Island's ancient dwarf men were not hobbits, but cretins

[emad]

By RICHARD SHEARS


A new war of words has broken out over the diminutive "hobbit", whose fossilised remains were found in a cave on a remote Indonesian island four years ago.

Ecstatic Australian scientists insisted at the time that they had unearthed powerful evidence of a previously-undiscovered human species who had lived on the island while mankind as we know it continued to develop in the "outside world".

But now an opposing group of Australian researchers say the tiny people on the island of Flores were not a separate branch of the human family tree after all, but were stunted Homo sapiens - early modern man - who did not grow because of iodine deficiency while in the womb


They claim the so-called "hobbits" were in fact a backward group of humans, suffering from what the researchers describe as cretinism - caused by a nutritional deficiency.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=526651&in_page_id=1811

[SpiralHawk]

1. Oh my, ancient republicons...

how disturbing...

[aquart]

2. A "backward group" who survived HOW LONG?

Ain't that amazing.

[Warpy]

3. This does not compute

An island culture is almost certainly a fish eating culture. They'd have gotten sufficient iodine from seafood.

[lakemonster11]

4. They address that in the article:

"They lived 20 miles inland and were too far from the sea to reach iodine-giving fish, the study said."

[Warpy]

5. That doesn't compute, either

since most of the human population has lived inland for some time and iodized salt has only been available for a century or so.

I think this guy is reaching a lot.

[semillama]

8. I agree

One thing that I don't think is explained away so quickly by iodine deficiency is the morphology of the hand and wrist bones. It's just too different.

It seems like there's a group of paleoanthropologists who are looking for any possible reason to disclude the Flores remains as a non- H. sapiens hominin.

Interesting that they also used the stories of the ebu gogo to support their claim of cretinism, but since that cryptid has also been used to support the idea of the hobbits as being a separate species, it seems like a "just so" story and not really supportive of their claims.

A critique quoted from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald:

"Professor Brown, who has examined LB1, said one of the skull features, an unfused area, cited as evidence of cretinism was the result of damage during the excavation.

"The authors have not examined the original fossil, have little and no experience with fossil hominids and depend upon data obtained by others,'' he said.

Dr Groves, who has previously argued Homo floresiensis is a new species, said the new paper also ignored the fact the hobbits had primitive chins unlike those of modern humans, which was not only evident in LB1 but in a second jaw which had been found.

Leader of the discovery team, Mike Morwood, of the University of Wollongong, said the remains of at least 12 hobbits had been found in the cave dating as far back as 95,000 years ago, which was too early for modern humans "normal or pathological'' to have been there."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/scientists-clash-over-hobbit-species/2008/03/05/1204402511772.html?page=2

[Warpy]

9. Thank you

I confess I hadn't followed the story as closely as I might have. I just know when "likely explanations" are totally unlikely, as the iodine deficiency argument in this case is.

I didn't know if they were a separate species of hominid, but if the morphology of certain bones is that different, it's likely they were.

[SnowGoose]

6. Some other perspectives on the paper you might enjoy.

Found this on scienceblogs.com
http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2008/03/05/homo_floresiensis_how_did_this/

The consensus is, shall we say, not too positive?

Scienceblogs.com is a site many of you might enjoy ~ I find myself visiting there more lately, now that the primary season has gotten the DU, shall we say... not too positive?

'goose

[Nihil]

7. Two comments:

1) This *is* the Daily Mail (i.e., not reputable in the slightest).

2) Methinks certain sub-groups of humans are in denial about the possibility
of yet another branch of our particular family tree ...

[Bonobo]

10. Complete bullshit. Florensis is a real species, not a "cretin".

Everything you need to know can be found here:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/flores/