Homo Floresiensis and Non-Linear Evolution

[applecorped]

I watched NOVA last night on PBS and the show (Alien on Earth) was about a potentially new Human species. It was fascinating and worth a watch.

"Do the remains of a tiny hobbit-like creature found on the island of Flores belong to a new human species?"

The interesting part is that the skeletons seem to be related Australopithecus (such as "Lucy") which were around 3.2 million years ago, but dating puts Homo Floresiensis at only 18,000 years which would rewrite what is known about human evolutuion. Many theories have been put forth such as Microcephaly or possibly insular dwarfism due to the island habitat.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

[Dancing David]

I would say that the conclusions of any sort that they are a separte species of homo are rather rash, conclusions either way are going to be hard to reach. Most likely they are a sample bias in a population.

[drkitten]

The interesting part is that the skeletons seem to be related Australopithecus (such as "Lucy") which were around 3.2 million years ago, but dating puts Homo Floresiensis at only 18,000 years which would rewrite what is known about human evolutuion.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "rewrite what is known," but if you think the idea that evolution can be non-linear is in any way controversial, you're wrong.

[applecorped]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "rewrite what is known," but if you think the idea that evolution can be non-linear is in any way controversial, you're wrong.

I am quoting the show there and scientists presented therein. They were shocked to think that a species of human could have survived on this island with a much smaller brain capacity. They were also shocked that many stone tools were found that showed a high sophistication. Watch the show, it was interesting.

[Dancing David]

The question to ask is, how many skeletons did they find, and what sort of sample is it?

Achaeologists like most scientists have to fluff up the material to make it more interesting.

[applecorped]

The question to ask is, how many skeletons did they find, and what sort of sample is it?

Achaeologists like most scientists have to fluff up the material to make it more interesting.

"One largely complete subfossil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subfossil) skeleton (LB1) and a complete jawbone from a second individual (LB2),[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis#cite_note-2) dated at 18,000 years old, were discovered in deposits in Liang Bua Cave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liang_Bua_Cave) on Flores in 2003. Parts of seven other individuals (LB3 – LB9, the most complete being LB6), all diminutive, have been recovered as well as similarly small stone tools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool) from horizons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_(archaeological)) ranging from 94,000 to 13,000 years ago.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis#cite_note-Morwood05-3) "


"The discoverers, anthropologists Peter Brown, Michael Morwood and their colleagues have argued that a variety of features, both primitive and derived, identified the skeleton of LB1 as that of a new species of hominin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini), H. floresiensis.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis#cite_note-Brown04-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis#cite_note-Morwood04-1) They argued that it was contemporaneous with modern humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human) (Homo sapiens) on Flores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flores)."

[articulett]

They are pretty sure these are a separate species... I think they used wrist studies and molds from inside the brain... It would be cool if we could get some mtDNA. This was hotly contested with some people feeling that it was deformed ancestors of pygmies and such... but now it's pretty accepted that they were, indeed, a separate species like Neanderthals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3307640/Hobbits-of-Indonesia-were-different-human-species.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

But we've understood for some time that the hominid family tree is many branched and not linear... Lucy was a hominid, in fact... and she is over 3 million years old. Florensis likely shares a much more recent ancestor with us.

[Dancing David]

"One largely complete subfossil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subfossil) skeleton (LB1) and a complete jawbone from a second individual (LB2),[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis#cite_note-2) dated at 18,000 years old, were discovered in deposits in Liang Bua Cave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liang_Bua_Cave) on Flores in 2003. Parts of seven other individuals (LB3 – LB9, the most complete being LB6), all diminutive, have been recovered as well as similarly small stone tools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_tool) from horizons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_(archaeological)) ranging from 94,000 to 13,000 years ago.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis#cite_note-Morwood05-3) "


"The discoverers, anthropologists Peter Brown, Michael Morwood and their colleagues have argued that a variety of features, both primitive and derived, identified the skeleton of LB1 as that of a new species of hominin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini), H. floresiensis.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis#cite_note-Brown04-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis#cite_note-Morwood04-1) They argued that it was contemporaneous with modern humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human) (Homo sapiens) on Flores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flores)."


Believe it or not I already looked at that! One complete skeleton, which is pretty cool. Much more than we have for some samples.

the issue will be argued for decades at least. Just like the splitters and lumpers arguments between Leaky and Johannsen, I have not sudied all the paper, so as i said, it is inconclusive at this time.

We know that they are unpright apes.

[kitakaze]

I'm a huge paleoanthropology nut and was considering starting an H. Floresiensis thread so I'm happy to find one here. I'm considering if another thread is appropriate as I think the non-linearity of human ancestry is well established and would like to focus on the species and its implications. I also watched the Nova Alien on Earth episode which I found just excellent.

Here's a link to a 5 part youtube of the show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ujHK3IQbco

And here is a 7 part youtube of a presentation by Colin Groves, Professor of Biological Anthropology at the ANU Canberra which was organized by Canberra Skeptics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n284HcsrQ

I find so many things fascinating about the Hobbits and for myself I'm satisfied that the current information indicates a separate human species as is the case with Neanderthals. What I find particularly of interest is the hypothesis of the Hobbits being an island dwarfed H. erectus coming into question and the anatomical matches found between them and the Australopithecines. I think it's intriguing to imagine that species such as Australopithecines escaped Africa between 2 and 3 million and over time moved across the vast plains from Africa to Asia referred to as Savannahstan (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/marek.kohn/savannah.html), coming to be the creature we call the Hobbits.

Also of great interest is the 5 skulls from small bodied, small brained hominins found in Dmanisi, Georgia. Nature editor Henry Gee I think is quite right when he opens speculation on what the discoveries may indicate in terms of what we are yet to find. He once remarked that the Hobbits find indicated that creatures like Yeti and Bigfoot could come in from the cold. I don't think I would agree with him to that extent but I certainly agree when he says he would be excited but not surprised were living Hobbits to be found. It does open speculation to what may have been wandering about Asia that we are yet to find.

[kitakaze]

Here's a couple links on the Dmanisi finds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_georgicus

And this I already linked but it may not have been clear that it focuses on the Dmanisi skulls:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/marek.kohn/savannah.html

[Crowlogic]

Island isolation. Pretty much sums it up. Nothing to see here folks keep moving.

[macdoc]

Island isolation may indeed explain dwarfism and WHY they survived but the NOT the physiology. It's way beyond that.
This is one story yet to unfold - I think we've seen just the preamble.

