Legend of the Hairy Man

Hey there every peoples!

I had meant to write this sooner, but the 2011 MLG finals were the first distraction. The winner and champion was Leenok (who’s Korean, go figure. But seriously, he beat some of the best players in the world, he earned it) with Naniwa coming in second. Plus i had get the house ready for thanksgiving and i even got a liver biopsy. On top of that, i have been trying to prep marine invertebrates i found up at Shell Creek Road, which hasn’t been easy ( the initial dirt is easy to get off, but once you get to the fossil, you have to contend with this hard sandstone that i can barely etch away with my little dental picks). But i managed to find this pocket of time between now and finals to write about an intriguing aspect of one of science’s more peculiar debates. I am talking about the debate over the existence of Bigfoot.

Now i’ll admit that i kinda follow cryptozoology as a bit of a side interest. While Darren Naish has shown that there can be legitimate, more grounded research into cryptids (unknown animals. He does this mainly by trying to find actual animals that could have been the inspiration for cryptids, like their hypothesis that Caddy was just a misidentified pipefish), scientists and believers alike are constantly butting heads over the validity of mystery creatures. Scientists mostly flat out reject the possibly that there are large, undiscovered animals that have managed to elude us. Now this rejection seems just when you consider the more outlandish cryptids out there (Mothman, claimed to be an alien; The Flatwoods Monster, another alleged alien who attacks with poison gas; The Loveland Frogman, a large, human shaped amphibian; and Mokele Mbembe, a surviving sauropod reputed to dwell in the deep recesses of the Congo). But what about some of these other beasts who appear to have a heftier set of evidence?

Bigfoot falls into the later category. While many would call it all bunk, Bigfoot appears to have a lot of evidence going for him. The multitude of tracks that have been found (including the Skookum cast, a possible body impression complete with possible ass print, as well as the “Cripple Foot” tracks, a set of over 1000 tracks that consistently suggested a sasquatch with a club foot), strange calls recorded in the night, possible dna evidence, and a handful of photographic and video documentation. None of this evidence has proved more contentious than the Patterson Footage. Believers, skeptics, and special effects artists have revisited the film countless times to either prove it’s real or that it’s just a shameless hoax. I will not weigh in as this is something above my intellectual pay grade. (i would like to note that in science eyewitness testimony is treated as the lowest form of evidence.  And yet when someone claims that they hoaxed the film, skeptics just take them at their word, without requiring any corroborating evidence. Just feels like a double standard to me.) I’m here to discuss another, harder to dismiss area of evidence: the archaeological record.

America’s fascination with Bigfoot began in 1958 when a bulldozer operator found strange footprints on his construction site in Bluff Creek, California. One Ray Wallace later claimed to have faked the tracks and skeptics claim that this proves Bigfoot is not real. But what about stuff that predates the Bigfoot craze? There are reports from the late 19th/ early 20th centuries (including one by Theodore Roosevelt, an avid outdoors-man ), but again, science disregards eyewitness testimony. So this is where the archaeological record comes in. If we found precolumbian art that depicts tall hairy humanoids, would that lend support to the existence of large, bipedal apes living in North America? Let’s find out.

The first artifact in our investigation is the “Hairy Man” pictographs (their Yokut name is Mayak datat, which translates as “hairy man”. They have another name for the creature: Shoonshoonootr, one of the few natives words to literally translate as “big foot”). This set of rock art in east central California seemingly depicts three of these hairy giants. They are believed by some to represent a male, female, and juvenile Bigfoot. It’s easy to see why: The male is drawn with a tall body with long arms attached to a broad chest. The female has short arms but is nonetheless tall. The baby is proportioned like the female with short arms and a tall body.

The "Hairy Man" Pictographs from California. The child is on the left, the female to it's right, and the male dominates the right side of the panel.

