1,100 year-old Denmark crucifix ‘may change history’

www.thelocal.dk ^ | 03-17-2016 | Staff

[Jamestown1630]

I’m not sure that’s supposed to be a ‘heart’. I think it’s a stylisation of the time, a way to indicate a human face with broad forehead and chin.

-JT

[Vigilanteman]

Thanks for the info. I usually learn more from the people who come to this forum than the knowledge which I share.

Not every civilization was great about recording their history and some of the doers did more than the writers.

[BeauBo]

The splayed legs indicate that this is not a Jesus image.

Also, as gingers lack souls, hair color also indicates that this unlikely to be a Jesus image.

However, in a thousand years, it might pass for one, if a researcher really needs to publish to make tenure.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

Looks like a warrior in armor to me, not seeing a crucifix.

[madison10]

What makes it a crucifix? Why not just a person? Easter time fraud alert. They do this every stinking year.

[trisham]

Interesting.

[Jamestown1630]

This comes from Ireland, judged to be 8th century. Except that the boards of the cross are much broader and the artistic detailing is different, the design is essentially the same, if you look closely. Artists in different areas would have different materials, perhaps more or less abundant material, local/cultural traditions in techniques, etc.: http://irisharchaeology.ie/2015/05/an-8th-century-crucifixion-plaque-from-co-roscommon/

-JT

[Boogieman]

Yeah that “heart-face” is interesting.

Wikipedia says the earliest known use of the “heart symbol” is from the mid-13th century, which was hundreds of years after this thing was made. So I don’t think people would have associated the shape with a heart.

[Bigg Red]

Whenever I encounter that stupid “BCE”, I just read it as “Before the Christian Era”.

[Bigg Red]

You are so right. Maybe the translator messed up....

[pax_et_bonum]

Looks like a warrior in a helmet and chain mail armor.

[pax_et_bonum]

Great minds. :-)