Slashdot Mirror


New Hominid Species Unearthed in Indonesia

Radical Rad writes "ABC News is reporting that anthropologists have found the skeletal remains of seven hobbit sized hominids. The population may have been wiped out by a volcanic activity 12000 years ago or according to local legend may have lived up until the 1500's living on in caves and eating food the villagers would leave out for them. Also found were bones of giant lizards and miniature elephants. CBS also has the story." National Geographic and the BBC have good stories.

111 of 588 comments (clear)

  1. New species explaination by fembots · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The current explanation for these "hobbits" is they somehow got to this 31-square-mile island, and because of the habitat/food source limition, they grew smaller so that they cooled off more easily, and used less energy.

    However, if they were smart enough to find a way to this island, couldn't they just do another island-hoping to a bigger island like Sumantra, or even Australia?

    The article also mentioned "many anthropologists have argued that in recent years, scientists have been adding too many new species to the human evolutionary tree. They say scientists have become too quick to call what may simply be an unusual individual a member of a whole new species."

    Maybe these tiny people have some kind of sickness (or just look tiny), and were therefore exiled from the main(is)land?

    1. Re:New species explaination by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well see, they were originally only out on a three-hour tour, so when their ship wrecked, they had no way of getting back because they hadn't packed the emergency supplies you would normally expect them to have.

      Sure, they had one guy who could make a lot of crap out of coconuts, and they always had some celebrity guests drop in for some wacky hijinks, but they never could quite get off that island. Tragic story, really.

    2. Re:New species explaination by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe these tiny people have some kind of sickness (or just look tiny), and were therefore exiled from the main(is)land?

      Maybe they just represent the Lollypop Guild.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    3. Re:New species explaination by fatmonkeyboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, if they were smart enough to find a way to this island, couldn't they just do another island-hoping to a bigger island like Sumantra, or even Australia?

      Well, maybe they did...but that doesn't debunk the theory. Europeans found their way to the Americas, but there are still Europeans in Europe.

    4. Re:New species explaination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually the real explanation, as we all know, is that the devil put those fossils there to lead us astray from the path of righteousness. Don't spout atheist evolution nonsense on here please.

    5. Re:New species explaination by greg_barton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe these tiny people have some kind of sickness (or just look tiny), and were therefore exiled from the main(is)land?

      And this sickness also made their arms proportionately longer, created more prominent bone ridges above their eyes, gave them a sharply sloping forehead, and no chin? And it affected at least seven known individuals in the same way over a span of 30,000 of years, with no known fossil evidence of any "normal" hominids co-existing on the same island in that time?

      Riiiight...

    6. Re:New species explaination by Mignon · · Score: 5, Funny
      ... there are still Europeans in Europe.

      Other than that, it's a lovely place to visit.

    7. Re:New species explaination by mikael · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The current explanation for these "hobbits" is they somehow got to this 31-square-mile island, and because of the habitat/food source limition, they grew smaller so that they cooled off more easily, and used less energy.

      That's the argument used for living in extreme cold. We were told that ethnic cultures such as the Zulu's were tall because that was the best way to radiate heat (taller == more elongated == more surface area/volume), and that the Innuit were short and round due to the extreme cold (shorter == more spherical == less surface area/volume).

      For reptiles, warmer temperatures usually leads to larger body sizes, while colder temperatures leads to smaller sizes.

      So, maybe the climate went the other way, and everything became colder?

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    8. Re:New species explaination by orasio · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The grandparent's idea is not that great, but you fail to point out any incoherence.

      There have been cases when a special kind of individuals have been exiled, or killed, even because of their sex. You talk about the improbability for a malformation of the same kind in many individuals. Down's syndrome, for example, is a malformation that looks similar in every individual that has it, and it has morphological particularities, too.

    9. Re:New species explaination by werfele · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's also possible they had a way on to the island, but not off, once the resources contraints began. Look at the case of Easter Island, whose inhabitants had the technology to travel hundreds of miles from Polynesia, but so thoroughly depleted their resources that they could no longer build boats to leave once the problems began.

    10. Re:New species explaination by AdolChristin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seriously, am I the only one who thinks that this is like Piltdown Man all over again. Some foppish rogue fossil hunter is going to go "Haha! Fooled you chaps!" any moment now.

      --
      #include "forums.h"
      int main() {while (bollox) postcount++;}
    11. Re:New species explaination by greg_barton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Guess you missed that chapter in sociology.

      From that chapter:
      "This article includes observations informed by personal experiences of both practicing sociology in exile and studying an exilic community. Since 1991, I have been involved in fieldwork research in North America and Europe among Iranian exiles. "

      You're trying to apply contemporary human sociology to a society that is at least 18000 years old... and possibly not human?

      Riiight...

    12. Re:New species explaination by smallfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sure, why not? You think people have changed that much in 18K years? And they are calling them hominid, which means they are at least as human as the [insert your favorite group name here]

    13. Re:New species explaination by hedgehogbrains · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There was a fairly well received theory that Neanderthals were ordinary humans suffering from iodine defficiency. Okay, so it likely isn't true, but the theory was quite well worked out and shows how something as simple as a nutritional defficiency can radically affect an entire group of people the same way. Perhaps a gentic defect could produce the same effect in an entire population bred from a single individual? I think you're being unnecessarily dismissive of the the parent post's suggestion. It's early days yet, and the idea of a brand new human species is quite radical itself.

    14. Re:New species explaination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've done that in WarCraft II several times. No more damn trees to make a transport.

    15. Re:New species explaination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      May be the left the island, got to a bigger island, killed everyone that was there, then they slaved people from other even bigger islands and over the years became paranoid that all neighbouring islands wanted to destroy their way of life which they considered superior to all others, so they voted for the village idiot and invaded an island as far far away as they could find , this island happens to have lots coconut oil but this was just a coincidence.

      May be after all this some of them realised what the had become and came back to their little island, to enjoy their little lifes and not bother anyone else...and there we found them.

