Dialogare intorno alle origini di Venezia, interrogandosi sulle forme e sul possibile rapporto tra costruito/non-costruito, o meglio pieno/vuoto, negli spazi proto-urbani lagunari, ci impone di considerare dati storici e archeologici noti, ma anche (e soprattutto) la sua complessa storiografia. Tentare di comprendere i caratteri della Venezia nascente, infatti, significa interrogarsi sulle dinamiche che hanno portato alla nascita di un sito che possiamo definire vincente nel medioevo europeo, e allo stesso tempo ci impone la discussione circa le eredità di una potente narrativa di stato, ‘fabbricata’ ad uso celebrativo della Serenissima.Imaging Venice’s origins urbanism compels us to discuss the origin’s myth and its political and historiographical implications. Was Venice a dense, agglomerate settlement, similar to a medieval castle? Was the public/non-built space limited to the churchyard and its surrounding? Did the waters around the islands serve as defense walls? Whose Venice detach or strongly connected with other similar settlements in the Po plain?
To answer those questions, we need to dismantle the traditional narratives, and we must dismiss the idea of a ‘classical’ city. According to the archaeological records, Venice in the 9th – 10th century was not nor a new Constantinople or a new Rome. Its landscape (delta-rivers lagoon like areas), the building materials (wood and reused stones/bricks), and the demography are pivotal to describe a poly-focal trade-based settlement, deeply entangled with landscape transformations