CPTBILs mention of Aztec pictographs in SE Arizona

[cactusjumper]

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

Roy,

It turns out that Morwood does say that the Hobbits hunted Stegodon, but nowhere in the book does he offer any solid proof of this.

It seems hard to believe that something with the brain size of a Chimpanzee created stone tools, including blades and projectile points and used them to hunt.

Another thing that bothers me, is the fact that nowhere in his book does he mention the Rampasasa pygmies who still exist a short distance from the dig. Morwood was working with many of the natives of Flores, who were well aware of the Rampasasa.

There have been too many frauds perpetrated in this field for any new discovery to be accepted at face value. It is too early, IMHO, to rewrite the history of man.

Just one man's unqualified opinion.

Take care,

Joe

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

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

Greetings Joe (and HOLA amigos),

Thank you for taking the time to check - perhaps it is premature to conclude that the Hobbits were actually hunting the pachyderms, though the stone points found certainly suggest they were used for hunting game; it is possible that the Stegodon remains were simply "providence" - the people happened to find adolescents who were ill, injured, trapped, dying etc and took advantage of it. I think the evidence points to hunting though.

One other thing - I doubt there was ever any land bridge to Flores, and at least some researchers think that the Hobbits arrived on the island already small in stature. There is no evidence to show that they arrived as larger beings and adjusted in size to "fit" the island environment, even though this is the theory most popular. There are at least two very deep ocean trenches between Flores island and the nearest landmasses, which of course does not preclude that some land bridge may have subsided (it is a volcanic region) thus far, there is no indication that any land bridge ever existed there. Based on the limited evidence we have, we could say that the Hobbits were small before they arrived in Flores, and that they sailed there - which considering their tiny brain size, is fairly astonishing. However they did use fire in hearths, made or at least possessed stone tools, probably hunted in teams to bring down large and dangerous game (suggesting language) all with a brain no larger than a chimp. Hmm.....
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

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

Hello Roy,

I suppose the question would be: How did the Mastodon's get to the island? I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that they walked. On the other hand, there is little doubt they could swim. The question then becomes: How far would they have to swim to get to Flores Island. My next thought would be: Why?

I have a really hard time concluding that the Hobbits were using the stone age tools that were found. It could be that there is another answer as to how those tools were made, and who made them.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

Avidly listening, go go go go go gentlemen. This is far beter than reading papers.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

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

Roy,

Frauds and hoaxes in archaeology have been around, almost as long as the science itself. One that comes immediately to mind, was the "Piltdown Man." That fossil skull was pieced together from the braincase of a human and the jaw of a chimp. It was fabricated to support a theory about the origin of man. Those who subscribed to that theory accepted the evidence with little debate. "Piltdown Man" was placed into our history and into the textbooks. Forty years after the hoax was perpetrated it was finally exposed.

Just one of many reasons why new finds, that change the history of man, come under such severe scrutiny. Better to question them now, rather than forty years down the road.

Thanks for your reply.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

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

Don Jose,

Glad you are enjoying our little trip down archaeology lane. We could use a little fresh blood in the conversation, as I am at the outer limits of my limited knowledge on the subject. Furness and pip seem to have left the building, and they probably have the most to offer........other than Roy.

Speaking for myself, I am having a great time. I think Roy is smiling as well. The key is in not taking offense when the other guy disagrees with your opinion. Since Roy and I seem to often take the opposing position on many topics, we cover a lot of ground but do it with respect for each other. Amazing how well that works out.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

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

Roy,

"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."

I was wondering if you saw the picture "The Elephant Man"? If so, skull shape can be a tricky factor to base an entire "new" race of man on. Now there was an unusual/non-typical skull.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

Gentlemen: and just how does a brain cast factor in on my extreme flat head gal? Almost no prefrontal lobes showing, sort a like the sheep lover.

Don Jse de La Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

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

Don Jose,

Well........That might explain why she's your "gal". Is she partial to wool?

