Ancient Church Found in Skien, Norway

[Menydh]

Ancient church found

Aftenposten,
February 4, 2005

The site of a nearly 1,000-year-old church has been found in Skien, making it likely Norway's oldest. Norway may have been converted to Christianity far earlier than believed.

The remains were found in 2001 but have only now been dated radiologically. Experts believe the find strengthens theories that Norway was Christian in several spots long before Håkon the Good, Olav Tryggvason and Olav Haraldsson began their missionary raids.

"It is fun to see confirmation of what we have long believed, that there was a Christianization of Norway long before the two Olavs came," said Jan Brendalsmo, archeologist at the Foundation for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU).

Associate Professor Jon Vidar Sigurdsson at the Medieval Center at the University of Oslo said that new finds in recent years would likely push the date of Norway's conversion to Christianity to the 800s.

Archeologists believe the post church may be the "Hakastein" mentioned in writing from 1354.

Researchers have also found two Christian graves from 885-990 at the same site.

"The two graves may mean that there is another church on the site. In addition, there can be about 1,100 people buried here over a period of 400 years. So we believe that there is absolutely unique information still buried at the site," said Brendalsmo. Nevertheless, the site is currently destined to become a park.


http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...ce?rfid=rss1.0

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The site of a nearly 1,000-year-old church has been found in Skien, making it likely Norway's oldest. Norway may have been converted to Christianity far earlier than believed.

A church isn't proof the people threw off their native beliefs, all it proves is that christians built a church at that site.

The remains were found in 2001 but have only now been dated radiologically. Experts believe the find strengthens theories that Norway was Christian in several spots long before Håkon the Good, Olav Tryggvason and Olav Haraldsson began their missionary raids.

Raids is the correct word! He slaughtered those that clinged to their old ways and burned their farms and killed those that didn't agree to be babtised. Some he maimed or tortured. These come from the accounts of Snorre concerning "Saint Olaf." So saintly he'd torture and kill his people if they didn't adopt a foreign religion.

[Menydh]

Well.. this was just a post on an Archeological finding. As for St. Olaf and the Pagans... it all remains an internal quarrel between Norwegians.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Timo

A church isn't proof the people threw off their native beliefs, all it proves is that christians built a church at that site.

Theres evidence that Vikings were beginning to worship Christ as early as the 860's. And the real kicker is evidence that Viking paganism was itself influenced by Christianity.

“Pagan beliefs and rituals must have been affected by contact with Christianity. It is likely, for example, that the concept of Valhalla, first evidenced in the mid-tenth century, was shaped under Christian influence. Poetry and pictures provide good evidence for some Scandinavian myths and the attributes of a few of their gods, but most of that evidence is not early enough to escaped the risk of some Christian contamination….Pagan rituals were originally conducted in the open air or in houses of rulers and chieftains, but pagans may have been influenced by the example of Christian churches to build a temple in Scandinavia’s most important cult centers, if nowhere else(O. Olsen).”
--Birgit and Peter Sawyer Medieval Scandinavia: From Conversion to Reformation circa 800-1500 pg.104;105

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Perun

Theres evidence that Vikings were beginning to worship Christ as early as the 860's. And the real kicker is evidence that Viking paganism was itself influenced by Christianity.

“Pagan beliefs and rituals must have been affected by contact with Christianity. It is likely, for example, that the concept of Valhalla, first evidenced in the mid-tenth century, was shaped under Christian influence. Poetry and pictures provide good evidence for some Scandinavian myths and the attributes of a few of their gods, but most of that evidence is not early enough to escaped the risk of some Christian contamination….Pagan rituals were originally conducted in the open air or in houses of rulers and chieftains, but pagans may have been influenced by the example of Christian churches to build a temple in Scandinavia’s most important cult centers, if nowhere else(O. Olsen).”
--Birgit and Peter Sawyer Medieval Scandinavia: From Conversion to Reformation circa 800-1500 pg.104;105

That is a debatable notion. A Notion of Valhalla (Hall of the Slain), more dictrectly the Valkyries (Choosers of the Slain), is earliest recorded in the Rökstenen (i.e., Rök Stone) circa 800, written in fuþark runes. Before this the idea was pasted oral and common to all germanic peoples. Just because it wasn't written doesn't mean it didn't exist in the lore of the people. Infact the Stone talks of Thor, as a protector, these people may've seen Thor as their patron or protector of them, instead of the Odin/Wotan-ism common later on.
Even in the writtings of Tacitus, in Germania, does he make mention of our ways and gods (dispite his equating them to their latin ones), and a few times eludes to the fact of Valhalla, and Odin's role as leading/being with the men in a battle, then the bravest go with him. He doesn't use his name, but only say's "their god." Knowing what he didn't at the time, we can decern of whom he wrote.
You also speak of Viking paganism, these beliefs didn't start in the Viking age, clear archeological evidence shows pictures of a 8 legged horse with a rider onto, that is Odin and his horse. And monoliths, and other stones and stone graves connect with heathen practices and beliefs pre-christianity.
For example
http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/odinstone/ = dated 3.000 BCE
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/mythlinks.html = Esp. Links to stone monuments

Now I don't think Odin worship began 3000 years-ago, but I think such ancient beliefs developed over a long time, independent of christian influence.

