Ten years on, scientists still debating the origins of Homo floresiensis—the 'Hobbit'

October 23, 2014 by Bob Yirka report
Homo floresiensis adult female - model of head. Credit: John Gurche, National Museum of Natural History, CC BY-SA

(Phys.org) —It's been ten years since the bones of Homo floresiensis, aka, the "hobbit" were uncovered in Liang Bua, a cave, on the island of Flores in Indonesia, and scientists still can't agree on the diminutive hominin's origins. This month, the journal Nature has printed a comment piece by Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London and two pieces by Ewen Callaway, one a retrospective with interviews with the central players, and the other a podcast with the four principle scientists involved in the find—Bert Roberts, Thomas Sutikna, Dean Falk, and Stringer.

Did H. floresiensis descend from Australopithecus, leaving Africa and somehow settling on Flores, or was it a case of an early member of our family tree finding its way to the island and then because of limited resources, evolving into a much smaller size? That's the central question in the debate.

The majority opinion has sided with the island effect, mostly because of the time frame— H. floresiensis existed a mere 13,000 years ago, which means it was alive when other Homo sapiens were about, thus it seemed to make sense that H. floresiensis was also a member that had become stranded on an island. But Stringer doesn't agree. In his commentary piece he notes the chin and jaw are more reminiscent of pre-human fossils, dating back approximately two million years. Also the body shape and tiny brain appear to be more primitive than humans. He says taken together, the evidence suggests a closer match with Australopithecus, a pre-human group living in Africa which also includes the remains of the famous "Lucy"—and which also date back to approximately 1.2 million years ago. But that would mean that some members of that ancient tribe would have had to travel a long way over the ocean to reach Flores. Stringer notes that another event that occurred ten years ago, offers evidence of just how that could have happened—the Indian Ocean tsunami that carried people atop debris for more than 150 kilometers. If that were the case, he wonders if other evidence of H. floresiensis might exist on other nearby .

Much more research still needs to be done to settle the debate—if other fossils are found that contain DNA evidence, for instance, that would surely help.

Explore further: New analysis shows 'hobbits' couldn't hustle

More information: Comment: www.nature.com/news/human-evolution-small-remains-still-pose-big-problems-1.16170
Feature: www.nature.com/news/the-discovery-of-homo-floresiensis-tales-of-the-hobbit-1.16197

Related Stories

New analysis shows 'hobbits' couldn't hustle

May 6, 2009

A detailed analysis of the feet of Homo floresiensis—the miniature hominins who lived on a remote island in eastern Indonesia until 18,000 years ago -- may help settle a question hotly debated among paleontologists: how ...

New species of Pleistocene stork found on 'hobbit' island

December 8, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Fossils of a giant Pleistocene stork found on Flores island, Indonesia, belong to a new species according to scientists. The now extinct bird was probably flightless, and lived on the same island as Homo ...

Were 'hobbit' hominids island dwarfs?

April 16, 2013

Japanese scientists on Tuesday waded into a row over so-called "hobbit" hominids whose remains, found on a remote Indonesian island a decade ago, have unleashed one of the fiercest disputes in anthropology.

Recommended for you

Paleontologists discover major T. rex fossil (Update)

August 18, 2016

Paleontologists with the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture and the University of Washington have discovered a Tyrannosaurus rex, including a very complete skull. The find, which paleontologists estimate to be about ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Serpico
not rated yet Oct 28, 2014
I've always wondered why we should assume this is a typical skeleton of a typical Homo floresiensis and not simply an abnormally small specimen. Or abnormally large for that matter.

Perhaps the average H. flor was only .5M tall and this one was *huge* in comparison. Without further specimens we can only make educated assumptions. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.