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."

What about modern "Small Folk"

[ThosLives]

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:Ever think....

[Namronorman]

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.

The AP article actually mentions Hobbits??!?

[sczimme]

(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:isn't it obvious to you all?

[RedNovember]

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...

Actually...

[michaelzhao]

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]

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.

Mini elephants

[boldtbanan]

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 though.

Synchronicities abound

[Ungulate]

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]

Folklore, legends and truth

[The Bungi]

Almost all civilizations have oral or written records of giants and dwarves (trust me, LOTR is not a new idea). These, as most other legends, must have some sort of factual origin that has been lost over time. I find the argument that species 'shrink' (evolutionary time) in response to the stress of a closed ecological system just a little bit off since AFAIK it hasn't been proven.

But all 'little men' fun arguments aside, I can't see why there couldn't have been species parallel to Homo sapiens sapiens (other than the popularly accepted ones) at one evolutionary point or another. Heck, for all we know there could have been species of semi-sentient gorillas at any point. We just don't know.

Re:isn't it obvious to you all?

[3nd32]

Well, as one of the more Fundamentalist Christians on /., I'll attempt this one ^_^. I'm hardly an expert on matters theological or scientific, but the first thought would be... they're humans who have a genetic tendency toward small size. There's no reason this couldn't be a population-wide trait and still fit with the Bible. The only dispute would be time of the change, as some Christians maintain a 9,000-ish year old earth.

Another direction to approach this from would be that, while they are tool-users, they aren't actually humans. They're just another creation of God that happens to resemble us, while not being created in His image (as spiritual beings). I would lean toward the first interpretation rather than this one.

Feel free to tear either of these apart, preferably with REASONED arguments rather than foaming at the mouth.

Re:What about modern "Small Folk"

[ImaLamer]

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.

it's a semantic argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Traditionally, yeah, I guess the inability to produce viable offspring is the gold standard of speciation. However, Canis Lupus and Canis Familiaris can interbreed successfully, yet they each get a species name and most people distinguish dogs and wolves as separate species. My point is that the people attempting to cast doubt on this discovery aren't disputing the facts of what was discovered (a population of "humans" who seem related to H. Sapiens, but who all share a genetic difference from that species), but rather what to call that group. Inheritable genetic "diseases" that confer an advantage to the "sufferer" are the basis of natural selection. Whether you call the offpring of those individuals a "diseased population" or a "new species in the making" is like arguing whether Pluto should be considered a planet; you think you're arguing about Pluto, but you're really arguing about the definition of the word "planet", which is arbitrary and not very interesting, at least to most people.

Re:Small people = hobbit?

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Or it could be a dwarf

[aachrisg]

There's no way it could be a dwarf. The brain size is far out of anything like the normal human range (including dwarves and pygmies), falling in the middle of the chimpanzee range. In fact, its totally off the mark for anything else in genus homo, which is the interesting part. Assuming they are part of genus homo, they would have evolved from ancestors with larger brains, and the selection for smaller brain size must have been as strong as that for smaller stature.

Legend of these people in Tonga

[dhammabum]

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.

Re:isn't it obvious to you all?

[Grishnakh]

I disagree. Look at the news, or talk to random Christians, and you'll find that, at least here in the USA, a very large percentage of the population believes in Creationism. That alone is in direct opposition to scientific thought.

So yes, I'll agree the religious followers are ignorant, but considering the number of ignorant followers we have today, and the current controversy over teaching "Intelligent Design" in science classrooms, I don't accept your comment that they are "rarely at odds."

Re:Folklore, legends and truth

[shutdown -p now]

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.