Back to the subject in the Thread. The evidence of the Church and the graves means there were christians, I recognize. However, this doesn't mean they were prominant anywhere else at that time, nor does it mean they influenced the native beliefs. Infact one can argue most Christian beliefs or customs are based on pagan ones. I don't care about christianity, but when you, Perun, say that my religion and that of my forebarers was influenced by christianity before christianity and/or Christianity spreading to N. Europe, that makes me wonder what your agenda is. To promote your faith or discredit mine?


Just a little personal note. I know a guy (norwegian, with german mother) that live in Skien, I've talked with him and he says that the media is not making a big deal there. That was his impression. I find that unfortunate, archeology always is interesting to me.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Timo

That is a debatable notion. A Notion of Valhalla (Hall of the Slain), more dictrectly the Valkyries (Choosers of the Slain), is earliest recorded in the Rökstenen (i.e., Rök Stone) circa 800, written in fuþark runes.

Yes and? This is at least a few centuries after Vikings first started having contacts with Christians back in the 500's. As for runes themselves, welll.....

“Before the adoption of the Roman alphabet the runic mode of Northern inscription was not well suited to codex or chronicle…”
--Gwyn Jones A History of the Vikings pg. 347

So theres much debate on how they can be relied on. Most of what we know about Viking culture and such is from Christian sources that were written centuries after the fact.

Just because it wasn't written doesn't mean it didn't exist in the lore of the people.

That assertion can only be based on speculation and not hard evidence.

Even in the writtings of Tacitus, in Germania, does he make mention of our ways and gods (dispite his equating them to their latin ones), and a few times eludes to the fact of Valhalla, and Odin's role as leading being with the men in a battle, then the bravest go with him. He doesn't use his name, but only say's "their god." Knowing what he didn't at the time, we can decern of whom he wrote.

So Tacitus doesnt mention Odin but you assumed he did? Poor argumentation on your part.

You also speak of Viking paganism, these beliefs didn't start in the Viking age, clear archeological evidence shows pictures of a 8 legged horse with a rider onto, that is Odin and his horse.

Thats pure speculation.

Now I don't think Odin worship began 3000 years-ago, but I think such ancient beliefs developed over a long time, independent of christian influence.

Thats not what scholarly research is now showing. Richard Fletcher in his book The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity notes that Vikings were exploring and coming into contact with other Europeans before the "Viking Age". As early as the late 400's Vikings were trading with what remained of the Roman Empire and came into contact with Christians.

The evidence of the Church and the graves means there were christians, I recognize. However, this doesn't mean they were prominant anywhere else at that time, nor does it mean they influenced the native beliefs.

If you sincerly want I can quote more of Birgit and Peter Sawyer's book, they have plenty of things to say about Christian-Pagan relations. In fact they note that Christianity first appeared as a Christo-Paganism, that is Christ was worshipped alongside the Norse pagan gods. Richard Fletcher also makes interesting arguments on this questions, and back the Sawyers assertion that Norse paganism did not escape Christian influence. He also notes that the common image of the Viking being a rabid anti-Christian was largely propaganda written by monks and had no basis in historical truth.

Infact one can argue most Christian beliefs or customs are based on pagan ones.

Not really. Most arguments for that are based on speculation as opposed to real concrete facts. I made thread dealing with many of those arguments here:
Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Religions?

I don't care about christianity, but when you, Perun, say that my religion and that of my forebarers was influenced by christianity before christianity and/or Christianity spreading to N. Europe

This is a strawman. Almost any real evidence we have of Norse paganism dont appear untill the around the time Vikings were making contacts with Christians. Theres plenty of evidence of Christian influence on Norse paganism in many areas, and proof that Vikings were worshipping Christ as early as the 860's. If you wish to deny there was any Christian influence on Norse paganism, fine, but you'll have a hard time doing so.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Perun

That assertion can only be based on speculation and not hard evidence.