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

Good evening my buddy cactus : *(^&%$$2128 n & 723661257847 & 726245 also. You have to admit that she 'is' cute though, no disgusting forehead.. But she isn't mine any more, sigh, she now lives in Santa Rosa Calif.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Jeffro]

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

"Pygmy Mammoths", heheheh! Reminds me of a scene from a video game, where one learned old timer is explaining the ropes to the newbie-

Old Timer- "You think thats great? You should see the Giant Dwarves......"

Newbie- (excitedly) "Giant Dwarves, eh? Sounds interesting! Exactly how big were they?"

Old Timer- "Every bit as big as you or me!"

 

[Oroblanco]

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

HOLA amigos,

Joe (Cactusjumper) wrote

It seems hard to believe that something with the brain size of a Chimpanzee created stone tools, including blades and projectile points and used them to hunt.

Well Chimpanzees use tools (clubs as weapons) and hunt in social groups (packs) as well as wage "war" on other Chimpanzees. Gorillas have been taught to use sign language to communicate directly with humans. Dogs (and wolves) have been shown to be using basic math, without any "teaching" from humans. Perhaps science has laid far too much emphasis on brain size as the final measure of intelligence in species?

Joe also wrote

I suppose the question would be: How did the Mastodon's get to the island? I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that they walked. On the other hand, there is little doubt they could swim. The question then becomes: How far would they have to swim to get to Flores Island. My next thought would be: Why?

I have a really hard time concluding that the Hobbits were using the stone age tools that were found. It could be that there is another answer as to how those tools were made, and who made them.

The answer to the first question is they got there by swimming, as most pachyderms (or proboscibs I should say) are excellent swimmers. This may be how Southern Mammoths reached America too, even if the Bering land bridge were submerged at the time they colonized the continents, since they were more of the temperate climate type critters. Reaching the island by swimming also explains why no large predators are found there, none of that area are good enough swimmers. The alternate explanation is they walked there over a now-submerged land bridge, in which case their predators should have also been able to follow. This raises an interesting point I will get to in a moment.
The question as to why any herd animals choose to swim to new lands generally has to do with seeking out new pastures. Elephants have excellent olfactory senses and perhaps they can smell "food" from some distance. Their migrations in Africa are perhaps an indicator of how far their ancestors were willing to travel in order to survive.

Concerning the stone tools found with the Hobbits, they are not of such advanced design and/or workmanship to absolutely preclude any possibility that they created them, in fact the stone tools looked (to me) about on a par with the rather simple tools of Homo Habilis, but I am NO expert in that field either. If the Hobbits did not create those tools, how were the bones marked with cut marks? Who did the actual cutting? We would have to place some other humans (with larger brains) in that cave, or in direct contact with the Hobbits to have somehow left their superior tools/technology in the very place where Hobbits appear to have been living. Based on the local legends (at least what I could find on them) the Hobbits were hardly a "friendly" type of people, in fact they were said to be rather like obnoxious neighbors, local villagers would leave food out for them and the Hobbits would eat the food, plate and all. Of course this could be a clue as to how stone tools got into their possession too - I am speculating completely here, but if at that time, local Homo Sapiens were also leaving "gifts" for their tiny near relations, perhaps they were also giving them stone tools? I know, this is reaching but as you pointed out, this is a very "new" discovery and science does not want to repeat the Piltdown fiasco.

Joe also wrote

Speaking for myself, I am having a great time. I think Roy is smiling as well. The key is in not taking offense when the other guy disagrees with your opinion. Since Roy and I seem to often take the opposing position on many topics, we cover a lot of ground but do it with respect for each other. Amazing how well that works out.

I too am speaking only for myself here but yes this has been very enjoyable and educational. I feel very handicapped in not having any of my own books available so have to work from memory or what is available online which is NOT the best of sources. I think we are so often taking opposing sides of various discussions in part playing "devils advocate" arguing one side in order to keep it interesting - if we simply agreed on everything I doubt that we would have delved into anything in depth. Yes it does seem to work out very well - and I credit Joe for not being the type of guy who takes any disagreement as a personal insult, something that happens far too often in so many forum debates. Besides, debating facts can change the other fellow's mind, which is not possible by simply getting mad and/or insulting. I know I have certainly changed my views on a number of things in our discussions here.

