Humans Did Not Speciate For Two Million Years

Posted on November 15, 2013 by Jeffrey Daniels

http://www.united-academics.org/magazine/earth-environment/anthropology-archaeology-skull-hominids/

[As I mentioned last time I am a longtime supporter of this theory-DD]

Humans Did Not Speciate For Two Million Years      

Newly found fossils suggest hominids are ‘breeds’ of the same species.

I remember hearing exactly this sort of thing in my anthropology/archaeology courses while I trudged through university attaining my first degree.  Maybe you’ve also taken similar courses in the past, and have heard the same kind of thing. Well, a recent discovery in Dmanisi serves to lend much credence to this theory after all.
The skull, named ‘Skull 5’, appears to have traits belonging to African hominids dating from at least two million years ago, and also traits belonging to Eurasian hominids dating to around 1.5 million years ago.  The skull was found in a pit with four other humanoid fossils, each of them slightly different from the others. And with several animals, all dating to around the same time.
The hybrid appearance of Skull 5 has made the researchers studying it begin to turn towards the theory of human evolution that basically says we’re all still Homo erecti – just different ‘breeds’, so-to-speak, of the original erectus line. In other words, our entire hominid line hasn’t speciated (formed new species) at all in over two million years.
For two million years our line has been diversifying, especially once we started migrating out of Africa. I imagine the main thing that would keep us from speciating during this time would be a healthy amount of interbreeding continuously occurring across vast expanses of our population.  Of course, this tradition continues, definitely moreso, to this day.
So, instead of wracking one’s head in futility trying to construct a ‘normal’ phylogeny for the hominid line, as is usually possible for most other animals, one should construct more of a bubble-shaped phylogenetic tree and simply label the various ‘buddings’ as different kinds of a one particular species of hominid – whatever one we wish to go with.
That means we must start to think like this


As opposed to this:

Reference:
Ann Gibbons (2013). Stunning Skull Gives a Fresh Portrait of Early Humans Science DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6156.297

Orang Pendek (Human Pygmy Version) Sighted

Rangers sight pygmies in Way Kambas National Park

Oyos Saroso HN, The Jakarta Post, Bandarlampung | Headlines | Sat, March 30 2013, 10:43 AM

 

Orang Pendek, Humanoid type

 

 

Rangers patrolling the Way Kambas National Park (TNWK) in Lampung claim to have sighted dozens of pygmies in a number of areas across the park.

According to them, the pygmies sport dreadlocks, measure no more than 50 centimeters tall and do not wear any clothing.

“A number of rangers claim the pygmies grow their dreadlocks down to their waist. The first sighting by the rangers was on March 17 at 6:40 p.m. local time,” said TNWK spokesman Sukatmoko.

He added that several rangers patrolling the park claimed the pygmies were seen moving to the PT Nusantara Tropical Fruit (NTF) plantation. They were seen running from the TNWK forest to the plantation.

“Apparently, many fruit trees, such as banana, guava and dragon fruit, are grown in the NTF plantation area. If the pygmies like fruit, they might have entered the plantation for food,” said Sukatmoko.

Forest rangers have secured a number of points at the border between TNWK and PT NTF, concerned that the safety of the pygmies is at stake due to the presence of many workers at the plantation.

“We will try to anticipate the situation with the help of local residents and PT NTF employees. If they come across the pygmies, they should not harm them,” he said.

Sukatmoko said that based on information conveyed by forest rangers, the group of pygmies consisted of around 15 individuals. When the rangers spotted them, the pygmies, believed to be an isolated group of people, were walking through a swamp.

“The rangers monitored their presence for around 15 minutes from a distance of around 35 meters. When the rangers were about to approach them, they immediately hid behind trees and vanished. They ran very fast,” said Sukatmoko.

He added that on March 20, patrolling rangers sighted the pygmies again in the same place, but this time they observed from further away and for a shorter time.

Sukatmoko said his office was unsure whether the pygmies had always lived in TNWK, or whether they were newcomers from other islands. To record their presence, the TNWK center has installed surveillance cameras in the forest.

“We can record pictures of the pygmies at night. After it’s proven they exist, we will immediately inform the Forestry Ministry, or even the President,” he said.

Sukatmoko promised his office would protect the pygmies and not disturb them.

“We believe they really exist in TNWK. We’re making strenuous efforts to find them. In the event that we do, we hope the government protects them. Our rangers have seen them with their own eyes, but have yet to take pictures of them,” he said, adding the center had allowed academics and researchers to trace and study the group.

Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi) Lampung chapter campaign director Mukri Friatna said the pygmies had been sighted in a number of forests in Indonesia, such as in Kerinci Seblat (West Sumatra), Liang Bua (Flores) and Bone (South Sulawesi).

“In Kerinci Seblat, they are known as the orang pendek [short people], in Flores as homo floresiensis, and in Bone as members of the Oni tribe. In Mount Kerinci, the creature is depicted as having inverted legs but is very agile among the dense foliage,” said Mukri.

TNWK, located in East Lampung, covers 125,000 hectares. The forest, more than 40 percent of which has been damaged, is home to the Sumatran elephant, rhinoceros, tigers and a number of other rare wildlife species.

 

 

ADAPTIVE RADIATIONS, BUSHY EVOLUTIONARY TREES, AND RELICT HOMINOIDS

ADAPTIVE RADIATIONS, BUSHY EVOLUTIONARY TREES, AND RELICT HOMINOIDS
http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Editorial_Bushy%20Trees.pdf

The RELICT HOMINOID INQUIRY 1:51-56 (2012) From the Editor

ADAPTIVE RADIATIONS, BUSHY EVOLUTIONARY TREES, AND RELICT HOMINOIDS

Jeff Meldrum*

Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209-8007 *Correspondence to: Jeff Meldrum, Dept. Biol. Sci., Idaho State University, 921 S 8th Ave., Stop 8007, Pocatello, ID 83209-8007. email: meldd@isu.edu.