This guy will not go public lightly with that strong a statement

Hobbit' Fossils Represent A New Species, Concludes Anthropologist

ScienceDaily (Dec. 19, 2008) —

University of Minnesota anthropology professor Kieran McNulty (along with colleague Karen Baab of Stony Brook University in New York) has made an important contribution toward solving one of the greatest paleoanthropological mysteries in recent history -- that fossilized skeletons resembling a mythical "hobbit" creature represent an entirely new species in humanity's evolutionary chain.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124418.htm

[kitakaze]

Island isolation may indeed explain dwarfism and WHY they survived but the NOT the physiology. It's way beyond that.
This is one story yet to unfold - I think we've seen just the preamble.

This guy will not go public lightly with that strong a statement


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124418.htm

Excellent link, macdoc. Thank you. I think the morphology is just simply to inconsistent to casually dismiss H. floresiensis as an island dwarfed H. erectus. The skulls and anatomy just don't match up. Being satisfied with that explanation just because we know H. erectus was on Sumatra is just a huge disservice to the evidence.

[kitakaze]

Island isolation. Pretty much sums it up. Nothing to see here folks keep moving.

Typical of a Bigfoot enthusiast not to really look at the evidence. Isn't that what you guys are always accusing the scientific establishment of?

BTW, log, the invitation I made in the GS&P was to people who want to expand this discussion, not discourage it. Remember when you recently said the JREF exists to destroy those who go against the grain? And do you remember my response about the JREF offering far more things than opportunities to argue with someone? This is one of those times.

I know your bitter but try not to make it obvious.

[Beerina]

Well, let's just grow one in a lab and see what they're like, and if we can mate with them.

[kitakaze]

Well, let's just grow one in a lab and see what they're like, and if we can mate with them.

We could pay Verne Troyer (Mini Me) to do it. He's into kinky stuff.

Somehow I highly doubt the Hobbits and people could produce viable offspring. This is slightly OT but in LOTR you see humans an elves producing viable offspring but never humans and hobbits or humans and dwarves. Or even hobbits and dwarves. Tolkien say that hobbits were a kind of man and not dwarves or elves but....

And now I'm mixed up.

[drkitten]

Somehow I highly doubt the Hobbits and people could produce viable offspring. This is slightly OT but in LOTR you see humans an elves producing viable offspring but never humans and hobbits or humans and dwarves. Or even hobbits and dwarves. Tolkien say that hobbits were a kind of man and not dwarves or elves but....

On the other hand, Rankin and Bass explicitly said that hobbits and humans could interbreed and raised the question of how much of their audience were of hobbit descent.

[applecorped]

On the other hand, Rankin and Bass explicitly said that hobbits and humans could interbreed and raised the question of how much of their audience were of hobbit descent.

I have to give the nod to Rankin and Bass on this one. ;)

[kitakaze]

In the link to the talk given by Professor of Biological Anthropology Dr. Colin Groves and organized by Canberra Skeptics he presents the case that H. floresiensis is a decendant of a late Australopithecine or H. habilis population that spread out of Africa before ancestors of H. erectus. I am far more inclined to agree with that position than an island dwarved H. erectus. It seems the small-bodied, small-brained skulls and other remains found in Georgia since 2000, which is not subject to island dwarfing, would support the idea.

[macdoc]

It's not an either or - it could be both island dwarfism - which may have been a strong survival advantage if they were co-existent with other primates - they would be occupying somewhat different niches.

Maybe why they survived so long - I'm intrigued by the local legends that they may have survived much further than the cave findings indicate.

[kitakaze]

It's not an either or - it could be both island dwarfism - which may have been a strong survival advantage if they were co-existent with other primates - they would be occupying somewhat different niches.

You're right, macdoc. It need not be one or the other. The problem that presents itself to me is that you have modern humans first arriving by boat only 12,000 years ago. The hobbits had been there for ages by that time so what primates would they have been competing with?

I'm intrigued by the local legends that they may have survived much further than the cave findings indicate.

As am I. We can't dismiss the idea that the tales of Ebu Gogo may have been based on human encounters with the hobbits. I think one has to be mindful though. Prof. Groves mentions in his talk that the indigenous Ainu of Japan told of such a people already being there at the time when the Ainu first arrived. I wouldn't completely rule it out but I'm doubtful that the Hobbits or a related fossil species could be found in Japan.

[MG1962]

This thread is interesting in that I recall stories from Aboriginal dreaming that talk of a mythical "little people" that inhabited the northern regions of Australia. Particular attention is payed to the copper colouring of their hair.

There were also scatted reports by early explorers of encounters of these little people on mainland Australia, and even some evidence at least one tribe survived into the 1850s.

This seems to be supported by this web site

http://www.warriors.egympie.com.au/littlepeople.html

Though I can not vouch for how accurate it is :(

[macdoc]

You're right, macdoc. It need not be one or the other. The problem that presents itself to me is that you have modern humans first arriving by boat only 12,000 years ago. The hobbits had been there for ages by that time so what primates would they have been competing with?
How certain is that?? Much of the archipelago would have seen lower sea levels and links during ice ages.

12,000 years seems almost a Polynesian time period rather than all inclusive of modern humans.

After all Austrialian indigenes transversed down the chain - is there reason to think they did not "stop by".

Is there some limiting factor to a number of "waves"? Perhaps the Hobbits survived best until the latest wave arrived with perhaps better tools or altered land use.

Seems to me there was another stranded pocket of "old genes" discovered recently down the pathway. Have to chase it.

[kitakaze]

How certain is that?? Much of the archipelago would have seen lower sea levels and links during ice ages.

Certain in the sense that we can be sure it was not the presence of other primates that was responsible for the Hobbits stature. They either arrived to the island already relatively small or they got there and went down from 6ft, 150 pound H. erectus and dwarfed to 30 pound tiny little things. We have found no remains of modern humans from before 12,000 years ago and during the latest glaciation and drop in sea levels, the Wisconsin, Flores remained isolated. At no point were the channels between them obliterated by falling seas. We know Liang Bua has been inhabited for over 95,000 years and another site at nearby Mata Menge has very similar tools as those found in Liang Bua that date back to 800,000 years ago.

Also Flores is not a large island. It is only big enough to sustain only 200 full-sized humans in isolation. If you do the numbers it's really iffy for a viable population. With 30 pound individuals you could sustain a population of 1000. Also modern humans would most certainly try to exterminate the hobbits if they were on the island at the same time.

12,000 years seems almost a Polynesian time period rather than all inclusive of modern humans.

The oldest archaeological examples of boats are not beyond 10,000 years. We do have to consider elements such as the population of Australia 40,000 years ago. It was also possible to reach Australia not passing Flores but by the Phillipines via Sulawesi.

After all Austrialian indigenes transversed down the chain - is there reason to think they did not "stop by".

Is there some limiting factor to a number of "waves"? Perhaps the Hobbits survived best until the latest wave arrived with perhaps better tools or altered land use.