Joe also wrote

I was wondering if you saw the picture "The Elephant Man"? If so, skull shape can be a tricky factor to base an entire "new" race of man on. Now there was an unusual/non-typical skull.

Yes, but generally diseased skulls have definite indications as in the Elephant man case. With the Hobbits, it is true we have only a single (nearly) complete skull, but if memory serves, they also found a lower jawbone of another individual and it is clearly of the same size and the other human remains found were also all of people of very small stature. It would certainly be remarkable if a whole population were suffering from something as exotic and rare as microcephaly. Microcephaly occurs in 0.5 to 2 individuals (average) per thousand births in the USA, which is some indication that it is not a common malady.

Don Jose' de la Mancha wrote

Gentlemen: and just how does a brain cast factor in on my extreme flat head gal? Almost no prefrontal lobes showing, sort a like the sheep lover.

In her case, the high "knowledge bone" at the top of her head is the indicator of her high intellect; the flatness of her head has no bearing in this case as it is purely a "racial" thing. (heh heh) I would also point out, in support of this contention, that donkeys make excellent "guard dogs" for herds of sheep, driving off coyotes and keeping predators at bay.
Don Jose also wrote

she isn't mine any more, sigh, she now lives in Santa Rosa Calif.

I am sorry to hear that you no longer have your dependable treasure hunting partner, but from what I am told Santa Rosa is a very pleasant place to live out her retirement years. Mules (like horses) never forget.

Dang it almost forgot - the whole mystery of pygmy mammoths, stegodons and people - the most popular explanation has to do with a "law" (theory really, and the man who came up with it I cannot recall a name) that claims animals are sized by their environment (except for cold bloods, which grow larger in reverse to mammals by this theory) yet there IS another explanation. For one thing, since the proboscids are excellent swimmers, they were not exactly "trapped" on the island simply because it is an island, any more than the Hobbits would be if they came by sea. Another theory holds that the smaller size of mammals (mammoths, stegodons etc in particular) found on islands like Wrangell, Malta, Sicily etc was an evolutionary advantage enabling the smaller animals to climb the steeper slopes and thus reach higher pastures in cases of natural calamity (drought, floods, volcanoes etc) so would survive when their larger relatives starved to death. This would explain why the pygmy animals didn't simply swim off back to the mainland, they had no need to since they could reach food in times of stress.

I know the very idea of Pygmy Mammoths strikes folks as funny - it hit me that way too; the pygmy Mammoths survived into historic times in Wrangell island (Alaska) at least into the times of the Pharaohs. We even have pygmy elephants today, (in Borneo, also an island) as well as pygmy hippos.
<Pygmy elephants of Borneo>

Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

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

Hi Roy,

"Well Chimpanzees use tools (clubs as weapons) and hunt in social groups (packs) as well as wage "war" on other Chimpanzees. Gorillas have been taught to use sign language to communicate directly with humans. Dogs (and wolves) have been shown to be using basic math, without any "teaching" from humans. Perhaps science has laid far too much emphasis on brain size as the final measure of intelligence in species?"

I agree that Chimpanzees do some astounding things, and as soon as one knapp's out a projectile point or a knife blade and attaches it to an arrowshaft or handle, I will be on board with the Hobbit thingy.

I believe the final measure of the intelligence of any human species, is how they go about shaping/changing their living environment. Making fire, clothes, boots and habitats. Gathering and storing roots, and other food items for the lean times. Cooking different items that would otherwise be uneatable. The list gets a little long, but remains very short for the animal kingdom.

As of yet, I don't believe they have found much that they can tie directly to the Hobbits. The fact that a few remains have been found in the same cave or excavation as man-made artifacts can be explained without a cultural connection to Hobbits.