    16. Re:New species explaination by barakn · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the article - "They add that characteristics seen in modern people who have pathologies causing a small brain were not evident in the ancient remains." I.e. if they were anomolous Homo sapiens, then one would expect their anomoly to be an anomoly found in Homo sapiens. It's not, so they're not.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    17. Re:New species explaination by mefus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All kinds of mutations can come about from several generations of inbreeding.

      Inbreeding is not a cause of mutations. Inbreeding merely reduces diversity within the gene pool. A small population with uniform selective pressure exerted on it might also exhibit more rapid genetic drift toward a new norm.

      --
      mefus
      In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
  2. evolutionary pressure by immerrath · · Score: 5, Funny

    clearly there was evolutionary pressure to maintain the same size for all species on the island: giant lizards, pygmy elephants, and small humans.

    1. Re:evolutionary pressure by tabdelgawad · · Score: 2, Informative
      Umm, not sure why this is modded funny ...

      In this Washington Post Writeup", they clearly refer to the "island rule: animals smaller than rabbits get larger; animals larger than rabbits get smaller."

      --
      Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
    2. Re:evolutionary pressure by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 4, Funny

      In this Washington Post Writeup", they clearly refer to the "island rule: animals smaller than rabbits get larger; animals larger than rabbits get smaller."

      What about rabbits? What size do they become?

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    3. Re:evolutionary pressure by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rabbit sized.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    4. Re:evolutionary pressure by Cyberllama · · Score: 4, Informative

      You joke, but you're actually correct. What you describe is a biological phenomenon observed on many island ecosystems called Foster's rule.

      In short, it dictates that animals coming from a continent that are large, will get smaller when isolated on an island -- animals that are small, will tend to get larger.

  3. Hobbit Sized by 93,000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I dig how they say "Hobbit sized" to capitailize on LOTR's popularity. In '83 they would have said "Ewok sized".

    1. Re:Hobbit Sized by Kenshin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I guess a few years ago that woulda been "Mini-Me sized".

      What about the '90s?

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    2. Re:Hobbit Sized by TobiasSodergren · · Score: 4, Funny

      in the early 90's Milli Vanilli got a Grammy Award. Then the IT industry died. Yep, I think I got it all covered.

  4. The questions on everybody's mind: by multipartmixed · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Is there sufficient DNA material at any of the dig sites to allow us to clone a hobbit?

    2. Would they make good slaves?

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    1. Re:The questions on everybody's mind: by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 5, Funny

      2. Would they make good slaves?

      We IT folk have enough competition as it is!

    2. Re:The questions on everybody's mind: by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Slaves? SLAVES?

      That's tender young juicy Hobbit meat you are talking about.

      Slave, feh. I've been stuck in this cave for three lousy years with nothing but maggoty meat to eat and you want Slaves?

    3. Re:The questions on everybody's mind: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shireassic Park?

    4. Re:The questions on everybody's mind: by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 3, Funny

      1. Is there sufficient DNA material at any of the dig sites to allow us to clone a hobbit?

      I don't know, but Michael Jackson wants to find out.

      --

      my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
    5. Re:The questions on everybody's mind: by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Job thief Baggins! We hates him forever!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  5. This is so stupid by lamp77 · · Score: 5, Funny

    everyone knows the world was created 6000 years ago.

    jeez.

    1. Re:This is so stupid by Carnildo · · Score: 2, Informative

      everyone knows the world was created 6000 years ago.

      To be precise, on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, at 9:00 AM.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:This is so stupid by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, yes. I think they all live in America, too. With parents teaching stuff like that, it's little wonder kids in this country are so poorly educated.

    3. Re:This is so stupid by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes. And there are also modern humans who still think that humans descended from apes.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re: This is so stupid by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful


      > Yes. And there are also modern humans who still think that humans descended from apes.

      Humans are apes. Unless your parents aren't human, you did descend from apes.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  6. Spoiler Warning by Shky · · Score: 5, Funny

    Guess Frodo, Bilbo and the remaining elves made a wrong turn on the way to the Grey Havens.

    --
    CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
    1. Re:Spoiler Warning by paco3791 · · Score: 3, Informative
      please turn your geek card in at the door on your way out.

      The Grey Havens is the name of the elvish port where Frodo, Bilbo, Gandalf and a contingent of elves left FROM when they departed middle earth in search of Aman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aman, the land of the Valar, across the great western sea.

    2. Re:Spoiler Warning by Have+Blue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obviously they had to go "to" the Grey Havens at least once- they lived in the Shire, and the port was pretty far away.

      So, does Ludicrously Literal Rationalization beat Tolkien Minutia? Let's ask whoever issues the geek cards...

  7. Hobbit-sized and volcano eh? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Their Frodo should never have tossed the ring into Mount Doom until they were further away.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  8. WOW!! by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who knew the Shire was in Indonesia!?!? I thought it was in Brittain :)

    --
    William George
    1. Re:WOW!! by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Who knew the Shire was in Indonesia!?!?

      Oh my God...Tolkien outsources too?

  9. Hobbit sized? by cliffordski · · Score: 5, Funny

    How can anything be hobbit sized? A hobbit is a fictional creature; it has never existed. Now a troll...

    1. Re:Hobbit sized? by iamlucky13 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ok, whoever modded that comment "Troll" has a absolutely sadistic but delightfully clever sense of humor!

  10. Interaction with Modern Humans by pholower · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I find it interesting that they could have possibly intereacted with modern humans and their "species" could have overlapped with ours, but I agree with the scientist arguing over naming a new species. Let's rule out any major speculation before we go naming new evolutionary tree branches.

    --
    -- johntracy.com, because everybody else is wrong.
    1. Re:Interaction with Modern Humans by Reziac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was recently reading about African Pygmies, and how Pygmy tribes interact with other tribes -- these naturally pint-sized people (which despite their small stature are still ordinary Homo sapiens, genetically) live in the deep forest, maintain a very primitive lifestyle by choice, and only come to town to trade (or sometimes to beg or work). Some "town tribes" regard them more or less as "forest elves". Their numbers, never great, have declined radically in some areas, and doubtless some Pygmy tribes now exist only as mouldering or even fossilized bones.

