Um, no. That makes no sense to me. Care to explain?
The article says that the artifact may have originated before Christ, meaning that the notion of a crucifix being a holy relic commemorating Christ’s execution is invalid, that cross-shaped relics existed before Him and that their symbolism is not dependent on His existence.
Reading the article more carefully, it states that the artifact may predate the time Christianity was thought to have been practiced IN DENMARK.
I guess I'm so used to revisionist historians undermining Christianity that I let my paranoia get the better of me.
My apologies.