mo joker to discovery j he

8/13/2019 Mo Joker to Discovery j He

1/21

Relocation of the 1936 Mojokerto skulldiscovery site near Perning, East Java

O.F. Huffman a,*, Y. Zaim b, J. Kappelman a, D.R. Ruez Jr.c,J. de Vos d, Y. Rizal b, F. Aziz e, C. Hertler f

a Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712-0254, USAb Department of Geology, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jalan Ganesa 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia

c Department of Geological Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712-0254, USAd Naturalis, the National Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

e Geological Research and Development Centre, Jalan Diponegoro 57, Bandung 40122, IndonesiafJ. W. Goethe University, Zoological Institute, Vertebrate Paleobiology, Siesmayerstr. 70, D-60054 Frankfurt, Germany

Received 22 November 2004; accepted 3 November 2005

Abstract

The fossil calvaria known as the Mojokerto childs skull was discovered in 1936, but uncertainties have persisted about its paleoenvironmen-

tal context and geological age because of difficulties in relocating the discovery site. Past relocation efforts were hindered by inaccuracies in old

base maps, intensive post-1930s agricultural terracing, and new tree and brush growth. Fortunately geologic cross sections and site photographs

from 1936-1938dnot fully utilized in past relocation fieldworkdclosely circumscribe site geography and geology. These documents match the

conditions at just one sandstone outcrop. It is situated on the southern margin of a topographic nose at the upper end of a w18 m-wide gully

(w0663760 m E, 9183430 m N, UTM Zone 49M), w15 m southeast of the Kumai et al. (1985) relocation. The relocated discovery bed

is w3.3 m of fossiliferous pebbly sandstone, a river-channel deposit cut into tuffaceous mudstone. The sandstone and mudstone beds correspondto original site descriptions. Pebbly sandstone is also found within the skull.

The calvaria is well-preserved and taphonomically similar to large and fragile specimens found among several hundred vertebrate fossils

excavated from the sandstone in 2001-2002. Since no well-preserved fossils were found intact at the surface of the sandstone, the good condition

of the Mojokerto skull suggests that it was buried fully when discovered. The relocated hominin bed is the uppermost fluvial sandstone of a ma-

rine-deltaic sequence in the upper Pucangan Formation. The Mojokerto child probably died along the ancient seacoast, judging from the large

extent of the deltaic facies and evidence that the calvaria experienced minimal transport. The relocated discovery bed is w20 m stratigraphically

above the horizon from which the widely cited 1.81 0.04 Ma 40Ar/39Ar date for the skull (Swisher et al., 1994, Science 263, 1118) was

obtained. Additional field and laboratory results will be required to determine the skulls age.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Homo erectus; Homo modjokertensis; Pithecanthropus; Indonesia.

* Corresponding author. P.O. Box 548, Bastrop, TX 78602, USA. Tel.: 1 512 303 9501.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (O.F. Huffman), [email protected] (Y. Zaim), [email protected] (J. Kappelman), ruez@mail.

utexas.edu (D.R. Ruez), [email protected] (J. de Vos), [email protected] (Y. Rizal), [email protected] (F. Aziz), [email protected]

(C. Hertler).

0047-2484/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.11.002

Journal of Human Evolution 50 (2006) 431e451


2/21

Introduction

The fossil calvaria found in 1936 near Perning, East Java,

and known as the Mojokerto childs skull (Figs. 1 & 2) appears

to indicate that Homo occupied a marine-coast habitat in the

Plio-Pleistocene as early as w1.8 Ma. Such an age would

make the Mojokerto one of the oldest non-African homininfossils discovered. The marine-coast setting is quite unlike

habitats known for mid-Pleistocene and older hominin popula-

tions outside Java.

Efforts to confirm the geological age of the skull and ex-

plore the implications of its paleoenvironment have been frus-

trated in recent years by uncertainty over the bedrock origin of

the fossil and field location of the discovery bed. The history

of the find has been evaluated in detail recently (Huffman

et al., 2005), reaffirming an in situ provenience for the homi-

nin fossil. Here we document the field relocation of the

discovery site and bed, and discuss the importance of the relo-

cation for dating the skull and linking it to a seacoast habitat.

Andoyo, a geological assistant with the Geological Survey

of the Netherlands Indies (Survey), found the Mojokerto skull

at a hillside exposure of the Pucangan Formation while search-

ing systematically for vertebrate fossils (Huffman et al., 2005).

Survey geologist Johan Duyfjes, who had mapped the areageologically, examined the site and emphatically asserted

that the skull had been excavated from bedrock at a depth of

1 m. Survey paleontologist G.H. Ralph von Koenigswald iden-

tified the specimen as an early hominin. Quaternary geologist

Helmut de Terra and archaeologist Hallam L. Movius visited

the site with von Koenigswald in 1938 and concurred with

Duyfjes geological assessment of the skulls context (de Terra

et al., 1938).

By WWII, scientists generally accepted the paleontological

determination and considered the Mojokerto skull to be among

Jetis

m52

50m

m0

m57

0663000 m E

0005819

Nm0003819

0001819

0006819

0004819

00

02819

0665000

0664000 m E

MOJOKERTO

PERNING

Sumbersuko

Sumbertengu

Sambikerep

Klagen

m05

m05

C

Sumberglagah

m52

Topographic

Contour

(CI=12.5 m)

Road

Trail

Village

Figure 2A

Mojokerto skull

discovery area

(Figure 2B)

UTM Grid

(Zone 49M)

0 1 km

0663000 m

B Java Sea

1000M-

Skull Site

Pacific

Ocean

Indian Ocean

EASTERN JAVA

B

A

Fig. 1. Index (A, B) and topographic (C) maps of the Mojokerto skull discovery site near Perning, East Java, Indonesia (C is taken from the 1:25,000 digital to-

pographic maps ofBakosurtanal, 1998, 1999).von Koenigswald (1936a,b)named a new species,Homo modjokertensis, on the basis of the Mojokerto childs skull

(Huffman et al., 2005).Jacob (1973, 1975a,b; see alsoIndriati, 2004) designated the fossil Perning 1 (or I) and Modjokerto 1.Storm (1994)and Anton (1997)

attributed it to Homo erectus. The specimen, also known as the Mojokerto child, has been variously characterized as a braincase, calvaria, cranium, skull and

skullcap.

432 O.F. Huffman et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 50 (2006) 431e451


3/21

the oldest hominin fossils known, based on publications that

described the discovery location and geology (Duyfjes,

1936, 1938b; von Koenigswald, 1936a,b, 1940; de Terra,

1943). Regrettably, the Survey left no permanent marker at

the discovery site, Duyfjes died during World War II, and

von Koenigswald left Java permanently in 1946. As a conse-

quence of these and other events, confusion arose over the

geographic and stratigraphic position of the find.

Interest in the Mojokerto skull surged following the 1994

publication of a 1.81 0.04 Ma 40Ar/39Ar date on horn-

blende from samples of the Pucangan Formation collected

in the discovery area (Swisher et al., 1994, 2000). However,

questions remain about this date, with the field identification

of the discovery site and the relationship of the hominin bed

to the dated rock being in doubt. Uncertainties such as these

have clouded paleoanthropological interpretation of the

Mojokerto fossil for years (de Vos, 1985, 1994; Semah,

1986; Theunissen et al., 1990; Hyodo et al., 1993; Walker

and Shipman, 1996; Lewin, 1998; Klein, 1999; Wolpoff,

1999; Langbroek and Roebroeks, 2000; Swisher et al.,

2000; Shipman, 2001; Huffman, 2001a; Klein and Edgar,

2002; Morwood et al., 2003).

Regardless of the exact age of the Mojokerto skull, its

paleoenvironmental setting will remain important to under-

standing early human evolution. Java continues to be the ear-

liest maritime terrain known to have been inhabited by early

hominins, and marine-coast adaptations potentially played

a significant, yet little-understood role in the early hominin

lineage. The ancient landscape in the Homo erectus district

of eastern Java is notable for its variety of seacoasts, as well

as volcanic mountains, non-volcanic uplands, river valleys,

and lake margins (Huffman, 1997, 1999).

Moreover, during periods of low Plio-Pleistocene sea level

when the Java Sea and other parts of the Sunda Shelf were par-

tially exposed, eastern Java was on the southern rim of a broad

terrain inferred to have contained coastal lowlands, lakes,

B

A B

Fig. 2. Aerial photograph of the Mojokerto skull discovery area (B) and vicinity (A) with topographic contours from Fig. 1C. The discovery site is known from

1936 maps (Andoyo, 1936; Duyfjes, 1936) to be located east of the tributary of Kali Klagen (Klagen Creek) that is shown in (B). The attributes of the discovery siteand bed, as indicated in 1936-1938 descriptions and documents (Figs. 3A &5-7), match the geographical and geological conditions at only one locality, our

Mojokerto skull site relocation. The scene-center lines of three 1936-1938 photographs ( Figs. 5-7), shown on (A), cross at the relocated site (see Figs. 8-10

and text for details). This point is w15 m southeast of the relocation ofKumai et al. (1985). The documentation for the discovery site does not fit the landscape

and geology elsewhere in the discovery area (Table 1; a location referred to as Jacob location 1 is in the broad field [Fig. 2B], and Jacob location 2 is at a cliff face

[Fig. 3B]). Strata of the Pucangan Formation form the only bedrock in the discovery area (Figs. 3 & 4). PRQ (A) is a quarry on the Perning-Sumbertengu road

where the Monument Sandstone and underlying deltaic topset- and foreset-beds are exceptionally well exposed (Fig. 4; see photograph in Huffman and Zaim,

2003). The aerial photograph was taken in October 1996; original prints were at w1:11,500.