All three figures have fingers and toes and share a very similar body plan. These creatures even feature in the Yokut’s Creation Story; Kathy Moskowitz, an anthropologist who has documented Native American legends about hairy humanoids, notes that this is unique and that no other tribe has a bigfoot-like creature in it’s creation story. But the more important aspect of the “Hairy Man” is how old it is. Dating rock art can be tricky. Many scientists have dated the art and their estimates vary quite a bit. The current range of age is between 2000 and 700 years old. That means rock art can’t be modern graffiti (also because it shows obvious signs of weathering) and more importantly, they existed long before America’s image of Bigfoot came about.

Next items on the list: effigies. An effigy is basically any type of carving or sculpture that is made in the likeness of a human, an animal, or a supernatural force. First, let’s get a couple of those masks from the Pacific Northwest out of the way:

Possible Sasquatch mask from the Pacific Northwest

Possible Sasquatch mask from the Pacific Northwest

Possible Sasquatch mask from the Pacific Northwest

Those are the most commonly featured in discussions about Bigfoot. But there are a couple other examples that are equally intriguing. One is a set of seven stone heads discovered along the Columbia River in Oregon. The heads have features commonly seen in apes:

Ape-like effigy discovered along Oregon's Columbia River

How would Native Americans know what a primate’s face looks like, seeing as the nearest monkeys live thousands of miles away in Mesoamerica? It is certainly an intriguing aspect, but in my search for images of these stone heads, i also found this:

Supposed mountain sheep effigy

This effigy has primate like features, but the sign says it depicts a mountain sheep. I don’t know if this is from the set found in Oregon. If it isn’t then is it possible that the Columbia River effigies represent sheep as well? Unlikely, at least a bit. Some of the Columbia River effigies have sagittal crests. The sagittal crest is a ridge of bone that provides more area to attach heavy jaw muscles. This helps give predators a more powerful bite but does the same for herbivores. Whether carnivore or herbivore, though, the males in such species use that stronger bite in fights with other males. Sagittal crests are found in many different kinds of animals. They are not found in sheep but are well known in primates, especially the great apes.

And then there is this effigy, which i also found in a search for images of the Columbia River Effigies:

A possible Bigfoot effigy from New Paltz, New York

Possible Bigfoot effigy from New Paltz, New York

This came from over at Cryptomundo. The head was found in New Paltz, New York, in 1932. William Bayer dug up the unusual carving when i was 9 years old. He estimates it was at a depth of 4 feet when he found it and that no other artifacts accompanied it. This appears to most blatantly embody people’s reports of Bigfoot, right down to the tall sloping forehead.

However, one detail makes its authenticity suspect. As one of the commenters pointed out, the eyes don’t match the patina of the rest of the head. They look they were carved after the artifact gained it’s patina. Was this caused by carelessness during cleaning or was someone trying to make the eyes stand out more? We may never know. In archaeology, just like it is in paleontology, context is everything. Artifacts need collateral data about where they were found, how deep, if there were any other artifacts associated with it, any possible outside factors that could have affected burial deposition. Since the discoverer of the New York effigy didn’t keep a detailed written record, dating it will prove very difficult. Dating will be even harder considering that no other artifacts were found alongside it; archaeologists can use certain artifacts to date a site (in the Southwest, archaeologists have created a chronology based on pottery. The styles are so varied throughout time  that just one potsherd could date a site). Since this is the only possible Bigfoot effigy in the east, trying to date it based on style would prove difficult as well. Similar problems would also plague the Columbia River effigies (I don’t know if they were collected amateurishly or professionally).

Finally, there are Native American stories. Kathy Moskowitz has compiled a whole book detailing tales from across North America that all have one thing I common: they all describe tall, hairy, human-like creatures. They are described as giants, thieves, and eaters of humans. Even the Inuits of the far north have tales of such creatures. How is it that just about every culture in native America could have stories about the same creature? Could it be that this is just a manifestation of our specie’s ancestral memory, a relic from our primal past? I myself, at least, can’t say for sure. But the most interesting may be the story of the “Hairy Man” in the California pictograph (from “Mayak datat:
An Archaeological Viewpoint of the Hairy Man Pictographs” by Kathy Moskowitz, 2003) :

How People Were Made
All the birds and animals of the mountains went to Hocheu to make People. Eagle, chief of all the animals, asked each animal how they wanted People to be. Each animal took a turn and said what they had to say.

