Posted on 03/17/2016 12:25:44 PM PDT by Red Badger
A cross discovered by an amateur Danish archaeologist may "change history" according to an expert, who believes the cross may date from before Christianity is thought to have reached Denmark.
An amateur archaeologist on the island of Funen made a startling discovery last week – a necklace resembling Jesus on the cross. But after posting a picture of the discovery on Facebook, Dennis Fabricius Holm quickly found that the item may have a lot more significance than he had initially thought.
“I finished work early last Friday, so I decided to spend a couple of hours searching with my metal detector,” Holm told national broadcaster DR.
“Suddenly I hit upon something,” continued Holm. “Ever since I turned over the clump of earth and saw the cross, I’ve been unable to think of anything else.”
Malene Refshauge Beck, archaeologist with East Funen Museums (Østfyns Museer) told DR that she agreed that the necklace is likely to prove a memorable discovery.
“This is a sensational find that dates from the first half of the 10th century BCE,” Beck told DR. “There is a near identical figure, found in Sweden, which has been dated to this period.”
The discovery of Christian artefacts from this period in Denmark is particularly remarkable as it predates the Jelling Stone, the giant carved rune stone from the year 965 that is considered to be the earliest Danish representation of Jesus on the cross.
“This figure may therefore result in us reconsidering the date Danes are believed to have become Christian,” said Beck. “The person who wore it would undoubtedly have adhered to the Christian faith.”
While pieces from the period depicting crosses as well as fragments of a piece of jewellery that appeared to depict Jesus have been discovered in the past, the new find is by far the most well-preserved and clear, according to Beck.
The figure will now be further examined at the museum and will go on display at the Ladby Viking Museum this summer.
The Aunslev Cross may be about to change Danish history. Photo: Østfyns Museer
So, a 3000 year old crucifix, eh? Will wonders never cease...
Oh, silly me. I read the original article and now I see what you mean. My bad!
I don’t see any nails. I do see some things that might be either bracelets, or possibly could be ropes tying the hands to something, but no nails.
Is that a chain mail vest?
Curious the heart shaped head of the stylized figure. Would a heart symbol have been understood by that culture at that time? “God is love”?
Not to mention that sometimes echos of Christ have shown up in other faiths; complaints about such Christ-similar figures of historical devotion as Mithras supposedly showing Christian faith to be untrue presume that faith is purely a manmade function. But if faith is a supernaturally driven, revealed function, then our classic bible accounts do not have to explicitly tell of either every possible real, or rival imitation, revelation.
This adds to the pool of possibilities to explain the figure, which would indeed make a pretty cookie.
There are little dots that look like nail heads but they appear on the periphery of the figure. The whole thing is done in an ornate style.
Could someone with an incomplete or inaccurate account of the Crucifixion come up with a depiction like this? Maybe. The bible doesn’t spell out a lot of details about how Jesus was crucified, and I take it that other accounts of crucifixions have informed modern Christian ideas. One possibility is that the arms of Jesus were tied to the cross prior to nailing the hands (or arms).
It might have to remain a mystery until and unless more similar material, perhaps with associated text, is unearthed.
Looks like a baby in a papoose to me.
Hands tucked in the pockets. Legs in pockets with booties sticking out.
“Maybe. Or maybe it is just something that Viking raiders found attractive when they were pillaging Christian lands circa 900 ad.”
Yep!
That would be my guess....................
Looks like it. It may be some warrior’s good luck charm.................
It is known that Greenland was settled by Norse (including both Norwegians and Icelandic) who arrived in a fleet of 25 ships about 985 a.d. The conversion to Christianity took place some years after that, whether before the turn of the century voyage and brief settlement in Vinland (modern Newfoundland) or after, there is no definite archaeological evidence.
The earliest known church which was has been discovered was built was about a century later, though most archaeologists believe it was build on the site of an earlier temporary structure some years earlier.
Their Icelandic homeland doesn't provide many clues either, as the Hiberno-Scottish monks were gone by 874 ad, when the first Norse arrives. Quite likely conversion was a gradual process which happened early in the 11th century by trade contacts between their Icelandic cousins at the descendants of the Hiberno-Scottish peoples of northern Scotland and the Orkney's who had abandoned their Iceland settlement years or even decades before the first Norse arrived in 874 ad but still had seafaring and trading skills almost equal to the vikings.
Do you know of any hard evidence that Leif Ericsson was Christian, or is it mostly anecdotal?
Well, it isn’t Jesus . Next guess ! I showed the picture to my wife, with no info about the claim it was a crucifix. I asked her, “What do you think? “ She replied, “ South American “ . That was my initial thought too. Looks like possible mail or other armor and I think he has feathers to represent wings. Then again, I said the bumps were a sure sign that he was reptilian.
Extra! This just in. On further review, it’s an owl man.
That looks more Central American than Viking.
Crosses have been in use for a lot longer than Christianity.
If the previously-oldest Christian artifact in Denmark is from 965, and this piece is from the “first half of the 10th Century,” then that places Christian articles (if not Christians) in Denmark 16 to 65 years earlier than previously believed.
It’s interesting, but hardly earth-shaking. Finding something earlier than the previously-earliest happens all the time.
Which was the tenth century.
You made me laugh with that one, thank you!
It can be considered a crucifix because to do so would discredit Christianity? Don't you get it?
I prefer, and will continue to use, the term BC (Before Christ) rather than the politically correct BCE (Before Common Era), which is used in the never ending effort to secularize everything.
That was my first thought, but it does seem to be done in the Norse/Danish style. Maybe some Danish artist was inspired by a looted crucifix.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.