23.10.09
King Tut Died in Hunting Accident, Expert Says Steven Stanek in Cairo, Egypt for National Geographic News October 23, 2007
Ο δημοσιογράφος θα διαβάσει εδώ:
King Tutankhamun likely died after falling from his chariot while hunting, Egypt's top archaeologist says in an upcoming TV documentary, offering new insights into the boy pharaoh's long-debated death.
Tutankhamun is widely thought to have died of an infection stemming from a broken leg, after CT scans in 2005 revealed a severe fracture in his left thighbone, challenging theories that he had been murdered.
"He had an accident when he was hunting in the desert," said Zahi Hawass, secretary general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, who has overseen recent examinations of the pharaoh's mummy.
"Falling from the chariot made this fracture in his left leg, and this really is in my opinion how he died."
Hawass made the comments in the film Tutankhamun: Secrets of the Boy King, a documentary scheduled to air October 30 on Britain's Channel Five.
(Hawass is a National Geographic Society explorer-in-residence. National Geographic News is a division of the National Geographic Society.)
The new theory stems largely from examinations of some of the 5,000 artifacts found in the king's tomb, which suggest he was an active, sporting young man and not the sheltered and fragile boy often portrayed by history.
Mystery Solved?
Among the evidence for the theory are at least two chariots entombed with the king that show signs of frequent use, presumably by Tut himself.
"There is something greasy, something that made it easy for the wheel to move on the axle," said Nadia Lokma, general director of conservation of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities.
"The movement from the wheel on the axle also left a deep line."
Lokma said she found these clues when she restored one of the pharaoh's chariots in the 1980s, but they only surfaced recently during interviews with British filmmakers.
The new documentary film also investigates the clothing discovered in Tut's tomb, including a specially designed corset that was likely worn as protection while riding at high speeds.
The tomb also contained hundreds of arrowheads that show evidence of having been fired and retrieved, the film reports.
Enlarge Photo
Printer Friendly
Email to a Friend
What's This? SHARE
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
RELATED
Photo Gallery: Who Was King Tut's Father? (July 10, 2007)
King Tut's Mummy to Be Displayed for 1st Time (October 9, 2007)
Learn More About the King Tut Exhibition
Additional clues come from the floral arrangement that adorned the king's neck at the time of his burial.
The garland contained cornflowers and mayweed, which only bloom in the spring, setting up a timetable for the pharaoh to have died around hunting season.
"If the plants were alive when they were put in the tomb, they must have been in flower at the time, and then so you can deduce that it was spring," Nigel Hepper, a botanist with Britain's Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, said.
"The time for the mummification process would take about six weeks … so you can then push that back and say he died something like the beginning of December or January," which was the middle of the winter hunting season, he added.
An Active King
The new theory of Tut's death comes as perceptions of the boy king are changing.
Though he has commonly been depicted as a sickly and overprotected boy, most evidence suggests he was a robust and active adolescent who was probably a well-trained sportsman, experts say.
"There's been, to some extent, a perception in the past of Tut as the 'tragic' boy king," said John Coleman Darnell, an Egyptologist at Yale University and author of a recent book called Tutankhamun's Armies.
"I think this has been done less in terms of looking at the evidence and what we know and more to sort of heighten the pathos of the wealth of the tomb and the fact that he wasn't terribly old when he died."
Other experts agree that Tutankhamun was a highly active ruler.
"There is certainly plenty of evidence to suggest that he was not only an archer, but also a good charioteer," said David P. Silverman, an Egyptologist at the University of Pennsylvania, who wrote text for the King Tut exhibition currently on a world tour (learn more about the King Tut exhibition).
"He came from the Tuthmosis family, who were well known earlier in the dynasty as military men and also huntsmen," Silverman explained.
Various artifacts also bear depictions of Tut in the act of hunting, Silverman said.
Darnell, of Yale, said Tut would have used a chariot often, as it was common for pharoahs of his era to present themselves as powerful warriors and take every opportunity to highlight their physical prowess.
"He would have used a chariot in ritual setting," Darnell said.
"He would have used it in ritualized shooting displays, riding the chariot, shooting his bows from the chariot. He might very possibly have used it on military campaigns.
"There would have been all these times when Tut would have been expected—and Tut would have expected himself—to get in the chariot," he added.
If Tut were injured in a chariot accident, Darnell said, it would be impossible to tell exactly what he was doing when he died, but the hunting scenario put forth by Hawass is as good an explanation as any.
