September 21, 2007

Confirmed: Homo floresiensis was a distinct human species - not a Microcephalic individual. So says a supposedly conclusive new study. Telegraph, UK. Hobbit evidence will silence critics, scientist says - ABC Australia. Scientists: Hobbit Wasn't a Modern Human - AP. Hobbit Human Was Unique Species, Wrist Bones Suggest - National Geographic.

Homo floresiensis, "Man of Flores", nicknamed Hobbit.

posted by Hank Mabuse 17 years ago
  • Maybe. But in general, when the media report "huge scientific controversy between boring explanation and interesting explanation", I find it's the boring explanation that tends to be true in the end.
  • Welcome, cousins!
  • Homo neanderthalensis Homo floresiensis Take THAT, motherfuckers! This is OUR planet now!
  • What is the University of New England doing in Australia?? You guys just can't help stealing stuff, can you.
  • Indonesia is in Middle Earth? I don't remember that part.
  • The University of New England is in Australia!? No! It's in my home state! WTF.
  • Indonesia is in Middle Earth? I don't remember that part. It was in one of the songs. You glossed over that bit. Honestly, I have no idea. Never read 'em, no intention of ever doing so. Continue.
  • And you call yourself a nerd?!
  • Pl-ease. Nerd-y, but not necessarily a Nerd. My fixations were always more socially palatable. Nerd-lite, not Nerd-luzer. Speaking of my fixations, Happy Leonard Cohen's Birthday, everyone!
  • /secret crush on Capt. dies hideous death
  • /secret crush on Capt. dies hideous death And they say there's no drama in archaeology.
  • And they say there's no drama in archaeology. Well, it's mostly cult-drinking-game genre with the occasional romantic comedy. But besides that, I take issue with the claims based on stone tool similarities between Africa and Indonesia. Anatomically modern Homo s. in Indonesia, Aus., and the South Pacific were notorious for using simple (a.k.a. expedient) stone tools possibly because they used bamboo or wood tools which don't preserve to be reflected in the record. Primitive remains don't necessarily equate primitive technology - especially in that region. Take a look at the Movius Line and the debate involved based on tool-worthy stone resource access and the abundance of bamboo (which can have a razor sharp edge due to the silica content) at early sites the east. But, if Homo f. was a dummy it probably wasn't because of his or her smaller brain pan, but maybe in spite of it. One other possibly interesting thing: the artist's rendition of Homo f. is a male. The most complete remains discovered were female, which brings another realm of speculation to the table because of the considerably variable sexual dimorphism in primates from species to species despite comparative archaeometric estimates based on established species with larger collections. Just saying. Of course, anything based on such a small sample size can't really be indicative of a whole culture of people... can it? But don't take it from me, I don't delve too deeply into human origins, anyway. Mostly for those reasons. Good linking, Hank.