CPTBILs mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

There are a few reasons for concern regarding the Homo floresiensis, or Hobbits. As of this year, as far as I know, there has been no successful DNA recovery from any of the Hobbit remains. The last I heard, they had parts of 13 individual Hobbits and close to a complete skeleton of a 14th. Since it has only been six years since their discovery, a good deal more is likely to come.

As far as I know, there has been no positive linkage showing that the Hobbits were on the island 800,000 years ago. 95,000 - 17,000 seems to be the span of time they have found evidence for.

It would be interesting to see a comparison done between the Hobbits remains and the Taron of Asia. Could there be an ancestral/DNA connection between them? The Negritos would be another avenue of research. I believe there are many pygmy tribes that will need to be compared to the Hobbits.

In other words, there are still a few questions to be answered.

Joe Ribaudo

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

HOLA amigos,
Joe I think we ought not accept the conclusions of Ales Hrdliccka concerning any evidence of humans in America prior to Clovis as he was a very biased and strongly opinionated 'observer' to say the least. The Calaveras skull remains un-proven as a "hoax" in my opinion.

So if the 'Hobbits' reached their island(s) 95,000 years ago, how do you propose that they got there? By some land-bridge similar to the Bering land bridge? Thank you in advance,
Roy (Oroblanco)

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Hello Roy,

Glad to see you back at your......post.

"So if the 'Hobbits' reached their island(s) 95,000 years ago, how do you propose that they got there? By some land-bridge similar to the Bering land bridge?"

Exactly!

There was just such a "land bridge" between the mainland of Asia and the Indonesian islands. In fact, that "land bridge" was no different than the Beringia Land Bridge, in that it came and went many times over the years.

As for Ales Hrdlicka, I would not be so quick to dismiss his life's work so easily. Some time ago, I looked into the history of Ales Hrdlicka. For his time, he was highly respected and considered the foremost authority in his field. You would be hard pressed to find someone in his position who was not "biased and strongly opinionated". That does not mean he was wrong, but it would show that he was a man who stepped on a lot of toes.

While the Piltdown Man (1912) was being accepted as the "Dawn Man", Hrdlicka correctly stated that "the lower jaw was from an ape, and the cranium was from a modern man". (Loose quote) The rest of paleontology caught up with Hrdlicka in 1953.

I have a nice first edition of "Physiological And Medical Observations Among The Indians Of Southwestern United States and Northern Mexico". Hrdlicka may have been wrong in many of his conclusions, but it was not because he did not do very thorough research. For instance, page 114 in the above mentioned book starts a chapter on: "Height sitting in relation to stature, in the Indian child."

I respect the man's body of work, while accepting that he was exactly what you write.

Hrdlicka did not completely dismiss the "Calaveras" skull as a hoax, but many people did. From what I have read, I believe it was a hoax.

Good to see you back in the discussion.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Greetings Joe (and HOLA amigos),

Rather than get into a 'sidebar' debate on the objectivity of Hrdlicka, let me toss you another one, which certainly does not fit with any of the popular theories on the peopling of the Americas. Extract;

Alleged 40,000-year-old human footprints in Mexico much, much older than thought
December 1st, 2005 Alleged footprints of early Americans found in volcanic rock in Mexico are either extremely old - more than 1 million years older than other evidence of human presence in the Western Hemisphere - or not footprints at all, according to a new analysis published this week in Nature

<from>http://www.physorg.com/news8657.html

Thoughts? Humans following Southern Mammoths far earlier than 40,000 years ago? Not tracks of Hominids? Thank you in advance,
your friend,
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Dear Oroblanco;
Existing evidence pretty well defines that the marks in the volcanic rock ARE prints HOWEVER the question remains, exactly WHAT sort of animal made the prints? Were they some species of very early hominid? Doubtful, my friend. I feel that the scientific data may be incorrect in it's dating process, and if the data IS correct, then perhaps the tracks came from a presently unknown non-hominid species and they erroded and weathered into their present shapes before fossilization. The odd part to this theory would be that the prints all erroded into practically the same patterns, so this hypothesis is also a long shot.