433O.F. Huffman et al. / Journal of Human Evolution 50 (2006) 431e451


4/21


5/21

discovery area (Fig. 2B), leaving little possibility that the shal-

low discovery pit of the Mojokerto skull could have survived

the last 60 years. Second, topographic contour lines on the

1936 maps are too stylized to accurately reflect the landscape

details indicated in the old documents. Third, no geographic

co-ordinates, such as latitude and longitude, were included

on Duyfjes map, nor were any coordinates reported for theMojokerto skull site during the 1930s. Fourth, several reloca-

tion approaches were employed in the past, and their contra-

dictory results are hard to evaluate due to incomplete

documentation of the relocation efforts.

In 1969 Teuku Jacob made the first reported attempt to relo-

cate the point where the Mojokerto skull was found. Apparently

without revealing the exact reasoning behind his choice, Jacob

identified the discovery site as a meter-deep rectangular pit

measuring four feet by eight feet . in the middle of a barren

field. He went again to Perning in 1975, this time with Andoyo,

who pointed out a different location for the find (Hyodo et al.,

1993; Walker and Shipman, 1996; Swisher et al., 2000:42-43,

reported the date of the Andoyo visit as 1969). It has recentlybecome clear that by 1990 Andoyos recollection of 1936 events

was in error (Huffman et al., 2005). His memory of the location

of the site may also have been unreliable in 1975.

Indonesian and Japanese geologists reexamined the Pucan-

gan Formation in the general discovery area in 1976-1978. Not

knowing of Jacobs work (Hyodo et al., 1993), they selected

another location and concluded:

Although we were unable to determine exactly the site and

horizon of theP. [Pithecanthropus] modjoketensis find, the

locality which we assumed and showed in . [a sketch

map] coincides with the locality drawn in Duyfjes

(1936)geological map. The stratum at this locality contains

many vertebrate fossils and resembles the lithofacies of

the P. modjokertensis-bearing bed described by Duyfjes.

(Kumai et al., 1985:61).

Their locality, which we call the Kumai location, is in an ag-

ricultural field on a topographic nose where they collected ver-

tebrate fossils on the surface in September 1978 (Fig. 2B);

team leader N. Watanabe, now deceased, selected the location

based on information provided by local villagers, together

with the distribution of vertebrate fossils in the discovery

area, as determined by fieldwork (H. Kumai, pers. comm.,

2000, 2002).

In 1992, Jacob showed Garniss Curtis and Carl Swisher a 2-

3 m high cliff-face outcrop of conglomeratic sandstone below

a recently constructed monument commemorating the Mojo-

kerto discovery (Swisher et al., 2000:42-43; see also Hyodo

et al., 1993:180). Jacob indicated that the cliff was where An-

doyo said the skull was found. The spot is w60 m from the

location that Jacob identified as the discovery site in 1969.

We call the bedrock exposed in this cliff and field the Mon-

ument Sandstone (Huffman and Zaim, 2003), and refer to the

1969 and 1992 localities as Jacob location 1 and Jacob loca-

tion 2, respectively. Jacob 2 is w110 m south of the Kumai

location. We do not know the exact position of Jacob location

1, only that it must sit between his location 2 and the Kumai

Fig. 4. Stratigraphy of the Mojokerto skull discovery sequence. DB is the re-

located discovery bed; MS, the Monument Sandstone; MM II, Mollusk Mem-

ber II; MM III, Mollusk Member III. MM II and III contain shallow-marine

mollusks and are regional mapping marker units in the Pucangan Formation

of Duyfjes (1938a,b). The figure is based upon detailed measured sections

made by Djuhaeni, R.T. Buffler, O.F. Huffman and F.P. Wesselingh in 2001-

2002 (Fig. 2A shows the section traverses; Huffman and Zaim, 2003). The

sandstone and conglomerate is volcaniclastic and frequently cross bedded;

most of the mudstone appears to be tuffaceous. The sequence between MM

II and MM III comprises (from bottom to top): (a) interbedded delta-front

sandstone and mudstone exhibiting bottomset, foreset and topset bedding (as

shown diagrammatically in the lithofacies column); (b) deltaic sandstone

and conglomerate with cross beds, MS; (c) lower delta flood-plain mudstone

and distributary-channel sandstone, including DB and an overlying paleosol

mudstone. DB is the uppermost fluvial sandstone in the delta-plain sequence,and is capped by an unconformity having at least local importance (noted by

the heavier line in lithofacies column of the figure;Huffman and Zaim, 2003).

Measured sections of this sequence also have been published by Duyfjes

(1936), Sartono et al. (1981), Kumai et al. (1985), Semah (1986), Hyodo

et al. (1992, 1993) and Morwood et al. (2003). Hyodo et al. (1992, 1993,

2002) assigned MM II to the Olduvai subchron. For this and their other

GPTS assignment to be correct, however, the beds below the Monument Sand-

stone (MS) would have to have accumulated at an average depositional rate 1/

70th of that in strata above this level; that is, the w35-m thick top-MM II to

base-MS interval would equate to w0.7 Ma, or a 0.005 cm/yr average deposi-

tional rate; the base-MS to base-MM III, w35 m thick, would represent

w0.01 Ma and 0.35 cm/yr; the superjacent portions of the Pucangan Forma-

tion and the Kabuh Formation, roughly 300 m according to Duyfjes

(1938a,b), would comprise the post-Jaramillo period ofw0.99 Ma and equate

to a 0.30 cm/yr average rate of deposition (see also Morwood et al., 2003).



6/21

location. The relationship of the three locations is most clearly

illustrated inFig. 3B.

Jacob himself has not published details about his relocation

efforts in the years since he took Andoyo to Perning. Concern

about the relocation issue led Susan Anton, Garniss Curtis,

Carl Swisher and Agus Suprijo (Jacobs assistant) to attempt

to pinpoint the field location of the discovery from several1930s photographs. They did not find the site, but believed

that it must be within a few meters, or perhaps a few tens

of meters, distant from the Mojokerto monument (Swisher

et al., 2000:98). This is near the Monument Sandstone outcrop

where in 1992 they collected the rock sample used for dating

purposes (Fig. 3B).

Our initial fieldwork in 1999 and 2000 indicated that the

stratigraphic difference between beds at the Kumai and Jacob

2 locations was of potential significance in assessing the

meaning of the published radioisotopic date for the skull

(Huffman, 2001a). About the same time, Morwood et al.

(2003)concluded that the find site was near Jacob 2, but did

not publish the reasoning behind their choice. A more compre-hensive relocation effort was needed.

Relocation of the discovery site and bed

In 2001 and 2002, we relocated the discovery outcrop of the

Mojokerto skull, and found numerous in situvertebrate fossils

in the relocated hominin bed (Huffman et al., 2002). We also

mapped the area around the relocated site with a Total Data

Station, measured detailed stratigraphic sections through the

discovery sequence, and determined the stratigraphic level of

the relocated discovery bed (Figs.2B,3B,4 &8-10;Huffmanand Zaim, 2003). To achieve a reliable relocation, we com-

pared old maps to new ones, and then far more importantly,

matched 1930s photographs and descriptions to conditions

on the ground.

1936 & recent maps

We first sought to constrain the relocation effort by compar-

ing 1936 maps to recent maps and aerial photographs, which

had not been available to previous investigators. The approach

seemed promising, because Duyfjes (1936) published loca-

tion is the same as the one that Andoyo (1936) inscribed on

a 1:25,000 topographic map five days after the discovery,

and Andoyo had apparently surveyed the point with a transit

(Huffman et al., 2005). Insurmountable problems arose, how-

ever, when we overlaid 1936 maps on a composite of the new

digital topographic maps and high-resolution aerial photo-

graphs (Figs. 1C &2A).

There is a considerable difference in topographic contour-

ing on the old and new maps. A tributary of Klagen Creek

(Kali Klagen), which lies west of the discovery site (Figs.

1C & 2B), is positioned too far to the east on the 1936

maps. The geographic placement of roads and road intersec-

tions also is off by 20-50 m at some points. These inaccuracies

can be detected because an Army Map Service (1942/1943)

chart of the area is available. It has road tracks and contouring

similar to Duyfjes and Andoyos maps, and corresponds more

closely to the aerial photograph than do the maps used by the

discoverers. Drafting errors evidently were introduced when

Survey personnel prepared the hand-drawn base maps on

which Andoyo plotted the discovery location. The best result

that our comparison of old and new maps achieved was a gen-eral match of hills, valleys, creeks and roads.

Based upon this match, the discovery point taken from

Duyfjes map is repositioned on the present-day landscape at

a small ridge lying between the Kumai and the Jacob 2 loca-

tions (Fig. 2B). This point is 80-100 m from the locations.

When either location was forced to fit the point on the 1936

maps, geographic features did not line up on the overlay. How-

ever, the geographical accuracy of the point on Andoyos

(hence Duyfjes) 1936 map cannot be verified because An-

doyos survey notes have not been located. The starting place

of his traverse on the day of the discovery may have been at

one of the areas inaccurately drawn on the base map. Andoyo

also might have made mistakes while surveying. Therefore,the map overlay exercise does not exclude or favor any loca-

tion within the discovery area.

1930s documentation

The inconclusive results from the use of map overlays led

us to compare information from other 1930s site documents

with the landscape and geology in the discovery area. Fortu-

nately the old documents allow for a precise reconstruction

of the geography and geology around the site.

The documentation indicates that the discovery was made

at an outcrop of conglomeratic tuffaceous sandstone in theupper Pucangan Formation; the strata at the site dipped

w10 along the northern flank of the Kedungwaru Anticline

(Andoyo, 1936; Duyfjes, 1936, 1938a,b; von Koenigswald,

1936a,b; de Terra, 1943; Movius, 1944:82, termed the litho-

logy breccia). Terrace deposits were absent, and soil devel-

opment was limited, so that near-surface deposits did not

obscure the bedrock geology at the site (Fig. 3A; de Terra

et al., 1938; de Terra, 1943; Movius, 1944; this situation

has been confirmed by Kumai et al., 1985; Huffman, 2001a;

Huffman and Zaim, 2003).

