Archaeologica.org

Cognito wrote:

So what else is new? We know about the mini mammoths on Wrangel island and on the Catalina islands, don't we? We know about pygmies, don't we? The Hobbit was a perfectly natural phenomenon, an island variant of HE.

So, second request RS. Just how, within the confines of Darwinian evolution and island dwarfism, did the Hobbit wind up with foot morphology similar to that of A. afarensis?

I don't have all the answers, Roy, witness my nick, but I do think that we (you) should be extremely wary of attributing properties to a species' variant on the basis of less than 10% of 2 individuals' skeletal remains.

I wasn't attributing owt, I wasthinking aloud, pointing out the morphological similarities as mentioned by Cog and pointing out that the simplest solution was as I suggested.
Also I wasn't limiting my thoughts to the Hobbits, I pointed out that pymy people are a world wide phenomena and that the area they occupy is suggestive of an early migration.
Thus opening the subject up to discussion as an alternative to the accepted view.

Roy.

Digit wrote:I wasn't attributing owt

Then what's this:

...the Hobbit [...] with foot morphology similar to that of A. afarensis

Digit wrote:Or at least only very slowly!

Roy.

An observation, same as the observation as to height.
Both valid, nothing more than that, I'm not carrying any banners nor promoting any private theories, just making observations.
Also of course the locality of the various groups is interesting, but that also is simply an observation as it may by simple coincidence and of no importance.
Also the fact that, as far as I am aware, no such group exists in the new world.

Roy.

Hmmm....let's propose an experiment. Take a pygmy newborn and feed it well. Do you suppose you will get


A) A tall pygmy.


B) A fat pygmy.


C) a standard Pygmy.

A MK One Standard Issue Pygmy.

Roy.

Digit wrote:Also the fact that, as far as I am aware, no such group exists in the new world.

Never been to the Amazon? SA rainforest indians are about 5' on average...

Pygmies by definition are not more than three and a half feet? tall.

Roy.

Digit wrote:Pygmies by definition are not more than three and a half feet? tall.

More like 4,5' afaik. Only a tad smaller than Amazon indians. But I haven't been there.
However, the Amazon indians are just shorter versions of us. Their skulls are the same size as ours. So they often seem to have slightly oversized heads in relation to their height.
Pygmie/Baka skulls stay in proportion to their body size, so their skulls are effectively (on average) smaller than ours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples

Apparently 4ft 11in and there are some in Brazil it seems.
4ft 11in seems odd as that would place a large number of 19 C Eurasians in the pygmy grouping.
Queen Victoria claimed to be 5ft 2in, when measured without shoes IIRC she was 4ft 10in.

http://www.africaguide.com/culture/tribes/pygmies.htm

This would seem to end the isolation argument i think


Roy.

Digit wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples

Apparently 4ft 11in and there are some in Brazil it seems.
4ft 11in seems odd as that would place a large number of 19 C Eurasians in the pygmy grouping.
Queen Victoria claimed to be 5ft 2in, when measured without shoes IIRC she was 4ft 10in.

North-western Europeans* are today on average about a full foot taller than their (our) ancestors were not 500 years ago.
As a 10 year old boy, on a tour of a medieval castle, the tour guide picked me to 'wear' a medieval (14th century) knight's tournament helmet. Of course because that was a fantastic opportunity for a 10 year old (it gave me bragging rights, still effective today ), but also because all the other people in the visitors group were simply too big to fit a medieval knight's helmet! They were a lot smaller then than we are today!

So it's all relative. And in permanent flux.

Mind: we're talking averages!
There have always been 4' and 7' people. Then and now. But those are statistically a) incidents, and b) extremes. Not averages.

*I use the term loosely to include the inhabitants of the British and Irish isles...

*I use the term loosely to include the inhabitants of the British and Irish isles...

You're learning!

Roy.

Digit wrote:

*I use the term loosely to include the inhabitants of the British and Irish isles...

You're learning!

Match me!

Learning is why i've grown to prefer the United States of America to the dis united States of Europe.

Roy.