# Homo Florensis (Hobbit) controversy **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 25, 2007, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471 "2007-01-25T22:00:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/1 "2007-01-25T22:00:08Z")
As a starting point - [Hobbot cave digs set to restart](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6294101.stm) Now, what I’m interested in is the nature of the controversy. Is there in fact a reasonable scientific question of whether the discovery shows a different branch of humanity, vs a microcephalic individual? I can’t believe that there is. I mean, consider the statistics. The likelihood of a dwarf microcephalic individual, surviving to adulthood, at that time, _then_ the remains surviving _and_ being the first discovered in that stratum of the cave, no, it’s just too unlikely. It seems to me that the controversy is all about egos. Perhaps there is an ethnic pride issue, that a foreigner should make that discovery in Indonesia, rather than a proud local scholar? In fact, what controversy is there remaining regarding the Homo Florensis? ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/2 "2007-01-25T22:05:53Z")
[QUOTE=Sevastopol] As a starting point - [Hobbot cave digs set to restart](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6294101.stm) Now, what I’m interested in is the nature of the controversy. Is there in fact a reasonable scientific question of whether the discovery shows a different branch of humanity, vs a microcephalic individual? I can’t believe that there is. I mean, consider the statistics. The likelihood of a dwarf microcephalic individual, surviving to adulthood, at that time, _then_ the remains surviving _and_ being the first discovered in that stratum of the cave, no, it’s just too unlikely. It seems to me that the controversy is all about egos. Perhaps there is an ethnic pride issue, that a foreigner should make that discovery in Indonesia, rather than a proud local scholar? In fact, what controversy is there remaining regarding the Homo Florensis? [/QUOTE] Non as far as I know. And didn’t they link the Homo Florensis to the local indigenous peoples somehow? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/3 "2007-01-25T23:13:02Z")
[QUOTE=Sevastopol] Is there in fact a reasonable scientific question of whether the discovery shows a different branch of humanity, vs a microcephalic individual? [/quote] As far as I know, no. They found eight other skeletons besides the first one. > [@](#): > > It seems to me that the controversy is all about egos. Perhaps there is an ethnic pride issue, that a foreigner should make that discovery in Indonesia, rather than a proud local scholar? Yeah, I think that’s mostly it. Teuku Jacob, mentioned in the article, seems to be the main problem. > [@](#): > > In fact, what controversy is there remaining regarding the Homo Florensis? Their actual ancestry is still somewhat up in the air - whether they evolved from _Homo erectus_ or are something else. [QUOTE=Phlosphr] And didn’t they link the Homo Florensis to the local indigenous peoples somehow? [/QUOTE] Only that there seem to be local legends about little people. PS. Spelling correction: it’s _Homo floresiensis_ (I have a tendency to make the same mistake). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/4 "2007-01-25T23:14:13Z")
[QUOTE=Phlosphr] And didn’t they link the Homo Florensis to the local indigenous peoples somehow? [/QUOTE] That’s part of the controversy. Some of the indigenous people are quite short in stature, although _H. floresiensis_ would have been much shorter still. But there has been no genetic evidence found which links those fossils to the indigenous population, just the observation about short stature. _H. floresiensis_ is pretty well accepted, but there are still some holdouts. So far, the remains of about seven individuals have been found, although I think only one skull. The controversy is further fed by the stone artifacts found with the fossil bones, which are more advanced that those typically found in association with pre-Sapiens populations. More excavations will help settle the matter further, but anthropologists almost never agree completely on anything. Don’t expect this issue to ever be “fully settled”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/5 "2007-01-25T23:25:37Z")
[QUOTE=Colibri] Yeah, I think that’s mostly it. Teuku Jacob, mentioned in the article, seems to be the main problem. [/QUOTE] There have been a few others that helped feed the controcersy, including Weber, Czarnetzki, and Pusch who published this paper in Science: > [@](#): > > [Comment on “The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis”](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5746/236b) > > Falk et al. (1) presented new data on the 18,000-year-old type specimen LB1 of the dwarf hominin Homo floresiensis (2, 3) with regard to cranial capacity and its implications for human evolution. They revised the originally determined brain size of only 380 cm3 (2) measured with mustard seeds) to 417 cm3 [estimated by three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography] and