If we go on the assumption there were no humanoids anywhere on Earth prior to their migrating out of Africa 160,000 years ago, then there MUST be another plausible explanation why the prints are there and what made them.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Roy,

I would not mind talking about Ales Hrdlicka at all. I have read both sides of the comments about him, as well as his own work.

On taking a close look at the "footprints", I tend to lean towards the "somethin else" conclusion. They would get a much better picture if they took it at night with a light shining from the ground level towards it.

One question: Where are the tracks of what was being followed?

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Roy,

Some time ago, on another Forum, we talked about the Adolph Ruth case and more specifically the holes in his skull. That skull was sent to Ales Hrdlicka at the Smithsonian fairly soon after being found. He provided his expert opinion that the holes were made with a firearm.

As soon as Hrdlicka's name was mentioned, some of our Internet experts Googled it and found every negative thing ever written about the man. There was plenty of material to choose from. As someone who had looked into Hrdlicka's background, on the Internet as well as in publications and his own works, I defended his ability to comment on the forensics of the skull.

I believe anyone who looks deeply into Hrdlicka's history will find more to commend than condemn. That's my personal opinion based on my own research.

More to the relevancy of our latest direction, Homo floresienses (Hobbits) were discovered in 2003. I.M.H.O., It is really too early to make definitive statements concerning their place in human history. As you can see, there is a good deal of controversy on the subject:

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0821-penn.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/science/11fossil.html?_r=1

The book, "A New Human" by Mike Morwood, one of the original archaeologist's on this project, gives the other side of this story. It is well written and easy to read. If you get a chance to read it, you will see how so many people, including pip, are saying the Hobbits were living on Flores Island for around 800,000 years. As I read it, they have found no remains older than 18,000 years.

Actually, I'm kind of bummed-out that pip started up on the Hobbits and then went dark.

I am not at home, but believe the Hobbits may very well be a Pygmy tribe out of Northeast Asia. I will be going back through that book this evening. There is little doubt that Pygmies preceded many of the migrants east out of Asia to the islands, including Australia......and possibly farther.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Furness]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Until they can obtain DNA samples i think the jury is still out on this one regarding the age of the Hobbits,
but certainly not the longer period pip mentions more like the 18,000 yrs ,
and most likely as Joe suggested descended from pygmies from Asia via a land bridge,

although it is still within the bounds of possibility that they could have developed entirely separately, and developed up to the level of hunter gatherers and tool users, until for some reason and being isolated on an island by this time simply died out as a species,
that's just a thought on my part because of the size of the fossils being so much smaller than any other group including the Pygmy's mentioned, and taking into account that all of mankind has grown in both height and build since,
but i have no idea just how tall the pygmy tribespeople were 18,000+ yrs ago

the footprints in Mexico also bring in an anomaly as it is reported the British team used C14 dating (on volcanic rock !!!!! ??)

C14 can only be used to date items that were once living, it is only taken in by animals or plants and only stops being taken in when the plant or animal dies, and we lose as much as we take in maintaining a balance, the longest period it can be detected is 50,000 yrs after that period all traces of C14 have decayed past their half life and no longer in the sample being tested, either plant or animal fossils,

furness

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Furness,

I should think that if DNA could be extracted from any of the remains found on Flores Island, it would have been done by now. It's been six years now, and I have seen nothing yet. I'm not in any loop, but I have been looking for any such results. It's said the little lady is only 18,000 years old..........What's the problem with extracting some DNA

Take care,

Joe

 

[Furness]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Joe

I agree i would have expected by now that they would have obtained DNA samples and like you i have kept an eye open for anything in print relating to the hobbits but apart from the initial news very little has been published,

it would depend on how far along fossilisation has occurred if the entire skeleton has turned to rock then unless they find other fossils that have not completely mineralised there is no chance of obtaining any,
the last i read ( quite some time ago ) said they were X raying all they had found to try to find some part of the fossilised bone interior that was still not completely mineralised,

furness

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Furness,

I believe, if the bones are minralized completely, there is not much/anything they can do. However, it is possible that the outer layer of bone can be minralized and portions in the interior of the marrow cavity can still contain viable material that can be tested for DNA. That would be an exciting discovery.