[Reprinted by written permission of the author: I shall append some comments in a followup article]
Recent developments in paleoanthropology have promoted a shift in attitude toward the question of relict hominoids. Over a half century ago, interpretations of the hominin fossil record were markedly different. Deriving from the influential evolutionary concept of competitive exclusion (Gauss, 1934), as applied to human evolution (Mayr, 1950), it was deemed that only one species could occupy the hominin niche at any given point in time. From this emerged the Single Species Hypothesis (Wolpoff, 1971). This hominin niche was associated with adaptations for habitual bipedalism, reduced canines, tool use, and culture. The latter was thought perhaps most significant, because with culture and the plasticity of learning, a species could conceivably broaden its niche space, further reducing the potential for sharing the landscape with other hominins (but see Winterhalder, 1981).

In 1976, Washburn and Ciochon challenged the reach of the hypothesis and opined that it was not until the emergence of Homo erectus that one species became so successful that all others were eliminated. They allowed that the preceding more “ape-like hominins,” i.e. the australopithecines, offered a radiation of contemporary coexisting species (see Lewin & Foley, 2004).

Shortly thereafter, the hypothesis further retreated when it was recognized that African Homo erectus (now H. ergaster), a large- brained human ancestor, had coexisted with Australopithecus (Paranthropus) bosei, a parallel lineage of small-brained facially robust hominins that presumably eventually went extinct (Leakey & Walker, 1976). These species display the expected ecological reaction to a sympatric competitor, i.e. niche partitioning, involving diet, micro-habitat divergence, and possibly also temporal differentiation of resource use (Winterhalder, 1981). Stephen J. Gould (1976) made a prediction in his popular column in Natural History, stating: “We know about three coexisting branches of the human bush [Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Australopithecus bosei]. I will be surprised if twice as many more are not discovered before the end of the century.”

Indeed, mounting discoveries accumulating at a steady pace, reveal dozens of hominin species spanning a seven million year period (see Tattersall, 1996, but see White, 2009). The hominin phylogentic tree becomes increasingly bushy with each additional species. This proliferation of species is not merely an artifact of taxonomic “splitters” vs. “lumpers.” Martin (1990) has estimated that a mere 3% of past taxonomic diversity in primate paleocommunities has been recognized and documented in the fossil record. Assuming the same holds true for hominins, and taking a conservative tally of a dozen extinct hominin species, according to Martin’s estimate there could conceivably be 400 species of hominin as yet unknown. Given the particulars of the inferred natural history of large-bodied primates, and especially the tendencies for generalized behavioral ecology of hominins, such a high figure for hominin diversity seems rather unlikely (Arcadi, 2006). It emphasizes however, that the currently known fossil record likely underestimates past diversity. The perennial discovery of new hominin species attests to that expectation.

In addition to this growing appreciation of the bushiness of the hominin tree, there are revelations of the ever more recent persistence of a number of the branches or lineages within the tree. One of the most surprising discoveries was the enigmatic “Hobbit” or Homo floresiensis. This diminutive hominin unearthed on the Indonesian island of Flores has been dated to as recent as a mere 18 ka (Brown et al., 2004). The recognition of this startling species even prompted the editor of Nature to point out that since Homo floresiensis survived until so very recent, it was now more likely that stories of other so- called mythical, human-like creatures, such as the yeti are founded on grains of truth (Gee, 2004). He went on to acknowledge the possibility that the taxonomic and adaptive diversity of hominins was always high, has remained high until very recently, and might not be entirely extinguished. This was a notable concession reflecting a changing attitude, although one generally not so openly displayed.

The justification of the attribution of the “Hobbit” to the genus Homo has been questioned due to its small brain-size and primitive aspects of its skeleton (Meldrum, 2004). Recent studies of wrist and foot bones reveal primitive anatomies reminiscent of H. habilis or Australopithecus, again leading some to propose a pre-erectus African origin for the species (Tocheri et al., 2007; Jungers et al., 2009; Morwood and Jungers, 2009). This raises even more questions over hypotheses about the origins of H. floresiensis and its arrival on the Indonesian island of Flores. Australopithecines are presently only known from Africa. Did a late australopithecine/ early Homo disperse across Asia without leaving any record of its passage? This is certainly under serious discussion.

Another hominin potentially exhibiting a more recent persistence then previously recognized is Asian Homo erectus. Dating of Homo erectus sites at the extreme of its range in Southeast Asia has produced ages of 30-50 ka, suggesting possible contemporaneity with modern H. sapiens arriving in the region (Swisher et al., 1996). These younger dates were seemingly contradicted by a later study; however the older dates could be attributed to reworked sediments at the site (Indriati et al., 2011). Should the younger dates be substantiated, this would prove a hominin example of relative biogeographic isolation and survival that parallels the persistence of the last Neanderthals.

The discovery of the Denisova hominins added another branch to the bush (Krause et al., 2010). The fragmentary fossils date to only 30 ka and were recovered from a cave site in southern Siberia, in the Altai Mountains near the Mongolian border. The completed sequence of the Denisova hominin genome established this species as distinct from modern humans and Neanderthals (Reich et al., 2010). The remains include remarkably robust teeth and toe bones (Mednikova, 2011; Reich et al., 2010). The tooth, if correctly identified as a third molar, is as large as that of an australopithecine. Green, one of the lead researchers contemplated, "…you have to wonder if there were other populations that remain to be discovered.”

That Neanderthals and modern Homo sapiens coexisted on the European continent for tens of thousands of years has long been recognized. During this extensive period of overlap they remained separate and distinct populations. The sequencing of the Neanderthal genome has revealed minimal introgression between the species (Green et al., 2010; Currat and Excoffier, 2011). While much press has been directed to this limited, even trivial, gene flow, of even greater implication is the flip-side to this observation – that such genetically similar species remained almost entirely distinct in spite of millennia of contact.

A new cave site in the Altai Mountains has produced additional Neanderthal fossils, at the most easterly known extent of their range, with preliminary dates of only 10-20 ka (Reich, personal communication). This is less than half the previous latest occurrence for Neanderthals previously documented – 28 ka, possibly as young as 24 ka (Delson and Harvati, 2006). The geographic range for Neanderthals may has increased in another direction as well, with archeological evidence suggesting they occupied the subarctic northern extent of the Ural Mountains in Russia, some 33 ka (Slimak et al., 2011). Only the recovery of skeletal remains will confirm this site as Neanderthal. The possibility of Neanderthal persistence into the present has been examined in the scientific literature by Porshnev (1974), Bayanov and Bourtsev (1976) and Shackley (1982).