You deny they spread their stories oraly? Then every cultural anthrologist would disagree with you on that. What you call speculation the scientific community calls logical reasoning. It is also speculation that their are such things as electrons, yet do you believe in them? No one has seen them, we only know they exist because of their actions. Just like it is logical to reason that the people held these beliefs for a long time, whilst making and drawing figures/monuments which corrispond to said beliefs, then after the evolution of the runic alphabet, they right down their long passed down tales. This tales weren't invented overnight or started or influenced in one place when these tales are spread of vast distances and have many, many archeological finds to back them up. Each native religion of the Indo-European Meta-Ethinicities are common, it can be logically assummed (yes there is nothing wrong with it) that these groups were once one Proto-European group. And shared common beliefs. Then they split, and developed seperate of each other, yet maintain similar paterns within each, even this is seen in Hindu and early Arya beliefs, aswell as the Hittites, pre-semitic influence. You are so quick to condem a logical deduction or assumtion, when you, youself, belief in something that has no proof what so ever. Your very faith is belief in the absence of proof. So don't give me a lecture on assuming anything.

So Tacitus doesnt mention Odin but you assumed he did? Poor argumentation on your part.

He wasn't called Odin. Odin comes from old norse, this was a germanic varient, which probably would've been closer to a Saxnot-like diety. In anycase, the point wasn't about Odin, Odin. The point was about a war-god (which Odin/Woden/Wotan is) that the warriors believed followed them into battle, and they acted bravely in his honour. The funerals were that of pires and thought to rejoin the gods, this custom lasted from Tacitus' time (1st century and presumably before, to the Viking Age). I assumed nothing, this is a Vallhalla-like belief recorded before the spread of christianity through Europe. One can take it right from Tacitus' words that he wrote. Though because Tacitus was Latin/Roman he wrote the names of Gods in Latinized form. He mentions the germanics worshiping a form of Mercury, Mars and the egyptian Isis. These were the gods he knew about from his culture, so he equated them with the native germanic gods; most likely, Thor, Freya (or Frigg), and Odin.
He doesn't name them outright because he has no basis to, he only has his own culture to equate them with. All of his writtens must be viewed and percieved through the eyes of a 1st century Roman. Just like your Bible must be viewed in the context of it's time.

Thats pure speculation.

What is not speculation is the artifact. What is not speculation is that in Germanic mythology Odin/Wotan/Woden rides an eight-legged horse, which in old-nordic was named Sleipnir. The horse's symbol was even used in Skandinavia post-christianization as a sign of strength.

Thats not what scholarly research is now showing. Richard Fletcher in his book The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity notes that Vikings were exploring and coming into contact with other Europeans before the "Viking Age". As early as the late 400's Vikings were trading with what remained of the Roman Empire and came into contact with Christians.

First, don't believe everything you read from a book. I also doubt a book named as such would be so unbiased. I've read books, I thought to be true, and find out that their facts were wrong, with further scolarly investigation. Also, Contact in the 400s with the Roman Empire wouldn't be wide-scale enough to change the fundation of the belief system. It wasn't the villagers and foundation of the cultures which came in contact with Christians, that early, it was traders, travelers, diplomates, explores (as you said) etc.

If you sincerly want I can quote more of Birgit and Peter Sawyer's book, they have plenty of things to say about Christian-Pagan relations. In fact they note that Christianity first appeared as a Christo-Paganism, that is Christ was worshipped alongside the Norse pagan gods. Richard Fletcher also makes interesting arguments on this questions, and back the Sawyers assertion that Norse paganism did not escape Christian influence. He also notes that the common image of the Viking being a rabid anti-Christian was largely propaganda written by monks and had no basis in historical truth.

I can agree with some stuff here, like the Viking being anti-christian. It was some christians who were anti-pagan (note: St. Olaf). I won't deny that people may've worshiped both religions at once, or mixed it at one point. But that doesn't prove Germanic Heathenism is of Christian origin or influence. Only during Conversion do you state this was mixing and going on. The Viking Age, the end, not begining of Germanic Heathenism.

Not really. Most arguments for that are based on speculation as opposed to real concrete facts. I made thread dealing with many of those arguments here.

Argumentum ad logicam

This is a strawman. Almost any real evidence we have of Norse paganism dont appear untill the around the time Vikings were making contacts with Christians. Theres plenty of evidence of Christian influence on Norse paganism in many areas, and proof that Vikings were worshipping Christ as early as the 860's. If you wish to deny there was any Christian influence on Norse paganism, fine, but you'll have a hard time doing so.

