July 9, 2012
Were the Hobbits’ Ancestors Sailors?
The skull of the Hobbit, or Homo floresiensis. Image: e_monk/Flickr
The 2003 discovery of the diminutive Homo floresiensis, better known as the Hobbit, on the Indonesian island of Flores was a shock. Anthropologists never expected to find a 3-foot, 6-inch-tall hominid living in Southeast Asia at the same time as modern humans, as recently as 17,000 years ago. Aside from the controversy over the hominid’s true identity—a diseased Homo sapiens or a member of its own species—another intriguing question was how the ancestors of the Hobbits got to Flores.
One possibility is that the Hobbits’ forefathers sailed over on a raft. Or their arrival might have been an act of nature: A powerful storm or tsunami could have washed a small group of hominids out to sea, and then floating vegetation carried them to Flores. That idea sounds implausible, but it’s also an explanation for how monkeys reached South America.
Scientists will probably never know for certain what the Hobbit’s ancestors went through to get to Flores. Such ancient wooden boats are unlikely to be preserved and there’s no way to prove it was a freak accident.
But recently a pair of researchers offered a novel way of assessing the issue. Ecologist Graeme Ruxton of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and biologist David Wilkinson of Liverpool John Moores University in England simulated population growth over time of planned colonizations versus accidental castaways to see which scenario could lead to successful inhabitations of an island. They reported their results in the Journal of Human Evolution.
The premise of the model is that a group of hominids reach an island. The hominids mate monogamously and each year there is a set probability that a female of a certain age will give birth. There’s also a given probability that individuals in the population will die, based on age and sex.
For the scenario of a planned trip at sea aboard a raft, Ruxton and Wilkinson assumed colonists were sailing as groups of families. So the founding populations in this model had an equal number of adult males and adult females. Ruxton and Wilkinson ran their simulations using different group sizes for a founding population. After running each scenario a thousand different times, they concluded such populations could be successful—defined as lasting 500 years or reaching 500 individuals. The likelihood of success increased with founding population group size, reaching a success plateau at groups of just 20.
To simulate an accidental island arrival due to a storm or tsunami, the pair changed one of their starting assumptions. Instead having an equal number of adult males and adult females at the onset, they assumed the sex ratio was random. No one plans to be washed out to sea, after all. Under this scenario, colonizations were 50 percent less likely to succeed compared to the planned trips aboard a boat. But with slight modifications, that number went up. By adding a 2 percent chance that one to four additional castaways might reach the island each year for the first 400 years, Ruxton and Wilkinson found that unintentional colonizations were as likely to succeed as planned ones. These newcomers increased a stranded population’s chance of long-term viability by introducing new genes to the island and/or balancing out skewed sex or age ratios.
Although the chance of different storms washing different groups of hominids to the same island sounds as likely as lightning striking twice, it may not be that far-fetched. Ruxton and Wilkinson point out ocean currents and wind patterns can lead floating objects to the same place over and over again.
So what does all of this computation really tell us? On the one hand, the models are only as useful as the assumptions Ruxton and Wilkinson used to build them. If the hominids didn’t mate monogamously, for example, then the pair’s conclusions may not be valid. But putting such concerns aside, the results indicate that both rafting and accidental ocean dispersals are possible explanations for the Hobbits’ inhabitation of Flores. Therefore, the researchers warn, a hominid’s presence on an island isn’t necessarily evidence of some kind of sailing technology.
Today, humans live on tens of thousands of islands—even if they didn’t necessarily mean to.
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
What consideration was given to sea level being lower? Wasn’t 17,000 years ago near the end of an ice age? Not familiar with the bathymetry, but it seems plausible that the distance from one island to the next could have been considerably less than it is today if sea level were much lower.
Why don’t they coordinate with geologists who could inform them the hobbits could walk to flores during Ice Age. No need for a raft.
Have the authors taken into consideration lower sea levels during the last ice age? Could there have been some form of land bridge that enabled the “Hobbits” to cross over to Flores and possibly other islands as well?
Anthropologists have considered sea level in their studies of migrations across the ocean. In the case of Homo floresiensis, the hominid lived on the island as recently as 17,000 years ago. But stone tools there indicate hominids, probably Homo erectus, were present in Flores by at least 1 million years ago. Many anthropologists think Homo floresiensis descended from Homo erectus. So a more appropriate question might be what was sea level like 1 million years ago (assuming that date matches the earliest arrival of hominids).
Flores has remained isolated throughout the last million years, and probably throughout the Quaternary. Besides sea level records and regional water depths, the best evidence for this is the island’s bizarre and depauperate fossil record.
Before the drastic faunal replacement brought about by modern humans, Flores’ only colonizers were flyers, facultative swimmers (e.g., Proboscideans, Varanids, Crocodilians, and rats) and… toolmakers. Flores’ sea barriers successfully filtered macaques, tarsiers, babirusa and other landlubbers from Sulawesi (source of prevailing currents), as well as orangutans, ungulates, Carnivora, etc. from the Malay Peninsula and Sunda Shelf.
Of the land-dwelling creatures hitting roll call throughout region, only the toolmakers made it through. If I had to place money on it, I’d say their tools had something to do with it.
And, sorry, I don’t buy the monogamous hominins. Spend a day with Great Apes, or a night at the bar near closing time, and this model flies out the window.
You don’t mention genetic diversity in your analysis. I would have thought that accidental migration would result in a more diverse gene pool in the resulting population than that resulting from a single group of closely related individuals.