Homo heidlebergensis (sometimes referred to as archaic Homo sapiens) were large and robust pre-modern hominins considered the common immediate antecedents of modern humans and Neanderthals. Some researchers have portrayed them as “giants” dubbing them “Goliath” in the popular literature (Kappleman, 1997). Lee Berger suggested that Homo heidlebergensis populations routinely produced 7 foot tall individuals and reconstructed them accordingly with Steve Churchill for a National Geographic documentary “Searching for the Ultimate Survivor.” While middle Pleistocene hominins were large, the Goliath moniker is an exaggeration (see Ruff et al, 1997). Whether Homo heidlebergensis’ range encompassed eastern Asia is debated (Lu et al., 2011). However, a specimen of pre-modern hominin recovered from the site of Lishu, on display at Peking University, has a preliminary date of 12-20 ka (Lu, personal communication). Therefore, an observer of the Asian landscape of only 20 ka could potentially encounter any of a half dozen hominin species coexisting there.

The implication of the recognized bushy hominin tree was a major theme developed in a Nova documentary series “Becoming Human.” The final episode, which introduced modern humans, was titled “Last Human Standing: Many human species once shared the globe. Why do we alone remain?” Introductory remarks addressed the singular circumstance of Homo sapiens’ solitary inheritance of the world. The producers’ explanation for this situation echoed the earlier pronouncement of Washburn and Ciochon (1976) on the supremacy of Homo erectus, by suggesting that in this case, Homo sapiens were so successful that all other hominins were eliminated from the scene. This assertion may prove as unfounded for Homo sapiens as it was for Homo erectus a quarter century earlier. What was not considered was the implication of the question “Why do we alone remain?” — that is, why would the present be the exception to the rule that has apparently prevailed throughout hominin history?

The fossil record of apes has likewise grown into a very bushy tree. A remarkable taxonomic and adaptive diversity of ape species is unfolding, with nearly 100 extinct species throughout the Miocene and Pliocene (Begun, 2003; Cameron, 2004). We find apes associated not only with evergreen tropical forests but also with swamps, grassland savannas, seasonal woodlands, and subtropical to even temperate habitats not usually considered associated with preconceptions of ape lifeways. We find a diversity of dietary and correlated dental adaptations, with Eurasian hominids displaying enamel molar thickness and canine reduction rivaling even the most extreme morphologies of later African hominins, such as the robust australopithecines. We learn that the derived ape form of locomotion, i.e., forelimb suspension, must have evolved independently in the Dryopithecinae, the modern African apes, and a third time in Pongo — a powerful example of parallelism to consider when contemplating the multiple evolutions and derivations of bipedalism. And yet even this broadened perspective is inherently biased, since representation in the fossil record is skewed toward those habitats most conducive to fossilization and those strata subsequently uplifted and exposed to funded explorations.

There is a notable gap in the fossil record of apes for the past 5 million years. The extant great apes are themselves merely relict species in tropical forest refugia, poised on the brink of extinction. Virtually no immediate fossil antecedents of the African apes are known, with the exception of three isolated teeth of a fossil chimpanzee 500 ka (McBrearty and Jablonski, 2005). Sparse dental remains of orangutan-like species are found throughout the Pleistocene of mainland southeast Asia (Zhao et al., 2009). The extant orangutan is now restricted to the islands of Borneo and Sumatra.

Few additional species emerge from the gap. An Asian “mystery ape” has been suggested as a newly recognized member of the mid- Pleistocene Stegedon-Ailuropoda fauna (Ciochon, 2009). However this may be less mysterious than proposed and instead be a late survival of Lufengpithecus, or a closely related descendant form (Etler et al., 2001; Etler, 2009).

The only other ape currently recognized in the Asian Stegedon-Ailuropoda fauna is Gigantopithecus. This massive ape has been referred to as the “fifth great ape” because it had been the only species, other than those now extant, recognized to have persisted well into the Pleistocene, until 250-300 ka (Cameron, 2004; Rink et al., 2008). The very real potential for the persistence of Gigantopithecus into the recent has been acknowledged by past researchers such as John Napier (1973), who observed, “It is possible that these creatures, thought by anthropologists to be long extinct, survived in refuge areas such as some of the deep forested river gorges of the Himalayan range until relatively recent times. The absence of a fossil record is not necessarily evidence of extinction.”

As recently as 1998, Chris Stringer acknowledged that the yeti legend might not be so far-fetched as often presumed, and may indeed have been inspired by surviving populations of Gigantopithecus. He allows that the giant ape may survive today in the dense forests of Southeast Asia. Stringer recognized that it would be wrong to assume that Gigantopithecus-like creatures could not survive to the present day without being discovered. “It could have survived until the appearance of modern humans 50,000 years ago, and it is at least possible that it is still living as a very rare creature in remote forest areas,” Stringer contemplated. On this matter, David Begun noted, “There is no reason that such a beast could not persist today. After all we know from the sub-fossil record that gorilla-size lemurs lived on the island of Madagascar until they were driven to extinction by humans only 1,000 years ago” (Begun, 2003).

There are numerous isolated specimens that are suggestive of as yet unrecognized species. We have likely only begun to scratch the surface. Is the five million year gap in the ape record actually the demise of this radiation? Obviously the progenitors of the extant great apes bridge the gap, although we have very little to show for it. As for extant species — the Bili (or Bondo) ape is remindful that the discovery of the mountain gorilla in 1902 could well be repeated. In this instance, genetic testing determined that the Bili ape is a known subspecies of chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii, although a population that is exceptionally large and displays a unique culture with many habits similar to those of gorillas (Hicks, in press).

Certainly it is possible that Homo sapiens is indeed the last hominin standing; likewise, that gorillas, chimps, bonobos and orangutans are the last apes standing, or hanging as the case may be. Extinction happens. But if we are to learn from history, and recognize the implications of the growing bushiness of the hominoid tree, combined with the recent persistence of several of its branches, then the possibility of relict hominoids should not be dismissed out-of-hand, particularly when evidence – suggestive at least, if not yet definitive – accumulates to that end.