Fish said, “People should know how to swim, like me, so let them be able to hold their breath and swim very deep.”

Hummingbird said, “People should be fast, like me, so let them have good feet and endurance.”

Eagle said, “People should be wise, wiser than me, so People will help animals and take care of the Earth.”

Turtle said, “People should be able to protect themselves, like me, so lets give them courage and strength.”

Lizard said, “People should have fingers, like me, so that People can make baskets, bows and arrows.”

Owl said, “People should be good hunters, like me, so give them knowledge and cunning.”

Condor said, “People should be different from us, so give them hair, not feathers or fur to keep warm.”

Then Coyote said, “People should be just like me, because I am smart and tricky, so have them walk on all fours.”

Hairy Man, who had not said anything yet, shook his head and said, “No, People should walk on two legs, like me.”

All the other animals agreed with Hairy Man, and Coyote became very angry. He challenged Hairy Man to a race, and they agreed who ever won could decide how People should walk.

They gathered at the waterfall, below Hocheu, to begin the race. Coyote started and took a shortcut. Hairy Man was wiser than Coyote and knew that Coyote would cheat to win and People would have to walk on all fours, so Hairy Man stayed behind and helped Eagle, Condor, and the others to make People. They went back to the rock and drew People, on two legs, on the ground. The animals breathed on them, and People came out of the ground. Hairy Man was very pleased and went to People, but when they saw Hairy Man, they were scared and ran away. That made Hairy Man sad. When Coyote came back and saw what they had done, he was very angry and drew himself on the rock eating the moon (he is called Su! Su! Na). All the other animals drew their pictures on the rock as well, so People would remember them. Hairy Man was sad because People were afraid of him, so he drew himself sad. That is why Hairy Man’s picture is crying to this day. That is how people were made.

This creature is counted among animals when humans had not yet been created. Could the “Hairy Man” in fact be based on a real animal, a creature who looks like a hairy human? Of course, mythical animals need no basis in reality (though sometimes that is the case. Centaurs, half human half horse, are thought to have originated when a people encountered another people who rode on horseback, believing the horse and rider to be one creature (that’s certainly the impression the Aztecs had when they first saw Spanish cavalry). Also, it is thought that the myth of the Cyclops, a one-eyed giant, was inspired by ancient discoveries of mammoth skulls). Just because real animals are featured doesn’t mean that this “Hairy Man” is something in our world as cultures the world over often gave everyday animals supernatural powers. But the similarities of these human-like creatures across the vastness of Native American culture certainly can’t be a coincidence. Whether they describe an upright primate or are the product of cultural exchange or racial memory will require more study.

I have heard an argument against the existence of Bigfoot based on the lack of a fossil record. I think it is a decent argument. Believers point to the existence of a giant ape in the fossil record as a possible ancestor of Bigfoot: Gigantopithecus. Gigantopithecus lived in southern Asia during the middle Pleistocene epoch, going extinct around 300,000 years ago. Jeff Meldrom, an anthropologist and probably the most legitimate of Bigfoot researchers, argues that because of its size Gingantopithecus would not have been able to knuckle walk like modern apes and would have only been able to walk upright. But seeing as all we have of Gigantopithecus is a few jaws and lots of teeth, we can’t really say what Gigantopithecus even looked like, let alone how it moved. That, combined with the fact that no fossils have been found younger than 300k years makes Gigantopithecus an unlikely ancestor of Bigfoot. Supporters have mentioned that the lack of a fossil record is no problem for Bigfoot. They claim that Bigfoot’s preferred habitats are mainly in mountainous habitats and high rainfall forests, not exactly ideal places for fossilization. But shouldn’t we have found some fragment by now? We have fossils of bighorn sheep and mountain goats, animals who lived in mountainous terrain. And we even have bones of humans from the late Pleistocene from places like Oregon, California, and Mexico. All these fossils are very scarce and fragmentary and yet we have found them. I think that if Bigfoot is real, we should have found some scrap of fossil bone by now.