Seems to me there was another stranded pocket of "old genes" discovered recently down the pathway. Have to chase it.

I think it may be that volcanic eruption played a part in the hobbits extinction but almost certainly humans arriving on the island would have made a concerted effort to wipe them out quickly. The first evidence of modern humans on Flores comes 11,000 years ago directly above the volcanic layer that likely wiped out the hobbits.

[kitakaze]

Recent analysis that indicates hobbits may be descendants of first hominins to leave Africa around 2 million years ago:

http://www.australiannews.net/story/371309

For her research, Argue compared anatomical structures of the type specimen of H. floresiensis, LB1, with several modern humans, and many ancient hominins such as H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. habilis, and the Dmanisi specimens.

What they found was that H. floresiensis had long arms in proportion to its legs, and is close to the primitive arm-to-leg ratio of the gracile australopithecine, Australopithecus garhi.

[macdoc]

Excellent post.
Do you have any sort of a "furthest back" range for hobbit inhabitation.

200 population is vanishingly small - many odd things might crop up over enough time.

You say "we" are you deeply engaged in the work??

[kitakaze]

Excellent post.
Do you have any sort of a "furthest back" range for hobbit inhabitation.

The available information seems to indicate that the hobbits may have come to Flores around 100,000 years ago. There are three ways this might have occurred: they might have swum. The distance between the channel would have ranged between 3 and 10 miles, I think. It's definitely possible. They might have constructed very simply rafts to make the journey. They could have constructed something from bamboo or even used just large pieces of wood. The last option is that they may have arrived by accident, being carried on fallen trees or vegetation in a storm. This might seem unlikely but is not at all when you consider that they might have been living close to the island on the coast.

The original team that discovered LB1 also claimed a controversial find of stone tools they believed to be evidence of H. erectus occupation but no actual remains have ever been found.

Here is an image of Flores highlighted to give you some visual:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8961496138e6afdd0.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14766)

200 population is vanishingly small - many odd things might crop up over enough time.

200 is too small for a population. Inbreeding would certainly happen but they wouldn't survive long enough for a whole lot of anything to happen. They'd simply be gone too quickly. Here is an interview with evolutionary biologist, Jared Diamond in which he expalins the numbers:

Diamond: If you're a big animal that gets isolated on an island, the only way to survive is to get smaller. If you don't get smaller, you die out.

Krulwich: Why?

Diamond: Because if you're big, the smaller island isn't able to hold enough individuals to make a sustainable population. For example, let's take humans. Suppose these were full-sized humans arriving on that island. Flores is a moderately small island. It might have been big enough to hold, in isolation, say 200 full-sized humans. Of those 200, 100 are males, 100 females. Of the 100 females, 50 are juveniles, and 50 are adults. And of those 50 adults, some are better than others. So what sounds like 200, a viable population, you end up with maybe only 10 or 20 skilled, reproductive females. That gets marginal. And then if you have a drought and a Komodo dragon kills a few of them on top of it, it's just not a viable population. You also get genetic problems—inbreeding—when you've got as few as 200.

Now, suppose your humans are not 150-pound humans but 30-pound humans. You can get five times as many of them. And your population is not 200, but 1,000. Now you've got something viable.

I'm skeptical that a group of great big H. erectuses could maintain a population on Flores long enough to dwarf down to how ludicrously small the hobbits are.

You say "we" are you deeply engaged in the work??

No, no. Just deeply interested. I meant "we" in terms of what everyone collectively knows at this point about the hobbits.

[kitakaze]

In the Jared Diamond interview I quoted from he goes on to discuss the likelihood of sex between humans and hobbits. He basically explains that hobbits would nasty little bastards and would take your dingle bells off if you tried it:

Unsafe sex
Krulwich: Alright. Last set of questions. This has to do with sex mostly. We have this astonishing thought that on this island were two populations—for maybe as many as 40,000 years, Homo sapiens (us) and little people. Now, the eighth-grade definition of species is that if you're a little person and I'm a big person, I wouldn't want to have sex with you because you look "other," and if I did have sex with you, I/we couldn't have a baby. Is that where we are in this situation?
Diamond: Uh, yes. The definition of species is reproductive isolation. Populations that don't interbreed with each other given the opportunity would be considered distinct species. So I guess the final question that everybody is too shy to ask about these micropygmies is, did we or didn't we have sex with them? Because the fact is that modern humans, Homo sapiens, eventually arrived at this island of Flores and would have coexisted for some length of time that you can argue about. Did we or didn't we have sex with them?

My bet is we did not have sex with them, and here's my reasoning. Although they were small, they would have been tough, nasty characters. About a week and a half ago in Los Angeles, there was a really tragic, awful event in which a couple who had brought up a pet chimpanzee went and visited their pet chimpanzee in an animal shelter with a couple of other chimpanzees that had been kept there for a long time. These were chimpanzees habituated to humans. And something went wrong. Two teenage male chimpanzees attacked the man, and the result was just awful. They pulled off his nose, and [attacked] his eyes. They chewed off every one of his fingers. They chewed out his buttocks. Okay?
What do I think would have happened if some full-sized male sapiens had presented his private parts for having sex with this 30-pound pygmy? I would not have given much for the future of the private parts of that male sapiens.
Krulwich: Really?
Diamond: I would predict that those pygmies would have been really nasty. Just like any humans would be really nasty.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3209/01-diamond.html

I can easily imagine hobbits being crazy little bastards. We knew they hunted stegadonts (pygmy elephants) and there is also reason to consider something much more amazing. Island dwarfism is a biological phenomenom that occurs in large mammals. However, the opposite is the case with reptiles, reptiles such as the komodo dragons that coexisted with the hobbits. In the past it seems that Flores had super komodos an it is possible that the hobbits hunted komodos (and ceratinly vice versa). I can just see these teeny weeny little insane hobbits screaming like banshees and taking on a giant komodo dragons.

If I was a sapien encountering these little freaks, the last thing I would think about is humping one. I'd probably be thinking more about pulling the spear out of my ass and wrenching the hobbit off my head chewing my ear.

[macdoc]

We have this astonishing thought that on this island were two populations—for maybe as many as 40,000 years, Homo sapiens (us) and little people.

Does this not counter your 13,000 year comment?

[Damien Evans]

I would say that the conclusions of any sort that they are a separte species of homo are rather rash, conclusions either way are going to be hard to reach. Most likely they are a sample bias in a population.

Given the evidence we have, it would be rather rash* to deny they are a new species.


*Not as strong a term as I wanted, but civility precludes me from writing what I actually wanted to.

[Damien Evans]

How certain is that?? Much of the archipelago would have seen lower sea levels and links during ice ages.
...snip...

