Archaeologists uncover pre-Christian temple in Norway

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
Dude seriously we are lied to and manipulated to sell book and movies so much that after awhile it gets comical. You find an old site, make up a story and someone will be perfectly willing to believe it. It satiates their inner bias when you read it or watch it.

You must be thinking of the ancient aliens thread. The key to archaeology is that the data is not simply rectally sourced to sell books and make breathless video. Archaeological theory is a dense practice, conclusions receive peer review. Scholarship reigns. The bar is set so high that the usual complaint is that there is not enough speculative thought allowed...but that's quite another rant.

I see nothing in the OP that would lead it to be dismissed out of hand.




posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Then you are more interested in theories and creative fiction. This is fine, for you, but once you start to blur the lines and passing what you imagine off as fact well then you are basically lying. There is no lying in science.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 
Then you are more interested in theories and creative fiction. This is fine, for you, but once you start to blur the lines and passing what you imagine off as fact well then you are basically lying. There is no lying in science.

I'm a licenced archaeologist. I think you and I are having two different conversations.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Malcher
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 
Then you are more interested in theories and creative fiction. This is fine, for you, but once you start to blur the lines and passing what you imagine off as fact well then you are basically lying. There is no lying in science.

I'm a licenced archaeologist. I think you and I are having two different conversations.


Maybe you are and if you are your job is to document the facts. So what is factual in the article?

ETA: Because i have to be honest with you. If the fact dont interest you then you should not call yourself a licenced [Sic] archaeologist.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


that is pretty much it. you will find it far, far easier to pull a string than pushing it. People are the same way. Inspire them and they will follow until that point where risk is too great.

Can't type much with an injured thumb. my space bar thumb, too.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Malcher
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 
Then you are more interested in theories and creative fiction. This is fine, for you, but once you start to blur the lines and passing what you imagine off as fact well then you are basically lying. There is no lying in science.

I'm a licenced archaeologist. I think you and I are having two different conversations.


Maybe you are and if you are your job is to document the facts. So what is factual in the article?

ETA: Because i have to be honest with you. If the fact dont interest you then you should not call yourself a licenced [Sic] archaeologist.

Couple of things here...first, if you'll note my posts, I use Canadian or British spellings as opposed to American, hence two 'c's in licence.

Secondly, I'm interested in the original article in Norwegian and trying to get a translation that will lead me to the actual site reports. Some of the stuff cited here seems to take a white supremacist slant, but just because it is being hijacked doesn't mean that the original observations are flawed.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Malcher
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 
Then you are more interested in theories and creative fiction. This is fine, for you, but once you start to blur the lines and passing what you imagine off as fact well then you are basically lying. There is no lying in science.

I'm a licenced archaeologist. I think you and I are having two different conversations.


Maybe you are and if you are your job is to document the facts. So what is factual in the article?

ETA: Because i have to be honest with you. If the fact dont interest you then you should not call yourself a licenced [Sic] archaeologist.

Couple of things here...first, if you'll note my posts, I use Canadian or British spellings as opposed to American, hence two 'c's in licence.

Secondly, I'm interested in the original article in Norwegian and trying to get a translation that will lead me to the actual site reports. Some of the stuff cited here seems to take a white supremacist slant, but just because it is being hijacked doesn't mean that the original observations are flawed.


I was not aware of the difference in spelling and usually i take the differences into account but my browser flagged it and i took it for granted.

That said, I just went to the original article and hopefully it contains some actual FACTS. Do you use google browser? For some reason the google translate toolbar did not come up.

See if this link works for you:

www.google.com... ke-6727104.html%23.T2ZA22JSTmL



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   


Text Over 1,000 years ago, the site was dismantled and covered by a thick layer of peat, evidently to protect it from marauding Christian invaders. These native Norse religionists apparently then fled to other places, such as Iceland, where they could re-erect their altars and re-establish the old religion.
reply to post by Danbones
 


I was reading the article in your post and man how funny is the writers conclusion as stated above . The site was dismantled and covered over to protect it from the Christian hoards , talk about being biased against Christians to the point they develope a whole story to explain a dig site based on absolutely no evidence to back his claims wow.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 

Drop this into your browser, and hit translate:

Fant hedensk helligdom uten sidestykke


It looks like the source is Norway's largest daily, though of a conservative slant. The lead investigator, Preben Rønne, is an associate professor of archaeology at University of Trondheim, so his credentials look good.
Just what is it about this topic that gets you knickers in an apparent knot, anyway?



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

I think I might have heard that somewhere, but both the sagas and Dorset people's oral traditions recall the events of the day...though blame each other. No surprise there. I believe the sagas cite theft of goods as the trigger.