rejected the hypothesis that LB1 was a microcephalic individual (Fig. 1). We disagree with this conclusion and have subsequently analyzed 19 microcephalic modern humans. The corresponding brain volume varies between 280 and 591 cm3, with a mean value of 404 cm3. Thus, the virtual cranial capacity estimate for H. floresiensis is well within the range of variation for microcephalic brain volumes, with the newly determined capacity of LB1 being quite close to the microcephalic mean value. In addition, similarities or phenocopies between LB1 and microcephalic skulls are evident with respect to the supraorbital torus (a ridge on the frontal bone above the eye socket), the postorbital constriction, and the protrusion of incisors. Note that they are not concluding that the skull is microcephalic, but that they think it is not inconconsistent with microcephaly. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/6 "2007-01-26T13:17:18Z")
Would you agree that the likelihood of it being a microcephalic skull is so low as to rule it out? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/7 "2007-01-26T13:34:58Z")
[QUOTE=Sevastopol] Would you agree that the likelihood of it being a microcephalic skull is so low as to rule it out? [/QUOTE] You can rarely “rule anything out” in science; it’s just a matter of greater of lesser probabilities. I would agree that the probability of it being a microcephalic skull is low. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/8 "2007-01-26T14:39:35Z")
[QUOTE=Colibri] I would agree that the probability of it being a microcephalic skull is low. [/QUOTE] My familiarity with this is only a half-hour TV show produced a while ago, so I’m wondering, are you basing this on evidence besides the single skull? Because the ‘statistics’ arguments are based on N=1, which, well, doesn’t seem very persuasive to me. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/9 "2007-01-26T15:57:39Z")
[QUOTE=Quercus] My familiarity with this is only a half-hour TV show produced a while ago, so I’m wondering, are you basing this on evidence besides the single skull? Because the ‘statistics’ arguments are based on N=1, which, well, doesn’t seem very persuasive to me. [/QUOTE] When you say N=1, do you mean there is only 1 skull? Because there are a number of skull features to be considered when making the determination as to whether or not the skull is microcephalic. Yes, there is a small group of scientists who came to the conclusion that it could be, but there is also a larger group of scientist who think it unlikely. Additionally, the remains of 7 other individuals have been found and those remains do not contradict the hypothesis of very short stature for the hominid. We undoubtedly have a lot more to learn about this population of hominids. We may even find out that they done derive from _H. erectus_, but from a more primitive hominid species, as proposed by Debbie Argue in the Journal of Human Evolution (paraphrased here in [USA Today](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2006-07-16-hobbit-argument_x.htm)): > [@](#): > > The description of LB1, and bits and pieces of seven or eight more besides, noted a lot of curiosities about these creatures. They are a “curious mosaic” of features, according to Morwood. The skull bears a mix of features, rounded eye sockets for example, that look like human ancestors. Others, like an almost non-existent chin, look very “primitive.” Similarly the creature’s leg bones look primitive as well, Argue and colleagues say, most closely resembling an ancient (2-million or so year-old) ape relative called _Australopithecus garhi_ from Africa. > > Based on the analysis of microencephalic skulls, the team rules out the most likely form of microencephaly for LB1. But the rest of the bones are too big a mix to come to a definite conclusion about the ancestry of the hobbits, other than to say, judging by their “primitive” features, they must have spent a long time on Flores, say two million years, even further back than _Homo erectus_. How hobbits got there is another mystery. But “it’s attribution to a new species, _Homo floresiensis_, is supported,” they conclude, even if we don’t quite know what they are. > > “The results of analyses completed and still in progress, strongly suggest that the ancestral lineage for _H. floresiensis_ in Asia harks back to very early in the evolutionary history of genus Homo,” says Morwood, by e-mail, adding that his team is about to return to Flores for further excavations. LB1 is the type specimen for this species (“LB” standing for “Liang Bua”, the name of the cave where the bones were discovered). ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/10 "2007-01-26T16:20:34Z")
