Ancient Rome

themselves began systematically to study the earlier centuries of their city and their empire. Yet these historians had little more direct evidence of the earliest phases of Rome's history than modern writers have, and in some ways perhaps not as much, as there were no surviving documents or archives. Their 'histories' about the foundation of ancient Rome tell us a good deal about how the Romans saw their city, their values, and their failings. However, they tell us very little indeed about what they claim to inform us about: that is, what earliest Rome was actually like. One fact is obvious. Rome was already a very old city by 63 BCE, the birth date of its first emperor. But how exactly are we to access reliable information about the origins of Rome? One way of doing this is by turning away from the histories of Roman writers and seeking out clues in the Latin language, or in later Roman institutions that might point back to features of earliest Rome. Much more tangible, however, is the evidence of archaeology. Dig down deep in the city of Rome, below the visible ancient monuments, and a few traces of a much earlier settlement or settlements remain. Beneath the Forum itself (an ancient marketplace at the centre of the…