Today, from 'The Australian'.
Dudlow



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...2-12332,00.html

Hobbits walked out of Africa[size="4"][/size]
Leigh Dayton, Science writer | August 19, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THE identity of the tiny human-like creature discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2004 has become clearer -- and more astonishing -- thanks to a new analysis by Australian and Indonesian scientists.
According to a team led by Australian National University doctoral student Debbie Argue, not only is Homo floresiensis, nicknamed the hobbit, not a deformed modern human, as a handful of critics claim, but the small-brained, long-armed biped was the first human-like creature to walk out of Africa. And it did so nearly two million years ago, roughly 100,000 years before a species most scientists believed was the first migrant. That was a somewhat more modern hominin -- a member of a group including humans and their ancestors -- that was discovered in Dmanisi, Republic of Georgia, variously identified as H.georgicus, H. ergaster or H. erectus. "We're looking at a very archaic being indeed, one that appears to have gone its own evolutionary way long before our species emerged," Ms Argue said. She noted that a population of hobbits lived on Flores from roughly 76,000 to about 13,000 years ago, seemingly unbothered by the emergence and expansion of modern humans. "I think it's incredible that it lived until so recently," Ms Argue said. "Humans came down through Asia but missed Flores. It's lucky that Flores was hard to get to." The findings, recently reported in the Journal of Human Evolution, back a similar argument made in the journal Science in 2007 that the hobbit's unique wrist anatomy suggested the 1m-tall creature came from a lineage that lived long before the common ancestor of people and Neanderthals. Previously researchers suspected hobbits descended from H. erectus but had shrunk because of their confinement on an island. In her study Ms Argue collaborated with discovery team co-leaders Mike Moorwood at the University of Wollongong in NSW and Thomas Sutikna at the Jakarta-based Indonesian Centre for Archeology. With ICA colleagues they compared 60 skull and skeletal features obtained from two individual hobbits to those of hominins, chimps and gorillas. The technique, cladistic analysis, revealed hobbits probably took one of two evolutionary paths from Africa to Flores. One began 1.66 million years ago, the other 1.9 million years ago. Three years ago a group headed by the University of Sydney's Richard Wright, including Ms Argue, reported complementary results in Journal of Human Evolution. They used a separate procedure, multivariate analysis, to determine which species the hobbit most resembled, not to tease out evolutionary relationships, as did Ms Argue's team. Professor Wright said: "Before I did my analyses, I had an open mind about whether H.floresiensis was a deformed modern human or an early hominin. "My analysis forced me to concluded that H.floresiensis was an early hominin in shape, like well-known fossils of H.erectus. "So different methods and different data lead to the same result (ancient hominin, not deformed human). "That's compelling science."

wow, interesting! thank's for posting it!

There is no fossil evidence pinpointing the ancestor. They are basically finding primitive features and going back to fossils that had those features. You have to go back 2 million years to find hominids that didn't have more derived features. From that analysis they derive a time when it left Africa. When it left Africa has absolutely nothing to do with its evolutionary history. There are no intermediate fossils in the last 2 million years so assuming it left Africa at a particular time makes no sense. All we know is that its ancestors must have left before 100,000 years ago. Assuming that modern humans didn't land on the island is also nuts. It is one of a chain of islands and they made it to Australia probably over 50,000 years ago. There is absolutely no logical basis to make the assumption that modern humans didn't land on the island or to assume they left Africa 1.9 million years ago. They make the assumption of no modern humans because they want to preserve the association of the tools with the fossils. They even go to the trouble of claiming that modern humans learned to use the exact same tools after floresiensis died out. There were multiple species of Homo in Africa so they aren't logically assuming it requires a major change in geography for the species to spit. From the evidence in Morwood's book A New Human, I assumed they split from modern humans 1.5 to about 3 million years ago. Its ancestors could have left Africa at any time in the last 3 million years.

It seems to me they are fudging the logic to make the site and fossils more interesting rather than using simple logic. It always irritates me when scientists have agendas even when they aren't obvious. Maybe someone should tell them that there were multiple species of Homo because the apparent logic they are using pretends it isn't so.