Prevailing thought, though, is that L'anse aux Meadows was a way-station on the new continent. It is well sited for dry-dock and repairing ships. It is not the land of milk and honey, though. Indications are that the Norse traveled from L'anse aux Meadows to more temperate climes to the south. Sorry, no citations at this time. I recommend a visit to the site, though. Stark beauty.

Hi Johnny,
That is very interesting to hear that there is another side of the story on record or even in lore. I always like to look at both sides. It is a much more rewarding experience. It is sometimes very hard to find the conflicting or colaborative evidence. This board and plesant discussion like this brings alot to the table. I know by Norse accounts they were always trying to return to Vineland. The name suggests temperate climate to me. Was it for the grapes???
According to thier accounts they never made it back. Maybe thats the real reason
they returned to home. To get a nice crisp stein of Viking red. lol
The Meadows and reconstructions are beautiful. There are great pictures of 'Jellyfish Cove'. The Norse port with the French name on Canadian soil built over native camps.
edit on 18-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: to put in a dumb last sentence



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
reply to post by Malcher
 

Drop this into your browser, and hit translate:

Fant hedensk helligdom uten sidestykke


It looks like the source is Norway's largest daily, though of a conservative slant. The lead investigator, Preben Rønne, is an associate professor of archaeology at University of Trondheim, so his credentials look good.
Just what is it about this topic that gets you knickers in an apparent knot, anyway?



If my knockers are in a knot then i woke up that way.

The problem is we can say anything we want about this find. There are so few facts and creative wording like:

"The pagan sanctuary survived because the last people who used it for over 1000 years ago, did their utmost to hide the entire system with an unusually thick layer of soil."

-From original article

It just makes me wonder if what we are getting is opinion and at the end of the day that is exactly what it is. Did they have heavy equipment to move the "unusually thick layer of soil"?

Maybe they just got tired of sacrificing animals to a God. I know i would get tired of that. Maybe they moved locations or just became Christians....maybe, maybe...maybe.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by Danbones

A fascinating discovery is shedding light upon pre-Christian Scandinavian religion and early Christian inroads into Norway. In the Norwegian press, this highly important find is being called "unparalleled," "first of its kind" and "unique," said to have been "deliberately and carefully hidden" - from invading and destructive Christians.

Located at the site of Ranheim, about 10 kilometers south of the Norwegian city of Trondheim, the astonishing discovery was unearthed while excavating foundations for new houses and includes a "gudehovet" or "god temple." Occupied from the 6th or 5th century BCE until the 10th century AD/CE, the site shows signs of usage for animal sacrifice, a common practice among different peoples in antiquity, including the biblical Israelites. (E.g., Num 7:17-88) Over 1,000 years ago, the site was dismantled and covered by a thick layer of peat, evidently to protect it from marauding Christian invaders. These native Norse religionists apparently then fled to other places, such as Iceland, where they could re-erect their altars and re-establish the old religion.

www.examiner.com...

Well, I thought this was an interesting find

One aspect of this article is that it states they felt the need to protect their holy site from Christians.
This intrigues me...
Why do christians have to destroy and/or build on top of other people's holy sites?
Also do you have a favourite example of a holy site that Christians have built on top of, or is there such a site where you are?
edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: spelling grammer


So this person got all that from a little dirt on top of the site. No facts or evidence required?

You really can say anything and some will believe it. It is bad enough we have little information from history from that time but make stuff up???

Guess this story couldnt be parlayed into a book....shame.

did you read the article?...klick a link or two?


Archaeologists unearth 'unparalleled' pre-Christian temple in Norway
"The discovery is unique in a Norwegian context, the first ever made ​​in our latitudes," says Preben Rønne of the Science Museum/University of Trondheim, who led the excavations.

Animal blood sacrifice


The god temple may have been built sometime around or after the year 400 AD, thus used for hundreds of years until the people emigrated to avoid Christianity's "straitjacket." It consisted of a stone-set "sacrificial altar" and also traces of a "pole building" that probably housed idols in the form of sticks with carved faces of Thor, Odin, Frey and Freya. Deceased relatives of high rank were also portrayed in this way and attended. Nearby, the archaeologists also uncovered a procession route.

Thanks to the soil, the god temple was very well preserved. The "altar" where one worshiped the gods and offered animal blood consisted of a circular stone setting around 15 meters in diameter and nearly a meter high. The pole building a few meters away was rectangular, with a floor plan of 5.3 x 4.5 meters, and raised with 12 poles, each having a solid stone foundation. The building may have been high and, from the findings, was very clearly not used as a dwelling. Among other reasons, it had no fireplace. Inside the "house" were found traces of four pillars that may be evidence of a high seat where the idols stood between ceremonies. The processional road west of the temple and headed straight towards the pole building was marked with two parallel rows of large stones, the longest sequence at least 25 feet long.

