Human Anatomy (Biological Anthropology)

Ist das Denkmodell des "aufrechten Gangs" ein Denkmodell, das wichtige Fragen beantworten kann?  Es gibt keine naturwissenschaftlichen Grundlagen für das Denkmodell des aufrechten Gangs als ein Aufrichten aus einer kriechenden Position, sondern religiöse und politische Interessen in der Geschichte des Denkmodells vom Aufrechten Gang, wie man bei Kurt Bayertz in "Der aufrechte Gang" nachlesen kann. Das Denkmodell einer hängenden Konstruktion enthält deshalb mehr Potential, wichtige Fragen zu Gesundheit und Krankheit zu beantworten.

(Identifies a hitherto obscure term in Vedic literature as referring to the portio vaginalis of the uterine cervix, linked in traditional Indian theory with orgasm and ejaculation.) In: Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 51 (1998): 303-307.

Bioarchaeology of Marginalized People amplifies the voices of marginalized or powerless individuals. Following previous work done by physical anthropologists on the biology of poverty, this volume focuses on the voices of past actors who would normally be subsumed within a cohort or whose stories represent those of the minority. The physical effects of marginalization – manifest as skeletal markers of stress and disease – are read in their historical contexts to better understand vulnerability and the social determinants of health in the past. Bioarchaeological, archaeological, and historical datasets are integrated to explore the varied ways in which individuals may be marginalized both during and after their lifespan. By focusing on previously excluded voices this volume enriches our understanding of the lived experience of individuals in the past.

This volume queries the diverse meanings of marginalization, from physical or social peripheralization, to identity loss within a majority population, to a collective forgetting that excludes specific groups. Contributors to the volume highlight the histories of individuals who did not record their own stories, including two disparate Ancient Egyptian women and individuals from a high-status Indigenous cemetery in British Columbia. Additional chapters examine the marginalized individuals whose bodies comprise the Robert J. Terry anatomical collection and investigate inequalities in health status in individuals from Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Modern clinical population health research is examined through a historical lens, bringing a new perspective to the critical public health interventions occurring today. Together, these papers highlight the role that biological anthropologists play both in contributing to and challenging the marginalization of past populations.

« Main et pied » La main et le pied désignent en anatomie humaine l'extrémité du membre antérieur et postérieur. Respectivement associées à la manipulation d'outils et à la bipédie, ces deux parties du corps apparaissent ainsi comme des caractéristiques anatomiques propres à l'humain. La signification anthropologique de la main et du pied est pourtant contrastée : tandis que la main a été interprétée comme l'emblème physique de la distinction entre humanité et animalité, le pied a été longtemps considéré comme un simple support de la station droite, sans valeur distinctive. Bien qu'ils constituent des parties d'une même structure anatomique, les deux pieds et les deux mains ont toutefois été mis au service de définitions conflictuelles de l'humain, d'inspiration tantôt naturaliste, tantôt culturaliste. C'est également à la conception cérébraliste de l'humain, et donc à la tête, qu'il convient de rapporter la signification anthropologique de la main et du pied. La main, signe de l'intelligence humaine La main est interprétée comme l'indice anatomique de la différence entre l'humain et les autres animaux, à partir du constat que « l'être humain, au lieu de membres et de pattes antérieurs, a des bras et ce qu'on appelle des mains » (Aristote, 2014a : 1516). Il ne suffit pourtant pas au philosophe de constater que l'humain est le seul animal à posséder des mains. Encore faut-il expliquer pourquoi et exposer la cause de cette caractéristique physique. Selon le Stagirite, c'est parce qu'il est intelligent que l'homme a des mains-et non pas, comme le soutenait Anaxagore, parce qu'il a des mains que l'homme est intelligent. En effet, si l'intelligence (phrônesis) se mesure au nombre d'instruments qu'on sait utiliser, la main humaine apparaît comme l'organe du plus intelligent des animaux : « instrument pour des instruments », elle peut aussi bien remplacer divers outils qu'en fabriquer, puisqu'elle « devient griffe, pince, corne ainsi que lance, épée et toute autre sorte d'arme et d'instrument » (Aristote, 2014a : 1519). Or, si l'humain a des mains, ce n'est pas seulement parce qu'il est intelligent : c'est aussi parce qu'il se tient droit (orthos). « Seul parmi les animaux il a la station droite, du fait que sa nature et sa substance sont divines » (Aristote, 2014a : 1516). La station droite est ici présentée comme la

The opposable thumb is commonly considered to be a unique and defining component of the human hand, itself the perfected endpoint of accumulated ages of evolution. Aristotle, Galen, Macrobius, Montaigne and many others have all sung the praises of this magnificent digit, which makes possible the indispensable variety of grips and grasps on which human supremacy depends. The anatomist Charles Bell argued that the hand evinces intelligent design, and that the superficial similarities of this incomparable appendage with those of other creatures are by no means indicative of homological affinity. Vestiges of this anti-evolutionary taxonomic nominalism persist in the work of contemporary writers, whose belief in human exceptionalism manifests as an uncritical, oppressive and ultimately unsustainable 'rule of thumb'.