"I would say it makes a nice story," he added. "It's a good scenario."
King Tutankhamun likely died after falling from his chariot while hunting, Egypt's top archaeologist says in an upcoming TV documentary, offering new insights into the boy pharaoh's long-debated death.
Tutankhamun is widely thought to have died of an infection stemming from a broken leg, after CT scans in 2005 revealed a severe fracture in his left thighbone, challenging theories that he had been murdered.
"He had an accident when he was hunting in the desert," said Zahi Hawass, secretary general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, who has overseen recent examinations of the pharaoh's mummy.
"Falling from the chariot made this fracture in his left leg, and this really is in my opinion how he died."
Hawass made the comments in the film Tutankhamun: Secrets of the Boy King, a documentary scheduled to air October 30 on Britain's Channel Five.
(Hawass is a National Geographic Society explorer-in-residence. National Geographic News is a division of the National Geographic Society.)
The new theory stems largely from examinations of some of the 5,000 artifacts found in the king's tomb, which suggest he was an active, sporting young man and not the sheltered and fragile boy often portrayed by history.
Mystery Solved?
Among the evidence for the theory are at least two chariots entombed with the king that show signs of frequent use, presumably by Tut himself.
"There is something greasy, something that made it easy for the wheel to move on the axle," said Nadia Lokma, general director of conservation of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities.
"The movement from the wheel on the axle also left a deep line."
Lokma said she found these clues when she restored one of the pharaoh's chariots in the 1980s, but they only surfaced recently during interviews with British filmmakers.
The new documentary film also investigates the clothing discovered in Tut's tomb, including a specially designed corset that was likely worn as protection while riding at high speeds.
The tomb also contained hundreds of arrowheads that show evidence of having been fired and retrieved, the film reports.
Enlarge Photo
Printer Friendly
Email to a Friend
What's This? SHARE
Digg
StumbleUpon
RELATED
Photo Gallery: Who Was King Tut's Father? (July 10, 2007)
King Tut's Mummy to Be Displayed for 1st Time (October 9, 2007)
Learn More About the King Tut Exhibition
Additional clues come from the floral arrangement that adorned the king's neck at the time of his burial.
The garland contained cornflowers and mayweed, which only bloom in the spring, setting up a timetable for the pharaoh to have died around hunting season.
"If the plants were alive when they were put in the tomb, they must have been in flower at the time, and then so you can deduce that it was spring," Nigel Hepper, a botanist with Britain's Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, said.
"The time for the mummification process would take about six weeks … so you can then push that back and say he died something like the beginning of December or January," which was the middle of the winter hunting season, he added.
An Active King
The new theory of Tut's death comes as perceptions of the boy king are changing.
Though he has commonly been depicted as a sickly and overprotected boy, most evidence suggests he was a robust and active adolescent who was probably a well-trained sportsman, experts say.
"There's been, to some extent, a perception in the past of Tut as the 'tragic' boy king," said John Coleman Darnell, an Egyptologist at Yale University and author of a recent book called Tutankhamun's Armies.
"I think this has been done less in terms of looking at the evidence and what we know and more to sort of heighten the pathos of the wealth of the tomb and the fact that he wasn't terribly old when he died."
Other experts agree that Tutankhamun was a highly active ruler.
"There is certainly plenty of evidence to suggest that he was not only an archer, but also a good charioteer," said David P. Silverman, an Egyptologist at the University of Pennsylvania, who wrote text for the King Tut exhibition currently on a world tour (learn more about the King Tut exhibition).
"He came from the Tuthmosis family, who were well known earlier in the dynasty as military men and also huntsmen," Silverman explained.
Various artifacts also bear depictions of Tut in the act of hunting, Silverman said.
Darnell, of Yale, said Tut would have used a chariot often, as it was common for pharoahs of his era to present themselves as powerful warriors and take every opportunity to highlight their physical prowess.
"He would have used a chariot in ritual setting," Darnell said.
"He would have used it in ritualized shooting displays, riding the chariot, shooting his bows from the chariot. He might very possibly have used it on military campaigns.
"There would have been all these times when Tut would have been expected—and Tut would have expected himself—to get in the chariot," he added.
If Tut were injured in a chariot accident, Darnell said, it would be impossible to tell exactly what he was doing when he died, but the hunting scenario put forth by Hawass is as good an explanation as any.
"I would say it makes a nice story," he added. "It's a good scenario."