So, do these tales and artworks from North America’s archaeological and anthropological record prove the existence of Bigfoot? It might, but it’s an argument on thin ice. Like I said, context is vital and in this day and age stuff is getting easier and easier to fake. And since mainstream researchers almost always brush off Bigfoot stuff as false and unscientific, legitimate study of these relics may never be undertaken. People continue to report seeing these large hairy apes to this day; tracks are still be uncovered; and opinions on the Patterson film shift about as much as stock prices. I for one am open to the existence of Bigfoot but am far from convinced. Like most other science minded folks out there, I would need to see a body, an actual Bigfoot corpse before I accept that Bigfoot is out there. I find the reports, tracks, calls, video, and the native artifacts all intriguing, but not concrete. Perhaps belief in Bigfoot persists because we long for there to still be some mystery in this world. We have filled in the blank regions of the map, named all the large beasts we have encountered, and taken up residence in most habitable (and even some inhabitable) environments. Maybe people believe in Bigfoot for the same reason people believe in religion: they want to believe that we don’t know everything and that there are aspects of our world we have yet to fully explain. It’s certainly possible in this age where science, technology, and society are evolving at an accelerating rate. Maybe Bigfoot represents the hope for one of the last big discoveries we can make on our planet. We may never know. But for now, the search to prove the existence of a large, bipedal ape in the backcountry of North America will go one.

Till next time!

Yes, there is such a thing as bad publicity

At least for those of us with dignity. I was recently contacted by a man from the History Channel. How exciting! Not as much as you may think. He wanted to use my mediocre picture of an African pterosaur for the 3rd season of the show “Ancient Aliens”. My response:

As much as i’d love to see my photos on tv, i’m afraid i have to decline. I detest the subject of the show. It is lowly pseudoscience based on no recognizable form of logic. I think the greatest mystery is how that show made it past the first season. So no, you may not use my photo.

The photo wanted for spreading ignorance and falsehoods

Like i want my photos used to promote such horse shit. I hope to one do a review of that show on my youtube channel. The concept is utterly stupid and deserves nothing but scorn. Just a quick update, I’ll have a better post tomorrow.

Did the Polynesians beat Cabrillo to California? Part 2

In my last post I gave you some background information on the theory that Polynesians voyaged to the new world. Today I will discuss the title question. Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo was a Spanish explorer who was credited as being the first outsider to California. In 1756 he sailed into San Diego harbor, thus ensuring his place in history. He continued up the coast to the Santa Barbara Channel and the Channel Islands. This area was the home of the Chumash people, the subject of this whole two-parter.

The Chumash wereone of the greatest and most sophisticated of California’s tribes. The spanned the Central Coast from Morro Bay in the north to the southern reaches of Ventura County. They had a class system based on wealth. They had a crude economy that used shell beads as currency. They lived in sedentary villages where they harvested acorns, wild seeds, bulbs, cherries, and hunted game on the land while harvesting shellfish, fishing, and hunting marine mammals in the sea. They had a complex cosmology with many myths and vibrant art. Each person had their own specialized craft. They set up extensive trade routes throughout the Central Coast. They played a wide variety of games; they particularly loved gambling games, with the stakes being shell bead money, prized possessions, or even the resolution of political issues; they also had a game called shinny, which resembled modern field hockey (at large ceremonial gatherings, there could be as many as 300 players on the field). Chiefs gained their rank through ancestry and usually had an assistant chief (who could sometimes be a woman), and many tribes came together to form chiefdoms. The Chumash were undoubtedly a fascinating and complex culture.