In Szeged, 2015, the Móra Ferenc Museum – with the leadership of archeologist Orsolya Lajkó – conducted a preliminary and preventative excavation in the area of Felhő Street; as a result, 79 graves very unearthed from a partially preserved 17-18th century graveyard. From the objects of the designated area, 73 human skeletons very examined. Adults constituted 25, while children and youngsters constituted 75% of all finds. There were an extremely high number of those who dies in infancy or at the beginning of their childhood. The metric analysis of the adults yields homogenous results, that is, there are no major differences to be found between male and female skulls. All skulls are short, usually high, the facial portions of the skulls are mostly broad and the upper portions are moderately wide. The eye socket is large, while the nasal region is narrow. The height of the males is 169 cm, while the height of the females in 158 cm. The taxonomic image of the series is also homogenous. All specimen are Europid (mainly with Cromagnoid features), but four skulls have slight Mongoloid features as well. Based on pathological examination of those buried, it can be concluded that in addition to illnesses present in almost every osteoarchaeological material, there are malformations indicating serious medical conditions (acquired syphilis, congenital syphilis and late congenital syphilis) as well. Syphilis was a widespread illness in Europe during the Middle Ages (15-16th century). In our material the osteological appearance of acquired syphilis is not surprising, due to its usual occurrence in the materials of medieval graveyards in the area of Modern Hungary .

Landmarks are the hallmark of biological shape analysis as discrete anatomical points of correspondence. Various systems have been developed for their classification. In the most widely used system, developed by Bookstein in the 1990s, landmarks are divided into three distinct types based on their anatomical locations and biological significance. As Bookstein and others have argued that different landmark types possess different qualities, e.g., that Type 3 landmarks contain deficient information about shape variation and are less reliably measured, researchers began using landmark types as justification for selecting or avoiding particular landmarks for measurement or analysis. Here, we demonstrate considerable variation in landmark classifications among 17 studies using geometric morphometrics (GM), due to disagreement in the application of both Bookstein's landmark typology and individual landmark definitions. A review of the literature furthermore shows little correlation between landmark type and measurement reproducibility, especially when factors such as differences in measurement tools (calipers, digitizer, or computer software) and data sources (dry crania, 3D models, or 2D images) are considered. Although landmark typology is valuable when teaching biological shape analysis, we find that employing it in research design introduces confusion without providing useful information. Instead, researchers should choose landmark configurations based on their ability to test specific research hypotheses, and research papers should include justifications of landmark choices along with landmark definitions, details on landmark collection methods, and appropriate interobserver and intraobserver analyses. Hence, while the landmarks themselves are crucial for GM, we argue that their typology is of little use in applied studies.

Enrique Cabrejas se dio cuenta de que las palabras españolas no eran tal y como las conocemos en la actualidad, no se refería en sus formas como todos podemos suponer sino a que fueron pensadas de otro y de distinto modo. Ni lo imaginan. Sí, lo que vemos como letras no son grafemas, unidades mínimas de escritura sino ideas. La ortografía española -según Cabrejas- es una escritura fonética, figurativa y también significada. Nuestros caracteres son ideogramas. ¡Asombroso! ¡Impensable! No obstante tiene lógica, las palabras son la representación de una lengua que es hablada aunque luego se transmita escrita. Averiguó que el diagnóstico dado para la lengua española es equivocado y la razón sencilla: Se le atribuye al latín nuestro alfabeto pero supo que no fue éste quien lo generó, por tanto tuvo que proporcionarlo otra lengua y entonces ¿cuál? Lo explica Cabrejas.

Enrique Cabrejas se dio cuenta de que las palabras españolas no eran tal y como las conocemos en la actualidad, no se refería en sus formas como todos podemos suponer sino a que fueron pensadas de otro y de distinto modo. Ni lo imaginan. Sí, lo que vemos como letras no son grafemas, unidades mínimas de escritura sino ideas. La ortografía española -según Cabrejas- es una escritura fonética, figurativa y también significada. Nuestros caracteres son ideogramas. ¡Asombroso! ¡Impensable! No obstante tiene lógica, las palabras son la representación de una lengua que es hablada aunque luego se transmita escrita. Averiguó que el diagnóstico dado para la lengua española es equivocado y la razón sencilla: Se le atribuye al latín nuestro alfabeto pero supo que no fue éste quien lo generó, por tanto tuvo que proporcionarlo otra lengua y entonces ¿cuál? Lo explica Cabrejas.