Did paleoanthropolgist Lee Berger speak too soon about his discovery of human remains in Palau? He claimed their extremely small body size suggested island dwarfism. This skull, which he did not make any claims about, is too covered with calcite to say much. Critics say this skull, and others Berger studied, were probably children. Photo by author.

Were some of the earliest inhabitants of Palau dwarfed, as suggested by NGS grantee Lee Berger’s PloS One paper? Not according to a new report from Scott Fitzpatrick and colleagues whose critique of Berger’s work in PloS One can only be described as scathing. The thrust of Fitzpatrick's paper is that about the only thing that Berger and his colleagues got right was the name of the caves in which they found bones.

Fitzpatrick and his colleagues claims that the early people of Palau are well studied and fit within the spectrum of what is already known about early peoples of Pacific islands after decades of study. Fitzpatrick personally studied remains from a beach site in Palau called Chelechol ra Orrak. Among the remains were complete skeletons. Based on Berger's measurements, Fitzpatrick says the bones Berger found may have been small, but no smaller than those from Chelechol ra Orrak or other contemporaneous Pacific island populations.  Fitzpatrick argues it is known that small bones such as these appeared on people of normal size in Palau.

Berger suggests Fitzpatrick misinterpreted his findings (see NG News). I worked with Berger behind the scenes as he was studying the specimens and know that he would be the first to say that his report was based on a collection of fragmentary remains and would have to be considered a preliminary report. Thousands of bones, a lifetime of work for an archaeological team, remain in the caves awaiting study. He knew that much more work would be needed before anything more could be said about the bones from the caves. He explained how he felt that publishing a preliminary report was more responsible than withholding information.

In the closing section of Fitzpatrick’s paper he and his colleagues admit that they used a “sledgehammer to crack a nut,” meaning they deliberately pounded Berger. The negative tone of the paper, and statements like “some may see the Berger et al. paper as being so egregious that few will take it seriously,” will almost certainly influence Palauan officials who decide who is permitted to work in their islands and who is not.

This makes me wonder. Was such a heavy-handed treatment by Fitzpatrick necessary? Should Berger and his colleagues have kept their finds to themselves, even though they felt they were relevant to the ongoing debate about the hobbit from Flores?

What do you think?

Comments