In Morwood's book, he actually explains many of the ways that nature could have changed or challenged his conclusions.

Take care,

Joe

 

[lamar]

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

Dear cactusjumper;
I tend to take a different view of why certain species such as hobbits, mastodons and mammoths became extinct than the more traditionalist approach in this arena. Based upon what we know, we are now starting to realize that violent environmental upheaval did not cause any mass extinctions, rather it was the time immediately following the periods of sudden change that caused the extinction process to be set into motion.

In other words, perhaps it was not the change itself which caused the extinction events, rather it may have been the LACK of change which triggered it. To expound further, it seems that all life forms on our planet thrive on change and actually flourish in the face of diversity, on the ragged edge of oblivion, as it were. However, once this barrier is removed and life settles down to a nice quiet existence, it soon finds itself on the extinction list.

Researching mass extinctions along the edge of the K-T boundary, we now know that not all life was snuffed out, in fact only an estimated 2/3 of Earth's life forms became extinct shortly thereafter an assumed cataclysmic event. Oddly enough, it was the oldest existing life forms which were most suseptible to extinction whilst the later, newer and less evolved forms happily continued with their respective evolutions.

In view of this fact, it seems that older, more firmly established species are much more susceptible to mass extinctions than the newer, less evolved ones, therefore one can surmise that constant alterations in the environement plays a key role in the continued evolution of life on our planet. And, if this holds true on our planet, then perhaps the same may hold true in other parts of the Universe as well
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[cactusjumper]

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

Hi Lamar,

I agree that the periods following such events are what helped cause extinction's. However, not everything thrives on "change". Salt water fish don't usually live in fresh water.....and visa-versa. Plant's that live in warm climates don't always adapt to cold weather.

If you change the levels of acidity in the ocean, killing off the plankton, it can kill many species farther up the food chain. There are reasons why animals thrive and live where they do. It seems unlikely that Mastodons being forced into a jungle environment by rising sea levels would be able to prosper.

I can see where change might make their numbers dwindle, in many cases, and man just came behind those changes and finished off the relatively small numbers that had survived. Once the Mastodon was gone...... Man adapted.

On the other hand, separating animals into small herds and onto isolated islands is a recipe for disaster.
Limiting the gene pool seems a quick path to extinction. I personally believe that is what the stone age people contributed to.

A prime example of the above, is a tribe I mentioned earlier. The Taron Tribe of Adung Wang Valley are a Pygmy tribe that is racing towards extinction. While they did not confine themselves on an Island, they did flee warlike tribes and end up isolated from others of their kind. While trying to maintain racial purity, they turned to mating with their brothers and sisters.

As a people they have become repulsive to themselves as well as the tribes they live among. "Beyond The Last Village" by Alan Raninowitz is a fascinating read. I believe it can be found online, so you might try that first.

Many thanks for your reply and thoughtful opnion.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

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

HOLA amigos,

Lamar wrote

In other words, perhaps it was not the change itself which caused the extinction events, rather it may have been the LACK of change which triggered it. To expound further, it seems that all life forms on our planet thrive on change and actually flourish in the face of diversity, on the ragged edge of oblivion, as it were. However, once this barrier is removed and life settles down to a nice quiet existence, it soon finds itself on the extinction list.

That is an interesting view my friend, and would "fit" to explain many things. I know that some have proposed a somewhat similar idea concerning how tribal/family group peoples develop into civilizations, because of "living on the edge" as you said, sort of necessity being the mother of invention forcing the people to develop new ways to survive/endure/be victorious in conflicts with other peoples etc. It makes sense, and the facts will fit the theory since we find the most primitive peoples living rather "at ease" in their environment, thus having no urgent need to develop new technologies.

(I could point this out to Joe when we talk about Chimpanzees hunting monkeys with clubs, they are successful in the low tech methods they now use so have no need to flake out superior stone weaponry.)

