Re: Tele-hobbits start small war

From: rmacfarl (rmacfarl_at_alphalink.com.au)
Date: 02/18/05 

Date: 17 Feb 2005 21:28:55 -0800

However, the flip side to the above can be found here (credit to Su
Solomon):
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=9&t=80&m=95

It's a translation of a letter to an Indonesian newspaper by Jacob
himself. The unfortunate thing is that if, as it appears, this whole
debate is devolving into an Australia vs Indonesia national pride
debacle, & further exacerbated by the MREH vs. OOA usual suspects, it
will do no one any credit in the long run...

Ross Macfarlane

To EvC only: A translated comment from Teuku Jacob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is my unauthorized translation of an article in Kompas (an
Indonesian national newspaper), 15 December 2004, written by Prof.
Teuku Jacob as a reaction to recent attention towards his actions. Just
to give the other side of the story.
-----
Kompas, 15 December 2004

Conflict from Flores: Storm in a Teacup

Teuku Jacob

In the last two months, the international media had been clamouring
over Flores man, acclaimed as a new species and considered as the most
important human fossil discovery in the last 50 years.

The news had been so spectacular, for it was announced in Nature, a
prominent scientific journal based in London. Newspaper, radio, and
television journalists pounced at the announcement and added
sensational bits to the story. For the sake of publicity the Australian
scientists disregard their government's travel warning.

The discovery comes from archaeological excavations in the limestone
cave of Liang Bua ('Cold Cave') in west Flores by a joint
Indonesian--Australian team from the Indonesian Centre of
Archaeological Research and the University of New England, under the
coordination of Prof. Soejono and Dr. Morwood. The former is a senior
Indonesian prehistorical archaeologist and the latter is an Australian
expert of prehistoric cave paintings. The fossils (subfossils) were
studied directly by Australian physical anthropologist Dr. Brown and
indirectly by English palaeoanthropologist Dr. Stringer, from data sent
by Brown.

Their conclusion from one studied specimen is to propose a new species,
"Homo floresiensis", which had close affinities with Homo habilis of
3--4Ma (mega-annum, millions of years) which lived in East Africa. In
the proposed evolutionary tree, "H. floresiensis" is the direct
descendant of H. habilis and underwent evolutionary insular dwarfing,
hence its small head, half the size of the chimpanzee brain, and small
stature of 1 metre. It is capable of making stone tools in the form of
flakes and blades. There are several designations for its antiquity
(13Ka, 18Ka, 36Ka, and 95Ka; Ka=kilo-annum, thousands of years),
obtained by several dating methods. A lot of experts doubt the
reliability of the OSL method.

Therefore it is no surprise that palaeoanthropologists, archaeologists,
anatomists, anthropologists and Quarternary geologists were shocked.
Creationists, those who were against the theory of evolution and
holding on to their literal interpretation of the Bible (Protestant
creationists) and the Quran (Islamic creationists) used the opportunity
to launch an attack to the evolutionists, whom they consider to
interpret the finding by their own whim.

The emerging scepticism is not without reason. There are seven
skeletons discovered (probably more, since there are other unprepared
bones in the matrix), but the discoverers had only studied one of them
to make their conclusions. The LB1 skeleton was designated as the
holotype, the hypodigm over which the paradigm stands. Why was it
compared against H. habilis specimens that is so far separated from it
in time and space? Why not compare it with other findings from Liang
Toge, Liang Momer, or Liang Panas (other cave sites in Flores)? Is
evolution reversible: can the brain get smaller, and then larger again?

Does the similarities with Homo erectus imply a close affinity with the
mentioned species? Is it not a case of microencephaly (small brain)
causing the forehead to be not filled? The pentagonal shape of the
skull implies a small cerebellum; is this not caused by an
underdevelopment of the cerebral skin and cerebellar parts?

Is micrognathy (reduction of jaw) not the cause of the unreduced
dentition and the unprotruding lower part of the mandible? The
dentition clearly shows that the specimen belongs to Homo sapiens, with
features such as agenesis (unrooted), rotation and close-packing of the
teeth, whilst archaic features are not shown.

The Laboratory of Bio- and Palaeoanthropology at Universitas Gajah Mada
has worked together with the Indonesian Centre of Archaeological
Research since the 1960s. Palaeoanthropological materials were usually
sent to Yogyakarta and archaeological finds sent to Jakarta. The
cooperation went well all the time without any disturbance. Later a
radiometry laboratory was built in Bandung. Skeletons from
archaeological digs sent to Yogyakarta comes from all over the islands,
from Sumatera to Irian.

The Yogyakarta lab focuses on Middle Pleistocene human fossils although
there are some older and younger material. We kept almost a third of
all H. erectus fossils in the world, and many people earned their
degrees studying them here. However, not many Indonesians are
interested because this field is outcompeted by faster tracks to
materialistic success.