Fragmentary vertebrate fossils occurred at the surface of

the site; their presence is what prompted Andoyo to dig there

in February 1936 (Duyfjes, 1936). Although in situ fossils

were not abundant in the discovery sandstone (von Koenigs-

wald, 1936b), Andoyo evidently found the skull after digging

only 1 m deep into the bedrock (Huffman et al., 2005). His ex-

cavation notched into the bedrock, and was no more than

w2 m north-south and w7 m east-west, even after additional

digging took place during April 1936 (Figs. 3A,5A & C,6A

&7; see also North View 1 in Huffman et al., 2005, figure 10).

The skull was found in the basal 0.5 m of the sandstone bed,

which has a total stratigraphic thickness of at least 4 m on

Duyfjes site cross section. The dip drawn on the cross section

is, however, w14, not the w10 stated in written accounts.

The bed therefore might be somewhat thinner than 4 m.



7/21


8/21

This site is north of the small ridge and close to, but not exactly

at, the Kumai location.Figure 8illustrates the topographic set-

ting north of the small ridge. The Kumai location sits

atop a topographic nose. A flat-bottomed gully lies to the south

of the nose, and a broad valley is to its northwest along the trib-

utary of Kali Klagen. The nose merges eastward into a slope

that rises northward into a large ridge. This is the main east-

west ridge in the discovery area. In general form, the nose,

gully, valley and ridge are identical to the principal features sur-

rounding the site, as determined from 1930s records.

The gully terminates eastward at a terrace wall (Fig. 6A).

Approximately 18-m wide by w5-m deep, the gully is only

B

1

D

3

3

2

1

TREES &

BUSHES

(partial)

BANANA PLANTAT MOJOKERTO

SKULL SITE

YOKE &

BASKETS

VON

KOENIGSWALD

2 GULLY

1 NOSE

RIDGE3

A

C

Perning-Sumbertengu Road

Fig. 5. Photographs taken on April 19, 1938, when H. de Terra, H.L. Movius, and G.H.R. von Koenigswald visited the discovery site. The main image (A, C), not

published previously, is referred to as Southwest View because it looks southwestward across the site. The inset photograph (B, D) shows von Koenigswald near

a pit in which a banana plant grew. de Terra (1940, 1943) indicated that photographs similar to (B) showed the Mojokerto skull discovery site ( Huffman et al.,

2005). All known early photographs of the site show the same pit and banana plant (Figs. 5-7; see also,Huffman et al., 2005, figures 3 & 10). The Southwest View

demonstrates that the skull site was located on a topographic nose (labelled #1 on C). The nose was north of the gully (labelled #2) that is seen on Duyfjes cross

section (Fig. 3A) and in North View 2 (Fig. 6A). Persons standing near the site in the 1930s could look westward past the nose to the tributary to Kali Klagen and

beyond to the ridge (labelled #3 on C) and Perning-Sumbertengu road. An image similar to (B) was published by Swisher et al. (2000)as an illustration of the use

of old photographs in their efforts to relocate the site. The photographs presented in this figure, apparently filed with the papers of H. de Terra and H.L. Movius

since 1938, are archived in Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, Movius papers (PMAE), and are copyrighted by the President and Fellows of

Harvard College (A, image #N34853 PMAE, and B, image #N39442 PMAE; photographers unidentified; published with permission).



9/21

w2 m wider and shallower than the topographic profile on

Duyfjes cross section (Fig. 3). The situation therefore fits

the requirement based upon the old documents that the dis-

covery site is north of the upper reaches of a small gully. Be-

yond the terrace wall to the east, the agricultural fields

widen, again matching conditions in an old site photograph

(Fig. 7). The gully-nose combination no longer exists east

of the wall, and thus the site could not have been located

there (Fig. 8).

The outcrop geology at the upper end of the gully also cor-

responds to the old site documents, particularly Duyfjes cross

section (Fig. 3A). Sandstone makes up the entire south wall

and most of the north wall of the gully (Fig. 3B). A persistent

light-colored tuffaceous mudstone bed is exposed in the north

wall between the sandstone and the agricultural soil of the

nose (Fig. 9). The mudstone averages w2.2 m thick and varies

in thickness from w1 to 3 m. It is overlain by several meters

of pebbly (volcaniclastic) sandstone.

This sandstone is our candidate for the Mojokerto discovery

bed. In addition to cropping out north and northeast of the

upper end of the gully, the sandstone underlies the agricultural

soil atop the nose (Fig. 9). The soil zone is whereKumai et al.

(1985)made their surface collection of vertebrate fossils (H.

Kumai, pers. comm., 2000).

B

B

A

Fig. 6. (A) North View 2, a 1936-1938 photograph of the site, and (B) an enlarged portion of the scene highlighting the banana plant and discovery pit (the top of

which is marked by a gray line). The photographer (identity unknown) stood on the south wall of a gully, foreground of (A), looking northward towards the site.

This alignment and location are the same as are depicted in Duyfjes site cross section (Fig. 3A). Based on the estimated height of the man, the pit measured w2 m

north-south andw7 m east-west (w7 m3 with the volume approximated as a right-triangular prism). Sandstone formed the back walls of the pit, judging from old

descriptions of the site and the appearance of the outcrop (erosion-resistant rock ledges are sandstone in the area today). A thin stratum of sandstone may have

underlain the pit floor, but the lighter tone of the ground south of the pit in the photograph suggests that tuffaceous mudstone cropped out here. Therefore, only the

basal w1 m of the sandstone bed was exposed in the pit, and the contact between the hominid-bearing sandstone and the mudstone was at or slightly below the pit

floor (compare toFig. 3A). The hill slope that lay north of the pit rose steadily to form an east-west ridge (A). The gully floor (lower left and center of A) ended

eastward at a terrace wall crowned with small plants (noted by inverted triangles). A field lies farther east on the upside of the wall. This field is seen more fully in

the Northwest View (Fig. 7). The size of the banana plant in the pit suggests that its corm was planted 6-7 months before the photograph was taken; the banana

leaves show wilting indicative of dry season conditions (S.R. Gowen, pers. comm., 2004; R.L. Swennen, pers. comm., 2004). The photograph thus appears to have

been taken in the summer of 1936 or 1937 during an otherwise undocumented site visit. The identity of the standing man is uncertain. His appearance suggests he

might be Andoyo (seeHuffman et al., 2005, figure 3A). North-View 2 is in the von Koenigswald archive, Research Institute Senckenberg, Frankfurt (published

with permission), and apparently has been filed with von Koenigswalds papers since the 1930s. The photograph was published previously bySwisher et al. (2000).



10/21

The relocated discovery sandstone is a fluvial deposit. It has

a broad channelized base, prominent cross-bed sets and other

bedding indications of mid-channel river bars, including pre-

served dune surfaces (mega-ripples) on the bars. During

2001-2002 we opened the lower 2 m of the sandstone for ex-

cavation, and recovered several hundred vertebrate fossils.

These include terrestrial mammals, crocodile, turtle, fish and

freshwater mollusks (Table 2; Huffman and Zaim, 2003;

Zaim et al., 2003). The upper part of the sandstone was not

exposed in our excavations, but must occur between nearby

outcrops of fine-grained sandstone and mudstone. The full

thickness of the sandstone is w3.3 m using a 7.5 dip

(see below).

The relocated discovery bed is overlain by 4-5 m of mud-

stone on which a paleosol had developed. This paleosol mud-

stone is unconformably overlain by sandstone and mudstone

with burrows and marine mollusks. These beds are the basal

strata of a marine unit capped by Mollusk Member III, as map-

ped byDuyfjes (1934, 1936, 1938b). Our relocated discovery

bed is therefore the uppermost fluvial sandstone of the coarsely

clastic, rapidly prograding deltaic sequence lying between

Mollusk Members II and III (Figs. 3B &4).

Kumai et al. (1985:59) present a stratigraphic sequence at

our relocation site that is similar to the one that we observed.

They apparently attributed the Mojokerto discovery site to

a 1.3 m medium- to coarse-grained pebbly sand bed, overlain

by 1.5 m of medium-grained sand with granules (Hyodo et al.,

1993, referred these sands as SG2). They found 1.1 m of silt

below their 2.8 m sand (equivalent to our w3.3 m relocated

discovery sandstone). They report 3.5 m of silt above the sand-

stone. These two silt beds correspond to our tuffaceous mud-

stone and paleosol mudstone, respectively.

Determining the structural dip (and hence stratigraphic

thickness) is problematic in the discovery area. The sedimen-

tary succession consists of deltaic deposits with fore-set bed-

ding, large-scale cross-bed sets, and cut-and-fill features that

confound point observations of structural attitude (Fig. 4).

We employ a 7.5 average structural dip. This is based on

B

A

B

C R O P P E D

Fig. 7. Northwest View (A), taken on April 19, 1938, with the portion of the scene around the Mojokerto skull site enlarged (B). The photographer stood at the

south edge of a field looking northwest toward the nose and discovery pit ( Fig. 10B highlights these features). The broad valley with the tributary of Kali Klagen

was visible in the distance, as was the ridge with the Perning-Sumbertengu road. The gully seen in North View 2 ( Fig. 6A) sat to the west (left) of the photo-

graphers location. The man in the pit, H. de Terra or possibly H.L. Movius, was at approximately the same spot that the men were positioned in North View1 (Huffman et al., 2005, figure 10) and North View 2 (Fig. 6B). This spot may have been known in the late 1930s to be the exact point of discovery of the Mo-

jokerto skull. The terrace wall visible to the east of the pit (right in A) was probably an outcrop of the discovery sandstone. This outcrop, as modified by post-1930s

terracing, was the location of our principal 2001-2002 excavation (Fig. 8). The photograph, which apparently remained in possession of H. de Terra and H.L.

Movius, was filed with the Movius papers of Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography and is copyrighted by the President and Fellows of Harvard

College (image #N34852 PMAE; photographer unidentified; published with permission).



11/21

numerous individual strike and dip measurements taken when

measuring stratigraphic sections. Duyfjes report of a steeper

dip at the site (10-14 , see above) was probably due to his hav-

ing less stratigraphic control in this complex sedimentary sit-

uation. We note, for example, that the closest strike and dip

values (7-15 ) on his 1934 geologic map were recorded along

the Perning-Sumbertengu road. This is w500 m from the dis-covery site and >30 m stratigraphically below the relocated

hominin bed. The strata along the road preserve the foreset

bedding with sedimentary and structural dip as high as 27 .

Given the intensive agricultural terracing in the area, it is

not surprising that the 1936-1938 excavation pit no longer ex-

ists, and that the present-day micro topography differs in small

ways from the conditions shown in Duyfjes site cross section

and the old photographs. These differences are reconciled if

we assume that, since the 1930s, farmers flattened the nose,

cut back the gully walls a bit, raised the gully floor with

w2 m of fill, rebuilt the gully-field transition, and terraced

the hillside northeast of the site.

Micro-topographic changes such are these are certainlywithin the farmers earth-moving capabilities. For example,

the local men hired for our excavation crew readily dug

back the sandstone bedrock with their normal agricultural

tools and transported the debris to nearby fields in buckets.

Moreover the changes that we infer to have occurred around

the site are within the range of modification evident many pla-

ces in the Perning area, as the little-exploited 1930s landscape

was developed into the intensely farmed terrain of today.

Because thegeology andgeographyimmediately north of the

upper end of the gullyare,withthe exceptions noted, to the same

as conditions documented for the discovery site in 1936-1938,

we conclude that our relocation site and the sandstone that weexcavated are the Mojokerto skull site and the discovery bed.

1936-38 & 2001 photographs

In order to test the validity of our field relocation efforts and

fix the position of the discovery site as precisely as possible, we

overlaid the old site photographs on images made in 2001. The

new photographs were taken from vantage points that were as

close as possible to those used in 1936-1938. The overlays

match well (Figs. 9 & 10). We also plotted the vantage points

and scene-center lines of the old photographs onto an aerial pho-

tograph and a map. This more comprehensive form of compar-

ison also verifies the relocation (Figs.2A &8).

Overlays were made for the 1936-1938 photographs that we

call North View 2 and Northwest View. The new north view

photograph (Fig. 9) was taken from a spot high on the south

gully wall. From this vantage point, the gully, gully-field tran-

sition, nose, and main ridge to the north are visible in the same

relative positions as seen in North View 2. A new northwest

view photograph was taken using similar criteria (Fig. 10).

We are more confident in relocating the point from which

the North View 2 photograph was taken than the location at

which Northwest View was photographed.

The overlays for North View 2 and Northwest View were

made independently of one another. Each overlay was judged

to be correct when the ridge lines, gully and field boundaries,

and other topographic features on the old images corresponded

to those seen in the modern photographs (Huffman et al.,

2002). Once this result was achieved, the 1936-1938 discovery

pit was transferred to the new north view and northwest view

images (Figs. 9 & 10). In both cases the pit transfers to the

field relocation of the discovery site. The transferred point issomewhat lower in elevation and farther to the south on the

modern north view than on the northwest view. The topo-

graphic features used to align the new and old photographs

begin to mismatch when the old images are shifted laterally

on the modern images in an amount that is equivalent to

only a few meters on the ground.

It was not possible to complete a Southwest View overlay

comparison. Numerous trees now line the north edge of the

gully and obscure the view beyond the nose when looking

southwestward across the relocation from the point used for

Southwest View in 1938 (Figs. 5A &8). It is also exception-

ally difficult to stand near this point because the ground has

been cut away by agricultural terracing.A map-view comparison of the 1936-1938 photographs and

the modern landscape provides an even more comprehensive

test of our relocation effort. Because trees do not hamper the

map-view approach, we were able to include the Southwest

View along with the two other views. This method makes

use of the fact that the discovery pit lies at the approximate

center of the three old photographs. In each case, the site falls

along a map line (the scene-center line of the photograph) that

extends from the vantage point through the pit and across the

terrain beyond. The intersection of the three scene-center

lines, once they are correctly positioned on the map, precisely

defines the map location of the discovery site.To achieve this result, we constrained the vantage points of

the North View 2, Northwest View and Southwest View to the

small map areas that fieldwork indicated were acceptable. We

then forced the scene-center lines to intersect at the relocation

north of the upper end of the gully, but not necessarily at the

best field estimate of the relocation. We limited the pit to mod-

ern locations where the pit floor would lie at or slightly below

the projected contact between the tuffaceous mudstone and re-

located hominin sandstone (Fig. 6). We allowed this position

to fall above the present-day land surface, where necessary,

because of the likelihood that the rock around the Mojokerto

skull was dug away completely in 1936 and the pit destroyed

by farming activities since 1938. We assumed that the place

where the man stood in the North View 2 photograph was

the actual discovery point of the calvaria (Fig. 6).

The final positioning of the relocation site and vantage points

produces a close correspondence between the features seen in

the old photographs and the topographic elements of the modern

terrain, both as represented on the map and aerial photograph

(Figs. 2 & 8) and determined by fieldwork. For example, the

Southwest View scene-center line aligns along the nose

(Fig. 8), and intersects the ridge with the Perning-Sumbertengu

road where it rises to the south (Figs. 2A, 5A & C). Additionally,

the intersection of the scene-center line of the Northwest View

and the road ridge closely approximates that found in the old



12/21

photograph. Even the distinctive shape and high point of the

ridge line seen in 1938 are recognizable today.

The intersection of the scene-center lines in Fig. 8

matches closely our best field estimate of the point where

the man stood in North View 2. The comparison of 1936-

1938 and 2001 photographs therefore substantiates our field

relocation.

This point is w3 m south of the nearest place in our exca-

vations that we dug into the relocated discovery bed (w6 m

south of a concrete pillar inscribed ITB August 2002 that

we placed at the west end of our long excavation face at

the terrace wall; Fig. 8). We made a TDS measurement at

best field-estimate of the relocation, and also took 943 GPS

(Garmin eTrex Vista set for WGS 84) readings at a single

station in the TDS grid. The average of the readings

and TDS measurements combine to give UTM (Zone 49M)

co-ordinates for the relocated site of 0663760 m E and

9183430 m N.

Discussion

Bed & matrix lithology

The validity of our relocation might be tested further by

comparing the lithology and fossil taphonomy of the relocated

discovery bed to the matrix in the Mojokerto specimen and its

state of bone preservation. The lithological comparison is

addressed first.

In 1936, von Koenigswald (1936b:1001dtranslated)

described the matrix as greenish, slightly conglomeratic tuff-

aceous sandstone. The greenish color presumably indicates

that the rock was little weathered, because weathering and

soil formation in the discovery area turns rock to brownish

and reddish hues. Good quality photographs of the specimen

taken in 1936 reveal fill that is consolidated, medium- to

coarse-grained, and apparently pebbly (Huffman and Zaim,

2003; Huffman et al., 2005).

GULLY

FIELD

SMALL RIDGE

MAIN RIDGE

NOSE

BROAD

VALLEY

WEIVWS 5.gi

F

WEIV

WN

01&7

.giF

WEI

VN

9&6

.giF

STEEP SLOPES

WITH TREES

& BRUSH

OLD PHOTOGRAPH

VANTAGE POINT &

SCENE CENTERLINE

DUYFJES 36/38B

CROSS SECTION

(FIGURE 3A)

DUYFJES

1936 MAP

LOCATION(APPROX.)

KUMAI ET AL.

1985 HOMINIDSITE

mN

TERRACED

FIELDS IN

VALLEYS

TERRACED

FIELDS ON

HILL SLOPES

WATER

COURSE

2001-2002

EXCAVATIONS

MOJOKERTO

SKULL SITE

RELOCATION

0 20 40M

RELOCATIONS

Tr

ibu

t

ar

yof

ne

gal

Ki

la

K

Fig. 8. Map of the area surrounding the relocated Mojokerto skull-discovery site (based on Total Data Station measurements and an aerial photograph, Fig. 2B).

The relocated hominin site is on the hill slope north of the upper reaches of the gully. The site lies at the intersection of the scene-center lines of three 1936-1938

photographs that were taken from vantage points east, south and southwest of the site ( Figs. 5-7). The location proposed byKumai et al. (1985)was positioned on

this map using the outline of the gully and nose that are shown on their sketch map.



13/21

Duyfjes (1936, 1938bdtranslated) characterized the dis-

covery bed as conglomeratic sandstone composed of sand

and gravel of volcanic origin (volcaniclastic). Before visiting

the Mojokerto discovery field site, de Terra (1938;

1943:443) studied the mineral composition of the fill withinthe skull and rock cleaned from it; after the fieldwork in

the laboratory in Bandoeng, [de Terra] compared the material

from the pit and found it to be identical with the matrix. No

more detailed data from his comparison have been located.

The sandstone in the skull was covered with paint after de

Terras examination, thus limiting direct observation and de-

scription. During a hands-on examination of the fossil in

1992, however, Swisher scraped away some of the paint and

found a light-colored pumice pebble in the matrix ( Swisher

et al., 2000:48, 87, photograph). Jacob later gave Swisher

and colleagues a fragment of the pumice pebble. It played

a key role in their dating studies (Swisher et al., 1994, 2000).