Flores was never linked to any of the Indonesian islands, the surrounding sea was far too deep. Continentally, Flores is more Australian than Asian. It's also east of Wallaces Line.

[kitakaze]

We have this astonishing thought that on this island were two populations—for maybe as many as 40,000 years, Homo sapiens (us) and little people.
Does this not counter your 13,000 year comment?

It looks like it until you remember to keep in mind that that is pure speculation based on factors that don't address the evidence in the ground on Flores. BTW, the quote you have there is not from Jared Diamond but rather the Nova interviewer, Robert Krulwich, at UCLA. Another quote from that same interview:

Krulwich: So you don't buy into this 40,000 years of cohabitation at all?

Diamond: Absolutely not.

The speculation is built around timelines and made for the purpose of facilitating a discussion about the idea of sapien and floresiensis interbreeding. I'll break it down in as much detail as I can to clear up any confusion. Anywho...

As I wrote before, the oldest hominid artefacts on Flores come from the site at Mata Menge and date back to 840,000 years ago. These were found by Dr. Mike Morwood and the same Australian-Indonesian team that found LB1. These were crude stone tools that were at the time said to resemble those of Javanese H. erectus. Remember now, this is prior to the amazing finds Liang Bua. At the time Dr. Morwood and his team had been searching Flores for 10 years for archaeological evidence of the passage of the ancestors of the Australian Aborigines. So the first issue to make clear is how long have humans been in Australia? Scientific consensus is between 40,000 to 50,000 years ago with a possible range of up to 70,000 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia

The oldest known human remains are that of Mungo Man which date back to 40,000 years ago but there is dispute on the age of the find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mungo_Man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mungo_Man#Age

One study suggested Mungo Man to be 60,000 years old but the finding is very controversial. Consensus is based on the best available evidence. The oldest occupation horizons in four different regions reliably dated by defendable multi-method results are in the range 42-48,000 years ago.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/arizona/rdc/2002/00000044/00000002/art00004

So we've established people in Australia at least 40,000 years ago. We have Dr. Morwood and his team on Flores looking for evidence of the ancestors of the Australian aborigines. As I mentioned in a previous post, it's important to remember that the Indonesian island chain was not the only route to Australia. The other best way was through the Phillipines via Sulawesi. Now before LB1 Morwood's team has the 840,000 year old artefacts which they attributed to H. erectus. This finding was controversial and later comparisons to artefacts from Liang Bua showed great similarities. Morwood failed to ever find any Homo sapien remains older than 11,000 years old.

It's important to remember that Flores could have only sustained a population of modern-sized humans of 200 in isolation and that such a number was very precarious in terms of sustaining a viable breeding population. Also important to remember is that Flores was tropical jungle and that humans tend not to do so well in such environments. So we have hominins on Flores at 840k years ago but no confirmation on what type. It could have been H. erectus or it could have been an unknown small-bodied and small-brained hominin that arrived from the Sunda Shelf. Morwood's team thought erectus and later when they find LB1 they work on the theory the she was erectus and was island dwarfed. There has been much study since that time and it no longer seems so likely that the hobbits were mini erectuses.

Thus far...

- Unknown hominin artefacts at Mata Menge from 840k years ago.

- H. floresiensis remains and artefacts at Liang Bua ranging from 95-13,000 years ago.

- A thick white layer of volcanic ash between floresiensis and the arrival of modern humans 11,000 years ago.

Could they have interacted before that? Sure, it's possible but having coexisted on Flores for 40,000 years seems preposterous when you consider the population and nutrition constraints of the island and human tendency to wipe out competing groups. This would be especially true of nutty little 30 lbs imps running around taking down small elephants and super komodos.

This is the best I can offer for speculation:

Homo sapiens could have arrived on the island around 70,000 years ago if they were to reach Australia by 65,000 years ago, but no modern man artefacts have yet been found. The one heavy percussion artefact discovered in the Liang Bua cave was found at the 102,000 year old level.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/floresiensis.php

While the main explanation for the cause of H. floresiensis' extinction to be volcanic activity there is also a recent study by Dr. Morwood along with Penny van Oosterzee (who has written extensively on the Wallace Line) that the hobbits were actually quickly wiped out after contact with modern humans. Have a look at this, it's fascinating:

Robyn Williams: Penny van Oosterzee on the paper published this week by Professor Dean Falk in Science. But what killed the hobbit those 18,000 years ago after nearly a million years doing so well. Was it a volcano; was it climate or something else?

Penny van Oosterzee: Ah yes, now that's really a fascinating story. When I was writing part of the bio-geography section of the book, I was scratching my head and thinking volcanoes wiped this thing out, ah, modern humans managed to cope with it. That was just a little bit unrealistic for me. So I was also looking at the configuration of islands in the area. So I contacted my mate Robert Hall in London, he's the expert on plate tectonics in the region, and I said what's up-to-date since that last book I wrote, which was the Wallace Line, you know, about a decade ago? And he sent me all this stuff and I got chatting with him, you know, over the internet. And I said you know this is the most amazing thing. And he said oh well not really, because if an animal falls off at this particular location off the island of Borneo it gets swept to Flores. And I went, bloody hell! Ocean currents!

So I started looking at ocean currents and then that took me off to the Mediterranean, in my mind anyway. I contacted a bunch of people and discovered this goat that I talked to you before about, whose eyes migrated at the front, that had teeth like rodents. What happened to it? It managed to survive on its island up until 10,000 years also. And from the island, this is the Balearic Archipelago, you can actually see the Iberian Peninsula, and France isn't too far away. But it took until 10,000 years ago, until people could actually sail on and had the technology to actually get this island, and then the animal was wiped out. So I went back and had a look at Flores, and I thought well isn't this a change? So the same thing applied, in the sense that it seems likely that people could not get to Australia along that little chain of islands that everyone's been assuming that that's how modern people got there, they couldn't get there unless they were able to sail. But by the time they could sail they were already in Australia and New Guinea via another route. Only one other route you can actually do it easily is again via the Philippines, through Sulawesi, and out through to New Guinea. And they came back to Flores once they could sail 10,000 years ago. And that made a whole lot more sense to me that that's what happened, that you know modern man wiped out the hobbit.

The other thing was that the volcanic layer that's directly intervening the two cultures, you know you've got Homo floresiensis and then a big, thick white layer of volcanic material on top, modins [phonetic] Initially everyone is going oh it's a volcanic explosion. But when you have a close look, there's been plenty of volcanic explosions in the region much more severe that this one and the hobbit survived all the way through them. And then when some of the researchers, Mike's colleagues, went and had a look at where that sediment came from it's more likely that it came from hundreds of kilometres away in Bali and it couldn't have wiped out the hobbit, so everything fit in. So our view is that indeed modern people wiped out the hobbit, modern people coming from greater Australia, not the other way around.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1836140.htm

[kitakaze]

Given the evidence we have, it would be rather rash* to deny they are a new species.


