Plan Lector>La gallina de los huevos de oro
Lo que has visto
El quipucamayoc exclama: Hoy celebramos el Inti Raymi en el Cusco. Es un…
El quipucamayoc exclama: Hoy celebramos el Inti Raymi en el Cusco. Es un…
En remotos tiempos los dioses habitaban nuestros valles y montañas, y. ..
Cuniraya se arrojó al mar intentando salvar a su amada e hija. Pero vio…
¡Quita! — le dijo la madrastra-. Esta es la comida de mis perros.
Hace mucho tiempo, Wiracocha, creador de todas las cosas, había…
Antes estos cerros no estaban uno junto al otro, sino separados.
Érase en cierta ocasión un cuervo, el de más negro plumaje, que habitaba…
Todas las novedades
Imágenes, posibilidades y viabilidades de la inteligencia colectiva
abr 15, 2007
JAIME ALEJANDRO RODRÍGUEZ RUÍZ
Director Carrera Literatura Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
Dos proyectos wiki de ficción colaborativa, uno que fracasa y otro que se desarrolla con éxito, sirven como pretexto en este artículo para desplegar una reflexión sobre los nuevos modos de pensamiento y de vínculo social, favorecidos hoy por las nuevas tecnologías de la información y la comunicación: el proyecto de la inteligencia colectiva. Cuatro autores fundamentan esta reflexión: Pierre Lévy, Derrick de Kerckhove, Howard Rheingold y David Casacuberta. Después de mostrar las posibilidades del ejercicio de la inteligencia colectiva, el artículo concluye al afirmar que el espacio del conocimiento se constituye, irreversiblemente, en un nuevo espacio antropológico: el de la inteligencia colectiva, al que todos estamos llamados a construir.
Inteligencia colectriva, Creación colectiva, Cibercultura, Proyectos wikiintelligence, collective creation, cyberculture, wiki projects.
RODRÍGUEZ RUÍZ, J. A. (2007). La gallina de los huevos de oro de nuevo está en peligro. Imágenes, posibilidades y viabilidades de la inteligencia colectiva. Signo Y Pensamiento, 25(50), 126–147. Recuperado a partir de https://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/signoypensamiento/article/view/4617
La narrativa transmedia como experiencia de simulación de inteligencia colectiva. El caso de Atrapados
Signo y Pensamiento: Vol. 34 Núm. 67 (2015)
Un libro valioso
Signo y Pensamiento: Vol. 17 Núm. 33 (1998): Radiografías
Sueños digitales de un escritor: la convergencia digital al servicio del ejercicio literario
Signo y Pensamiento: Vol. 28 Núm. 54 (2009): Convergencia digital Mutaciones, hibridaciones y desafíos
1 km from Galeria.
View on map
Fauna, landscape and climate:
No herbivores; most of the bones are the Middle Pleistocene Deninger bear (min=166 individuals), lion, lynx, forest cat, fox, wolf, small mustelids, rodents.
Judging by the accumulation of bones, the corpses were thrown into the cave entirely, into the cave below the level of human habitation. There is no order of the bones.
430 thousand years ago
Immediate ancestors of European Neanderthals; skull 4 somewhat resembles Petralona, and skull 6 is similar to Steinheim.
More than 1600 human remains, no less than 32 individuals (identified by teeth), skulls, mandibles; 89 permanent upper (17 in situ) teeth, 143 permanent lower teeth (63 in situ) (8 I 1 , 15 I 2 , 15 C 1 , 17 P 1 , 20 P 2 , 25 M 1 , 20 M 2 , 22 M 3 ,), 1 milk with 1 . Postcranial Parts of the skeleton other than the skull. remains (for 1993: 23 vertebrae, 2 sacrums, 9 ribs, 7 collarbones, 10 shoulder blades, 15 humeral, 5 ulnar, 7 radial, 10 carpal, 2 metacarpal, 76 phalanges of the hand, 19 pelvic, 30 femoral, 23 large tibial, 6 patella, 19 small tibial, 15 talus (? tarsal), 14 metatarsal, 44 phalanges of the feet). Total minimum 29individuals: 3 children less than 12 years old, 16 boys 12-20 years old and 13 over 20 years old; according to another definition 21 adults: 8 individuals 16-19 years old, 4 individuals 20-23 years old, 4 individuals 24-27 years old, 3 individuals 28-31 years old, 2 individuals 32-35 years old.
Finds since 1976
Brain boxes differ both from archanthropes and from Neanderthals: they are comparatively shortened, the width exceeds even Neanderthal values. The arch in the longitudinal direction is very convex. When viewed from behind, the braincases are wide, pentagonoid (unlike Neanderthals), the shape of the vault in cross section is roof-shaped, the side walls are convex, slightly inclined upwards and inwards, almost vertical. The greatest width of the skull is located in the lower part of the skull, but this is not as conspicuous as on the skulls of the archanthropes. The postorbital constriction is weakly expressed.
Frontal bone low and sloping compared to modern man, convex compared to archanthropes. Superciliary ridge moderately developed.