[QUOTE=Quercus] My familiarity with this is only a half-hour TV show produced a while ago, so I’m wondering, are you basing this on evidence besides the single skull? Because the ‘statistics’ arguments are based on N=1, which, well, doesn’t seem very persuasive to me. [/QUOTE] There are a number of other features found in the remains of the other indivicuals (which do not include a complete skull) that suggest to me at least that they represent a distinct form, the same as that of the one which includes the skull. Also, the fact that the skull seems to have some features related to H. erectus also suggest to me that it is not merely a microcephalic H. sapiens, as is postulated. Given this additional evidence, I think it is very improbable that the remains are those of one microcephalic pygmy H. sapiens plus those of other individuals who were only pygmy H. sapiens. I could be wrong, but it seems to me the original discoverers have the basic story right. I am reminded of the first discovery of a Neanderthal skeleton in the mid-1800s. It was originally argued that it was that of a many deformed by arthritis, or alternatively a Tartar soldier in the Russian Army that had pursued Napoleon. It wasn’t until more skulls were found until the controversy was resolved. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/11 "2007-01-26T17:48:24Z")
This reminds me of the [Pedro Mountain Mummy](http://www.legendsofamerica.com/WY-LittlePeople.html) that was found in Wyoming in the 1930’s. (Skip down to the fourth paragraph in the link above.) I first read about this in one of those Bizarre Mysteries-type books. It was either a severely-deformed infant, or a really really short old man. ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/12 "2007-01-26T18:31:18Z")
[QUOTE=Sevastopol] In fact, what controversy is there remaining regarding the Homo Florensis? [/QUOTE] A caption from the link in the OP reads: > [@](#): > > The “Hobbit” has forced a re-think of human evolution My impression is that the so called forced re-thinking of human evolution is, in and of itself, a huge controversy. Maybe moreso than the “Hobbits” themselves. There have been other [threads](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=396895) in GQ discussing the need [(or lack thereof)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=397248&highlight=constants+physics) for re-thinking basic laws of physics. Whenever a question of that mangnitude comes along I think it is justifiable to look for every other possible explanation before one decides to revamp something like the theory of evolution. (Even if it is only as it applies to us Homo Sapiens.) ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/13 "2007-01-26T18:45:13Z")
Look, every news story about a new hominid specimen includes as boilerplate “This discovery is forceing scientists to re-think our current understanding of human evolution”. It’s like a federal law or something. It doesn’t matter where the hominid is found or whether it’s a new species, every speciment forces us to rethink human evolution according to the news. Of course the Flores skeletons force us to rethink hominid evolution, since we’ve never discovered them before. But EVERY specimen that isn’t exactly like previous specimens, or found outside the previously known time or geographic range forces us to “rethink” things. It’s like if someone spots a coyote in Maine, and no one had seen coyotes in Maine before, the news story says, “The sighting of a coyote in Maine is forcing scientists to reconsider their theories of coyote distribution.” No shit, before we didn’t think coyotes lived in Maine. So we throw out our old theory that there was no evidence coyotes lived in Maine, and come up with a brand-new theory that at least one coyote lives in Maine. And this new theory turns the scientific establishment upside down. Oh, watch those stuffed-shirts scramble! You sometimes see this kind of thing in cosmology as well. “New theory that the Universe is 12.8 billion years old forces rethinking of the old theory that the Universe is 12.7 billion years old!” It makes me want to pound my head against a wall. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/14 "2007-01-26T19:12:47Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] Look, every news story about a new hominid specimen includes as boilerplate “This discovery is forceing scientists to re-think our current understanding of human evolution”. It’s like a federal law or something. It doesn’t matter where the hominid is found or whether it’s a new species, every speciment forces us to rethink human evolution according to the news. [/QUOTE] To be fair, it’s not that only journalists who are to blame for always inserting this into their stories to make them more newsworthy. Paleo-anthropologists are an egotistical bunch, and each one seems to think his or her fossil is the one that is going to re-write the history of hominid evolution. You see this particular among the researchers working in pre-_Australopitheus afarensis_ fossils. They’re all sure that their particular fossil represents a direct ancestor of modern humans, but the only reason they seem to think so is that they were the ones to find it and not someone else. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/15 "2007-01-26T19:39:44Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] Look, every news story about a new hominid specimen includes as boilerplate “This discovery is forceing scientists to re-think our current understanding of human evolution”. It’s like a federal law or something. \ [/quote] Touché. I didn’t mean to imply that a terse caption under a single photograph in a thousand word article on the subject could explain away the entire controversy-- such as it is. Of course an article of this nature is going to try to play it up as the discovery of the century. And, while I understand that the study of human evolution is ongoing and that every new discovery potentially changes everything, I think the implications in this case are more far reaching than, say, the discovery of possible cannibalism in Neanderthals. also from the link in the OP > [@](#): > > These observations could imply that… hominids… reached island South-East Asia much earlier than had been thought. > > The find caused a sensation when it was unveiled in 2004, because it suggested human evolution had been much more complicated in South-East Asia than previously imagined. It also showed that another species of human had survived into “modern” times. Boilerplate or no, the distribution of Homo Sapiens and their ancestors across the planet is an important piece of the puzzle. > [@Lemur866](#): > > It makes me want to pound my head against a wall. Sometimes, you just have to go with your instincts ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/16 "2007-01-26T19:49:05Z")
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS] And, while I understand that the study of human evolution is ongoing and that every new discovery potentially changes everything, I think the implications in this case are more far reaching than, say, the discovery of possible cannibalism in Neanderthals. [/QUOTE] This discovery was huge. It doesn’t rewrite our history, though, since no one is claiming _H. floresiensis_ to be in our line of descent, but it’s an entirely new species that lived contemporaneously with modern humans. In fact, they lived cheek by jowl with us for a longer period of time than Neanderthals. It’s probably not an exaggeration to say this is the biggest discovery in paleo-anthropology since the discovery of _A. afarensis_ (aka, Lucy) in the early 1970s. ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/17 "2007-01-26T20:41:34Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] \It doesn’t rewrite our history .. [/quote] I have to disagree. If we can learn about ourselves by studying Neanderthal, also not in our line of descent as I (mis-?) understand it, then we can learn about ourselves from Homo Erectus and their descendants. Especially if we are inclined-- if not forced-- to reevaluate how and why our intelligence and our big brains influenced our evolution. from another [BBC site](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3948165.stm) linked to the OP article > [@](#): > > H. floresiensis probably evolved from another species called Homo erectus… [T]his species must have made it to Flores by boat. Yet building craft for travel on open water is traditionally thought to have been beyond the intellectual abilities of Homo erectus. .. > The sophistication of stone tools found with the Hobbit has surprised some scientists given the human’s small brain size of 380cc… “The whole idea that you need a particular brain size to do anything intelligent is completely blown away by this find,” Dr Gee commented. …and, just in case you didn’t get enough hyperbole: > [@](#): > > Professor Stringer said the find “rewrites our knowledge of human evolution”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/18 "2007-01-26T20:54:54Z")
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS] I have to disagree. If we can learn about ourselves by studying Neanderthal, also not in our line of descent as I (mis-?) understand it, then we can learn about ourselves from Homo Erectus and their descendants. Especially if we are inclined-- if not forced-- to reevaluate how and why our intelligence and our big brains influenced our evolution. [/quote] I was using “history” in the sense of our evolutionary line of descent. That’s all. Sorry if that was confusing. > [@](#): > > …and, just in case you didn’t get enough hyperbole: Well, it does rewrite the history of human evolution. Any species in the genus \*Homo \*is “human”, even if we tend to use that term to mean only _H. sapiens_ in the vernacular. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/19 "2007-01-30T22:33:58Z")
[Study](http://news.com.com/Scientists+Island+Hobbit+is+another+species/2100-11395_3-6154593.html) using 9 microcephalic skulls for comparison points to the hobbit skull being that of a _Homo floresiensis_ individual, a new species. As with any primatological debate, today I asked a respected primatologist and family friend for his take on the bruhaha. He’s been reading the various papers being published by colleagues that he knows personally, and while not all of them are in agreement, those that he is more inclined to defer to on such matters are in the “new species” camp. Fascinating stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471/20 "2007-01-30T22:40:50Z")
[ABC News has a current article on this topic.](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2832747&page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homo-florensis-hobbit-controversy/389471.md?page=2)