The Controversial "Hobbits" of Flores
Are Fossils of Tiny People New Species or Genetic Anomalies?
In September of 2003, Peter Brown and Michael J. Morwood made a startling discovery in a cave on the Indonesian island of Flores. It was the almost complete skeleton of an exceptionally small hominin, a presumed human ancestor about 1 meter tall and with a brain only the size of a newborn baby’s. Deepening the mystery was the fact that despite the creature’s small brain size, it was apparently capable of hunting, cooking, and making tools, for evidence of these activities was found nearby, in the same 18,000-year-old sediment as the fossilized bones. Given the scientific name of Homo floresiensis and affectionately dubbed “Hobbit,” the tiny specimen almost immediately became the focus of a heated debate among scientists.
The Hobbit’s Place in Human Ancestry
At the heart of the controversy over Homo floresiensis was its strange combination of traits. On the one hand, its diminutive size and small brain suggested a close link to ancient proto-human species Australopithecus afarensis; on the other, its apparent intelligence, as well as some features of its teeth and facial structure, were more in line with classification in the more recent Homo genus, specifically Homo erectus. Discoverers Brown and Morwood theorized that H. floresiensis may have derived from an East African line of H. erectus, then become geographically isolated on the island of Flores, where they underwent dwarfing due to the fewer resources in their new environment.
The discovery of the remains of approximately seven more Hobbit individuals in 2004 seemed to support the idea that H. floresiensis was an entire population of small people, rather than just one anomalous individual. But many scientists were not convinced that the Hobbits were a separate species at all, much less a member of the Homo genus. Many claimed that the Hobbits were simply pathological specimens of an already known species.
Homo floresiensis and Microcephaly
Only one complete Hobbit skull has so far been found, and from this single example some scientists speculate that the individual to whom it belonged was afflicted with microcephaly. They point out that the Hobbit’s brain case is exceptionally small, smaller than would be expected even when the diminutive size of the face and body are taken into account. Maciej Henneberg and Alan Thorne, in a particularly scathing attack on Brown and Morwood’s original papers, point out that certain aspects of the teeth and chin suggest some type of growth disorder consistent with microcephaly occurring later in development. The late Indonesian paleoanthropologist Teuku Jacob also seemed to support the pathology theory, arguing that the Hobbit’s highly asymmetrical facial features and apparent weak muscle attachment markings pointed to abnormal growth, though he further theorized that the Hobbits may have been the direct ancestors of the modern-day Rampassa pygmies, who live nearby and display similar facial features to Homo floresiensis.
More Controversy Over the Hobbits
Theories over the meaning and origins of the fossils were soon coming thick and fast. Robert Martin of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago speculated that the Hobbits were an early offshoot of the australopithecine line, and that the tools found in the Flores cave did not belong to them. Dean Falk, an expert on hominid brain evolution from Florida State University, made virtual models of the Hobbit’s braincase and compared it with models of brains of great apes, australopithecines, Homo erectus, 3,000-year-old Palau pygmies, microcephalics, and modern humans; she discovered that despite its small size, the brain of the Hobbit bore the closest resemblance to Homo erectus. She also concluded that the Hobbit’s brain was exceptionally convoluted and bore the wide temporal lobes and expanded Brodmann’s area common in more “intelligent” species of hominid.
More debate followed, with some scientists still arguing for microcephaly or some other sort of genetic disorder, like Laron syndrome or myxoedematous endemic (ME) cretinism, and some still claiming that the Hobbits were simply an early branch of the Homo genus that retained some “primitive” characteristics. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the remains of the tiny Hobbit people of Flores will have taught modern humans a great deal about the wondrous complexity of their evolutionary origins.
Sources
Maciej Henneberg; John Schofield (2008). The Hobbit Trap: Money, Fame, Science and the Discovery of a 'New Species'. Kent Town: Wakefield Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-86254-791-9.
Penny Van Oosterzee; Mike Morwood (2007). A New Human: The Startling Discovery and Strange Story of the "Hobbits" of Flores, Indonesia. London: Collins. ISBN 0-06-089908-5.
Krause, Kenneth W. "Pathology or Paradigm Shift? Human Evolution, Ad Hominem Science, and the Anomalous Hobbits of Flores." Skeptical Inquirer July/August 2009 pp 31–39.
Homo Floresiensis Skull
|
What do you think about this article?
More in Science & Nature
Latest Articles