Chinese, Mandarin

Spanish

English

Hindi

Arabic

Portuguese

Bengali

Russian

Japanese

Punjabi

German

Javanese

Malay

Telugu

Vietnamese

Korean

French

Marathi

Tamil

Urdu

Turkish

Italian

Chinese, Yue / Cantonese

Thai

Gujarati

Chinese, Jin

Chinese, Min Nan

Persian, Dari

Persian, Western

Polish

Pashto

Kannada

Chinese, Xiang

Malayalam

Sundanese

Hausa

Odia

Burmese

Chinese, Hakka

Ukrainian

Bihari, Bhojpuri

Tagalog

Yoruba

Bihari, Maithili

Uzbek

Sindhi

Amharic

Fula

Romanian

Oromo

Igbo

Azerbaijani

Chinese, Gan

Dutch

Kurdish, Central

Kurdish, Northern

Kurdish, Southern

Malagasy

Lahnda, Saraiki

Nepali

Sinhalese

Chittagonian

Zhuang

Khmer

Turkmen

Assamese

Madurese

Somali

Marwari

Bihari, Magahi

Haryanvi

Hungarian

Chhattisgarhi

Greek, Modern

Chewa

Dakhini

Akan, Twi

Akan, Fante

Kazakh

Chinese, Min Bei

Sylheti

Zulu

Czech

Kinyarwanda

Marwari, Dhundhari

Haitian Creole

Chinese, Min Dong

Ilocano

Quechua

Kirundi

Swedish

Hmong

Shona

Uyghur

Hiligaynon

Mossi

Xhosa

Belarusian

Balochi

Anthropology

<OpenstaxH3>The Hobbit of Flores</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm><OpenstaxEm>Homo floresiensis</OpenstaxEm></OpenstaxTerm>, also known as “the Hobbit” or “Flores Man,” was discovered on the island of Flores in Indonesia in 2003. The species has been dated to approximately 100,000–60,000 years ago. What was surprising about this species is its size. An adult individual stood about 3 feet 7 inches tall. Liang Bua, the cave where <OpenstaxEm>H. floresiensis</OpenstaxEm> was found, shows evidence of the use of fire for cooking and contains bones with cutmarks. Since the initial discovery, partial skeletons of nine individuals have been found.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxEm>H. floresiensis</OpenstaxEm>, like the earlier hominins, did not possess a chin, and its leg bones are thicker than those of modern humans. They had flat feet that were relatively long in comparison to the rest of their bodies. As a result of these anatomical differences, it is believed that their bipedalism was quite different from that of modern humans, with a high stepping gait and slower walking speed. <OpenstaxEm>H. floresiensis</OpenstaxEm> also had substantially more mobility in the elbow joint, which suggests that they were tree climbers.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Their small brain size is not believed to have affected their intelligence. This challenges the view that larger cranial capacity equals higher cognitive skills. Although <OpenstaxEm>H. floresiensis</OpenstaxEm> has a brain size of just 380 cc, equal to the size of an orange, evidence indicates that they made tools, used fire, and hunted very much like <OpenstaxEm>H. erectus.</OpenstaxEm> The brain of <OpenstaxEm>H. floresiensis</OpenstaxEm> does contain a Brodmann area, which is associated with cognitive abilities, that is the same size as that found in modern humans.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Some have suggested that <OpenstaxEm>H. floresiensis</OpenstaxEm> is a sister species of <OpenstaxEm>Homo habilis</OpenstaxEm> that branched off before or shortly after the evolution of <OpenstaxEm>Homo habilis.</OpenstaxEm> Other hypotheses suggest that they were the descendants of <OpenstaxEm>H. erectus</OpenstaxEm> who became stranded on the island after arriving via water, possibly on bamboo rafts.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Another <OpenstaxEm>Homo</OpenstaxEm> species similar in size to <OpenstaxEm>H. floresiensis</OpenstaxEm> was <OpenstaxTerm><OpenstaxEm>H. luzonensis</OpenstaxEm></OpenstaxTerm>, found on the island of Luzon in the Philippines and dated to at least 50,000–67,000 years ago. <OpenstaxEm>H. luzonensis</OpenstaxEm> displays a hybrid of australopithecine traits (including curved hands and feet) and <OpenstaxEm>Homo</OpenstaxEm> characteristics, yet lived alongside modern <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens</OpenstaxEm>. Clearly the genus <OpenstaxEm>Homo</OpenstaxEm> is more diverse and complex than was originally thought, especially within the special evolutionary pressures of island environments.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00013" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/2d88884b96ea93186918f0ba1bdfc00b590ec0f5" alt="Complete skull, including lower jaw bone, with large eye openings and intact teeth." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="600" height="800" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="600">
	<strong>Figure 5.24</strong> This H. floresiensis skull is on display at the Naturmuseum Senckenberg, a Natural History Museum in Germany. (credit: Daderot/Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxH3>Island Dwarfism as an Evolutionary Explanation</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Numerous hypotheses have been proposed to account for the small brain size found in both <OpenstaxEm>H. floresiensis</OpenstaxEm> and <OpenstaxEm>H. luzonensis.</OpenstaxEm> One initial theory was that <OpenstaxEm>H. floresiensis</OpenstaxEm> had microcephaly, which is a genetic condition creating an abnormally small head. This was discounted as an explanation once additional specimens were found exhibiting the same size. Perhaps the most convincing explanation is an evolutionary theory called <OpenstaxTerm>island dwarfism</OpenstaxTerm>, which notes that the evolutionary pressures on islands can be very different from those found on the mainland. Island dwarfism posits that mainland small animal species that colonize islands might evolve larger bodies if the island does not contain key predators. On the other hand, larger species may become smaller due to more limited resources in an island environment. According to the island dwarfism hypothesis, <OpenstaxEm>H. erectus</OpenstaxEm> made its way to Flores, where its descendants became isolated and grew progressively smaller to make the most of limited resources in the island environment. This theory is supported by the fact that there are unique sizes displayed by other animals found with <OpenstaxEm>H. floresiensis</OpenstaxEm>, including a dwarf species of primitive elephant called a <OpenstaxEm>Stegodon</OpenstaxEm>. As <OpenstaxEm>H. floresiensis</OpenstaxEm>’s body shrank, its brain may have undergone “neurological reorganization” to fit a smaller cranial space while maintaining its brain-to-body ratio. The only potential large predator that may have been a threat to <OpenstaxEm>H. floresiensis</OpenstaxEm> was the Komodo dragon, which ate most of the large mammals on the island. Nevertheless, predation pressures for the little people were likely quite low—that is, until <OpenstaxEm>H. sapiens</OpenstaxEm> arrived.
</OpenstaxParagraph>