Parietal bones convex in longitudinal section and flattened in transverse. The width of the occiput of skulls 2, 4, and 8 is within the upper limits of variability in all hominids; skulls 3, 5, 6, 7 and others have a relatively narrow occiput (but still within the upper limits of the variability of modern man). The occipital region slightly protrudes backwards, rounded, the external occipital protuberance is directed downwards, and not backwards (progressive sign). No hairpiece Variant of the structure of the occipital bone, in which there is a sharp bend between its upper and lower parts. It is typical for the skulls of archanthropes and some groups of paleoanthropes (Neanderthals). protrusions of the occiput. Occipital carina straight, comparatively weak. The upper part of the scales of the occipital bone is longer than the nuchal platform (unlike archanthropes). The foramen magnum is elongated (not as significant as in Neanderthals).
Scales of the temporal bone are high, convex from above. Mastoid Element of the structure of the skull. Descending process of the temporal bone, located behind the external auditory canal. large process. Styloid Elongated pointed process of the temporal bone, located on the lower surface of the pyramid of the temporal bone. the process is well developed on all adult skulls; on the skulls of children and adolescents, its ossification center is visible (a progressive sign). Pyramid The inner part of the temporal bone, shaped like a trihedral pyramid. Inside the pyramid are the inner and middle ear. of the temporal bone is oriented transversely to the longitudinal axis of the skull and strongly curved, tympanic Element of the structure of the temporal bone. Limits the bony part of the external auditory meatus in front. The temporal bone plate is oriented horizontally and transversely (typical for archaic hominids, uncharacteristic for modern humans).
The facial skeleton is very large, wide and massive (smaller than in archanthropes), prognathous One of the types of skull structure, in which the facial region (in particular, the jaw) protrudes forward. (difference from Neanderthals). The horizontal profiling of the face is strong (as in Neanderthals). The eye sockets are almost square, with straight edges and rounded corners (the shape is intermediate between archanthropes and European Neanderthals). Interorbital distance, nasal bones and nasal opening are very wide. The nasal bones strongly protrude forward, flattened transversely. The shape and arrangement of the ridges on the inner surface of the nasal cavity differs from the peculiar Neanderthal variant.
The maxillary notch is very well developed (a sharp difference from Neanderthals). The upper jaw is large and wide. The alveolar arch in the anterior part is rounded (in contrast to Neanderthals), but very long (in contrast to modern humans).
Brain size: 1125 cm 3 (skull 5), 1220 cm 3 (skull 6) and 1390 cm 3 (skull 4). On the endocane Plaster or other cast of the internal cavity of the cranium. Due to the preservation of the imprint of furrows, convolutions and large vessels, the endocran is used to reconstruct some features of the thinking of ancient people and the structure of their sense organs. frontal lobe high and rounded in front, with an almost horizontal base; the volume of the frontal lobe is much larger than that of the archanthropes. The temporal lobe on the endocrane of skull 5 is far from the frontal lobe, and the depth of the temporal fossa is very large. The occipital lobe of the brain is very large and strongly projected backward compared to modern humans.
Mandibles: AT-300, AT-505+AT-604+AT-952, AT-605, AT-607 and AT-721+AT-888 are best preserved. The size and massiveness of the lower jaws is on average larger than that of classical European Neanderthals. Archaic or Neanderthaloid features: oblique or vertical symphysis Connecting bones through cartilage.
The symphysis of the lower jaw (chin symphysis) connects the right and left halves of the jaw; matches the chin. , its roundness back in the lower part, the posterior position of the mental foramina (at the level of M 1 ), retromolar The empty space between the third molar and the ascending branch of the lower jaw. Not present in modern man. Characteristic of Neanderthals. space between the anterior margin of the ascending branch and M 3 , evenly rounded angle of the jaw, large difference between the condylar Thickening, a protrusion on the bone that serves to attach the muscles. and angular jaw width. The digastric pits are located behind the symphysis (as in modern humans; in Neanderthals on the underside). The shape of the alveolar arch is modern, smoothly rounded in front and diverging back. The ascending ramus is high and wide, especially on the AT-300 and AT-605 jaws. The articular process is low, with a very thick neck. The shape of the maxillary notch and the coronoid process varies greatly.
The hyoid bones are similar in size and shape to modern humans, but are very different from the bones of a chimpanzee or Australopithecus afarensis .
Tooth sizes are in the lower range of Neanderthal variation and in the upper or middle range of modern human variation.
Vertebrae, sacrum and ribs from Sima de los Huesos do not differ from those of modern man.
On the clavicle, the diaphysis The central tubular part of the long bones, between the epiphyses. is flattened (typical of most fossil hominids) and heavily twisted. Neanderthaloid features on the shoulder blades: a dorso-axillary groove and crest are developed, the articular cavity is very long and narrow, shallow in relation to the length.
The humeri have a round or compressed section of the middle of the shaft (up to hyperplatybrachy in AT-25, Humerus II and Humerus III), a transverse-oval head, a large ulnar fossa (these features are similar to Neanderthals).