*Not as strong a term as I wanted, but civility precludes me from writing what I actually wanted to.

Yes, Damien, I very much agree. I'm not sure if Dancing David has seen the most up-to-date information but based on what we know opinions like this...

Island isolation. Pretty much sums it up. Nothing to see here folks keep moving.

...seem quite rash to me. I think in the talk by Prof. Groves with Canberra Skeptics best addresses the the resistance to the overwhelming evidence against microcephaly. Of course another skull is need to completely destroy the possibilty but the available anatomical data from all the specimens from Liang Bua so strongly indicates a new species that any vestigial resistance and attempts to argue microcephaly seem to have very unscientific reasons.

Also from Penny van Oosterzee

Penny van Oosterzee: I think you can determine it quite quickly. A microcephalic has a whole suite of different traits, but the most extraordinary thing is if it were a microcephalic, let's just assume that for a moment, it would have to have survived for 95,000 years as a microcephalic population. So essentially you've got 40,000 generations of idiots surviving on what is a tough little island to get to, and that makes no sense whatsoever.


http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1836140.htm

[kitakaze]

My apologies for the sheer size of the following post. I left out as much information as I could that was not totally germane to the discussion. There is much information that might be missed by following the link and I wanted the information recorded in the event that the original webpage no longer is available.

I have found a detailed Nova Q&A with Liang Bua team co-leader, Dr. Michael Morwood from only a month and a half ago with the most up-to-date information regarding Homo floresiensis and also the Dmanisi finds after the recent Alien on Earth documentary. Rather than post the whole thing, I will post what I think are some of the most interesting excerpts. There is some truly fascinating new information here:

Q: Has anything new been learned since this show was produced?
Jack McCarthy, Chester, New Jersey

A: Yes, there are studies and associated papers in progress on the feet, pelvis, body proportions, and brain of LB1 [the almost-complete hobbit skeleton found in Liang Bua Cave]. All have very significant implications for the H. floresiensis lineage. Some of my American colleagues at Stony Brook University are taking a lead in this.

Incidentally, a collection of 12 papers on the Liang Bua findings, including the hobbit remains, are about to be published in a special edition of the Journal of Human Evolution.

Q: Now that you have been searching for years, have you found other bones of the hobbit?
Lisa, Canada

A: Yes, our excavations at Liang Bua last year and this year produced more hobbit remains. Not another skeleton or skull, unfortunately, but enough for some exciting papers. You can't be so lucky all the time!

Q: Dr. Morwood,

Has there been any search for similar remains on nearby islands such as Timor and Atauro? Thank you for your work, sir!
Jody Glade, formerly of UN Mission in East Timor, Sedona, Arizona
A: Yes, we have just finished surveys and excavations on Sulawesi and have located stone artifacts in geologically old contexts. Just waiting for some preliminary dates. And we already have some really old stone artifacts from Timor (about to be published). Whether very early modern humans or a late archaic species were responsible is not clear at present. Some of my colleagues will be returning to Timor next week.

Q: What is the realistic possibility of recovering DNA from H. floresiensis?
Dick Cavallaro, New London, New Hampshire

Q: Dear Dr. Michael Morwood,

I have two questions:
1. What about H. floresiensis DNA?
2. Are there fossils of clothing H. floresiensis used, or perhaps body hair?

With kind regards,
Adriaan van Sandwijk, Kersbeek, Belgium
A: Alan Cooper from the Centre for Ancient DNA in Adelaide, South Australia, and Svante Paabo from the Max Planck Institute in Germany have both tried to get DNA from the teeth of LB1 and LB6—unsuccessfully, unfortunately. But we have high hopes for some of the new finds made this year. These have not been handled and have been kept cool.

Several types of hair were recovered from the Liang Bua deposits in the Pleistocene levels and are currently being studied by specialists. My guess is that the samples are from rodents and maybe Stegodon [an extinct genus of elephant].

Q: Does the hobbit's overall morphology more closely resemble classic Homo erectus, Lucy, or the new find at Dmanisi, Georgia (1.75 mya)? Do you consider the Dmanisi find to be the most likely ancestor of the hobbit, and, if so, does that mean the hobbit's small size is more or less likely to be a result of the island dwarfism scenario?

Also, whose stone toolkit is more sophisticated—the hobbits of Flores, Java Man, or the hominids of Dmanisi?
Jason Thompson, Huber Heights, Ohio

A: The hobbit has many characteristics more similar to australopithecines than to H. erectus (in the brain, jaw, premolars, pelvis, body proportions, etc.). But H. habilis or a similar early species cannot be ruled out.
The stone artifacts associated with the hobbit are very similar to those found at Mata Menge, an 880,000-year-old site in the Soa Basin of central Flores. Mark Moore, who studied them for his Ph.D., also says they are like the "Developed Oldowan" found in Africa before 1.5 million years ago. Trouble is, most Southeast Asian stone artifacts throughout the sequence look similar, with recent changes usually being "add-ons" (e.g., bifacially flaked and ground adzes).

Q: Referring to the picture of the two hobbit mandibles, I am struck by their differences in shape. One has the parabolic shape to the dental arch typical of modern humans, while the other has tooth rows that are much more parallel, a trait typical of living apes and distant human ancestors such as Australopithecus afarensis.

As a graduate student in physical anthropology, I never saw this degree of variation in the mandibles of two individuals of the same species. Do the teeth of these individuals show a lot of variation as well? What is your explanation for the unusual parallel-sided mandible in an individual thought to be so closely related to Homo sapiens?
Anonymous

A: Depends which photos of the mandibles you saw. Originally the two jaws were very similar, but as a result of a botched attempt to cast them while they were in [the late Indonesian paleontologist] Professor Teuku Jacob's care, one was badly broken at the symphysis and is now much more narrower than originally.

Q: If evolution is now more like a bush than a horizontal line, and if in the past different types of species of hominids could live at the same time, is it possible that today, while we dominate, could there be other species still surviving in remote parts of the Earth still living?
John W. Fisher, Baltimore, Maryland

A: Yes, it is possible but extremely unlikely. It will be interesting, though, to see when hobbits actually became extinct on Flores. They disappeared from Liang Bua about 17,000 years ago but may have hung on longer in other parts of the island.

Q: Have any similar bones or artifacts been found anywhere else (for example, in Europe), possibly misidentified?
Mike LaMar, Danville, Indiana
A: The hobbit remains are most similar to some hominin species previously only found in Africa. The stone artifacts are simialr to those found in the Soa Basin of central Flores from 880,000 years ago, and also to some early African assemblages, e.g., the so-called "Developed Oldowan."