      These newly-discovered "hobbitt-sized people" may well be no more than a sort of local pygmy tribe, now extinct.

      OTOH, it's perfectly possible that remnants of genetic side-branches of Homo Whatever persisted into historical times, if sufficiently isolated and protected by their local environment.

      Size is no indication of being a different species; hell, look at dogs, which even among wild species range from 25 to 100 lbs. A closed environment can select for even larger extremes; also, note the radically different brain size among different breeds of domestic dogs, even tho they are all the same species.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Interaction with Modern Humans by Reziac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It doesn't take much to get different limb lengths and proportions to breed true, even to the point of looking "wrong" to someone from another tribe (thus from another gene pool). There are plenty of examples among modern ordinary humans, even without delving into genetic anomalies like dwarfism.## Some races are long-bodied and short-limbed, others are long-limbed and short-bodied; some have large round skulls, others have small narrow skulls; etc, etc. If you put extreme (yet still normal-range) examples side by side, they'll barely LOOK like the same genus, let alone the same species.

      Point being, you can't judge by appearance at that level. Now, if they had DNA evidence to back up their speculation about these people being a different species... that would mean something.

      ## Selection for proportions can be done in just a couple generations in dogs**. Humans aren't that much more complex, and human mating behaviour tends toward selecting the familiar (ie. someone who looks at least sortof like your own tribe). Types do develop and breed true in humans, if sufficiently isolated by geography and/or tribal behaviour. -- I've heard how some Orientals can peg another Oriental by physical type right down to their native village and even family, because the local types are so consistent. [I can do the same with some bloodlines in dogs.]

      (**Something I'm intimately aware of, as a professional dog breeder/trainer with 11 generations of my own bloodline, and 35 years experience.)

      Great, now you've made me do nested footnotes :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Interaction with Modern Humans by geekotourist · · Score: 4, Informative
      These are pygmy Homo erectus, not pygmy Homo sapiens, and the differences between the two are significant.

      Looking at Hominid species and their brain sizes, and the actual information about the fossils themselves, you can examine the differences.

      While the smallest of the small modern human overlaps with non-pygmy H. erectus, as written here: "The low volume skulls were not primitive or aberrant in any way; their small volume was merely a result of the smallness of the entire skull. So although the extreme lower range of modern human brain sizes does overlap that of Homo erectus, their skulls are very different: in H. erectus, the brain case really is smaller in relation to the rest of the skull. In small modern humans, the skull proportions are normal and the brain size is small only because the skull is small." When you compare the two, (another example here , or look at a comparison of multiple Hominids here) you can see that H. erectus isn't ever going to be mistaken for a small-skulled H. sapiens. The pygmy H. erectus has a brain that's half the size of a regular H. erectus. Floresiensis is smart and a tool/ fire user because Homo had been doing that for 2 million years, not because its a Homo sapiens.

      Summarizing species and brain sizes...

      1. Last common ancestor (Gorilla, Pan, Hominid)
      modern Gorilla (average 500 cc)

      2. Last common ancestor (Pan, Hominid)
      modern Chimp (average 400 cc)
      3. Australopithecus
      (375 to 550 cc)

      4. Homo habilis
      (500 to 800 cc)

      5. Homo erectus-> ->5a.Homo floresiensis
      (750 to 1225 cc) (380 cc)

      6.Homo antecessor
      | \ 6b. H.s. neanderthalensis (average 1450 cc)
      |
      6a. H. s. archaic
      (average 1200 cc)
      (sometimes called H. heidelbergensis)
      |
      7. Homo sapiens sapiens
      (average 1350 cc)

  11. No no no, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    they just found some movie set litter from Peter Jackson and crew.

  12. Hmm... by Blue-Footed+Boobie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Those nasty hominidses. We hates them!

    --
    DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
  13. Not too surprising by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When you have some species like Canine's that range in size from Mastif to Chihuahua

    1. Re:Not too surprising by ucblockhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Canines were deliberately bred like that. No dog is the direct product of nature evolution but rather is the direct product of human breeding programs.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    2. Re:Not too surprising by jeavis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is only one species of domesticated dog, Canis lupus familiaris, of which the Mastif and Chihuahua are distinct breeds. The difference between a species and a breed is that species differentiation occurs due to genetic mutation, while breed differentiation occurs due to selective reproduction of animals with desirable traits, in the hope that those traits come out in the offspring.

    3. Re:Not too surprising by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, but they could not be "deliberately bred like that" unless the genetic variation existed within the genome.

      In reference to the wolf
      The differences in size within the species is quite considerable. The biggest is the American timber wolf which grows to a height of over 90 cm, and can weigh up to 80 kg. The Fenno-scandinavian wolf is of average size, height 70 cm and weighs 40 - 50 kg (the record for Sweden was a male wolf that weighed in at 75 kg). They are a little smaller in the south of Europe, weighing about 25 kg.

    4. Re:Not too surprising by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No dog is the direct product of nature evolution but rather is the direct product of human breeding programs.

      Er, sorry, no. Dogs are the product of natural evolution, which includes human breeding programs. In other words, dogs as a species changed in various ways affected by their living in proximity to, and interacting with, humans. This is no less "natural" than, say, predators and prey developing different ways to catch/evade each other, or symbiotic species developing a dependence on each other. The idea that "nature" somehow stops once you get to humans, and everything we do is its own separate domain, is misleading.

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    5. Re:Not too surprising by neoshroom · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What I believe he means is that dogs are not the product of natural selection, but rather a product of artificial selection.


      This situation is fundimentally different from the evolution of dogs because there was no 3rd party species to artificially select for traits in humans. When artificially selecting certain traits it is much easier to speed along evolution, resulting in vastly different traits being exibited by the same species. Here it looks like natural selection created these traits, requiring more time and making us expect species-level differences.


      I do, however, share your fear of the word natural and conversly, unnatural. We tend to misappropriate this word to justify all sorts of neferious undertakings.

