Scientific magazine meets the Hobbit

Back in 2004 a group of scientists who had discovered, in 2003, a group of dwarf-like skeletons, including a skull that resembled a human, on an Indonesian Island (Flores). They submitted their findings to Nature magazine.  The scientists weren't agreed on the actual species of the fossil bones but the stunning fact was that this species had survived until 18,000 years ago. Modern times.

Nature magazine demanded that the species be called Homo Floresiensis.  The leading scientists of our era, who had nothing to do with the discovery, were certain that anything that lived into modern times and looked human must be homo.  The scientists who found the species didn't agree.

To the finders of Homo Floresiensis the best name was Hobbit. 

The press has recently been excited about Ardi... Ardipithecus ramidus which is a skeleton that is 2 million years older than Lucy, Australopithecus. While these are both hominids they are not homo.

The Hobbit has been the subject of intense and serious debate.  Several things for my readers to know:  The Hobbit species is probably not homo, more likely Australopithecus that left Africa long before our first ancestor Homo Erectus.  There are plenty of bones to study but the Indonesians (especially Teuko Jacob) made a mess of them (some deteriorated others broken) in a one and half year period.  Be careful who gets important bones.

Lastly, we don't even have a half decent story of our roots.  The bones we have are the accidents of time and survival.  We will look like fools in the future for our certainty combined with our ignorance.  (Sounds like standard human behavior, doesn't it?)

Oh I forgot.  The Hobbit used fire, and the Hobbit's ancestors going back 95,000 years also used fire.