Homo floresiensis

[Neala]

Typical, connection breaks as I try to post for the 1st time

Ok, a few years back fossils and tools were found on the island of Flores that suggest that a non-sapiens species of human was extant until approximately 12000BC. If local legends are accurate, they could have been extant until as little as 100 years ago (although this is extremely unlikely)

lets set aside for a moment the arguments that they might be remains of modern humans with physical abnormalities.

What would the effects be on world history if they'd survived to the modern day? Especially once europeans arrived in the area. They would come across not only another race, but another species of human. Would they distinguish between the 2 concepts? Would they just lump all humans who lived in the area into 1 'racial' category regardless of species? What would the effects be on the concept of 'Human Rights'? Would you have 'Sapiens Rights' instead?

 

[cerebus]

My instinct is that it makes a lot less difference than you might think.

In the early years (centuries) of european exploration Orangutangs and Gorillas were often described as "wild men". Later on the Hobbits are going to be even more vulnerable to disease, competition and outright slaughter than the Bushmen were.

If they survive this they will become evidence supporting evolution but, cynically, I suspect this will just encourage feelings of white man superiority in the late empires and enable people to argue there is a range of humans but "we" are the most advanced.
Twaddle but seductive twaddle.

If they manage to exist to the present day outside zoos then there will be arguments for defining them as human. However there are arguments for defining Chimps as human and Homo Florensis is probably as genetically simmilar.

 

[carlton_bach]

How drastically different would floresiensis have been phenotypically? Sapiens is remarkably varied in its phenotypes, so if floresiensis looks not very much different from, say, your typical Khoisan or pygmy, would people even recognise the were looking at a different species of human? I suspect he'd be classed as a kind of homo sapiens (initially, true to 18th century precepts, as a debased kind, later perhaps as a primitive form). If floresiwnsis survives neighbouring sapiens for that long, there's a good chance studies will establish that we are looking at a different homo, but that's no big deal. Legally, human rights attach to humans, and biologically, 'human' is usually equated with the genus homo, not the separate species. Otherwise, the motion to declare chimpanzees 'homo pan' rather than 'pan troglodytes' wouldn't be controversial.

 

[Neala]

It's certainly been suggested that the specimens of Homo F (I can't keep writing floresiensis) that have been discovered are actually microcephalic sapiens. I'm also aware of the calls to reclassify Chimps and Bonobos in the genus homo, and to be honest I agree. I suspect it would be easier to do as well if we had another extant human species around. On the other hand, they may just end up being classified as a species of chimpanzee until modern cladistic taxonomy developed

My own feelings are that there would be little change prior to the development of the theory of evolution. They would probably be labelled as degenerate wild men or something like that. However, as the theory of evolution becomes more widely known, I suspect anthropologists might look more closely at them for evidence. It's interesting to note that they appear to have been an offshoot of Erectus.

Thinking about it, Darwin might develop his theory after visiting Flores, not the Galapagos islands

If the local legends are to be believed, it appears they did survive living next to and interacting with sapiens for a long time. They would have had a very small population, confined as they were to Flores

Cerebus, I suspect you're right about they're existence adding to the feeling of white mans supposed superiority

 

[William IV]

I think this species would most likely share the fate of all other hominids, it would either cross-breed with Homo sapiens or be wiped out by trying to compete with Homo sapiens. The fact is, if this species migrated out of Africa to this island, then Homo sapiens would do the same. Complete isolation between these two hominids would not be possible until after ice age, and that would be too late.

 

[Ran Exilis]

Typical, connection breaks as I try to post for the 1st time

Ok, a few years back fossils and tools were found on the island of Flores that suggest that a non-sapiens species of human was extant until approximately 12000BC. If local legends are accurate, they could have been extant until as little as 100 years ago (although this is extremely unlikely)

I agree, it is indeed unlikely that the local legends refer to surviving Homo floresiensis.

IMHO it is far more likely that these local legends refer to a native population of the so-called negrito's, who are most propably the direct descendants of the very first Homo sapiens to colonize Southeast Asia. In all likelyhood, they predate even the Papua's and Melanesians.

lets set aside for a moment the arguments that they might be remains of modern humans with physical abnormalities.

What would the effects be on world history if they'd survived to the modern day? Especially once europeans arrived in the area. They would come across not only another race, but another species of human. Would they distinguish between the 2 concepts? Would they just lump all humans who lived in the area into 1 'racial' category regardless of species? What would the effects be on the concept of 'Human Rights'? Would you have 'Sapiens Rights' instead?

As Carlton Bach already said, the Homo floresiensis propably wouldn't look all that different from, say, the average Khoisan or pygmy, and it is unlikely that the early European explorers and colonists would study the floresiensis enough to discover that they are in fact a different species of human. And most European colonists already had a tendency to regard the native tribesmen as inherently primitive, so the survival of the floresiensis would propably just confirm their opinions and prejudice about native forest tribes.

And these surviving floresiensis are likely to be relatively isolated tribes of hunter-gatherers, so they won't be very interesting for the early European colonists, as they were mainly looking for financial gain.

In fact, the Europeans may not even be aware of the existence of these surviving floresiensis, save for some local legends of primitive forest people, of which there are already quite a lot in the Sunda Archipelago.

And if the floresiensis are studied by anthropologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries, their existence is will propably only confirm the old racial theories and assumptions about superior and inferior races. Under those circumstances, the floresiensis are likely to be regarded as a typical example of a primitive and inferior human race.

And in the old racial theories, it was quite common to assume that the human races had evolved separately from pre-Homo sapiens ancestors, so even if it would be discovered that Homo floresiensis evolved from a different lineage than Homo sapiens, then that would actually fit quite nicely in the old racial theories about the evolution of mankind.


..
PS: welcome to the board, by the way.

 

[fortyseven]

Welcome to the Board kellineil.