Though what is often considered their greatest achievement is the tomol, also known as a plank canoe. While most Chumash tribes used canoes for fishing, the plank canoe was particularly common along the Santa Barbara coast, where it was used for trade with the tribes living on the Channel Islands. Accounts from Cabrillo’s voyage talk of how the Chumash paddled out in their canoes to greet the new comers. The tomol could be between 12 and 30 feet long and could take anywhere between 40 days and 6 months to build. The canoe was built from memory and was a laborious undertaking. First wood had to be gathered. Redwood was valued in particular (because it swells when wet) but since it does not grow on the Central Coast they would use pieces that washed up from the north. Once enough wood was collected the pieces would be split into planks ¾ of an inch thick using stone or whale bone chisels. Then the planks would be smoothed with shark skin sandpaper. Pine pitch and tar (two awesome facts about tar: 1. The Chumash word for tar is “Pismu”, which would give Pismo Beach its name; 2. Carpentaria in the early 20th century was the first asphalt mine in the world) were collected and ground, boiled, and then applied to the boards to hold them in place. Then holes would be drilled into each end of the plank where they would be tied together with milkweed fiber. Finally seams were sealed with tule reed and caulked with tar. Canoes were often painted with natural pigments. There was a special group of men called the Brotherhood of the Canoe who specialized in building and operating tomols and wore bearskin robes as a sign of their status. The tomol has almost become a symbol of the Chumash. It is mentioned and portrayed wherever you find the Chumash mentioned and portrayed:

Modern reconstruction of a Chumash tomol or plank canoe at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History

Model of a tomol at the Carpentaria Valley Museum of History

Part of a mural on the side of a building in Lompoc depicting Chumash men paddling a tomol. Mural by Robert Thomas

But to some, this canoe represents a critical piece of evidence in who discovered the new world before Columbus. A couple of experts, Terry Jones and Kathryn Klar, have noticed similarities between Chumash and Polynesian names for the tomol. Tomol is just short hand; the full name is tomolo’o, which Jones and Klar argue is very close to the Polynesian word tumuraa’au. It has further been argued by Jones that the tomolo’o is very similar to plank sewn canoes used in Polynesia. Another expert, Yoshihiko Sinoto sees similarities between Chumash fish hooks and fish hooks from Tahiti.  And I happen to have a little observation (because we all know I am oh so good at that /sarcasm) that may represent another possible link. In 2009 my dad and I took a trip to Painted Rock out in Carrizo Plain National Monument. Painted Rock is a large horseshoe shaped boulder on the northwestern edge of the valley. Inside lies the rock’s namesake: dozens of Chumash rock paintings. The paintings have suffered much from the elements and human carelessness but many are still clear and fascinating to look at. One in particular caught my eye. It was what appeared to be a horned anthropomorphic figure:

A Chumash pictograph portraying a horned anthropomorphic figure at Paint Rock, Carrizo Plain National Monument

It looked vaguely familiar. I felt like I had seen a similar piece of rock art somewhere before. It was only when I got home and looked through some old pictures that I realized where I had seen it before: Kona, Hawaii.

A petroglyph depicting a horned anthropomorphic figure at a site outside Kona, Hawaii

Similar names for similar technology. Fish hooks that bear uncanny resemblances to each other. And a possible link in ancient art forms. This is all tantalizing evidence that Polynesians visited California in the ancient past. But could it be true? About.com notes that implements for making the canoe (like drills, tar, and splitting wedges) have been found at the 8,000 year old Eel Point site on San Celemente Island (how reliable this source is I don’t know). Maybe further discoveries will shed more light on this enigmatic puzzle. The Chumash and the Polynesians continue to be two of my favorite “primitive” cultures. Finding evidence that they once met would be sweet icing on the cake!

Till next time!