Could a relict pre-modern hominin, e.g. Homo neandertalensis, or Homo denisova, be the explanation for the Russian almas? Could a relict ape, e.g. Lufungpithecus, be the explanation for the yeti of the subtropical forests of the Himalayas? Could a relict australopithecine be the explanation for the orang pendek in southeast Asia? Could Gigantopithecus, or some hominin, e.g. Paranthropus, be the explanation for the Chinese yeren, or the North American sasquatch? In the context described above, these are legitimate and timely questions worthy of the serious consideration of the anthropological community. Thus the birth of the RHI.

LITERATURE CITED

Arcadi AC (2006) Species resilience in Pleistocene hominids that traveled far and ate widely: An analogy to wolf-like canids. J Hum Evol 51:383-394.

Bayanov D, Bourtsev I (1976) On Neanderthal vs. Paranthropus. Current Anthropology 17(2):312-318.

Begun DR (2003) Planet of the apes. Scientific American 289(2):74-83.

Berger. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/ content /interviews/interview/833/.

Brown P, Sutikna T, Morwood M., Soejono RP, Jatmiko, Wayhu Saptomo E and Rokus Awe Due (2004). A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesin. Nature 431 (7012): 1055–106.

Cameron DW (2004) Hominid Adaptations and Extinctions. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Ciochon RL (2009) The mystery ape of Pleistocene Asia. Nature 459:910:911.

Currat M and Excoffier L (2011) Strong reproductive isolation between humans and Neanderthals inferred from observed patterns of introgression. PNAS 108(37): 15129-15134.

Delson E and Harvati K (2006) Paleoanthropology: Return of the last Neanderthal. Nature 443:762-763. Etler D (2009) Mystery ape: Other fossils suggest it’s no mystery at all. Nature 460:684.

Etler DA, Crummett TL, Wolpoff MH (2001). Longgupo: Early Homo colonizer or Late Pliocene Lufengpithecus survivor in South China? Hum Evol 16:1-12.

Gee H (2004) Flores, God and Cryptozoology. Nature 431: 1055-1061.

Gould SJ (1976) Ladders, bushes, and human evolution. Natural History 85(4):24-31.

Green, RE, Krause J, A. W. Briggs AW et al. (2010) A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science 328(5979):710–722.

Green. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-fossil- finger-bone-yields-genome.html.

Hicks TC (in press). Encounters with Bili chimpanzees in the undisturbed Gangu Forest. In Among African apes: Stories and photos from the field. MM. Robbins and C Boesch (eds.) Berkeley: University of California Press.

Indriati E, Swisher CC III, Lepre C, Quinn RL, Suriyanto RA, et al. 2011. The age of the 20 meter Solo River Terrace, Java, Indonesia and the survival of Homo erectus in Asia. PLoS ONE 6: e21562 Kappelman J (1997). They might be giants. Nature 387:126-127.

Leakey REF and Walker AC (1976) Australopithecus, Homo erectus and the single species hypothesis Nature 261:572-574.

Lu Z, Meldrum DJ, Huang Y, He J, Sarmiento EE (2011) Pedal skeleton of the Jinniushan hominin from the Middle Pleistocene of China. Homo 62:389- 401.

Martin RD (1990) Primate Origins and Evolution: A Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

McBrearty S, Jablonski NG (2005) First fossil chimpanzee. Nature 437:105–108.

Mednikova (2011) A proximal pedal phalanx of a paleolithic hominin from the denisova Cave, Altai. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 39(1):129-138.

Meldrum DJ (2004) A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia. Brown P, SutiknaT, Morwood MJ, Soejono RP, Jatmiko, E. Wayhu Saptomo E & Due RA. Nature 431:1055- 1061; Flores, God and Crytozoology. Gee H (2004) www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/041025- 2.html. Journal of Scientific Exploration 18:725-728.

Morwood MJ, Jungers WL (2009) Conclusions: implications of the Liang Bua excavations for hominin evolution and biogeography. J. Hum. Evol. 57: 640–48.

Napier J (1973) Bigfoot: The Yeti ans Sasquatch in Myth and Reality. New York: EP Dutton & Co.

Porshnev B (1974) The Troglodytidae and the Hominidae in the taxonomy and evolution of higher primates. Current Anthropology 15(4):449-450.

Reich D, Green RE, Kircher M, Krause J, Patterson N, Durand EY, Viola B, Briggs AW, Stenzel U, Johnson PLF, Maricic T, Good JM, Marques-Bonet T, Alkan C, Fu Q, Mallick S, Li H, Meyer M, Eichler EE, Stoneking M, Richards M, Talamo S, Shunkov MV, Derevianko AP, Hublin JJ, Kelso J, Slatkin M, Pääbo S (2010) Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature 468: 1053– 1060.

Rink WJ, Wei W, Bekken D, Jones HL (2008). Geochronology of Ailuropoda-Stegodon fauna and Gigantopithecus in Guangxi Province, southern China. Quaternary Research 69, 377–87.

Ruff CB, Trinkaus E, Holliday TW. 1997. Body mass and encephalization in Pleistocene Homo. Nature 387:173-176.

Shackley M (1982) The Case for Neanderthal Survival: Fact, Fiction or Faction? Antiquity, 56(216):31-41. Slimak L, Svendsen JI, Mangerud J, H, Heggen HP, Brugère A, Yuryevich PP (2011) Late Mousterian Persistence near the Arctic Circle. Science 332 (6031):841-845.

Swisher, CC III, RinkWJ, Antón SC, Schwarcz HP, Curtis GH, Suprijo A, Widiasmoro (1996) Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential Contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia. Science 274: 1870-1874.

Tattersall I (1996) The Fossil Trail. New York: Oxford University Press

Winterhalder B (1981) Hominid paleoecology and competitive exclusion: limits to similarity, niche differentiation and the effects of cultural behavior. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 24:101–121.