Images of the matrix produced from computed tomography

(CT) scanning have recently become available (Coqueugniot

et al., 2004; Balzeau et al., 2005). Balzeau et al. (2005)find

that the matrix is heterogeneous. It contains a coarse layer

in the antero-superior portion of the cranial cavity, and much

finer-grained material elsewhere. Based upon images they

published, the coarser layer is very-coarse-grained sandstone

with granules and pebbles.

Our excavations reveal substantial vertical and horizontal

grain-size variations in the relocated discovery bed. Medium-

to very-coarse-grained, conglomeratic sandstone predominated.

Granule-pebble conglomerate and fine-grained sandstone were

present in lesser volumes. Only one thin lens of mudstone and

very-fine-grained sandstone was encountered within the portion

of the bed that we exposed. The material immediately surround-

ing our excavated fossils varied from coarse-grained sandstone

to pebble conglomerate. Only one fossil was encased in rock as

fine as medium-grained sandstone.The bed is gray when fresh, and reddish where affected by

iron-oxide staining. The sandstone consists of subangular to

subrounded volcanic-rock fragments, feldspar, quartz and

mafic minerals. Well-rounded, light-colored pebbles and small

cobbles of pumice with pyroxene and hornblende phenocrysts

are a prominent gravel component (Huffman and Zaim, 2003).

Most of the gravel consists of rounded, darker and denser vol-

canic rock types, what Duyfjes (1938b) characterized as an-

desite. The largest pumice clasts we found were 5-10 cm in

greatest dimension. This is several times larger than the typical

darker and denser volcanic pebbles.

The pebbly coarse-grained fill in the skull appears to be

closely similar, if not identical, to the typical lithology of

the relocated hominin bed. The skull matrix is consistent in

this way with the lithology of the bed. However, the Monu-

ment Sandstone and some other units in the sequence contain

pebbly coarse-grained sandstone also. The pebbly matrix

therefore does not tie the skull to the relocated discovery

bed unequivocally. The statement of Swisher et al.

(1994:1119) that only one stratum in the discovery area (our

Monument Sandstone) contains pumice and volcanic ma-

trix similar to the infilling of the Mojokerto skull is at odds

with our field observations.

Although the fine matrix in the skull is finer-grained than

the bulk of the relocated hominin bed, the difference does

Kumai Locality Discovery SiteFrom North View 2

Agricultural Fill

WATER COURSE

(hidden)

ESRU

OC

RETA

W

FillMudstone

Sandstone

Field in Gully

Gully North Wall

Fig. 9. North view of the relocated Mojokerto skull site taken in 2001 from a point high on the gully south wall (Fig. 8). The scene shows the sandstone and

ruffaceous mudstone exposed in the gully north wall. Even after removing brush, visibility was obscured far more than was the case in the 1930s (compare to

Fig. 6A). To minimize the interference of trees, this photograph was taken from a point somewhat lower on the gully wall and farther west than was the case

in 1936-1938 when North View 2 was made (Fig. 6A). The new and old images were overlaid by aligning gully boundaries (north and east edges) and the crest

line of the main ridge north of the site. The 1936-1938 pit, man and banana plant were then transferred to this image. The old pit lies at our relocated site position.

Tuffaceous mudstone crops out just below the feet of the man taken from the 1936-1938 photograph. The mudstone is overlain by the vertebrate-bearing sandstone

that we identify as the Mojokerto skull bed. The sandstone, which cannot be seen in this photograph, crops out immediately north of the relocated 1936-1938 pit,

underlies the field at theKumai et al. (1985) relocation site, and is well exposed in a nearby terrace wall where we excavated it in 2001-2002 ( Figs. 7 & 8).



14/21

not eliminate this stratum as the source of the Mojokerto hom-

inin fossil. The bed where we excavated it might have con-

tained less fine-grained sandstone than it did at the point of

discovery, located several meters away. The calvaria also

might have lain on a river bottom in a position that affected

the sediment size coming into the cranial cavity. The fill might

have been finer (or coarser) than the surrounding matrix. Fur-thermore, the grain size of the river sediment might have

changed over time in ways preserved within the calvaria but

not fully represented by the deposit. The matrix-bed compar-

ison therefore is of limited value as a test for our relocation

because of insufficient lithological information on the fill

and other uncertainties.

Mojokerto skull & 2001-2002 fossils

It would be valuable to compare the state of preservation of

the hominin specimen and the vertebrate remains found with it

in 1936 to the fossils that we excavated from the relocated

hominin bed in 2001-2002. Regrettably, the 1936 non-hominin

fossils appear to have been lost, and von Koenigswald did not

publish a comparison of the fossilized condition of the childs

skull versus that of the associated fossil remains (Huffman

et al., 2005). Furthermore, we were not permitted to examine

the original Mojokerto skull.Our comparison of the preservational states therefore was

limited to assessing the condition of our excavated fossils

from direct observation and the skull from casts, photographs,

drawings and recently published analyses (Storm, 1994; An-

ton, 1997; Huffman and Zaim, 2003; Coqueugniot et al.,

2004; Balzeau et al., 2005; Krovitz and Shipman, in press).

This comparison is nonetheless valuable. In addition to help-

ing to evaluate our relocation results, it provides a basis for

testing the conclusion that skull was buried in sandstone

when discovered and for proposing that the hominin died on

the Mojokerto coastal plain.

B

B

RIDGEI G

NOSEOS

FIELDI L

Site

April 1938

August 2001

A

Perning-Sumbertengu Road

Fig. 10. (A) Northwest view of the relocated site taken in 2001; (B) an annotated 1938 Northwest View (Fig. 7) for comparison. The photographs look northwest-

ward across the nose and broad valley to the distant ridge where the Perning-Sumbertengu road is located. Trees presently obscure the valley and ridge from points

east of the site, so (A) was taken from the place nearest the 1938 vantage point that gave a good view of the valley and ridge. A wide-angle lens was used to produce

an image that encompassed the entire 1938 scene (B), the outline of which is indicated on (A). The field in the foreground is the same one seen in the lower right of

North View photographs (Figs.6A &9). The 1938 and modern photographs were aligned by matching the upper boundary lines of the field (green), nose (yellow),

and ridge (blue) on the two photographs. The lines from the 1938 photograph are shown on (A). The pit (with man and banana plant), transferred as part of this

process, indicates the relocated Mojokerto discovery site.



15/21


16/21

evidence indicates that he unearthed the juvenile hominin

calvaria from sandstone having a modest density of vertebrate

remains. And his discovery excavation may have been less

volumetrically than 1 m3 and was probably less than w7 m3

in volume (Fig. 6).

Second, because fragile fossils degrade severely when they

weather out of the relocated discovery sandstone, a specimenas well preserved as the hominin calvaria was unlikely to have

been exposed to any significant surface weathering before it

was found by Andoyo.

Only fragmentary fossil remains are mentioned in reports

from the 1930s as having been seen at the surface in the area

around the discovery site; there was no report of surface homi-

nin material (Huffman et al., 2005). We found isolated teeth and

small fragments of long bone and antler loose on the surface

near the relocated site. Similar fossils were surface collected

byKumai et al. (1985), including cervid and bovid teeth, mam-

mal bone fragments, and a turtle shell (Aimi and Aziz, 1985).

However, since the surface specimens found in the last 30 years

are at least as likely to be exposed by agricultural activity as bynatural weathering of bedrock, they do not help us to determine

how fossils weather out of the relocated hominin bed.

We found only one fossil at the surface embedded in the

sandstone prior to excavation. The specimen was a highly

weathered and fragmented turtle carapace (Huffman and

Zaim, 2003). Some of the larger excavated fossils, such as

the antler and radius, showed evidence of natural in situbreak-

age. This fracturing would help explain severe fragmentation

of fossils upon exposure to weathering at the surface.

Noin situvertebrate fossils were observed at the surface of

other sandstone beds in the discovery area. Moreover, few fos-

sils were seen embedded in natural or terrace outcrops of sand-stone anywhere in the portion of the Perning district that we

surveyed. None of these fossils was as fragile and well pre-

served as the hominin skull.

Given conditions in the Perning district, it is difficult to

imagine circumstances that would have permitted the Mojo-

kerto specimen to erode out of sandstone bedrock with the

calvaria largely intact and filled with sandstone. The well-

preserved condition of the Mojokerto calvaria therefore argues

strongly for an in situ discovery of a buried specimen, just as

the discoverers stated unequivocally was the case.

Finally, given the taphonomic evidence at hand, we con-

clude that the Mojokerto child is likely to have died within

the ancient Mojokerto Delta. Fluvial transport of the calvaria

was apparently limited. Sedimentary facies relationships in

the Pucangan Formation indicate that the Mojokerto Delta

was at least 10 km across; the river feeding the Delta originat-

ed in highlands many tens of kilometers upstream (Duyfjes,

1938a,b; Huffman, 2001a,b; Huffman and Zaim, 2003). It

seems likely therefore that the child lived in and died on the

ancient delta plain near Perning, where its remains were sub-

jected to defleshing and disarticulation.

Less likely is the possibility that the childs body was carried

intact by flood waters from a long distance upstream, exposed to

weathering in the Delta, and then reincorporated into the river

briefly before burial in the relocated discovery bed. Long-

distance transportation of carcasses, even live animals, is noted

in the historical record of Java as having occurred during lahar-

related floods (volcanic mudflows; Carthaus, 1911:27-28; de

Terra, 1943:449, in part quoting Franz Junghuhn). However,

the terrestrial-vertebrate assemblage in the relocated hominin

bed lacks the taphonomic hallmarks of a mass-kill event and

provides no specific support for long-distance transport bylahars or other floods. Lahar breccias do occur in the

Pucangan Formation of the Mojokerto area, but they are found

west of Perning and stratigraphically above and below the level

of the hominin stratum (Duyfjes, 1934, 1938a,b).