The Death of King Tut
Ο ερευνητής γιατρός θα ψάξει εδω: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/kingtutdeath.htm
Egypt Feature Story
The Death of King Tut
by Jimmy Dunn
It all stacked up. It was all circumstantial evidence as such, but frequently that is all that investigators of ancient mysteries have to go on. And yet, the most recent findings on the death of King Tut (Tutankhamun) seem to conclusively indicate that he died of natural causes, rather than being murdered. Specifically, the latest report is that he died of gangrene caused by a broken leg.
There was more than a little reason to believe that King Tut may have been murdered. The two principal suspects, Aye who succeeded him as king, and General Horemhab who in turn succeeded Aye to the throne, both appear to have been powerful men who, in effect, ruled Egypt while King Tut was a child. It would not be unreasonable at all to believe that, as King Tut grew into a young man, the two elder men would have resented losing much of their power. Furthermore, at the time of his death, King Tut was certainly old enough to have sired an heir to the throne himself, which would have at least technically eliminated Aye and Horemhab from ever ascending the throne. It is also noteworthy that the young King Tut was greatly loved in ancient Egypt for restoring the Amun priesthood after the death of his presumed heretic father, Akhenaten. However, this was almost certainly the work of Aye and General Horemhab, who could have even resented Tut receiving all the glory of their work.
Finally, there was the issue of King Tut's widow, Ankhespaton, who was apparently forced to marry Aye after King Tut's death. Only a short time later, she disappeared from the annals of history, leading to speculation that she too might have been murdered.
These circumstances all contribute to an ancient mystery, and much intrigue, a situation that was not completely uncommon in the Egyptian royal court. Attempts had, and would be made to murder pharaohs, a few of which were successful. Usually, these seem to have been plots within the harem with the goal of elevating one wife's son to the throne over another's.
Now we are told, in absolute terms, that King Tut died by natural causes. However, lets take a little closer look.
One of the most interesting aspects of Egyptology is that various scholars very frequently present their interpretation of events as absolute, and particularly in books or releases to the general public, neglect to reveal opposing views. This occurs all the time, frequently with one expert asserting absolutely one conclusion, while another asserting absolutely a completely different conclusion. For example, debates continue to rage over who was actually King Menes, the founder of the 1st ancient Egyptian Dynasty, with some scholars stating unequivocally that it was Aha, with others still believing it to have been Narmer.
In the case of King Tut, one must first remember that his mummy is not in very good condition today. When Carter discovered it, his team basically dismantled the corpse while looking for amulets and other jewelry. Furthermore, many of its parts present at the original examination by Carter are now missing, and both skin and bones were broken in numerous places, supposedly also by the Carter team.
Dr. Zahi Hawass, the Director of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA), makes some interesting comments about the most recent findings on King Tut. Though he seems to mostly be in agreement with these findings, he states, for example, that, "...some (not all) team members interpreted a fracture in the left thighbone as evidence for the possibility that Tutankhamun broke his leg badly just before he died".
He goes on to explain that:
"The team has noted a fracture of the left lower femur (thighbone), at the level of the epiphyseal plate. This fracture appears different from the many breaks caused by Carter’s team: it has ragged rather than sharp edges, and there are two layers of embalming material present inside. Part of the team believes that the embalming material indicates that this can only have occurred during life or during the embalming process, and cannot have been caused by Carter’s team. They note that this type of fracture, unlike most of the others, is possible in young men in their late teens, and argue that it is most likely that this happened during life. There is no obvious evidence for healing (although there may be some present, and masked by the embalming material). Since the associated skin wound would still have been open, this fracture would have had to occur a short time, days at the most, before death. Carter’s team had noted that the patella (kneecap) on this leg was loose (now it is completely separated, and has in fact, been wrapped with the left hand), possibly suggesting further damage to this area of the body. The part of the team that subscribes to this theory also notes a fracture of the right patella and right lower leg. Based on this evidence, they suggest the king may have suffered an accident in which he broke his leg badly, leaving an open wound. Although the break itself would not have been life-threatening, infection might have set in. However, this part of the team believes it also possible, although less likely, that this fracture was caused by the embalmers".
"Part of the team believes that the above scenario is absolutely not possible. They maintain that the fracture mentioned above can only have been done by Carter’s team during extraction of the body from the coffin. They argue that if such a fracture had been suffered in life, there would have been evidence for hemorrhage or hematoma present in the CT scan. They believe the embalming liquid was pushed into the fracture by Carter’s team".
