Print Сite this

Hobbit: Archeological and Paleontological Point of View

Homo floresiensis, had features that were similar to his ancestor australopithecines. He had a small body size, his legs were shorter in length and his clavicle and scapula shows he had the ability to rotate less as compared to his ancestor’s australopithecines. When we compare his hands with those of australopithecines, his wrist does not have a palmar expansion which could enable him to grasp things by the use of his hands, as it is found in a modern human being. Homo floresiensis had a smaller brain which can only be compared to chimpanzees (380 cm³) and “he had a withdrawing forehead with a small ear and he had a larger cheek teeth, with his jaw protruding as we compare him with chimpanzees” (Morwood et al., 1999).

We will write a
custom essay
specifically for you

for only $16.05 $11/page
308 certified writers online
Learn More

The controversy about the hobbit species

This archaeological excavation of skeletal remains (hobbit) in the island of Flore in Eastern Indonesia can be classified under the species of homofloresiensis. We are seeing hobbit to have a similar feature to australopithecine and ape. He had a small endocrinal capacity of 417 cm³ similar to that of his ancestor australopithecines which had a small endocrinal capacity of 380cm³.

He had numerous features similar to those of australopithecines, such as a small-brain and his body was small, his ears were small and external ones, the skeletal remains had a forehead which was retreating and the jaw of this skeletal were protruding with a large cheek-teeth but his mandibular-symphysis was retreating with an internal buttressing and he classified under LB1 due to his body structure, In LB1, we don’t see a modern structure of humans with less buttressing as it is found in man but these skeletal remains of a hobbit, had a massive internal buttressing like his ancestors the australopithecines (Homo habilis).

The factors that could help resolve these argument

Some people consider hobbit to be another species while others have said it belongs to modern human beings. There have been various analysis of these specimen found in the island of Flores and it has been seen these skeletal had primitive features (skulls, face, and hands), it feet’s was long and they were proportional to their lower limbs. Their navicular bones are similar to that of ape and he was bipedal but he had different walking style as compared to modern human beings. Hobbits lack arch and this means they were not long-term runners as compared to modern human beings that are found in those Indonesian islands. “This analysis has suggested the hominins were early inhabitant of these islands that are found in Indonesia(Morwood et al., 1999).

The characteristics of homofroresiensis are, it has a smaller body and brain when you compare it to any other genus. The study on this species found out that its cranial shape will fit like in the model of archaic homo but it has also been found this species hobbit its characteristics does not resemble that of human beings. The characteristics of facial asymmetry in the hobbit it was found out it falls under the extant hominines like the other species. In conclusion, these species Hobbit will fall under the species of homofroresiensis because of the reasons mentioned above.

How advances in genetic technology could theoretically provide further insight into our recent evolutionary

Nowadays archeology is using computer-aided Tomography, this is the most effective technique of knowing the age of hobbit because it uses the technique of CT scan. This type of technology has been widely used around the world but mostly it has been used in Egyptian sarcophagi (embalmed mummies) and the prehistoric corpse (otzi) which was found frozen in the Alps.

Reference List

Morwood, M.J. et al., 1999. Archeological and paleontological research in central flores, east Indonesia: results of fieldwork. London, Antiquity.

Get your
100% original paper
on any topic

done in as little as
3 hours
Learn More

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2021, November 24). Hobbit: Archeological and Paleontological Point of View. Retrieved from https://studycorgi.com/hobbit-archeological-and-paleontological-point-of-view/

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2021, November 24). Hobbit: Archeological and Paleontological Point of View. https://studycorgi.com/hobbit-archeological-and-paleontological-point-of-view/

Work Cited

"Hobbit: Archeological and Paleontological Point of View." StudyCorgi, 24 Nov. 2021, studycorgi.com/hobbit-archeological-and-paleontological-point-of-view/.

1. StudyCorgi. "Hobbit: Archeological and Paleontological Point of View." November 24, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/hobbit-archeological-and-paleontological-point-of-view/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "Hobbit: Archeological and Paleontological Point of View." November 24, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/hobbit-archeological-and-paleontological-point-of-view/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2021. "Hobbit: Archeological and Paleontological Point of View." November 24, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/hobbit-archeological-and-paleontological-point-of-view/.

References

StudyCorgi. (2021) 'Hobbit: Archeological and Paleontological Point of View'. 24 November.

This paper was written and submitted to our database by a student to assist your with your own studies. You are free to use it to write your own assignment, however you must reference it properly.

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal.