Were "Hobbits" Human?

The debate rages on

In 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.

A discussion about the on going debates about whether these small people were diseased humans or the evolutionary deadend of Homo Erectus.

More study and more bones are needed to nail it down

I don't know if they were Homosapiens but Sam and Frodo both were definitely Homosexuals



Sorry couldn't resist

Seriously, I don't see the room for the debate, "genetic disease" isn't a disease when it forms a culture and people who breed and reproduce and thrive

it's a new strain at that point

So Homosapien would be the wrong word, they should get thier own classification

reply to post by mopusvindictus


dude


I firmly believe that they are a new species, that did evolve from a homo erectus lineage.

There is circumstantial evidence that Homo Erectus might have lived till fairly late in the indonesian archapeligo(25,000-30,000 years ago)
I also think we might have to rethink what evolutionary path homo erectus took in various places around the earth.

It is known fact that homo erectus spread to almost all corners of the old world.
If homo erectus spread so far and wide then why did he have to evlolve into modern man in one place.

I'm a very firm believer honestly that there were and maybe still are a few like sasquatch, maybe? Types of humans that walked around and that many, many of them survived in small groups until a time near when or into the time when we record history from

Giants, hairy, underground, Hobbits... who knows, it really doesn't take very long in isolation for a species to diversify into something else, and there was plenty of room over the last 100,000 years

still plenty of room for isolation as homosapien civilization formed cities 6-7,000 years ago too


And probably very litle evidence in a physical form would remain

So yeah it is a new species and there are probably alot more hopefully we can find evidence for.

We didn't just make up all our myths

The paper in question

The link above is the actual paper on which the news article was written. The link is an abstract and from there you can get the 627 kb pdf.

My own view is that Homo floresiensis is a descendent of Home erectus but this is only a guess

reply to post by Hanslune


Neanderthals lived with modern man, and they were not related to us. It is probably the same with the hobbits. It is interesting the more information they find, the more the mystery deepens.

reply to post by kidflash2008


Howdy Kidflash

Neanderthals are related to us, we separated from them a few hundred thousand years ago. They might be called our cousins. At this time we don't know if later Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens mated.

More fuel for the fire, new study out

Hobbits

Comparing the simulation to the original Flores skull discovered in 2003, McNulty and Baab were able to demonstrate conclusively that the original "hobbit" skull fits the expectations for a small fossil hominin species and not a modern human. Their study was published online this month in the Journal of Human Evolution.

snip

While the debate over Homo floresiensis will continue, McNulty believes this comprehensive analysis of the relationship between size and shape in human evolution is a critical step toward eventually understanding the place of the Flores "hobbits" in human evolutionary history.

snip

"I think the majority of researchers favor recognizing this as a new species," McNulty said about the categorization of Homo floresiensis. "The evidence is becoming overwhelming, and this study helps confirm that view."

I once looked into this, but the one dozen+ contradictory explanations giving dizzied my head and I gave up on it.

The sheer volume of contradictory "final conclusions" does show us "alternative-topics-ATSers" one thing though: Just because someone says "this is the final conclusion", does not mean it is so.

Any further light you can shed on this is welcome.

If memory serves me correctly, they have meanwhile debunked the notion of it being an illness, right?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Howdy Sky

This is what normally happens when a controversal subject pops up, especially one with only limited evidence. Usually it takes 5-10 years for the dust to settle and before a clear summary can be made.

People are studying this, often in isolation and publishing without seeing the results of others studying it at the same time. At some point there will be a conference or working meeting and the issues will be dealt with. Basically they need more data.

They need to dig more, a lot more.

In this discussion about Hobbits (using sources outside this thread) the following ideas seem to be current.

1. Homo Erectus survival
2. Miniature human, due to the island effect
3. Diseased regular human
4. A human and Erectus mix, with some island effect thrown in (There you go Sky a hybrid for ya)
5. Other

reply to post by Hanslune





four more reports coming, link is to a summary of them

Two papers look at those "post-cranial" remains of LB1 and kin, in other words every thing but the skull. The hips, legs and feet of nine hobbits are examined in a paper led by William Jungers of Stony Brook University. And the arms, collar bones, wrists and fingers of six hobbits are described in another led by his colleague Susan Larson. Those bones "presents a unique mosaic of derived (human-like) and primitive morphologies, the combination of which is never found in either healthy or pathological modern humans." Larson's group reports. The leg bone finds indicate LB1 was most likely female. Overall, the bones most resemble those of Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis, suggesting they arrived at the island of Flores a very long time ago.

Well, I read that limited resources on the island could have contributed to dwarfism or gigantism in a number of different species of animal on that island. Dwarf Elephants, Giant Rats... Is the idea of a Hobbit man really so strange?

I agree that there isn't enough data. These could be humans who were subjected to a limited environment and thus grew smaller, or they could also be a separate species who just didn't die out at the same time as others around the world.

I personally think those hobbits are homo sapiens but I don't think they have an illness of any kind. Makes sense to me that they'd be smaller if other animals on the island are subject to dwarfism or gigantism.

Based on the summary only and having not seen the actual reports I'd say they new studies point towards a development of Homo Erectus. However Paleoontology isn't my area of expertise so I'll await for the experts to battle it out.

They are human if their classification begins with "Homo."

So, whether they are shrunken modern humans or dwarfed Erecti, they are human either way.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


I bet you are still mad they didn't call them Homo Hartisti Mathematicus?

How about Homo Skepticus Maximus Hartensi?

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Well a bit ostentatious what? How about just Homo Harte?

Which brings up a story. While re-setting up a college in Saudi Arabia we had one particular student who had been at the two year school for seven years. He failed all the classes each term but always got back in. He was a great friendly guy but completely unable to do any type of academic work. His name was Hassan and we called him Homo Hassan as he was believed to be a sub species.

Turned out he was the son of the driver for King Fadh.

Hobbits are fable they are not real.