The scale of socio-political change that took place at Rome from the second millennium to the fourth century bce is difficult to overstate, and C. has admirably produced an economic history that effectively engages with and reflects that significant societal transformation. Although scholars have long viewed Rome as a powerful state and a major player on the Mediterranean stage from at least the sixth century bce, many assume, guided by the ancient literary record, that the city was supported primarily by subsistence agriculture. C. outright rejects this primitivist notion. He demonstrates throughout the book that Rome's prehistoric economy was both highly diverse and complex: from the rise of cities acting as centres of importation and redistribution for a Mediterranean-wide exchange network in the Early Iron Age; on to the development of an archaic economic system, characterised by beyond-subsistence farming, artisanal production and an emergent state authority, helping to manage key resources and public interests; and finally to the end of this archaic economy and the shift towards imperialism, systematic taxation and resource monopoly. Balancing more traditional considerations of farmers and pastoralists with a spotlight on the critical roles played by artisans and tradespeople, C. has brought the contours of Rome's prehistoric economy into focus for the first time. Although other scholars are advancing similar conceptions of early Rome (see e.g. G. Bradley, Early Rome to 290 bc [2020], pp. 192–236), the depth and breadth of C.'s longue durée reconstruction represents a seminal contribution to the field.

The topic of early Rome is notorious for its fragmentary and problematic evidence, and C. meets the challenge by drawing on many and varied data sets. Recent decades have witnessed a tremendous increase in archaeological information, so we have more quantifiable data from early Rome than ever before, which makes such economic research significantly more fruitful. Roughly one third of the book is dedicated to a succinct but detailed overview of the relevant archaeological record; C. systematically reviews the evidence for settlement and funerary patterns, local production as well as regional and extra-regional importation across six distinct chronological periods (stretching from the Early Iron Age to the fourth century). Additionally, the book's nineteen appendices present an impressive corpus of material and attendant bibliographies. Interspersed between those chapters concerned with material culture are others on a wide range of thematic topics, which draw on further bodies of evidence, including early legal codes, religious texts and traditions, demographic models and paleoenvironmental data sets. Rome did not exist in a vacuum, and C. regularly weaves comparative case studies into the discussion and succeeds in contextualising the city within the broader Mediterranean. But he appreciates that the Roman economy was profoundly shaped by the particular geographic, social and political considerations at Rome, and these details are fundamental for his analysis. Needless to say, for those interested in early Rome or the prehistoric Mediterranean more generally, the value of this tome extends well beyond the subject of economy.

Given the limitations of the evidence, greater nuance in the narrative could have increased the work's transparency, as the language conveys at times more certainty than is warranted. For example, some archaeological discoveries (such as the eighth-century wall and archaic domestic structures on the Palatine) are referenced in straightforward terms (pp. 42, 90), despite an ongoing interpretative debate. Additionally, the structure of the book, with most of the archaeological material presented in independent chapters, isolates the higher-order arguments from the sometimes meagre supporting evidence. While these observations for the most part do not significantly undermine the economic reconstruction, there is one notable argument in the book that proves to be tenuous: C.'s conception of Rome's hegemony from the Early Iron Age onwards. He is convinced that eighth-century Rome ‘must be identified as proto-urban or urban unitary fortified settlement, being not less than 150 hectares in size’ (pp. 50–1). Drawing on other scholars’ rank size analysis (especially A. Amoroso, ‘Il territorio di Crustumerium e dei centri limitrofi nella prima età del ferro’, in P. Attema et al. [edd.], Crustumerium, Ricerche internazionali in un centro latino [2013]), he asserts that Rome was comparable in size to the major Etruscan cities of the era (e.g. Veii, Tarquinia) and larger than Latin sites (e.g. Fidenae, Crustumerium). For C. Rome's presumed size and the existence of smaller Latin settlements reflects a ‘new territorial strategy of land control by means of subordinate centres, promoted by Rome as the new powerful central state’ (p. 52). Although such a determination would have major implications for our understanding of the city's origins and imperialist trajectory, it is difficult to accept C.'s conviction that Rome controlled a territory stretching from Crustumerium to the coast from the eighth century. Especially considering the relative scarcity of material evidence, placing so much interpretative weight on settlement size comparisons is risky, in part because this fails to account for Rome's particular topography. Even if the settlement did extend over 150 hectares, the valleys were impacted by the Tiber River and its tributary streams; the variable effects of flooding, meandering channels, erosion and sedimentation would have influenced the spread of permanent urban occupation. While the archaeological record (in particular, the cessation of burials in the Forum valley and the beginning of large-scale constructions, as demonstrated by the wall feature on the slope of the Palatine) undeniably indicates that significant steps in Rome's urbanisation process happened in the eighth century, the idea that the city was regionally dominant remains a hypothesis. The evidence for Rome's hegemony becomes much more robust by the end of the archaic period, as C. effectively demonstrates in his analysis of the treaty between Rome and Carthage of 509 bce (pp. 180–92).

In contrast, one of the most significant and convincing analytical threads concerns the state's early interventions in economic affairs. C. employs a variety of evidence (for example, the Twelve Tables and investments in public infrastructure) to demonstrate that state authorities were actively involved in Rome's economy from at least the sixth century bce. He contends that management of a variety of sectors, including the delineation and maintenance of public space and the extraction and distribution of key resources like salt and timber, had a considerable impact on the city's economic development. This reconstruction has major implications for understanding the evolution of the Roman state and the role of public machinery for civic and imperialist projects.

C.'s economic history will undoubtedly fuel new, empirically driven discussions on the rise of Rome. Among other things, we can now begin to appreciate how the diversity and dynamism of Rome's economy enabled the nascent city to be adaptable during periods of societal transformation. The early engagement of public authorities (as C. leads us to believe) would not only have steered certain economic activities but would also have conceivably helped Rome's economic systems endure phases of social discord, demographic pressures, ecological stress and external challenges. Additionally, C.'s observation that Rome was located within 30 km of three different landscapes (pp. 20–3) made the city even more resilient, as territorial expansion immediately provided access to complementary resources, further diversifying the economy and protecting the society from periods of economic loss. While it is difficult to judge in comparable detail the economies of other prehistoric cities in central Italy – and arguments on Rome's exceptionalism admittedly suggest teleological overtones –, C. certainly leaves the reader with the strong impression that Rome was indeed a ‘settlement unlike others’ (p. 50).