To dismiss the Hobbits as purely coincidental that stone tools, charred bones of pygmy stegodons and giant komodo lizards I think is to ignore the obvious. (Occam's razor) It COULD be a case of pure accident, (brain size notwithstanding) that Hobbits ended up being buried amongst such "advanced" things but seems pretty unlikely. To further the point of brain size possibly not being the best indicator of overall intelligence - today it is believed that Parrots, birds with brains not much larger than a pea, are about as intelligent as small children.
Quote
"These birds have the emotional and social skills of a 2 and 1/2, 3 year old child. Their intellectual skills are more like a 5 or 6 year old child in some cases"
-Dr. Irene Pepperberg

end quote
extract
African Grey parrots have been tested using rigorous scientific standards, and are classed alongside the most intelligent animal species. Dr. Irene Pepperberg's extensive research with captive African greys, famously with a bird named Alex, has documented the ability to associate human words with meanings, and to intelligently apply the abstract concepts of shape, color, number, zero-sense, etc. In many cognitive tasks they perform at the level of dolphins, chimpanzees, and even a human toddler
end extract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Grey_Parrot

This may seem far off topic, but the case of the Hobbits is very far from being closed, so we should keep our minds open to the possibilities (and to the possibility that our preconceived standards by which we measure people could be seriously flawed).

Thank you both for the interesting and thoughtful replies, I hope you have a very pleasant day or evening.
your friend,
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

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

Roy,

Lots of animals can learn to do tricks and can advance their "technology"........to a point. As soon as you can find a monkey who will assemble a bicycle on Christmas morning, I am with you on this line of thought.

Only one (1) Hobbit skull is being used to establish a "new" human species . There are many questions that need to be answered, but I would start with.....Where are the other skulls? Since there are other Hobbit bones that are being found, where is that second (matching) skull?

IMHO, when you consider the small area, relatively speaking, where this new "human" is found, something seems out of place in the conclusions that are being reached. While there are many who agree with the original findings, there are also many who are not joining in on the accolades. That is normal in these kinds of discoveries, but I can see the logic in the negatives.

When you look at the curved limbs (for climbing in trees) and the unusual, for humans, feet, small brains and stature, there seems to be plenty to question. My own, unqualified, opinion is.......Not human or, more likely, a Pygmy suffering from cretinism. There is, after all, a Pygmy tribe still living on Flores Island.

It would be just as easy to accept the original finder's conclusions, but I don't see how that would be nearly as much fun.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

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

HOLA amigos,

Cactusjumper wrote

Lots of animals can learn to do tricks and can advance their "technology"........to a point. As soon as you can find a monkey who will assemble a bicycle on Christmas morning, I am with you on this line of thought.

Hmm, so you are equating rather simple stone tools and fairly primitive group hunting with assembling of a mechanical device? I guess we are not going to agree on this issue, especially since at least one gorilla named Koko learned to use sign language to communicate with humans. http://www.koko.org/world/signlanguage.html

Cactusjumper also wrote

Only one (1) Hobbit skull is being used to establish a "new" human species . There are many questions that need to be answered, but I would start with.....Where are the other skulls? Since there are other Hobbit bones that are being found, where is that second (matching) skull?

There is only one complete skull but if memory serves, they did find a second jawbone which is indicative of a similar skull, and the other sets of remains (all incomplete) are all of very small stature.

Cactusjumper also wrote

When you look at the curved limbs (for climbing in trees) and the unusual, for humans, feet, small brains and stature, there seems to be plenty to question. My own, unqualified, opinion is.......Not human or, more likely, a Pygmy suffering from cretinism. There is, after all, a Pygmy tribe still living on Flores Island.

Looking at the limbs is indeed interesting, especially the very simple wrist structures of the Hobbits, which is closer to Australopithicines than any other humanoid. My even more unqualified opinion is human but of a very early type, best candidate being Homo Habilis. Habilis stood only a couple of inches taller than four feet, so "shrinking" down to three feet would not be an extreme size change, not much out of what is considered a "normal" height difference for a human species. (We have humans today who stand seven feet and more, and humans who stand four feet, all of the same species, for instance.)

