Wednesday, 3 April 2013

Astounding Discovery Of 2684 Years Old Human Brain.

We might have heard about some of the very fine preservation techniques around the world. But who could have imagined that a human brain can be retained for a period greater than 2600 years. One such remarkable retention was discovered in U.K. 

As per the New Journal of Archaeological Science Study, one of the finest and unparallel conservation of the primitive human brain containing the skull was noticed in a soggy and mucky pit at Heslington, Yorkshire, in the United Kingdom. The brain is said to be around 2684 years old belonging to a man of the Iron Age era. He was first hanged and later beheaded causing his head to fall into the pit. According to the scientists, in addition to the skull being submerged under water for a long duration, the deficiency of oxygen in the tissues led to the extraordinary conservation of the brain. It is believed that this brain is one of the outstanding examples of preservation of human brains around the world. 

Glen Doran, chair of the anthropology department in Florida feels that mind boggling and bewildering things turn up from the slime. Rapid burial in watery or liquefied environment lacking oxygen are the pre requisites for the conservation of human brain tissues. The cranium which is designed to safeguard the brain, if kept under appropriate conditions can protect it even after death. 


Photo taken by York Archaeological Trust.
As per Sonia O’Connor, a post -doctoral research associate at the University of Bradford, the ancient skull belonged to a man apparently in his thirties. The damage to the vertebrae was expected with hanging. The head was then detached from the neck using a knife. This was used to cut through the throat and between the vertebrae and has left a bunch of fine cut marks on the bone. It is believed that the site dealt with a ritual function that prevailed from the Bronze Age till the early Roman period. Although the reason for his killing is not known, it is quite possible that it might have been a ritual murder or a human sacrifice. According to her an arbitrary series of events for the brain led to its remarkable conservation. 

Experts say that the remnants were buried immediately after the death in moist conditions where inadequacy of oxygen obstructed the brain from putrefying. The wet environment seems to be apt for preserving the brains due to the different chemistry of the brain tissue. Contrary to this other soft human parts may not be retained perfectly under such conditions. If this brain were to be kept in a hospital mortuary it would have decayed faster than muscle and other soft tissues. However O’Connor feels that other aspects should also be taken into consideration such as certain diseases or physiological changes that might induce the brain to be preserved in this manner.
[sources: 1,2,3]

17 comments:

  1. Call me when they can read it...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with anon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If someone is going to be a published author/journalist, they should have perfect grammar. This article has such poor grammar, it just annoys me. "2684 Years Old Human Brain" Should say "2,684 Year-old Human Brain" and for the record, it is physically impossible for a brain to contain a skull. I'm sure you meant it the other way around. I couldn't stand to read beyond that point so I stopped but I am sure there are more errors. Please proof-read these things before you post them for the whole world to see.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ^needs to get some

    ReplyDelete
  5. Honestly I agree with grammar guy. I disregard just about everything this site has to say because there is always an abundance of grammar mistakes that an elementary school student can pick out instantly.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks :), interesting story and info., guess some readers could only process the grammar errors and not the cool story :) I always heard that what you say about others says more about you than them. Such comments are very boring and rude to say the least :P

    ReplyDelete
  7. The authority and legitimacy of the article has everything to do with presentation, including grammar, though I do agree that the content is interesting.

    http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/preserved-brain-bog-england-110406.htm

    ReplyDelete
  8. My comment is this, I agree the story is fascinating. I enjoyed that aspect.

    But I also agree that this could use a serious editor. What is seems to be is an unrevised draft. The grammatical errors are not ones that suggest someone who doesn't understand grammar, rather someone who hasn't taken the time to reread.

    Things worth doing, are worth doing right. Go hard or go home. Etc. Etc. Don't post if you don't care enough about what you're sharing to communicate it effectively. And nit picking on this matter is not a case of people who need to "get some," rather it shows that readers are not ignorant and hold that standard to others. It's actually refreshing to see.

    For the author, I hope that you understand this is not meant to be belittling, but constructive. You've chosen a great topic and included useful details. Take a bit more time for revision and you will become a stronger writer.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Guys chill out, the brain wrote the article.

    ReplyDelete
  10. what ^ he said. LMAO!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Actually to be correct, the following sentence needed a semi-colon not a comma: 'This article has such poor grammar; it just annoys me'. Furthermore, 'Should' in the adjoining sentence shouldn't be capitalised....Green houses and stones come to mind!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Seriously, the authors name is Poonam, which to me indicates that perhaps english is not the mother tongue. This sounded simply as if it was poorly translated, but I only speak one langauge, so good on anyone who can translate! Can we not just enjoy the substance?

    ReplyDelete
  13. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=388637057910388&set=a.362546380519456.83691.362526080521486&type=1&theater

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A little proofreading goes a long way. Kudos for the effort, but please revise your articles thoroughly before publishing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. mmmm its a kinda imposible brain retains for long period....

    ReplyDelete
  17. Grammar elitism.. Yawn Yawn Yawn.. either you take from the article or you don't. Either person has a point to make or they don't. I hate all this high brow grammatical structure crap.

    ReplyDelete