Zhao LX, Wang CB, Jin CZ, Qin DG, Pan WS (2009) Fossil Orangutan-like hominoid teeth from Late Pleistocene human site of Mulanshan cave in Chongzuo of Guangxi and implications on taxonomy and evolution of orangutan. Chinese Sci Bull, 54:3924-3930.

Little People of Sumatra

Richard Freeman sent me this email on Wednesday morning:

Hi Dale

As promised i asked about races of tiny people in Sumatra. They are thought of as totally distinc from orang-pendek and are know as orang-kardil (small person as apposed to short person).They are said to be three feet tall, hairless except for the head which has long hair and clearly human. They go naked and hunt with spears of bamboo that have poisoned tips. They are infamous for stealing food.

In 1981 the late father of our guide Sahar Dimus was carrying supplies of rice deep in the jungle five days track from Polompek. He was a trader who swaped rice of coffee and other goods. He was with a friend at the time. The area was beyon the Bentang Asa river and in a valley behind the Bukit Candi Alus mountain in what is now Kerinci National Park. One of the orang-kardil snuck into the camp and was stealing rice. Sahar's father's friend killed the tiny person with a parang. In retaliation a number of orang-kardil speared the man to death.

Sahar knows of no recent sightings but as the park is the size of a small country and allmost no one goes deep into it any more who knows if they are still there?

They sound a little like Ebu Ggo and the Guyana 'bushmen'

All the best Richard

Now of course the real reason why I have tried to be so very precise about the human-like as opposed to the apelike sightings commonly alotted to the Orang Pendek is of course the fact that we have some very good fossils of some very little people that formerly inhabited Indonesia, and these fossils are tenatively classified as Homo floresensis. On the island of Flores (Which is off the far end of Java by Sumatra's perspective) there is also the story of the Ebu Gugo, little hairy men that ate anything and were considered a pest until the ancestors of the current Islanders herded them into a cave and lit fires in front, choking them all to death with the smoke. This is the same story told of the Nittaweo in Ceylon and is widespread as Folklore otherwise: the same story is repeated in Alaska and in Patagonia in Southern South America.

The press has taken to calling the small fossil men "Hobbits" after the Little People in J.R.R. Tolkien stories. Tolkien was of course only modifying traditional material for his own usage: Traditionally a Hob is something like a Brownie, only if you should offend one of them,  they become obnoxious and vengeful, and at that time they are spoken of as "Hob-goblins"(Basically the main difference between helpful Brownies and harmful Goblins is the way they behave toward the witness-otherwise, they generally are described in similar terms physically, such as in our ongoing discussions about "Imps" or the Hairy Pygmies of Europe. The common Celtic exact-equivalent for "Goblin" was "Bogle", related to "Bogey" and the common modern descendant used in Apallachia is "Booger")



Female Homo habilis Skull from Kenya, Bone Clones.


Here is a nice summary about the Flores Hobbit problem from The Strange World of Mystery site:

Hobbits from Indonesian island of Flores  

Posted by crkota in Mystery Creatures

Six years after their discovery, the extinct little people nicknamed hobbits who once occupied the Indonesian island of Flores remain mystifying anomalies in human evolution, out of place in time and geography, their ancestry unknown. Recent research has only widened their challenge to conventional thinking about the origins, transformations and migrations of the early human family.

Indeed, the more scientists study the specimens and their implications, the more they are drawn to heretical speculation.


¶Were these primitive survivors of even earlier hominid migrations out of Africa, before Homo erectus migrated about 1.8 million years ago? Could some of the earliest African toolmakers, around 2.5 million years ago, have made their way across Asia?


¶Did some of these migrants evolve into new species in Asia, which moved back to Africa? Two-way traffic is not unheard of in other mammals.


¶Or could the hobbits be an example of reverse evolution? That would seem even more bizarre; there are no known cases in primate evolution of a wholesale reversion to some ancestor in its lineage.


The possibilities get curiouser and curiouser, said William L. Jungers of Stony Brook University, making hobbits “the black swan of paleontology — totally unpredicted and inexplicable.”


Everything about them seems incredible. They were very small, not much more than three feet tall, yet do not resemble any modern pygmies. They walked upright on short legs, but might have had a peculiar gait obviating long-distance running. The single skull that has been found is no bigger than a grapefruit, suggesting a brain less than one-third the size of a human’s, yet they made stone tools similar to those produced by other hominids with larger brains. They appeared to live isolated on an island as recently as 17,000 years ago, well after humans had made it to Australia.


Although the immediate ancestor of modern humans, Homo erectus, lived in Asia and the islands for hundreds of thousands of years, the hobbits were not simply scaled-down erectus. In fact, erectus and Homo sapiens appear to be more closely related to each other than either is to the hobbit, scientists have determined.


It is no wonder, then, that the announcement describing the skull and the several skeletons as remains of a previously unknown hominid species, Homo floresiensis, prompted heated debate. Critics contended that these were merely modern human dwarfs afflicted with genetic or pathological disorders.


Scientists who reviewed hobbit research at a symposium here last week said that a consensus had emerged among experts in support of the initial interpretation that H. floresiensis is a distinct hominid species much more primitive than H. sapiens. On display for the first time at the meeting was a cast of the skull and bones of a H. floresiensis, probably an adult female.


Several researchers showed images of hobbit brain casts in comparison with those of deformed human brains. They said this refuted what they called the “sick hobbit hypothesis.” They also reported telling shoulder and wrist differences between humans and the island inhabitants.


Even so, skeptics have not capitulated. They note that most of the participants at the symposium had worked closely with the Australian and Indonesian scientists who made the discovery in 2003 and complain that their objections have been largely ignored by the news media and organizations financing research on the hobbits.


Some prominent paleoanthropologists are reserving judgment, among them Richard Leakey, the noted hominid fossil hunter who is chairman of the Turkana Basin Institute at Stony Brook University. Like other undecided scientists, he cited the need to find more skeletons at other sites, especially a few more skulls.


Mr. Leakey conceded, however, that the recent research “greatly strengthened the possibility” that the Flores specimens represented a new species.