Take care,

Joe

 

[lamar]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Dear cactusjumper;
At one time it was assumed that all DNA was leached out of bone matter during the fossilization process, however this no longer is true and we now are able to extract DNA from fossilized bone material. We now know that DNA is an extremely tough material and is able to withstand even the harshest environments, including unprotected deep space travel. The real problem with DNA is that it can become so easily contaminated, however there is now a newly developed technique which helps to ensure high quality, uncontaminated DNA yields from fossilized bone structures. To read more about this exciting new development into usungDNA as an historic reasearch tool, go here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4260334.stm
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Lamar,

Many thanks for the link.

Not being educated on this subject, I am able to question every expert with equal ignorance. That's a method I have perfected, on my own, over the years.

I am aware of some work being done on the leg bone of a T. Rex, where they are attempting to extract DNA from the interior of the marrow cavity. The technique being used is called, polymerase chain reaction, but I am unaware if they have been successful yet. As you have mentioned, contamination of the material by foreign DNA is one of the biggest impediments.

http://dml.cmnh.org/1994Sep/msg00133.html

Once again, thank you for your input.

Take care,

Joe

 

[lamar]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Dear cactusjumper;
If I recall correctly, the work on the femur of the T. Rex in question was completed several years ago and the scientific group was able to extract viable DNA samples from Mr, T. Rex. Also, if memory serves, the total strand count was around 30-40% complete DNA stranding, which, while not nearly enough to be able to clone and grow a DIY T. Rex in your backyard, it's more than enough for timeline dating, species development and disease resistence purposes.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Lamar,

Thank you for the reply.

You are correct about the T. Rex. I was not that interested in the details of their research, but did find this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

The DNA studies get a bit dry.......even for me, but reading the end results is exciting.

Hope all is well with you.

Take care,

Joe

 

[lamar]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Dear cactusjumper;
Everything is simply wonderful with me, my friend. To continue on with DNA for just a bit, it's a very exciting field of study in that DNA is the very blueprint of life on Earth. The beautiful thing about DNA is that it's almost as old as the Earth itself and in light of this fact, and also the fact that DNA can be MAPPED, it's an absolutely wonderful window into past life forms on our planet. The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and DNA is about 4.2 billion years old, therefore DNA can be assumed to be the oldest studiable component of living organisms on our planet.

Unraveling the DNA code can possibly tell us how life existed and more importantly, how life became extinct. Extinction is such a little known facet of scientific endeavor at the moment, and it's only within the last decade that science has taken a hard look at WHY certain species become extinct. Also, DNA can possibly tell us about life outside of our own Solar system. All in all, it's a fascinating field of endeavor and I try to follow closely DNA studies as they pertain to historical developments of life forms very closely.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Lamar,

I don't really disagree with anything you wrote. It is a very exciting field and something I also keep an eye on.........from a safe distance. I fear that getting too involved in the nuts and bolts of the scientific process, might just cause my head to explode.
Leaving that part of the study to folks like yourself , seems like the prudent thing to do.

I prefer to read the results, without feeling the need to qualify the paths that were traveled to reach the final conclusions. Believe me, I have a hard enough time just trying to stay ahead of pip's theories.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

Roy,

I trust you and Beth are enjoying the warmer weather.

You are working way too many hours, my friend. Of course, any work is too much.

Getting back to lithics, and something I can personally relate to, it's hard for me to accept at face value all of the blades, points and tools that are found at the ka-billion archaeological sites as authentic......to the sites.

Speaking from personal experience, I have a hard time discarding any knife/weapon or tool. When you consider that I didn't actually make it, and that my life and sustenance don't really depend on them, I have difficulty with the plethora of such artifacts found laying around in the various sites.

Fine points and tools did not come easily in those days, and each one would have been a treasured possession........not to be misplace or treated in a careless manner. I would think they would take on a spiritual life of their own, to the owners. In a number of early cultures women were not allowed to even touch many of those items.

I would compare many of these finds to a Knight leaving for battle and forgetting to bring along his horse. In many cases, they took such things with them, even into the next world.

All archaeologists live for the day when they will be the ones to make a historical, career-making, discovery. Some have been known to make claims that far overreached their conclusions. Others have been found to have presented pure hoaxes as the real thing.

