Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Researchers back 'Hobbit' claims


UM-Bot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

news icon rResearchers from the Australian National University (ANU) are backing claims that the discovery of the so-called hobbit in Indonesia does represent a new species of human.In 2003, Australian scientists unearthed the remains of a hobbit-like species, with adults about the height of a three-year-old child, in a cave on a remote island in Indonesia.

In a new paper, ANU researchers reject claims that the skeleton of a hobbit-like species was simply a very short human with a rare brain disease.

news icon View: Full Article | Source: ABC.net.au

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • aquatus1

    3

  • ROGER

    2

  • Pandora7321

    2

  • jones12

    2

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

This is one of the most fascinating back and forths I have read in the academic worl in a long time. It is amazing just how much evidence there is supporting the "tiny human" theory, all of it supported, yet at the same time so much evidence supporting the "seperate species" theory, again, equally supported. I am truly unable to pick a side in this debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the pygmies in africa much different than the so-called hobbits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still the Discovery channel covered this just recently , with very strong evidence of the hobbit being the sick human. The differences in the skull are consistent with the disease and the differences between humans in small social environments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't see why it would be so farfetched for a species of smaller humans to have lived in the past. It only supports another well accepted theory that creatures evolve according to their environment. Prehistoric Indonesia may have been an area and climate ideal for smaller creatures to dwell. Other animals such as canines, have many variety, shapes, and sizes. :tu:

Edited by :PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

That's why this is so fascinating to me! There are two competing theories, both of them equally valid and equally well-supported. Perhaps one is wrong. Perhaps both are. Perhaps both are right. This is an excellent example of science at work, right here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I read and hear things about this little person, the more questions I have. From what I've read and seen on television, they found tiny little tools also. If this were one person with a rare brain disease, would that not imply that he was an accepted and completely capable member of the "clan" and was able to contribute? Or, maybe at his burial the tiny tools and implements were made for him so he would be prepared for the afterlife? OR, he did not have a rare brain disease and the tools prove that he is a different species and lived and hunted and used tools just like any other person, only in smaller size. I'm so back and forth. I actually hope it's a new species.....how fascinating! :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not arguing, but the use of tools in other finds has a logical progression from inferior to better made. So smaller tools would not mean a whole culture, but special tools made for the individual.

Like tools for the Handicapped. Or so I would think! :hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems as though this debate could go either way, while there is evidence of it being a modern human with a disorder, they also found a second jawbone...and it is highly unlikely that 2 or more modern humans with this disorder would happen to live together...im interested in what else they find

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ :yes:

Last count they believe to have bones from 9 individuals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will be difficult to conclude anything with one skeleton. Would be great if they found more around the same area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

seems as though this debate could go either way, while there is evidence of it being a modern human with a disorder, they also found a second jawbone...and it is highly unlikely that 2 or more modern humans with this disorder would happen to live together...im interested in what else they find

Didn't both jaws have a double root or something similar, I can't remeber what they said on the show, in one of their front teeth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't both jaws have a double root or something similar, I can't remeber what they said on the show, in one of their front teeth?

yes, while im not positive on the details, i believe both jaws had a double root and were almost identical in size

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not arguing, but the use of tools in other finds has a logical progression from inferior to better made. So smaller tools would not mean a whole culture, but special tools made for the individual.

Like tools for the Handicapped. Or so I would think! :hmm:

Right. :tu: What I meant by saying if he was the only one like that in his "clan" was, then maybe the small tools implied he was capable and able to contribute, just smaller. Makes me think of the Earth's Children Series by Jean Auel. Instead of being cast out or killed for being odd or different, he was accepted. Which would imply they had the ability for compassion. However, I wouldn't think that smaller would necessarily mean inferior. Just smaller relative to the size of the people. So to me the whole small tools issue doesn't prove either point. Just makes it that much more intriguing.

From the other comments I just had the chance to read, I'm now seeing that they found 9 skeletons so far that are the same? Is that fact or someone just posting what they've heard. I've got to do some searches on this......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Is the condition in question genetic? I wonder if it was a "clan" or small related family that all had the same genetic condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.