At the symposium, Michael J. Morwood, an archaeologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia who was one of the discoverers, said that further investigations of stone tools had determined that hominids arrived at Flores as early as 880,000 years ago and “it is reasonable to assume that those were ancestors of the hobbits.” But none of their bones have been uncovered, so they remain unidentified, and no modern human remains have been found there earlier than 11,000 years ago.


Excavations are continuing at Liang Bua, a wide-mouth cave in a hillside where the hobbit bones were found in deep sediments, but no more skulls or skeletons have turned up. Dr. Morwood said the search would be extended to other Flores sites and nearby islands.


Peter Brown, a paleontologist at the University of New England in Australia, said that his examination of the premolars and lower jaws of the specimens made it almost immediately “very, very clear that this was a hominid in the wrong place at the wrong time.” The first premolars in particular, he said, were larger than a human’s and had a crown and roots unlike those of H. sapiens or H. erectus.


Dr. Brown, a co-author of the original discovery report, said that no known disease or abnormality in humans could have “replicated this condition.”


At first, Dr. Brown and colleagues hypothesized that the hobbits were descendants of H. erectus that populated the region and had evolved their small stature because they lived in isolation on an island. Island dwarfing is a recognized phenomenon in which larger species diminish in size over time in response to limited resources.


The scientists soon backed off from that hypothesis. For one thing, dwarfing reduces stature, but not brain size. Moreover, researchers said, the hobbit bore little resemblance to an erectus.


In an analysis of the hobbit’s wrist bones, Matthew W. Tocheri of the Smithsonian Institution found that certain bones were wedge-shaped, similar to those in apes, and not squared-off, as in humans and Neanderthals. This suggested that its species diverged from the human lineage at least one million to two million years ago.


So if several lines of evidence now encourage agreement that H. floresiensis was a distinct and primitive hominid, the hobbit riddle can be compressed into a single question of far-reaching importance: where did these little people come from?


“Once you establish that this is a unique species,” said Frederick E. Grine, a paleoanthropologist at Stony Brook, “then these primitive features that it has suddenly take on a profound evolutionary significance.”


Scientists said in reports and interviews that they had only recently begun contemplating possible ancestries.


As a starting point, scientists rule out island dwarfing as a primary explanation. Dwarfs and pygmies are simply diminutive humans; they do not become more apelike, as the hobbits appear to be in some aspects. Besides, normal dwarfing would suggest that the hobbits presumably evolved from H. erectus, the only previous hominids identified in this part of Asia or anywhere outside Africa; the first one was discovered in Java in the late 19th century. But research has found few similarities between the hobbit skeleton and Asian H. erectus.


If the hobbit is a throwback to much earlier hominids, scientists said, reverse evolution would be the most far-fetched explanation. Dr. Jungers, a paleoanthropologist who organized the symposium, said there were no known examples of mammals becoming significantly reduced in size and anatomy as a consequence of reverting to an ancestral form.


“Is it possible?” he asked rhetorically. “If that is the case, it is unprecedented and a tremendous discovery.”


Several scientists think the answer to hobbit ancestry lies deeper in the hominid past. If this species is unlike H. erectus, it presumably descended from even earlier small-bodied migrants out of Africa that preceded erectus into Asia. Just the thought questions conventional wisdom.


Possible candidates include Homo habilis, the first and least known species of the Homo genus. The short, small-brained habilis might have emerged as early as 2.3 million years ago and lived to co-exist with the brainier, long-limbed H. erectus. At present, erectus fossils, found in the republic of Georgia and dated at 1.8 million to 1.7 million years ago, are the earliest well-established evidence for hominids outside Africa.


If hobbits resemble habilis in some respects, scientists said, it indicates that habilis or something like it possibly left Africa earlier and became the likely hobbit ancestor.


Another possible ancestor might even have been a pre-Homo species of the Australopithecus genus. The first evidence for stone toolmaking in Africa, at least 2.5 million years ago, is associated with australopithecines. Several scientists called attention to skeletal similarities between hobbits and A. afarensis, the species famously represented by the 3.2-million-year-old Lucy skeleton from Ethiopia.


The suggestion that the H. floresiensis ancestor might have reached Asia a million years before H. erectus left Africa was raised earlier this month at a meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.


And then there is the idea, raised again at the symposium, of hominid migrations out of Africa and back. Dr. Jungers advised abandoning the old image of the long-limbed H. erectus striding out of Africa in the first wave of hominids making their way in the world.


“Why think they couldn’t have done it many times, even before erectus?” he said. “Other mammals have migrated in and out of Africa.”


The idea revived speculation that erectus itself might have evolved in Asia from an earlier migrant from Africa, and then found its way back to the land of its ancestors. Similarly, other hominids arriving in distant parts of Asia might have churned out new species, among them the hobbits.


Robert B. Eckhardt of Penn State University, an ardent hobbit skeptic, is unyielding in his opposition to the interpretation that the Flores skull belongs to a previously unrecognized species. He insists that it will prove to be from a modern human stricken with microcephaly or a similar developmental disorder that shrinks the head and brain.


“Convincing others is much more difficult than I thought it would be at the outset,” Dr. Eckhardt acknowledged in an e-mail message, “but increasingly it is becoming evident that what is at stake is not just some sample of specimens, but instead the central paradigm of an entire subfield.”


Susan G. Larson, an anatomist at the Stony Brook School of Medicine who analyzed the non-human properties of the hobbit shoulders, said in an interview that the investigations had entered “a period of wait and see.”


“Someday,” Dr. Larson said, “people may be saying, why was everyone so puzzled back then — it’s plain to see where the little people of Flores came from.”

http://strangeworldofmystery.blogspot.com/2009/05/hobbits-from-indonesian-island-of.html

Here is another interesting news item regarding the ecology of these "Hobbits"

Article: "Giant Storks May Have Fed on Real-Life Hobbits"

http://www.livescience.com/10326-giant-storks-fed-real-hobbits.html

[It turns out that the same island where tiny humans lived, there were the local-version of the "Demon Ducks of Doom"living nearby and they were big enough to have eaten the little people. This sounds oddly like the Classical stories of the Pygmies and the Cranes but I do not know how there could be any direct connection. Perhaps such big storks may also have lived in Africa until recently]

 

Hobbits, a Million-Year History on Island  

Posted by crkota in Mystery Creatures



Lord of the Rings



Newfound stone tools suggest the evolutionary history of the "hobbits" on the Indonesian island of Flores stretches back a million years, a new study says—200,000 years longer than previously thought.