However, one of the main reasons that murder has ragged on as a possible cause of King Tut's death is because of a fracture to the back of his head. Revealed in an X-ray of his mummy made by the University of Liverpool, a trauma specialist at Long Island University in the US theorized that the blow was not caused by an accident. However, according to Dr. Hawass,
"The entire team agrees that there is NO evidence for murder present in the skull of Tutankhamun. There is NO area on the back of the skull that indicates a partially healed blow. There are two bone fragments loose in the skull. These cannot possibly have been from an injury from before death, as they would have become stuck in the embalming material. The scientific team has matched these pieces to the fractured cervical vertebra and foramen magnum, and believes these were broken either during the embalming process or by Carter’s team".
So, while some recent news coverage seems to indicate that all of the questions surrounding Tutankhamun's death have now been answered, at least for some scholars, they have not. Perhaps, once all the results of the recent CAT scan have been released, everyone may be in agreement, but there still seems to be some question, at least according to Dr. Hawass, that at least some of the team that examined the CAT scans disagree with the absolute finding that gangrene caused by a broken leg caused King Tut's death.
In fact, Dr. Hawass does reveal in recent media that we are not really completely sure how King Tut died, but that we know it was not murder. We have always had the utmost respect for Dr. Hawass, as we continue to have, but it was long suggested as a hypothesis that King Tut may have been poisoned, so in fact, if we are not certain as to how he died, then murder cannot yet be ruled out.
Egypt Feature Story
The Death of King Tut
by Jimmy Dunn
It all stacked up. It was all circumstantial evidence as such, but frequently that is all that investigators of ancient mysteries have to go on. And yet, the most recent findings on the death of King Tut (Tutankhamun) seem to conclusively indicate that he died of natural causes, rather than being murdered. Specifically, the latest report is that he died of gangrene caused by a broken leg.
There was more than a little reason to believe that King Tut may have been murdered. The two principal suspects, Aye who succeeded him as king, and General Horemhab who in turn succeeded Aye to the throne, both appear to have been powerful men who, in effect, ruled Egypt while King Tut was a child. It would not be unreasonable at all to believe that, as King Tut grew into a young man, the two elder men would have resented losing much of their power. Furthermore, at the time of his death, King Tut was certainly old enough to have sired an heir to the throne himself, which would have at least technically eliminated Aye and Horemhab from ever ascending the throne. It is also noteworthy that the young King Tut was greatly loved in ancient Egypt for restoring the Amun priesthood after the death of his presumed heretic father, Akhenaten. However, this was almost certainly the work of Aye and General Horemhab, who could have even resented Tut receiving all the glory of their work.
Finally, there was the issue of King Tut's widow, Ankhespaton, who was apparently forced to marry Aye after King Tut's death. Only a short time later, she disappeared from the annals of history, leading to speculation that she too might have been murdered.
These circumstances all contribute to an ancient mystery, and much intrigue, a situation that was not completely uncommon in the Egyptian royal court. Attempts had, and would be made to murder pharaohs, a few of which were successful. Usually, these seem to have been plots within the harem with the goal of elevating one wife's son to the throne over another's.
Now we are told, in absolute terms, that King Tut died by natural causes. However, lets take a little closer look.
One of the most interesting aspects of Egyptology is that various scholars very frequently present their interpretation of events as absolute, and particularly in books or releases to the general public, neglect to reveal opposing views. This occurs all the time, frequently with one expert asserting absolutely one conclusion, while another asserting absolutely a completely different conclusion. For example, debates continue to rage over who was actually King Menes, the founder of the 1st ancient Egyptian Dynasty, with some scholars stating unequivocally that it was Aha, with others still believing it to have been Narmer.
In the case of King Tut, one must first remember that his mummy is not in very good condition today. When Carter discovered it, his team basically dismantled the corpse while looking for amulets and other jewelry. Furthermore, many of its parts present at the original examination by Carter are now missing, and both skin and bones were broken in numerous places, supposedly also by the Carter team.
Dr. Zahi Hawass, the Director of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA), makes some interesting comments about the most recent findings on King Tut. Though he seems to mostly be in agreement with these findings, he states, for example, that, "...some (not all) team members interpreted a fracture in the left thighbone as evidence for the possibility that Tutankhamun broke his leg badly just before he died".
