Re: Homo floresiensis
From: Tom McDonald (tmcdonald2672_at_nohormelcharter.net)
Date: 11/07/04
- Next message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Medieval Axemen in New York"
- Previous message: Inger E. Johansson: "Re: One reason why KRS and other Norse artifacts isn't accepted genuine."
- In reply to: Jan den Hollander: "Re: Homo floresiensis"
- Next in thread: Lee Olsen: "Re: Homo floresiensis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:12:06 -0600
Jan den Hollander wrote:
> Martyn Harrison wrote:
>
>> Fascinating discovery as per subject.
>>
>> Two items of significance, for me, the fact that there could still be
>> another
>> intelligent species sharing the planet, obviously.
>>
>> The other, is to do with the reporting that they must have employed
>> ships to
>> get to Flores. I'm not so sure, there is a far amount of island hopping
>> required but the longest stretch of open water, Lombok from Bali,
>> looks to be
>> about 13 miles. This would seem to be feasible with a suitable current
>> and just
>> a log or similar.
>>
>> Either way, it's impressive if there were technology using humans
>> capable of
>> crossing even short stretches of sea a million years ago, which is
>> apparently
>> being touted as the likely arrival date on Flores.
>>
>>
>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1997/50.html
>
>
> please your expert opinion about the news item below:
> Can it be that some overeager scientists put out this story prematurely?
>
>
> http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailheadlines.asp?fileid=20041106.A05&irec=8
>
> <quote>
> RI scientists refute Flores Man finding
>
> Tarko Sudiarno, The Jakarta Post/Yogyakarta
>
> A team of Indonesian scientists refuted on Friday a claim that the
> skeleton of a dwarf-sized human species recently found on the remote
> island of Flores would rewrite the evolutionary history of mankind.
>
> Speaking about the skeleton discovered in a limestone cave at Liang Bua,
> paleoanthropology professor from Gadjah Mada University, Teuku Jacob,
> said the skeleton was not that of a member of a novel race dubbed Homo
> floresiensis by Australian scientists Mike Morwood and Peter Brown, who
> announced their discovery last week.
>
> "The skeleton is not a new species as claimed by these scientists, but
> simply a fossil of a modern human, Homo sapiens, that lived about 1,300
> to 1,800 years ago," Jacob told a press conference.
>
> He said the skeleton was of a member of the Australomelanesid race,
> which had dwelled across almost all of the Indonesian islands.
>
> "So, if they (the Australian scientists) say the skeleton was the
> ancestor of the Indonesian people, forget it," he added.
>
> He acknowledged, however, the skeleton was indeed dwarf-sized with a
> minuscule brain, and therefore, was different from common Homo sapiens.
>
> Jacob said the relatively smaller size of the skeleton was a result of
> the inciter evolution, which took place as an impact of the environment
> -- tiny islands -- in which the species had been living in.
>
> "The brain volume of this human being is estimated at about 380 cc,
> while the brain volume of a normal Homo Sapiens is 1,300 cc for females
> and 1,400 cc for males. With such a small brain size, it's actually even
> smaller than that of a chimpanzee," said Jacob.
>
> The Australian scientists said in the journal Nature on Wednesday of
> last week that the species is thought to be a descendent of Homo
> erectus, which spread out from Africa to Asia about 2 million years ago.
>
> It became isolated on Flores and evolved into its dwarf form to conform
> with local conditions, such as food shortages, they said.
>
> The Australians made the discovery together with their Indonesian
> colleagues.
>
> Contradicting the Australian claim, Jacob said the skeleton was that of
> a male who died when he was 30.
>
> "This finding is based on the shape of the eye socket and the curves of
> the hip bone, which are more like a male's," Jacob explained.
>
> He also criticized the announcement of the discovery without the consent
> of the Indonesian archeologists who participated in the work, saying it
> was unethical.
>
> A similar note was also expressed by Soejono, the head of the National
> Archeology Institute, who said the Australians should have involved them
> when making the announcement considering that none of the Australian
> scientists were present at the time of the discovery.
>
> Soejono said Indonesian archeologists had started the research work back
> in 1976 but were forced to halt it in the wake of the 1997 financial
> crisis.
>
> "We continued the research later on by involving a team from Australia
> before we discovered the skeleton in September. We didn't immediately
> announce it because we needed to study the fossil," said Soejono.
>
> The two Indonesian archeologists said that the skeleton could not be
> considered a fossil, but a sub-fossil.
>
> "We would call it a fossil if everything has hardened. But we were able
> to find soft tissue so that we could carry out a DNA test. We couldn't
> do that if it was already a fossil," said Soejono.
> </quote>
>
I think that this journalistic article is interesting. There
may be something to the story that needs to be added beyond the
science.
However, this article is not scientific. I await their
publication of their findings in a journal of at least the
stature of Nature. Then we may have something.
-- Tom McDonald http://webpages.charter.net/tsmac/tmcdonald2672/
- Next message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Medieval Axemen in New York"
- Previous message: Inger E. Johansson: "Re: One reason why KRS and other Norse artifacts isn't accepted genuine."
- In reply to: Jan den Hollander: "Re: Homo floresiensis"
- Next in thread: Lee Olsen: "Re: Homo floresiensis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
