More Evidence For Hobbit Sized Species

GogglesPisano writes "CNN.com reports that scientists digging in a remote Indonesian cave have uncovered a jaw bone that they say adds more evidence that a tiny prehistoric Hobbit-like species once existed." From the article: "The discovery of a jaw bone, to be reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, represents the ninth individual belonging to a group believed to have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago. The bones are in a wet cave on the island of Flores in the eastern limb of the Indonesian archipelago, near Australia."

Or it could be a dwarf

[RailGunner (554645)]

From TFA: A vocal scientific minority insists the Hobbit specimens do not represent a new species at all. They believe the specimens are nothing more than the bones of modern humans that suffered from microencephaly, a broadly defined genetic disorder that results in small brain size and other defects.

And, at least two groups of opponents have submitted their own studies to other leading scientific journals refuting the Flores work.

"This paper doesn't clinch it. I feel strongly that people are glossing over the problems with this interpretation," said Robert Martin, a biological anthropologist and provost of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago.

Or it could be a chromosome

[by Anonymous Coward]

Or a G-nome.

Or it could be the Smurfs

[ackthpt (218170)]

From TFA: A vocal scientific minority insists the Hobbit specimens do not represent a new species at all. They believe the specimens are nothing more than the bones of modern humans that suffered from microencephaly, a broadly defined genetic disorder that results in small brain size and other defects.

Seems from the news that Smurf Village has been bombed [canada.com] and will feature in a UNICEF ad in Belgium next week.

it was probably done by president gargamel...

Re:Or it could be a dwarf

[blamanj (253811)]

Yes. The skeptics are publishing, too. More here [bbc.co.uk].

Re:Or it could be a dwarf

[RailGunner (554645)]

So, what do these naysayers think would constitute speciation?

How about the inability to sexually reproduce with the original species? A human with microencephaly can still sexually reproduce with another human that does not have this disorder.

However, to call it a new species seems extremely short sighted.

Re:Or it could be a dwarf

[the phantom (107624)]

Traditionally? Speciation occurs when the decendant* line can no longer interbreed with the ancestor* line to produce viable offspring. Sickle cell anemia could be considered an inherited genetic disorder that is possibly a response to Malaria, yet the large populations of Africans that tend to have either full or partial expression of the trait are not a genetically distinct population -- they are still capable of reproducing with other Africans, Europeans, Asians, American Indians, or any other human population.

Defining species from fossils and bones can be a bit trickier -- can you prove that this population is (a) represented by these bones, (b) genetically distinct, and (c) incapable of creating viable offspring with any other 'human' population.

I would also like to note that there are a great variety of human populations. In Africa alone, there are groups that tend to be quite short and robust, and groups that tend to be quite tall and gracile. In a fossil record, they might bee seen as distinct species, yet we know that they can have children together. Just one of the hazards of fossils, I suppose.

* ancestor and decendant, are, of course, relative

Re:Or it could be a dwarf

[IthnkImParanoid (410494)]

ancestor and decendant, are, of course, relative

You've been waiting to use that for a while, haven't you?

Re:Or it could be a dwarf

[Prof. Pi (199260)]

can you prove that this population is (a) represented by these bones, (b) genetically distinct, and (c) incapable of creating viable offspring with any other 'human' population.

They've been dead 12,000 years, so I'd guess that (c) is a yes.

All makes sense

[powerpuffgirls (758362)]

Wow! Eastern limb of the Indonesian archipelago, near Australia, which is close to New Zealand, which is where LOTR was shot.

Re:All makes sense

[by Anonymous Coward]

which starred Ian MacKellen who was also in X-Men with Donna Goodhand, who was in Cavedweller with... Kevin Bacon.

Re:All makes sense

[kai.chan (795863)]

Wow! And if you look at the date of the CNN article, if you times the numeric value of the month by 2, and add it to the numeric value of the article's day, you get 31, which is the sum of the numeric release date (12 + 19) of Fellowship of the Ring! Coincidence?? I think not!

These aren't hobbits

[commodoresloat (172735)]

They're trolls.

They know because they found a cave painting nearby that said "F1rst P0st!"

isn't it obvious to you all?

[circletimessquare (444983)]

the jawbone was placed there by satan to test your faith

Re:isn't it obvious to you all?

[RedNovember (887384)]

Speaking of which...

What is the religious answer to this? Do they contend that these were a failed first protoype of later man? Someone give me an argument to go on...

Re:isn't it obvious to you all?

[Rude Turnip (49495)]

They were placed there through the grace of His Noodly Appendage to test our faith, duh!

Re:isn't it obvious to you all?

