Two papers on the Palau "pygmies", one in favor, the other against, followed by two more (one in favor, the other by the same author who was against the pygmies, also against them in the second paper -as would be expected).
Both look at a small bodied Homo sapiens remains discovered in the Palauan Islands, in Micronesia. They were dated to a recent age, from 940 to 2890 cal ybp. They appear to represent a case of human insular dwarfism. They also appear to have "primitive" features. One of the papers (Berger et al.) suggest that when human beings shrink in size, the outcome is a modification of some features resulting in a "primitive" appearance, but this does not imply they are in fact primitive like the Flores island Hobbit
The other paper argues that the people are of a normal size (Fitzpatrick, Nelson and Clark).
Yes, they were pygmies
Source: Berger LR, Churchill SE, De Klerk B, Quinn RL (2008), Small-Bodied Humans from Palau, Micronesia. PLOS ONE 3(3): 10.1371/annotation/0b1a375a-ea43-4586-824f-05bc5b359d63. https://doi.org/10.1371/annotation/0b1a375a-ea43-4586-824f-05bc5b359d63
"Our findings do suggest, however, that a number of the morphological features considered either primitive for the genus Homo (e.g., small brain size, enlarged supraorbital tori, and absence of chins) ... may emerge as developmental correlates of small body size in pygmoid populations...
Based on the evidence from Palau, we hypothesize that reduction in the size of the face and chin, large dental size and other features noted here may in some cases be correlates of extreme body size reduction in H. sapiens. These features when seen in Flores may be best explained as correlates of small body size in an island adaptation, regardless of taxonomic affinity."
No, they are not pygmies
The second paper (Fitzpatrick SM, Nelson GC, Clark G (2008) Small Scattered Fragments Do Not a Dwarf Make: Biological and Archaeological Data Indicate that Prehistoric Inhabitants of Palau Were Normal Sized. PLoS ONE 3(8): e3015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003015) states that they aren't a group of midget humans, but normal-sized people.
"Current archaeological evidence from Palau in western Micronesia indicates that the archipelago was settled around 3000–3300 BP by normal sized populations; contrary to recent claims, they did not succumb to insular dwarfism."
They argue that Berger et al. used a small sample and is not significant, that they measured "smaller-bodied individuals" which biased the outcome.
Who is right?
A third paper (Gallagher A. Size variation in small-bodied humans from palau, micronesia. PLoS One. 2008;3(12):e3939. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003939. Epub 2008 Dec 17. PMID: 19088844; PMCID: PMC2596964.) sides with Berger's findings:
"Analyses of within-group variability confirm that Palauan postcrania are neither excessively variable nor excessively small. All specimens included in this study approximate the size ranges of African Pygmies and Southeast Asian Negritos... Evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the pioneer colonists of Palau were small-bodied."
Further excavations by Fitzpatrick led to another publication in 2017 (Stone JH, Fitzpatrick SM, Napolitano MF. Disproving claims for small-bodied humans in the Palauan archipelago. Antiquity. 2017;91(360):1546-1560. doi:10.15184/aqy.2017.184) which again criticized Berger: "Recent excavation at Ucheliungs Cave in Palau has provided new evidence in the debate concerning the colonisation of the Palauan archipelago... The results of this research here discount earlier claims for insular dwarfism among the earliest inhabitants of these islands."
It is interesting how the same evidence can be interpreted in totally different ways! What is your take on these Palauan small-bodied people?
Patagonian Monsters - Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia Copyright 2009-2025 by Austin Whittall ©
No comments:
Post a Comment