View previous topic :: View next topic |
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
I visited the London Mithraeum many moons ago. It never appeared to me to be early Chrisitian. Nor to the people who did the labelling as far as I recall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper wrote: | One thing at a time, Wiley. We're looking for some archeological evidence of a Roman building being turned into a Christian building before the eleventh century. |
I am still sticking with the St. John Lateran, and not giving up on the other three as well.
The idea that Constantine was a benign emperor that tolerated Christians, and so helpfully donated a palace and and lands to Pope Miltades, and then further helpfully funded the building of the christian basilica which is in a style similar to the separate but "civic" Basilica Constantine, is frankly bonkers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
There are loads of Constantine coins with Sol Invictus on, loads of coins with AVG Augustus on. Building a massive Basilica or two as part of an imperial project is possible, but starting a massive Christian programme of building works (whilst moving his capital out of Rome) during his lifetime, converting and later having a death bed baptism, less so.
Just my opnion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Boreades wrote: |
Sorry, I can't do that.
But I can name several Roman Mythraic Chapels that were converted into Christian Churches.
|
Let's give it a go.
The Basilica of Saint Clement (Italian: Basilica di San Clemente al Laterano) is a Latin Catholic minor basilica dedicated to Pope Clement I located in Rome, Italy. Archaeologically speaking, the structure is a three-tiered complex of buildings: (1) the present basilica built just before the year 1100 during the height of the Middle Ages; (2) beneath the present basilica is a 4th-century basilica that had been converted out of the home of a Roman nobleman, part of which had in the 1st century briefly served as an early church, and the basement of which had in the 2nd century briefly served as a mithraeum; (3) the home of the Roman nobleman had been built on the foundations of republican era villa and warehouse that had been destroyed in the Great Fire of AD 64. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
This totally supports my position!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
How?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Because (a) the church was built post-1000 AD and (b) was built right on top of the Roman basilica.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
The Mithraeum is an interesting feature. These are according to ortho underground "caves" (it's suppossed to be the cave where the bull was killed), the centrepiece typically is a relief of a man in a Phrygian cap killing an exhausted Bull. These get dated late 1st century A.D to 4th Century AD.
So maybe that explains why the middle bit of the lasagne is 4th century according to our guide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
M J Harper in Revisionist Historiography wrote: | It soon dawned on everyone they had a truly major problem on their hands, one no amount of academese could hide. There have to be Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians et al before and after the gap but the Hittites have to disappear. Anatolia was required to host a host of non-Hittite characters starting with Gordius and Midas. Phrygians were not to be trifled with on account of their hats, as modelled by French Revolutionaries. Marianne is not going to be seen out wearing a Hittite bonnet. |
Perhaps, Wiley, you would give us a rough timeline for your proposed revisionist revisitation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
The layers I don't think are a problem
The bottom layer Mithraeum is consistent with State Imperial worship and Coinage both Sol Invictus (NB Fedorica, our tour guide, interestingly says a mint or coin washing took place close by). The middle layer basilica church appears to have later christian frescos. The top layer christian.
Still you might need to fund me, to investigate all the minor Papal basilicas. I know Federica is a talented presenter, but she really needs on-site direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
When Hatty and I were exploring the archaeology of European Dark Age monastic sites -- no expense was spared, she even got a new hard drive -- we discovered it was always entirely risible. Or totally absent. Everything always relied on experts being able to identity Carolingian brickwork or Otto the Unfeasible's architectural style. Send him your old hard drive, Hatty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
My argument is that wiki is wrong about this
This ancient church was transformed over the centuries from a private home that was the site of clandestine Christian worship in the 1st century...... |
I see no evidence of this early worship yet, if proven, I am in the canyon yet again.
........to a grand public basilica by the 6th century, reflecting the emerging Catholic Church's growing legitimacy and power. The archaeological traces of the basilica's history were discovered in the 1860s by Joseph Mullooly,[1] Prior of the house of Irish Dominicans at San Clemente (1847-1880).[2] |
There clearly is, on top of the early stuff, a lower basilica with Christian frescos (I can't date it yet), then up again, to a second upper basilica over the lower. Three or more levels doesn't mean that a dark age does or does not exist. But within the middle layers there are Christian frescos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
All right, let's pick the bones out
This ancient church was transformed over the centuries from a private home that was the site of clandestine Christian worship in the 1st century...... |
That is just straightforward 'academic chat' as RevHist calls it. Not totally worthless but not much above it.
........to a grand public basilica by the 6th century, reflecting the emerging Catholic Church's growing legitimacy and power. |
The hinge of history. If they can prove it, the game is theirs.
The archaeological traces of the basilica's history were discovered in the 1860s by Joseph Mullooly,[1] Prior of the house of Irish Dominicans at San Clemente (1847-1880).[2] |
So they can't. Notice the words 'traces... were discovered'. If they are relying on interested parties doing archaeology in the 1860's, they haven't got anything worth a damn. If they are not relying on it, it wouldn't have rated a mention. ('The bogus list' as RevHist puts it).
There clearly is, on top of the early stuff, a lower basilica with Christian frescos (I can't date it yet) |
What do you mean by 'yet'? Please provide a list of things (if there are more than one) that are holding you/them up.
,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
I need to take a look at more Basilicas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|