[Goody (23843)]

What is the religious answer to this? Do they contend that these were a failed first protoype of later man? Someone give me an argument to go on...

While we're asking religious questions, what is the religous answer to why my truck is burning more oil these days?

Re:isn't it obvious to you all?

[aussie_a (778472)]

Stupidity is a sin. Incompetence is a sin. Come to think of it, being a woman is a sin.You repeat yourself.

Re:isn't it obvious to you all?

[Refrag (145266)]

Replace "Christian" with "Religious Nutjob" in his post, and he'll sound like a sane human being.

Christians. Persecuted. All over the world. Haha. That's funny. Wait, did you mean to say persecuting?

Re:isn't it obvious to you all?

[MightyMartian (840721)]

Oh come on now. Christians dominate a fairly healthy fraction of the world. Now I'll freely admit that in places like Iran and China Christians tend to have a tough time of it, but to say "all over the world" is pretty ridiculous. Consider that Europe, the Americas, Europe and parts of Africa are dominated by Christians, your statement comes off as paranoid and a little delusional.

Re:isn't it obvious to you all?

[MightyMartian (840721)]

Religion/mythology is pretty interesting if you chuck the dogma.

Or it comes out looking like some von Daniken crap-o-classic. Write a book, call it "Noah: Nude Tenter and the Last Atlantean" or "Chariots of Bullshit".

They should check New Zealand

[complexmath (449417)]

I hear Peter Jackson found a whole town of them there.

What about modern "Small Folk"

[ThosLives (686517)]

You know, I just watched Willow again the other day and it's full of "small" people. How are these "ancient" remains different from modern small folk (other than being old, of course)? None of the articles say anything about that. For instance, we don't classify folks with dwarfism as nonhuman, so why would an ancient instance of dwarfism indicate a different species?

Shouldn't the first thing in studying these remains to be to eliminate this possibility (along with full explanations as to why). I admit I've not delved too deep into this, but it is something which has always bothered me in the back of my mind.

Re:What about modern "Small Folk"

[the phantom (107624)]

Not knowing the data that well, midgets and dwarfs seem to make up only a very small proportion of the population. If you sampled 100 people, what is the chance that you will get one diminutive person, let alone 20? The more skeletons they find that are similarly proportioned, the less likely it is that they represent statistical outliers, and the more likely it is that they represent the norm. Given the number of skeletons that have been found, I find the argument that they are statistical outliers to be unconvincing (though still possible, I suppose). A more likely explanation is that the small skeletons represent a significantly different population, whether it be an isolated group of Homo erectus, or an offshoot of the Home erectus line.

Re:What about modern "Small Folk"

[ImaLamer (260199)]

If you sampled 100 people, what is the chance that you will get one diminutive person, let alone 20?

Depends on where you do the sampling. In Finland or an Amish country and it could be higher (Cartilage-hair hypoplasia) because these groups don't date outside of their groups enough (genetic shift) to make these "rare" exceptions rare anymore.

If you had a group that lived alone you could get a "tribe" of little people, but they would still be human.

Re:Two Reasons:

[the phantom (107624)]

You cannot prove either of those statements, hence there is some debate in the scientific community. While you may very possibly be correct, you can't know. Don't state as proven fact things that are far more nebulous.

1) They may be Homo sapiens though they certainly seem more similar to Homo erectus. Thus, while they may be a different species from Homo sapiens, their status with regards to other members of the Homo line is uncertain at best.

2) Maybe, maybe not. I would tend to agree with you -

Maybe it was all of the cave graffiti that says

[Gadgetfreak (97865)]

Frodo Lived!

Wet cave?

[Tackhead (54550)]

> The discovery of a jaw bone, to be reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, represents the ninth individual belonging to a group believed to have lived as recently as 12,000 years ago. The bones are in a wet cave on the island of Flores in the eastern limb of the Indonesian archipelago, near Australia.

Thiss preciousss twelve thousands of yearses olds jawsbone... found in dark deep dripsy cave... thiss iss not ssomethings that's coming from tricksy hobbitses!

The AP article actually mentions Hobbits??!?

[sczimme (603413)]

(AP) -- Scientists say they have found more bones in an Indonesian cave that offer additional evidence of a second human species -- short and hobbit-like -- that roamed the Earth the same time as modern man.

I thought the Hobbit reference was thrown [gratuitously] into the summary to grab the attention of the /. crowd. Lo and behold, the AP actually made the comparison - interesting.

Re:The AP article actually mentions Hobbits??!?

[Buran (150348)]

That's because the scientists did, too.

Orcs & Trolls?????