He goes on to explain that:
"The team has noted a fracture of the left lower femur (thighbone), at the level of the epiphyseal plate. This fracture appears different from the many breaks caused by Carter’s team: it has ragged rather than sharp edges, and there are two layers of embalming material present inside. Part of the team believes that the embalming material indicates that this can only have occurred during life or during the embalming process, and cannot have been caused by Carter’s team. They note that this type of fracture, unlike most of the others, is possible in young men in their late teens, and argue that it is most likely that this happened during life. There is no obvious evidence for healing (although there may be some present, and masked by the embalming material). Since the associated skin wound would still have been open, this fracture would have had to occur a short time, days at the most, before death. Carter’s team had noted that the patella (kneecap) on this leg was loose (now it is completely separated, and has in fact, been wrapped with the left hand), possibly suggesting further damage to this area of the body. The part of the team that subscribes to this theory also notes a fracture of the right patella and right lower leg. Based on this evidence, they suggest the king may have suffered an accident in which he broke his leg badly, leaving an open wound. Although the break itself would not have been life-threatening, infection might have set in. However, this part of the team believes it also possible, although less likely, that this fracture was caused by the embalmers".
"Part of the team believes that the above scenario is absolutely not possible. They maintain that the fracture mentioned above can only have been done by Carter’s team during extraction of the body from the coffin. They argue that if such a fracture had been suffered in life, there would have been evidence for hemorrhage or hematoma present in the CT scan. They believe the embalming liquid was pushed into the fracture by Carter’s team".
However, one of the main reasons that murder has ragged on as a possible cause of King Tut's death is because of a fracture to the back of his head. Revealed in an X-ray of his mummy made by the University of Liverpool, a trauma specialist at Long Island University in the US theorized that the blow was not caused by an accident. However, according to Dr. Hawass,
"The entire team agrees that there is NO evidence for murder present in the skull of Tutankhamun. There is NO area on the back of the skull that indicates a partially healed blow. There are two bone fragments loose in the skull. These cannot possibly have been from an injury from before death, as they would have become stuck in the embalming material. The scientific team has matched these pieces to the fractured cervical vertebra and foramen magnum, and believes these were broken either during the embalming process or by Carter’s team".
So, while some recent news coverage seems to indicate that all of the questions surrounding Tutankhamun's death have now been answered, at least for some scholars, they have not. Perhaps, once all the results of the recent CAT scan have been released, everyone may be in agreement, but there still seems to be some question, at least according to Dr. Hawass, that at least some of the team that examined the CAT scans disagree with the absolute finding that gangrene caused by a broken leg caused King Tut's death.
In fact, Dr. Hawass does reveal in recent media that we are not really completely sure how King Tut died, but that we know it was not murder. We have always had the utmost respect for Dr. Hawass, as we continue to have, but it was long suggested as a hypothesis that King Tut may have been poisoned, so in fact, if we are not certain as to how he died, then murder cannot yet be ruled out.
26.9.09
Άνθρωπος (Homo sapiens sapiens)
Από τη Βικιπαίδεια, την ελεύθερη εγκυκλοπαίδεια
Συστηματική ταξινόμηση
Βασίλειο: Ζώα (Animalia)
Συνομοταξία: Χορδωτά (Chordata)
Υποσυνομοταξία: Σπονδυλωτά (Vertebrata)
Υπερομοταξία: Τετράποδα (Tetrapoda)
Ομοταξία: Θηλαστικά (Mammalia)
Υφομοταξία: Θηρία (Theria)
Τάξη: Πρωτεύοντα (Primates)
Υπεροικογένεια: Ανθρωπoειδή (Hominoidea)
Οικογένεια: Ανθρωπίδαι (Hominidae)
Γένος: Άνθρωπος (Homo)
Είδος: Άνθρωπος ο σοφός (Η. sapiens)
Υποείδος: H. s. sapiens
Τριωνυμικό όνομα
Homo sapiens sapiens
Ως Homo sapiens sapiens ορίζεται ο ανθρωπίδας που εμφανίστηκε κατά την Ανώτερη Παλαιολιθική (35.000-100.000 π.π.), ο σύγχρονος άνθρωπος, του οποίου διακρίθηκαν δύο τύποι:
ο τύπος Cro-Magnon (Δ. Ευρώπη) με πλατύ πρόσωπο και χαμηλό κρανίο
ο τύπος Bruenn (Κεντρ. Ευρώπη) με στενό πρόσωπο και μακρύ κρανίο.
Ίχνη του Homo sapiens sapiens εντοπίστηκαν εκτός από την Αφρική, την Ευρώπη και την Ασία, επίσης στην Αμερική και την Ωκεανία, για τις οποίες μαρτυρείται πρώτη κατοίκηση περίπου το 35.000 π.π.