Did the Polynesians beat Cabrillo to California? Part 1

Hey there every peoples!

Why do we celebrate Columbus’ so called discovery of the new world? Columbus was an overzealous nut job who made enemies everywhere he went, even driving his own men to mutiny. I guess we made it a holiday to mark the glorious day when the Americas were opened up to the “civilized” world. Except it was a load of crap. Not just the fact that Columbus’ mission was to find new lands to exploit to cover the crown’s debt, but also because he was not the first outsider to make it to the Americas. We have fairly good evidence that in 1000 AD the Vikings made a temporary settlement on the eastern coast of Canada. There is even some evidence (in the form of butternuts) that they may have gone further south into the northeastern United States. While many other ideas have arisen, only one can rival the Vikings legendary voyage.

If I were to ask you who the greatest sailors of the ancient world were, what answer would you give? Would say it was the Phoenicians? Or would you say it was the Chinese? Or maybe it was the aforementioned Vikings? Well what if I told you it was actually the Polynesians? Believe it or not Polynesians were master sailors, able to settle some of the most remote and isolated specs of land on earth using only Stone Age technology. They sailed in massive double hauled canoes capable of carrying dozens of people with cargo. They used charts made of stones (representing islands) and sticks (representing ocean currents) to chart their way across the Pacific. But did they get to the Americas? A growing body of evidence suggests that they did.

A Polynesian style double canoe. They ranged from 36 feet to over 60 feet long. Image from Tahiti1

Sweet potatoes were a major crop for Polynesians but the tuber is not native to the tropical Pacific. It is only found in the Americas. Sweet potato remains from Polynesia were analyzed and were found to be very similar to a variety grown in Ecuador.  An adventurer named Thor Heyerdahl proposed that ancient Peruvians had developed sea travel and spread the sweet potato that way. He even made a boat out of reeds and sailed it to show that such an idea was plausible. His hypothesis was met with much skepticism. But the discovery of bones on Mocha Island off the coast of Chile hinted that instead of Americans venturing out to Polynesia, it was the other way around. The bones bore several Polynesian traits, such as a rocker jaw and a pentagonal shaped cranium. It was tantalizing but far from conclusive. Enter the chicken bones!

Archaeologists digging at a site called El Arenal discovered a cash of chicken bones. Since we know chickens were not found in the new world before the Spanish arrived, the initial conclusion was that the site was post contact. But a few scientists scrutinized the bones and found they had traits of Polynesian breeds. A carbon dating test was applied to the bones and the date came back as being between a.d. 1321 and 1407. The Spanish had arrived on the western coast of South America in 1528. That would mean the bones came from a chicken that lived well before the Spanish conquest. The scientists argued that its genes meant it could only have come from one place: Polynesia. The discovery was so astounding that Archaeology Magazine named the chicken bones one of the top 10 discoveries of 2007.

One of the chicken bones found at El Arenal which bears Polynesian traits. Image from Archeaology.org

The bones immediately aroused controversy. A year later a paper was published that claimed the chickens were European descendants and that the dates may have been wrong. They claimed that dna of modern Chilean breeds have unique markers tying them to European stocks rather than Polynesians. They went on to add that marine sediments could have contaminated the bones, making them appear older than they actually are. A co-author of the original paper countered that further research only confirmed the original suspicions. Isotopes showed that the diet of the chickens was land based, not marine based, thus disproving the contamination idea. And since the dates seem solid, that would mean that the chickens were pre-columbian and hence had to come from somewhere else. (As a side note, they compared the dna of modern breeds. It is possible that breeds introduced by Polynesians were overwhelmed by the ones brought by the Spanish. It may be that the vast numbers of chickens brought by the Spanish could have drowned out the Polynesian traits. Just another random likely false thought by me).