Q: Dr. Morwood,

Have the hobbits left behind any found evidence of wooden boomerang weapons or toys, such as simple "tumble sticks"?

Regards,
Robert Keen, Reno, Nevada

Q: Since the species lived for many centuries on Flores, is it likely that Homo floresiensis individuals created something more than stone tools? Like baskets, clay pots, clothing, cave paintings, pictures drawn on stone, etc.? Is anyone looking? Paul Polesky, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania

A: There are no wooden artifacts in the associated deposits, but some of the stone artifacts have evidence for wood-working, including use of bamboo! So almost certainly they made a wide range of artifacts from organic materials.

Incidentally, if our assumption that the hominins of the Soa Basin in central Flores were the ancestors of hobbits is correct, then the hobbit lineage existed in isolation on Flores for about 880,000 years, i.e., about 35,000 generations.

Q: Do you find the idea of the "island effect" of gigantism and dwarfism of a species valid in this case? Or do you believe that the hobbit is really from another species of hominid?

Also, today, people who are the same size as the hobbit have the same-sized brain as normal-sized humans. With their smaller brains, how could hobbits have performed the same basic functions as early humans?
Emma and Emily, St. Louis, Missouri

A: We now believe that the ancestors of H. floresiensis who first colonized Flores were small in stature and brain size. There may have been some insular dwarfing over their 880,000 years of isolation, but probably not much. Stegodon [an extinct elelphant] on the island down-sized about 30 percent over that time, so this may provide a guideline.

Not too many people today are only 100 cm [40 inches, or about three and a third feet] tall. The studies by Dean Falk and colleagues [see Compare the Brains] indicate that the hobbit's brain was small but uniquely wired.

Q: Which do you think is the most plausible last common ancestor, with H. sapiens, for H. floresiensis? From an intermediate population like Homo georgicus (Dmanisi) or from an australopith? Or even further back? East Asian H. erectus seems unlikely as a progenitor. Could the current wisdom, that hominids sprang out of Africa into Asia be totally reversed? Could Asia be the source of mankind and his near relatives?
Adam Crowl, Brisbane, Australia
Q: How do finds and interpretations of H. floresiensis impact the Out of Africa & Multiregional hypotheses of human origins? Or does the possible relationship of H. floresiensis to australopithecines make the above arguments moot? Thanks.
Ollie, Mankato, Minnesota

A: Many of the traits of H. floresiensis are more similar to australopithecines than they are to other early hominins. For instance, they comprise the only species known outside Africa with the primitive body proportions. Aspects of the brain, stature, jaw, premolars, pelvis, and feet have similar implications. But a H. habilis-like ancestor is still a possibility.

Q: A NOVA scienceNOW episode mentioned that the indigenous population of Flores has very recent folklore about these hobbit humans. Does this imply that they may still exist? Are there efforts to investigate this folklore or even search for potential living specimens?
Kirill, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

A: No. Flores is now fairly densely populated, hence the drastic decline in wildlife in recent times. However, hobbits may have existed on Flores in isolated regions long after they disappeared from Liang Bua.


Q: Is it possible that when hobbits and Homo erectus came into contact with one another that H. erectus could have possibly given the hobbits' ancestors disease or infection, similar to what happened with American Indians and European settlers?
Anonymous

A: Hobbits represent an endemic species only found on Flores and are probably the product of some 880,000 years of undisturbed isolation there. Whether their Asian mainland ancestors ever encountered H. erectus depends on when they became extinct there.

Probably many hominin species will eventually be identified in Asia. Recent studies of "erectus" material from Sangiran in Java, for instance, indicate that the earliest population had some primitive traits not found in later "erectus" populations there. (This is work in progress by Japanese researchers Hisao Baba and Yousuke Kaifu.)

Q: Were Homo erectus wrist bones more like H. sapiens or more like early hominin and "hobbit" wrist bones?
Michael Blonde, Port Angeles, Washington

A: No H. erectus wrist bones have yet been found. A pity, because their morphology would have really significant implications for the phylogenetic history of H. floresiensis. Since H. antecessor from Spain, some 800,000 years old, had "modern" wrist bones, my guess would be that H. erectus also had "modern" wrists. But I may be wrong.

Q: Can the DNA be compared between this species and us? It would be interesting to see how we are similar/different, and if we share any matriarchal DNA with them.
Cecil Ashdown, New York, New York

A: We undertook major excavations at Liang Bua, and a priority in this work was to get "fresh" H. floresiensis remains that may yield hobbit DNA. New finds include a premolar tooth that has been kept unhandled and cool.

Previous attempts to extract DNA from hobbit teeth by Prof. Alan Cooper and Prof. Svante Paabo were made a couple of years after the discovery and after the finds had been extensively handled, treated with acetone-based glue, and kept in hot, humid conditions in Jakarta. We now may have more luck with the new finds. (DNA has been recovered from pig remains from Liang Bua as old as 8,000 years.)

And if DNA was found it would not only confirm the species-status of hobbit, but would also allow the "split" between their lineage and ours to be dated, and provide evidence for the hominin genotype at that time depth—2 to 2.5 million years ago would be my estimate.

Q: What about the 700,000-year-old stone tools the program started with but never again mentioned? What's the connection, if any, to the much more recent hobbit?Andrew Leat, Marshall, Michigan

A: Below are a couple of published papers that give much more detail. Also, in 2005 we excavated at Mata Menge again and found stone artifacts below siltstone layers dated to 880,000 years ago. We also found stone artifacts in a sandstone layer about 20 metres stratigraphically lower than Mata Menge, which we have not dated yet.

Given the evidence for long-term undisturbed phylogenetic continuity for the few other land animals that made it to Flores, it is very likely that the Soa Basin knappers were the ancestors of H. floresiensis.

Next week a team of my colleagues returns to central Flores to continue the work. We have already excavated thousands of stone artifacts at a number of sites in the Soa Basin and have large numbers of associated Stegodon remains. A small bit of hominin skeletal evidence would be nice!

Relevant references:

Morwood, M.J., P. O'Sullivan, F. Aziz, and A. Raza. 1998. Fission track age of stone tools and fossils on the east Indonesian island of Flores. Nature 392 (12 March): 173-6.

Brumm, A., F. Aziz, G.D. van den Bergh, M.J. Morwood, M.W. Moore, I. Kurniawan, D.R. Hobbs, and R. Fullagar. 2006. Early stone technology and its implications for Homo floresiensis. Nature 441: 624-628.