      --
      Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    6. Re:Not too surprising by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I believe he means is that dogs are not the product of natural selection, but rather a product of artificial selection.

      I know what he meant. And I'm saying that the distinction between natural and artificial selection is specious.

      This situation is fundimentally different from the evolution of dogs because there was no 3rd party species to artificially select for traits in humans.

      Humans didn't evolve in a vacuum. We are what we are today because of the ways in which our ancestors were affected by their environment, which includes all the other species with which they had to live.

      I suppose the distinction you're trying to make is that humans intentionally bred animals for certain traits, whereas, unless Lamarck was right about the giraffes, there's no intentional change in so-called natural evolution. I'm not sure you can really draw this line. For example, humans aren't the only animals who cultivate other organisms; there are ants who raise aphids and farm fungus for food, and I'm sure both the aphids and the fungus have been changed somewhat by that process in ways that were mutually benificial. Was this intentional or not, natural or artificial?

      Now consider the way the wheat plant has changed due to humans. It used to be the case that most grains of wheat were loose and would fall off at the slightest breeze-- this is how the plant would reproduce. When humans developed agriculture, they would cut stalks of wheat in the fields and carry them back to their granaries. Those wheat grains which were not firmly attached fell off, leaving only the more secure grains in the hands of humans. It didn't take long before most of the wheat grown by humans had grains which were hard to detach, requiring people to do a lot more work to separate them. This was selection due to human activity (hence "artificial"), yet was almost certainly unintended.

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
  14. In a related find by RsG · · Score: 4, Funny

    Among the midget hominid remains in Indonesia, a gold ring was also discovered.

    "Antropologists are perplexed as to how a ring found it's way into the hands of a species lacking basic metallurgy or fire. One scientist was quoted as saying 'The precious, er I mean artifact, is a remarkable lovely find. So bright, so beautiful...' He was later heard to remark 'mine, mine, get away!! Filthy little grad students!!'"

    Peter Jackson was not available for comment.

    --
    Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  15. Hmm by retro128 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Obviously the Hobbits didn't finish off Mt. Doom as well as they thought they did.

    --
    -R
  16. Seven short guys by raider_red · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is Snow White's house anywhere nearby?

    --
    It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
  17. hmmmm by SoupGuru · · Score: 2, Funny

    Evolutionary Tree Gets Bushier

    Well, I suppose.... since they didn't have brazilian waxes back then...

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
  18. small brains by avandesande · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have seen functioning humans with heads the size of a grapefruit.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:small brains by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Funny

      > I have seen functioning humans with heads the size of a grapefruit.

      Yes, yes, we've all seen managers too.

      Chris Mattern

    2. Re:small brains by The+Bungi · · Score: 2, Funny
      The possibilities for a bad joke about these humans
      • posting to Slashdot
      • being republican/democrat
      • living in SOVIET RUSSIA
      • posing as underpant gnomes
      • originating from a remote region in France
      • releasing "Banging Smurfette, Part II"
      • etc
      ...are so overwhelming that my head just shriveled down to the size of a grapefruit.
  19. Remake anyone? by general_re · · Score: 2, Funny
    "Midget Quest For Fire"? Starring Gary Coleman, Emmanuel Lewis, and that guy from "Willow".

    Okay, maybe I'm all alone on this...

    --
    ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  20. In Other News... by eskwayrd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Snow White brought in for questioning related to 7 suspicious deaths. Details at 11.

    --
    eskwayrd = m^2c^4
  21. The reason they died out. by wcrowe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someone was always after their Lucky Charms.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  22. Re:non-human? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    RTFA

    How can these researchers say for certain that these remains are of anything other than humans?

    The skulls are not similar to modern humans, but are similar to Homo Erectus, from which these creatures are thought to descend.

    It is more probable that these remains represent a small group of homo sapiens that had genetic development problems, or some other kind of ailment.

    See above. It is often debatable whether or not unique features (in this case size) represent a continum or a distinct species. It is not an exact science, and we may never know for sure. However, there is no other example of an adult human being so small.

    Pygmies exist in Africa today, but are not considered a new species.

    Pygmies are considerbly taller then these "hobbits". Also Pygmies are modern humans, the "hobbits" were not.

    This report is more about research scientists getting more grant money than actually using the scientific method.

    The findings are being reported in Nature, which has exceedingly high standards. There is absolutely no reason to make such accusations.

  23. it's too bad they all died... by Savet+Hegar · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've been wanting a 3ft tall hobbit wife with limited brain capacity...

    --
    Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
  24. Scientifically speaking... by ilikedonkeykong · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think it looks more like evidence of Homo OompaLoompus

  25. Myths and Legends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've heard that it is theorized that many myths and legends are based somewhat on fact. Could this be the discovery of the wee folk that are in legends through out the world?

  26. Super Volcano? by Gogela · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I recently watched a discovery channel program about super volcanos ( Super Volcano info here)that might explain the demise of the Hobbits. Apparently, there was a bottleneck sometime in human history that limited our genetic diversity. According to Discovery, that bottleneck might have been caused by a volcano many thousands of times the power of any volcano we have seen to date. The biggest one they know about is in Yellowstone National Park, and is set to go off again anytime within the next 200,000 years. The theory goes that one of these volcanos erupted and wiped out all but 15-20,000 humans, almost wiping us off the face of the earth. Maybe it killed the Hobbits... and the Orcs... and the Gobblins...

    --
    A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie.
  27. New Hominid species of diminutive size found... by gatekeep · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... in Japan!

  28. Wrong Movie... by kzinti · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oompa loompa doompety doo
    I've got a perfect puzzle for you
    Oompa loompa doompety dee
    If you are wise you'll listen to me ...

    Oompa loompa doompety da
    If you're not greedy, you will go far
    You will live in happiness too
    Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do
    Doompety do

    1. Re:Wrong Movie... by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Chumba Womba, Gobaldie Goo
      Life isnt fair its sad but its true
      Chumba Womba, Gobaldie Gee
      When your poor legs are stiff as a tree

      What do you do when your stuck in a chair?
      Finding it hard to go up and down stairs?
      What do you think of the one you call god?
      Isn't his absence slightly odd?