Έως τώρα επικρατούσε η πεποίθηση ότι ο σύγχρονος άνθρωπος (Homo sapiens sapiens) είναι άμεσος απόγονος του Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Ωστόσο, συγκριτικές μελέτες του DNA οστών νεαντερτάλιων και σύγχρονων ανθρώπων και η κλωνοποίηση του DNA των οστών από την κοιλάδα του Νεάντερ, απέκλεισαν τη γενετική συγγένεια των δύο ειδών. Σύμφωνα με τα νέα δεδομένα, ένα ανθρώπινο κύμα Homo sapiens μετανάστευσε πριν από 100.000 χρόνια από την Αφρική και συνυπήρξε για κάποιο διάστημα με τους Nεαντερτάλιους, οι οποίοι σταδιακά εξαφανίστηκαν. Σύμφωνα λοιπόν με τις κλιματολογικές αλλαγές που συντελέστηκαν κατά το τέλος της Πλειστόκαινου και τα ανθρωπολογικά δεδομένα, οι σύγχρονοι άνθρωποι προήλθαν από μια σχετικά πρόσφατη ομάδα ανθρωπιδών.
Ο άνθρωπος ο σοφός είναι θηλαστικό. Κατατάσσεται στους Ανθρωπίδες και όπως και αυτοί χαρακτηρίζεται από τη δίποδη (όρθια) στάση όταν περπατά ενώ διαθέτει αντιτακτό αντίχειρα ως προς την παλάμη, χαρακτηριστικά που είναι κατάλληλα για την χρήση εργαλείων.
Ετυμολογία
Επί πολλά χρόνια η ακριβής ετυμολογική ανάλυση του όρου έχει αποτελέσει πρόβλημα και η ιστορική γλωσσολογία έχει καταλήξει σε δυο-τρεις πιθανότερες εκδοχές. Στο Ετυμολογικό Λεξικό τής Αρχ. Ελληνικής τού P. Chantraine (1999, β΄ έκδ.) αναφέρεται: «Le mycénien a-to-ro-qo rend quasi-certaine l’existence d’un second terme -okwo- (exprimant l’idée de visage ou d’aspect), cf. ὄψ, πρόσωπον, et apporterait un petit appui par ex. à l’explication par *ἄνδρ-ωπος» (σ. 91).
Η ανάλυση *ἄνδρ-ωπος «αυτός που έχει όψη ή πρόσωπο άνδρα» είναι αυτή που τείνει να γίνει περισσότερο αποδεκτή στη σύγχρονη γλωσσολογία. Ας σημειωθεί ότι το αρχ. ουσ. ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός σήμαινε συγχρόνως «άνδρας, άνθρωπος», πράγμα που αποτελεί κοινό τόπο για πολλές σύγχρονες γλώσσες (λ.χ. αγγλ. man, γαλλ. homme, γερμ. Mann «άνδρας» - man «κάποιος (άνθρωπος)», ισπ. hombre, ιταλ. uomo κ.ά., που όλα συνδυάζουν τις σημ. «άνδρας, άνθρωπος», αντανακλώντας έτσι το γνωσιακό σύστημα των ομιλητών).
Δημοφιλείς παραμένουν ορισμένες παρετυμολογικές αναγωγές, οι οποίες δεν στηρίζονται σε επιστημονικά κριτήρια. Περισσότερο γνωστή είναι η εικαζόμενη αναγωγή σε ἄνω + θρώσκω («αναπηδώ») + ὄπωπα (αρχαϊκός παρακείμενος του ὁρῶ «βλέπω»), βάσει της οποίας ο άνθρωπος είναι το ον που κοιτάζει και κινείται προς τα εμπρός, άρα είναι γεμάτος αισιοδοξία και στόχους. Η άποψη αυτή προσκρούει στους μορφολογικούς κανόνες τής Ελληνικής, διότι παρουσιάζει τονισμό που δείχνει ότι πρόκειται για παράγωγο και όχι για σύνθετο, το δε ρήμα θρώσκω δεν έχει δώσει παράγωγα επίθετα τέτοιας μορφής.