Strange burial mound

When archaeologists began excavation work last year, the site was thought at first to be a flat burial mound with a "master's grave" and one or more secondary graves.

"But as we dug, the mound appeared more and more strange," says Rønne.

"Approximately in the middle of the excavation, we had to admit that it was not a burial mound but a sacrificial altar, in the Norse sources called a 'horg.' It was made up of both round 'dome rocks' and stone slabs. During our work, we found two glass beads, and also some burned bones and traces of a wooden box that had been filled with red-brown sand/gravel and a cracked boiling stone. Among the bones, we found part of a skull and several human teeth. However, we found no 'gold old men,' small human figures of thin gold, which were often used in connection with sacrifices."

The latest dating of the god temple is between 895 and 990 AD. Precisely during this period Christianity was introduced by heavy-handed methods into Norway. This meant that many left the country to retain their original god-belief.

"Probably the people who used the temple were among those who chose to emigrate, either to Iceland or other North Atlantic islands," said Rønne. "Posts for pole building were in fact pulled up and removed. The whole 'altar' was carefully covered with earth and clay, precisely at the transition to Christian times. Therefore, the cult site was completely forgotten."



www.freethoughtnation.com...
that looks like a reference link

I'm just going to assume that the archaeologists know something..

did you read the article down to the reference link...or are you just referencing your opinion from a bible?
as one poster pointed out the christian invasion of the norse land is well documented

and you must have some references to post to bolster your opinion
feel free to post them here
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: added content in case some are to lazy to click



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azadok
I was reading the article in your post and man how funny is the writers conclusion as stated above . The site was dismantled and covered over to protect it from the Christian hoards , talk about being biased against Christians to the point they develope a whole story to explain a dig site based on absolutely no evidence to back his claims wow.

By the looks of things, history bears out the fact that Christian Kings brutally suppressed the old faiths....and vice versa, of course, until the new God had a firm foothold on the land. Don't take it personally, but conversion to Christianity was generally a little more coercive than an invitation to tea, eh?



Originally posted by longjohnbritches
I know by Norse accounts they were always trying to return to Vineland. The name suggests temperate climate to me. Was it for the grapes???

For the timber, too, we're told. Current research seems to point at L'anse aux Meadows being at the north of Vinland...and that New Brunswick may have been the pleasent site referred to in the Sagas. All we have to go on right now is a butternut found on site. Definitely not local.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
sigh - do i have to point out the plethora of " pre christian " religious sites that survive to this day ?



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by Danbones

A fascinating discovery is shedding light upon pre-Christian Scandinavian religion and early Christian inroads into Norway. In the Norwegian press, this highly important find is being called "unparalleled," "first of its kind" and "unique," said to have been "deliberately and carefully hidden" - from invading and destructive Christians.

Located at the site of Ranheim, about 10 kilometers south of the Norwegian city of Trondheim, the astonishing discovery was unearthed while excavating foundations for new houses and includes a "gudehovet" or "god temple." Occupied from the 6th or 5th century BCE until the 10th century AD/CE, the site shows signs of usage for animal sacrifice, a common practice among different peoples in antiquity, including the biblical Israelites. (E.g., Num 7:17-88) Over 1,000 years ago, the site was dismantled and covered by a thick layer of peat, evidently to protect it from marauding Christian invaders. These native Norse religionists apparently then fled to other places, such as Iceland, where they could re-erect their altars and re-establish the old religion.

www.examiner.com...

Well, I thought this was an interesting find

One aspect of this article is that it states they felt the need to protect their holy site from Christians.
This intrigues me...
Why do christians have to destroy and/or build on top of other people's holy sites?
Also do you have a favourite example of a holy site that Christians have built on top of, or is there such a site where you are?
edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: spelling grammer


So this person got all that from a little dirt on top of the site. No facts or evidence required?

You really can say anything and some will believe it. It is bad enough we have little information from history from that time but make stuff up???

Guess this story couldnt be parlayed into a book....shame.

did you read the article?...klick a link or two?


Archaeologists unearth 'unparalleled' pre-Christian temple in Norway

www.freethoughtnation.com...
that looks like a reference link

I'm just going to assume that the archaeologists know something..

did you read the article down to the reference link...or are you just referencing your opinion from a bible?
as one poster pointed out the christian invasion of the norse land is well documented

and you must have some references to post to bolster your opinion
feel free to post them here
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


You can assume all you want and really has no bearing on anything at all. Of course i read the sparse articles.