The hobbit mystery was sparked by the 2004 discovery of bones on Flores that belonged to a three-foot-tall (one-meter-tall), 55-pound (25-kilogram) female with a grapefruit-size brain.

The tiny, hobbit-like creature—controversially dubbed a new human species, Homo floresiensis—persisted on the remote island until about 18,000 years ago, even as "modern" humans spread around the world, experts say.


Very Old Tiny Stone Tools


Found in million-year-old volcanic sediments, the newly discovered tools are "simple sharp-edged flakes" like those found at nearby sites on Flores—sites dated to later time periods but also associated with hobbits and their ancestors—said study co-leader Adam Brumm, an archaeologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia, via e-mail.

The finding implies that a culture of stone tool wielding ancient humans, with origins in Africa, survived on the island for much longer than previously believed, according to the new research, published online today by the journal Nature.

"That's exciting," because it suggests that by a million years ago, early humans had covered more ground on their exodus from Africa than previously thought, said paleontologist Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum of London, who wasn't involved in the new study.

Hobbit Ancestors off the Hook?


Hobbit Reconstruction


The stone-and-bone record had suggested that the hobbits' ancestors—perhaps upright-walking-but-small-brained Homo erectus—left Africa about 1.5 million years ago and reached Flores by 880,000 years ago.

Once there, it's been thought, the hobbit ancestors quickly hunted a pygmy elephant species and a giant tortoise species to extinction.

The date of the newly discovered stone tools, though, suggests elephant and tortoise died off a hundred thousand years after Flores's colonization —indicating that the early Flores colonizers' role in the extinction "must have been minimal," study co-leader Brumm said.

What's more, these early colonizers could have been more primitive than H. erectus—"that is our working hypothesis," he added.

When the bones of the hobbit were first reported in 2004, the discovery team suggested they belonged to a unique species, Homo floresiensis, that had descended from Homo erectus.

Since then, scientists studying the hobbit bones have found features in the wrist, feet, skull, jaw, brain, and shoulders that suggest the little creature descended from something more primitive.

"I think that's looking increasingly likely from its anatomy," said the Natural History Museum's Stringer.

Hobbit Findings Questioned


Not everyone is ready to accept the new date.

"I have no problem with hominins"—human ancestors—"being on Flores at 1.2 million years ago," anthropologist James Phillips said. "After all, they were on Java by around 750,000 [years ago]."But the fact that the implements were found in million-year-old volcanic sediments doesn't guarantee the artifacts are a million years old, said Phillips, an emeritus professor with the University of Illinois at Chicago, said via email.

"There are many ways"—such as water-driven processes—"in which artifacts can move through sediments," Phillips said.

He's also dismayed that the new study assumes that stone-tool technology changed little on Flores for more than a million years.

"Everywhere else on Earth, change was slow but always—and I emphasize always—occurred."

Controversy is nothing new in hobbit science, with many experts still at odds over whether Homo floresiensis is a separate species at all.


HobbitHomes from Movie


Several scientists have argued, for example, that the hobbits were modern humans with a genetic condition that causes dwarfing and other defects.

Hobbit Ancestors Rafted to Flores?

Regardless of what they were and when they arrived, the question remains: How did primitive humans get to Flores in the first place?

The Natural History Museum's Stringer buys into a theory that they may have migrated from Africa, perhaps on foot, to the island of Sulawesi (map). There, the ancient humans may have been washed to sea by a tsunami—currents off Sulawesi flow southward, toward Flores.

"These creatures most likely got moved on rafts of vegetation," he said.

To help shore up this theory, the team behind the original hobbit discovery is currently looking for evidence on Sulawesi that would prove humans occupied the island even earlier than they did Flores.

[Borneo or Java are more likely routes for colonists to Flores than Sulawesi would be-DD]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100317-hobbits-flores-stone-tools-million/

It is my opinion that the anatomical features of thes "Hobbit" fossils are most like very old Homo erectus and also Homo habilis fossils, and calling especial attention to the shape of the teeth and jaws. The size of the feet is not especially large proportionately and some modern human beings have large feet in proportion to short legs: indeed, taller humans with more elongated legs automatically tend to have smaller feet in relation to the length of their legs or to their full height, while the reverse holds true for such people as live in the mountains and tend to have shorter legs proportionately as well as tending to be shorter overall. If you measure taller populations as the norm, then the shorter people look like they have comically large feet. This is an artifact of the sampling being used and taller populations are not the norm, they are only one varuation. Hobbit feet are more similar to modern humans than they are to Australopithecines anatomically, but I  would be the first to agree that some features of the skull and skeleton are more like the Australopithecines and H. habilis than they are like H. erectus and H. sapiens. However,some H. erectus specimens are more like H. habilis and you can have populations with both "primitive" and "advanced" variations within the same species H. erectus (eg, the recent finds in Georgia). For that reason I was willing to say that a population including a modern-and-primitive mosaic of features could still be H. erectus and still be the ancestors of the purported species H. floresensis. In which case it was not likely to be a separate species. There is the separate issue of whether H. erectus can be considered sunk into H. sapiens as some of the more avant-garde theorists wuld have it. There are microcephalic H. sapiens that have brains as small as any H. erectus specimens. However, this still draws a line at the chimpsized brain of H. floresensis: that is half the size of the smallest known diseased sapiens cranial capacity and it simply could not be a diseased type of ordinary H. sapiens. If however H. floresensis is considered a substandard variant of H. habilis, there is no reason why an Australopithecine-sized brain could not occur as the low end of the variation in cranial capacity where the top end of the variation could be perhaps twice that size.



Homo habilis Female Reconstruction





Evolution in brain size. The cranial capacities for Australopithecines
and H. habilis changed hardly at all over time but Homo erectus started out
 in the H. habilis range and ended up in the low-end of H. sapiens cranial
capacity. The chart is somewhat of a cheat in that it does not show the size
of (abnormal) microcephalic H. sapiens skulls, which also can be as small
 as 600-700 cubic centimeters, in the H. habilis or low-end-erectus range.




Homo erectus Reconstruction



Here is a tutoral page on H. habilis which should make some of this material more familiar to the uninformed:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_1.htm

Early Transitional Humans

Humans are members of the genus Homo .  Modern people are Homo sapiens .  However, we are not the only species of humans who have ever lived.  There were earlier species of our genus that are now extinct.  In the past, it was incorrectly assumed that human evolution was a relatively straightforward sequence of one species evolving into another.  We now understand that there were times when several species of humans and even other hominins were alive.  This complex pattern of evolution emerging from the fossil record has been aptly described as a luxuriantly branching bush on which all but one twig has died off.  Modern humans are that last living twig.
The striking similarities in appearance between the human genus Homo and our distant ancestors, the genus Australopithecus , is sufficient reason to place us both into the same biological tribe (Hominini ).  Both genera are bipedal and habitually upright in posture.  Humans have been somewhat more efficient at this mode of locomotion.  Like gracile australopithecines , early humans were light in frame and relatively short.  They were only about 3 ft. 4 in. to 4 ft. 5 in. tall (100-235 cm) and weighed around 70 pounds (32 kg)  The evolution of larger bodies occurred later in human evolution. [And within the robust Australopithecines, not thought to be in the direct line of ancestry to humans-DD] The differences between australopithecines and early humans are most noticeable in the head.  Humans developed significantly larger brains and relatively smaller faces with progressively smaller teeth and jaws.  In addition, humans became ever more proficient in developing cultural technologies to aid in their survival, while the australopithecines did not.

Late gracile australopithecine		Early transitional human

The immediate ancestors of early humans were most likely late gracile australopithecines.  At present, the leading contender for that ancestral species is Australopithecus garhi  or possibly Australopithecus africanus. 
There may have been one or possibly two species of the first humans living in East Africa--Homo rudolfensis  and Homo habilis (literally "able or skilled human").  The few rudolfensis fossils that have been found are somewhat earlier, dating about 2.4-1.6 million years ago, while the more common habilis remains are around 1.9-1.4 million years old.  Rudolfensis apparently was a bit taller and relatively larger brained on average.  However, many paleoanthropologists consider the differences to be too slight to warrant a separate species designation.  Some have suggested that rudolfensis were males and habilis were females.  As a result, they classify them both as a single species--Homo habilis.  That is the approach taken in this tutorial.
The evolution of the genus Homo and the robust australopithecines beginning around 2.5 million years ago coincides with the beginning of a period of prolonged climate instability in Africa.  The overall trend was towards cooling and drying, but along the way there were considerable climate fluctuations.  It is likely that selection for the ability to adapt to these environmental changes resulted in the emergence of humans with their larger, more capable brains.

Homo habilis

Early transitional human fossils were first discovered in 1960 by Louis and Mary Leakey at Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania.  The Leakeys named them Homo habilis (Latin for "handy or skilled human") because they apparently made stone tools.  Similar fossils were found at East Lake Turkana in Kenya by Richard Leakey's team of fieldworkers that began searching there in 1969.  These latter specimens were named Homo rudolfensis after Lake Rudolf (i.e., the former name for Lake Turkana).
So far, conclusive evidence of Homo habilis has been found only in the Great Rift Valley system of East Africa.  However, their ultimate geographic and time ranges may have been somewhat larger.  Early transitional human fossils also have been found in South Africa in the caves at Sterkfontein and Swartkrans in apparent association with australopithecines.  However, not all paleoanthropologists agree that these fossils should be considered Homo habilis. 
Early transitional humans had brains that on average were about 35% larger than those of Australopithecus africanus.  In fact, it is beginning with Homo habilis that our ancestors finally had brains that were consistently bigger than those of the great apes.  Ajit Varki and his team of geneticists at the University of California San Diego campus have discovered a small genetic difference between humans and apes that may account for the progressive increase in the size of human brains.  People, but not apes, have a gene that stops the production of N-glycolylneuramine acid.  Using "molecular clock analysis," the U.C.S.D. researchers determined that this gene entered the human evolutionary line as a result of a mutation 2.7 million years ago.  While it is presumed that the australopithecines lacked this gene, there is no direct evidence.

Adult cranial capacity(range in cm3) chimpanzees 300-500 australopithecines 390-545 early transitional humans 509-752 modern humans 900-1880

Reconstruction of Homo habilis

As the early human cranium, or brain case, began to enlarge in response to increased brain size, the mouth became smaller.  In comparison to the australopithecines, the early humans had smaller teeth, especially the molars and premolars.  This suggests that they mostly ate softer foods.  An analysis of the wear patterns on their teeth indicates that they had diverse diets that included a wide range of plants and meat.  As noted previously, the body size of Homo habilis was not significantly larger than the early hominins that preceded them.  Likewise, the arms of habilis and their australopithecine ancestors were relatively long compared to ours.  The modern human body size and limb proportions began to appear with the next species in our evolution--Homo erectus. 
illustration credits

:
 Of especial interest in considering the Flores "Hobbit" is the statement:

"Like gracile australopithecines , early humans were light in frame and relatively short.  They were only about 3 ft. 4 in. to 4 ft. 5 in. tall (100-235 cm) and weighed around 70 pounds (32 kg) [say 40 to 90 pounds]"

This is all very interesting but basically not very meaningful in relationship to the Orang Pendek when that form was said to have an opposed big toe like an ape. If on the other hand, there still is a cryptid -hominid on Sumatra, it could be related to the H. floresensis IF that one is a separate species. it could also possibly be related to other reports of similar creatures reported from Southeast Asia to Australia. There are several "IF" factors in that construction that still are not determined yet and most importantly among those, we do not know if the "Small people" are the same as the "Hobbit" and there still is that annoying problem that we still have not settled how to classify H. floresensis.

But whatever happens to come of this, the floresensis types would not be the type of creatures that walk on feet with opposed big toes. And evidence for the one thing does not constitute evidence for the other, as some well-meaning but thoroughly confused Cryptozoologists have stated in the past.

-Best Wishes, Dale D.