The case for Polynesians making the voyage to South America is mounting. Even though physical evidence is turning up, there is of course the conundrum looming over this debate. Jan T over at Raising Islands puts it very well:

How could the amazing Polynesian voyaging culture have populated virtually every isolated island in the vast Pacific and missed the Americas? Answer, of course: It didn’t. The Polynesians simply failed to settle in the Americas, perhaps because there were already people there.

Take Rapanui (Easter Island) for example. It lies 2500 miles from Chile and 1500 miles from the Marquesas. Rapanui is 63.1 square miles in size. That’s almost 1/8 the size of Los Angeles. How the hell would they have managed to find this small spit of land in the middle of buttfuck nowhere and not be able to find their way to the Americas? It’s looking a lot like they did. What does this have to do with California? I’ll get to that in the next post, since I have gone on for so long I better split it up. Stay tuned for the intriguing conclusion!

Till next time!

The Hobbits of Indonesia

Hey there every peoples!

If you do any kind of search for information on evolution you eventually come across the raging debate surrounding our own origins. Never mind the countless myths and stories cultures have created to explain it (or the one fundies constantly try to foist on everyone else), science has plenty to debate on its own. The evolution of humans is probably one of the most difficult subjects to track in modern science. It seems that almost every bone we manage to tease out of the earth causes us to rewrite the history of early man. One anthropologist characterized the rapidly changing face of human evolution best when she said “I never give the same lecture twice”. And once in a great while a find comes along that so profoundly shakes our family tree that scientists all but draw lines in the sand. Enter “The Hobbit”.

In 2004, a team of paleoanthropologists began excavating in Liang Bua cave on the small Indonesian island of Flores. They were searching for the remains of Homo erectus, an early human ancestor known from other islands in the region. As the team dug through the layers of sediment they found the bones of giants rats, komodo dragons, and dwarf stegodons (ancient relatives of elephants). They also found many stone tools such as awls and scrappers, signs they were looking in the right place. Eventually they came across the skeleton of a small female. Due to the damp conditions it was preserved in, the skeleton had to spend a day drying. Afterwards, when the scientists were able to examine the specimen in better detail, they could not have imagined what they found.


Liang Bua cave, where remains of "The Hobbit" were uncovered. image from Wikipedia

The skeleton was not from a child as originally thought. At a mere 3 feet tall, they scientists had discovered a tiny human who bore a suite of primitive characteristics, including a brain no bigger than a chimpanzee’s. The scientists named her as a new species: Homo floresiensis. As to be expected this set off a firestorm in the press and the scientific community. Critics were quick to try and find an alternative explanation. Some dubbed the specimen as a diseased or malformed child while the tools were created by normal modern humans. Others labeled it as a pygmy modern human, which are known from the Congo. Indeed, an adult human the size of a six year old with a small brain capable of making complex tools was very hard to swallow. The debate only got more intense when remains from seven more individuals, including a complete second jawbone, were found. Could the whole population have been diseased? The controversy grew further still when the remains were dated: the stone tools associated with the diminutive humans were dated to 95,000 years ago; much more provocatively, the bones of the small woman were dated to just 18,000 years ago. Considering modern humans are thought to have reached the region by 45,000 years ago. The skeleton, nicknamed “The Hobbit” for her likeness to J.R.R Tolken’s race of hairy footed midgets, produced 2 of the most profound implications for humankind imaginable: not only was Homo capable of such diminutive size, but also that we shared the planet with another species of human so recently.


