From my previous coursework in anthropology, including in my class Introduction of Archaeology this past Spring semester, I had some background knowledge of Neanderthals. So for this week’s blog post I thought it would be interesting to give myself the challenge of focusing on and studying on a different type of hominid I was not already familiar with. I had never heard of Homo floresiensis before this week in physical anthropology. On a related note but sort of a tangent, I wonder how the media portrays these discoveries or advancements in understanding our history and if they are factually inaccurate. They must not be front-page news or a main focus to talk about, since I had never heard of them, even in my studies so far. However, that is not to say that these Archaic humanlike species are any less important as a puzzle piece to our story, but rather I think that the rarity that comes with findings like these should be treasured. Maybe they raise plenty more questions, but they also helped to make the greater picture a bit clearer.
When discovered, H. floresiensis were thought to be much more recent than actually are. I think that with science and other advancements, we have learned otherwise. Not only did this hominid species give us an idea of where some of our ancestors lived and at what time, but they pushed further technological advancements to figure that out. Furthermore, this species was so interesting as some things seemed almost contradictory or surprising to anthropologists. They were short for their time period, had a small brain, and primitive features like long arms, yet they used stone tools and hunted animals for food. While these things were almost funny to the professionals in the field who were trying to place the species in our history and on our timeline, their hypothesis to explain the contradictions that were present in this species was evolutionary dwarfism. I thought this was supported by the presence of this phenomenon even today, as the lecture stated was commonplace for isolated environments.
I think that, even though this species was isolated, a lot could be found about them and in relation to their place on our human timeline, as well as what they can tell us about us! Obviously, having a larger brain would be advantageous. As we migrated and expanded our home, our brains grew larger to accommodate learning more. Or at least, that is how I understand it and interpret it from a biological advantage point of view. This might help to make sense of how Homo floresiensis might have had a smaller brain. If they were isolated on an island, they had all the stuff they needed right in there to survive while they did. Knowing how to navigate the island and hunt took up their mental capacity because maybe that is all they needed/all they knew. A reason why they did not survive ultimately could be due to the isolation and more specifically, the lower mental capacity/smaller brain. As the lecture stated, “archeological evidence suggests we derived our advantage from our brains.” So, while Homo floresiensis may not have lived long or far, they helped prove our adaptations/advantages to become who we are now.
Hi Alivia!
I found your post to be very interesting as you went into such depth regarding the species Homo floresiensis as well as the information it provided and furthering of the field it catalyzed. I personally chose to focus on Neanderthals in my own blog post, and thus the information you presented allowed me the ability to advance my understanding of this relatively unfamiliar species. Your mentioning of the incongruent nature Homo floresiensis seemed to possess, including its inept physical form contrasted with its ability to use stone tools and hunt large animals, was immensely interesting. It also lends itself to the further questioning of just what exactly enables a species to complete specific tasks, as Homo floresiensis also possessed a small brain and had regressive features for its time, which are characteristics one would typically assume to result in less than advanced traits. Much of the information revolving around this species allows for more questions to be posed and more research to be conducted, which highlights the continuation of this field as a necessity for understanding ever-changing discoveries.
Brinley,
I completely agree with what you said! I think the point you made about how the Homo floresiensis species leading to more questions being asked stuck out to me the most from your blog post response to my own from this week. I think that this is absolutely the case, and it even goes to show how we have long thought about our relationship to other species, our environments, and our future. This was something I had originally thought about mentioning in my initial blog post this week, but I did not want it to be too long! Basically, the point of me wanting to say that about raising questions was the very last point you made in your response about our continuous search to understand.
You are correct about the amount of information that is provided out there about Homo floresiensis, as I was unaware as well until this class. I don’t have a background in anthropology, but I did take a class on Evolution, so it is interesting to learn the key role they play in this evolutionary puzzle, and yes – why isn’t it more important. Having a small brain unlike more evolved hominins, but still having the capacity to use tools and hunt for food leads me to believe they had to have some form of communication or organization within groups. Evolution dwarfism is a likely influence for their disappearance, being isolated from other populations and resources, but it will be interesting to see if anthropologists can uncover anymore information connecting our lineage.