1. Validity of Homo floresiensis is challenged
International group of anthropologists claim H. floresiensis remains are diseased H. sapiens
Remains share features with indigenous inhabitants of Indonesia
Skull features and stature share features with microencephalic modern humans
In 2004 a group of anthropologists reported that they had uncovered the skeletal remains of a hitherto unknown hominid, Homo floresiensis, in Indonesia that stood only one meter tall and had a brain case that was only 380 cm3 (compared to 1,400 cm3 in modern humans). Even more incredible was the possibility that the creature had shared the planet with members of H. sapiens. Since the initial discovery, a number of scientists have suggested that the remains were actually those of a modern human with pathological abnormalities. In September, 2006, an international group of anthropologists published a paper that re-examined the putative remains of H. floresiensis and found that they shared a number of features with modern humans who suffer from microcephaly. Individuals with microcephaly possess unusually small heads and are sometimes short in stature as well. The authors of the paper claim as further evidence of abnormality the fact that the H. floresiensis cranium is asymmetrical. The photograph in the slide shows the H. floresiensis skull on the left. The right two skulls are composites constructed using mirror images of the right and left halves of the actual H. floresiensis skull. Even to the untrained eye, the two skulls on the right appear quite different from each other, suggesting significant asymmetries in the H. floresiensis cranium. The authors of the paper further add that many of the supposedly unique features of the H. floresiensis remains reported after the initial discovery are in fact shared by modern inhabitants of the surrounding region, thus also adding to the idea that the remains are those of H. sapiens. Though this challenge to the validity of H. floresiensis is being taken seriously by the scientific community, it is in no way the last page in the story. As an editorial in the journal Nature pointed out, such debates are quite common in the anthropology community. When Neanderthal remains were first described in the 19th century, many anthropologists of the time disputed the findings, claiming that the remains indicated a modern human with pathological features. Such debates highlight the importance of fossil DNA studies, which, at least in theory, can definitively resolve such disputes. Of course, the fossil DNA must be present in sufficiently pristine quantities for such studies to even be possible.
From Figure 2 in Jacob, T. et al. (2006) “Pygmoid Australomelanesian Homo sapiens skeletal remains from Liang Bua, Flores: Population affinities and pathological abnormalities” PNAS, USA 103:
© 2005 Prentice Hall Inc. / A Pearson Education Company / Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458