Tiny new species of human unearthed - most important palaeoanthropological find for 50 years

newscientist. ^ | 27 October 04

[Stag]

I just read the last bit of the blurb...did he just call me a homo?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Homo Sapien Daschlus

[kx9088]

How do they know it wasn't just a village of midgets...er, I mean vertically challenged homosapiens?

[delapaz]

This has very little to do with human evolution as this find is 13000 years ago and archaic human sapiens have been found dating to 100,000 years ago if you accept naturalistic philosophy.

[AntiGuv]

Very intriguing. I wonder how they've concluded that this is a separate hominid species, as opposed to a sapiens variation more akin to the Pygmies of central Africa.

[Choose Ye This Day]

[This is probably Internet bunk, but I remembered reading this years ago and having a good chuckle over it.}

The story behind the letter below is that there is this person in Newport, RI named Scott Williams who digs things out of his back yard and send the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, labeling them with scientific names, insisting that they are actual archaeological finds.

This guy really exists and does this in his spare time! Anyway...here's the actual response from the Smithsonian Institute. Bear this in mind the next time you think you are challenged in your duty to respond to a difficult situation in writing.

---

Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Mr. Williams:

Thank you for your latest submission to the institute, labeled "93211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline pole...Hominid skull." We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago.

Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety that one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be a "Malibu Barbie." It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings.

However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to its modern origin:

1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.

2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-homonids.

3. The dentition pattern evident on the skull is more consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going too much into detail, let us say that:
A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.
B. Clams don't have teeth.
It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon-dated. This is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly due to carbon-dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon-dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results.

Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation Phylogeny Department wit the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name Australopithecus-spiffarino. Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound like it might be Latin. However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a Hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the site you have discovered in your Newport back yard.

We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus Rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,


Harvey Rowe
Chief Curator-Antiquities

[Henchman]

"The find also shows that small-brained humans could evolve without losing much of their intelligence. " ... I don't know about that - look at the Presidential race.

[Henchman]

PING

[Junior]

Just because modern humans have been around for the past 100k years does not mean that other species of humans did not exist during that time.

[PatrickHenry]

There's an earlier thread on this, about an hour earlier, but it's all messed up.
Hobbit remains found in Australia.

[January24th]

Nasssssty Hobbitssses, aren't they, Precioussss?

[blam]

GGG Ping

"Accelerator mass spectrometry dating suggests that LB1's remains are 18,000 years old. But New Scientist has learned that some bone fragments could be as young as 13,000 years old. The oldest remains from the site are 78,000 and 94,000 years old, respectively."

Don't forget that the super-volcano Toba blew it's top 75,000 years ago and as few as 2,000 humans worldwide survived.

[VadeRetro]

Yeah. Just for starters, I would say Indonesia isn't part of Australia. That's probably where I got the "hobbit" thing in my head, though.

Well, speaking of heads:

[delapaz]

Obviously your right.

The point is that this whatever-it-is doesn't clear up anything about homo sapiens got here or where it came from. It might even be evidence of a reversal.

Is there information as to how many cc's the brain cavity is? Homo Sapiens have a very large range in that regard.

[delapaz]

nice pic, wow it is eerily just like we would expect a hobbit to look like.

[VadeRetro]

You have to imagine the hairy feet. (That's not too far-fetched, though.)

[Ahban]

Fascinating stuff. Ever hear of the Orang Pendek? It fits the description of this thing to a T.

[VadeRetro]

Needed to re-Yahoo it, although I'd heard of it before. Interesting idea.

[SunkenCiv]

Hi ho, hi ho...

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[delapaz]

plus it was found in a cave, with cooking implements and the remains of what was probably dinner. They were probably just finishing second breakfast.