Expert: John Shea - 4/4/2005

Question
Hello, In your qaulified opinion, what are some of the most important debates pertaining to the anthropological field of research?
What is your take on the recently discovered Homo floresiensis?
How much --if truly valid-- would Homo floresiensis impact our view on hominid history?

Thank you for your time and passing of knowledge.

Neil Willis.  

Answer
HI Neil
The first question "Major Debates" -is far too broad for me to answer in this forum.  If you want to re-focus the question and re-send please do so.
H. floresiensis:  I think that this is a late-surviving population descended from Homo erectus.  It's short stature probably reflects "island dwarfing" a phenomenon that afflicts large mammals living in situations with a limited food supply (i.e., islands).  I am skeptical about the claim that H. floresiensis made the tools with which it is found.  Some of them look not unlike those made by recent Homo sapiens who were present on islands in the Indo-Malaysian archipelago since at least 40,000 years ago.  (The record of stone too use by Homo erectus populations, who were in this region since 1.8 Million years ago is not a rich one.)
I don't think H. floresiensis alters our understanding of the broad pattern of human evolution one bit.  All of our recent discoveries point towards a "bush-like" model, one in which speciation is common.  In fact, were it not for the tendency to see human evolution as different and unique, one could have predicted finding species like H. floresiensis in isolated places from first principles.  That we actually have such distinct human species surviving so late in time just tells us that evolution continues to affect humanity, -not a surprise to most anthropologists.  (It will be intersting, however, to see how the Creationist crowd manages to explain this one....)
Cheers,
John Shea
PS: Sorry for delayed reply, -I was away at the Paleoanthropology Society Meetings.