Salvete omnes

History, being an interpretive discipline, tends to tell us more about the times in which it was written than the times it is written about. Historical myth poses that same problem, since it tries to explain through myth what exists in the present (of when the myth originated) rather than offer us a glimpse into the past.

Historians of Rome have argued over how well we might take Roman myth to reflect on Rome's early history. Dumezil, in many ways, tried to dismiss Roman myth altogether and invent his own myth of an archaic Rome based on his own ideas about Indo-Europeans. I do not find his arguments valid. Dumezil of course acknowledged that he was not an historian or an archaeologist, but a mythologist. Historians tend to accept Roman myths more readily. A good discussion of problems in early Roman history, and on the value of myth, or lack there of, is given in T. J. Cornell's "The Beginnings of Rome," 1995. Cornell concludes that in general archaeology seems to confirm aspects of Roman myth as told in Livy. However there are two precautions to make before agreeing with such an assessment. First, the Romans were trying to explain some relics of their ancient world and often did so by relating it to their myths. For example when excavating Mons Saturnus to build a new temple to Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, the Romans came upon a skull. They explained its presence by identifying the skull with a character out of Roman myth, and thereby did the Capitolium attain its name. In the late Republic some ancient shepherds huts were discovered on the Palatine and thus the Romans assumed it had once been the house of Romulus and Remus. They turned the hut into a shrine dedicated to Romulus. At best what Livy tells us is how Romans thought in his own time about their history and what explanations they gave of remains we find today.

Archaeology has undercovered remains that they have identified by referring to Livy. That brings up the second precaution we should bear in mind. The "tendency" of archaeology to confirm Livy or other Roman myths is a self-serving way of looking at discoveries. Carandini for example gave an excited report to the press when he first discovered the pomerium wall around the Palatine, claiming it was one built by Romulus. He discovered what is obviously a pomerium wall, but without associated remains (at least initially) that could really confirm its date. Some remains found with the wall come from the seventh century, so we can say it is very early. But was it Romulus' wall? The myth tells us so but we have no way of knowing when that myth first was told. The reliance of historians on archaeological evidence is flimsy at best. It is a pronouce problem with archaeology in Isreali too where every find is first identified with some Biblical passage, only later to be questioned.

A good introductory book into the subject is R. Ross Holloway's "The Archaeology of Early Rome and Latium," 1994. It is interesting and refreshing to hear the perspective of an archaeologist who cautions against the enthusiasm of historians like Cornell who wish to accept explanations based on Livy. An archaeologist is suppose to take a more cautionary approach until more information is gathered. Unfortunately many don't, because discoveries confirming myths tend to gain more funding from an enthusiastic public.