Many finds in other parts of the world would not be considered authenticated here. As in the Hobbits, they seem to make some pretty huge leaps of logic to reach the conclusions......they were looking for. We can thank people like Ales Hrdlicka for requiring more stringent, connecting, artifacts to establish historical "fact". IMHO, that connectivity is pretty slim with the Flores Island site.

Too many non-cultural artifacts are possibly mixed into the soil to be able to make definitive statements. That is one of the major problems that archaeologists are faced with. That is particularly true in Alaska and Siberia where dating such artifacts is iffy at best. Attaching them to a specific culture is usually guesswork.

As anyone can see, most of the above is my personal opinion and not worth one hell of a lot. I am witting this from our store, so I have no reference material to site.

Hope to see you back posting soon.

Best to you both,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

More Hobbit:

Public release date: 21-Aug-2006
[ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ]

Contact: A'ndrea Elyse Messer
[email protected]
814-865-9481
Penn State

No hobbits in this shire
PLEASE NOTE: The embargo for this release has been lifted.
The skeletal remains found in a cave on the island of Flores, Indonesia, reported in 2004, do not represent a new species as then claimed, but some of the ancestors of modern human pygmies who live on the island today, according to an international scientific team.

The researchers also demonstrate that the fairly complete skeleton designated LB1 is microcephalic, while other remains excavated from the site share LB1's small stature but show no evidence of microcephaly, since no other brain cases are known. Microcephaly is a condition in which the head and brain are much smaller than average for the person's age and gender. It can be present at birth or develop afterwards and is associated with a complex of other growth and skeletal anomalies.

"Our work documents the real dimensions of human variation here," says Dr. Robert B. Eckhardt, professor of developmental genetics and evolutionary morphology, department of kinesiology, Penn State. He notes that "LB1 looks different if researchers think in terms of European characteristics because it samples a population that is not European, but Australomelanesian, and further because it is a developmentally abnormal individual, being microcephalic."

Teuku Jacob, laboratory of bioanthropology and paleoanthropology, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia, was granted permission to study the original bones by Radien P. Soejono, National Archaeological Research Center, Jakarta, Indonesia. The analysis by Jacob's full research team, including Eckhardt and others mentioned below, demonstrates that claims of a new species – "Homo floresiensis" -- commonly called hobbits, are incorrect.

Jacob and colleagues found four major areas of evidence where the 2004 evaluation was wrong: geographical factors, craniofacial asymmetry, dental traits, and postcranial abnormalities. They discuss these areas in today's (Aug 21) online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Those proposing a separate species had claimed that early human ancestors, Homo erectus, traveled to the island about 840 thousand years ago and evolved into "Homo floresiensis," based on the discovery of stone tools on the island. This claim assumed that there was no subsequent human migration to the island until after "Homo floresiensis" died out about 15,000 years ago. Jacob and colleagues contend this is false since pygmy elephants (Stegodon) arrived on the island at least two separate times, and during periods of low sea levels Flores was isolated from other islands by only a few kilometers, as shown by K. Hsü, National Institute of Earth Sciences, Beijing. Repeated influxes by later humans were not only possible, but likely.

For LB1'S cranium, face, dentition, skeleton, they find that many of the key features previously said to be diagnostic of a new species still are present in the Rampasasa pygmies on the island today, along with evidence for growth abnormalities.

One error made in the earlier proposal of a new species was that "comparisons of LB1 were made mostly with Homo sapiens from other geographic areas of the world, principally Europe," the researchers note. "Yet it would have been logical even for a supposedly novel human species from the Australomelanesian region to have been compared with other human populations, present as well as past, from that region," they added.

"To establish a new species, paleoanthropologists are required to document a unique complex of normal traits not found in any other species," says Eckhardt. "But this was not done. The normal traits of LB1 were not unique, and its unusually small braincase was not normal."

To study LB1's traits, 94 cranial features and 46 features of its mandible were compared to values for modern humans. All fell within the normal range of variation for Australomelanesians. Two anatomical details, particular grooves in the cranial base singled out as "not seen in modern humans," in the 2004 new species announcement are, according to Alan Thorne, archaeology and natural history, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, commonly found in Australian and Tasmanian crania.

