# Homo floresiensis (hobbits)



## Rosemary (Oct 28, 2005)

A year ago the fossilised bones of 9 dwarf sized beings were discovered.  They became known as the hobbit hominid, after Tolkien's stories.  They lived about 18,000 years ago on the Island of Flores.  An Australian led team have uncovered more specimens naming them Homo floresiensis, which has unleased almost warfare amongst anthropologists.  Many of whom have attacked the notion that the hobbit could be a separate human species.  Critics have said that it could be just the skeleton of a dwarf, a genetic flaw in a tribe of Homo erectus.
Dating of some of the newer found fossils have suggested that some were alive as recently as 12,000 years ago.  All seem to be the same size as the original 'hobbit.  
One theory is that they evolved from Homo erectus by island dwarfing, a phenomenon well known in the animal kingdom.  Under this, a big species that arrives on an island where there is little food becomes progressively smaller in population numbers and in physical size to survice.
Also found were the remains of a dwarf elephant, called a stegodon, whose bones, marked by flints, showed the 'hobbits' were good at butchering animals.  Scarred bones and flame-cracked rocks, proof that the community was skilful at manipulating fire.
One expert said the new fossiles backed the contention that the 'hobbits'were a previously undiscovered branch of the family tree.  Still unclear though, is there these tiny hominid came from.


----------



## Esioul (Oct 28, 2005)

I've heard they are actually Homo erectus.


----------



## Rosemary (Oct 29, 2005)

Esioul said:
			
		

> I've heard they are actually Homo erectus.


Well that was one proposition put forward after the first find one year ago.  However, it appears that many of the anthropologists are not of the same opinion.  Many do believe that they were as you say, while others think they are an entirely different family.



> Harvard University expert Daniel Lieberman said the new fossils backed the contention that the hobbits were a previously undiscovered branch of the human family tree
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Monty Scott (Nov 2, 2005)

The island dwarfing hypothesis sounds most likely, but strange finds have led us to change our understanding of this planet. Usually, it is the old guard of the scientific community that are the last to come around.
I have always felt that there was more to the myths and legends than just stories told to entertain, teach or frighten.


----------



## Esioul (Nov 2, 2005)

A herd of animals become homogenously small if their gene pool is reduced.


----------



## Rosemary (Nov 2, 2005)

Monty Scott said:
			
		

> The island dwarfing hypothesis sounds most likely, but strange finds have led us to change our understanding of this planet. Usually, it is the old guard of the scientific community that are the last to come around.
> I have always felt that there was more to the myths and legends than just stories told to entertain, teach or frighten.


Well I would like to think that 'the hobbits' really are a separate race!  Reading through the article again, there seems to be far more evidence pointing to that conclusion.  Hopefully Indonesia will let the team return to the dig soon.  I will be keen to find out if they unearth any more evidence which proves it one way or another.

Esioul -  do you think that a reduced gene pool would alter the appearance of these 'hobbits' so drastically?  They apparently had relatively long arms and unlike H.sapiens, had no chin.  Also, would the 'time span' need to be as long as stated to achieve such an alteration?


----------



## Esioul (Nov 2, 2005)

I don't think the time span has to be very long, if enough of the individuals were already relatively small when they were seperated from the rest of the gene pool. Also, H. erectus seems to have been somewhat smaller than H. sapiens sapiens.


----------



## Rosemary (Nov 2, 2005)

Esioul said:
			
		

> I don't think the time span has to be very long, if enough of the individuals were already relatively small when they were seperated from the rest of the gene pool. Also, H. erectus seems to have been somewhat smaller than H. sapiens sapiens.


I must admit I didn't know that Esioul.  Surely the climate and other factors would alter that though?  Wouldn't those in the colder climates tend to be smaller?


----------



## Esioul (Nov 2, 2005)

That also seems to be true, yes. 

where did you find the information about them, Rosemary? I could try adn look them up in the unviersity library.


----------



## Rosemary (Nov 2, 2005)

Esioul said:
			
		

> That also seems to be true, yes.
> 
> where did you find the information about them, Rosemary? I could try adn look them up in the unviersity library.



There was an article about it in our newspaper.  I found it very interesting and of course being a Tolkein fan had to find out more and of naturally post it here. 
I must admit I have limited knowledge of archeology and have been unable to find out more.  It seemed such an intriguing subject and it would be nice to learn a little more about these 'hobbits, if you have the time Esioul.  If not I am sure we will hear something more eventually.


----------



## Esioul (Nov 2, 2005)

I wil have a look in the archaeology journals. I don't know much about prehistory so it would be interesting.


----------



## Rosemary (Nov 2, 2005)

That would be great Esioul, that way we will all learn something new.


----------



## steve12553 (Mar 5, 2006)

What I really want to know is did they smoke pipes and eat seven or eight meals a day?


----------



## Rosemary (Mar 6, 2006)

I don't think there was anything uncovered there, that proved it Steve! 

Sorry about disappointing you like that though !!


----------