On the ulna and radius, the bending of the diaphysis is moderate (in Neanderthals, the bending is strong). The radial tuberosity of the radius is anteromedially oriented (a modern feature; medially oriented in Neanderthals). Upper epiphysis Bone epiphysis — the end section of a tubular bone. Attaches to the diaphysis. The epiphyses can be articular or non-articular, their number varies from 1 to 7. The cartilaginous layer between the diaphysis and the epiphysis is called the metaphysis; when it ossifies, the epiphysis fuses with the diaphysis. of the ulna is very large, the neck of the radius is elongated (Neanderthaloid signs).
The bones of the hand are no different from modern humans.
AT-1928 pelvic bones are of modern design. The width of the pelvis is very large, the wing of the ilium is thick (as in KNM-ER 3228, OH 28, Chinnyushan and Arago XLIV).
Femurs are generally quite modern. The neck is thick, short and almost horizontal (an archaic feature).
Tibias AT-647+AT-649+AT-837 and AT-848 have a blunt anterior margin (typical of archaic hominids). They are quite massive and strongly curved by modern standards, the upper epiphysis is thrown back, but these figures do not reach Neanderthal values.
Diaphyses of the fibula do not differ from modern ones.
The kneecaps are almost identical in size to those of Neanderthals and modern humans. There is a deep vascular notch in the patella (unlike Gran Dolina and Neanderthals). They differ from the average modern people by some expansion and small thickness of the patella, as well as by a significant superiority of the dimensions of the lateral facet over the medial (the differences have a tendency).
The size and proportions of the bones of the feet fit within the range of variability of modern man.
Growth is large, about 1.7-1.75 m. The proportions are more reminiscent of Neanderthals than modern ones, which indirectly indicates adaptation to a relatively cold climate.
Frequent pathologies in the area of the temporomandibular joint.
Ontogenetic stress was based on discrete features.
Enamel hypoplasia of permanent teeth: the highest frequency between birth and 7 years (18 people). The incidence of enamel hypoplasia is less in Atapurka than in Neanderthals and much less than in modern humans.
We are in Telegram:
We are in Vkontakte:
We are in Zen:
How to help
Stanislav Vladimirovich Drobyshevsky
Scientific Editor of ANTROPOGENESIS. RU, Ph.D., Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Biology, Lomonosov Moscow State University Lomonosov
We have just published the news of an analysis of 17 hominin skulls from Sima de los Huesos (Atapuerca, Spain) by an international team of researchers. An article about this appeared in «Science» on June 20, 2014. Our Science Editor comments:
The description of the new skulls from Sima de los Huesos is wonderful! The finds are unique, a lot of work has been invested in their reconstruction and research. But it’s impossible for a critic like me to resist a pair of NO !
Skulls 9 (child), 15 and 17 from Sima de los Huesos. Photo from article under discussion
Photo: Alexey Bruneisky; Carl Bentoё
First, it is not entirely clear the position of the authors whether they consider people from Sima de los Huesos to still belong to Homo heidelbergensis , a special subspecies of Homo ne ande rthalensis or tend to distinguish another new species. On one page in the article, all three options follow in a row. And this happens to a large extent from the «second» …
Second, the holotype of species Homo heidelbergensis is Mauer. And Mauer is a lower jaw with a dating of 700 thousand years and many pathologies. Therefore, the argument looks somewhat strange that, they say, how the Wesos differ from Mauer! But nothing that between them 270 thousand years? True, the dates may change, but even a difference of several tens of thousands of years can mean a lot. Yes, and pathologies could affect the results of the comparison. Speaking of comparisons…
Ceprano skull. As you can see, without a face…
Thirdly, the authors write that people from Ceprano and Arago differ from the Uesos in the absence of Neanderthal specializations.
But after all, only the cranium remained from Ceprano (without the facial skeleton), and the Wesos have no Neanderthal features in its structure, Neanderthalism is concentrated in their face.
The same can be said about the people from Wörteschsöllesch and Bilzingslöben. The facial skeleton from Arago is actually extremely deformed, so a significant part of its features are highly dependent on reconstruction. At the same time, some of the skulls from Sima de los Huesos are just very similar to Arago.
Fourthly, it is not at all strange that different populations could exist more or less simultaneously in Europe. This idea has been around since the 19th century. It has long been assumed that more massive erectoid and gracile Neanderthaloid variants existed in Europe. For example, we have already discussed this issue twice when considering the find from Mala Balanika. In the end, modern races are also quite different, why not exist races of paleoanthropes? And it is not at all necessary for them to differ at the species level. But racial science is not in favor in the West now …
Finally, fifthly, the assumption made in the article that, they say, we simply have not yet found Neanderthal mtDNA among the Wesos, since the sample is simply small, looks too guesswork. Why not then assume that we will not find sapiens DNA there? Or the DNA of «hobbits»… You never know what we can assume. As long as the mtDNA of Denisovans has actually been found, this is a fact.
It’s great that a lot of new information has appeared. There is something to discuss, there is something to break spears over! We hope that the Spanish subsoil will please us more than once!