[big-giant-head (148077)]

When they the jaw bones of some Orcs and Trolls THEN I'LL BE IMPRESSED!

Actually...

[michaelzhao (801080)]

There is a pygmy like species in parts of Asia and Africa. Although they are off the species Homo Sapien, they are much shorter because they do not have a growth spurt. Scientists are really interested in them because they wonder what genes cause growth and if they can be influenced. I went to a bio conference in Atlanta with my AP Biology class to listen to one. Extremely interesting. Linkage here

ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmyrel=url2ht ml-16837 [slashdot.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy>

DNA

[truckaxle (883149)]

If only they could find some DNA sound like a clone of these little fellas would make some great servants being established tool makers and all. On a serious side it would be interesting to see what the development of the nominal human code of ethics (ie thou shall not kill) would have been if there were some creatures alive today positioned between modern humans and chipanzees in terms of intellect.

Wizard's trick

[ewg (158266)]

Everyone knows there's no such thing as hobbits. This jaw bone must be some wizard's trick.

Synchronicities abound

[Ungulate (146381)]

Funny, I was just reading about floresiensis last night. I was greatly intrigued by the fact that the islanders' oral history includes stories about monkey-like men that closely fit the description of floresiensis man. They maintain that they were still around after the Dutch arrived in the 16th century, until about 300 years ago when they got fed up with their hijinks and set out to kill them all. Apparently there were still sightings up until the 19th century.

The most likely explanation seems to be that a population of h. erectus found itself on the island and, through island dwarfing, ended up at their diminutive height. I find the thought of sub-human hominids suriving until that recently both creepy and fascinating. More reading at wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Just as He as taught us.

[hotspotbloc (767418)]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster [wikipedia.org] created the universe, starting with a mountain, trees and a midgit. This is clear proof the He was the basis of all intelligence and I demand His teachings be taught in all Kansas public schools.

Don't get me started about the pirates ...

Idiots!

[Roadkills-R-Us (122219)]

They found it in a *wet cave*...

It *shrunk*.

Legend of these people in Tonga

[dhammabum (190105)]

I lived in Tonga for a couple of years in the 70's and there was a tale of very small people that were living in Tonga at the time the Polynesians arrived, at least on one island. They said these people were found on 'Ata Island (the southernmost island in the group). The new Tongans apparently gave them food initially, then for whatever reason decided to kill them off and blocked them in a cave. This is quite a similar story to that told on Flores Is. where the current discoveries have been made.

The interesting bit is that this island is uninhabited as South American slavers came in the mid-1800s and captured all the males off the island. The King then had the women and children rescued and declared the island off limits. When I was there we tried to go to the island for a scientific survey but King Tupou Fa refused. The place is only visited by occasional fishermen.

I wonder...

[foreverdisillusioned (763799)]

Could there be any possibility of finding any preserved DNA after 12,000 years (not very long, geologically speaking)? I wish this had happened in a colder climate, where there was some possibility of preservation by ice. I think it would be a singularly awesome occurance, perhaps a turning point for modern society, if a scientist took a cell from an extinct but SENTIENT primate species and cloned it, either with a gorilla or human mother.

Call me cruel or evil if you must, but if I was a scientist presented with that opportunity, I would do it in a heartbeat. The moral, religious, and political rammifications would be tremendous... another creature besides ourselves capable of lucid communication, capable of abstract thought and rational logic. Likely less intelligent (on average) than Homo Sapiens and possibly possessing other differing desires and abilities, but unquestionably emotional and intelligent. How the hell would mainstream Christianity react? I would think that "mainstream" would have to be redefined, as many people would cling to old notions of humanity being special, unique, and alone while just as many would be unable to treat another intelligent being as a mere animal.

Of course, the exact level of intelligence would be very important. Just how intelligent are they, as compared to us? As compared to chimps? What if they possess roughly same communication skills and intelligence as a chimp or gorilla, yet they look like us, have the same facial expressions as us, and possess the vocal cords necessary to form words? Gorillas and chimps are quite intelligent, and capable of significant levels of communication via sign language. I'm willing to bet that the major reason why they haven't been granted any legal rights is because they seem so unhuman. Give them a human looking body and the power of speech, and suddenly the situation for many people will not seem so cut and dry. Lord knows where our morality would go from there--maybe given a hundred years, those "freaks" over at PETA will get their wish and the entire animal kingdom will have rights, perhaps based on intelligence. I'm not saying I necessarily support such an idea, but it's mind-blowing to consider.

Perhaps it's fascinating for me specifically because for the last 4 years I've worked extensively with the (moderately) mentally handicapped. It's very interesting to watch how they're treated by parents, doctors, coworkers, and fellow clients. In many respects they are given a high degree of self-determination, yet there are always more subtle attempts to change them into what we want them to be. The aspect I have the most problem with is prescribing medication for the sole purpose of surpressing libido. Ok, if the client is attacking women and fondling them that's one thing, but if wacking off too much and getting caught staring at women's chests and cutting out pictures of underwear models or even, heaven forbid, having consentual sexual relations with one another is a disease, I suspect that many of us here at /. have been "infected" at one time or another. But for these people, anti-depressants such as Prozac and Zoloft are prescribed for the SOLE purpose of supressing sexual desire. Oh sure, that's not what it's officially for, but staff openly talk about the real goal of putting a client on that med. The "depression" doesn't really exist until the client gets too horny for our director's taste, and the doctor mysteriously does NOT prescribe one of the many antidepressants out that have a lower impact on sexual function. And of course, no one is ever prescribed the antidepressant Wellbutrin, which has been shown to increase sexual desire and pleasure (as I can personally attest to) and would be otherwise appropriate for many of our more lethargic clients.

I guess what I'm saying is that if we were forced to deal with a less intelligent and more primal version of ourselves, we would be forced to confront our more animalistic urges in a saner and more consistan

Re:Ever think....

[Namronorman (901664)]

Bone structures change over time, especially from child to adult. I think they would have been able to tell easily if it were. The main controversy here that I see from the article is that some people believe that the bones found have been that of a person who suffered from microencephaly or dwarfism.

Mini elephants

[boldtbanan (905468)]

Part of the controversy is due to the fact that there are other 'small' animal bones which have been found on the island, such as miniature elephants. In conjunction with the finds or other mini-species, the 'hobbit' people becomes a more likely conclusion than if you only consider the 'hobbit' bones by themselves. Not only that but on other islands in the archipelago, they have found bones of apparently human-related giants who were much larger than people today. Only the hobbit-folk get any press thoug

Re:Ever think....

[ray-auch (454705)]

The point of this article is that latest finds are bones of other individuals with similar characteristics.

So it isn't "a person", it is maybe several people _all_ suffering from microencephaly, all died / buried in the same place, without any normal homo sapiens remains.

Could be a primitive society with a history of the disease and a special burial place exclusively for those afflicted - but we're having to stretch the theory rather a lot to explain this...

Re:Ever think....

[jbrader (697703)]

It's easy to tell from dentition and the state of the bone as well as other things the general age of an animal or person from a jaw bone.

Re:Ever think....

[geeber (520231)]

It could have just been a young kid? I'm sure the hobbit idea is much more interesting though...

I am sure that idea never occured to the scientists doing the digging. You should write to them and let them know your brilliant theory. That would save everyone involved a lot of time.

Re:Ever think....

[commodoresloat (172735)]

Definitely do that. The scientists will likely be intrigued by your ideas and want to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Ever think....

[dogbreathcanada (911482)]

Brilliant! I'm going to offer you an honorary Doctorate in Archeology from the University of Dumbasses.

Re:Ever think....

[Locke2005 (849178)]

Jaw bones contain teeth. Wear on the teeth is usually a pretty good indicator of age. So yes, it could have just been a small child that had been chewing tough food for at least 20 years...

Re:Small people = hobbit?

[MightyMartian (840721)]

What's so insightful about this post. This guy isn't even aware that stature isn't the chief fascination with these remains, and then ends the post with some slanted bit against National Geographic. I wasn't aware that ignorance was a rewardable activity. Maybe I'll get modded +50 insightful if I say that God actually has twelve penises and practices fellatio on storm gutters.

Golem vs Gollum

[ReverendLoki (663861)]

First thing a a golem would say, of course, is nothing [wikipedia.org]. Golems can't speak, according to folklore. Sure would have made it more difficult for Andy Sirkis to get an award...

Re:How do they know how old it is? Carbon dating?

[moz25 (262020)]

Here are some interesting links that tell more about how carbon dating works. The link you posted is just creationist talk and not even the best of its kind. You need to know more about the intrinsics of the method before you can judge the scientific merit.

science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm [howstuffworks.com]

230nsc1.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html [gsu.edu]

www.c14dating.com/int.html [c14dating.com]

Re:Folklore, legends and truth

[shutdown -p now (807394)]

Almost all civilizations also have oral or written records of dragons. Interestingly enough, their behaviour is usually very different, but their look is described in a very similar way. But factual origin? hardly...

Perhaps dragons (and giants, and dwarves) are just parts of the collective subconsciousness, archetypes so old, they are shared shared by the entire humanity.