SCI/TECH: Homo Floresiensis, a newly discovered species.

Hobbit sized creatures appeared nearly 18,000 years ago on some islands, and now they have been discovered. They used tools, lit fires, and apparently went on group huntings. This new discovery shatters the idea that modern humans, homo sapiens, dominated the world for over 190,000 years.



This is just amazing; makes me wonder how many other species have we not found yet or may never find. This is a major discovery for the social sciences community and may be the single most important discovery in decades.


[edit on 27-10-2004 by Banshee]

Thanks for knocking this up to ATSNN

You know how they say stories are just exagerated truths in some cases...

...Can you say Lord of The Rings as a sort of history, lol

Very nice find, yes I to wonder how many other species we will never know of. I can only imagine.

[edit on 10/27/04 by HumptyDumpty]

Delightful find, thank you. ...I think of the African Bushmen (and genocide) - and wonder how they compare to this new species. ...Hope story updates come soon.

These little people weren't much like us at all. Their brain was 1/4 the size of ours, so they sound more like ewoks than they do hobbits lol.

I do like the idea that some "mythological" races were indeed simply other ethnicities and not even different species. Think of what the first large germanic person and first smaller statured asian must have thought when they first met.

Could they be linked
Read about these guys way back in 2003
The 'Dropa or Dzopa'

Check the link out ufocasebook.com...

These guys were small and from around that region .....


just a thought.

Originally posted by andersonr
These guys were small and from around that region .....


just a thought.

Na man, Indo is nowhere near Tibet. The use of the word "creature" tells me this species was barely humanlike.

They are trying to decide if chimps should be in the family of man .

Homo Troglodyte Troglodyte

I read Jonna's version of this, then clicked back to the news and found Mirthfulme's piece. Had a good chuckle that they both came up at the same time ...Stuff happens - but just wanted to say thanks to mirthful too. You missed it by nanoseconds. Please keep trying - you did a good job. ...You too Jonna Good work guys. Love this bit of news. And I do want to know more about how these little guys compare with the Bushmen (whom the Victorians considered barely humanlike)...

At first I wondered if they were 'Pixies', although Lawrence Gardner said in Realm of the Ring Lords that they originated in Scythia. It's still a good story though - It's going to be interesting to see what else is found.

Originally posted by HumptyDumpty
You know how they say stories are just exagerated truths in some cases...

...Can you say Lord of The Rings as a sort of history, lol

I knew I'd seen George Bush somewhere else, my pressssssicous

The folks who found this fossil are justifably proud of their discovery, but the eagerness of all kinds of so-called scientists who jump in and make all sorts of classifications and hypotheses when they have not even had a chance to study the fossils, well, it strikes me as publicity-seeking nonsense, not science.
According to the CNN website article:

To others, the specimen's baffling combination of slight dimensions and coarse features bears almost no meaningful resemblance either to modern humans or to our large, archaic cousins.

And then:

Scientists are still struggling to identify it's jumbled features.
Many say that its face and skull features show sufficient traits to be included in the Homo family that includes modern humans. It would be the eighth species in the Homo category.
George Washington's Wood, for example, finds it "convincing."
Others aren't sure.
For example, they say the skull is wide like H. erectus. But the sides are rounder and the crown traces an arc from ear to ear. The skull of H. erectus has steeper sides and a pointed crown, they said.
The lower jaw contains large, blunt teeth and roots like Australopithecus, a prehuman ancestor in Africa more than 3 million years ago. The front teeth are smaller than modern human teeth.
The eye sockets are big and round, but they don't carry a prominent browline.
The tibia in the leg shares similarities with apes.
"I've spent a sleepless night trying to figure out what to do with this thing," said Schwartz. "It makes me think of nothing else in this world."

Considering how many "scientists" pontificated on the significance of Piltdown Man for decades until it was shown to be a fake, one would think a prerequesite for shooting off one's mouth would be actual physical study of the find. But just like with politicians, a lot of Anthropologists would rather get their quotes in print than actually do real science.

To start with, where are pix of the actual fossils? Physical Antropologists have a long history of "reconstructing" skeletons from parts later found not to have anything to do with one another, being separated in geologic strata or by location, sometimes of hundreds or thousands of meters. Even skulls taken as typical illustrations of pre-homo sapiens species are largely reconstructed from broken fragments. The reconstructions are often assembled based on what the paleontologist expects to find, rather than by virtue of structual necessity based on the parts.

IMHO, the last line quoted from Schwartz is the most honest and accurate statement so far as to the significance of the find.