The Discovery of the Hobbit
In 2004 a remarkable archaeological discovery was made by a joint team of Indonesian and Australian researchers, Raden Pandji Soejono and Mike Morwood.
Their research revealed a tiny, one metre high adult hominid. It was found on the Indonesian island of Flores. Like some of the other discoveries we have discussed in other units in the course, it has forced a complete re-think of how we view our past.
It seems that on this island, for thousands of years, evolution ran a different course in isolation.
Alas, like many other areas of human endeavour, personalities and politics also came to the fore amid professional jealousies, outright disbelief amongst some of their peers and much robust debate.
|
The Hobbit skull next to an adult human skull. |
The questions
Originally, the two main researchers drew up six questions that they intended to research:
When did hominids first arrive in Asia?
When and why did early hominids (such as Homo erectus) become extinct?
When and how did modern humans first appear?
When and why did people start cultivating plants and domesticating animals?
When and why did technological changes such as the introduction of ground tools, pottery and metal occur, and what was their impact?
What major environmental changes occurred during the time span of hominid occupation and what were their impacts?
Needless to say, these are an ambitious project!
 |
A range of skills
A project on this scale required the recruitment and coordination of people with a wide range of skills - everything from dating to pollen analysis, anatomy and more basic things like the skills to shore up deep excavations with timber to prevent collapse.
It became apparent that earlier researchers often stopped digging after 2-3 metres because trenches became too dangerous. Equally, earlier dating techniques often stopped around 40,000 years, not because no existed before that, but because dating techniques were in their infancy and could not be relied upon with any certainty for older dates.
Even getting the project off the ground took many years with Mike Morwood developing contacts and gaining permission in various parts of Indonesian society. This ranged from getting the highest ranking archaeologist on side to paying 'commission' to government officials to smooth the path at times.
After several years (he really started in 1996), the project finally got off the ground in 2001 and research began. After dealing with the higher levels in Indonesia, he then had to negotiate with the local people in the area. Little things like not paying excessive wages for locally employed excavation staff - twice the standard wage was deemed correct. Higher and the locals would view you either as stupid, or so rich you could be exploited even more.
As you can see from all the above issues, getting an ambitious archaeological dig up and running takes a huge range of skills - lots of them nothing to do with archaeology! In the lesson on Richard Leakey, you can see similar things arising. Richard originally had no formal training in archaeology, but very good skills in logistics and the management of research teams in remote places. Same story on a different continent. |
Why the name 'Hobbit'?
Size really, and the fact that they lived in caves.
In 2003, the first specimen found was an adult woman who dies 18,000 years ago and was only 1 metre tall. Scientific name Homo floresiensis.
She challenges us because she is so unexpected, and because she does not fit with many preconceptions about how humans evolved and
behaved and what they should look like.
|
|
The ramifications
Apart from forcing a rethink of a lot of established ideas. The initial publication of the find occurred both in 'Nature', a peer-reviewed journal of high standing, and National Geographic, with a more popular article.
The responses were dramatic and wide ranging, from disbelief to acceptance, but also power-plays and jealousies came to the fore. For a period of time the Indonesian researcher took the remains and refused to allow any further examination. This of course provided ammunition for those who were disbelievers.
At the present time the remains are now available to the wide research community and the general consensus is that they are quite valid, especially as more examples of skeletons have come to light after further research.
What have we learned from all this?
Human nature does not change which inevitably leads to jealousy and conflict. More importantly, archaeological researchers must always be ready to consider different views of the world. A major issue with very old archaeological remains is that there are so few of them. This can give you a skewed view of the evidence and one needs to be wary of drawing too many conclusions from limited evidence.
What is the latest in the debate over the true nature of Homo floresiensis?
Using the Internet and any other resources, find out how the debate is going right now.
Try to assess what is the general consensus among paleontologists about the authenticity of the 'new species'.
Beware of information from sites which do not have scientific credibility.
Did you find sites which are, in your opinion, misusing this find and debate for their own philosophical goals?
What is being reported in the mass media? How accurate do you believe those reports to be?
You have a unique opportunity to follow a major paleoanthropology debate as it unfolds. Nothing could give you a better idea of the way the origins of early man are being argued.