[quote name='BobZenor' date='Aug 19 2009, 12:53 PM' post='554320'] There is no fossil evidence pinpointing the ancestor... It seems to me they are fudging the logic... quote]

My sentiments exactly, 'BobZenor'. I always post these items with tongue in cheek since I seem to be something of a scientific heretic. Again it always seems to come down to PHDs in competition for the scarce resource of tenure, grants and financial security. Still, it is worth keeping track of these publications and theories if for no other reason than to have a good horse laugh.
Dudlow

hey everyone wow very inportant new article about hobbits. ty bill g

I don't quite get you, Bob. The most recent analysis results (and I think that's a logical step, to compare bone morphology of 60 samples they have from two specimens, to known types of hominins) show that H. floresiensis was most similar to habilines and possibly H. georgicus and probably predate H. erectus. Given its tiny proportions, is that so surprising? As for no other fossils having been found of these hominins closer to Africa, well, we don't see what we aren't looking for. Presumably they will be looking now!

As an aside, I think that people assumed that the tools associated with these little guys were created by modern humans because of their sophistication. But I think we have to get rid of this mindset that smart hominins cannot create tools. After all, we are now witnessing the fact that even great apes today are tool users and tool creators. It would make sense that a smarter and bipedal hominin would be even more creative.

It is interesting also to note that the Leakey's found tool assemblages at Olduvai when they found their first hominin remains of Paranthropus. There, again, the tools were later attributed to later hominins (H. habilis) but I wonder now if they should have left well enough alone. It seems we have a bias toward big-headed hominins (though I have to admit habilines were just as tiny as floresiensis).

Out of curiosity:

Q1: Who here read the full original paper?

Q2: Dudlow, why so cynical about science?

-A

I don't have a problem with the obvious study that guessed at the probable time of the common ancestor based on retained features. It is absurdly precise at 1.9 million years but I wasn't complaining about that. They have probably been evolving for 2 million years and Morwood seems to think it is likely much longer. The obvious problem is that they have no intermediate fossils since the common ancestor that can be reliably attributed to be an ancestor of floresiensis. That means they can't possibly have a geographic distribution. The time was chosen for political and not rational reasons. They don't want to offend the Out of Africa crowd so they made the date only slightly earlier than other proven finds so they wouldn't get beat up over it. Floresiensis has a common ancestor that is more distantly related than georgicus. That doesn't mean they left Africa 1.9 million years ago. There was a habilis living with erectus 1.6 million years ago in Africa.

Saying that humans didn't make it to the island is just simply nutty. Morwood based that on the lack of cave paintings. If that were true all the caves in South Dakota means that the native Americans aren't modern humans since they didn't paint the walls either.
<edit to add> He also based it on a lack of modern human skeletons and symbolic artifacts and probably other things. That is just a curiosity and not really very good evidence for modern humans not being on the island.

I don't find the evidence of them using tools at all compelling. Them making spears is silly to assume when there are modern humans obviously around. They had been in the area for many tens of thousands of years. What is the rationality for assuming the advanced tools were made by a creature with a brain the size of a chimp.

I must confess, 'Apeman', recently I have read precious few of the complete papers because of the rather high fees these journals typically charge for obtaining their articles and publications. I haven't run into a 'free' read in a long time, other than the obligatory briefs, abstracts and summaries which accompany the larger publications; which I don't find surprising because, from a practical point of view, I realize they have to cover their costs, etc. Then there is the homogenized and pabulumized popular news stand science press which is useful as tinder for my backyard bonfires.

Why so cynical? Because uncertainty seems to have begotten a spurious scientific certainty through what Michael Cremo refers to as 'knowledge filtering'; by which mutual admiration societies among academics and scientists have, through the diffused constraining force of practice, enforced the creation of dominant hegemonies masquerading as the certitude of knowledge.

Personally, poor sheltered soul that I am, I have encountered absolutely no information which convinces me that any one protohominid fossil is in any way related by way of species or descent to any other, either up or down the historical fossil record -- and I assure you it's not because of any quasi-religious persuasion on my part, whatsoever. Sure, there is similarity between bones and structures among fossils, just as there is similarity among numerous other non-species related and presently living animals of many types. Similarity is one thing, but propounding descent of one from another implies a certitude in our ordering of historical ascent and descent which I just don't buy.

So I am delighted in the discovery and scientific wrangling over the Hobbit. But I continue to be wary of pronouncements by science or the press concerning their position on the tree of life.

Excuse me now while I go and fall on my sword.... (Blart)
Dudlow

Within reason I don't think it is brain mass that is as important as brain complexity (assuming all parts could be assumed present as those among larger hominins) in early hominins. Also, an interesting proportional study of body mass versus brain mass or cranial capacity (come fossils) may shed more light into the tool use scenario. Small brained is not the end all of possible tool use scenarios regarding a creature such as floresiensis. Be interested in any other discussion about this matter or references too. See:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/10/fu...h-homini-2.html

Consider the remains associated with these little people. If they weren't making tools and weapons, just how do you think they were conking out the large prey they were taking? Large and dangerous. Large, venomous monitor lizards were about, and even to normal sized humans they present a hazard.