Q: If this fossil is not a current Homo sapiens and is actually a species of its own, then it would have had to evolve from another branch of the Homo genus, by the dwarfism theory. It has been said it closely resembles H. ergaster or H. erectus (lived up to roughly 400,000 yrs ago), or even other early homonids.

My question is: How could it have survived being so close to Toba, the supereruption around 70,000 years ago, and other major geologic events and weather events, which may have caused genetic bottlenecks and multiple extinctions across many species of animals?
Josh, Arizona

A: There is a growing consensus amongst people studying the actual remains that the ancestor lineage of Homo floresiensis in East Asia predates the arrival of H. erectus, perhaps by a considerable margin, and that they arrived on the island as a small-brained, short hominin species with primitive body proportions, etc.
Concerning the Toba eruption, most of the ash seems to have been blown to the west towards India, with a bit going north towards Malaysia and the China Sea. We have found no evidence for distinctive Toba ash in the Liang Bua stratigraphy. But plenty of other volcanic eruptions are represented, one of which around 17,000 years ago probably had a role in the extinction of hobbits and Stegodon.

Q: The program starts out talking about stone tools, which you say are 700,000 years old, but then towards the end of the video, you say that Homo floresiensis was on Flores for about 80,000 years. Who made the tools?
Edwin, Vacaville, California

A: We have bits and pieces of H. floresiensis at Liang Bua from deposits spanning 95,000 down to 17,000 years ago. The species may have been around much longer, but the age of the deposits at Liang Bua will not provide evidence for this.

In the Soa Basin, we have evidence for stone artifacts associated with Stegodon fossils at 17 sites from 880,000 to about 650,000 years ago. We assume, but cannot yet prove, that the Soa Basin hominins were ancestral to hobbits. So finding skeletal evidence for the Soa Basin knappers is a real priority.

Someday someone will find Lower Pleistocene hominin skeletal remains in the Soa Basin. Hopefully it will be our team. A 300,000-year-old site on Flores containing hominin remains would also be useful.

Q: Thank you so much for all the work you are doing. There are a few artist drawings of the hobbit. Have you ever drawn a picture of them? If so, would you let us see it?
Patrick, Collins, Georgia

A: There are a number of reconstructions around, probably the best being that by Elisabeth Daynes in the Natural History Museum in Paris. Unfortuantely, I do not have a photo, but Kate Wong had some excellent illustrations of hobbits and Stegodons in the February 2005 edition of Scientific American.


Here is the reconstruction Morwood was referring to:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_8961496245b775be3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14772)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hobbit/ask.html

[The Drain]

Kitakaze, that was a truly excellent post - well worth the length. Thank you.

[ddt]

kitakaze, thanks for all the informative posts! A question that came up to me when reading them:


200 is too small for a population. Inbreeding would certainly happen but they wouldn't survive long enough for a whole lot of anything to happen. They'd simply be gone too quickly. Here is an interview with evolutionary biologist, Jared Diamond in which he expalins the numbers:

How did Prof. Diamond arrive at the figure of 200? Is there a formula for how much area an animal or a hunter/gatherer human needs to find enough food?

I mean, he calls it a "moderately small" island, but from my perspective it is large: half the size of my country :). Then 200 sounds as a very low number. Moreover, the links you provided, and wiki, suggest that Flores has a fertile soil, due to the volcanic ashes, and in prehistoric times had abundant (forest) vegetation - before modern man deforested it.

Can someone shed light on this?

[Damien Evans]

Excellent posts KitaKaze

[kitakaze]

kitakaze, thanks for all the informative posts! A question that came up to me when reading them:



How did Prof. Diamond arrive at the figure of 200? Is there a formula for how much area an animal or a hunter/gatherer human needs to find enough food?

I mean, he calls it a "moderately small" island, but from my perspective it is large: half the size of my country :). Then 200 sounds as a very low number. Moreover, the links you provided, and wiki, suggest that Flores has a fertile soil, due to the volcanic ashes, and in prehistoric times had abundant (forest) vegetation - before modern man deforested it.

Can someone shed light on this?

I'm not sure exactly the formula Prof. Diamond use when he made a max estimate of 200 human-sized individuals that Flores could sustain in isolation. Keep in mind that while Flores might seem relatively large to you (Flores is 13,540 km² to the Netherlands' 41,526 km² so more like a third the size) Flores is an island whereas the Netherlands is not and in prehistory could not rely on boats for supplies.

We know that in addition to its size, the resources of Flores were limited enough that there was clear island gigantism an dwarfism as evidenced respectively by the komodo dragons and Flores giants rats getting big and stegadons getting small. In his interview Prof. Diamond also speaks about another small island, Pitcairn Island, which was colonized by the mutineers of the Bounty:

For example, Pitcairn Island, which was colonized by the Bounty mutineers because it was supposedly an empty island. When the Bounty mutineers arrived on Pitcairn in 1790, they found abandoned temple platforms and statues. There had been a human population isolated there. From the size of Pitcairn, we can be confident that there were fewer than 200 individuals. They were able to survive as long as there were boats bringing fresh humans. But once the boats disappeared, that population then died out. So we know that not even modern humans are enough to survive as a small population.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3209/01-diamond.html

What we do know is that there is no evidence of modern-sized people being on Flores until 11,000 years ago by which time it was modern humans coming by boat from Greater Australia.

[kitakaze]

Here is a photo gallery of Flores featuring archaeologist and member of the Liang Bua team, Douglas Hobbs and various Flores locations such as Liang Bua, the Soa basin, and the Mata Menge archaeological dig site there:

http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/2004/12/09/1102182410614.html

[kitakaze]

So now we have a flood of potentially revolutionary information regarding Homo floresiensis and its implied lineage and a wealth of things to consider. I will try to summarize on what I think some of these things are.

At the Mata Menge site, Dr. Morwood tells us of artefacts dating back to beyond 700k and 840k to 880,000 years ago. He also tells us of stone artefacts in a sandstone layer about 20 metres stratigraphically lower than Mata Menge that have yet to be dated. We therefore have data telling us that we can reasonably surmise that we may be looking at hominin inhabitation of Flores going back to a million years. As Dr. Morwood pointed out, these artefacts most closely resemble the floresiensis artefacts at Liang Bua and the "Developed Olduwan" assemblages of Africa dating back to before 1.5 million years ago. It no longer seems likely that we can look to east Asian Homo erectus as the progenitors of the hobbits on Flores. In Dr. Morwood's own words:

"There is a growing consensus amongst people studying the actual remains that the ancestor lineage of Homo floresiensis in East Asia predates the arrival of H. erectus, perhaps by a considerable margin, and that they arrived on the island as a small-brained, short hominin species with primitive body proportions, etc."

So who or what were these Soa Basin knappers that Morwood speaks of?