1st, who is talking about Norse Paganism. I am, and have always been talking of Germanic Heathenism. You seem to be quite centered around Norse and Vikings, when my enitial arguments didn't deal with the latter, and very little with the former.

You also didn't answer my question, either. And since you are being hostle to my beliefs, and I have made an attempt not to debase your religion while you clearly try to do debase mine. So I think this should stop. I could argue all day about your religion, you could do the same about mine - we won't change either's mind.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Timo

You deny they spread their stories oraly?

Please tell where I said I did. I deny thats theres concrete evidence to prove that the stories we know today as Norse mythology were originally passed down orally in that exact form. You're claiming they did.

Then every cultural anthrologist would disagree with you on that.

Actually they seem to agree with my assertion that Norse paganism was influenced by Christianity.

Just like it is logical to reason that the people held these beliefs for a long time, whilst making and drawing figures/monuments which corrispond to said beliefs, then after the evolution of the runic alphabet, they right down their long passed down tales.

Ahhh no.....

“Before the adoption of the Roman alphabet the runic mode of Northern inscription was not well suited to codex or chronicle…”
--Gwyn Jones A History of the Vikings pg. 347

The Vikings didnt start writting things down untill their conversions to Christianity. This was especially true concerning their legal concepts.

This tales weren't invented overnight

I never said they were.

or started or influenced in one place when these tales are spread of vast distances and have many, many archeological finds to back them up.

So you're honestly denying that Norse paganism did not recieve ANY foreign influences? This would certainly go against the common logic used to describe the developments of religions and folkore.

You are so quick to condem a logical deduction or assumtion, when you, youself, belief in something that has no proof what so ever. Your very faith is belief in the absence of proof. So don't give me a lecture on assuming anything.

Yeah except you resort to a non-sequiter here. We're not discussing the existence/non-existence of God or anything of that nature. We're discussing the historical development of Norse paganism.

What is not speculation is the artifact. What is not speculation is that in Germanic mythology Odin/Wotan/Woden rides an eight-legged horse, which in old-nordic was named Sleipnir. The horse's symbol was even used in Skandinavia post-christianization as a sign of strength.

What is speculation is that whats protrayed on the rock. People assumed it is Odin and Sleipnir.

First, don't believe everything you read from a book. I also doubt a book named as such would be so unbiased.

Thats your problem, not mine.

Also, Contact in the 400s with the Roman Empire wouldn't be wide-scale enough to change the fundation of the belief system. It wasn't the villagers and foundation of the cultures which came in contact with Christians, that early, it was traders, travelers, diplomates, explores (as you said) etc.

Yes and those traders brought things back to the homeland. As Vikings became more into contact with other peoples, the more they absorbed from those cultures.

I won't deny that people may've worshiped both religions at once, or mixed it at one point. But that doesn't prove Germanic Heathenism is of Christian origin or influence.

Nice of you to contradict yourself.

Only during Conversion do you state this was mixing and going on.

Actually this was occuring at least a century before the first official conversion in Scandniavia.

Argumentum ad logicam

Actually no. And Nash goes to much length explaining how pagan influences on Christianity are highly unlikely for several reasons. This has been well known that people have tried to de-emphasize Christianity and try to attribute its elements to paganism. Yet as even many of it advocates admit, this is largely based on assumptions rather than real evidence. In fact now evidence is beginning to show that the influence possibly went in the other direction, Christianity influencing paganism. This certainly happened with Julian the Apostate, and is now beginning to emerge it had influence on Norse paganism(which you are desperately trying to disprove).

1st, who is talking about Norse Paganism. I am, and have always been talking of Germanic Heathenism.

Yeah except the original topic is about an ancient church in Norway, so are you admitting to drifting the thread?

You seem to be quite centered around Norse and Vikings,

Alright, care to re-read the thread? This is about an ancient church found in Norway which is leading scholars to say that the Vikings possibily converted earlier than believed. You denied this, I answered with arguments about how even Christianity influenced Norse paganism. This is whole thread is centered on the Vikings and their religious beliefs.

when my enitial arguments didn't deal with the latter, and very little with the former.

Then you're not paying attention to the topic at hand!

And since you are being hostle to my beliefs, and I have made an attempt not to debase your religion while you clearly try to do debase mine.

How am I debasing your religion? By saying it was influenced by Christianity? What exactly is so hard to believe about that? Pagans all across Europe adopted elements from other tribes and such. Didnt the Vikings add the Aesir gods to their pantheon? Christian influence would have been a continuation of this process. Im not debasing anything but stating facts.

If I made ad hominem remarks about the pagan gods, then that would be debasement. But I have not any such remarks here. So this accusation is groundless!