Συνείδηση και σκέψη
Οι άνθρωποι είναι μόνο ένα από τα εννέα είδη που περνούν το τεστ με τον καθρέφτη -ο οποίος δοκιμάζει εάν ένα ζώο αναγνωρίζει την αντανάκλασή του ως εικόνα του εαυτού του- μαζί με όλους τους μεγάλους πιθήκους (γορίλλες, χιμπατζήδες, ουραγκοτάγκους), τα δελφίνια Bottlenose, τους ασιατικούς ελέφαντες, τις ευρωπαϊκές κίσσες και τις όρκες. Τα περισσότερα ανθρώπινα παιδιά περνούν τη δοκιμή με τον καθρέφτη σε ηλικία 18 μηνών. Εντούτοις, η αξιοπιστία αυτής της δοκιμής έχει αμφισβητηθεί.
Ο ανθρώπινος εγκέφαλος αντιλαμβάνεται τον εξωτερικό κόσμο μέσω των αισθήσεων, και κάθε μεμονωμένος άνθρωπος επηρεάζεται πολύ από την εμπειρία του/της. Οι άνθρωποι λέγεται ότι κατέχουν συνείδηση και ένα μυαλό, το οποίο αντιστοιχεί στην διανοητική διαδικασία της σκέψης. Επίσης λέγεται ότι έχουν ικανότητες όπως, η ευαισθησία, η σοφία, και την δυνατότητα να αντιλαμβάνονται τη σχέση μεταξύ του εαυτού τους και του περιβάλλουν του. Ο βαθμός στον οποίο το μυαλό κατασκευάζει ή δοκιμάζει τον εξωτερικό κόσμο είναι ένα αμφιλεγόμενο θέμα.
Συστηματική ταξινόμηση
Βασίλειο: Ζώα (Animalia)
Συνομοταξία: Χορδωτά (Chordata)
Υποσυνομοταξία: Σπονδυλωτά (Vertebrata)
Υπερομοταξία: Τετράποδα (Tetrapoda)
Ομοταξία: Θηλαστικά (Mammalia)
Υφομοταξία: Θηρία (Theria)
Τάξη: Πρωτεύοντα (Primates)
Υπεροικογένεια: Ανθρωπoειδή (Hominoidea)
Οικογένεια: Ανθρωπίδαι (Hominidae)
Γένος: Άνθρωπος (Homo)
Είδος: Άνθρωπος ο σοφός (Η. sapiens)
Υποείδος: H. s. sapiens
Τριωνυμικό όνομα
Homo sapiens sapiens
Ως Homo sapiens sapiens ορίζεται ο ανθρωπίδας που εμφανίστηκε κατά την Ανώτερη Παλαιολιθική (35.000-100.000 π.π.), ο σύγχρονος άνθρωπος, του οποίου διακρίθηκαν δύο τύποι:
ο τύπος Cro-Magnon (Δ. Ευρώπη) με πλατύ πρόσωπο και χαμηλό κρανίο
ο τύπος Bruenn (Κεντρ. Ευρώπη) με στενό πρόσωπο και μακρύ κρανίο.
Ίχνη του Homo sapiens sapiens εντοπίστηκαν εκτός από την Αφρική, την Ευρώπη και την Ασία, επίσης στην Αμερική και την Ωκεανία, για τις οποίες μαρτυρείται πρώτη κατοίκηση περίπου το 35.000 π.π.
Έως τώρα επικρατούσε η πεποίθηση ότι ο σύγχρονος άνθρωπος (Homo sapiens sapiens) είναι άμεσος απόγονος του Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Ωστόσο, συγκριτικές μελέτες του DNA οστών νεαντερτάλιων και σύγχρονων ανθρώπων και η κλωνοποίηση του DNA των οστών από την κοιλάδα του Νεάντερ, απέκλεισαν τη γενετική συγγένεια των δύο ειδών. Σύμφωνα με τα νέα δεδομένα, ένα ανθρώπινο κύμα Homo sapiens μετανάστευσε πριν από 100.000 χρόνια από την Αφρική και συνυπήρξε για κάποιο διάστημα με τους Nεαντερτάλιους, οι οποίοι σταδιακά εξαφανίστηκαν. Σύμφωνα λοιπόν με τις κλιματολογικές αλλαγές που συντελέστηκαν κατά το τέλος της Πλειστόκαινου και τα ανθρωπολογικά δεδομένα, οι σύγχρονοι άνθρωποι προήλθαν από μια σχετικά πρόσφατη ομάδα ανθρωπιδών.
Ο άνθρωπος ο σοφός είναι θηλαστικό. Κατατάσσεται στους Ανθρωπίδες και όπως και αυτοί χαρακτηρίζεται από τη δίποδη (όρθια) στάση όταν περπατά ενώ διαθέτει αντιτακτό αντίχειρα ως προς την παλάμη, χαρακτηριστικά που είναι κατάλληλα για την χρήση εργαλείων.
