|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 3, 2020 3:32:42 GMT 5
I mean i would really take that with a grain of salt as it is based in mythology. Kind of like how Bigfoot and other north american bipedal "hominids" are accounted for in native american mythology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 3, 2020 3:36:36 GMT 5
The closest thing to your claim I could find was this: " How long H. floresiensis persisted, or whether the species ever came face to face with H. sapiens , as did Neanderthals in Europe, is unknown, but local folktales suggest that little people were living in caves on some Indonesian islands when the first Dutch explorers arrived in the 16th century." www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/30-little-people-make-big-splashThere's an extant human (read: Homo sapiens) pygmy population that actually lives not too far from the cave in which H. floresiensis fossils were found. However, these people don't show evidence of admixture with anything other than Neanderthals and Denisovans, and interestingly seem to have evolved their small size independently ( Tucci et al., 2018). Even if Dutch explorers encountered a population of abnormally small people back in the day, they could easily have been pygmy H. sapiens like the present day population. Well, we know it is possible that H. Sapiens did encounter H. Floresiensis, as evidenced by Ebu Gogo and the disappearance of other human species and megafauna. Yeah, these encounters would likely have occurred 50,000 years ago. Needless to say, that doesn't say anything about H. floresiensis surviving as late as ~500 years ago for Europeans to encounter them. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 3, 2020 5:33:18 GMT 5
I mean i would really take that with a grain of salt as it is based in mythology. Kind of like how Bigfoot and other north american bipedal "hominids" are accounted for in native american mythology. You mean Ebu Gogo? Those could be either dwarf people or H. florensis, I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 3, 2020 5:50:16 GMT 5
Or they could just be completely made up...
Not unlikely in my view, as it wouldn’t be the first time a culture has incorporated little people into their folklore/mythology (and without any precedent for small hominins ever living in those regions, to my knowledge).
|
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 3, 2020 6:12:53 GMT 5
Or they could just be completely made up... Not unlikely in my view, as it wouldn’t be the first time a culture has incorporated little people into their folklore/mythology (and without any precedent for small hominins ever living in those regions, to my knowledge). I would say that the description matches too closely with H. Floresiensis to be coincidental. The locale, descritpion, and probable habits (cave dwelling, no use of fire, etc.) fit. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 3, 2020 6:14:13 GMT 5
Well, we know it is possible that H. Sapiens did encounter H. Floresiensis, as evidenced by Ebu Gogo and the disappearance of other human species and megafauna. Yeah, these encounters would likely have occurred 50,000 years ago. Needless to say, that doesn't say anything about H. floresiensis surviving as late as ~500 years ago for Europeans to encounter them. I wouldn't doubt that a small hominin could survive in the extensive jungles of Flores until mroe recently than 50,000 years ago (definitely not 1600's but, still more recently). |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 3, 2020 8:36:44 GMT 5
I mean i would really take that with a grain of salt as it is based in mythology. Kind of like how Bigfoot and other north american bipedal "hominids" are accounted for in native american mythology. You mean Ebu Gogo? Those could be either dwarf people or H. florensis, I guess. That has little to do with what i said. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 3, 2020 17:29:20 GMT 5
Oh.
What were you referring to, then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 3, 2020 17:50:52 GMT 5
Or they could just be completely made up... Not unlikely in my view, as it wouldn’t be the first time a culture has incorporated little people into their folklore/mythology (and without any precedent for small hominins ever living in those regions, to my knowledge). I would say that the description matches too closely with H. Floresiensis to be coincidental. The locale, descritpion, and probable habits (cave dwelling, no use of fire, etc.) fit. I don't think we can claim H. floresiensis was particularly a cave-dwelling animal. Not only were there remains of at least a H. floresiensis-like hominin uncovered outside of a cave ( van den Bergh et al., 2016), but a cave is inherently better for fossil preservation. Even if H. floresiensis (or H. floresiensis-like) fossils were only known from caves, this could simply be a function of preservational bias rather than caves being their typical shelter (this is the why the whole "caveman" stereotype exists). Can't say anything disputing the fire part. What other descriptions do they fit? Well, I don't know how much more recently you think H. floresiensis could have survived to, but if it's significantly later, then, of course, more evidence would be needed to be more confident. That's all I can say. Also, slight nitpick: ~500 years ago (the 16th century) is the 1500s, not the 1600s. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Feb 3, 2020 21:16:50 GMT 5
I would say that the description matches too closely with H. Floresiensis to be coincidental. The locale, descritpion, and probable habits (cave dwelling, no use of fire, etc.) fit. I don't think we can claim H. floresiensis was particularly a cave-dwelling animal. Not only were there remains of at least a H. floresiensis-like hominin uncovered outside of a cave ( van den Bergh et al., 2016), but a cave is inherently better for fossil preservation. Even if H. floresiensis (or H. floresiensis-like) fossils were only known from caves, this could simply be a function of preservational bias rather than caves being their typical shelter (this is the why the whole "caveman" stereotype exists). Can't say anything disputing the fire part. What other descriptions do they fit? Well, I don't know how much more recently you think H. floresiensis could have survived to, but if it's significantly later, then, of course, more evidence would be needed to be more confident. That's all I can say. Also, slight nitpick: ~500 years ago (the 16th century) is the 1500s, not the 1600s. Well, they were small (obviously, about 3-4 foot tall), ate their food raw, and had their own sort of mumbling language that made no sense to the real people. Their faces were round and flat with a wide mouth (which does fit the facial reconstructions quite nicely). They are said to have been hairier than the normal people.. They didn't wear clothes most of the time and if they did it was usually an animal skin draped on themselves without any sort of real modification. They were quite unpicky, and would eat many things (meat and plant matter). A good amount of this is speculative, but the physical description and some of the activites portrayed do fit. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 4, 2020 5:09:54 GMT 5
I don't think we can claim H. floresiensis was particularly a cave-dwelling animal. Not only were there remains of at least a H. floresiensis-like hominin uncovered outside of a cave ( van den Bergh et al., 2016), but a cave is inherently better for fossil preservation. Even if H. floresiensis (or H. floresiensis-like) fossils were only known from caves, this could simply be a function of preservational bias rather than caves being their typical shelter (this is the why the whole "caveman" stereotype exists). Can't say anything disputing the fire part. What other descriptions do they fit? Well, I don't know how much more recently you think H. floresiensis could have survived to, but if it's significantly later, then, of course, more evidence would be needed to be more confident. That's all I can say. Also, slight nitpick: ~500 years ago (the 16th century) is the 1500s, not the 1600s. Well, they were small (obviously, about 3-4 foot tall), ate their food raw, and had their own sort of mumbling language that made no sense to the real people. Their faces were round and flat with a wide mouth (which does fit the facial reconstructions quite nicely). They are said to have been hairier than the normal people.. They didn't wear clothes most of the time and if they did it was usually an animal skin draped on themselves without any sort of real modification. They were quite unpicky, and would eat many things (meat and plant matter). A good amount of this is speculative, but the physical description and some of the activites portrayed do fit. Hm. This is pretty solid evidence. I don't think I'll dismiss that being H. florensis yet |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Feb 4, 2020 6:18:07 GMT 5
Seriously?
But anyway, thanks for the info kekistani.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 4, 2020 6:42:02 GMT 5
Not solid/guaranteed, sorry. Just that it's good food for thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 4, 2020 9:36:33 GMT 5
Oh. What were you referring to, then? I simply made the statement that these things are based in mythology, which they are. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Feb 4, 2020 17:20:06 GMT 5
Mythology - I suppose that could explain it as well.
|
|
