This
View allAll Photos Tagged pathology
The department of pathology of the Oxford University. In this place in 1940 the compound of the penicillin was isolated for the first time by a team led by Howard Florey and Ernst Boris Chain. The penicillin was discovered in 1928 by Alexander Fleming. At the end of WWII, Fleming, Florey and Chain received the Nobel prize for Medicine.
© Jeffrey Deal, 2019
The last portrait of my oldest, Cassandra, before she left for Spain. She's starting college, majoring in forensic pathology. She will spend three months in Madrid, before relocating to Syracuse, New York, to finish her education. We sure do miss the Li'l Bear.
The start of the new short film project entitled "The Death and 21 Grams". More i will not spoliern now.
The wonderfully dated pathology labs at Whitchurch Hospital, the building closed in 2016, but these had clearly been disused for many years beforehand.
Color negative film which I edited into black and white. Photo just worked better with high contrast and monochrome. Shot on a Canon 7 rangefinder using a 50mm.
.... yeah- but these buildings have their own qualities for all that. People have good times in them.
Australia’s first medical school began at Melbourne University in 1862 and the Old Pathology Building at Parkville was built around 1885 to accommodate the first Professor of Anatomy and Pathology, H B Allen, and his collection of specimens on a range of illnesses that faced the medical profession of the time. The building's English Gothic style has it on the Victorian heritage list.
Today 24th March 2018 we had brilliant sunshine bathe our Scottish soil, it really was a contrast to the zero temperatures we experienced just a few days ago, a temperature of 11 degrees and we all celebrated , I am so looking forward to summer arriving .
I visited Dyce today , a few miles from my home, our Airport and most of the Oil Industry offices are situated in this area, though I chose to take the back roads rather than the main that runs through the centre of Dyce.
I viewed breathtaking scenery in our country side, fields populated with farm animals and some domesticated horses grazing , I share the photo's I took to capture this magnificent day .
The Origins of Horse Domestication
Throughout the course of the 20th century a variety of theories have been developed purporting to explain where, when and for what purposes the horse was first domesticated. The basic positions can be summarized as that it was first domesticated:
· during the Neolithic, Eneolithic or Early Bronze Age;
· for meat, riding or traction;
· in the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Eastern Europe, Western Europe or the Near East;
· at a single locus or at a number of different loci, more or less simultaneously.
In some situations it is, of course, very easy to show how horses had been used in ancient times. For example, the horses found in some of the south Siberian Iron Age kurgans - such as Pazyryk, Bashadar and Ak-Alakha - were accompanied by well-preserved equipment such as bridles, saddles and harnessing (Polos'mak, 1994; Rudenko, 1970).
However, at most sites, especially those dating from the period when horses were first domesticated for riding and traction, the situation is more complicated. Organic materials such as leather and wood are only very rarely recoverable from the archaeological record. In unfavourable soil conditions even bone is eventually destroyed. Moreover, not only is it possible to ride a horse without the use of a saddle or bridle, but also, during the early stages of horse domestication, it is likely that they were usually ridden that way.
Types of Evidence for the Origins of Horse Domestication
There are two kinds of evidence for early horse husbandry: direct and indirect. Direct evidence relates to artistic, textual and funerary evidence (burials where horses were interred with riding tack, harnessing, wagons or chariots), in which there is virtually no doubt both that the horses were caballine and that they were ridden or used for traction. That is, the possibility that a wild horse would be buried with a chariot is almost certainly low enough to be dismissed as insignificant (but, of course, not impossible).
Indirect evidence is inferred from characteristics of bones and artifacts. It includes evidence derived from analytical methods such as population structure profiling, osteometrical analysis, biogeographical distribution, relative proportions in archaeological deposits, bit wear analysis, palaeopathology, and artifact analysis. It is invariably the case that any one pattern manifested by these types of data could have more than one explanation.
There is no direct evidence for the origins of horse domestication and it is doubtful that there ever will be. Moreover, on its own no one type of indirect data can provide satisfactory evidence of horse domestication. Indirect evidence must have corroboration from as many directions as possible. The confusing of direct and indirect evidence has resulted in mistaken interpretations of the archaeological data. These issues have been discussed in detail elsewhere (Levine, 1999b), so they will only be briefly mentioned here. Some types of indirect and unsatisfactory evidence often used as proof of horse domestication are:
The presence of so-called horse-head sceptres and other ritual objects apparently associated with horses at Eneolithic sites.
· The presence of horse burials not associated with tack.
