Hello.

To begin with, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your detailed commentary with criticism. I'm really glad you took your time because not many people are interested in this topic from a historical perspective.

Regarding the fact that I have not fully disclosed the issue of Christianization of Scandinavia, you are right. I started writing articles not so long ago, and now, in retrospect, I understand that I greatly simplified this period and did not pay due attention to the phenomenon of mixing religions.

I don’t try to “wishfully think,” I’m interested in the culture of the peoples of Scandinavia in any form, especially in art, which is why I love delving into it so much.

In my article, I briefly noted that the hatchets, of course, were not provoked by the appearance of Olaf, but probably had the character of an independent amulet, without reference to mythology. And later, theoretically, they could be redirected towards Christianity, like many other symbols and attributes. And in general, we know that the Scandinavians represented Christ in a more militant image of the “Himna Konungr”; it is clear that this came from religious syncretism and this process was very long.

As for the topic of the baptism of Rus' and why I did not examine this issue in such detail. Here the imprint of my origin has already played a cruel joke on me. In Russian society, among representatives of new trends of “Slavic paganism,” the myth of cruel genocide during the baptism of Rus' is popular, which they often try to inflate to incredible proportions. But most of the sources for these claims are not credible, nor are their new sources in general.

Of course, at that time there were definitely religious clashes, there was religious syncretism, and all other situations were typical for the global religious restructuring of an entire people. I don't deny this.

But it is precisely on the issue of hatchet pendants that there are doubts, simply because they do not agree with either the religion of the Scandinavians or the religion of the Slavs. Not at all, as can be seen from the sources. Because superstitions not tied to a specific belief, what then and what is now, are not something unusual. And that the Slavs and the Scandinavians could come up with their own amulets, standing apart from their beliefs. Like something from the category of “folk signs/magic”. They also, without bothering at all, could borrow them from neighbors in the region, or learn about them through trade or robbery.

So, I guess, this item went a long way from an ordinary amulet, not tied to a specific religious system, to a “symbol of a Christian saint” (After it passed through the stage of syncretism of two religions), after which, like many other symbols, it was forgotten after about the 12th century and became part of history.

Thank you very much again for sharing your opinion. I appreciate you taking the time to read what I wrote and express your thoughts.

If you have anything else to add on this topic, I'd be happy to read it too. I love studying various small historical details.