It is not my job to supply evidence for someone else's claims, that is the authors job. Something he is not providing are facts and the truth is not just what you or he want it to be.

Do not make assumptions about me and make statements like "or are you just referencing your opinion from a bible" because that is not true in that i dont really read the Bible. Just basically like most here do, i know enough about it from going to links. I love Revelation does not mean i am advocating Revelation as truth but a better piece of writing than i have seen from any of the authors mentioned in the OP. It is a creative masterpiece.

Your threshold for truth is just too low if we were to go on this thread.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
sigh - do i have to point out the plethora of " pre christian " religious sites that survive to this day ?


you might
referencing always helps readers decide what is good fact from opinion...
but that would be proof of what?



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by Danbones

A fascinating discovery is shedding light upon pre-Christian Scandinavian religion and early Christian inroads into Norway. In the Norwegian press, this highly important find is being called "unparalleled," "first of its kind" and "unique," said to have been "deliberately and carefully hidden" - from invading and destructive Christians.

Located at the site of Ranheim, about 10 kilometers south of the Norwegian city of Trondheim, the astonishing discovery was unearthed while excavating foundations for new houses and includes a "gudehovet" or "god temple." Occupied from the 6th or 5th century BCE until the 10th century AD/CE, the site shows signs of usage for animal sacrifice, a common practice among different peoples in antiquity, including the biblical Israelites. (E.g., Num 7:17-88) Over 1,000 years ago, the site was dismantled and covered by a thick layer of peat, evidently to protect it from marauding Christian invaders. These native Norse religionists apparently then fled to other places, such as Iceland, where they could re-erect their altars and re-establish the old religion.

www.examiner.com...

Well, I thought this was an interesting find

One aspect of this article is that it states they felt the need to protect their holy site from Christians.
This intrigues me...
Why do christians have to destroy and/or build on top of other people's holy sites?
Also do you have a favourite example of a holy site that Christians have built on top of, or is there such a site where you are?
edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: spelling grammer


So this person got all that from a little dirt on top of the site. No facts or evidence required?

You really can say anything and some will believe it. It is bad enough we have little information from history from that time but make stuff up???

Guess this story couldnt be parlayed into a book....shame.

did you read the article?...klick a link or two?


Archaeologists unearth 'unparalleled' pre-Christian temple in Norway

www.freethoughtnation.com...
that looks like a reference link

I'm just going to assume that the archaeologists know something..

did you read the article down to the reference link...or are you just referencing your opinion from a bible?
as one poster pointed out the christian invasion of the norse land is well documented

and you must have some references to post to bolster your opinion
feel free to post them here
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


You can assume all you want and really has no bearing on anything at all. Of course i read the sparse articles.

It is not my job to supply evidence for someone else's claims, that is the authors job. Something he is not providing are facts and the truth is not just what you or he want it to be.

Do not make assumptions about me and make statements like "or are you just referencing your opinion from a bible" because that is not true in that i dont really read the Bible. Your threshold for truth is just too low if we were to go on this thread.

I added the archaeologists quote in an edit just for you
and asking a question is assuming?
and where are your references?

?



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

because that is not true in that i dont really read the Bible

is that a double or a triple negative?

as I said without a reference how do I know a single thing you say is true?


If my knockers are in a knot then i woke up that way.

that is not my problem....you don't seem too awake at the moment....perhaps some good coffee and some reading and come back with some links to prove the archaeologists wrong or something
that might cheer you up
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
What is it about my not needing to supply reference for his claims that you do not understand?

It is not my responsibility to supply reference to counter a CLAIM made from out of the blue.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   


If my knockers are in a knot then i woke up that way.

The problem is we can say anything we want about this find. There are so few facts and creative wording like:

"The pagan sanctuary survived because the last people who used it for over 1000 years ago, did their utmost to hide the entire system with an unusually thick layer of soil."

-From original article

It just makes me wonder if what we are getting is opinion and at the end of the day that is exactly what it is. Did they have heavy equipment to move the "unusually thick layer of soil"?

Maybe they just got tired of sacrificing animals to a God. I know i would get tired of that. Maybe they moved locations or just became Christians....maybe, maybe...maybe.

hey there

The thought of knockers in a knot is way more appealing to me than kickers.lol
Yes all that article is, is conjecture by a reporter. Media sensation thats all.
The arceological report should contain just facts but we are not reading that.
Then the anthropoligists get there turn to interperet those facts. Well that is probably in the old days. Media is good propaganda and has a lock on the masses brains. To bad.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join