      Maybe he's forgotten you.

      Chumba Womba, Gobaldie Gorse
      Count yourself lucky your not a horse
      They would turn you into dog food
      Or to Chumba Womba
      Gobaldie
      Glue

      Gobaldie Goo

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  29. Menehune by ziegast · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm surprised that the article didn't mention Menehune which are "little gods" that frequent Hawaiian and Polynesian folklore and mythology. When the settlers of the Pacific Islands were traveling around settling different islands thousands of years ago, they learned from little natives that seems gifted in surviving on the islands.

  30. Oh my god by RealErmine · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The idea of how they got there is still very much in the air."

    They could FLY!?

    --
    Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
  31. Re:Not to state the obvious or anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's why I believe the universe was created in the 70's.

  32. little walls, little bridges by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hawai'i is full of stories about the "Menehune", the "little people" who lived in the islands before Polynesians arrived and took over. I have seen some of the walls they say were built by the Menehune, and they are different from the walls built by Polynesians and Europeans (and other "globals" following European arrival). The walls are fitted together more closely, with a technique that more resembles the Egyptian and Mayan walls that I've seen, though much smaller in scale. Perhaps we don't have the first global culture?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  33. These are clearly not hobbits by deft · · Score: 4, Funny

    7 of them in caves? Hmm, perhaps working?

    try sleepy, bashful, dopey, sneezy...

    Keep digging, you'll pull up a hot brunette.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  34. Ahoy! by The-Bus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Theeeere's my rejected submission...

    More information on these hobbit-sized wonders can be found at Scientific American which runs a Q&A with Dr. Brown. As expected, it's a bit more in-depth than "Hobbits Found!"

    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

  35. Hobbits in Indonesia by IPFreely · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Hmmm. Hobbits in Indonesia.

    So if we follow the map (assuming sea level has risen since Middle Earth days), mountain chain, south to Rohan, East, that would put Mordor right ... about ... Here.

    I thought Rohan/Gondor west of Ithilien river looked a lot like Australia. Now we know.

    --
    There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  36. Re:Frodo by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Tolkein fans unite! We've found Frodo and friends!

    Hobbits, are you crazy? Someone has clearly been reading too much Tolkein. Read the article: they were found in CAVES. So obviously, we're not dealing with hobbits, but dwarves.

  37. one specimen by option8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    it always concerns me that paleontologists and anthropologists are always so excited over finding *one* specimen. and usually just a partial one at that.

    i'm no paleontologist (and i don't play one on tv, either) so i don't know exactly how well you can really extrapolate a whole species' traits from one specimen. do you know, for instance, that it's genetically "normal" for its species? was it typical of the nutritional, physical, and in the case of hominids, social environment?

    for instance, what would be the inference if a future archaeologist found the skeletal remains of the following: someone born with Down Syndrome, someone with Marfan Syndrome, and someone with one of the 522 different types of dwarfism - skeletons or models of which can typically be found in better natural history and science museums around the world.

    where, for instance, are Lucy's kin? and she's the basis for whole shelves of books on human evolution.

  38. It has to do with humidity, not heat. by Cyberllama · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In africa, you have some of the tallest tribes in the world in close proximity to some of the shortest. The difference in their environments is not the heat -- the heat is constant -- but rather the humidity. In areas where the humidity is high, being larger does you no good. Sweat won't evaporate so the extra surface area isn't useful.

    In areas where the humidity is lower, being taller is a great way to help get rid of excess heat.

    However that may not be what's going on on this island at all.

    The other lifeforms are textbook examples of foster's rule in action. Foster's rule is the maxim that states that creatures isolated on a small island will experiece dramatic changes in size (or die, adapt or die).

    So, for instance, the pygmy elephants got smaller than the elephants they started as because there simply wouldn't have been enough vegatation on the island to support them otherwise. There was EXTREME selective pressure to get smaller, so it happened fast.

    Meanwhile, because nothing was around to eat these pygmy elephants, those komodo dragons that were born larger than the others were significantly more fit becuase they might be able to exploit the elephants as a food source (which they did -- they sustained themselves on the elephants until they went extinct, at which time humans brought deer to the islands thus providing them with a new food source).

    One creature had selective pressure to get bigger, another to get smaller. In *general*, Foster's rule is that things will get smaller. But occasionally (such as in the example above), the rule can work in reverse.

    1. Re:It has to do with humidity, not heat. by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In africa, you have some of the tallest tribes in the world in close proximity to some of the shortest. The difference in their environments is not the heat -- the heat is constant -- but rather the humidity. In areas where the humidity is high, being larger does you no good. Sweat won't evaporate so the extra surface area isn't useful.

      This sounds dubious. I'd argue in favor of nutrition.

      Different tribes may have different diets which could account for the growth differential.

      Look at Japan. The older generation is smaller than the current one, because the younger generation is better fed than the previous ones.

      You can also observe this in the richer, coastal large cities of Mainland China.

    2. Re:It has to do with humidity, not heat. by return_of_ffalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In areas where the humidity is high, being larger does you no good. Sweat won't evaporate so the extra surface area isn't useful.
      Being larger doesn't give you more surface area, it gives you less! (at least in relation to your body mass, which is what matters).
  39. Bayan Kara-Ula - Dropa and the Han by UnkyHerb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This immediatly reminded me of the Dropa and the Han from the Bayan Kara-Ula regin near Tibet. Heres a Picture of them. Look around on the web and you can find more information. They were small people. "The Bayan Kara Ula, or Bayan Har Shan, area of China is where the source of Yangtze River is located and where the Mekong River turns south toward Vietnam. It's said to be very isolated and the people there still live in rather primitive conditions, although this is changing very quickly. In January of 1938, a Chinese archaeologist named Professor Chu Pu Tei led a rather routine expedition into these mountains. However, what they discovered in a group of caves shunned by the superstitious local natives was far from routine. In the caves, the expedition discovered a series of graves lined up in rows. On the walls of the caves there were stick-figure drawings of men with elongated heads and representations of the sun, moon, and stars. When they excavated the graves, the archaeologists found skeletons of less than four feet in length with abnormally large skulls." link

    --
    Your Momma's so fat she makes emacs look like nano!
  40. *Ahem* by zephc · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Grunka Lunka Dunkity Doo, we've got a friendly warning for you. Grunka Lunka Dunkity Dasis, the secret of Slurm's on a need-to-know basis."

