The excavations in the 1940s and 50s revealed some fascinating stuff. First, the church sits right on top of a 1st century necropolis/cemetery—filled with mostly pagan tombs. But in one area is the famous red wall, which has a structure built around 150 or so—this may be the “tropaion” or trophy/monument to the Apostles mentioned by a Roman clergyman, Gaius, as quoted in Eusebius. There is also other literary evidence that mentions the shrine having been developed around this time.
The cemetery was located on a hill, the top of which was sheared off in the 300s, and soil was also mounded up in places so that the Church’s altar could sit directly above one particular tomb—which Vatican officials were quick to identify—with good reason—as Peter’s tomb. There are inscriptions mentioning Peter in this general area, and if I remember right there were even fragments of purple-dyed “royal” cloth found in the space.
Basically, the architects in the time of Constantine (300s) had gone through *enormous* effort, including reconfiguring the whole hill, to locate the main altar directly above this one particular tomb.
Probably the basic tradition is correct—Peter died in Rome in the AD 60s and his remains were collected and deposited here in this tomb. The tomb was known and venerated by a select few, but because of persecution it wasn’t really advertised until the era of Constantine.
As a side note, the professor who taught the "Ancient Near East" course I took in college in the 70's used a modern translation of the Bible as his main text source. In spite of all the subsequent archaeology that verifies so much of it as historically accurate, I doubt whether he would be allowed to do that today.
Interesting Claud,
Thanks for the input.
Don’t think they’ll top a hill for me when I’m gone.