Skeleton of LB1, dubbed "The Hobbit". Image from Anthropology.net

“The Hobbit” is believed to be an example of what is known as the “island rule”. This concept states that when stranded on an island, some animals tend to shrink as a result of limited space and resources. The rule also states that other animals, with a lack of competitors or predators, will grow larger. This was already seen in the animals found alongside “the Hobbit”: on the mainland, Stegodons were the size of modern elephants, but within the confines of the small island of Flores, had shrunk to the size of a cow. An ancestral monitor species arrived in Indonesia and finding no large mammalian predators to compete with grew into the iconic Komodo dragon (same with the giant rats on Flores). This phenomenon is found throughout the world: giant bunnies in the Mediterranean, flightless birds in the Indian Ocean, and even dwarf mammoths off the coast of California (more on that in a future post). But we have always thought that we were above the rule. We thought we were far too clever and inventive to play by nature’s rules any more. If we found ourselves in a new environment, we came up with new technology to cope. Homo floresiensis suggested that even the mighty Homo had to evolve to fit its new world. As you can imagine, this notion only dumped gas on the firestorm of debate surrounding “The Hobbit” and her implications for human evolution.

The chief criticism was that “The Hobbit” was a diseased child suffering a condition called microcephale. Microcephale causes the afflicted person to have stunted growth, resulting in a small stature and more specifically a shrunken head. Since microcephale is hereditary it was contended that this could account for the other individuals. But scans of “The Hobbit’s” skull challenged this interpretation. The scan revealed a brain not like modern humans. Not only was it small, but it possessed many primitive features found in earlier human species. Also the frontal and temporal lobes were very different than those of microcephalic modern humans. The brain scan also showed that Homo floresiensis was not a pygmy since pygmies have full sized brains despite their small stature. Finally analysis of “The Hobbit’s” wrist bones also showed primitive features associated with earlier human species like Australopithecines. Homo floresiensis, it seems, was able to stand up to everything thrown at it.


Skull of Homo floresiensis compared with a microcephalic modern human. Image from Wikipedia

But if Homo floresiensis wasn’t a modern human, what was it? It was originally thought to be a descendant of Homo erectus, a well known human species thought to have reached this part of the world around 1 million years ago. Since Flores was an island even back then, it has been suggested that Homo erectus may have had some kind of primitive water craft. While experimental archaeology has shown that such a craft could be built with H. erectus technology, the idea is still controversial. “The Hobbit’s” primitive features throw a wrench into this idea. They suggest an ancestor older than erectus. Homo erectus was long thought to be the first human out of Africa. Scientists thought that everything before, even the tool making Homo habilis, were too primitive to have made the journey. This idea was shattered in 2002 when fossils at the site of Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia turned up a species much more primitive than erectus. Originally classified as a subspecies of erectus, the creature has since been given its own species, homo georgicus. Could this creature have been the ancestor of “The Hobbit”? Only future research will tell.

Controversy continues to swirl around Homo floresiensis. Thought to have died out 13,000 years ago (possibly due to a volcanic eruption), some think “The Hobbit” may have survived into historic times. The natives of the island have stories of a creature called “Ebu Gogo” who sounds eerily similar to Homo floresiensis. According to island lore, a race of miniature human-like creatures with poor language who lived in caves. The villagers would leave out plate of food for the creatures, who would eat everything, even the plates which are made from dried pumpkins. In fact “Ebu Gogo” means “grandmother who eats anything”. One tale even tells of “Ebu Gogo” snatching a girl and taking her back to their cave and consuming her. This enraged the villigers who killed all the creatures in the cave in vengeance. Is this story based on an actual event or is it little more than tribal folklore? We may never know.

Reconstruction of Homo floresiensis with a giant rat. Image from National Geographic

Despite all the controversy “The Hobbit” continues to fire the imagination. Scientists are now combing other regions of the island in the hopes of uncovering more about this most fascinating and enigmatic branch of our family tree. And speculation has even emerged that there could be other species of dwarf humans waiting to be discovered on other islands. But “The Hobbit” has a very important lesson to teach. She teaches us that humans are not above nature. We are a part of nature. We respond to nature just as nature responds to us. I think Homo floresiensis is one of the most powerful symbols of our connection to nature. She reminds us that humans adapt to nature like any other creature we share this planet with. I hope the scientists succeed in their search and are able to tell us more about “The Hobbit”, perhaps the greatest surprise and wonder the evolution of humans will ever produce.

Till next time!