To nitpick, cannot say if it comes from the journalist writing the article or from the archeologists, the jewel seems to sport a cross, not a crucifix.
[deleted]
‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians
11–20 of 74 posts
Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people wearing necklaces are not first generation Christians. After you eliminate those, why are the remaining necklace-wearing ones doing it?
Because its a pretty necklace?
For generic necklaces yes, but when we're talking about necklaces with a religious symbol on them, I'm not so sure.
Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because its a pretty necklace?
For generic necklaces yes, but when we're talking about necklaces with a religious symbol on them, I'm not so sure.
I'm pretty sure though; many people wear or use religious symbolism without being religious themselves or aware of it being a religious symbol. (not just physical items like jewelry, think behaviours or sayings as well).
Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians
#14> The necklace, believed to belong to a devout medieval woman, almost certainly an aristocrat, shines new light on the spread of early Christianity through medieval Europe and offers a glimpse into the role played by elite women in forging England’s Christian identity, experts say. This doesn’t sound dazzling, even to experts. Article titles like this always get my hopes up for “we have to change all the textbooks”,…
> “This woman probably belonged to the first generation of English Christians in this part of England,” Francis Young, a historian of religion who was not involved in the excavation, told The Post. “This is people wanting to show off their newly acquired identity as Christians.” Artifact interpretation is always so tendentious. Lots of people wear necklaces with a cross pendant today. They are mostly not trying to sh…
We should at least consider the possibility that a domain expert may have knowledge not included in that single sentence given to a reporter.
Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians
#15To nitpick, cannot say if it comes from the journalist writing the article or from the archeologists, the jewel seems to sport a cross, not a crucifix.
To nitpick - you are wrong. A crucifix is the cross of Christ. It can still be a symbol of Christ's crucifixion while "just" being a cross without any Christ handing on it. The whole value of finding of the pendant that it shows very early Christian iconography in England.
Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians
#16It seems strange that they're so sure it's from the seventh century given the Roman coins on it. Maybe they're what help date it? I'd be interested to know who's depicted on them, what they say and what language is used.
> It seems strange that they're so sure it's from the seventh century given the Roman coins on it. Maybe they're what help date it? I would guess the coins are much older than the necklace -- the alternative would be that they're from the Byzantine empire -- and the necklace is being dated based on the grave in which it was found.
>alternative would be that they're from the Byzantine empire
The alternative to the coins being Roman is that they are Roman?
Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems strange that they're so sure it's from the seventh century given the Roman coins on it. Maybe they're what help date it? I would guess the coins are much older than the necklace -- the alternative would be that they're from the Byzantine empire -- and the necklace is being dated based on the grave in which it was found.
>alternative would be that they're from the Byzantine empire The alternative to the coins being Roman is that they are Roman?
I think that the point was that when most people refer to 'Romans' they usually mean western roman empire. But by the 8th century that wasn't a thing anymore so an alternative is that they could have been from the eastern roman empire. I guess that's really a non-question since identifying those coins would be trivial for the archeologists
Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians
#18To nitpick, cannot say if it comes from the journalist writing the article or from the archeologists, the jewel seems to sport a cross, not a crucifix.
To nitpick - you are wrong. A crucifix is the cross of Christ. It can still be a symbol of Christ's crucifixion while "just" being a cross without any Christ handing on it. The whole value of finding of the pendant that it shows very early Christian iconography in England.
It can refer to any cross used for crucifixion, but in the context of Christianity, a crucifix is understood to have a figure of Christ.
Example usage on a Catholic site: https://www.catholic.com/qa/wrong-to-wear-a-bare-cross
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/...
Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians
#19To nitpick, cannot say if it comes from the journalist writing the article or from the archeologists, the jewel seems to sport a cross, not a crucifix.
To nitpick - you are wrong. A crucifix is the cross of Christ. It can still be a symbol of Christ's crucifixion while "just" being a cross without any Christ handing on it. The whole value of finding of the pendant that it shows very early Christian iconography in England.
How to annoy Catholics: start a sentence with "It can still be a symbol while just..."
Re: ‘Once-in-a-lifetime’ find of 1,300-year-old necklace dazzles historians
#20To nitpick, cannot say if it comes from the journalist writing the article or from the archeologists, the jewel seems to sport a cross, not a crucifix.
To nitpick - you are wrong. A crucifix is the cross of Christ. It can still be a symbol of Christ's crucifixion while "just" being a cross without any Christ handing on it. The whole value of finding of the pendant that it shows very early Christian iconography in England.
To nitpick - you're both wrong. It's a square made of four smaller squares. Or maybe we're all right and art is subjective, who knows.