5.3.7 Regional Evolutionary Adaptations: Homo floresiensis

1 What Is Anthropology?

1.1 The Study of Humanity, or "Anthropology Is Vast"

1.1.1 The Heart of Anthropology: Central Narrative and Commitments

1.1.2 Central Commitment #1: Exploring Sociocultural Diversity

1.1.3 Central Commitment #2: Understanding How Societies Hold Together

1.1.4 Central Commitment #3: Examining the Interdependence of Humans and Nature

1.2 The Four-Field Approach: Four Approaches within the Guiding Narrative

1.2.1 Biological Anthropology

1.2.2 Archaeology

1.2.3 Cultural Anthropology

1.2.4 Linguistic Anthropology

1.2.5 How the Four Fields Work Together: The Example of Race

1.3 Overcoming Ethnocentrism

1.3.1 Enculturation and Ethnocentrism

1.3.2 Primitivism and Orientalism

1.4 Western Bias in Our Assumptions about Humanity

1.4.1 Primitivism and Orientalism in Popular Culture

1.4.2 The Bias of Backwardness

1.5 Holism, Anthropology’s Distinctive Approach

1.5.1 Society as an Integrated Whole

1.5.2 Sources of Contradiction, Conflict, and Change

1.6 Cross-Cultural Comparison and Cultural Relativism

1.6.1 Relativism Is Not “Anything Goes”

1.6.2 Morality, Activism, and Cultural Relativism

1.7 Reaching for an Insider’s Point of View

1.7.1 The Challenge of Representing Others

1.7.2 Collaborative Methods of Representation

1.7.3 Working across Cultures toward Common Goals

1.7.4 Suggested Readings

2 Methods: Cultural and Archaeological

2.1 Archaeological Research Methods

2.1.1 Archaeological Techniques

2.1.2 Archaeological Dating Methods

2.2 Conservation and Naturalism

2.2.1 Early Efforts

2.2.2 Salvage Anthropology

2.2.3 Museum Collections

2.2.4 Interpretation and Voice

2.3 Ethnography and Ethnology

2.3.1 The Development of Ethnography and Ethnology

2.3.2 Perspective and Interpretation in Ethnography

2.4 Participant Observation and Interviewing

2.4.1 Participant Observation

2.4.2 Interviewing Informants

2.4.3 Ethical Considerations

2.5 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

2.5.1 Differences between Quantitative and Qualitative Information

2.5.2 Modeling

2.5.3 The Science of Anthropology

2.6 Collections

2.6.1 Archives

2.6.2 Three-Dimensional Collections

2.6.3 Ownership

2.6.4 Suggested Readings

3 Culture Concept Theory: Theories of Cultural Change

3.1 The Homeyness of Culture

3.2 The Winkiness of Culture

3.3 The Elements of Culture

3.3.1 Culture Is What We Make

3.3.2 Culture Is What We Do

3.3.3 Culture Is What We Think

3.4 The Aggregates of Culture

3.4.1 Symbols

3.4.2 Ritual

3.4.3 Social Structure

3.5 Modes of Cultural Analysis

3.5.1 Evolution, Adaptation, and Historical Particularism

3.5.2 Functionalism

3.5.3 Structuralism

3.5.4 Ontology

3.6 The Paradoxes of Culture

3.6.1 Paradox 1: Culture Is Continuous, but It Changes

3.6.2 Paradox 2: Culture Is Bounded but Mobile

3.6.3 Paradox 3: Culture Is Consensual but Contested

3.6.4 Paradox 4: Culture Is Shared, but It Varies

3.6.5 Suggested Readings

4 Biological Evolution and Early Human Evidence

4.1 What Is Biological Anthropology?

4.1.1 Looking to the Deep Past

4.1.2 Exploring What It Means to Be Human

4.2 What’s in a Name? The Science of Taxonomy

4.2.1 Defining the Science of Taxonomy

4.2.2 Defining a Species

4.3 It’s All in the Genes! The Foundation of Evolution

4.3.1 The Units of Life

4.3.2 Gregor Mendel and the Laws of Heredity

4.3.3 Mendelian Inheritance in Humans

4.4 Evolution in Action: Past and Present

4.4.1 Early Evolutionists and the Fixity of Species

4.4.2 Charles Darwin’s Role in Changing Views of the Natural World

4.4.3 Understanding Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection

4.5 What Is a Primate?

4.5.1 What Is a Primate?

4.5.2 Primate Behavioral Variation

4.5.3 Explaining Primate Success

4.5.4 Primate Classification and Taxonomy

4.6 Origin of and Classification of Primates

4.6.1 Understanding Concepts of Time

4.6.2 Fossils and Dating Methods