    "Grunka Lunka Dunkity Dingredient, you should not ask about the secret ingredient."

    --
    "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
  41. They Featured in Legends by Jameth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The most interesting thing about these are that the natives of the island have many legends about people exactly fitting this description (three feet tall and humanoid) that are extremely detailed. The legends even include that these 'hobbits' had languages of their own.

    First, this would be the first case of modern humans having even psuedo-recorded contact with another intelligent species.

    Second, this rips back open the possibility of our faerie tales being more true than most of us would have expected.

  42. Re:non-human? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >How can these researchers say for certain that these remains are of anything other than humans?

    I assume that by "human" you mean the species Homo sapiens. The shape of the skull, dentition, the shape of the tibia, all point to it not being H. sapiens. In fact, there is some debate over whether it belongs in the genus Homo at all.

    >It is more probable that these remains represent a small group of homo sapiens that had genetic development problems, or some other kind of ailment.

    No, it is not. This would require an even greater speciation event than the idea that they are descended from H. erectus through isolation and time. To state that it is more probable that they are simply mutant H. sapiens shows both your ignorance of biology and your creationist indoctrination.

    >Pygmies exist in Africa today, but are not considered a new species.

    That's because they aren't a new species. Height is not the issue here. Try to learn just a little bit of comparative hominid anatomy before making yourself look a fool.

    >This report is more about research scientists getting more grant money than actually using the scientific method.

    This is just standard creationist bullshit. You are impugning the reputation of scientific professionals you have never met on the basis of absolutely ZERO evidence. The implication of your statement is that they have knowingly falsified data to obtain money. Please immediately post a link to any kind to support for your slander or retract it. You are simply repeating the creationist lies you have been taught. Read some actual science texts about hominid evolution, comparative anatomy, and paleoanthropology.

    I thought about modding this idiot with another Troll point, but what's the point of having karma if you can't burn some of it flaming an obvious moron.
    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  43. Wha? by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 2, Funny
    may have lived up until the 1500's living on in caves and eating food the villagers would leave out for them.

    So they were pets, huh?

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  44. Has anyone thought... by wicka_wicka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Short? Long arms? Brain the size of a chimpanzee? Put it together now...

    --
    hi
  45. Re:Frodo by ozbird · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of course they're dwarves - there were seven of them.

  46. easy, there by dr_davel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The description of the hobbits (brain case 1/3 the size of humans, similar to chimps; thick brow ridge; no chin; different proportions of limbs) makes it certain that it's another species, descended in a branch somehow parallel to homo sapiens. They have found many adult specimens (not children). What I'm wondering is, why would one react so negatively to this rather unavoidable conclusion? It's a really fascinating, exciting find!

    --
    Never eat anything bigger than your head.
  47. Re:Not to state the obvious or anything... by bullitB · · Score: 4, Funny

    Uh, duh, the Unix epoch is January 1, 1970. Any universe before that would have required negative time(), which is clearly impossible.

  48. Re:non-human? by phek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "So what if this is a small specimen. I can think of many human beings that are small, they are called children." You must have missed the part in the article where they said it was an 30 year old adult. So if a this is a child, that means his bones don't grow in the same pattern a a homo sapien's or homo erectus' grow, which should be more than enough to classify it as a new branch of humanoid.

  49. Obligatory post, if they still exist somewhere... by hakkikt · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our Komodo-dragon-eater pygmy overlords

  50. You're right! by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, "real" religion where people continue to do the same things they'd do without God. Here in the states, "living in sin" only includes homosexuality, while in reality it should include alcoholism, addiction, lust, covetous behavior, and not giving your heave offering. Once again, a culture has adapted certain rules from a religion in order to justify their actions. The Jews extracted ideas from Zoroastrianism. The Romans codified and extracted ideas from Christianity. The only culture that follows the full word of their religious text is

    "Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own." -JFK, 1961

    That was forty three years ago. I'm always astonished that people refuse to realize that supernatural events have never, and will never exist. No one can present to me one miracle documented by modern technology and not hearsay.

    Once you find your spiritual pockets empty, think about how many resources arrive at the dead-end of church building while the true salvation of food, medicine, and science wither throughout the third world.

    1. Re:You're right! by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm always astonished that people refuse to realize that supernatural events have never, and will never exist. No one can present to me one miracle documented by modern technology and not hearsay.

      Nowadays any miracle approved by the Vatican, in the process of canonizing a saint, has had to go through rigorous scientific inquiry. For a miracle to be accepted as authentic, there must be no scientific explanation for it.

      Here's an article on the process, originally from the Los Angeles Times.

      I did a little search and found a case that is still pending as far as I know: a possible miracle attributed to Father Damien, the famous priest who took care of lepers on the island of Molokai in Hawaii about a hundred years ago:
      Last year, the Honolulu Diocese assembled a tribunal to examine an O'ahu woman's story that her cancer was cured after she traveled to Moloka'i to pray at Damien's grave.

      The patient and her family members were among those who testified before the tribunal. Also testifying was Dr. Walter Y.M. Chang, a Honolulu physician - and non-Catholic - who wrote about the spontaneous regression of the woman's cancer in the October 2000 issue of Hawai'i Medical Journal.

      Chang wrote that a malignant tumor had developed in the patient's lung in September 1998 and then disappeared without the aid of therapy. The spontaneous regression of this type of cancer may be the first case report of its kind, the scientific paper said. Other doctors who treated the woman also testified.