Ετυμολογία
Επί πολλά χρόνια η ακριβής ετυμολογική ανάλυση του όρου έχει αποτελέσει πρόβλημα και η ιστορική γλωσσολογία έχει καταλήξει σε δυο-τρεις πιθανότερες εκδοχές. Στο Ετυμολογικό Λεξικό τής Αρχ. Ελληνικής τού P. Chantraine (1999, β΄ έκδ.) αναφέρεται: «Le mycénien a-to-ro-qo rend quasi-certaine l’existence d’un second terme -okwo- (exprimant l’idée de visage ou d’aspect), cf. ὄψ, πρόσωπον, et apporterait un petit appui par ex. à l’explication par *ἄνδρ-ωπος» (σ. 91).
Η ανάλυση *ἄνδρ-ωπος «αυτός που έχει όψη ή πρόσωπο άνδρα» είναι αυτή που τείνει να γίνει περισσότερο αποδεκτή στη σύγχρονη γλωσσολογία. Ας σημειωθεί ότι το αρχ. ουσ. ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός σήμαινε συγχρόνως «άνδρας, άνθρωπος», πράγμα που αποτελεί κοινό τόπο για πολλές σύγχρονες γλώσσες (λ.χ. αγγλ. man, γαλλ. homme, γερμ. Mann «άνδρας» - man «κάποιος (άνθρωπος)», ισπ. hombre, ιταλ. uomo κ.ά., που όλα συνδυάζουν τις σημ. «άνδρας, άνθρωπος», αντανακλώντας έτσι το γνωσιακό σύστημα των ομιλητών).
Δημοφιλείς παραμένουν ορισμένες παρετυμολογικές αναγωγές, οι οποίες δεν στηρίζονται σε επιστημονικά κριτήρια. Περισσότερο γνωστή είναι η εικαζόμενη αναγωγή σε ἄνω + θρώσκω («αναπηδώ») + ὄπωπα (αρχαϊκός παρακείμενος του ὁρῶ «βλέπω»), βάσει της οποίας ο άνθρωπος είναι το ον που κοιτάζει και κινείται προς τα εμπρός, άρα είναι γεμάτος αισιοδοξία και στόχους. Η άποψη αυτή προσκρούει στους μορφολογικούς κανόνες τής Ελληνικής, διότι παρουσιάζει τονισμό που δείχνει ότι πρόκειται για παράγωγο και όχι για σύνθετο, το δε ρήμα θρώσκω δεν έχει δώσει παράγωγα επίθετα τέτοιας μορφής.
Συνείδηση και σκέψη
Οι άνθρωποι είναι μόνο ένα από τα εννέα είδη που περνούν το τεστ με τον καθρέφτη -ο οποίος δοκιμάζει εάν ένα ζώο αναγνωρίζει την αντανάκλασή του ως εικόνα του εαυτού του- μαζί με όλους τους μεγάλους πιθήκους (γορίλλες, χιμπατζήδες, ουραγκοτάγκους), τα δελφίνια Bottlenose, τους ασιατικούς ελέφαντες, τις ευρωπαϊκές κίσσες και τις όρκες. Τα περισσότερα ανθρώπινα παιδιά περνούν τη δοκιμή με τον καθρέφτη σε ηλικία 18 μηνών. Εντούτοις, η αξιοπιστία αυτής της δοκιμής έχει αμφισβητηθεί.
Ο ανθρώπινος εγκέφαλος αντιλαμβάνεται τον εξωτερικό κόσμο μέσω των αισθήσεων, και κάθε μεμονωμένος άνθρωπος επηρεάζεται πολύ από την εμπειρία του/της. Οι άνθρωποι λέγεται ότι κατέχουν συνείδηση και ένα μυαλό, το οποίο αντιστοιχεί στην διανοητική διαδικασία της σκέψης. Επίσης λέγεται ότι έχουν ικανότητες όπως, η ευαισθησία, η σοφία, και την δυνατότητα να αντιλαμβάνονται τη σχέση μεταξύ του εαυτού τους και του περιβάλλουν του. Ο βαθμός στον οποίο το μυαλό κατασκευάζει ή δοκιμάζει τον εξωτερικό κόσμο είναι ένα αμφιλεγόμενο θέμα.
Εγγραφή σε:
Αναρτήσεις (Atom)
