This week we learned about the discovery of both Neanderthals and Homo floresiensis that have affected how today we view records on human evolution and fossils. Both are very interesting and deciding which to cover was a bit difficult. I eventually went with Homo floresiensis also known as “hobbit” which was discovered in 2004 on Flores, Indonesia. They were assumed to have lived approximately between 100,000 to 50,000 years ago. At one point they were thought to have lived up to about 13,000 years ago but this has been recently disproved.
So why are they interesting to study? These isolated species really gave me a deeper understanding of how Homo erectus and Homo ergaster transitioning led to eventually us modern humans. Their physical description for instance really stood out to me. Their height being at merely three feet tall was that of similarity with Lucy, an australopithecine! Not only were they short in stature, but they also had a relatively small brain size as well. Despite having primitive features, Homo floresiensis is still considered to be a branch of of the homo erectus. I could not understand at the time, why were they so relatively small? I soon began to paint a picture of how living in on an isolated island creates a limited amount of resources leading to mammals- like the Homo floresiensis- to get smaller a phenomenon called evolutionary dwarfism.
Even with their small brain cavity, they were still capable of creating tools to hunt small gain. How do we know that they used tools? There are several factors, but the most noticeable way is the association with processed animals. Their bones contain important information for instance having a series of visible parallel striation are considered to be evidence indicating tools used to hunt this animal.
Another important detail comes from the article titled “How a Hobbit is Rewriting the History of the Human Race”, where researchers found the skull of a Homo Floresiensis, presumed to be descendent of the Homo erectus as well as an australopithecine. Another theory circulating that was later disproved was that the small stature was not due to evolutionary dwarfism but that they had always been small from the very beginning.
This discovery shocked me because we think we might be very sure of our finding but later another discovery can literally throughout everything we thought we knew. I can now understand why they are suggesting to rename African branch as homo ergaster because of the split species into multiple groups. It can get you confused when dealing with a skeletal remain might have some features that do not correspond with a homo erectus. I surely could not do the work they do because I do not have the patience too.
Overall, I think it is interesting to see how we have evolved in different ways. It has me thinking of today in ways we are still currently changing. I remember watching a recent tv show called “Gordan Ramsay: Uncharted”, where he has to cook in high mountains for the indigenous people in Peru. It is interesting to see how capable our body is to adapting to our environment.
Hey Silvia!
I definitely agree with you when you said that you would never be able to do the work that these anthropologists do, it would get very frustrating very fast, based on how meticulous it is. I also thought that it was really interesting that we have this branch of Homo that was discovered and it kind of turns our idea of human evolution on its head. It’s so weird to think about how little we might not know about our own evolution, and that we are still evolving today, constantly. Reading your post and going through this week’s lesson kind of makes me wonder about where humans are headed in terms of evolution next, you know? What other changes will come our way?
Hi, it is interesting to call the Homo floresiensis hobbit. It is like to establish some connections between an ancient group with some modern culture or popular culture terms. It could strengthen our understanding of Homo floresiensis. The name hobbit reminded us that in terms of height, this branch of the Homo genus is quite short. The Homo floresiensis has not only small body, but also small brains. Because of their small brain, I think their intellectual level is not as high as the Neanderthals. Also, according to the tools discovered in their sites, they could only make and use the simple Oldowan-like tools, which is the most primitive type known in the archaeological record. I think maybe because their ancestors were isolated in the small islands in Indonesia, so they have been isolated from the competition and the evolution of the outside world.
Hello, Silvia! I was also so interested in the information on Homo floresiensis for the same reason- I didn’t understand why this species was so important in understanding the evolution of humans. Based on their physical appearance (and brain size), they seemed so far and different from how humans look now. The other species made more sense to me because they were more similar physically. However, Homo Floresiensis provides us information on human characteristics beyond how we look, such as adaptability. As you mentioned, this species was so small in height because of their environment and its limited resources. The evolutionary adaptation is still present today as many groups of humans around the world are built or look different in order for survival in their environment.
Hi silvia! I loved reading your blog about the Homo floresiensis! I, along with many others, did ours on the neanderthals so it was interesting to read your opinion on the floresiensis. Part of why I didnt write mine on them is that I was confused, just as you, why they were as small as they were and still used to help explain our existence. Their height baffled me, but the reason for it makes total sense. The concept of evolutionary dwarfism due to limited resources does seem very plausible, but then it makes me ask the question, if a group of humans were to become isolated for that long of time on an island, would they eventually become smaller as well? so its hard for me to believe that the environment caused their height but also hard for me to picture them always being that small.