Dental configuration also can be used to designate a new species. The original researchers argued that a CT scan showed the absence of a third molar and that there was some atypical positioning of other teeth. However, Maciej Henneberg, anatomical sciences, University of Adelaide, Australia and Etty Indriati, laboratory of bioanthroplogy and paleoanthropology, Gadjah Mada University, found an existing socket and a tooth fragment in the space where the molar supposedly was missing. The unusually positioned teeth were there, but such teeth also are found in a sample of Rampasasa pygmies who still live on Flores.

LB1 is short in stature and has a small brain, but rather than a sign of a new species, the researchers consider this to represent microcephaly. The ratios of LB1's cranial capacity and stature are similar to ratios found over several generations in some 20th-Century families of microcephalics.

Understanding normal biological development may be the key to showing that LB1 really is pathological. Of 184 syndromes that include microcephaly, 57 also include short stature; some also include facial asymmetry and dental anomalies. Henneberg notes that "while we do not in this paper diagnose the specific syndrome present, many characteristics point to an abnormal developmental disorder."

To visualize the facial asymmetry, David W. Frayer, professor, department of anthropology, University of Kansas, composed split photographs of LB1's face, combining two left or two right sides as composite faces. The dissimilarities from the original face and between the two left or right composites were striking. To quantify these differences the researchers compared left and right side measurements on the original face.

"I was looking for a standard of how much asymmetry was normal and eventually found a review article covering dozens of papers, some published nearly a century ago in England's prestigious Galton Laboratory" says Eckhardt. "While most faces are not perfectly symmetrical, asymmetry of the facial skeleton that exceeds about 1 percent is unusual."

He and Adam J. Kuperavage, graduate student, kinesiology, Penn State, found that six of seven measurements were larger on LB1's right side by as much as 40 percent, while the seventh was 6 percent larger on the left. LB1's craniofacial asymmetry indicates that this individual was not developmentally normal.

Another supposed indication of a new species was the unusual robustness of the leg bones. "CT scans show that the cortex, the outer solid bone, is very thin, not robust at all," says Henneberg. "The bone is thin and straight. The attachment of the muscles suggests muscle paralysis."

Eckhardt found that the low degree of humeral torsion – twisting of the upper arm bone between the shoulder and elbow – also was not a sign of a new species, but of developmental problems. The normal humeral torsion for a human is about 142 degrees, but LB1 has only 110 degrees of torsion. However, humeral torsion is influenced by both genetic and developmental factors, with about two thirds coming from inherited programming and one third from use. With disuse, torsion is usually only about 110 degrees. Both humeral torsion in the arm and the muscle markings on the femur and tibia in the leg indicate an individual with movement disabilities.

While other skeleton parts were found with LB1 in the same cave, no other cranial parts attributed to this population were unearthed and LB1 is the only reasonably complete skeleton.

The researchers conclude that "The LB1 individual exhibits a combination of characteristics that are not primitive but instead regional, not unique but found in other modern human populations, particularly some still living on Flores, and not derived but strikingly disordered developmentally."

"LB1 is not a normal member of a new species, but an abnormal member of our own," says Eckhardt.
_____________________________________________________________

Like I wrote, it's a little early for conclusive statements about this find.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: CPTBIL's mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

HOLA amigos,

Very interesting posts! I want to address a few points, starting with this:

Lamar wrote:

The beautiful thing about DNA is that it's almost as old as the Earth itself and in light of this fact, and also the fact that DNA can be MAPPED, it's an absolutely wonderful window into past life forms on our planet. The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and DNA is about 4.2 billion years old, therefore DNA can be assumed to be the oldest studiable component of living organisms on our planet.

Without taking issue with your dates, this would mean that DNA came into being only about 300 million (0.3 billion) years after Earth came into being, which is pretty astonishing if you think about it, since the Earth should have been far too HOT for anything to be able to live on it. I know that recent studies (NASA for one) have proposed that Earth cooled down very fast after the collision between 'proto-Earth' and a Mars-sized planet (which collision, they propose, caused the tilt in our axis and our Moon being born from the resulting debris) so .....When did Earth cool to the point where life might form on it, or arrive on it?
Thank you in advance.

