Liang Bua: Flores and revised chronology
Liang Bua: Flores and revised chronology
The 2004 article introduced Homo floresiensis as a scientific interpretation of excavated evidence, not a living ethnic category. The 2016 reconstruction separates the approximately 100,000–60,000-year-old remains from a broader stone-artifact sequence.
Géographie, contexte politique et héritage
Géographie historique
Flores is a modern orientation frame for the named context and connected places, not an ancient territorial, ethnic, language, religious, sovereignty or maritime-rights boundary.
Organisation politique
No named political organization is recoverable from these deposits. Liang Bua's revised dates replace earlier very late estimates; they do not establish an exact extinction cause, direct modern descent or a ranking of human worth.
Contexte contemporain
Living communities and heritage or religious institutions retain their own authority. This atlas cannot establish identity, ancestry, descent, religion, recognition or membership. Liang Bua's revised dates replace earlier very late estimates; they do not establish an exact extinction cause, direct modern descent or a ranking of human worth. Events after 1500 CE are separately identified as later outcomes, research, conservation or reception.
Brief independent DNAGENICS AI-assisted paraphrase, not author, institution or community endorsement. Retain sampling, dating and interpretive limits.
Brief independent DNAGENICS AI-assisted paraphrase, not author, institution or community endorsement. Retain sampling, dating and interpretive limits.
Brief independent DNAGENICS AI-assisted paraphrase, not author, institution or community endorsement. Retain sampling, dating and interpretive limits.
Uma cronologia breve e documentada
Ces repères servent d'orientation et ne constituent pas une histoire complète.
-
Different evidence has different ages
The revised study distinguishes dates associated with remains from dates of deposits and stone artifacts.
-
Investigations developed
The project account describes renewed excavation before the better-known discoveries.
-
Stratigraphy changed the model
Revised dating undermined the original very recent survival estimate without fixing a single explanation for disappearance.
Culture et langue en contexte
Langues mentionnées dans ce profil
- No prehistoric language or living identity is established by the scientific species label.
Famille linguistique: Language, script, material classification, political allegiance, religion and living identity require different evidence; no language census is inferred.
Research focus: Excavated stratigraphy, dating and scientific species descriptions.
No named political organization is recoverable from these deposits.
Liang Bua's revised dates replace earlier very late estimates; they do not establish an exact extinction cause, direct modern descent or a ranking of human worth.
No artifact, sacred-site, burial or human-remains imagery, restricted knowledge or genetic interpretation is reproduced.
DNAGENICS provides AI-assisted, source-checked educational paraphrases. Cited authors, institutions and communities did not author or endorse this atlas. Public availability does not establish cultural consent or permission to reproduce objects, sacred knowledge or human remains. No imagery is reproduced. Specialist and community review is recommended; use the website contact channel for corrections, rights concerns or removal requests.
Poser une question sur ce profil vérifié
Le guide peut expliquer et relier les faits déjà présents sur cette page. Il ne peut pas interroger le web ouvert, établir une identité ou une citoyenneté, ni évaluer une ascendance ou une information génétique.
AI-generated interpretation of genetic similarity, not proof of ancestry. Informational only, not professional advice.
Read full notice
Before you continue: the analysis you are about to generate is produced by an AI model. AI output can be incomplete, inaccurate, or simply wrong. It describes statistical genetic similarity to reference populations and is not proof of ancestry, ethnicity, identity, or descent. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only, and is not medical, diagnostic, genealogical, legal, or other professional advice. Do not rely on it to make health, financial, legal, or family decisions. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, DNA Genics, S.L. accepts no liability for any loss or decision arising from your use of this AI output.
Sources utilisées pour cette page
Prefer accountable dating studies, excavation projects, regional scholars, national museums and attributed heritage assessments. Historical reports, retrospective court narratives and public institutional interpretations retain their dates and limits. Brief original paraphrases cite sources; no cited author, institution or community endorsed this atlas.
-
C1
4000 Years of Migration and Cultural Exchange: The Archaeology of the Batanes Islands, Northern Philippines
Peter Bellwood and Eusebio Dizon, editors; Terra Australis 40; ANU Press · Archaeological study, museum interpretation or attributed heritage record; brief independent DNAGENICS paraphrase · 2013
-
C2
Neolithic foundations in the Karama Valley, West Sulawesi, Indonesia
Anggraeni, Truman Simanjuntak, Peter Bellwood and Philip Piper; Antiquity · Archaeological study, museum interpretation or attributed heritage record; brief independent DNAGENICS paraphrase · 2014
-
C3
The Laguna Copper-Plate Inscription: Text and commentary
Antoon Postma; Philippine Studies 40(2), 183–203; Ateneo de Manila University repository · Archaeological study, museum interpretation or attributed heritage record; brief independent DNAGENICS paraphrase · 1992 print; repository metadata 2012
-
C4
The antiquity of sustained offshore fishing
Atholl Anderson; Antiquity · Archaeological study, museum interpretation or attributed heritage record; brief independent DNAGENICS paraphrase · 2013
-
C5
Cave archaeology and sampling issues in the tropics: A case study from Lene Hara Cave, a 42,000 year old occupation site in East Timor, Island Southeast Asia
Sue O'Connor, Anthony Barham, Matthew Spriggs, Peter Veth, Ken Aplin and Emma St Pierre; Australian Archaeology 71 · Archaeological study, museum interpretation or attributed heritage record; brief independent DNAGENICS paraphrase · 2010
-
C6
The dynamics of culture and nature in a 'protected' Fataluku landscape
Sue O'Connor, Sandra Pannell and Sally Brockwell; Transcending the Culture–Nature Divide in Cultural Heritage, chapter 14; ANU Press · Archaeological study, museum interpretation or attributed heritage record; brief independent DNAGENICS paraphrase · 2013
-
C7
Cultural Landscape of Bali Province: the Subak System as a Manifestation of the Tri Hita Karana Philosophy
UNESCO World Heritage Centre · Archaeological study, museum interpretation or attributed heritage record; brief independent DNAGENICS paraphrase · Undated record; consulted 2026-10-21
-
C8
Sangkulirang – Mangkalihat Karts: Prehistoric rock art area
Permanent Delegation of Indonesia to UNESCO; tentative-list submission · Archaeological study, museum interpretation or attributed heritage record; brief independent DNAGENICS paraphrase · 2015
-
S1
A new small-bodied hominin from the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia
P. Brown, T. Sutikna, M. J. Morwood and colleagues; Nature 431, 1055–1061 · Archaeological study, museum interpretation or attributed heritage record; brief independent DNAGENICS paraphrase · 2004
-
S2
Revised stratigraphy and chronology for Homo floresiensis at Liang Bua in Indonesia
Thomas Sutikna and colleagues; Nature 532, 366–369 · Archaeological study, museum interpretation or attributed heritage record; brief independent DNAGENICS paraphrase · 2016
-
S3
'Hobbits' on Flores, Indonesia
Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Human Origins Program · Archaeological study, museum interpretation or attributed heritage record; brief independent DNAGENICS paraphrase · Undated record; consulted 2026-10-21
Revisión editorial: 21 octobre 2026