\n Speaker: Amit Re\u2019em (Israel Antiquities Authority)<\/strong><\/p>\n
IAA archaeologist Amit Re\u2019em presents the results of his excavation of a Byzantine-era (4th-6th c. CE) tomb in Mode\u2019in, Israel, which in late antiquity was believed to belong to the Maccabees.<\/p>\n
A Response from David Gurevich, Post Doctoral Fellow at the\u00a0<\/span>Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and <\/span>Ben Zvi Institute<\/span><\/h3>\nI enjoyed very much the presentation. It was a great opportunity to hear from the excavator himself about the site. Amit Re’em presented the questions about the site very well.\u00a0 As he mentioned in his talk, the biggest challenge is the identification of the site.<\/p>\n
At this stage of research, in my opinion, it would be too early to regard the site as the “The Tomb of the Maccabees”.\u00a0In fact, if we disconnect the site from the “brand” of “Modiin” and look on the archaeological record, our conclusions would be very limited:<\/p>\n
Read more<\/h4><\/p>\n\n- We are capable of saying that there is a monumental construction, which partially was\u00a0cut in the bedrock.<\/li>\n
- The upper part was probably a built out of masonry (as was documented by the 19th<\/sup> century explorers).<\/li>\n
- It had two phases. The early phase is undated. The later phase was in use in the Byzantine period.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Hence, if the geographical location was a different one, we would not\u00a0be suggesting that the\u00a0site had importance in the Late Second Temple period judging only the archaeological data.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
<\/div>loading slideshow...<\/p><\/div>
![\"\"](\"\/maccabees\/files\/2016\/02\/001-Maccabees-636x426.jpg\")
<\/div><\/li>![\"\"](\"\/maccabees\/files\/2016\/02\/004-Maccabees-636x426.jpg\")
<\/div><\/li>![\"\"](\"\/maccabees\/files\/2016\/02\/005-Maccabees-copy-636x424.jpg\")
<\/div><\/li>![\"\"](\"\/maccabees\/files\/2016\/02\/007-Maccabees1-636x424.jpg\")
<\/div><\/li>![\"\"](\"\/maccabees\/files\/2016\/02\/010-Maccabees1-636x424.jpg\")
<\/div><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Read more<\/h4><\/p>\n\n- We are capable of saying that there is a monumental construction, which partially was\u00a0cut in the bedrock.<\/li>\n
- The upper part was probably a built out of masonry (as was documented by the 19th<\/sup> century explorers).<\/li>\n
- It had two phases. The early phase is undated. The later phase was in use in the Byzantine period.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Hence, if the geographical location was a different one, we would not\u00a0be suggesting that the\u00a0site had importance in the Late Second Temple period judging only the archaeological data.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
<\/div>loading slideshow...<\/p><\/div>
- <\/div><\/li>
- <\/div><\/li>
- <\/div><\/li>
- <\/div><\/li>
- <\/div><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
- \n
- We are capable of saying that there is a monumental construction, which partially was\u00a0cut in the bedrock.<\/li>\n
- The upper part was probably a built out of masonry (as was documented by the 19th<\/sup> century explorers).<\/li>\n
- It had two phases. The early phase is undated. The later phase was in use in the Byzantine period.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Hence, if the geographical location was a different one, we would not\u00a0be suggesting that the\u00a0site had importance in the Late Second Temple period judging only the archaeological data.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
<\/div>loading slideshow...<\/p><\/div>
- <\/div><\/li><\/div><\/li><\/div><\/li><\/div><\/li><\/div><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
- It had two phases. The early phase is undated. The later phase was in use in the Byzantine period.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n