Archaeologists Searched a Farmer's Field—and Found a 600-Year-Old Depiction of a Martyred Saint
Here's what you'll learn when you read this story:
A 600-year-old brass seal found in a farmer's field features an image of St. Catherine of Alexandria.
The depiction is chock full of symbolism, and includes items that show she was martyred.
Archaeologists believe that the 14th-century item was a seal for a church parish.
St. Catherine of Alexandria, the patron saint of a church in the Braniewo region of Poland, served a key function as a symbolic figure for both the church and a centuries-old cavalry unit. A recent find in a Polish farmer's field—a 600-year-old brass seal depicting St. Catherine—helps highlight that storied importance. The brass piece, which has been identified as a seal for the church in a translated statement from private archaeological firm Pogotowie Archeologiczne, is dated to the 14th century.
The surprisingly well-preserved seal is flat on one side, with an image of St. Catherine dominating the center. She's shown holding a sword and circle, which symbolize her death as a martyr. The engraved image is encircled with Gothic writing, and the back side of the seal has a raised edge with a hole, which would have allowed the seal to be tied onto another object.
Tomasz Kaluski of the University of Silesia, who has studied the find, said in a statement that is is interesting to locate an artifact of this kind, as parish seals from the Middle Ages are rarely preserved. He noted that the seal would have been used by an entire parish rather than a specific village rector, and considers the find to be one of significant importance.
The image of a crowned St. Catherine is the same image depicted in a well-known painting by Jan Matejko titled 'The Battle of Grunwald.' That painting features Polish and Lithuanian soldiers fighting side-by-side against a Middle Eastern religious order known as the Knights of the Teutonic Order, in what has been described by historians as a decisive battle in the order's expansion.
Historians believe that the image of St. Catherine found on the seal would also have been used by fighters from the Braniewo region on banners during that battle.
'Imagine life in the Middle Ages, in the 14th century Braniewo, the capital of Warmia at that time,' Adrian Klos, co-founder of Pogotowie Archeologiczne (the firm that recovered the seal), said in a statement. 'The mentioned seal was used by the Bishopric of Braniewo, which in 1410 exhibited its own cavalry at the battle of Grunwald, which is immortalized on the famous painting by Matejka.'
How a brass seal from a 14th-century parish ended up in a random field is a complete mystery, however. 'We know that the seal was found in a plough in Iózefów near Braniewo,' archaeologist Robert Wyrostkiewicz said in a statement. 'The seal could have been abandoned, hidden, or lost. Without the archaeological context it is impossible to determine.'
The Braniewo Land Museum is already displaying the artifact in its main hall, and is now 'one of the most important artifacts in our museum.'
You Might Also Like
The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape
The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere
Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Scientists Just Found a Link Between This Popular Food and Lung Cancer
"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links." New research links ultra-processed foods to lung cancer. Ultra-processed foods are associated with several diseases. Doctors warn that the findings don't prove ultra-processed foods cause lung cancer. Ultra-processed foods have been linked to a slew of health conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. But new research suggests a surprising association between ultra-processed foods and lung cancer, raising all kinds of questions in the process. The study, which was published in the journal Thorax, analyzed data from nearly 102,000 people enrolled in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. The participants filled out a questionnaire on their health and diet at the start of the study, along with four questionnaires that looked at their diet from the past 24 hours during the 12-plus year study period. Using that information, the researchers put participants into four groups based on how much ultra-processed food they ate. People in the lowest group had about 0.5 servings of ultra-processed foods a day, while those in the highest group had six servings a day. Most people had about 2.8 servings of ultra-processed foods each day. (While that sounds like a lot, research suggests that about 70% of our food supply is ultra-processed.) The participants were followed for about 12.2 years and, during that time, 1,706 of them were diagnosed with lung cancer. While the overall risk of developing lung cancer was low (less than 2% across all groups), the researchers discovered that people who ate diets that were high in ultra-processed foods had a 41% higher likelihood of being diagnosed with lung cancer than those in the lowest group. Meet the experts: Nilesh Vora, M.D., is an oncologist and medical director of the MemorialCare Todd Cancer Institute at Long Beach Medical Center in Long Beach, Calif.; Danxia Yu, Ph.D., epidemiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Matthew Schabath, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at Moffitt Cancer Center; Scott Keatley, R.D., is co-owner of Keatley Medical Nutrition Therapy; Keri Gans, R.D.N., is author of The Small Change Diet 'Higher consumption of ultra-processed foods is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer,' the researchers wrote in the conclusion. 