Don't you remember the pictures recently in the news about the orangs that took to spear fishing with sharp sticks, and the things Ms. Goodall wrote about chimps killing and goading prey in tree holes with sharp sticks that they sharpened with their teeth? Chimps and even monkeys use hammer stones to smash open hard nuts they find, similar to crows dropping nuts on hard surfaces from heights to break them open, or seagulls flying high and dropping clams from their claws onto hard rocks to break them open. I personally think its not such a high leap in problem solving from that to using sharpened rocks and pointy sticks to hunt and kill larger game. And it would make sense that using hammer stones to smash open marrow bones, and sharp rock flakes to aid in butchery wouldn't be that far off either. These were bipedal, remember, so they had hands available for such things too, and they were much smarter than chimps.

Hafting, though, the joining together of said pointy rocks and long sticks, was a later development that didn't happen until our own species came along. But we're not talking about hafted tools here, just modification of stones to enhance tool use.

Also consider what it took for these little people to get to this island. I don't think they were such good swimmers that they could get there by swimming, they must have made some kind of floating craft that would carry enough of them to have a viable breeding population.

Interesting subject and not to take it off topic, but...
Good point, Bipedalist, regarding amount of brain (or size) versus complexity of structure, though I did just read something relevant to that. It turns out that size and structure aside, the proportion of gray-matter to the rest of the brain (white matter) is significant in that ther ratio of this in the brain is about the same as yhe percentage of gray matter to the other neural cells in the spinal column and leading out towards the systems they control. The gray matter is particularly associated with shorter/more precise/deft movement of limited force, while the other more typical neural material directs responses to be kind of "full on" or "completely off", thereby accounting, by speculation, for the relatively jerky and powerful movements we see in other animals, even the ones we consider intelligent and relatively big brained, like chimps. Regardless of whether an intelligent creature could imagine making a tool, the kind of deftness needed to make something that required a degree of precision, such as a projetile point or using flakes as components to a kind of saw blade or sharp weapon, had to have the kind of control that comes from having enough gray matter...and whether that's a strict percentage of a specific quantitiy, I'm not sure. I wonder if the endocast of the cranium's interior or the contour of the foramen through which nerve bundles pass could suggests anything.I found while searching around for theories as to why animals muscles seem so strong in comparison to human muscles across the board, and that was the leading contender from my perspective.
PS...also, the human muscles of our limbs, it was noticed that as they are bundled together are markedly shorter and in smaller packets while the chimps were longer and had more muscles per bundle, which I thought was also interesting.

I think the remains of the pygmy elephants were scavenged from modern humans. That would very easily explain them. Killing elephants requires more than sharpened sticks. Many of the more advance tools have been discounted so it makes my problem with the tools less important. I just found the statement about modern humans not being on the island highly unlikely so I think there was an agenda behind making that statement as if it were a fact. Making scrappers and using flakes isn't that big a deal but you don't kill very effectively with them. I just don't think they use them because there were modern humans around. They are just ignoring the stone tools as evidence for modern humans and assigning it to hobbits.

A small number of modern humans would leave many flakes over the thousands of years they are excavating. It is much easier to believe that modern humans left the stone tools than having a group of hominids with stone technology existing on the island. People just wouldn't allow them to exist on the same island if they were that dangerous. The stories of Ebu Gogo also influence that judgment and so does their likely ancient ancestry.

A lot of stone age societies killed large herding beasts by ambush and driving toward a drop. The Inuit would build man-shaped stone images on the hills surrounding Caribou valley migration routes, then it would take only a few men, women and kids waving arms in between them to drive the animals into a panic and into an ambush or off a drop. The hunters would then finish off the wounded and there would be a big butcher session, feast, and then of course a lot of time spent slicing the meat thin and drying it for winter storage. In the tropics that wouldn't be required.

The Mbambuti or forest pygmies of central Africa use hunting nets that they weave out of roots and vines. Again, the women and children drive and ambush the animals into the waiting nets. Ingenious and doesn't even require stone tools. Homo erectus remains in Asia were seldom associated with stone tools, probably because bamboo did just as well. But bamboo doesn't last thousands of years.