Implications for the age of the skull

The widely cited 40Ar/39Ar date for the Mojokerto skull,

1.81 0.04 Ma (Swisher et al., 1994, 2000), was obtained

from material collected w20 m stratigraphically below the re-

located hominin bed (Figs. 3 & 4). The hominin fossil is there-

fore w1.8 Ma or younger. At least five other sources of

ambiguity surround the age of the skull, which consequentlycannot be determined accurately at this time.

First, Morwood et al. (2003) conclude that the skull

is less than w1.49 Ma, having obtained 1.49 0.13 and

1.43 0.15 Ma fission-track dates on pumice-clast zircons

from the Monument Sandstone and relocated hominin bed,

respectively (their Pumice Horizon 5 sample is from the

Perning road quarry, and Pumice Horizon 6 from our relo-

cated discovery site, judging from their location descriptions;

Fig. 2).

Second, the age determinations of bothSwisher et al. (1994)

andMorwood et al. (2003)are subject to the questionable but

common assumption in studies of the hominin-bearing forma-tions of Java that the dated pumice was erupted shortly before

deposition of the sampledbed. The risks in this line of reasoning

are highlighted by recent radioisotopic dates from a single lahar

unit at Sangiran Dome.Bettis et al. (2004)obtained 40Ar/39Ar

plateau ages spanning nearly a million years on hornblende sep-

arates from various pumice clasts collected from this lahar. The

study leaves no doubt that substantial supporting evidence is re-

quired to justify accepting as the age of deposition a date from

a pumice clast or a set of clasts. Reworked pumice is possible

whether it is in a lahar deposit or a conglomerate that is less

clearly related to a volcanic mudflow.

Swisher et al. (1994, 2000) dated hornblende from pumice

gravel and a sandy matrix found in what appeared to be a tuff

layer of the Monument Sandstone (Fig. 3). However, the evi-

dence they provide is not sufficient to accept the layer as a pri-

mary volcanic deposit and the 1.81 0.04 Ma date as the

depositional age (de Vos, 1994; de Vos and Sondaar, 1994;

Swisher, 1994). Even if active volcanism was involved, there

are other sources of ambiguity.Swisher et al. (1994)apparent-

ly combined clasts which were not necessarily the same age to

obtain hornblende from the pumice, and did not have a means

of eliminating epiclastic hornblende from the matrix sample.

The mixing of hornblende could produce an average40Ar/39Ar date that is significantly older than the youngest vol-

canic product in the bed.



17/21

Morwood et al. (2003)also combined pumice clasts in their

dating samples and had concerns over reworked material. The

clasts from the relocated-hominin bed were selected from grav-

el composed of diverse rock types. The Monument Sandstone

sample, on the other hand, was collected from a layer contain-

ing virtually all-pumice gravel of various clast sizes. This situ-

ation improves the chance that the pumice was introduced

directly into the river system as lapilli and bombs by volcanic

eruption (see alsoHuffman and Zaim, 2003). Even in the case

of the Monument Sandstone sample, however, the fission-track

analyses of individual grains give widely scattered results, and

mixed-eruption ages are potentially involved.

Therefore, while the abundance of fresh labile volcaniclas-

tic detritus in the Perning section argues for active volcanism

(Huffman, 2001;Huffman and Zaim, 2003), the radioisotopic

determinations published so far do not necessarily date the

deposition of the sedimentary sequence.

Third, available magnetostratigraphic studies (Semah,

1986; Hyodo et al., 1992, 1993) do not uniquely constrain

the age of the relocated hominin bed. The data are difficult

to interpret because of scattered results in the hominin-bearing

part of the section. Moreover, the paleomagnetic sampling did

not cover the entire Pucangan sequence exposed in the Perning

district. This significantly limits the opportunity to tie the sec-tion to the Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale (GPTS). There

also are no complimentary studies elsewhere in the Pucangan

and Kabuh outcrop belt of the greater Mojokerto area that are

available to substantiate the Perning determinations.

Semah (1986:386) obtained very scattered results strati-

graphically above Monument Sandstone, continuing as high as

the base of a zone of normal polarity overlying the Pucangan

Formation in the Kabuh Formation. His readings below the

Monument Sandstone were predominantly reversed polarities,

which leads him to conclude that the lower part of the Perning

section is older than the Brunhes Chron (>0.78 Ma).

Hyodo et al. (1992, 1993) also obtained predominantly

intermediate polarities together with some normal polarities inthe Monument Sandstone and in the section as high

stratigraphically as the base of Mollusk Member III (Fig. 3).

These workers assign the interval to the Jaramillo subchron

(0.99-1.07 Ma). They conclude that the Olduvai subchron

(1.77-1.95 Ma) is in Mollusk Member II, and that intermediate

polaritiesbetween Mollusk Member II and the Monument Sand-

stone correlate to Hyodos Sangiran excursion in the section at

Sangiran Dome (w180 km to the west). However, their assign-

ments of the Perning sequence to the GPTS imply a dramatic and

unexplained change in the rate of deposition or significant un-

recognized stratigraphic gaps within the section (Fig. 4). Their

correlation of the marine-nonmarine transition at Perning toa similartransition at Sangiran Domedused to support their dat-

ing of the Mojokerto skulldfails to take into account strati-

graphic and facies variations known to occur in the

intervening Pucangan outcrop belt (Duyfjes, 1936, 1938a,b).

Neither Semah (1986) nor Hyodo (1998, 1999, 2002)

appear to have identified unequivocally reversed polarities in

or above the Monument Sandstone. Swisher et al. (1994; Fig-

ure 3) found that two clay layers in the Monument Sandstone

have normal remanent magnetism. If the radioisotopic material

they dated was reworked from significantly older bedrock,

the normal polarity interval could represent the older portion

of the Brunhes chron (


18/21

Horizons II and III (Fig. 4). The vertical sequence of lithofacies

is consistent with an unbroken progression of depositional envi-

ronments from delta slope to flood plain, and the localized pro-

gradation of a delta lobe into a shallow water embayment

(Huffman and Zaim, 2003; see also:Morwood et al., 2003).

Such a lobe might have been active for only a small fraction

of the time represented by the entire lateral and vertical accumu-lation of the Pucangan Formation between Mollusk Horizons II

and III, a stratigraphic interval of deltaic sedimentation that

Duyfjes (1938a,b)traced along many tens of kilometers of out-

crop in the greater Mojokerto area. The present-day delta of the

Brantas River (Porong delta lobe), which liesw50 km southeast

of Perning and is roughly the size of the ancient Perning lobe,

prograded more than 5 km since 1880 (Hoekstra, 1989). This

high rate of deposition underscores the possibility that the Pern-

ing delta lobe represents100 m

of exposed Pucangan strata and is overlain by w300 m of Pu-

cangan and Kabuh formations (Duyfjes, 1934, 1938a,b). Thesebeds are folded and unconformably overlain by many tens of

meters of flat lying Brantas-River fill near Mojokerto (Duyfjes,

1935). Geologists working over many decades have consid-

ered the Pucungan beds to be mid-Pleistocene or older on

the basis of these geological relations.

The percent of modern mollusk species in Mollusk Mem-

bers II and III was once used to date the strata in which the

Mojokerto skull was found (Cosijn, 1931, 1932; van Es,

1931;Martin, 1932; Duyfjes, 1936). von Koenigswald (1934,

1936a)recognized a fossil mammalian fauna in the upper Pu-

cangan near Perningdthe Jetis fauna. He believed that the

fauna indicated an early Pleistocene age for the Mojokerto

skull. However, the exact stratigraphic positions of only

a few of the critical fossils (Duyfjes, 1938b) were reported.

Most of them apparently were surface finds. Also the upper

Pucangan in the area includes strata above and below the

hominin-bearing horizon. This complicates determining the

stratigraphic relationship of the Mojokerto skull to the re-

ported species. And the Jetis assemblage may be much youn-

ger Pleistocene than von Koenigswald thought it was ( de Vos

et al., 1982, 1994; de Vos, 1985, 1994). The vertebrate fossils

known from the Kabuh Formation in the Perning district

(Duyfjes, 1938a,b) are not age diagnostic, and therefore do

not help in establishing a minimum age for the Mojokerto

skull.

The fossils excavated from the relocated hominin bed

(Table 2) include four taxadHexaprotodon sivalensis, Axis

lydekkeri, Rusa sp., and Duboisia santengdthat have been

used to distinguish various extinct mammalian faunas in Java

(de Vos et al., 1982, 1994). The assemblage in the relocated

hominin bed clearly does not correlate with the oldest and youn-

gest of these faunas (Satir, Punungand WajakFaunas).The largecervidRusa is not present in the Trinil Fauna from thePithecan-

thropus erectusbed at Trinil and the hominin-bearing Bapang

Formation of Sangiran Dome. The excavated material therefore

appears to represent oneof three faunas that are older or younger

than the Trinil Fauna: the Ci Saat Fauna (older), which occurs in

the Sangiran Formation of Sangiran Dome and was defined on

the basis of West Java localities; the Kedung Brubus Fauna

(younger), which is recognized on the basis of sites near Kedung

Brubus village located along the Pucangan-Kabuh outcrop belt

between Perning and Trinil, and also is known from the Bapang

Formationof Sangiran Dome; or the Ngandong Fauna (younger)

found in the hominin-bearing Solo River terrace deposit at

Ngandong, north of Trinil.Sartono et al. (1981)and Zaim (1981) list planktic forami-

nifera from an unspecified site(s) in the clay facies of the

Pucangan Formation. This facies underlies the hominin-

bearing sequence, and forms a lateral facies equivalent to it

north and east of the Perning district (Duyfjes, 1934,

1938a,b). Neither the original sample(s) nor illustrations of

specimens are available, further complicating age interpretation

of the assemblage. Several of the listed species are valuable

biostratigraphically in the Plio-Pleistocene time frame (e.g.,

Globigerinoides jistulosus, Globorotalia tosaensis and Globi-

gerinoides extremus; Gradstein et al., 2004; R.M. Leckie,

pers. communication, 2005). Marine microfossils may ultimatelyhelp to determine the age of the skull, but do not do so now.

