I find this passage here is something worthy of discussion
quote:This is one of the most important discoveries of all time,? said Andrea Carandini, a prominent Italian archaeologist. He has long held that the myths of ancient Rome could be true.
There have been various, similar remarks made about legends and passages out of the Bible that turned out to be factual areas, or events. Often, such is used to demonstrate the validity of the Bible.
What I am interested in discussing here is that this phenomenom (legend that is based on fact) is not isolated to the Bible, first of all. And second, that in the case of the Romulus and Riemus legend of Ancient Rome, that if based somewhat on fact (or at least an actual area), that it does not then validate all the other beliefs, stories, etc of the Romans (like belief in the Gods, etc).
Comments, observations, etc, anyone?
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I read about this briefly in a newspaper on the subway yesterday. OK, actually I just glanced over at the newspaper being read by the person next to me and saw something about this cave being found and how it possibly tied into myth, but said person turned the page before I could get too far.
Your two points seem rather obvious to me. Anyone who has studied myth knows that all myth is based on at least a grain of truth, and to assume that the validation of one story* validates all other stories is just poor logic.
*If that's even what this is. I am skeptical, to be honest. The article gives absolutely no evidence to support the claim that this cave is the cave where Romulus and Remus were suckled, other than the fact that this archaeologist believes that the myths might be true and--hey look!--we found a cave!
Another important point that seems to be missed by everyone involved is that sacred sites like these are often picked long after the events that supposedly surround them took place. Why? Because that's usually how long it takes for something to become sacred. So even if this is the cave where priests of Lupercus held rituals--and I am much more inclined to believe this--it doesn't mean that it is the cave where Romulus and Remus were suckled. All it means is that this might be the cave where the ancient Romans believed that Romulus and Remus were suckled.
And yes, the same logic may be applied to holy sites for any world religion, unless someone can prove an unbroken line of descent from the time of the event to the present (in other words, that people in every generation from the time of the event recognized the place as being what people later claimed it was). This is usually not possible, with the trail only going back to a few centuries after the events described in the myth took place. I am, however, not an archaeologist, I am a folklorist, and I am just generalizing here and don't have all the facts in this particular case. I'd love to read a detailed academic paper on the subject, though (preferably in English--my Italian sucks).
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-23-2007 10:12
I personally do not know if the place truly was the cave where the two boys were raised, and if that actually happened - and the article does not prove that the cave was really such a place. More interesting, is that the legend of the two boys was actually celebrated and clearly was also officially acknowledged and a monument to it was created in that cave.
This is what I am pointing out, and also, how even though there is actual factual evidence of a place that is spoken of in legend, it does not mean that what happened in the legend is necessarily true or even really took place. What it does prove, is that the legend is based on some factual basis (meaning in this case that Rome really did celebrate this origin).
I recall long ago a similar discussion, I believe it was in one of the religion threads, where Bugs was expousing this technique in the case of the Bible, to insinuate that it had more validity than other Holy Books. This provides further evidence, that many of the books that contain legends, and tales that contain legends, also have factual places that really existed.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
This is what I am pointing out, and also, how even though there is actual factual evidence of a place that is spoken of in legend, it does not mean that what happened in the legend is necessarily true or even really took place. What it does prove, is that the legend is based on some factual basis (meaning in this case that Rome really did celebrate this origin).
I'm not even sure that this is the case. As far as I can tell (and, again, I have little knowledge of the archeology in this case), the fact that a cave exists that the Romans believed was the cave where Romulus and Remus were suckled, and that this cave was also where rituals were held, does not necessarily mean that this cave was what the Romans believed it to be. It could just be a random cave that they decided would make a good location for the myth. In other words, the myth came first, the location came second. So I don't know if this can even be called "factual evidence of a place that is spoken of in legend."
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-23-2007 16:45
Perhaps I am not explaining this well enough.
I do not mean that the find validates that Romulus and Remus were suckled, or really existed. That is the whole point! Obviously, the Romans held this to be true, and erected this monument in this cave to this end. Whether or not the cave was truly the cave that they were suckled in, and if it really happen is not proven, of course. What is proven is that a cave with a monument to this legend exists, and that the Romans actually celebrated this.
This validates the legend that Romans held this to be true (or at least celebrated it).
It will continue to be a myth and legend (Romulus and Remus being suckled in a cave), unless further evidence is uncovered that sheds more light upon it.
That is the point.
This applies in the same cases with the Bible, the Koran, the Book of the Hindu, etc.
I hope that was written clearly enough
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Another important point that seems to be missed by everyone involved is that sacred sites like these are often picked long after the events that supposedly surround them took place.