My apologies for digressing yet again, I think my point for even bringing Hobbits into the subject was to point out that crossing of water barriers has not proven to be a great obstacle for the human species even in quite distant ancient times. The fact that people reached Australia by sea at least 40,000 years ago should be an indicator of our capabilities. This idea of a need for a "land bridge" before people can reach and colonize new lands is a fairly recent theory, which can be traced to the Medeival period when most Europeans were not aware of the Earth being round, and deep, almost psychotic fears of the sea were widespread. Prior to this time, people were sailing across quite vast seas for purposes of trade (and more) without benefit of compass, perhaps as far back as when the first humans trotted out of Africa. (Or Asia, if that theory proves correct; though I doubt it so far.) A problem in proving ancient seafaring is directly attributable to the fact that sailing vessels were constructed of wood up until quite recent times, so virtually nothing remains to be found of their vessels. The redoubtable log dugout canoe, fitted with outriggers in the style of the Polynesians, is likely one of the earliest types of vessels used for crossing the seas. A mere handful of these type of vessels have ever been found, (I can recall a couple being found in Florida recently that dated to 8000 years old, and one in the UK, here is a short article which mentions a couple of others even older
http://transportationhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/dugout_canoes

Skin-covered wooden framed boats have been around perhaps as long - like the kayaks of the Eskimos or leather boats of the ancient Irish, and were very good for hunting sea mammals (seals, walrus, whales etc) so these are perhaps the best candidates for a sea route to colonize the Americas. A few years ago a fellow tried to duplicate the voyage of St Brendan with a leather boat, sailing from Ireland to America via the northern route and using only the instruments and tools of the age, and did so successfully. An ocean-going boat was found in the desert of Kuwait, which dated to about 7000 years ago
http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/18secrets.html
so I think we cannot rule out the cross-water routes for the "first" Americans by any means. The fact that the oldest human remains found in S. America seem to be Australoid in race, with no trace of them being found in N. America, may well point to a cross-Pacific colonization that dates back over 10,000 years.

Thank you again for the interesting replies, my apologies for being absent yet again (irrigation projects of late, hopefully soon will have more time home) and I look forward to reading your responses.
your friend,
Roy ~ Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

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

Hello Roy,

"Hmm, so you are equating rather simple stone tools and fairly primitive group hunting with assembling of a mechanical device? I guess we are not going to agree on this issue, especially since at least one gorilla named Koko learned to use sign language to communicate with humans."

I feel that my conclusions may be a little more complicated than that.
Koko had to be taught sign language by a much higher intelligence than he possessed on his own. Many animals have a rudimentary visible means of communication which other species may even understand, such as warnings. In addition they may have audible warnings which are understood by others.

If a man in another country lifts his hand with the palm towards you, without either of you knowing the other's language, it would probably be understood as "stop" or "I am a friend (hello)" , depending on the circumstances. In the animal kingdom, there are many such "signs".

The fact that Primates use a club as a tool or weapon does not mean that they would find a sharp piece of obsidian and use it to butcher and eat another animal. Beyond that, taking a block of the same material and using something else to fashion a cutting instrument out of it, does not seem to be within their mental capabilities.

Many animals hunt or protect their territory in packs. While that seems like "war", it certainly doesn't take advanced intelligence. It always boils down to food, water and survival. Man's wars, mostly, boil down to more complicated mental processes.

For me, I am less interested in the limbs and jawbones of the remains that were found, than the skull or to be specific, the shape of the skulls and the volume of the brain pans. If they find a number of skulls that match in size and shape to the first, they have a bit more to base their conclusion of a new race on.

Once again, I would like to know why no other skull have been found. Because of the many out and out frauds that have been perpetrated in this field, one can't help but wonder if other skull have been found which don't support the conclusions which have put the original finders in the history books. Show me one other matching skull, and I will willingly change my tune.

