Hobbits Hit The Headlines
By Hayley Birch
Scientists studying man’s evolutionary origins face a hard task when you think about it. At a rough estimate, more than 107 billion of us hominids have walked the earth since time began. Yet how many skeletons has modern man got to piece together the puzzles of our past with? A mere handful.
Some of the more famous Homo species, such as the Neanderthals and Homo habilis, have left us an assortment of disjointed limbs and skulls; but amongst the limited fossilised bones on offer, there is barely a full skeleton to speak of.
However, one Homo enjoying a glitzy media career of late (especially for one so thoroughly dead and buried) can at least boast some respectable remains.
Homo floresiensis, the furiously debated “hobbit”, delighted anthropologists in 2004 when a female skull and numerous bones were uncovered on the island of Flores in Indonesia. Scientists later dug up a succession of remains from other individuals in the same area. But it was the size of the 18,000-year-old woman’s head that was the real bone of contention. (honk!)
Doubters had argued that the “hobbit’s” suspiciously small head was due to a condition called microcephaly, which is caused by abnormal brain development, and that the old girl was actually a kind of ancient human dwarf.
Whilst relegated to the status of a race of mere mini-men the hobbits rather lost some of their media lustre. However, this week, embers in the fire of the floresiensis flare-up glowed again, as researchers described findings from a new study that appear to discredit microcephaly as an explanation.
The new research, led by Dean Falk of Florida State University, compares 3D computer-generated images of the hobbit head to those of modern microcephalics. Falk claims his findings prove, not only that the remains are from a healthy individual, but that Homo floresiensis really was a species in its own right.
However, species-sceptic Robert Martin, from the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, countered in a less-than-diplomatic fashion, saying he thought Falk had fiddled his figures and “[didn’t] know enough about microcephaly”.
And so we’re back to the fruitless nature of this whole business. In October last year, Chris Stringer of London’s own Natural History Museum emphasised the need for further evidence. “We need a second skull to see what the variation is”; and that’s where the argument will remain for the time being: one hobbit does not a species make.
Digging up one dwarf today is, in effect, like alien invaders digging up Tom Cruise* in several thousand years’ time and trying to base their entire theory of 20th century man on him. I think you’ll agree, the case is pretty hopeless.
*Please do remember though, just because someone has a small head, it doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with them, necessarily.
Hayley's other articles can be found here. Go look!
Some of the more famous Homo species, such as the Neanderthals and Homo habilis, have left us an assortment of disjointed limbs and skulls; but amongst the limited fossilised bones on offer, there is barely a full skeleton to speak of.
However, one Homo enjoying a glitzy media career of late (especially for one so thoroughly dead and buried) can at least boast some respectable remains.
Homo floresiensis, the furiously debated “hobbit”, delighted anthropologists in 2004 when a female skull and numerous bones were uncovered on the island of Flores in Indonesia. Scientists later dug up a succession of remains from other individuals in the same area. But it was the size of the 18,000-year-old woman’s head that was the real bone of contention. (honk!)
Doubters had argued that the “hobbit’s” suspiciously small head was due to a condition called microcephaly, which is caused by abnormal brain development, and that the old girl was actually a kind of ancient human dwarf.
Whilst relegated to the status of a race of mere mini-men the hobbits rather lost some of their media lustre. However, this week, embers in the fire of the floresiensis flare-up glowed again, as researchers described findings from a new study that appear to discredit microcephaly as an explanation.
The new research, led by Dean Falk of Florida State University, compares 3D computer-generated images of the hobbit head to those of modern microcephalics. Falk claims his findings prove, not only that the remains are from a healthy individual, but that Homo floresiensis really was a species in its own right.
However, species-sceptic Robert Martin, from the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, countered in a less-than-diplomatic fashion, saying he thought Falk had fiddled his figures and “[didn’t] know enough about microcephaly”.
And so we’re back to the fruitless nature of this whole business. In October last year, Chris Stringer of London’s own Natural History Museum emphasised the need for further evidence. “We need a second skull to see what the variation is”; and that’s where the argument will remain for the time being: one hobbit does not a species make.
Digging up one dwarf today is, in effect, like alien invaders digging up Tom Cruise* in several thousand years’ time and trying to base their entire theory of 20th century man on him. I think you’ll agree, the case is pretty hopeless.
*Please do remember though, just because someone has a small head, it doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with them, necessarily.
Hayley's other articles can be found here. Go look!
We couldn't afford one of the official pictures of Hobbit-folk, but we found a very nice drawing by Rainer Zenz and then monkeyed around with it a bit. Thanks Rainer.
Your Say
Woo, LotR lives! Ahem, anyway, I read something about this in Scientific American (see below). I'm not sure if I got the right article in mind, but it mentioned finding remains on an island which also had inhabited miniature elephants. *frantically searches for right article until he realises he left it at home* Ah well, I'm sure we'll find the remains of Gandalf soon, or at least an orc or two.
Jazzy B.
Jazzy B.
For anyone unsure, Scientific American is a science publication somewhat inferior to the Null. It does try, but lacks that certain ignorant panache we have so successfully nurtured - Ed.
Share this
