Share
Digg
StumbleUpon
RedditIn 2003, researchers excavating a limestone cave on the remote Indonesian island of Flores made an extraordinary discovery: the 18,000-year-old bones of a woman whose skull was less than one-third the size of our own.
Modern humans were already living throughout the Old World during her time—yet she was physically very different from them. The researchers, led by paleoanthropologist Peter Brown and archaeologist Michael Morwood, both of Australia's University of New England, concluded that the woman represented a previously undiscovered species of archaic human that had survived for thousands of years after the Neanderthals had died out.
They named her Homo floresiensis and nicknamed her the "Hobbit," after the diminutive villagers from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy. The team has since recovered bones from as many as nine such people, all about a yard tall, the most recent of whom lived about 12,000 years ago.
The Hobbits of Flores created an uproar among anthropologists, causing them to question assumptions about evolution and human origins that had held sway for more than half a century. Some agree that the "Hobbits" are a distinct species. But others, such as anthropologist Robert Martin of Chicago's Field Museum, say the bones belong to small Homo sapiens—perhaps people who suffered from microcephaly, a condition in which the brain fails to grow to normal size. Five years after the initial discovery, says Martin, "nobody's budging an inch."
Some critics say that it would have been impossible for a hominid with a brain the size of an orange to make the sophisticated tools found at Ling Bua Cave—let alone hunt with them—and that they must have been crafted by modern humans. But supporters of the separate species hypothesis modeled the shape and structure of the Hobbit brain and say it could have made the tools.
When Smithsonian anthropologist Matthew Tocheri and other researchers analyzed the Hobbitt wrist, they found a primitive, wedge-shaped trapezoid bone common to great apes and early hominids but not to Neanderthals and modern humans. That fits a theory that Hobbits are less closely related to Homo sapiens than to Homo erectus—the human ancestor that is thought to have died out 100,000 years ago. Morwood has found crude Homo erectus-type stone tools on Flores that may be 840,000 years old.
The skeptics retort that disease is a more likely explanation for the wrist bones. A study this year speculated that the Flores people could have suffered from hypothyroidism, a form of cretinism found relatively frequently in modern Indonesia that, the researchers say, could also produce deformed, primitive-appearing wrists.
Rick Potts, director of the Smithsonian's Human Origins Program, who once doubted that the Hobbits were a separate species, says he's changed his mind: "Flores was this wing in the building of human evolution that we didn't know about. There is no reason that 800,000 years of experimentation could not evolve a small but advanced brain."
Comments
The brain size and morphology, the shoulder, the length of arms (compared to the legs) the wrist anatomy, the pelvis,the oversized feet all correspond to the anatomy of lucy - the Australopithecus. The only thing which is out of sinc is the very recent date. Let's face it Ms. Hobbit is a LATTER DAY AUSTRALOPITHECUS. Petr Jandacek, Los Alamos, New Mexico USA for more info e-mail p.jandacek@laschools.net or jandacek@mesatop.com
Posted by petr jandacek on September 4,2008 | 12:07PM
We need more information, more examples, investigate similar locations in and around Flores.
Posted by jboersma on September 4,2008 | 03:45PM
The arguments being made against H. floriensis are risible fabrications using tactics directly lifted from Biblical creationists -- who claim that all primitive hominid remains are simply diseased or degenerated moderns. Of course a neutral science reporter wouldn't be able to point this out, given the (extraordinarily disturbing) fact that the proponents of this strange propaganda are deeply embedded in archaeological academia as "respectable researchers," and have to be given equal weight. But we wonder how neutral our reporter is, when what we are getting is in fact a "damage control" position. H. floriensis may have to be accepted as real -- but only as a curiosity -- a local dead end H. erectus offshoot surviving for a while in isolation. What we aren't reading is that, along with the Dmanisi specimens, the Flores specimens clearly demonstrate australopithecines outside Africa, and australopithecine/erectus interbreeding -- and that this shakes several foundations of the Recent (and even ancient) Out of Africa construction.
Posted by John on September 4,2008 | 08:19PM
Come on guys, this argument gets old. Lets just admit, heaven forbid, we don't have enough data.
Posted by Lyle on September 5,2008 | 01:35PM
The debate is over as for as I'm concenered. The post by John covers most of it. To many primitive features to be sapians. I'd say habilis though because the legs are about normal length and the heel/foot is a tad more modern than I'd expect from Lucy and her kin without being modern. The short big toe is not modern. They were just another twig on the great hominid tree of life that didn't lead to us.
Posted by Dwight E. Howell on September 5,2008 | 06:57PM
"Little people" were reported in Africa by British eyewitnesses in the 1920s, and there is anecdotal testimony of Indonesian "hobbits" being encountered in the 19th century. They may be cryptids, not necessarily extinct. See the Wikipedia article on insular dwarfism.
Posted by Keith on September 7,2008 | 08:53PM
I'm sorry but I'm gonna say what a lot of people are thinking: These remains are the ancient product of inbreeding within an isolated population. Check Occam's Razor
Posted by Adranus on September 8,2008 | 05:28PM
I saw this on Discovery health
Posted by Jennifer Baratta on September 8,2008 | 06:20PM
little people are in africa at this moment actually. But any way the many differant evolutionary exepriments could have existed until fairly recently. why not if the environment has not changed all that much? but it has, the human population has expoded and poeple are assuming humans are to savage to have let any competitors survive contact. interesting.
Posted by ckt on September 8,2008 | 08:24PM
"See the Wikipedia article on..." Are you kidding me? Wikipedia? Really?!
Posted by Mike on September 8,2008 | 08:47PM
there are so many things in this world that we don't even know about, (yet) so maybe at one time there happens to be another species of human, but smaller and more adapt to there surroundings. This earth holds so many secrets and maybe this is one of them.
Posted by Eric on September 8,2008 | 09:00PM
Aw phffththt; Let us just say hey we now must recognize these as real people who lived long ago. Big brains, little brains phshaw, Little brains can be smart too. We do not have a monopoly on being smart. Hell, they may have been little people, but look where they were found. In relation to the size of me, EVERY person in that region is little. Why must we classify or define every find by the antiquated parameters of what we KNOW? We didn't know about them until recently, I'm sure there is a genetic line leading back that we DON'T know about even now. I'm sure that through out the history of mankind, as long as there weren't any natural barriers, little feet roamed all over this planet.
Posted by Robert on September 8,2008 | 10:20PM
The problem with 'modern' is the concept of 'evolved' which has become synonymous with the modern day, prevailing perception of the post-Darwinian notion of Evolution. "Modern" is a pejorative term now, and like Richard Rorty suggests, we should discard of the language use involved in discussing these topics. They do more to reinforce a prevailing paradigm in crises then to bring to light any real meaning or Truth or fact to the question at hand. Look to Thomas Kuhn for your history and philosophy of science, look to the language games of Rorty. When we find ourselves in this situation, professional rivalry, then we must come to realize that the prevailing world-view does not suit anymore for the information at hand. It is possible that H.F was a diseased human, but according to much lore around the globe, it is also possible that this was an upright erect being who really is not related to us in the sense that we think. For anybody interested in this topic i suggest looking into Forbidden Archaeology, and then if your interested in epistemology to check out Thomas Kuhn's work, specifically dealing with Scientific Revolutions
Posted by Presto on September 8,2008 | 10:56PM
Normally, I just read these sort of things & make not a comment. It's not that I don't have something to intellegent to say but I'd rather leave this sort of thing to individuals that would appear to have more training in the area of question. However, J.R.R.Tolkien (I don't think I spelled his last name right)may you laugh to the end of eternity for this, I support the possibility of an undiscovered "branch/offshoot/missing link/ect ect" of the modern day Homo Sapien. Those of you that would argue that "all primitive hominid remains are simply diseased or degenerated moderns" (thanks for the quote John) should I point out ALL of the different types of felines that exist? Or maybe perhaps all the different canines? Hmmm. Do they not all vary but yet are grouped under the same families? Yes they do. Should we get off our soapbox of being completely & totally unique & see how closely they (the Homo floresiensis) is related to us? Yes, we should. And "heaven forbid, we don't have enough data." It seems that Lyle knew what he was saying.
Posted by J.Lowe on September 8,2008 | 11:53PM
The so-called "hobbits", homofloresiensis, are the perfect size to be pilots of space craft. Don't laugh. The creatures described by Walter Haut in his sworn, notarized statement which was read after his death are similar in size to those unearthed on Flores island. Maybe the earth was used as a "Devil's Island" for recalcitant and recidivistic criminals. They went from being 'techinical' and 'modern' to primitive...in fiction read "Lord of the Flies" by Golding and in real life, Pitcarin Island after the Bounty mutiny. If Pitcarin had remain undiscovered the people would have evolved backward into primitivism. There was evidence as early as 1820 that the "law" of the jungle had begun. Add a little inbreeding and Flores would have been repeated.
Posted by Zeek Wolfe on September 12,2008 | 10:57AM
Does Occam's Razor really cut against hobbits? See logictutorial.com for a more detailed article on Occam's Razor, but Occam's doesn't apply in any clear way, given that new species are discovered all the time, and that no new entity is necessarily implied - just the persistence of entities known to exist in the past. It's easy to pervert Occam's into a defense of whatever most people already believe, or the (known) status quo - whatever is simplest for us to think about (even if only because it's closest to what we already believe.) But that's not the Razor. Plus, in biology and re other contested systems, for reasons given at http://logictutorial.com/occam.html there is often more reason to expect complexity than simplicity. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/19827819.html
Posted by Russell Johnston on September 13,2008 | 03:33PM
After a visit to Liang Bua couple of weeks ago I'm not so sure Indonesian archeologists excavating this cave since 1978 and now working there knew they were "led by paleoanthropologist Peter Brown and archaeologist Michael Morwood, both of Australia's University of New England"
Posted by MikeJkt on September 23,2008 | 04:12AM
There is not really very much to say about the controversy until or unless another complete skull turns up. I find it very interesting to note how many of the commentators here do not seem to know the difference between "to" and "too" or between "your" and "you're". It makes for difficult reading in some cases.
Posted by Gene Fox on September 29,2008 | 09:21PM
Religious institutions on the right, as well as progressive left of the political spectrum have contempt for the Hobbit-Hominids. Any evidence of human evolution is perceived as a threat to religious dogma, and the concept that ALL men are created "equal" (a constitutional commitment) is challenged by recent evidence of more primitive body, mind and soul. Petr Jandacek Los Alamos NM USA
Posted by Petr Jandacek on December 12,2008 | 01:04PM
"Little people" were reported in Africa by British eyewitnesses in the 1920s, and there is anecdotal testimony of Indonesian "hobbits" being encountered in the 19th century. They may be cryptids, not necessarily extinct. See the Wikipedia article on insular dwarfism.
Posted by Keith on September 7,2008 | 08:53PM
Hi Keith, just read your text from 2008. I'm back from my 3rd stay at Flores and more and more interested _infected_ by this matter. Do you have any source for these testimonies?
Well I'm preparing an article about Theodor Verhoeven.he was the first archeologist on Flores and also digging in the Hobbit-Cave of Liang Bua, but at another time, another place and only 2 meters deep....
Thx Juergen
Posted by Juergen Posse on July 22,2009 | 11:38PM