At that time, H. erectus occured only in Asia, and H. floresiensis occured only on the Island of Flores in Indonesia (from what we know).
Does the guy in the commercial “It’s so simple even a Caveman could do it!” look like the protagonist in QFF? As I recall, the actors were selected for their simiam resemblence.
This one is pretty good, but it doesn’t show the various versions-- only a very recent version, and it predates the discovery of* H. floresiensis*.
It’s not like they’d see it on CNN.
This may be the second thing I’ve been convinced of on the Dope.
Homo floresiensis and the survival of H. erectus so late has only recently been discovered.
There is some suggestion that, shortly before they disappeared, Neanderthals may have picked up some new stone tool technologies from the neighboring Cro-Magnons.
Not just stone tools, but the use of bone for tools, and ornaments as well-- shells and teeth with holes drilled for stringing (probably for a necklace or such).
The tool kit assiciated with H. floresiensis also looks suspiciously sophisticated for a species with so small a brain and may have been borrowed from H. sapiens, although that would obvioulsy have happened only in the later time period when sapiens arrived on Flores.
Doc Cathode: Keep in mind, too, that there is never any “offical” family tree. You’d be hard pressed to get any two anthropoligists to draw the same tree. There are many different versions, and you have to look at lots of them to see what the commonalities are. As for older verisions, you won’t find much of interest earlier than the 1950s/1960s as there just weren’t enough fossils to assemble a tree more sophisticated than: apeman -> human. H. afarensis was only discovered in the 1970s, and pushed back the familty tree to about 3M years, which was considered a huge leap at the time. Add on top that the fact that pretty much whenever an anthropologist discovers a new fossil, he or she wants to have that fossil be in the human line of descent, so you get some significant bias thrown in. (My new fossil is oldest human ancestor!)
The so called “Hobbits”, right? An isolated group found only in a specific area. The area is associated with animal species that became small; so are they a degenerted group of some other species? Perhaps a displaced group of cab drivers? 
These questions are addressed at some length in Robin Dunbar, Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language. Professor Dunbar’s thesis is that language evolved as a substitute for physical intimacy (grooming, not sex) as the basis for bonding a social group. As human communities grew too large for each member to personally groom each other member, we developed language as a means of “grooming” verbally, if not physically, a greater number of companions. The structure of language, including the words that we use, is designed for the purpose of advancing the social and sociological goals of the communities and individuals who use them. Very thoughtful and thought-provoking.
Yes, these are the so called Hobbits. Calling then a “degenerate group” is a value judgement that doesn’t have a place in scientific discourse. The hypothesis is that they represent an isolated Erectus population that adapted to an island existance by becoming small. There are many documented cases of mammals that were isolated on islands and adapted by becoming pygmies. In fact, on the very same island we find pygmy elephants. Large mammals are at a disadvantege on an island where resources are scarce.
Can you clarify what point you were trying to make by suggesting that they were a displaced group of cab drivers?
See the novel Dance of the Tiger by paleoanthropologist Björn Kurtén for a description of Neandertal society and culture which, though fictional, is based on known principles of human ethology.
Kurtén speculated that the heavy brow ridges on Neandertal faces made the eyes look scary. Therefore the people developed elaborate systems of courtesy to avoid giving offense to one another with scary looks. Everyone’s name was mentioned with an honorific. It would be rude to call a Neandertal woman just “Buttercup.” You always had to say “Miss Buttercup.” When facing one another, it was considered polite to hold the hand over the eyes.
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.
It doesn’t make much sense since that is their natural apperance. One would assume that a species would not be fearful of its own natural appearance.
But this is s a work of fiction, so you have to allow a certain amount of poetic license.
Coincidentally, ot means ‘fire’ in Turkish. Seriously, it does.
In Quest for Fire, the word was “ah-tra.”
Why. Human’s are perfectly capable of making faces that are considered to be threatening and frightening like sneering, showing anger, showing hate, etc. Perhaps an entire species with its face stuck that way would run into some problems.
Kurtén also used ethology to explain why the Neandertals became extinct.Primates have an instinctual liking for juvenile features, as this encourages them to care for their young. (Listen to popular love songs: all that “ooh baby, baby, baby.”) The adult facial structure of H. sapiens resembles the juvenile face of H. neandertalensis: smaller jaw and smaller brow ridges. When the Neandertals saw modern humans, they could not help falling in love with them and mating. The offspring of the two different species was sterile—so all the descendants of Neandertals died without issue. An intriguing hypothesis, especially because it attributes Neandertal extinction to love instead of war.One of my favorite authors of all time, Anthony Burgess, created the language in Quest for Fire. He wrote an article on how he did it that would make good reading for conlang creators. His word for “moon,” like moon or luna, used a long /u/ vowel for sound symbolism, because it’s both high and round, like the moon. Burgess was quite the consummate amateur linguist, and I highly recommend his book A Mouthful of Air to anyone interested in language.