In summary, additional field and analytical resultsare needed

to date the Mojokerto fossil more exactly than latest Pliocene or

early-mid Pleistocene in age. The w0.3 Ma difference between

the 40Ar/39Ar and fission-track age determinations must be re-

solved. Foranyof these radioisotopic dates to be considered other

than a maximum age, better evidence must be advanced to show

that the dated material was erupted shortly before deposition at

Perning. Additional paleontological and magnetostratigraphic

control and radioisotopic dating would seem to be required.

Geochronological conclusions have to be evaluated further in

terms of the potential for temporal stratigraphic breaks in the

section, rates of deposition, and the regional stratigraphic

(including sequence stratigraphic) context.

Conclusions

Although intensive agricultural activity over the last 60

years has changed the appearance of the discovery area, infor-

mation from maps, reports, and photographs dating from the

1930s has been used to relocate the discovery site of the Mo-

jokerto childs skull. Other potential sites, including those

proposed in the past as probable discovery locations, were

excluded by comparing the topography and geology observed

in the field to the same documentary evidence ( Table 1).



19/21

The relocated site lies on the south slope of a topographic

nose situated near the upper end of a small gully and is

w15 m southeast of the location proposed by Kumai et al.

(1985). The main topographic features surrounding the relo-

cated site match those seen in three photographs dating from

the 1930s (Figs. 5-7). The relocation of the discovery site is

substantiated further by new site photographs (Figs. 9 & 10),a detailed site map (Fig. 8), and an aerial photograph of the

area (Fig. 2). The relocated site has UTM (Zone 49M) co-

ordinates of 0663760 m E and 9183430 m N.

The relocated discovery horizon is in the lower portion of

a w3.3 m thick, vertebrate-bearing conglomeratic sandstone

bed. The lithology of the bed is consistent with what is known

about the matrix within the hominin calvaria. The bed is the

uppermost fluvial sandstone body in the prograding deltaic se-

quence lying between Pucangan Formation Mollusk Members

II and III (Fig. 4). The relocated discovery stratum is w20 m

stratigraphically above the bed thatSwisher et al. (1994)dated

by a 40Ar/39Ar method at 1.81 0.04 Ma (Fig. 3B). The date

is therefore a maximum age for the Mojokerto skull. The datealso conflicts with the fission-track age determinations re-

ported byMorwood et al. (2003).

The Mojokerto fossil is remarkably well preserved given

that it was an immature calvaria deposited with gravelly

sand in a swift flowing river. Fossils recovered by excavations

in the relocated discovery sandstone include Panthera tigris,

Proboscidea,Sus sp., Hexaprotodon sivalensis, Axis lydekkiri,

Rusasp.,Duboisia santeng, large-bodied Bovidae,Crocodilus

sp., Gavialis sp., Trionyxsp., Siluridae, and fresh-water mol-

lusks (Table 2). The Mojokerto childs skull is consistent

taphonomically with the few relatively large, fragile terrestri-

al-vertebrate remains in this assemblage.Well-preserved fossils such as the Mojokerto skull were not

found on the outcropping surfaces of the relocated hominin

bed or other Pucangan sandstones (and occur very rarely as

loose surface finds) in the discovery district. These observa-

tions support the conclusion based upon historical evidence

(Huffman et al., 2005) that the hominin fossil was encased

in Pucangan Formation sandstone and protected from surface

exposure when discovered.

The good condition of the skull and the large size of the an-

cient Mojokerto Delta favor the conclusion that the hominin

died in the deltaic environment in which it was deposited.

The Mojokerto child therefore provides evidence for a sea-

coast Homo erectus population in Southeast Asia, and raises

interest in the role that maritime adaptation might have played

in the dispersal and paleoecology of early hominins.

Acknowledgements

We thank Aart Berkhout, Bernhard W. Seubert and Johan

Volker for the translating documents; Richard Buffler, Dju-

haeni and Frank Wesselingh for contributing toFig. 4; Simon

R. Gowen and Rony L. Swennen for evaluating the age of the

banana plant in old site photographs; Todd Green and Christo-

pher Huffman for producing challenging graphics; Dale

Hudler for Total Data Station training and post-field analysis;

Hisao Kumai, Michael Morwood and Carl Swisher III for dis-

cussing their past work in the discovery area; Mark Leckie and

William Mclntosh for advice on planktic foraminifera and ra-

dioisotopic dating, respectively; and Pat Shipman for contrib-

uting observations on the Mojokerto skull taphonomy and

1930s documents. The manuscript was improved by commentsfrom Richard Buffler, Pat Shipman, Lucy Todd and four anon-

ymous reviewers. Financial support from the Leakey Founda-

tion and the National Science Foundations (BCS 0113688) to

OFH and the German Research Foundation (HE-3593/1-1) to

CH is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Aimi, M., Aziz, F., 1985. 2. Vertebrate fossils from the Sangiran Dome, Mod-

jokerto, Trinil, and Sambungmacan areas. In: Watanabe, N., Kadar, D.

(Eds.), Quaternary Geology of the Hominid Fossil Bearing Formations

in Java; Report of the IndonesiadJapan Joint Research Project, CTA-41,

1976-1979; Special Publication No. 4. Geological Research and Develop-

ment Centre, Bandung, Indonesia, pp. 156e195.

Andoyo, 1936. Topographic Maps (scale 1:25,000) Annotated with the Loca-

tions of the Vertebrate-sample Numbers, Including the Mojokerto Skull

Site. Geological Research and Development Centre, Paleontological and

Stratigraphy Section, Bandung, Indonesia.

Anton, S., 1997. Developmental age and taxonomic affinity of the Mojokerto

child, Java, Indonesia. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 102, 497e514.

Anton, S., 2002. Evolutionary significance of cranial variation in AsianHomo

erectus. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 118, 301e323.

Army Map Service, 1942/1943. Krijan, Java & Madura 1:50,000 Series [from

Topografische Dienst, Nederlandsch-Indie]. War Office/General Staff/

Geographical Section HIND 1090, Great Britain.

Bakosurtanal, 1998. Peta Rupabumi Digital Indonesia 1:25.000 Lembar 1508-

622 Mojokerto (Edisi: 1-1998). Badan Koordinasi Survey dan Pemetaan

Nasional (Bakosurtanal), Jakarta.Bakosurtanal, 1999. Peta Rupabumi Digital Indonesia 1:25.000 Lembar 1508-

624 Balongpanggang (Edisi: 1-1999). Badan Koordinasi Survey dan Peme-

taan Nasional (Bakosurtanal), Jakarta.

Balzeau, A., Grimaud-Herve, D., Jacob, T., 2005. Internal cranial features of the

Mojokerto child fossil (East Java, Indonesia). J. Hum. Evol. 48, 535e553.

Bettis III, E.A., Zaim, Y., Larick, R.R., Ciochon, R.L., Suminto, Rizal, Y.,

Reagan, M., Heizler, M., 2004. Landscape development preceding Homo

erectus immigration into Central Java, Indonesia: the Sangiran Formation

Lower Lahar. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 206, 115e131.

Cande, S.C., Kent, D.V., 1995. Revised calibration of the geomagnetic polarity

timescale for the Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic. J. Geophys. Res. 100,

6093e6095.

Carthaus, E., 1911. Zur Geologic von Java, insbesondere des Ausgrabungsge-

bietes. In: Selenka, M.L., Blanckenhorn, M. (Eds.), Die Pithecanthropus-

schichten auf Java. Geologische und Palaontologische Ergebnisse deTrinil-Expedition (1907 und 1908). Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann,

Leipzig, pp. 1e33.

Coqueugniot, H., Hublin, J.-J., Veillon, F., Houet, F., Jacob, T., 2004. Early

brain growth inHomo erectusand implications for cognitive ability. Nature

431, 299e302.

Cosijn, J., 1931. Voorloopige mededeeling over het voorkomen van fossiele

beenderen in het heuvelland ten Noorden van Djetis en Perning. Verhande-

lingen van het Geologisch-Mijnbouwkundig Genootschap voor Nederland

en Kolonieen IX, 113e119.

Cosijn, J., 1932. Tweede mededeeling over het voorkomen van fossiele been-

deren in het heuvelland ten Noorden van Djetis en Perning (Java). Verhan-

delingen van het Koninklijk Nederlands Geologisch Mijnbouwkundig

Genootschap, Geologische Serie IX, 135e148.

de Terra, H., 1938. Letter to Merriam, J., May 1, with attached Fourth Scien-

tific Field Report of the American Southeast Asiatic Expedition for



20/21

Cenozoic Geology and Early Man. Helmut de Terra file, Carnegie Institu-

tion of Washington, D.C.

de Terra, H., 1940. Geologic dating of human evolution in Asia. The (August)

Scientific Monthly LI, 112e124.

de Terra, H., 1943. Pleistocene geology and early man in Java. In: de Terra, H.,

Movius Jr. H.L., Colbert, E.H., Bequaert, J. (Eds.), Research on Early Man

in Burma. Trans. Am. Philos. Soc., n.s. 32 (3), 437e464.

de Terra, H., Teilhard de Chardin, P., Movius, H., 1938. Geological and

archaeological aspects of South-Eastern Asia. Nature 142, 275e278.

de Vos, J., 1985. Faunal stratigraphy and correlation of the Indonesian hominid

sites. In: Delson, E. (Ed.), Ancestors: The Hard Evidence. Liss, New York,

pp. 215e220.

de Vos, J., 1994. Homo modjokertensisdvindplaats, ouderdom en fauna.

