Hey Cadell, do you disagree, or are you not aware of the possibility that they may have coexisted with modern humans? Apparently the indigenous humans of the area have a complex mythology of what they call "Ebu Gogo" that sounds just like our Homo floresiensis!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebu_Gogo

I have to wonder if similar coexisting homo sub-species are responsible for other similar myths, possibly even European myths about Fairies, hobbits, goblins, etc!

Obviously most evidence of these things is wiped out by time, and if these sub-species co-existed, I'm sure they would not have been generally friendly toward Homo Sapiens, as Homo Sapiens would be their greatest threat and competition. They would probably have avoided Homo Sapiens as much as possible, which could lead to their mythological status, as early Homo Sapiens may have anthropomorphized far too much into the fleeting glimpses and interactions.

Specifically, I was fascinated by the specific part of the above Ebu Gogo mythology that references them kidnapping human children! That is also a common part of Fairy/Goblin/Hobbit myth.

Apparently in the Ebu Gogo mythology, they stole human children in an attempt to force them to teach them how to cook and use fire! (In the tales the human children always manage to outsmart them and escape.)

Can you imagine? If there were competing and co-existing subspecies of Hominids one can definitely imagine a group without fire ability being intelligent enough to plan and execute a kidnapping raid in an attempt to gain that ability.

Which if the tales are true, had the opposite effect of Homo Sapiens counter raiding and exterminating them eventually.

But I have read enough mythology, and fiction based on mythology to recognize how common in myth humanoid like creatures who kidnap human children for various reasons, ranging from benign, to playful, to malignant are.

This Ebu Gogo myth that comes from PRECISELY the same area where Homo floresiensis was discovered could be that link!

People on hunting forums talk about how one of the reasons Indians were such great hunters is they ritually danced in smoke before a hunting trip (not to mention living in a tent with a fire in the middle).

There is some information on scentsmoker.com which sells a device for hunters to smoke clothes with.

There is also a massive amount of speculation, and anecdotal evidence about hunters having animals with spectacular senses of smell, such as deer and pigs downwind at close ranges without spooking when they had "smoked up".

I can't give any references other than that though :/

Hey Cadell, great article! I wish I was a scientist, I'm rather fascinated by it. I read a great deal based on my hobby interest, and I have come across something I have never seen published as a human benefit of fire.

On Quora I listed 10 distinct evolutionary advantages to fire, and how I believe mastering fire may have been one of the greatest evolutionary leaps since animal life first moved to the land, because mastering fire nearly instantly elevated us above and out competition with other animals, and quickly into competition with other humans. A few hundred thousand years of that and you have the difference between modern humans and any other animals. https://www.quora.com/What-makes-humans-so-different-from-the-rest-of-the-species-on-the-planet/answer/Steve-McKerracher

Most of which I'm sure you are familiar with but I haven't read about the scent control advantage fire gave our ancestors in scientific literature.

In the last couple years its been trending huge in bowhunting circles, many people swear its more effective than of the commercial brands of scent control.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any studies at all, its all speculation and anecdotal. It's speculated that the chemicals in the smoke actually kill the bacteria that causes body oder. Or that its such a heavy powerful scent it overwhelms the human scent, but then others point out that many prey animals like deer can detect multiple odors at once, and that simply "cover scents" aren't that effective, and yet smoke is.

If anyone actually studies this issue and finds smoke DOES mask human scent, that would definitely have evolutionary implications! Not only benefits to hunting, but also protection from predators that trail based on scent, such as wolves. And possible benefits to reproduction as well, as smoky people smell better than excessive body odor?