Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Prehistoric Human Brain Found Pickled in Bog (discovery.com)
84 points by joeyespo on Aug 17, 2012 | hide | past | favorite | 24 comments



I'm not sure 2600 years old is particularly 'prehistoric' is it? I appreciate I might just be being English ('in america a 100 years is a long time and in england 100 miles is a long way' etc) but I mean that's not far off being contemporary with Plato and about contemporary with Parmenides. Prehistoric in the UK, in my anecdotal experience, is more like >=5000 years old (for example Stone Henge falls squarely into being 'prehistoric'.) And I'm sure the Mesopotamians felt pretty old by then anyway.

Any historian HNers know more about if there are any culturally specific definitions of prehistory?


Technically 'prehistoric' could fit. The remains are from a time before written records existed there.

But when you consider that written records had already long existed elsewhere in the world and that 'prehistoric' can go as far back as ancient mammals and even dinosaurs, it becomes a rather vague term.

However, in this case it's useful to describe it as prehistoric because this is the only type of evidence we have of their culture. Since there are very few written records, archaeological remains are the best bet for learning more about them, which is why finding something this well-preserved can be particularly exciting.

Otherwise, as far as I know human the brain belonged to is pretty much anatomically and genetically the same as modern humans.


> The remains are from a time before written records existed there.

As William Gibson would certainly say, the future has never been evenly distributed.


Wikipedia suggests that the early parts of the Iron Age[0] are considered prehistory[1], and this period ended around 2500 years ago in Persia, and as late as 1700 years ago in Europe (earliest on the Mediterranean and latest in Northern Europe).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory


Wikipedia also suggests that "History" is related to historical records:

"Events of the past prior to written record are considered prehistory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

That seems a pretty sensible distinction between history and prehistory and the historical records in the UK doesn't go back that far - is there much before Roman times?


> the historical records in the UK doesn't go back that far - is there much before Roman times?

A bit - the Celtic period went from about 600BC to the Roman invasion, for example, and has left us lots of interesting art and metalwork, which is worth visiting if you ever find yourself at the British Museum.


I really meant the earliest written historical record - which seems to have been made in thge Greek navigator Pytheas in 325BC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pytheas

Which is a long long time after the earliest remaining buildings - which go back well over 3000 years before Pytheas to about 3700BC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knap_of_Howar


I don't think "prehistoric" implies a specific number of years so much as it means "Before people could write down their history". I don't know if this applies to Britain circa 600 BC or not.


I'd assert it is before they (or someone observing them) did write down their history. Writing goes back quite a ways, but the idea of writing down histories only goes back as far as Herodotus. Also, even if the histories are lost or only alluded to in later derivative works, the time period covered might still be considered historic (though sometimes considered traditional, legendary or semi-historic).

Pre-Roman Britain would generally be considered prehistoric, (Chalcolithic based on the Cornish sources of tin, or early Iron Age, but well past neo-lithic), mainly due to the lack of written histories. Not to say they didn't have oral histories, just that there is no record available for historical study.


I was about to comment on the same thing. I thought the title was pretty misleading myself.


If anyone didn't notice, this story is from Wed Apr 6, 2011. It is linked from a larger story about hundreds of warriors being found in the bog which was posted yesterday:

http://news.discovery.com/history/army-danish-bog-120816.htm...


There has been some work saying that you can preserve life by immediately removing oxygen from the cells. The theory is that the damage from death happens as the oxygen levels slowly decay, causing all sorts of damage. If you could exsanguinate a body immediately, then preserve it in an oxygen-free environment, it might have a chance of being revived. (Wish there was more news about this idea)

If that's true, perhaps future generations might view finding this guy's brain as a great tragedy, because we lost a chance to actually bring somebody back from the Iron Age.

Admittedly this is highly-speculative BS. But hey, it's the internet.


The environment in a bog is still pretty destructive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_body

It just happens to preserve certain organic tissues fairly well compared to other environments.


I just want to add, the subject was hanged and decapitated. For what, we'll probably never know. But just think about that with regard to bringing him back to life.


I am not convinced the people who killed this guy were particularly cautious when applying capital punishment.

But, again, nobody can be sure how good his lawyer was, since there is no written record of the criminal process that led to his execution in such... creative ways.


Since it's Friday evening, a great book on creative executions is "The Executioner Always Chops Twice" -- fun and quick read.

http://amzn.to/OnxaU7


This really isn't pre-history since there are Sumer tablets that are dated around 2500 BC. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Letter_Luenna_Louvre_AO423...


Scientists described the brain as not dissimilar from one found pickled in a local pub.


Little hint for the next time.. "bog" is british slang for "toilet". At first I read "blog", then "toilet", and by the time I got to the article I was already in quite the silly mood, which is inappropriate for science.


bog |bɒg| noun

1 an area of wet muddy ground that is too soft to support a heavy body: a peat bog | figurative : a bog of legal complications | [ mass noun ] : the island is a wilderness of bog and loch. • Ecology wetland with acid peaty soil, typically dominated by peat moss. Compare with fen1.

2 (the bog) Brit. informal the toilet.


I didn't mean to imply it means ONLY toilet, so I, uhm, thanks, but I knew that.


Do we have any dna samples of humans from 2500 years ago? I'd like to see What has changed genetically since then.


Mitochondrial DNA has been extracted from samples found in the UK which are up to 12,000 years old:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_Man


There are DNA samples from 5,300 years ago Otzi the Iceman from the Italian/Swiss border, the bogman is half his age. It would be fun to compare the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: