Metal Detectorist Finds Viking Hoard With Link to Norse God
The cache, discovered by Arjen Spießwinkel in the northern city of Haithabu, contained an assortment of items from across Europe, including pure metal ingots, Arabic and silver coins, and a whetstone for sharpening weapons and tools. But the pièce de résistance was a pendant which scientists believe could be a cross, or 'an unfinished Thor's hammer.' Birte Anspach, a spokesperson for the State Archaeological Office of Schleswig-Holstein, said that if the item does prove to be a cross, it could be "an early sign of the onset of Christianisation" in the area.
Haithabu was a port city and an influential trade hub during the Viking Age, and Christianity began to spread around the ninth century when St. Ansgar, then Archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen, came to the community. "However, it was not the case that Ansgar came and suddenly everyone turned away from the old gods and followed the Christian faith," Anspach explained. "Christianisation was a long process that spanned several generations."But the mysterious item could also be an unfinished Thor's hammer, as it was common prior to the spread of Christianity to wear pendants which symbolized ancient Norse gods. In mythology, the hammer, Mjölnir, was used by Thor to battle giant deities. Researchers will conduct further analyses to determine what exactly the pendant is, as well as where and when it was constructed.
"These finds offer fascinating insights into the history of the 10th century—a time of intensive trade, cultural exchange and religious change," Anspach said. "It is therefore not surprising to discover a hoard near the Schlei. Whether it is actually a hidden depot or whether there was a settlement nearby cannot be said for certain at this stage."
Metal Detectorist Finds Viking Hoard With Link to Norse God first appeared on Men's Journal on Jun 18, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Met urged to scrap Carnival facial recognition plan
Civil liberty and anti-racism groups have called on the Metropolitan Police to drop plans to use live facial recognition (LFR) technology at this year's Notting Hill Carnival. In a letter to Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, 11 organisations described LFR as "a mass surveillance tool that treats all Carnival-goers as potential suspects and has no place at one of London's biggest cultural celebrations". They said the decision to reintroduce the technology at Carnival was "deeply disappointing" and argued it could be "less accurate for women and people of colour". The Met Police says LFR is accurate and balanced across ethnicity and gender, and insists it will help keep people safe. The groups - which include Liberty, Big Brother Watch and the Runnymede Trust - highlighted an ongoing judicial review brought by Shaun Thompson, a black Londoner who says he was wrongly identified by the system and detained. The letter states: "There is no clear legal basis for your force's use of LFR. No law mentions facial recognition technology and Parliament has never considered or scrutinised its use. "Notting Hill Carnival is an event that specifically celebrates the British African Caribbean community, yet the [Metropolitan Police] is choosing to use a technology with a well-documented history of inaccurate outcomes and racial bias." The letter also raised concerns over a 2023 National Physical Laboratory study, which found the NeoFace system used by the Met was less accurate for women and people of colour depending on the algorithm that has been set. The study's authors found the system could show bias at lower thresholds, though at the higher settings the Met says it uses, performance was found to be equitable across ethnicity and gender. These thresholds are confidence levels the system uses to decide a match - lower ones flag more people but risk more mistakes and bias, while higher ones are stricter and more balanced. Campaigners said there was no legal obligation for the force to avoid the lower thresholds, and argued policing resources would be better spent on safety measures at the carnival. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Matt Ward, who is leading this year's policing operation at the carnival, said LFR had led to more than 1,000 arrests since the start of 2024 and that independent testing showed the system was "accurate and balanced with regard to ethnicity and gender" at the thresholds used by the Met. Notting Hill Carnival takes place next weekend and has previously attracted up to two million people. It has come under increased scrutiny after two people were murdered at last year's event. Facial recognition tech for Notting Hill Carnival 'Cancelling Carnival won't stop knife crime' 'City Hall should run Notting Hill Carnival' Mr Ward said the force had received the letter and would respond in due course. "Carnival's growing popularity and size creates unique challenges. Around 7,000 officers and staff will be deployed each day," he said. "Their priority is to keep people safe, including preventing serious violence, such as knife crime and violence against women and girls. "It is right that we make the best use of available technology to support officers to do their job more effectively." Mr Ward said the LFR cameras will be used on the approach to and from Carnival and not within the event boundaries. He said they will "help officers identify and intercept those who pose a public safety risk before they get to the crowded streets". BBC News has contacted the carnival's organisers for comment. Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to Related internet links Liberty Human Rights Metropolitan Police
Wall Street Journal
2 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Pump the Brakes on E-Bikes
I applaud the efforts in New York City to adopt an e-bike speed limit of 15 miles per hour, paralleling safety actions abroad ('New York Has a New E-Bike Speed Limit—and Can't Enforce It,' Page One, Aug. 8). Scientific literature from Europe, Asia and the Middle East documents the severe neurosurgical, orthopedic, maxillofacial and other traumatic injuries associated with the higher rate of speed for e-bikes compared to traditional pedal bicycles. The U.S. should learn from this experience and spare the public repeated tragedies. New York can continue to lead the way by implementing new requirements for licensure and registration for those e-bikes that travel at higher speeds more closely resembling mopeds and motorcycles. This will enable law enforcement to identify these vehicles in traffic flow and restrict their use to the roadway instead of bike lanes and sidewalks, where they are more likely to collide with pedestrians in densely populated areas.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Reason Why Everyone's Confused About UPFs – and What the Current Science Actually Says
The term 'ultra-processed food' (or UPF, for short) has launched into the nutritional spotlight in recent years, with study after study linking the food group to obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and a multitude of other chronic conditions. And in the UK, we eat a lot of ultra-processed foods. A recent landmark study showed that UPFs made up a whopping 53% of people's energy intake in the UK, coming second only to the US, where UPFs comprised 55%. This trend has led some researchers to claim that ultra-processed foods are 'a primary causal driver of the obesity pandemic'. But is the study of ultra-processed food actually a genuine scientific breakthrough in understanding diet and disease? Or is it just a fancy new label for foods we already knew were unhealthy? What we know now is there's a lack of a clear definition for ultra-processed foods – and we could sure use one. What Are Ultra-processed Foods? The definition of ultra-processed foods has shifted a bit since the term was first coined by Brazilian researchers in 2009, but now the term basically involves a food product meeting two specific criteria. The first is that the main components of the food are a result of multiple stages of industrial processing. Examples: white sugar, white flour, vegetable oil. The second is that the food has additives not commonly used in at-home cooking. This includes preservatives like BHT, emulsifiers like soy lecithin, stabilising agents like modified corn starch, food dyes, thickening agents, and the ever mysterious 'artificial flavours'. That's a tough definition for the average person to remember, understand, and apply to their food choices. Research actually bears this out. Even people who claim to know what ultra-processed foods are often misidentify which foods are actually ultra-processed. To make things even more confusing, some foods fall into an ultra-processed grey area. Let's take bacon, for example. While bacon certainly has additives thanks to its preservatives, whether it undergoes multiple stages of industrial processing is more nebulous. As a result, bacon has been classified as ultra-processed in some scientific papers, but not ultra-processed in others. Whole-grain bread, certain aged cheeses, and tomato sauce – healthy by most definitions – have also been slapped with an ultra-processed label, only adding to consumer confusion. The (New) Science for Ultra-processed Foods Not only is the definition of ultra-processing a bit fuzzy, there's also some debate as to why ultra-processed foods promote worse health outcomes in the first place. Because not all ultra-processed foods are harmful (see whole-grain bread and tomato sauce, but also yoghurt and dark chocolate), researchers have tried to explain why only some foods categorised as ultra-processed are linked to disease. One hypothesis is that (of all things) eating speed is a central factor. Due to their processing, ultra-processed foods are often softer and easier to chew (think peanut butter vs. peanuts), which makes people eat them faster. Rapid consumption may outpace the brain's ability to signal fullness, causing people to overeat, which may eventually lead to obesity and its associated diseases. But this is only a guess. The science that has been done on eating speed as a major factor in overeating tends to be underwhelming. Another hypothesis is that food additives are the key. Some research suggests that emulsifiers commonly found in UPFs (including polysorbate 80 and carboxymethylcellulose) might harm gut health and set off a cascade of inflammation leading to disease, or that taste enhancers, like MSG and added flavours, might override satiety signals and promote overeating. But the existing evidence for these claims is weak. Plus, given that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of food additives in use, studying the long-term effects of individual additives is challenging. But here's another take: The problem with ultra-processed foods might not be due to ultra-processing at all. The (Old) Science Behind Ultra-processing and Health Before ultra-processed food was ever a buzzword, research had established that certain processed foods were low in beneficial nutrients (fibre, potassium) and high in other not-so-great-for-you things like saturated fat, sugar, and salt. This nutritional imbalance alone could explain why ultra-processed foods are dangerous for our health – with no need to bring processing into the discussion. In fact, when studies have actually analysed ultra-processed foods separately, the biggest offenders for health tend to be soda, processed meat products like hot dogs, take-out style foods like pizza and french fries, and refined grains. These are foods that most dietary guidelines and health professionals have long recommend limiting. Given this, perhaps avoiding ultra-processed foods is just a modern repackaging of the same dietary advice we've heard a million times before. So where does that leave us now –and for the future? The Path Forward for Ultra-processed Food There's a real concern over the lack of clear definition for 'ultra-processed foods'. We've seen it before with health buzzwords like 'healthy', 'all-natural', and 'plant-based'. If ultra-processed food means many different things, does it mean anything at all? After decades of fixating on individual nutrients – from fat and cholesterol to carbohydrates and gluten – it's certainly refreshing that the discussion around ultra-processed foods is a more top-down approach to figuring out what makes us sick. But it's far from perfect right now. You Might Also Like The 23 Best Foods to Build Muscle 10 of the Best Waterproof Boots to Buy in 2019 6 Ways to Improve Your Mental Health