      There were a lot of miraculous healings at Lourdes in France, so that might be something to investigate if you're interested. Here's an article on one such case:
      Authentication of a Cure at Lourdes
  51. tired of quack science by CAIMLAS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm so tired of quack science making it into the mainstream.

    They say that they're 'surprised' that despite the small brain size, they appeared to be quite smart. This is contrary to what we know: brain size seems to have little correlation with intelligence amongst modern humans that are not defective, and there's strong fossil evidence for ancestoral species having fairly large brains as well.

    Also, there's no accounting for the construction of the pyramids with modern man's intelligence/knowledge, so there must've been smart humans at that time as well. Maybe not technologically advanced as we'd see things, but certainly inventive and observant of the world around them.

    It also sounds nuts to me that they'd claim this is an entirely different species. It seems to me that it's just as much a seperate species as blacks are a different species than whites, or what have you. They're still fundamentally human, and can co-populate with other humans. Granted, there's no direct evidence that this was possible, but it seems possible. There are plenty of 4-foot-tall humans today.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:tired of quack science by juhaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, there's no accounting for the construction of the pyramids with modern man's intelligence/knowledge, so there must've been smart humans at that time as well.

      WTF? Pyramids were built no more than 5000 years ago, and the people who did were definitely the same as we still are and just as smart. Now, if you can find me a pyramid built by non-homo sapiens sapiens hominid, that's certaily big news...

      It also sounds nuts to me that they'd claim this is an entirely different species.

      And what reasons you have to believe it isn't? Are you a morphologist? Anthropologist? Any kind of experience with studying remains (preferably human) at all? Seen the skull, have you (no, the picture on article doesn't count)? Ah. Thought so.

      It seems to me that it's just as much a seperate species as blacks are a different species than whites, or what have you. They're still fundamentally human, and can co-populate with other humans. Granted, there's no direct evidence that this was possible, but it seems possible. There are plenty of 4-foot-tall humans today.

      They're human, that's what genus Homo is all about, but they're definitely entirely different species as well. What seems to you, or me, or anyone that isn't a fricking skull expert doesn't mean a thing, because we don't know a crap about it. Show skulls of black, white, a pygmy, and one from 4-foot-tall human to boot to someone who knows what they're doing, and (s)he'll instantly regognize them all to be modern humans, show this and he'll say it isn't. WHO ARE YOU TO ARGUE THAT HE'S WRONG, AND YOU'RE RIGHT? Especially considering you say it yourself: no evidence, not just direct but you don't have any evidence whatsoever.

      You, sir, are the quack here. You're the whole fricking definition of a quack, you make up something, and then you blame the people who actually have evidence, considerable amount of them, to be quacks based on ... nothing.

  52. How will this affect the election? by Jelloman · · Score: 3, Funny
    So the inevitable question for late October of (year mod 4) == 0, does this help Bush or Kerry? Which reaction is more likely:
    • "Hmmm, This hobbit things shatters my belief in assumptions-derived-from-an-English-translation-of -Genesis-as-the-foundation-of-all-truth (which of course is a very scientific belief, not at all in conflict with things I perceive in the world like dinosaur skeletons)! Therefore I guess stem cell research and abortions are OK, so I'll vote for Kerry now."
    • "See, SCIENCE WILL DESTROY US ALL!! ARMAGEDDON IS NIGH!!! REPEAL THE 20TH CENTURY!! VOTE BUSH!!!"
    • "Ah now I understand, George Bush is simply the last Homo floresiensis on the planet, evolved into slightly taller form. My liberal heart loves the underdog, so I'll vote for Bush, since he's a minority now."


    See, Bush wins.
  53. Probably not by bergwitz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Probably not.
    Most folklorists believe that myths about wee folk are remnants of animist beliefs. When a new religion came people merged it with it's earlier religion, and the animist spirits became the wee folk. A good example is how Pan has many features in common with the Christian devil.
    As the wee folk of different cultures usually has much more in common with how spirits are viewed in animist cultures than with any small humans I believe we can disregard the homo foresiensis as any explanation of the wee folk.

    But this on the other is probably a myth based on fact (from the BBC article):
    "Even more intriguing is the fact that Flores' inhabitants have incredibly detailed legends about the existence of little people on the island they call Ebu Gogo.

    The islanders describe Ebu Gogo as being about one metre tall, hairy and prone to "murmuring" to each other in some form of language. They were also able to repeat what islanders said to them in a parrot-like fashion. ...
    ... The last evidence of this human at Liang Bua dates to just before 12,000 years ago, when a volcanic eruption snuffed out much of Flores' unique wildlife.

    Yet there are hints H. floresiensis could have lived on much later than this. The myths say Ebu Gogo were alive when Dutch explorers arrived a few hundred years ago and the very last legend featuring the mythical creatures dates to 100 years ago.

    But Henry Gee, senior editor at Nature magazine, goes further. He speculates that species like H.floresiensis might still exist, somewhere in the unexplored tropical forest of Indonesia. "

    Really something for the cryptzoologists!

    --
    Evolution is just a scientific theory. Creationism is not.
  54. Flores is a big Island by Kamerynn · · Score: 5, Informative
    There is a big mistake in the article. Flores is roughly half the size of Belgium, or +- 14 000 sq km.

    So either it is another island they are talking about (possibly in the vicinity of Flores) or their 31sq km figure should read 31 thousand sq km (not likely given the importance of the small size of the island that explains their evolution to a small skeleton).

    You can see a detailed map or the archipelago here:

    http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/scalenet/images/indon esia.gif

    Flores is approximately at 9S 122E

  55. Re:non-human? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >I guess I'm a creationist now, I'm glad someone had the decency to tell me.

    Are you claiming that you originated the toughts you posted? I have never encountered anyone voicing the blather you posted who did not have an a priori belief in creationism. There is not one "criticism you posted that has an ounce of support for it.

    >Maybe you are afraid to admit that evolutionary science is full of holes,

    Hardly! Please list some of these alleged holes. I would absolutely love to find one. I figure that it would be worth a Nobel Prize and life tenure at Harvard or Stanford. Seriously. My only frustration is with religious zealots trying to shoehorn their fundamentalist dogma into science classrooms.