'Although additional research in other populations and settings is warranted, these findings suggest the healthy benefits of limiting ultra-processed foods.' While ultra-processed foods have been linked with cancer in the past, doctors say the lung cancer connection is surprising—particularly for non-smokers who developed lung cancer. Here's what could be behind it, plus what doctors and dietitians recommend taking away from these findings. What are ultra-processed foods? Before we dive into the link it's important to briefly touch on what ultra-processed foods are. The level of processing a food undergoes is classified on something called the NOVA scale. It breaks food into these four categories? Unprocessed and minimally processed foods: These foods are in their natural state or barely altered, like carrots, milk, and strawberries. Processed culinary ingredients: Foods in this category are minimally processed through steps like pressing or grinding. Those include things like olive oil and flour. Processed foods: Processed foods have been changed from their natural state, and typically include salt, oil, and sugar. Cheeses and canned fish tend to fall into this category. Ultra-processed foods: Ultra-processed foods are processed and include ingredients like artificial colors and flavors. They also typically have preservatives added for shelf stability and texture, and are usually packaged. Why are ultra-processed foods linked to lung cancer? It's important to point out that the study didn't prove that eating ultra-processed foods causes lung cancer. Instead, it found a link between people who have diets that are high in ultra-processed foods and a lung cancer diagnosis. While the researchers adjusted the data for people who were smokers—a known risk factor for lung disease—it didn't break down how much or how long people smoked, points out Nilesh Vora, M.D., an oncologist and medical director of the MemorialCare Todd Cancer Institute at Long Beach Medical Center in Long Beach, CA. It could simply be that people who smoke often are more likely to eat more ultra-processed foods, and that the smoking (not the food) is what raised the risk, he explains. Worth noting: People who were non-smokers who ate high levels of ultra-processed foods were also diagnosed with lung cancer in the study. Still, experts say it's possible that there is something about ultra-processed foods themselves that may raise the risk of developing lung cancer. 'Although ultra-processed foods are not—yet—classified as carcinogens, both epidemiological and laboratory data suggest they may be a potential cancer risk factor,' says Matthew Schabath, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at Moffitt Cancer Center. 'Laboratory studies have shown that components of ultra-processed foods can alter gut microbiota, increase inflammation, damage DNA, and modify gene expression, among other effects. Diets high in ultra-processed foods also promote systemic inflammation and oxidative stress—both of which contribute to cancer development.' The lack of nutrition in ultra-processed foods, contaminants from processing and packaging that may be carcinogenic, and additives that are often used with ultra-processed foods, like glutamate (an amino acid used in processed foods as a flavor enhancer) and carrageenan (an additive used to thicken and stabilize food), may also be an issue, according to Dr. Vora. The idea that packaging material and 'unregulated glutamate' may raise the risk of lung cancer is 'the most compelling' potential reason why someone may develop lung cancer from ultra-processed foods, Dr. Vora says. Many ultra-processed foods are also engineered products, points out Danxia Yu, Ph.D., epidemiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 'Ultra-processed foods are essentially industrial formulations that are extensively processed to be high in added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium, while low in fiber and micronutrients,' Yu says. Yu also flags the food additives, particularly emulsifiers and preservatives, as being potentially problematic, along with chemicals from food packaging. Ultra-processed foods have been shown to impact blood sugar and the gut microbiome, as well as raise chronic inflammation, which is linked with a host of serious diseases, including cancer, she points out. Still, Yu stresses that it's hard to draw too many conclusions from this study. 'Although there is biological plausibility and epidemiological evidence linking ultra-processed foods to disease risk like the results from this study, we cannot conclude that ultra-processed foods cause lung cancer,' she says. Schabath agrees. 'The study is one of the first cohort studies to identify an association between ultra-processed food consumption and lung cancer risk,' he says. 'That said, the limited evidence doesn't mean there's no association—just that more research is needed.' How to cut back on ultra-processed foods While doctors stress that the link between ultra-processed foods and lung cancer is still being explored, a growing body of research suggests that it's still best to limit how much of this food category you eat. If you're interested in eating fewer ultra-processed foods, it's helpful to focus on more nutrient-dense foods first, says Scott Keatley, R.D., co-owner of Keatley Medical Nutrition Therapy. 'Ultra-processed foods become a problem when they displace the fiber, protein, and micronutrients our bodies need to regulate inflammation and repair cells,' he says. 'It's not about swearing off convenience, it's about making room for foods that do more for you.' To start, it's best to build your meals around whole ingredients like vegetables, fruits, whole grains, beans, nuts, and lean proteins, says Keri Gans, R.D.N., author of The Small Change Diet. 