Morwood explains:

"Many of the traits of H. floresiensis are more similar to australopithecines than they are to other early hominins. For instance, they comprise the only species known outside Africa with the primitive body proportions. Aspects of the brain, stature, jaw, premolars, pelvis, and feet have similar implications. But a H. habilis-like ancestor is still a possibility."

In the search for the hobbit's true ancestors one of the main hypotheses to come forward is that advanced by Debbie Argue of the Australian National University’s School of Archaeology and Anthropology, who's study I briefly mentioned earlier. Argue has found that H. floresiensis had long arms in proportion to its legs, and is close to the primitive arm-to-leg ratio of the gracile australopithecine, Australopithecus garhi. Here are some links to information on her cladistic analysis of Homo floresiensis:

http://anthropology.net/2008/06/20/emerging-news-of-debbie-argues-cladistic-analysis-of-homo-floresiensis/

http://www.australiannews.net/story/371309

A. garhi is a gracile Australopithecine that lived between 2-3 mya during a period where there are very few fossil records. Garhi was more advanced than any other Australopithecine and at one time thought to be the final link between the Australopithecus and Homo genus. However, that position is now in question and it has been speculated that garhi was a competitor species to the Homo ancestor. Stone tool artefacts resembling Olduwan technology have been discovered with A. garhi dating to 2.5 and 2.6 mya.

Here is wiki's A. garhi entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_garhi

It seems that it would imply that garhi or a descendant moved out of Africa around 2.25 mya at a time when the first Homo species were emerging in Africa. The Dmanisi small-brained, small-bodied hominins with similarities to the hobbits date to half a million years later and are thought to be the earliest out of Africa. It would also imply that the hobbits ancestors arrived in east Asia at least half a million years before Homo erectus as Morwood suspected.

Argue's work suggests that H. floresiensis' stature is not the result of strong insular dwarfism. It's important to remember that while the stegadons were small, they didn't come to Flores as big elephant-type creatures and then shrink. The stegadons on Flores have been shown to have down-sized 30% over time on Flores which Morwood thinks might serve as a guideline for looking at the extent of potential dwarfing in the hobbits. We know that LB1, the type specimen for floresiensis had cranial capacity of 417cc while A. garhi had a capacity of 450cc. With the intricate folding shown in floresiensis' brain by internal scanning we can surmise that possibly some minor down-sizing did occur along with unique adaptations in the brain. This would ensure for the retaining of the intelligence that allowed the hobbits to employ behaviour patterns and technology needed for successful survival against the rigours of Flores.

What would greatly help in gaining a clearer picture of Homo floresiensis' lineage are the following:

- DNA retrieved from floresiensis teeth. As Morwood puts it:

"And if DNA was found it would not only confirm the species-status of hobbit, but would also allow the "split" between their lineage and ours to be dated, and provide evidence for the hominin genotype at that time depth—2 to 2.5 million years ago would be my estimate."

- Another skull from Liang Bua to allow further cranial measurments and end doubts regarding microcephaly and other pathologies.

- Hominin remains from Mata Menge to establish the identity of the Soa Basin knappers.

- An intermediate site on Flores, preferably around 300,000 years, to establish the effects of the Flores environment on the endemic hominin population.

What I can confidently say now is that the mystery started on Flores at Mata Menge and Liang Bua with Homo Floresiensis may reach farther and become more profound than anyone could ever have imagined.

Zoomable satellite photo of Flores and other Sunda islands. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/SundaIslands.A2003242.0225.500m.jpg)

[kitakaze]

Kitakaze, that was a truly excellent post - well worth the length. Thank you.

kitakaze, thanks for all the informative posts!

Excellent posts KitaKaze

Thank you very much. I enjoyed the work putting them together and I'm glad you found them enjoyable also. I find this subject to be absolutely fascinating.

[applecorped]

You're wrong.

[Damien Evans]

You're wrong.

Who's wrong?

[kitakaze]

I'd like to know also. Maybe I don't find the subject absolutely fascinating? I think I do.

[Damien Evans]

I'd like to know also. Maybe I don't find the subject absolutely fascinating? I think I do.

So do I.

[kitakaze]

I don't know how applecorped sees it but here it is in a nutshell for me. It's becoming ever more clear from the physical evidence and the qualified experts examining it that the progenitors of H. floresiensis were not the large-bodied, large-brained Homo erectuses that we thought were the only ones capable of having the skills, tools, and wanderlust to make it to that corner of the globe.

That 30 pound (!) pint-sized little hominin that was kicking butt and taking names on Flores for at the very least 100,000 years up until near historical times when we were learning to make boats and communities based on agricultural did not appear in a vacuum. It seems apparent now that whatever made it that far got there possibly half a million years before H. erectus and was already some kind of Mini Me when it got there.

Was it an Australopithecine? Was it something from A. garhi's line? The cladistic ratios seem to indicate that. But having a look at garhi's skull makes you wonder if 2 million years was enough to result in floriensis' skull:

http://www.ashtonfarm.demon.co.uk/early_hominid_evolution/a_garhi.htm

Was something related to H. habilis a possibilty? Could be. The hobbits were fixing points to hafts and doing some serious work with it. Animal bones found with the hobbits at Liang Bua like the mini elephant stegadon show some charring so they may even have made use of fire. Is this something that arose in this massive plains area Savannahstan that spanned from Africa to SE Asia? We just don't know. What else awaits to found in other parts of Asia?

What was this tiny thing that got up to Georgia that was so similar in stature and appearance to the hobbits? How did it get up there? It seems to have been there a considerable amount of time.

There's just far too many big fat jiucy questions to look at Homo floresiensis and say "Neat! Flores shrunk Homo erectus and it stayed there until very late." I expect that with the finds at Mata Menge and Liang Bua and the unpublished ones Dr. Morwood spoke of, we can expect in the very near future and the next 20 years to start finding more things that just absolutely blow our collective socks off about what we thought we knew.

[JohnWS]

This might well be a daft question/speculation, but I have been wondering. Given that the brain size and structure is obviously different from our own, these people were still seemingly social/cooperative (hunting) and toolmakers. As we tend to view this as an' experiment' in evolution, could that have included an experiment in intelligence? Perhaps streamlined in some way - hard-wired more towards instinct perhaps? I'm thinking - break open an ant's nest and instinctively and cooperatively they scurry the eggs away out of the sun. Confront HF with a stegodon and they automatically cooperatively hunt it down.

That said if we were to have (or may yet ;)) meet - would we be able to interact in a meaningful way? Would our two intelligences be so 'alien'?

I know next to nothing about the evolution of intelligence etc so it may be a silly line of thought - but the above has been niggling me.

ETA - I know there is theory on the Nova segment, but the above is my speculation regardless.