upon many resources, including his own archaeology in the heart of Rome, much of the book's main argument seems to be based off the author's belief in the foundation myth of Rome: namely that Romulus ritually "began" life in Rome on April 21, ca 750 BCE.
Carandini's arguments might be more compelling if he presented his archaeological findings separately from any mythology. Parts of the book, including the interpretation of the seemingly Etruscan influence on the early Palatine as well as the development of Forum, Capitol, and Citadel, are interesting, but primarily archaeologically. This book, which attempts to interpret Rome's beginnings for a general audience, is sure to disappoint classical scholars and interested parties alike. As I read the book, I had to wonder: how would Carandini have interpreted his findings on the Palatine if no foundation myth existed?
Carandini's arguments might be more compelling if he presented his archaeological findings separately from any mythology. Parts of the book, including the interpretation of the seemingly Etruscan influence on the early Palatine as well as the development of Forum, Capitol, and Citadel, are interesting, but primarily archaeologically. This book, which attempts to interpret Rome's beginnings for a general audience, is sure to disappoint classical scholars and interested parties alike. As I read the book, I had to wonder: how would Carandini have interpreted his findings on the Palatine if no foundation myth existed?
March 15, 2014
Having just reviewed "The Great Sea: A Human History of the Mediterranean," which is an 816-page opus, it is quite a change to review this small (in size), 184-page book. Although it is quite slim, "Rome: Day One" is a fascinating book that postulates that recent archeological evidence proves that Rome was indeed founded around its mythological founding date of 753 BCE as a true city by a king-priest, very likely Romulus. This completely overturns current thought that Rome was only a few huts in the mid-8th century BCE, and didn't even approach large village status until the mid-7th century BCE. The evidence provided by Carandini is convincing and may very likely change the history books. I look forward to his further archeological findings.
September 21, 2011
I was hoping this would be more centered on proving the existence of Romulus, but it seemed to be more about Carandini's typical archeological finds. It was still interesting, though.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews