ANCIENT NECROPOLIS FOUND BENEATH VATICAN

Yahoo News ^ | October 9, 2006

[NYer]

The history of this dig may be found here.

---

AP - Mon Oct 9, 10:40 AM ET

In this undated photo provided Monday, Oct. 9, 2006 by the Vatican Museums, a general view of an ancient necropolis unearthed at the Vatican is seen. Vatican Museums officials and archaeologists on Monday unveiled the necropolis, which was unearthed three years ago during the construction of a parking lot for Vatican City employees and vehicles. Visitors to the Vatican will soon be able to step into the newly unveiled necropolis likened by archaeologists to a ''little Pompeii'' of cemeteries which were the final resting place of the rich and not-so-affluent inhabitants during centuries of Roman imperial Rule.

AP - Mon Oct 9, 10:41 AM ET

In this undated photo provided Monday, Oct. 9, 2006 by the Vatican Museums, a detail of an engraving in an ancient necropolis unearthed at the Vatican. Vatican Museums officials and archaeologists on Monday unveiled the necropolis, which was unearthed three years ago during the construction of a parking lot for Vatican City employees and vehicles. Visitors to the Vatican will soon be able to step into the newly unveiled necropolis likened by archaeologists to a ''little Pompeii'' of cemeteries which were the final resting place of the rich and not-so-affluent inhabitants during centuries of Roman imperial Rule.

Reuters - Mon Oct 9, 8:19 AM ET

A sarcophagus adorned with a woman and victory wings lies at the site of a Roman necropolis in the Vatican in a photograph released October 9, 2006.

Reuters - Mon Oct 9, 8:17 AM ET

Figures which adorned the tomb of a baby lie at the site of a Roman necropolis in the Vatican in a photograph released October 9, 2006.

[Claud]

Thanks for the info about the necropolis....didn't know this was a new one.

[Claud]

Indeed...but the Resurrection, though historical, is not the easiest thing for a skeptic to grasp. And my goal here is not so much to refute his point but to help him to see some problems with his own conclusions in this regard.

[Iris7]

One is reminded that, as Douglas MacArthur put it, we are a people of ancient and honorable descent.

[Remole]

Sorry--I meant # 63.

[fortheDeclaration]

Why seek ye the living among the dead?(Lk.24:5)

[AnAmericanMother]

You may be invincibly ignorant. Put down The DaVinci Code and back away, slowly.

There are many, many contemporaneous Christian writers from the first and second centuries A.D. who mention St. Peter as Bishop of Rome and head of the Church.

In order to believe that nonsensical geocities website, you have to ignore ALL the historical evidence (and there is plenty.)

[AnAmericanMother]

You beat me to it!

[leilani]

Good question! I tried to figure that out before I read further down the thread.

According to this account in La Stampa via an italian blog site, it's located " all’edificio dell’Annona vaticana e accanto alla fontana della Galea - si estendeva lungo le pendici della collina al lato della Via Triumphalis."

I think Galea is a typo there & it's really the Fontana de Galera, or Fountain of the Sailing Ship (#17 on your map). The reference to the 'edificio dell'Annona' kinda throws me off though. It's not on vatican maps (Annonas are like ancient roman granaries, usually associated with municipal financial administration). I know that the Vatican Printing office bldg (#30 on your map) is sometimes referred to as "Spazzo Annonari". But the ancient Via Triumphalis (a short section of which is still called the Via Trionfale in modern Rome) that La Stampa refers to would probably extend over closer to the fountain.

My mom, who has spent a lot more time than I inside the walls of the Vatican & who has molto bene contacts there, thinks she heard it was way over by the vaticano railway station though. Sorry, I don't think she's right. I vote for this area right below (just SE of) the fountain where all the dusty white stuff is just inside the walls shown here on google maps.

Fontana della Galera

[Mike Fieschko]

Thanks. I figured there would be someone on FR familiar enough with what's inside the Vatican City walls, to make an educated guess.

[leilani]

Eek! LOL. Not an educated guess, just a shot in the dark, and I fully expect to be proven wrong when they finally get around to telling us exactly where the new garage is.

[Claud]

No, I think you beat me!

PETROS ENI

:)

[redgolum]

Cool. Read about this in "Biblical Archeology".

[Dustbunny]

Wow, neat !!!!

[kstewskis]

way cool!

[donmeaker]

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-history.html

I just went through the above site: It confirmed my memory of my courses at Evangel College:

None of the First Century writers mentioned Peter as bishop of Rome. The mentions of him were either quotes from the gospel, or allusions to Peter as an apostle.

[Antoninus]

No surprise. The reason St. Peter's is located on the Vatican hill is because St. Peter was buried there. They actually found what are believed to be his remains buried in a spot which had a graffito which read "Peter is here" carved over top of it some 20 years ago.

[Antoninus]

I rather think that Peter was a myth.

Personally I think that Julius Caesar was a myth. Makes about as much sense as your statement.

[Antoninus]

Constantinius had reasons for moving his capital away from Rome, the Romans being part of that.

Make that NO part of it. Constantine took many of the oldest Roman families with him to Byzantium. He moved the capital to Byzantium for military and economic reason, not religious ones. Rome was extremely difficult to defend absent a large army and was not a port city which made reprovisioning it very difficult in the event of a siege. Furthermore, it was far distant from the major theaters of conflict at the time, which were Persia and the Rhine/Danube frontier. Thus, the eastern Roman capital became Byzantium, and the Western Roman capital eventually became Ravenna.

[AnAmericanMother]

I'm sorry, but your source is misinformed. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Eusebius, Irenaeus, all refer repeatedly to the primacy of Peter and of the See of Rome, within 50-100 years after the Resurrection.

. . . BTW, you keep changing the criteria - moving the target. You are the one who started with the 4th century, now you're down to the first century A.D. . . Our Saviour's death and resurrection didn't occur until half way through that century. That tells me you lack confidence in your sources . . . and that lack of confidence is well founded.

[samiam1972]

I wish I were familiar enough with what's inside the Vatican City walls to make an educated guess!! *sigh*