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Perun

Then you're not paying attention to the topic at hand!

You're not paying attention to a word I write. I never have been talking of Norse Mythology, nor have I been talking of Vikings. You have been the one to do so because it fits your stupid agenda of pushing some Christianity influenced Viking pagan beliefs. I wasn't even speaking of Vikings. Man.

What exactly is so hard to believe about that?

Because, mainly, It was establish way before 1 CE and it was growing independent at the time of the roman empire and was practiced in Germanic cultural areas free of christian influence in the time of Roman Christianity. There is no evidence, whatsoever that the the emergence of christianity brought some change to the germanic heathenry that wasn't there prior.

Pagans all across Europe adopted elements from other tribes and such.

Really? Now you are doing the assuming thing. Did you catch the bug?
Infact, yes I agree with you. Elements are often adopted, it is cultural exchange. Just like the Christians using many pagan customs in modern times. Though there is no evidence of christianity influencing pure european paganism, the greeks, the italics, the celts, the slavs, the germanics - they all had their religious beliefs way before the invention of Christianity.

Didnt the Vikings add the Aesir gods to their pantheon?

No. Those gods were worshipped way before the Viking age. Don't say "Aesir gods," that is repetitive - Aesir means Gods. That is what the old norse called them, way before christianity. It is a proto-germanic word, which has even further roots in IE. And not all the gods are the same for all germanics, not all them are in Norse Mythology, not all that are in Norse mythology are shared among other tribes. None of those in Norse Mythology can be proven to have a cause/effect relationship with the arrival of christians, anyway.

Christian influence would have been a continuation of this process. Im not debasing anything but stating facts.

You have no facts that it directly influenced it. Even if you did, I wouldn't care. I am not a Norse, I don't care of the Vikings, nor do I feel the need to defend them further. Re-read my posts. I have always been talking of Germanic beliefs, not Viking or Viking Age. This all started when you posted the rediculous quote claiming Valhalla came from christian influence, and was mid-10th century. This was never a debate on vikings or norse.

If I made ad hominem remarks about the pagan gods, then that would be debasement. But I have not any such remarks here. So this accusation is groundless!

What if I said your Christian religion was based on Buddhism? Would that be an attempt to debase your religion? Yes, it would. You, lumping my gods and my beliefs in with Viking Age Norse mythology and spoating ridiculous quotes from the air that claim Christianity had influence on this paganism. Thus you are trying to say my beliefs are based on Christian influence, yet can't offer one credible example of this. Nothing quoted so far has been anything but speculation, and yet you call me for my speculation.

The argument is so far gone it's not worth discussing. You obviously didn't understand what I was arguing from the beinging, and now this is off-topic in a thread a about a church in norway.

Admin/Mod, please move this or close it.

[Valgeir]

The article says the church find is supposed to be nearly 1000 years old, and then continues saying christianity may be older in Norway than supposed. This doesnt match up. Christianity was introduced 800-1000 AD, and if the this church was buildt in year 1000, then it comes at proper time, and may have been the first or of the first churches.
However, there is no proof that it truly was a christian church, the stavchurches was not christian.

V

[Menydh]

The article also says that "Researchers have also found two Christian graves from 885-990 at the same site."

Maybe Prof. Sigurdsson's statement was based on those and other findings, and not on the dating of the church building itself?

[Gil]

Originally Posted by Valgeir

The article says the church find is supposed to be nearly 1000 years old, and then continues saying christianity may be older in Norway than supposed. This doesnt match up. Christianity was introduced 800-1000 AD, and if the this church was buildt in year 1000, then it comes at proper time, and may have been the first or of the first churches.
However, there is no proof that it truly was a christian church, the stavchurches was not christian.

V

Though I agree I must stress that if it is a church it can only be christian; churches are buildings for christian worship and created with that purpose since no other religion has "churches". There are, of course, cases where other religious buildings (altars, temples, etc) where turned into churches and that is the case with stave churches: they were built has christian churchs.
There are literally thousands of articles that dismiss any "pagan" origin for stave churches:

http://www.stavechurch.org/
http://www.arild-hauge.com/echurch.htm
http://odin.dep.no/odin/engelsk/norw...000-b-n-a.html

[Savage]

As a matter of fact, Norway never got christened.

As the last free outpost in Europe, Finnmark only got prime-christened, nominal, on the surface. As the old Sami culture has survived side by side with the Norse for perhaps 2000 years or more, without losing its distinction, so did specially Sami spiritualism just hide behind the surface until the time is ripe.
The Sami mission gave up their attept on spiritual rape in the 7