· The presence of objects described as cheekpieces or hobbles.
· Beveling of the lower 2nd premolar, described as bit wear.
· Confusing the intensification of horse exploitation with domestication.
· Size change.
· Morphological variability.
· The discovery of horses outside their apparent geographical distribution.
· Misinterpretations of population structure.
· A relatively high percentage of horse bones and teeth in a deposit.
· The apparent increase in the proportion of horses at a site or group of sites by comparison with earlier periods.
· The association of horses with other apparently domesticated taxa.
Dereivka, a Ukrainian settlement site (circa 4500-3500 BC), has been central to the problem of the origins of horse domestication, because for the past three decades it has been regarded as the site with the earliest evidence of horse husbandry (e.g. Anthony and Brown, 1991; Bibikova, 1986; Bökönyi, 1978; Gimbutas, 1991; Mallory, 1989; Telegin, 1986). More recently another Eneolithic settlement site, Botai, from Kazakhstan has also been associated with the origins of horse domestication (Brown and Anthony, 1998). However, upon further examination, it is clear that the evidence backing these claims is deeply flawed. Careful consideration of the data from both Botai and Dereivka strongly suggests that the vast majority, if not the totality, of the horses from both of those sites were wild (Levine, 1999a; Levine, 1999b).
Because of the relatively high proportions of horses dying during their most productive years, their mortality distributions, based upon tooth ageing, are characteristic of hunted animals.
Investigations of bone pathology have also been very informative about this question (Levine, 1999b; Levine et al, 2000). Comparisons of Early Iron Age, Scytho-Siberian horses from burials in the Ukraine and the Altai (1st millennium BC), free-living modern Exmoor Ponies and Medieval Turkic horses from the Altai strongly suggest that certain abnormalities of the caudal thoracic vertebrae are associated with the use of pad saddles and, most probably, with riding bareback.
These abnormalities are entirely absent from Botai, where the preservation of vertebrae is very good. Unfortunately the vertebrae from Dereivka had all been discarded before they could be studied.
The Earliest direct Evidence for Horse Domestication
The earliest unambiguous dateable textual and artistic evidence for horse domestication probably only dates back to the end of the third millennium BC. Evidence of horses in graves, accompanied by artifacts unambiguously associated with riding or traction is even more recent, dating, so far, only to the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC (Kuz'mina, 1994; Littauer and Crouwel, 1996; Piggott, 1992; Postgate, 1986; Renfrew, 1987; Zarins, 1986).
The horses from the Sintashta chariot burials (on the south Ural steppe), dated to circa 2000 BC, are the earliest known domestic horses (Zdanovich and Zdanovich in press). However, shortly thereafter the expansion of the domestic horse throughout Europe was little short of explosive. By the middle of the 2nd millennium BC horses were being used to pull chariots – from as far afield as Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the Eurasian steppe; and in China by the 14th century BC (Linduff in press; Littauer and Crouwel, 1996; Piggott, 1992; Shaw, 2001).
There is apparently no reliable textual or artistic evidence for horse riding earlier than the end of the 2nd millennium BC (Levine, 1999b; Piggott, 1992; Renfrew, 1987). There are earlier representations of people riding equids in the Near East. However, because of the extreme difficulty of distinguishing artistic representations of Equus caballus from those of other Near Eastern equids, it is impossible to identify the earliest evidence for horse riding itself (Postgate, 1992).
That horses were buried in considerable numbers in elaborate, high prestige graves at Sintashta (Gening, Zdanovich, and Gening, 1992) suggests that by this period (the Middle Bronze Age) they played an important role in society and, almost certainly had been domesticated for a considerable period of time. Currently we lack the evidence to say what that period of time actually was. Nevertheless, ethnographic and ethological data allow us to put forward a hypothesis to explain how the earliest domestication might have come about.
Taming and Domesticating Horses
According to J. Clutton-Brock, "A tame animal differs from a wild one in that it is dependent on man and will stay close to him of its own free will" (Clutton-Brock, 1987, p.12)). Aboriginal hunter-gatherers and horticulturists throughout the world are known to tame all kinds of wild animals to keep as pets. There is no reason to think that this would not have been the case at least from time of the earliest anatomically modern Homo sapiens and, when the need arose, taming would probably have been the first step towards domestication (Clutton-Brock, 1987; Galton 1883; Serpell, 1989). Wild horses, particularly as foals, can be captured and tamed and, as such, ridden or harnessed and, at the end of their lives, if necessary, slaughtered and eaten. During historical times both the North American Plains tribes and the Mongols used the arkan, lasso or herd drive to capture wild or feral horses to eat or to tame them (Levine, 1999a).
