Hobbit: Definitely New Species

Posted by: Loren Coleman on January 21st, 2009

Henry Gee, the editor of Nature, in a now-famous editorial entitled “Flores, God and Cryptozoology,” forever tied the finding of the “Hobbits” to cryptozoology. He wrote: “The discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as Yetis are founded on grains of truth….Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold.”

And so it still goes. More new confirmation has come forth that we humans have remarkably, in our recent past, if not actually yesterday, shared the Earth with another hominid species.

Dr. Karen Baab works on a modern human skull. (Credit: Stony Brook University.)




The 3-D landmarks superimposed from the front of the LB1 skull of Homo floresiensis assisted in concluding that the fossil is from a new species. (Credit: Peter Brown)

To carry out the study, Dr. Baab and colleagues collected 3D landmark data on the LB1 skull (above) and a large sample of fossils representing other extinct hominin species, as well as a comparative sample of modern humans and apes. They performed several analyses of different regions of the skulls. Taken together, these analyses indicated that the LB1 skull shape is that of a scaled down Homo fossil not a scaled down modern human.






It will be recalled that since 2004, skeletal material has been described and discussed from eight other Homo floresiensis, putting to rest that the first discovery was merely of an individual anomaly or a diseased burial of a local person, as Hobbit debunkers proposed.



There is even a formally published scientific article in 1945, by London University’s Dr. W. C. Osman-Hill, which speculated that historically remembered "little people" in south Asia might one day be found to have been based on relict diminutive representatives of Homo erectus.

This was long before the discovery of Homo floresiensis or the contemporary tales of the Flores little people, the ebu gogo. Perhaps even the “Little Yeti,” the teh-lma or pyar-them, are merely regional names or relatives of Homo floresiensis? Ivan T. Sanderson called the Little Yeti the “least known and most neglected by everyone.”

Osman-Hill studied similar folklore, for example, of the nittaewo, the three feet tall hairy hominids of ancient Ceylon (Sri Lanka). The nittaewo were mentioned by Pliny in the first century. They were said by Osman-Hill to have existed, at least, to the end of the 18th Century before being exterminated by "modern" humans through methods that mirror how the humans of Flores talk about killing off the ebu gogo (via fires at the entrances of caves).


The 3-feet-tall Homo floresiensis, living on Indonesia’s Flores Island, perhaps do exist today as the small, hairy ebu gogo, the Proto-Pygmies of Flores Island folklore. As noted in my and Patrick Huyghe’s field guide, Homo floresiensis, while connected in the media in 2004, with Sumatra’s orang pendek, probably has a more direct link with the more fully hairy hominid examples, such as Sri Lanka’s nittaewo.

Field Guide to Bigfoot

The front cover of the field guide is illustrated with a drawing of Homo floresiensis by retired professor Richard Klyver, who studied wildlife art for seven years, in the midst of chimpanzees in Africa.

(Adapted from a Stony Brook University press release, Journal of Human Evolution, archived Cryptomundo materials, and The Field Guide to Bigfoot and Other Mystery Primates .)

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman

10 Responses to “Hobbit: Definitely New Species”

  1. HOOSIERHUNTER responds:

    So, rather than a new type of man the Hobbit could also be just another type of monkey. At least that’s what I got out of the article. The more research that is done the more the mainstream thoeries seem uncertain.

  2. cryptidsrus responds:

    Glad to hear of this exciting confirmation.

    Hopefully the media will spend at least some cursory time on it. Doubt it, though. Everybody is “riding high” on “Change.”

    Personally I agree it is not human. An “Elf,” maybe?

    Also, I wonder what Fox News specifically will make of this. If they cover it at all. We all know what that “estimable” network makes of anything Cryptozoological or that goes against the “consensus” view.

    Anyway, at least this will add to our understanding of our past.

    What do YOU think this is, Loren?

  3. Loren Coleman responds:

    No, it is not merely “another type of monkey.”

    Tales of so-called “elves” and little people may be based on the reality of the concurrent lifestyles of humans and Homo floresiensis.

    I already wrote what I thought, of course, in the last third of this posting.

  4. Ceroill responds:

    Very interesting, Loren. Thanks for the update.

  5. ukulelemike responds:

    This is how the evolutionary ideal has blinded scientists to really be able to make an unbiased investigation of something.
    They assume, (wrongly) that because of differences in the cranium size and asymetry, that this cannot possibly be human, but must be an ancient ancestor. yet they are thus assuming that all human skulls are the same, whereas history and medical science prove that dietary sufficiencies and deficiencies can cause huge changes in the structure and development of the skeletal system of humans and animals. Hence the weird deformities found often in third-world countries, due to poor nutrition, and a much stronger skeletal system in those who are of proper nutrition, especially the primarily carnivourous tribes, like the traditional Eskimos and Masai, who eat no vegetation at all, yet are incredibly healthy with good, broad facial structure, even to the point of having proper room for their wisdom teeth.
    There is no base to judge from, yet this must be supposed to make such claims.

  6. bccryptid responds:

    They will never accept it as a new species. It all but proves the legends of elves and gnomes were based on real encounters. I look forward to when further elven fossils are found in N. America and other continents.

  7. PeterOtoole responds:

    What a coincidence, this talk of elves. I know this is sort of off the topic, yet not, but:

    A few hours ago while on a sunset walk I saw something a little unusual. A short figure, maybe 4 to 5 feet tall, about 100 yards away. It was in the middle of a prairie and booking it straight towards a shelter-belt of trees at a fast walk, as if it (he or she) had seen me and was retreating, or just retreating in general. I stood there watching and it suddenly emerged from the other side of the shelter belt (I was standing at a difficult to explain angle) and continued its fast little walk into the next set of trees that runs along a large river. I couldn’t discern much about its figure but the short height and a slight girth.

    What was a thick little kid or tall midget doing out there? It made no sense. As I got to the place I had first seen it, I was even more confused. There was a wide open trail through the shelter belt only 30 yards away. This clearing went all the way to the river side through both sets of trees, to a trail that runs right alongside the river.

    Why had this figure decided to charge through both thickets instead of taking the open trail? I guess it was taking the most direct path in the direction it wanted to go instead of the easiest. How inhuman.

    I followed the walking trail along the riverside for a ways, but it was clear this thing just kept right on going and was long gone. I’m going back tomorrow morning to look for tracks.

  8. jayman responds:

    This is encouraging news. The notion that the “Hobbits” were “deformed” or “pathological” modern humans always seemed preposterous to me. The contoversy was exactly the same when the first extinct hominid, the Neanderthal, was discovered in the 1800s. “Pathology” was also invoked to force-fit them into the human line.

  9. cryptidsrus responds:


    That’s a mighty interesting “sighting” you’ve reported there. Keep us informed, will you? Even if it turns out to be something “normal,” it’s still a good mystery to ponder. I love these “what could it be”-type of happenings. I love thinking about them.
    So thanks again for the report, PeterOToole.

    I get you, Loren. I read the article a tad quickly. I reread it and I see what you mean.

  10. bridezilla responds:

    ukulelemike, anthropologists definitely take normal human variation into account when identifying new species, although within Homo sapiens there isn’t really that much variation, even between diverse ethnic groups.

    I’m sure with the global scrutiny involved in the Flores find they have taken account of unnatural variation as well, especially since they have been compared to microcephalic humans.

    You seem to be using this as a case against the theory of evolution, but I don’t think that’s even relevant to this being a separate species.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.