Cactusjumper (Joe) wrote

Roy,

I trust you and Beth are enjoying the warmer weather.

You are working way too many hours, my friend. Of course, any work is too much.

The warmer weather is very welcome here - keep sending the warm weather north amigo! I agree on the work schedule too - hopefully soon there will be more "free time" and we can get an actual roof on the cabin. (I expect the daily rainstorms will then change into a prolonged drought.) I hope you folks are doing well.

Cactusjumper also wrote

Getting back to lithics, and something I can personally relate to, it's hard for me to accept at face value all of the blades, points and tools that are found at the ka-billion archaeological sites as authentic......to the sites.

Speaking from personal experience, I have a hard time discarding any knife/weapon or tool.

Perhaps our "values" we place on our tools and possessions are a fairly modern and/or cultural factor? Some rather primitive tribes do not attach much value to their tools, possessions, even homes - and will freely abandon them for no other reason than it is a simple thing to make new tools, a new shelter etc. Also, it is thought that at least SOME of these finds of blades, points etc are not something simply lost or abandoned but were a sort of "votive offering" left by the former owner(s) who may have purposefully created and or purchased the artifacts solely for the purpose of burying them for "the gods" or ancestors etc. Not all sites are "rich" in artifacts, for example at least two of our local Folsum sites (one here in SD, one nearby in WY) have very little in the way of artifacts, only a couple of broken points were found (in animal remains) that alllowed the archaeologists to even identify what culture had used them. Both were "klll" sites, where huge numbers of bison were run off escarpments or cliffs. I am not disagreeing with you in entirety, just saying that in at least SOME cases the finding of artifacts could be reasonably explained or were not as "plentiful" in artifacts as some commonly think.

Cactusjumper also wrote

"LB1 is not a normal member of a new species, but an abnormal member of our own," says Eckhardt.

Thank you for posting the whole article amigo. While this seems conclusive, I recall another study recently done in which castings were taken of the brain case, and compared with microcephalic and normal brain case casts; that study concluded that the 'Hobbits' could not have been microcephalic homo sapiens, due to the large differences. In fact the brain cast did not resemble the normal homo sapiens sapiens either, but most closely resembled homo erectus. <extract>

06.01. Critics Silenced By Scans Of Hobbit Skull , Nature News Excerpts: Virtual skull of the 'hobbit', with its brain cavity highlighted. ? Kirk E. Smith Comparisons with pygmies and chimps bolster new species claim. A computer-generated model of the skull of Homo floresiensis, our diminutive human relative, confirms that the controversial specimens from Indonesia do indeed represent a new species. The study of the creature's brainpan shows that it was neither a pygmy nor an individual with a malformed skull and brain, as some critics contend. This lends support to the discovery team's assertion that the metre-tall specimen belongs to a species distinct from Homo erectus. * Critics Silenced By Scans Of Hobbit Skull, Rex Dalton , 05/03/03, Nature News _________________________________________________________________ 06.02. The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis , Science Excerpts: The brain of Homo floresiensis is assessed by comparing a virtual endocast from the type specimen (LB1) with endocasts from great apes, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, a human pygmy, a human microcephalic, Sts 5 (...) and WT 17000 (...). (...) data indicate that LB1 is not a microcephalic or pygmy. LB1's brain size versus body size scales like an australopithecine, but its endocast shape resembles that of Homo erectus. LB1 has derived frontal and temporal lobes (...), which are consistent with capabilities for higher cognitive processing. * The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis, Dean Falk , Charles Hildebolt , Kirk Smith , Mike J. Morwood , Thomas Sutikna , Peter Brown , Jatmiko , E. Wayhu Saptomo , Barry Brunsden , Fred Prior , 05/03/03, DOI: 10.1126/science.1109727, Science
<end extract, not sure if these are available online>
Cactusjumper also wrote

Like I wrote, it's a little early for conclusive statement about this find.

All too true amigo!
I look forward to your reply and would love to hear from everyone on this, thank you in advance,
Roy ~ Oroblanco