Horses taming was regarded as a skill most successfully carried out by specialists, whose most important tool was their intimate knowledge of horse behaviour. On this basis I would like to propose a possible scenario for the development of horse husbandry.
As a working hypothesis, I would like to suggest that horse taming probably first arose as a bi-product of horse hunting for meat. Orphaned foals, captured between the ages of perhaps 2 months and 1 year, or possibly somewhat later, would sometimes have been adopted and raised as pets. Eventually, and perhaps repeatedly, the discovery was made that these pets could be put to work.
This knowledge could have been acquired and lost many times from the Pleistocene onwards. But it was, apparently, only during the Holocene - possibly between the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age - that it began to influence human social developments.
Initially the difficulties involved in keeping captured wild horses alive would have set limits to their impact - as work animals - on human society. Furthermore, considering the problems encountered by modern collectors trying to breed Przewalski’s horses, it seems likely that horse-keeping would have had to have been relatively advanced before controlled breeding, and thus domestication, would have been possible: “Failure to consider the typical social organization of the species can result in problems such as pacing, excessive rates of aggression, impotence and infanticide” (Boyd and Houpt, 1994, p. 222). In order to breed wild horses successfully in captivity, their environmental, nutritional and social requirements must be met:
“...In zoos, juvenile male Przewalski’s horses should be left in their natal bands for at least a year so that they can observe mating behaviour. They should be placed in bachelor herds when removed from the natural band, and not given harems until they are at least four or five years of age. The first mares placed with the stallion should be younger than he and the harem size should be kept small until the stallion gains age and experience.” (Boyd and Houpt, 1994, p 226)
That capturing wild horses and stealing tamed or domesticated ones was regarded by the Plains tribes as preferable to breeding them supports the scenario proposed here. If it is correct, it seems likely that there would have been a relatively long period of time when new horses would have been recruited from wild populations. This could have been carried out by trapping, driving and chasing, as documented for the Mongols and North American Plains tribes (Levine, 1999a).
Table 1 - A Rough Chronology of the Pontic Steppe
Approximate
Dates (BC)
Period
900 - 300
Iron Age
1500 - 900
Late Bronze Age
2000 - 1500
Middle Bronze Age
3000 - 2000
Early Bronze Age
4500/4000 - 3000
Eneolithic
6000 - 4500/4000
Neolithic
Horse domestication could thus, in a sense, have been initiated by the horses themselves. Another possibility is that the human understanding of horse behaviour might have developed to such a degree that horses finally would have been able to reproduce in captivity. Perhaps the most likely scenario is that the human and equine parts of the equation would have evolved together.
Hysterectomy specimen with abnormal placentation. Residual placental tissue is seen adherant to the uterine wall. Chorionic villi are in direct contact with smooth muscle, without an intervening layer of decidua. Placenta accreta is a common cause for post partum hysterectomy.
Psedoperonospora cubensis - Downy mildew of cucurbits. Dichotomously branched sporangiophore with pointed tip is where the sporangium is born.
Lectures in the World of Nerve Life, 1899
“Behavioural” experiments under hypnosis at the Budapest clinic of the Department of Mental Health and Pathology. (a) Hypnotic suggestion of praying. (b) Hypnotic suggestion of suicide. (c) Hypnotic suggestion of swearing an oath. (d) Hypnosis produced by the tuning-fork.
Indiana Medical History Museum, Indianapolis. Formerly the pathology building for the Central Indiana Hospital for the Insane.
The gazebo, the first homestead of Würzburg Pathology
When the University of Würzburg in 1845 instituted a chair of pathology, there was no independent institution building. For that reason had the first chair holder, Bernhard Mohr, to take up his post in an old Baroque-style building, yet for more than 100 years housing the anatomy: the garden pavilion of Julius Hospital, of today's Polyclinic of the University. Also Mohr's successor, Rudolph Virchow, had to content himself for another 4 years with the makeshift solution after assumption of office in 1849. Then followed the relocation into a new building, the so-called Collegiate building.
Originally intended as a garden pavilion, the building probably was built from 1703-1714 by Josef Greising but maybe also by Anthony Petrini, in his favour speaks the form of the building. It was supplemented 1726/27 on the instructions of the then Prince Bishop Franz von Hutten by the two wings and turned into the Theatrum Anatomicum of the University. Interesting are the two, probably originating from Peter Wagner sandstone figures at the western (located towards the garden) longitudinal side. They show 2 anatomist, the left one holding a heart, the right one, a skull.
During the subsequent course repeatedly remodeled and expanded (1788, 1817, 1826), the venerable building served for over 100 years from 1726 to 1853 the anatomy. Here worked a series of illustrious scientists, among which most of all are to be emphasized Carl Caspar von Siebold, Albert Koelliker and Rudolph Virchow. After the joint relocation of Anatomy and Pathology into newly built Collegiate building the old building was used, inter alia, as a greenhouse, summer lounge for people recovering from illness of hospital Juliusspital, banquet hall and an archive until it was heavily damaged just before the end of the 2nd World War on March 16, 1945. The reconstruction in a simple form lasted until 1958, after which the building was used as a convention center and ballroom. In the course of a new renovation 1999/2000, the stucco in the ballroom has been restored according to old photographs. For traces of anatomical past history of the building but you're looking now in vain.
The building itself has been preserved and can be visited. Access usually takes place through the Juliusspital coming from Juliuspromenade (no. 19) on a level with the tram stop. After passing through the Juliusspital (street wing, courtyard, garden wing) one reaches its park-like garden, on its east side (right) the pavilion is located.
Der Gartenpavillon, die 1. Heimstätte der Würzburger Pathologie
Als die Universität Würzburg 1845 einen Lehrstuhl für Pathologie einrichtete, gab es noch kein eigenständiges Institutsgebäude. Deswegen mußte der 1. Lehrstuhlinhaber, Bernhard Mohr, seinen Dienst in einem alten Barockgebäude antreten, das schon seit über 100 Jahren die Anatomie beherbergte: dem Gartenpavillon des Juliusspitals, der heutigen Poliklinik der Universität. Auch Mohrs Nachfolger, Rudolph Virchow, mußte sich nach seinem Amtsantritt 1849 noch 4 Jahre lang mit dem Provisorium begnügen. Danach erfolgte der Umzug einen Neubau, das sog. Kollegiengebäude.
Ursprünglich als Gartenpavillon gedacht, wurde das Gebäude wahrscheinlich von 1703-1714 von Josef Greising errichtet, vielleich aber auch von Antonius Petrini, für den die Form des Gebäudes spricht. Es wurde 1726/27 auf Anweisung des damaligen Fürstbischofs Franz v. Hutten durch die beiden Flügelbauten ergänzt und zum Theatrum Anatomicum der Universität umgebaut. Interessant sind die beiden, wahrscheinlich von Peter Wagner stammenden Sandsteinfiguren an der westlichen (zum Garten hin gelegenen) Längsseite. Sie zeigen 2 Anatomen, der linke ein Herz haltend, der rechte einen Totenschädel.
Im späteren Verlauf mehrfach umgestaltet und erweitert (1788, 1817, 1826), diente das ehrwürdige Gebäude über 100 Jahre lang von 1726-1853 der Anatomie. Hier wirkten eine Reihe illustrer Wissenschaftler, unter denen besonders Carl Caspar von Siebold, Albert Kölliker und Rudolph Virchow hervorzuheben sind. Nach dem gemeinsamen Umzug von Anatomie und Pathologie ins neugebaute Kollegiengebäude nutzte man den alten Bau u.a. als Gewächshaus, Sommeraufenthaltsraum für Rekonvaleszente des Juliusspitals, Festsaal und als Archiv, bis er im 2. Weltkrieg kurz vor dessen Ende am 16. März 1945 stark beschädigt wurde. Der Wiederaufbau in einfacher Form zog sich bis 1958 hin, wonach man das Gebäude als Veranstaltungszentrum und Festsaal nutzte. Im Zuge einer erneuten Revovierung 1999/2000 wurde im Festsaal der Stuck nach alten Fotographien wiederhergestellt. Nach Spuren der anatomische Vorgeschichte des Gebäudes sucht man in seinem Innern heute jedoch vergeblich.
Das Gebäude selbst blieb erhalten und läßt sich besichtigen. Der Zugang erfolgt gewöhnlich durch das Juliusspital hindurch von der Juliuspromenade aus (Nr. 19) in Höhe der Straßenbahnhaltestelle. Nach Durchschreiten des Juliusspitals (Straßenflügel, Innenhof, Gartenflügel) erreicht man seinen parkartigen Garten, auf dessen Ostseite (rechts) sich der Pavillon befindet.
www.pathologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/geschichte/institutsgebae...