Hobbit fossil not what it seems, say researchers

DRAWING BY JILL SEAGARD, COURTESY THE FIELD MUSEUM

On the left is the Hobbit skull, found on the Indonesian island of Flores. It is disturbingly similar to the one on the right (from the Royal College of Surgeons in London) of a modern adult human who suffered from microcephaly.

The skull and bones of a small human found on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003 are not that of a new hominid but more likely belonged to a victim of microcephaly, a pathological condition that causes small brain size, says a report published today in the May 19 issue of Science magazine.

While the scientific community has enthusiastically embraced the idea that Homo floresiensis, nicknamed "the Hobbit," is a newly discovered species of man, scientists led by Robert D. Martin, PhD, of the Field Museum in Chacago say there are too many problems with the theory for it to stand.

Among the most serious is the fact that sophisticated tools associated with modern man, Homo sapiens, were found near the fossil skeleton. Also troublesome is that modern man had undoubtedly reached Flores 18,000 years ago, the age of the Hobbit bones.

As well, earlier attempts to rule out the possibility that the small skull belonged to an adult suffering from microcephaly were flawed, the report says, because the skull was compared to that of a modern child with the disease, when it should have been compared to the skull of a modern adult.

The new report includes a to-scale comparison of the Hobbit skull with that of a modern adult that suffered from microcephaly. The two, published above, are entirely similar.

Dr. Martin is damning in his comments in the report. "There has been too much media hype and too little critical scientific evaluation surrounding this discovery, and it is simply unacceptable that papers should be published without providing proper details of the specimens examined," he says. "The principle of replicability is fundamental to good science, and it has not been respected in this case."

Comments

[Kim Roos]

I can appreciate the concern regarding hasty evidence analysis and thus potential for incorrect information reaching the public, however, having done some research on this topic myself, I was under the impression that there were numerous fossils found together that all exhibited a similar skeltal structure, that of a "hobbit". The evidence presented suggested the possibility of a community of "hobbits". What is the likelihood that numerous individuals were afflicted with microcephaly and all inhabited the same space? I understand where the confusion lies with the presence of Homo Sapien tools in the same area, but is it not possible that there was some type of communication between the two groups that would suggest tool adaptation to environmental pressures and thus changes in function and form of these tools? I would also like to address the comment made by Dr. Martin, that there is not enough evidence to support the theory of a new specie of Homo, however, it is just a theory, as is the propsition of microcephaly as the cause of the small brain size and stature of these remains. There is not enough eveidence to support or disprove either theory. As is always the case in anthropological discoveries, the controversy will continue until more evidence is found that will support either theory.
I am always interested in learning more, and if I am incorrect with any of my statements, I would greatly appreciate the correction. As well, my intent has not been to offend anyone, and if I have done so, then I appologize.