Researchers from the Yogyakarta lab has not actually been involved with
the Liang Bua excavation. The author had once done some research on
fossil humans from Flores caves stored in the Netherlands, which are
the discoveries of Pater Verhoeven at the 1950s, and colleagues from
the Yogyakarta lab once studied specimens from Liang Bua, excavated by
Dr. Soejono from 1978 to 1989. The involvement of the Yogya lab with
the 2003--2004 Liang Bua discoveries began when before Ramadan of 1424
H Prof Soejono asked for the team to study the LB1 skull. I was ill and
bedridden at that time, but from the photo shown the skull appeared
like an infrahuman primate; however it was still partly encased in its
matrix and not photographed by anthropological standards. In July this
year, Prof Soejono approached us again, asking to collect the
discoveries, and the head of the Centre of Archaeological Research
would provide funds for transport. I agree that younger and hard-won
researchers should get the opportunity to study the new findings,
instead of leaving it to foreign researchers.

There is some irony when an Australian expert, whom Prof. Soejono had
only known for several years, asked him whether the author, whom Prof.
Soejono had known for 40 years, is can be trusted. That chap needs to
look into the mirror because the Yogya lab has been deceived three
times.

Australian journalists report that the Australian researchers were
unhappy with the fossils being taken to Yogyakarta. Their counterparts
also dislike the idea of the study being based in Yogyakarta. Foreign
journalists, especially Australian, were informed, and I was barraged
by cynical, naïve, and conspiracy-accusing questions concerning the
acquisition of the bones: whether it will be returned, will it be worth
studying, would other people be allowed to see it, whether I was the
only person disagreeing with its designation as a new species, why it
is not studied in Jakarta, whether this is a turf war between
scientists, and others. It should be noted that there are also many
knowledgeable and objective people among the foreign journalists.

Some of the questions show their shallow understanding of the field.
Some does not understand the difference between archaeology and
palaeoanthropology. Others thought that palaeoanthropological studies
do not need supporting material as facilities for reconstruction and
comparative material such as ape and modern human skeletons, fossils,
relevant literature, and others.

Threats and intimdation, even bribery and pressure will not make our
Yogyakarta team budge. Research funding does not entitle that the
donors may put their noses into the internal affairs of a country.
There is no 'deputy sheriff' of archaeology for South East Asia that
can push people around. I know that archaeological digs are prohibited
in Australia because the native Australians consider their ancestors'
graves as sacred, and many early findings had been reburied (I once was
asked for help concerning this matter), therefore Australian
archaeologists (which is continually produced) are forced to wander off
to South East Asia (which is rich in ancient artefacts) and the south
Pacific; so the turf war, if there is any such thing, is actually a
turf conquest by latter-day conquistadors.

If not for the long-term good relationship with the Centre of
Archaeological Research, the Yogya team is content with our H. erectus
fossil collection. Many foreign students had studied at the Yogya
laboratorium before; therefore the accusation that our collection is
off-limits is very upsetting.

Since the fossils are now being studied it is obvious that it cannot be
anywhere else; it should not be passed around. The loan is for research
purposes and I respects the terms, which also specifies that it cannot
be displayed at will. Important fossils are not normally shown off to
every passing tourist; even research postgraduate students need
recommendation from their professors to gain access. Important
collections need curators that know how to take care of fossils and who
should be allowed to study them. Those foreign journalists might want
to try and ask if they can see and get their hands on human fossils
stored in Western institutions.

To get a balanced view, we should not just read Australian papers but
inquire other sources. I received many phone calls, facsimiles, e-mails
from around the world, including some from Australia which agrees with
my opinion.

There is one Australian who wanted to force us to return all
archaeological human remains back to the Centre for Archaeological
Research. These are quite a large lot, because it would include
collections dating back to 1963. and they took a lot of space. See how
he tries to pressurize us, claiming that he would get the Australian
government involved.

About the Liang Bua bones, our preliminary conclusions are as follows.
Maybe two of them were actual insular dwarfs, as the dwarf Stegodon
timorensis. At least one suffers from primary microcephaly, with
microcrany, microencephaly, and micrognathy, which caused mental
retardation, a disruption in brain growth especially on the forehead
and cerebellum, giving a passing resemblance to H. erectus and H.
ergaster skulls.

The cranial capacity seems to be larger than what had been announced;
we also obtained a larger height estimate than 106cm. I presume the
Liang Bua fossils are related to the Liang Toge skull, which was
considered a proto-Negrito by Verhoeven (although I do not agree with
Verhoeven's designation).

Establishing a new taxon is not easy. New species must be proposed on
the basis that it is a different morphological and biological complex
from other taxa, therefore implying reproductive isolation.
Paleopathology remains an open option; other factors such as
geochronology, archaeostratigraphy, and palaeodemography should also be
considered.

In closing, do not consider the discovery of the dwarf Flores man as
irrelevant. There are microcephalic fossils from thousands and hundreds
of years ago discovered in Europe and South America.

The whole story of the Liang Bua findings had been blown out of
proportion, creating a storm in a teacup. Prof. Tjia from Kuala Lumpur
sent me a fax that said:

I (and Mrs.) support Pak Jacob's actions. At least it will keep some of
the "cultural adventurers" comments in check. Many among them are just
eager to make "surprises"--whether correct or not--and they often
consider local experts as incapable... Our people should be in control
of the material...,"

Kompas in November quoted Prof. Moendarjito, Prof. Sedyawati, and Drs
Arief Rahman the head of UNESCO Indonesia, as being concerned that the
Flores findings will be transported to Australia.

Teuku Jacob. Professor Emeritus of Palaeoanthtropology, Universitas
Gajah Mada, Yogyakarta.

Relevant Pages