'When those take center stage, there's naturally less room for ultra-processed choices,' she says. Gans also recommends stocking your kitchen with convenient foods that aren't ultra-processed, like canned tomatoes, beans, oats, frozen vegetables, and brown rice. 'These staples make it easier to prepare quick, balanced meals,' she says. Keatley points out that there are still plenty of shelf-stable and time-saving foods that support health but aren't ultra-processed, like frozen vegetables, canned salmon, or unsweetened Greek yogurt. 'The goal isn't to demonize processing, but to prioritize nutrition density and limit the additives that may interfere with how our cells function,' Keatley says. You Might Also Like Can Apple Cider Vinegar Lead to Weight Loss? Bobbi Brown Shares Her Top Face-Transforming Makeup Tips for Women Over 50 Solve the daily Crossword
Boston Globe
10 hours ago
- Boston Globe
When restoring historic homes, what's old is new again
Sara Berndt's dining room before renovation. Sara Berndt Advertisement The dining room after renovation. Sara Berndt In West Medford, Sara Berndt has spent the past three years peeling back layers in her home that on record dates to 1910, possibly earlier according to some newspaper clippings she found. And while her early task list was based on essentials, her curiosity grew about what was underneath the green shag carpet and linoleum. When work began on Sara Berndt's West Medford home, they found a newspaper from 1887 behind a wall. Sara Berndt 'I don't really feel the need to put our touch on things,' said Berndt, 31. 'I want to restore it to the way it was when it was built, and keep that legacy going.' Following cumulative renovations by a long-term owner — Berndt's folk Victorian home with Gothic influence was worked on in its later years by a handyman who improperly renovated a bathroom — or other factors, such as a quick flip, materials removed may be gone forever. Advertisement 'A lot of times people don't appreciate that ... and they just want to flip a house and make as much money as possible, so they just slap everything together,' said Goodwin. 'But it's a very thoughtful process.' And while a house's walls can't talk, its current stewards are now tasked with speaking for it. 'You basically have to take it all out and start over again,' said Goodwin, who advised homeowners to start by researching what the house should look like, and why it was built as it was. Sara Berndt's kitchen before renovations. Sara Berndt The kitchen after renovations. Sara Berndt For Peter Smith, who directs 'I go deeper into the ability to understand the built environment, and peel back layers to kind of read the historic fabric,' said Smith. 'It's a connection to the physical world that we only learn about in the textbooks.' Not every original aspect of the home may remain relevant to modern uses, so as you begin a restoration project, Beebe-Center said that's a good time to think about how you want it to work in addition to how you want it to look. While museum restorations might consider moldings and other architectural details, home projects require other necessities: electricity, doorbells, and Wi-Fi, for example. Advertisement A formal dining room or tiny historical kitchen may not meet your modern needs, and that's OK. Beebe-Center said the idea is to 'blend' historic aesthetics with modern practical function. That could mean opening up a tiny kitchen while preserving a stately front parlor. '[It's] being informed both by what are the practical changes that are required for this house to be functional in the 21st century, and what are the aesthetic repercussions of what we're thinking about doing, so that we can make the changes harmonious,' he said. The upstairs bathroom in Sara Berndt's house before renovations. Sara Berndt The upstairs bathroom after renovations. Sara Berndt Finding period-appropriate materials and sometimes using older methods can take longer than many modern processes. Smith said it's important to adjust timeline expectations, which quick-flip TV shows can often distort. For example, Smith sources lumber from local mills for historic timber frame construction as opposed to big-box stores. Those trained to do the work are a smaller subset within the already sought-after carpentry world — Goodwin said he's currently booking five years out. Those who work on these old homes follow different criteria based on the goals and site, from historic preservation and conservation to rehabilitation and restoration. And it could include modern renovation along with some historic details. Smith, at work on a 1725 Hanover home restoration that had experienced several modifications through the years, described his project as incorporating multiple such categories of work. To define the project, considering which time in history will be referenced is an important notion. 'You're creating a philosophy of refurbishment,' he said. When renovations were done on Sara Berndt's home, they found an 1876 map of the Guion Line US Mail Steamers behind a wall. Sara Berndt Refer to old photography and tour neighborhoods with similar period houses to find clues about colors or porch location, said Smith. Perhaps a bit of wallpaper turns up in a closet. Advertisement 'My instinct is to let the house tell the story of the house and its transitions,' he said. It can be a lot to consider, and to afford. Limit scope by focusing on just two rooms, or the facade. Starting with smaller details — moldings, door casings, and window trim, which provide historic quality — can be a good idea. And windows themselves are an often overlooked historic feature, and the most obvious style queue, said Smith. 