"Looking at the limbs is indeed interesting, especially the very simple wrist structures of the Hobbits, which is closer to Australopithicines than any other humanoid. My even more unqualified opinion is human but of a very early type, best candidate being Homo Habilis. Habilis stood only a couple of inches taller than four feet, so "shrinking" down to three feet would not be an extreme size change, not much out of what is considered a "normal" height difference for a human species. (We have humans today who stand seven feet and more, and humans who stand four feet, all of the same species, for instance.)"

That seems a reasonable conclusion, which many "qualified" people have also reached. However, to establish a type, especially when so many other unremarkable parts of remains have been found, would require at least, I should think, one matching (unique) feature. Small stature is not, IMHO, enough to base a new race of mankind on. This would be especially true when a tribe of Pygmy's lives within walking distance.

The smaller size could easily be explained by deficiencies in diet over a prolonged period of time, as well as cultural preferences. I would be happy to provide sources for that opinion, but would need to be at home to get to them. It's possible that it could all be found on the Internet, but that's not my preference.

IMHO, the "land bridge" versus primitive boats, is a moot point. They were on the island, how they got there seems an interesting story, but not as important as how they arrived at the evolutionary place that is concluded.

As for "tools": Many experts have mentioned the non-cultural events that can create, what looks like, man-made artifacts. Where the Hobbits were found is flooded, pardon the pun, with such events. I won't list all of those events, as I am sure you are aware of the causes for such things.

On the other hand, there are others on the island that could account for the tools that were found. Even though the "tools" were found in the same, (approximate) stratigraphic correlation, there could be other explanations for that relationship.

We are not really so far apart on our opinions. I believe either of us could turn out to be correct on these matters. That's why I qualify my statements as unqualified opinions.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

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

Roy,

There was one other thing I forgot to address:

"Skin-covered wooden framed boats have been around perhaps as long - like the kayaks of the Eskimos or leather boats of the ancient Irish, and were very good for hunting sea mammals (seals, walrus, whales etc) so these are perhaps the best candidates for a sea route to colonize the Americas. A few years ago a fellow tried to duplicate the voyage of St Brendan with a leather boat, sailing from Ireland to America via the northern route and using only the instruments and tools of the age, and did so successfully. An ocean-going boat was found in the desert of Kuwait, which dated to about 7000 years ago
http://www.goldenageproject.org.UK/18secrets.HTML
So I think we cannot rule out the cross-water routes for the "first" Americans by any means. The fact that the oldest human remains found in S. America seem to be Australoid in race, with no trace of them being found in N. America, may well point to a cross-Pacific colonization that dates back over 10,000 years."
____________________________________________________

I am completely with you on the boat use by the "first" Americans. I can see where they may have even preceeded those that came across on the land bridge. Actually, I believe they may have preceeded those folks by thousands of years.

At the same time I don't rule out boats for the original Hobbits, but........ It is estimated that the Hobbits arrived on Flores around 95,000 years ago. It seems to me I remember dates much older than that. If that is true, you would need to find evidence of boats from around 100,000 years ago, I would think. In addition to that, you would need to assume that the Hobbits had the intelligence to think of and create such boats. There is no evidence that they had boats or anything else that required the ability to manufacture anything of a like nature on Flores Island.

If they did have boats that long ago, it is unlikely they could have made it to Flores Island without sails, another intelligent concept, or large boats/rafts with multiple rowers. There are very strong currents in that area. Beyond that, they would need strong reasons, in that era, to leave Asia for an uncertain destination across the inhospitable waters.

The concept of exploration for the sake of adventure or just to see what's over the hill seems a bit far-fetched for that time period. People were obsessed with surviving the elements and finding food. They, after all, could not smell the availability of such things across the waters.......Well, maybe they could.

The more I look into the Hobbit subject, the greater my doubts become. I still can't get past the fact that they are finding more bones, but not another complete skull. Why not?? Where did those skulls go?

Take care,

Joe