Cranium 11, 103e107.

de Vos, J., Sondaar, P.Y., 1982. The importance of the Dubois collection re-

considered. Mod. Quater. Res. Southeast Asia 7, 35e63.

de Vos, J., Sondaar, P.Y., 1994. Dating hominid sites in Indonesia. Science 266,

1726e1727.

de Vos, J., Sartono, S., Hardja-Sasmita, S., Sondaar, P.Y., 1982. The fauna

from Trinil, type locality ofHomo erectus; a reinterpretation. Geologic

en Mijnbouw 61, 207e211.

de Vos, J., Sondaar, P.Y., van den Bergh, G.D., Aziz, F., 1994. The homo bear-

ing deposits of Java and its ecological context. In: Lorenz, J.L. (Ed.), 100

Years of Pithecanthropus. The Homo erectus Problem. Forschungsinstitut

Senckenbeberg, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 129e140.

Duyfjes, J., 1934. Javakaarteering Maandverslag over November-December

1933 een tournee in bladen 110 Mojokerto en 116A Sidohardjo. Report

on file (Ref. No. E33e78), Perpustakaan, Pusat Penelitian dan Pengemban-

gan Geologi/Library, Geological Research and Development Centre, Ban-

dung, Indonesia.

Duyfjes,J., 1935. JavakaarteeringMaandverslag Juni 1935. Report on file (Ref. No.

E35e94), Perpustakaan, Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Geologi/Library,

Geological Research and Development Centre, Bandung, Indonesia.

Duyfjes, J., 1936. Zur geologic und stratigraphie des Kendenggebietes

zwischen Trinil und Soerabaja (Java). De Ingenieur in Nederlandsch-Indie,

IV. Mijbouw & Geologic, De Mijningenieur Jaargang III (8), 136e149.

Duyfjes, J., 1938a. Geologische Kaart van Java Schaal 1:100.000 Toelichting

bij Blad 110 (Modjokerto). Dienst van den Mijnbouw in Nederlandsch-Indie, Bandung, Indonesia, p. 68.

Duyfjes, J., 1938b. Geologische Kaart van Java Schaal 1:100.000 Toelichting

bij Blad 116 (Sidoardjo). Dienst van den Mijnbouw in Nederlandsch-Indie,

Bandung, Indonesia, p. 79.

Gibbard, P.L., Boreham, S., Cohen, K.M., Moscariello, A., 2004. Global Chro-

nostratigraphical Correlation Table for the Last 2.7 Million Years. Interna-

tional Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS)/International Union of

Geological Sciences (IUGS).

Gradstein, F.M., Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., Agterberg, F.P., Bleeker, W.,

Cooper, R.A., Davydov, V., Gibbard, P., Hinnov, L.A., House, M.R.,

Lourens, L., Luterbacher, H.P., McArthur, J., Melchin, M.J., Robb, L.J.,

Shergold, J., Villeneuve, M., Wardlaw, B.R., Ali, J., Brinkhuis, H.,

Hilgen, F.J., Hooker, J., Howarth, R.J., Knoll, A.H., Laskar, J.,

Monechi, S., Plumb, K.A., Powell, J., Raffi, I., Rohl, U., Sadler, P.,

Sanfilippo, A., Schmitz, B., Shackleton, N.J., Shields, G.A., Strauss, H.,Van Dam, J., van Kolfschoten, T., Veizer, J., Wilson, D., 2004. A Geologic

Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press, p. 589.

Hoekstra, P., 1989. River overflow, depositional processes and coastal morpho-

dynamics in a monsoon-dominated delta environment, East Java. In:

Nederlandsche Geografische Studies, 87. Koninklijk nederlands aardrijk-

skundig genootschap p. 213.

Huffman, O.F., 1997. Physiographic diversity in the homeland ofHomo erec-

tus, Java. Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America 1997

Annual Meeting 29 (6), A319.

Huffman, O.F., 1999. Variety in the paleoevironment of earlyHomo erectusof

Java, Indonesia. J. Hum. Evol. 36 (4), A8eA9.

Huffman, O.F., 2001a. Geologic context and age of the Perning/Mojokerto

Homo erectus, East Java. J. Hum. Evol. 40, 353e362, doi:10.1006/

jhev.2001.0464.

Huffman, O.F., 2001b. Plio-Pleistocene environmental variety in eastern Java

and early Homo erectus paleoecology - a geological perspective. In:

Simanjuntak, T., Prasetyo, B., Handini, R. (Eds.), Sangiran: Man, Culture,

and Environment in Pleistocene Times, Proceedings of the International

Colloquium on Sangiran SolodIndonesia. 21st-24th September 1998,

Jakarta. The National Research Centre of Archaeology/Ecole Francaise

dExtreme-Orient/Yayasan Obor Indonesia, pp. 231e256.

Huffman, O.F., Zaim, Y., 2003. Mojokerto Delta, East Jawa; paleoenvironment

of Homo modjokertensis e first results. J. Miner. Technol. (Journal JTM)

10 (2), 1e9. Institute Teknologi Bandung, Bandung.

Huffman, O.F., Zaim, Y., Kappelman, J., Aziz, F., Shipman, P., Hertler, C., de

Vos, J., 2002. Relocating the 1936 Perning/Mojokerto hominid site, East

Jawa. J. Hum. Evol. 42, A17eA18.

Huffman, O.F., Shipman, P., Hertler, C., de Vos, J., Aziz, F., 2005. Historical

evidence of the 1936 Mojokerto skull discovery, East Java. J. Hum. Evol.

48, 321e363, doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.09.001.

Hyodo, M., Sunata, W., Susanto, E.E., 1992. A long-term geomagnetic excur-

sion from Plio-Pleistocene sediments in Java. J. Geophys. Res. 97 (B6),

9323e9335.

Hyodo, M., Watanabe, N., Sunata, W., Susanto, E.E., 1993. Magnetostratiga-

phy of hominid fossil bearing formations in Sangiran and Mojokerto, Java.

Anthropol. Sci. 101 (2), 157e186.

Hyodo, M., Nakaya, H., Urabe, A., Saegusa, H., Xue, S., Yin, J., Ji, X., 2002.

Paleomagnetic dates of hominid remains from Yuanmou, China and other

Asian sites. J. Hum. Evol. 43, 27e41, doi:10.1006/jhev.2002.0555.

Indriati, E., 2004. Indonesian fossil hominid discoveries from 1889 to 2003:

Catalogue and Problems. Proceedings of the Fifth and Sixth Symposium

on Collection and Building and Natural History Studies in Asia and the

Pacific Rim. Natural Science Museum Monographys, 24, 163e177.

Jacob, T., 1972. The absolute date of the Djetis Beds at Modjokerto. Antiquity

46, 148.

Jacob, T., 1973. Paleoanthropological discoveries in Indonesia with special

reference to the finds of the last two decades. J. Hum. Evol. 2, 473e485.

Jacob, T., 1975a. Indonesia. In: Oakley, K.P., Campbell, E.G., Molleson, T.I.

(Eds.), Catalogue of Fossil Hominids Part III: Americas, Asia, Australasia.

British Museum, London, pp. 103e116.

Jacob, T., 1975b. Morphology and paleoecology of early man in Java. In:

Turtle, R.H. (Ed.), Paleoanthropology, Morphology and Paleoecology.Mouton, The Hague, pp. 311e325.

Klein, R.G., 1999. The Human Career Human Biological and Cultural Origins,

second ed. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 810.

Klein, R.G., Edgar, B., 2002. The Dawn of Human Culture. John Wiley &

Sons, New York, p. 288.

Krovitz, G., Shipman, P. Taphonomy of immature hominid skulls and

the Taung, Mojokerto, and Herto specimens. In: Pickering, T.R.,

Toth, N., Schick, K. (Eds.), African Taphonomy: A Tribute to the Career

of C.K. Bob Brain. Stone Age Institute Press, Bloomington, Indiana,

in press.

Kumai, H., Itihara, M., Sudijono, Shibasaki, T., Aziz, F., Yoshikawa, S.,

Akahane, S., Soeradi, T., Hayashi, T., Furuyama, K., 1985. Geology and

stratigraphy of the Mojokerto area. In: Watanabe, N., Kadar, D. (Eds.),

Quaternary Geology of the Hominid Fossil Bearing Formations in Java;

Report of the Indonesiad

Japan Joint Research Project, CTA-41, 1976-1979; Special Publication 4. Geological Research and Development

Centre, Bandung, Indonesia, pp. 55e61.

Langbroek, M., Roebroeks, W., 2000. Extraterrestrial evidence on the age of

the hominids from Java. J. Hum Evol. 38, 595e600, doi:10.1006/

jhev.l999.0334.

Lewin, R., 1998. Principles of Human Evolution: a Core Textbook. Blackwell

Science, Maiden, Massachusetts, p. 526.

Martin, K., 1932. De Ouderdom der Sedimenten van den door Dr. J. Cosijn

opgenomen antiklinaal in de Resdientie Soerabaja. Verhandelingen van

het Geologisch-Mijnbouwkundig Genootschap voor Nederland en Kolo-

nieen IX, 149e151.

Morwood, M.J., Sullivan, O.P., Susanto, E.E., Aziz, F., 2003. Revised age for

Mojokerto 1, an early Homo erectus cranium from East Java. Aust. Ar-

chaeol. 57, 1e4.



21/21

Movius, H.L., 1944. Early man and Pleistocene stratigraphy in sou

mo joker to discovery j he

Documents