'You have a window that lasted 150 years,' he said. 'There is no reason not to expect it to last another 150 years when it's restored appropriately.' 'They are a great quality wood, and we know they'll last for another 100 years,' said Bagala. 'And being the snobby window restorers that we are, we know that they will outlast any replacement window that is being put out there on the earth right now.' Starting with the finishes is an even lower-threshold to bring back historic character. If it's quick to pull out, it can be quick to replace, said Mike Thompson, owner of Advertisement 'It can be super simple things, like antique cast iron floor registers [after] someone stuck in crappy '80s ones,' he said. 'Literally, they don't make it like they used to,' said Thompson. 'They made stuff to last forever, if it's taken care of.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Forget 10,000—This Is the Real Number of Steps You Need to Cut Risk of Early Death in Half
"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links." Researchers say that 10,000 steps may not be needed for 'better health.' A recent study found that 7,000 steps a day may be enough to boost wellbeing. Experts explain the findings and how walking may help mitigate disease. If you've ever ended the day stressed out because you only managed to get 9,423 steps in instead of that oft-touted, magical 10,000, we've got good news: A recent study found that 7,000 steps may be all you need when it comes to cutting your risk of a slew of diseases, and even early death. Published in The Lancet, researchers analyzed data from 57 studies across 35 cohorts, covering everything from heart disease to fall risk. They found that increasing your daily steps—especially from very low baselines—was linked to a lower risk of almost every major health outcome. Meet the expert: Sean P. Heffron, M.D., a preventative cardiologist at NYU Langone While that in and of itself isn't shocking, what's particularly notable here is that, in most cases, benefits leveled off around 7,000 steps per day. So, what's the deal with 7,000 steps—and does that mean 10,000 is overhyped? What did the study find? The study found that going from 2,000 to 7,000 steps per day was associated with: A 47% lower risk of early death in general, 25% lower risk of cardiovascular disease, 37% lower risk of cancer mortality, 38% lower risk of dementia, 22% lower risk of depressive symptoms, and 14% lower risk of type 2 diabetes. In other words, you don't have to hit 10,000 steps to get meaningful health benefits. But why 7,000? Researchers found what's called an 'inflection point' in the data. That means risk for conditions like heart disease and early death kept dropping steadily until about 7,000 steps—and then, in many cases, started to level off. More steps were still beneficial, but the gains weren't quite as dramatic. Sean P. Heffron, M.D., a preventative cardiologist at NYU Langone, tells Prevention that the study lines up with the recommendations he often gives his patients. 'It's a law of diminishing returns,' Dr. Heffron says, 'but honestly, you have a huge benefit going from nothing to anything. Certainly, zero to 7,000 is an enormous benefit.' Dr. Heffron adds that '7,000 steps, prior to this study, actually felt to be representative of the [American Heart Association] recommended guideline of about 150 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity a week,' he said. Where did 10,000 steps come from? The 10,000-step goal may not actually have its roots in science, but rather marketing. According to a 2019 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the number gained traction in the 1960s after a Japanese pedometer brand named Manpo-kei, or '10,000 steps meter,' capitalized on the round number. Since then, it's stuck around in fitness trackers and cultural consciousness alike, despite a lack of strong research backing it. Such a large number can often feel like a daunting goal for people who aren't very active, even if the intention is to build up to it slowly. And when something feels insurmountable at first—even if it isn't—it can be difficult to get started. This new study is adding to the growing evidence that 7,000 steps may not only be a more realistic target, but one that has enough research behind it that proves definitive benefits. Should anyone limit their walking? Just because 7,000 is the sweet spot doesn't mean that you should throw in the towel at step 7,001. It just means that if it's difficult or unenjoyable for you to push yourself further, there may not be a huge benefit in doing so. But if you're already hitting 10,000 steps a day, or if you like the idea of that nice, round number, go for it. 'I tell everyone: the more, the merrier. If it's something you can do, go for it. The benefit is there,' Dr. Heffron says. 'Going from [7,000 to 10,000 steps] is likely not too much of a time commitment.' Setting manageable goals that don't feel so overwhelming that they discourage getting started is key. If you're beginning from a completely sedentary lifestyle, even aiming for 2,000 steps per day is better than nothing. And if you can eventually crank that up to 7,000—that's enough. And, Dr. Heffron adds, that doesn't mean you have to set out just to walk. Any sort of physical activity can bring added steps and added health benefits. 'If you're enjoying it,' he says, 'go for it and get moving.' You Might Also Like Can Apple Cider Vinegar Lead to Weight Loss? Bobbi Brown Shares Her Top Face-Transforming Makeup Tips for Women Over 50
