Cranial capacity is normally distributed. Got 821 skulls from data of the early American phrenologist Morton. As noted before different measurement methods give somewhat different results but overall tend to be consistent. The data here is mean, when multiple measurements exist
The red lines on the right tail indicate the big-brained archaics & early sapiens, in order: Boskop: early African sapiens; Xujiayao-6: East Asian archaic; Amud-1: West Asian Neanderthal; Xuchang-1: East Asian archaics. The possibility that the east Asian archaics are actually
Denisovans has been proposed, though we don't know for sure. It shows that the biggest modern sizes were already attained by 100,000K years in some groups. In Morton's data the overall mean for sapiens is 1328 cc which is less than the average for Neanderthalis ~1500 cc. It has
been proposed that neanderthalis had better eyesight &correspondingly more acute visual processing & perception than sapiens. This might have accounted for some of that extra brain. At the other end, archaic Homo naledi had a mean volume of 500-550 cc, close to Australopithecus
^ that extreme left outlier should have been removed; Morton's notes indicate it was the skull of a pathological German female, probably with a pituitary dysfunction.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
With phrenology falling out of vogue in the Occident, it is not at all easy to get a large dataset on human cranial volumes purely for research on the internet. One famous collection is that of the early American phrenologist Morton of 1225 crania of various peoples of the world
Morton, called by many to be a racist, was accused of inflating the volumes of the "white Caucasian" (or deflating that of others) by the Marxist scientist SJ Gould. While Morton had beliefs typical of Euro-ancestry Americans of the age (early 1800s), reexamination of his records
shows no evidence for fudging of the data. There are different methods for cranial volumetry: Morton used two alternatives. Initially, he filled the skulls with pepper seeds and measured out their volume. Then he used lead pellets. His contemporary, a German Tiedemann who amassed
Not endorsing the deity id but some comments. The dice prognostication with 64 omens reappears in the Turkic Irk bitig suggesting it remained popular in central Asia over a period. There are earlier dice of similar type in kuShANa sites from central Asia: manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2022/07/05/som…
The reference to the plurality of marut-s and not in the sense of vAyu is notable here. I 've hence considered this a late survival of an archaic tradition that lost currency in "middle India". The garlic manuscript is evidently a recension of the lAshUNa-kalpa or the gandha-maha
i.e., the annual stench festival that was described in the medical kAshyapa saMhitA. See: manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/las…
We suspect the Arya-s & eastern Iranian-s had shared garlic taboo going back to their days on the steppe & possibly related to the purity of the hotR^i & adhvaryu
The solid black represents the current range where our closest living cousins the 2 Pan species are found. The * shows the site where the only known fossil chimp from ~545 KYA was found. Here it overlapped in space & time with an extinct grade of Homo, probably erectus. Thus,
Pan and Homo lived in close proximity as recently 545 KYA. But the paradox is, where are the fossils of the Pan lineage then? While Sahelanthropus &Orrorin were probably close to the Homo-Pan common ancestor, most apes after that, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Paranthropus are
are seen as closer to Homo than Pan. The genetic evidence suggests that even if Sahelanthropus & Orrorin were close the divergence of the two lineages, they continued to mate with each other down to the time of Ardipithecus -- it could have been from a population that, at least
Finally, we come to Kennedy addressing the decline of mahAmlechCha empire: He, as a historian, correctly accepts that fact like all other empires, this one would also fall. However, he hopes for a soft-landing. In our opinion, there were structural fractures but they were not
fatal when he was writing. However, he correctly realized that if the politicians did not properly manage them, things could go worse. The breakout of navyonmAda from the walls of the American left-liberal academia into the real world -- Marxism with American characteristics --
has changed things in away he would not have expected. The jinni is out of the bottle & is not going inside because a good part of the kids of the American elite has contracted navyonmAda. The duShTa-s who have put piNDaka & paDbIshapuruSha in their Asandi-s are now the rulers.
The Khotanese language was the successor of older East Iranic shaka language. A major bauddha text in it has come down to us in fragments: the book of Zambasta. It mentions the invasion of Khotan by 5 enemies who harmed Khotan: mAMkuya, Red Khocas, huna-s, ciMgga-s, supIya-s
mAMkuya rro Inda heinA kho—ca u huna ciMgga supIya |
kye naa hvataana-kShIru bajo—ttanda ttu ju ye gSvu ne oysde ||
Emmerick translated this as: There are mAMkuya-s, Red Khocas & hunas, Cimggas, Supiyas, who have harmed our Khotanese land. For a time one has not been angry about
this. Bailey in the 1950s itself recognized that what was rendered as mAMkuya, would be originally something like monguya in a Turkic or Mongolic language. Now cimgga-s are well known to be the chIna-s who ravaged Khotan & still claim it. supIya-s are have been identified as the
A good note on brAhmaNa-s in Central Asia & the sinosphere. I mostly agree with their presence in the Hunnic world -- something I'd independently talked about inspired by Golden's observation of the said ethnonym. I'm also adding a few assorted comments in no particular order
as the author of the above asked me to comment& something came to mind. I'd have to preface it by noting I'm no sinologist& am primarily interested in Indic& Turko-Mongolic matters but gathered a bunch of things at the interface. 1st it seems one of the transcriptions of brahma
"fan". The chIna bauddha author Daoshi of the Tang era writing in 668 CE states that there were 3 inventors of writing. 1st Fan who invented a rightward directed script; 2nd Chulu who invented a leftward directed script; 3rd Cang Jie who invented a downward directed script. The