Ruins Support Myth of Rome's Founding

Thanks for the article, Zu. Feel free to send me links to any articles and I will try and review them in a timely fashion.

Ruins Support Myth of Rome's Founding

By this article alone, I am not convinced that Andrea Carandini has discovered the origins of Rome. This is a preliminary report that offers no conclusive evidence. Take this bit for instance:

Now, archaeologists believe they have found evidence that at least part of that tale may be true: Traces of a royal palace discovered in the Roman Forum have been dated to roughly the period of the eternal city's legendary foundation.

I have problems with this. No where in the article does it mention the date of the palace. "Roughly" could mean anything to an archaeologist... 10 years, 50, 100, 400?? It only says they used the clay to date it, with no mention of methods or accuracy--It's very possible the date is wrong. I need more information to say for sure, but the fact the article mentioned no date means it's feasible to suspect it's a bit off.

This is a report intended to excite the public and it is indeed rather exciting if Carandini can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. More excavation and analysis is needed; more questions need to be asked. It is important not to get into a mind-set that something is what it is before you have all of the answers. 20 years of excavation in a region certainly makes you a pro, but by no means does it make you an expert.

It is true that myths usually involve some sort of original truth but this is much harder to prove for ancient times. For now, I'll wait for an official journal article.