I'd say this is the key point. The articles I have read give no indication that anyone is promoting the location as being where the actual mythical event happened, but rather that this is the location the ancients held sacred in regard to the mythical event (whether they believed it happened there, or simply found it a suitable location).
Of course, the fact that a location is found where a past people celebrated a mythical event "proves" nothing in regard to the myth, and lends no creedence whatsoever to any factual basis for the myth even. This clearly does also hold true in regard to the bible or any other mythical texts.
I think you're point is clear enough, ws, but I think you're arguing against something that nobody is actually arguing for, and making a point that (at least) most accept right away.
I do not mean that the find validates that Romulus and Remus were suckled, or really existed. That is the whole point! Obviously, the Romans held this to be true, and erected this monument in this cave to this end. Whether or not the cave was truly the cave that they were suckled in, and if it really happen is not proven, of course. What is proven is that a cave with a monument to this legend exists, and that the Romans actually celebrated this.
This validates the legend that Romans held this to be true (or at least celebrated it).
Right, I get you. I think what tripped me up was that last sentence there, especially the phrase "the legend that Romans held this to be true." I wasn't aware that anyone doubted that Romans held this to be true, or such a belief in itself would qualify as a legend. The Romulus and Remus story? Legend. The belief in the Romulus and Remus story? Historical fact. That is, we know that the ancient Romans believed the tale to be true (or did we not? Maybe this was an assumption on my part).
At any rate, I read you loud and clear. You have no argument from me.
quote: DL-44 said:
The articles I have read give no indication that anyone is promoting the location as being where the actual mythical event happened, but rather that this is the location the ancients held sacred in regard to the mythical event (whether they believed it happened there, or simply found it a suitable location).
The article that WS links to above gave me the impression that this scholar was saying that this cave was the actual cave where Romulus and Remus were suckled, not merely the cave where the ancient Romans believed they were suckled and held rituals to that effect.
quote:
?This could reasonably be the place bearing witness to the myth of Rome,? Francesco Rutelli, Italy?s culture minister, said
...
?This is one of the most important discoveries of all time,? said Andrea Carandini, a prominent Italian archaeologist. He has long held that the myths of ancient Rome could be true. He said he derived added satisfaction from the cave?s location.
Or did I read this wrong? Granted, it doesn't say flat out that this was the actual cave, but the article does seem to be trying to give that impression, doesn't it? Now that I think about it, though, I can't be sure whether the scholars themselves believe this or whether this is yet another example of shifty reporting.
?This could reasonably be the place bearing witness to the myth of Rome"
I took "bearing witness" to be symbolic in this use. Whether the place is the cave from which the myth was born, or simply the place where it was held scared after the fact, I don't see this is suggesting it actually happened.
From everything I have read, I would say we're talking about shifty reporting. Though of course, there will always be people in the scholarly community who jump from point a to c with no b in between...I don't think anything other than the fringe would promote this as being the actual cave in which the events actually happened.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-25-2007 01:58
Well, there were stories and legends about Romulus and Remus being suckled and of course founding Rome.
But I am not aware of any previous historical finds that actually proved that Romans actually celebrated this. I think it is the first actual "factual find" that proves that (I could be wrong here, of course).
The difference is that before, one had various written sources that had mentioned it (and of course, the actual legend itself), but I think this is the first amount of actual Archeological evidence that the Romans actually celebrated it in some form (I mean, they made a monument to it).
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I don't think anything other than the fringe would promote this as being the actual cave in which the events actually happened.
We can always hope.
quote: WebShaman
But I am not aware of any previous historical finds that actually proved that Romans actually celebrated this. I think it is the first actual "factual find" that proves that (I could be wrong here, of course).
Oh, OK. Yeah, I would have no idea about that. I had always just assumed that there had been some evidence unearthed somewhere along the way. And by "unearthed" I don't necessarily mean literally excavated. I would include written records as evidence as well. But, again, I never really gave it much thought.
I'd say the writings and statues that we have depicting the event are more than proof enough that the romans believed and celebrated the Romulus and Remus myth...
well, guys i will try to solve this problem for you and will keep you updated. I am beginning my PhD in Jan 09, and am looking at the founding of Rome including the legends, not from an historical view but from an archaeological. As an archaeologist i was looking to do something out of my comfort zone, and after discussing this topic with a Roman Historical lecturer at university, he has given me the big thumbs up to do this as not many archaeologists have actuallly dared to attempt this type of research. I cannot wait to get started.
OZONE Asylum
posted 11-22-2007 15:06
