Rome (Oxford Archaeological Guides)

[Ludovicus]

I've just come from Viggen's very interesting list of June titles on Roman History. This one made me very happy to see.

Rome (Oxford Archaeological Guides) (Paperback)

~ Amanda Claridge et al.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0199546835/

 

I have the 1998 addition, which I keep on my night stand. If you want to buy a guide for your trip to Rome, actual or mental, this is the best one. While most focus on the Eternal City's ruins within the bounds of the Republican to Empire range, t

Claridge's Oxford Archaeological Guide will give you the history of many ancient sites from their beginnings in Rome of the Kings through the Late Empire and often into more recent times. Want to see how the Forum was arranged toward the end of the Empire? What temple-to-church conversions were going on there in the 7th century? Interested in the City in Byzantine times? How was the Colosseum used through the Middle Ages? This is the book.

 

I hope that the 2010 edition will devote some description of the latest finds, e.g. the 2007 discovery of the Lupercal, the cave where the Romans believed Romulus and Remus were suckled by the she wolf.

 

Thanks, Viggen for your monthly list of titles!

Edited June 2, 2010 by Ludovicus

[M. Porcius Cato]

I agree about the earlier edition. When I was in Rome last, I carried the Oxford Archaeological Guide with me everywhere, and it was invaluable for identifying some of the more poorly preserved remains.

[caesar novus]

I hope that the 2010 edition will devote some description of the latest finds,

Rats, just when I was breaking in my crispy 1998 version! I hope someone will review how much was updated.

 

The Oxford book is good for before and during a visit because it is systematically organized. But afterwards to fill in some lingering questions about odds and ends that don't seem to fit, I like http://www.amazon.com/Rome-Environs-Archae...i/dp/0520079612 which seems more comprehensive. It's less structured freestyle format becomes a non-problem after you have familiarized yourself on site grounds.

 

Maybe the missing pieces of Oxford are forgivable since they have extra sections such as on museums, timelines, and glosseries. They don't claim to go beyond the walls, like Coarelli does, but I don't understand why they barely cover the walls themselves. I had been puzzled by differences the 2 books take on the same sites. If it might be due to new research, it is hard to know who benefited by recentness. The Coarelli book is a translation of 1985 to 2003 material with possible updates to 2007 vs 1998 for Oxford.

 

For instance on via Appia, they give different explanations of the Circus of Maxentius. Oxford puts the finish line at a judges box 2/3 way past the starting line (multiple laps). Coarelli describes but doesn't explain that structure, and puts the finish line at the Imperial Box opposite the starting line (which Oxford just says is a key vantage point for crashing turns). But proceed on to the Villa Quintilii and Oxford shows a big map with virtually no labels or writeup, while Coarelli does all 3 well.

Edited June 4, 2010 by caesar novus