    I notice that you do not deny being a creationsist. If you are going to try to pretend that your bushwah actually passes for scientific thought, you should read some actual science. That way you won't sound like a luddite. I seriously doubt that you have heard "many" people who are not creationists criticize scientific researchers for leaps of faith. That statement is another staple of the creationist propaganda mill, as is the posture of wounded innocence that you affect. Save it for someone who hasn't seen it hundreds of times. As for religion, I have no quarrel with it until it enters the science classroom. On a personal level, I regard Biblical Litteralism and its offspring, creationism as heresy.
    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  56. Move aside, truth, you don't have enough years! by Zareste · · Score: 2, Funny

    The population may have been wiped out by a volcanic activity 12000 years ago or according to local legend may have lived up until the 1500's

    Heh, so a random anthropologist walks up to a village..

    "Look! Small people! I think they were wiped out a bazillion trillion years ago by lava. It was very climactic with lots of big explosions and a story that will make me very famous in America."
    Villager: "Actually it happened in the 1500's when.."
    "12000 whole years ago. Imagine that!"
    "The people died because--"
    "Hey! That was the NYT! They're posting the headline 'Genius Finds Species From Twelve Trillion Years ago' tomorrow! I guess they're off by a few zeroes but hey, we have some wiggle space."
    "Our elders knew about a people who--"
    "Actually let's just change it to twelve trillion. That's a fun number, don't you think? I love it! It's... Oh, right. What were you saying, Lowly Misinformed Local Person?"
    "We have records. They say--"
    "Hey, I just struck a deal to sell my new book 'Thirty-quadrillian Year Old Species Found in Indonesia'! I'm rich! I am a flowing river of cash! I'm a festering volcano of money! I am--"
    "Are you even--"
    "Hey! Get the Hell outta my way, kid, I'm off to show the United States that they were founded by rock formations millions of years ago, and not these stupid 'founding fathers' their mythological legendary myths say. Brady, finish off the interview with this guy."

    --
    I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
  57. It reminds me.. by 12357bd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The fascinating history of H.P. Blavatsky 'The People of Blue Mountains'.

    Probably those small people of Indonesia had also his own myths about why and how the were there.

    --
    What's in a sig?
  58. Cryptozoology by pajamacore · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Orang-pendek anyone? As recently as 1847, gorillas were dismissed as silly native legends. It was then that white men finally laid eyes on them. The mountan gorilla was also thought to be central Africa's Yeti until 1901. Then there's the whole tree-beater/lion-killer ape controversy in Africa right now. The moral is: don't dismiss native stories so easily.

  59. Re:Sheesh... Another Pyramidiot by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't know who the hell either of those people are, but I do know a couple things about the Giza pyramid. Calling it an "exquisite heap of stone" is pedantically ignorant on your part.

    - It's composed of over 2 million blocks of stone, over 2 tons each. Many of them are over 20,000 tons - all this despite the fact that there is no substantial amount of stone or anywhere to quary it from for over 100 miles. Keep in mind that our best cranes today can lift a mere 3,000 tons.
    - It was 481 ft high at the time of construction. That's 1/3rd the height of the Empire State Building.
    - It took approximately 10 years to build without using anything approaching what we'd call 'modern' machinery, to our knowledge, and weighs a total of 7 million tons (estimated) from 3 different types of stone (limestone, basalt, granite). The Empire State Building only took roughly 1/7th of that amount of time, weighing in at 365,000 tons, and took as many as 3,000 workers at any given time, despite having such modern conveniences as locomotion. Keep in mind that none of our modern day cranes would be able to even come close to lifting one of the 20,000 ton stones used in the Giza pyramid's construction. Ironically, the Great Pyramid of Cholula, in Mexico is larger in volume still than the Giza pyramid.
    - The horizontal cross section of the pyramid is square at any level, with each side measuring 751 feet
    - There are areas within the giza pyramid that have hyroglyphs and odd structural design that, given our understanding of how the pyramids were made, could not have been made or put in place during building (in a vulnerable area) or after building (dark, enclosed area, and no soot on walls), and thus must've been fully constructed and put in place as a module.
    - The ground area covered by the Giza pyramid alone is enough to accommodate St Peter's in Rome, the cathedrals of Florence and Milan, and Westminster and St Paul's in London combined.
    - The entire interior of the pyramids are harmonically tuned. (That's a physical characteristic, mind you, not some crazy new age nonsense.)
    - It was constructed directly on the Earth's equator (which was 30 south of the current magnetic pole at that logitude) and is a mirror of heavenly bodies - which, at the time of construction, wouldn't reach the alignment made on the ground for another couple thousand years.
    - Originally, and up until the last 500 years or so, there was a 20+ ton stone door which could be pushed open from the inside with all the strength required to flex a single finger. From the outside when the door was closed, it was inperceiveable that there was even a crack in the stone, let alone a 20-ton slab of it. There was a study done on the stone used for this door, and it was shown that it would cost hundreds of millions dollars to reach such precision even now, just for the door alone. It wasn't just the door which was milled in such a finite fashion - every stone within the walls of the pyramid were milled with the same precision.
    - The Pyramid lies in the center of focus of all of the continents. It lies in the exact center of all the land area of the world, dividing the earth's land mass into approximately equal quarters.
    - The Giza pyramid is geographically linked to nearly every major ancient holy place (including many that remain so - Stonehenge, St. Peters, Canterbury, throughout all 6 habitable continents. Each of these sites is on a point on a pythagorean triangle (ratio 3:4:5) grid which covers the earth, with the great pyramid as a point of origin.
    - If you were to draw a globe around the great pyramid, and draw it to touch the 3 points, the globe would be exactly 1:36th (I think that was the correct proportion) of the earth.
    - Every single measurement - including weight of the building components and the dimensions of each individual stone - is proportional to the exact measurement of the earth - which we've only figured out in the last 50 years, and only then with the assistance of satellites.

    Now, there are many additional

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers