sign in sign up
<<
Home , Meganthropus, Solo Man, Solo River, Trinil

G. Bartstra Some remarks upon: man from , his age, and his tools

In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 139 (1983), no: 4, Leiden, 421-434

This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access GERT-JAN BARTSTRA

SOME REMARKS UPON: FOSSIL MAN FROM JAVA, HIS AGE, AND HIS TOOLS

1. Introduction It was at , a small village in , that Eugène Dubois found at the end of last century the skullcap and thighbone of an early hominid,. namely Pithecanthropus erectus. Today we know that this "ape-man" was much more advanced. than Dubois ever supposed. Pithecanthropus is now included in the . To be more precise, Pithecanthropus belongs to the species ; and the specimen from Trinil (the first Homo erectus to be found anywhere in the world) forms within it the subspecies Homo erectus erectus. This hominid of Trinil no longer stands in isolation: Also at other places in Java fossil hominid remains have been found, which either belong to this subspecies Homo erectus erectus, or are included in other subspecies (e.g. in Homo erectus soloensis). The most prolific site of fossil hominid remains at the moment is , situated some ten kilometres to the north of , in Central Java. Homo erectus. evolved from Homo •habilis on the grassy plains of Upper Pliocene and Basal East Africa some 2 million ago, and from there he began his wanderings across the Old World. Java was in fact thus the end of a long trek for Homo erectus. But he obviously feit very much at home on Java. There he found a comfortable niche, in which he was able to survive for several hundred thousand years without undergoing many changes. The finds of hominid remains in Java have increased in recent years. This is due to the activities of the Indonesian archaeological service (Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional), as a result of which research on early man on Java is now proceeding in a coordinated and systematic

GERT-JAN BARTSTRA, a graduate from and currently lecturer at the State University at Groningen, is interested mainly in palaeolithic archaeology and pleistocene geolögy of Southeast Asia. His two most important publications are 'The river-laid strata near Trinil, site of Homo erectus erectus, Java, ' and 'Homo erectus erectus: the search for his artifacts', both of 1982 (see bibliography). The author may be contacted at the Biologisch-Archaëologisch Instituut, Poststraat 6, 9712 ER Groningen, .

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access 422 Gert-fan Bartstra

way (Soejono 1982). Also involved with this research (Proyek Paleo- antropologi) are laboratories of the Institute of in , and of the Gajah Mada University in Yogyakarta. In Holland there are, to mention the principal institutions in this field: the Biologisch- Archaeologisch Instituut in Groningen, and the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie in Leiden. In recent years a lot of new information has become available especially regarding the age of the various deposits in which the fossil remains lie buried. But also with regard to the tools that Homo erectus probably used a few new ideas can now be put forward.

2. Stratigraphy and Dates When Dubois reported his find, he said that both skullcap and thigh- bone originated from indisputably river-laid sediments, exposed in the banks of the River Solo near Trinil, and dating from the Pleistocene epoch (Dubois 1894). One might assume these sediments to be sediments of the Solo. Indeed, many rivers on Java go together with terraces: step-shaped remnants of previous f lood plains which, because for some reason or other the river started to incise, are now to be found at some height above the present f lood plain (the valley floor). But precisely because terraces are to be regarded as "fossil" flood plains, this means that it must be possible to tracé the stratification of the river flood plain in principle also in terrace remnants. In the case of the there appear to be coarse clastics at the base, and fine clastics at the top (partly overbank sediments on top of former coarse channel load). However, this typical stratification is not im- mediately visible in the river-laid strata that have yielded Trinil Man: these strata form a motley succession of clays, silts, sands and sand- stones, with gravel layers, lenses, and laminae.

o NV, \^~ J '

wC—<— BANOUNC ^—w^

SURAKARTA SURABAÏA | ra

J Baksoka

O 100 km 1 L i

Fig. 1. The island of Java with the principal towns (•). volcanoes and mountain ranges (A), and localities of fossil hominids and prehistorie stone artifacts (•). 1 = Trinil; 2 = Ngandong; 3 = Sambungmacan; 4 = Sangiran; 5 = Pacitan; 6 = Wajak; A = Lawu; B = Wilis; C = Gunung Kidul; D = Gunung Kendeng. Drawing: J. M. Smit (BAI/RUG).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access Fossil Man front Java, his Age, and his Tools 423

It appears that along the Solo river near Trinil there are two river- laid units: an upper unit, consisting of terrace depósits built up by the Solo in the course of its history, and unmistakably connected with the present drainage pattern; and a lower unit, deposited by former, pre- Solo rivers, in which the present Solo has become entrenched (the present Solo is, so to speak, "buffered" by this older alluvium). In both units one finds remains of fossil hominids. Trinil Man comes from the lower unit; at least the skullcap originates from it. Very recently (Hooijer, Day, pers. comm.) there has arisen some doubt as to the true parent unit of the thighbone. This has far-reaching consequences, as "Pithecanthropus" was reconstructed from both skullcap and . In the upper unit, thus in the terraces of the Solo river, one finds — just as is to be expected — a more advanced hominid, that has become known as , or Ngandong Man (Homo erectus soloensis). The name Ngandong refers to the small village — also situated in Central Java on the Solo river — where remains of this more advanced hominid were first found in the 1930's (Oppenoorth, 1932).1 A few years ago another of Solo Man was found, this time at Sambungmacan, to the west of Trinil. This find has given rise to some confusion and to discussions about the age of Solo Man (e.g. Jacob, 1978a). The age of the Sambungmacan skull was overestimated because the parent-layer in which it was found was believed to be part of the lower river-laid unit along the Solo. However, the fossil skull from Sambungmacan is a "normal" Solo Man skull from "normal" Solo river terrace depósits (Sartono, 1979; Bartstra, 1982a). In addition to the remains of fossil hominids, one finds in both the lower and the upper river-laid unit along the Solo bones of terrestrial and aquatic that lived on Java during the Pleistocene epoch. Many of these animals belong to species that have now become extinct on the island, and as such they can be of value in determining the relative age of the strata in which they are embedded. Theoretically, the fauna of the upper unit should make a more recent impression than the fauna from the lower unit — questions of habitat aside. It was the paleontologist Von Koenigswald (who died in 1982) who first actually demonstrated this faunal sequence, and who went a significant step further than Dubois, who had ascribed the fossil remains from the upper and the lower unit to one and the same "Trinil fauna". Von Koenigswald restricted the term "Trinil fauna" to from the lower river-laid unit only; for the fossils from the upper (terrace) unit he introduced the term "Ngandong fauna" (Von Koenigs- wald, 1935). Thus the lower and the upper river-laid units along the Solo are sometimes referred to as "Trinil beds" and "Ngandong beds" respectively.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access 424 Gert-Jan Bartstra

Nevertheless, caution should be exercised in making a delineation of stratigraphic units on the basis of paleontological arguments, or, in this case, vertebrate bones — especially along the banks of the Solo river. For example, in designating particular fluviatile strata as "Trinil beds" merely on the basis of finds of a few "Trinil-like" fossils, one neglects in an impermissible way the problem of the reworking (sorting) of fossil remains. Af ter all, one is dealing with so-called "river drift" material, and it is to be expected that at least some of the fossils along the Solo will be allochthonous and derived from older deposits. Unfortunately, so f ar not much specif ie research has been directed in Java towards this problem. But it is certain that, in addition to their own autochthonous, in situ fauna, the terraces

GEOLOGY TIME EPOCHS STRATIORAPHY IIN MILLION EPOCHS ARTIFACTS VEARS)

HOLOCENE TERRACE FILLS [UPPER-RIVERLAID "EPI PAL." BAKSOKA UNIT) 0,01 HANO-" UPPER PL. LATE PAL. 0,13 - MIDDLE PAL. SAHGIRAN KABUH BEDS IMPLEMENTS' MIODLE PL. (LOWER-RIVERLAID UNIT)

PLEISTOCENE 0.7 - PALAEOLITHIC

UWER PL. PUCANCAN BEDS EARLV PAL.

PLIOCENE

Fig. 2. Comparison of the later geological epochs, the Javanese stratigraphy, and the early prehistorie periods. Drawing: J. M. Smit (BAI/RUG). along the Solo contain a genuine "Trinil" component, i.e. derived remains from the lower river-laid unit. It is possible to make a distinction between the autochthonous and allochthonous parts on the basis of the state of preservation of the various fossils. In any case one should be very careful about taking vertebrate remains collected in the banks of the Solo as a basis for biostratigraphic and chronologi- cal arguments (as, e.g., in De Vos et al., 1982), without first having

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access Fossil Man from Java, his Age, and his Tools 425

established precisely which is the autochthonous and which is the allochthonous component of a particular stratum (Bartstra, 1982b, 1983; Hooijer, 1983). For these reasons it is also better to use purely lithological terms for referring to the lower and upper river-laid units along the Solo, e.g. "Kabuh beds"2 and "terrace sediments" or "terrace fills" respectively; Terms such as "Trinil beds" and "Ngandong beds" are confusing and should be avoided. The problem of fluviatile drifting, reworking, and sorting plays a role not only with respect to the relative (fossil vertebrate) dating of strata on Java, but also for "absolute" (radiometric) dating. In the Kabuh beds tektites occur, for example, and these small glassy stones are used for K/Ar and fission-track dating óf the Kabuh deposits (e.g. Zahringer, 1963; Zahringer & Gentner, 1963; Von Koenigswald, 1968).3 The results of such tektite analyses are accepted unreservedly by many authors. The possibility is not taken into consideration that the tektites in the fluviatile deposits may be reworked (e.g. in Nishimura et al., 1980); or, if the possibility of a secondary position is indeed suggested, then it is still insüfficiently reckoned with (e.g. in Ninkovich & Burckle, 1978). However, many tektites in Central Java are indeed reworked; this is already indicated by the fact that they occur not only in de basal part of the Kabuh beds (Nishimura et al., 1980), but also in the middle and upper parts (Von Koenigswald, 1968), as as in overlying deposits (Von Koenigswald, 1940), and on the erosional surface separating the Kabuh beds from those over- lying strata (Van Bemmelen, 1949). Therefore radiometric age determinations based on tektites from the river-laid deposits of Central Java are highly suspect: the tektites themselves may be dated in this way, but certainly not the stratum from which they are collected.4 However, even with smaller components the problem of fluviatile reworking plays a role. K/Ar datings of the Kabuh beds on Java are based on an analysis of the volcanic constituents therein (e.g. pumice; Jacob, 1978b). The results of these analyses are also widely accepted, while it is nevertheless questionable whether the Kabuh beds in Central Java contain fresh volcanic products. The Kabuh beds are a synorogenic formation, built up of erosion products from the major anticlines (mountain ridges) of South and Central Java (the Gunung Kidul and Kendeng respectively). During the formation of the Kabuh beds there was certainly not very much volcanic activity in Central Java, neither of the Lawu, nor of the Wilis (Van Bemmelen, 1949). By f ar the greater part of the volcanic constituents of the Kabuh beds must there- fore originate from older formations; which means that the K/Ar ages of the Kabuh deposits in Central Java are too high, and must be regarded with scepticism.5 The examples given above show that the results.of the modern

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access 426 Gert-Jan Bartstra radiodating methods have to be regarded critically with a view to the geomorphic history of a particular region, or of Java as a whole. More- over, the comparison of the results of different dating techniques that has been undertaken by some authors is contributing towards a more coherent chronology of the Javanese Plio/Pleistocene (Orchiston & Siesser, 1982; Hutterer, 1983). In this connection a significant role is played by the results of palaeomagnetic research on Java, which has made successful progress since it was commenced a few years ago (Sémah, 1982; Sémah et al., 1981/82). In fact, the time-scale of the reversals of the earth's magnetic field must also be taken as a basis for a division of the Plio/Pleistocene on Java, so that a meaningful comparison may be made with other parts of the world. The transition from Lower to Middle Pleistocene then lies on the boundary between the Matuyama reversed and the Brunhes normal epoch, which boundary lies at approximately 700,000 years ago — coinciding with the onset of the "glacial" Pleistocene in Europe (Butzer, 1974). It appears that samples from the Kabuh beds in Java possess a normal polarity, and this is generally ascribed to the Brunhes epoch (Yokoyama et al., 1980; Sémah et al., 1981/82). An age of 700,000 years is then the maximum age of the autochthonous vertebrate remains in de Kabuh beds (the lower river-laid unit), and thus also of the skullcap (and thighbone?) ofTrinil.6 Fossil hominid remains from the Solo terraces (if they form part of the autochthonous component) are much more recent. At the moment attempts are being made to obtain radiometric ages from terrace vertebrate fossils (U-series dating). The first results show that these fossils are younger than 100,000 years, and thus date from the Upper Pleistocene. .

3. Artifacts and Ages Peeking (and poking) in a lot of textbooks on prehistory one is often confronted with the statement that the "Patjitanian" of Java must be regarded as an "Early Palaeolithic culture", and thus as the tooi as- semblage of (Homo erectus erectus and his predecessors) par excellence. This statement is undoubtedly an echo of a typological argument that the discoverers of this Patjitanian initially put forward with great enthusiasm to provide support for the age of their find. For on that 4th of October in the 1935, the discoverers, Tweedie and Von Koenigswald, caught sight of hand-axes scattered in the bed of the small River Baksoka; and because both had been brought up in the respectable tradition of Western prehistorie research they knew that since the time of Boucher de Perthes hand-axes had to.be regarded as very old (Von Koenigswald, 1936a).7 Later on it became evident that the emphasis on hand-axes within the Patjitanian is exaggerated,

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access Fossil Man from Java, his Age, and his Tools 427 and that many of the core tools that were originally described as hand- axes in fact belong to other categories of artifacts, for example to the so-called choppers. But even this "/chopping-tool complex" was still regarded as "Early" or "Lower Palaeolithic", and was placed far down in the Pleistocene (Movius, 1944, 1949; Van Heekeren, 1955, 1957). In addition to the typological argument a palaeontological argument was put forward. For in the neighbourhood of the Baksoka river remains of fossil vertebrates were found that were regarded as "Trinil- like", hence Middle Pleistocene (Von Koenigswald, 1939). But apart from the question of whether these scant remains are sufficient to permit their classification as a true Trinil fauna,8 the correlation of fossils and artifacts appears to have no solid foundation. The vertebrate remains come from fissure deposits in limestone hills that cannot be associated in any way with the sites of the stone tools. During subsequent visits Von Koenigswald soon noticed that the Patjitanian tools occur not only in the bed of the Baksoka, but also in a low gravel bank that can be observed in many places up to a metre above the river (Von Koenigswald, 1936b). However, it is known that this bank contains not only Patjitanian artifacts but also (so-called planken), so that it cannot possibly be the parent layer of the Palaeolithic tools.9 This low-lying gravel sediment forms part of the present flood plain of the Baksoka river, and is subject to much reworking during f loods (banjir). But there are also "fossil" flood plains along the Baksoka, i.e. terraces, which can be traced at some height alöng the valley sides. These terraces contain in situ Patjitanian tools; the Neolithic planken are only found scattered on the surface (Van Heekeren, 1955; Soejono, 1961; Bartstra, 1976). It will be clear that the dating of these Baksoka river terrace sedi- nients'will provide an indication of the age of the Patjitanian artifacts. This dating will have to be carried out entirely on the basis of geomorphic events. For unlike the situation along the Solo River, the Baksoka terraces do not contain any fossils — due to extreme lateritiza- tion of the soil. Moreover, no autochthonous volcanic constituents, suitable for K/Ar or fission-track dating, have as yet been traced. Nevertheless, a lot can be done with geomorphic dating, and this shows the Baksoka terrace deposits to be young, extremely young from a geological point of view, and to date only from the last phases of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene. The method applied is based on an attempt to fit the genesis of the Baksoka terraces into the geomorphic history of the region as a whole: the hilly karst land- scape of the Gunung Sewu and the adjacent tuff/sandstone plateau that form part of the Gunung Kidul, the large geanticline along the south coast of Java. A large body of data is available concerning the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access 428 Gert-Jcm Bartstra

geomorphic history of this region (e.g. Lehmann, 1936; Sartono, 1964); and these data can be made much use of to explain the presence of river terraces along the Baksoka. There is no reason to assume that the Patjitanian artifacts in the highest Baksoka terrace (more than 20 m above the river) are reworked. A theory was once put forward that the artifacts possibly originated from a that had been subjected to erosion.10 But this is impossible: there are no upstream from the sites, nor have there ever been any. The upper course of the Baksoka lies in a plateau of unconsoli- dated agglomerates and loose tuffaceous sandstones (all of Miocene age). The lower course does lie in a limestone region (the karts of the Gunung Sewu), but there no Patjitanian artifacts are present. As it can be shown by means of geomorphic dating that the highest Baksoka terrace remnants cannot be older than 50,000 years at most, it is clear that the term "Early Palaeolithic" with respect to the Patji- tan culture is confusing and should be abandoned. In fact, there is only one prehistorie hominid that is worthy of consideration as maker of the Patjitan tools, namely Wajak Man. The of this hominid (found on the south coast of Java) had already been studied by Dubois before he made his finds in Trinil. Wajak Man is much younger than Java Man, and is also younger than Solo Man. Wajak Man is a sub- species of Homo sapiens, and is described as having Australoid affinities.11 He lived on Java in the last phases of the Pleistocene and at •the beginning of the Holocene — the time from which the Patji- tanian artifacts apparently originate. It should be pointed out here that in later years Von Koenigswald also abandoned the correlation between the Patjitan culture and Java Man once proposed by him; he then spoke of the tools as being "perhaps Upper Pleistocene". (e.g. Von Koenigswald, 1978). Van Heekeren later placed the Patjitanian in the "Early Upper Pleistocene" (Van Heekeren, 1975). But these datings are still too early.12 Apart from the myth about the Patjitanian being of great age, there are two other myths about it that must be dispelled. These concern the so-called "primitiveness" of the artifacts and the so-called "giganto- lithic" aspect. Patjitanian tools are by no means primitive, or crudely worked; on the contrary, the artifacts show a "highly advanced flaking technique" (Mulvaney, 1970). The raw material (silicified tuf f and limestone) appears to have no demonstrable influence on the final result; only in the case of artifacts made of fossil wood does one notice an inevitable preference for longitudinal flaking and trimming. That in the literature the emphasis lies on large core tools in the Patjitanian is a direct consequence of a searcher's bias: only these large artifacts are conspicuous when one is collecting along the Baksoka. How- ever, excavations in the terraces have yielded many small artifacts

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access Fossil Man from Java, his Age, and his Tools 429

(both cores and flakes), among which gravers are worth mentioning (Bartstra, 1978a). The tooi inventory of the Patjitanian reflects the activities of a group of people adapted to a particular environment, living as they did on the poor lateritic soils along the fringe of the karst. A kind of semi-settled existence seems plausible. But if the Patjitanian of Java cannot be associated with Homo erectus erectus and his predecessors, then where indeed are the tools of Java Man? This is a question that needs careful consideration. For up until now no bones of Java Man have ever been found together with indisput- able artifacts (Bartstra, 1982a). A fair presumption is, however, that the tools of Java Man will come to light in Sangiran, the previously mentioned prolific site of hominid remains in Central Java. In Sangiran some stone implements have already been found: small, indistinct cores and flakes, in fact rather poorly worked specimens, made out of a wide variety of raw materials, mostly silicified limestone, referred to by many authors as "" (e.g. Van Heekeren, 1972; Von Koenigswald & Ghosh, 1973). These implements are found in deposits on top of the Kabuh beds, and on the erosional surface separating the Kabuh beds from these overlying deposits. But it is still not clear whether these artifacts also come from the Kabuh beds themselves, the true parent layers of Homo erectus erectus (Bartstra, 1978b). Therefore, the Sangiran artifacts are not associated with Java Man, but with the younger Solo Man (Sartono, 1980). It would seem likely to be only a matter of time, however, before the same kind of in- conspicuous small stone artifacts will come to light in an exposure of the Kabuh beds in Sangiran.13 In any case it is clear that the tooi inventory of Java Man differs from assemblages in Africa and Europe that are usually associated with Homo erectus (the complex). Naturally Movius also had this in mind when putting forward his ideas about a separate "chopper/ chopping-tool complex" in South and East Asia (Movius 1944, 1949). But Movius placed this complex too early in thé chronological scale: in any case on Java the big choppers appear very late in the develop- ment of the Palaeolithic. The Patjitanian of the Baksoka valley is probably just a variant of the so-called Hoabinhian (on the fringes of a karst region). The Patjitanian is certainly not a "Vergröberungs- Variant" (a term used by Narr, 1980): older, preceding tooi assem- blages (Sangiran) differ essentially from it in the size of the specimens, in typology, and in the level of technological skill. The realization of this essential difference is beginning to take effect in research on Early Man in Java; and it now bëcomes clear why big core tools in Middle Pleistocene sediments have been looked for in vain for many years.14 It is better to set aside evolutionary preconceptions and typological prejudices in the study of the tools of Java Man; a more "functional"

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access 430 Gert-fan Bartstra approach certainly appears to be more promising (e.g. Hutterer, 1976, 1977; Glover, 1973).

4. Conclusion It is evident that rapid progress is being made in research on fossil man and his tools on Java. New data concerning the age of the hominid-bearing beds are rapidly becoming available, and new insights are being gained regarding stone tools. It is inevitable that new theories are consequently being developed. Testing these theories will be the exciting objective of much future fieldwork.

NOTES 1 Caution is necessary in applying popular names to Javanese fossil hominids, for confusion may easily arise. The term "Trinil Man" must be restricted exclusively to the subspecies Homo erectus erectus, and then preferably only to the specimen from Trinil. The term "Java Man", on the other hand, is of wider scope, and can be used both for the subspecies Homo erectus erectus and for older hominid forms, e.g. Homo erectus modjokertensis. The term "Ngandong Man" is only applicable to the remains of the more advanced fossil hominid that have been found near the village of Ngandong. The term "Solo Man" is again of wider scope, and can be used for Homo erectus soloensis in general (sometimes also called Homo erectus ngandongensis (e.g. Sartono, 1980), or even Homo sapiens soloensis (Campbell, 1964, as quoted in Day, 1969:242)). 2 The term "Kabuh beds" was first used by the Dutch mining engineer Duyfjes (e.g. Duyfjes 1936). Since then the term has become deeply entrenched in the literature on the Quaternary geology of Java. Kabuh is a village in (some 100 km east of Trinil) where the sediments of the river-laid lower unit are conspicuously exposed. 3 Concerning tektites see, e.g., Von Koenigswald (1975, 1978). 4 Similar remarks have been made by Harrisson in connection with the dating of the sp-called "Tampanian" (a presumed "Lower" Palaeolithic culture) in Malaysia (Harrisson, 1975). 5 In this connection it is worthwhile reading an original publication by Evernden & Curtis on the interpretation of K/Ar dates of reworked sediments (Evernden & Curtis, 1965). 6 In Java fossil hominid remains are found also in strata underlying the Kabuh beds (the so-called Pucangan beds, not discussed in the text). These hominids are thus older than Trinil Man; in the literature they are described under names such as Homo erectus modjokertensis and palaeo- javanicus. One of the oldest hominid fossils from Java to date is a from Sangiran that is more than 1.6 million years old, and that can thus be placed in the Pliocene (in the geomagnetic time-scale; Siesser and Orchiston, 1978). 7 The name "Patjitanian" is derived from the small town of Pacitan on the south coast of Java that lies at a distance of some ten kilometres from the sites in the Baksoka valley. According to the new Indonesian spelling system it may also bê written "Pacitanian". . - 8 These fossils have been described extensively by Badoux (1959). 9 Yet further confirmation of the recent age of this low gravel bank is the

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access Fossil Man from Java, his Age, and his Tools 431

result of a nitrogen analysis carried out on a Sus sp. tooth that was found in this same spot. The nitrogen content was fairly high, indicative of no great antiquity (Van Heekeren, 1972). On Neolithic planken see Van Stein Callenfels (1932). 10 In Movius (1949). 11 In, e.g., Day (1969). A detailed study of Wajak Man is presented in Jacob (1967). A description of the fauna of the original site is found in Van den Brink (1982). 12 Before it was fully understood that the Baksoka terraces are of a relatively recent date, the present author also considered an association of the Patji- tanian with the Upper Pleistocene Solo Man possible (e.g. Bartstra, 1978a). 13 During fieldwork in Sangiran in 1982, the present author was shown, by a local farmer, a few flakes that supposedly came from the Kabuh beds. Investigations at the spot concerned, however, have not yet produced any finds. 14 It should be pointed out here that the chopper and flake found in Sambung- macan (Jacob et al., 1978) do not originate from Middle Pleistocene sedi- ments, but from Upper Pleistocene terrace fills (Sartono, 1979; Bartstra, 1982a).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Badoux, D. M. 1959 Fossil from two fissure deposits at Punung (Java), Utrecht (thesis). Bartstra, G.-J. 1976 Cóntributions to the study of the Palaeolithic Patjitan Culture, Java, Indonesia, pt. 1 (= Studies in South Asian Culture 6), Leiden. 1978a 'The Patjitan Culture: a preliminary report on new research', in: F. Ikawa-Smith (ed.), Early Palaeolithic in South and East Asia, pp.29-36, The Hague. 1978b 'Recent Palaeolithic research in Java (Kali Glagah, Pacitan, Gombong, Sangiran): the first six months of a new project', Modern Quaternary Research in SE Asia 4:63-70. 1982a 'Homo erectus erectus: the search for his artifacts', Current Anthro- pology 23:318-320. 1982b 'The river-laid strata near Trinil, site of Homo erectus erectus, Java, Indonesia', Modern Quaternary Research in SE Asia 7:97-130. 1983 'The vertebrate-bearing deposits of Kedungbrubus and Trinil, Java, Indonesia', Geologie & Mijnbouw 62:329-336. Bemmelen, R. W. van 1949 The geology of Indonesia (Vol. I A, General Geology), The Hague. Brink, L. M. van den 1982 'On the fauna of the Wajak cave, Java (Indonesia)', Modern Quaternary Research in SE Asia 7:177-193. Butzer, K. W. 1974 'Geological and ecological perspectives on the Middle Pleistocene', Quaternary Research 4:136-148. Day, M. 1969 Guide to fossil man (2nd ed.), London. Dubois, E. 1894 Pithecanthropus erectus. Eine menschenaehnliche Uebergangsform aus Java, Batavia.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access 432 Gert-Jan Bartstra

Duyfjes, J. 1936 'Zur Geologie und Stratigraphie des Kendenggebietes zwischen Trinil und Soerabaja (Java)', De Ingenieur in Ned.-Indië, Mijnbouw & Geologie, de Mijningenieur 3, 4:136-149. Evernden, J. F., & G. H. Curtis 1965 'The potassium-argon dating of Late Cenozoic rocks in East Africa and Italy', Current Anthropology 6:343-385. Glover, I. C. 1973 'Late traditions in South-East Asia', in: N. Hammond (ed.), South Asian Archaeology, Papers lst International Conference South Asian Archaeology, London:51-65. Harrisson, T. 1975 'Tampan: Malaysia's Palaeolithic reconsidered', Modern Quaternary Research in SE Asia 1:53-70. Heekeren, H. R. van 1955 'New investigations on the Lower Palaeolithic Patjitan Culture in Java', Berita Dinas Purbakala, Bulletin Archaeological Service Indonesia 1:1-12. 1957 The Stone Age of Indonesia, Verhandelingen Koninklijk Instituut Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 61, lst ed., The Hague. 1972 The Stone Age of Indonesia, Verhandelingen Koninklijk Instituut Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 61, 2nd rev. ed., The Hague. 1975 'Chronology of the Indonesian prehistory', Modern Quaternary Research in SE Asia 1:47-51. Hooijef, D. A. 1983 'Remarks upon the Dubois collection of fossii mammals from Trinil and Kedungbrubus in Java', Geologie & Mijnbouw 62:337-338. Hutterer, K. L. 1976 'An evolutionary approach to the Southeast Asian cultural sequence', Current Anthropology 7:221-242. 1977 'Reinterpreting the Southeast Asian Palaeolithic', in: J. Allen, J. Golson, & R. Jones (eds.), Sunda and Sahul. Prehistorie studies. in Southeast Asia, Melanesia and Australia, pp.31-71, London. .1983 'Absolute dates for the hominid-bearing deposits in Java: an overview', Asian Perspectives, in press. Jacob, T. 1967 Some problems pertaining to the racial history of the Indonesian region, Utrecht (thesis). 1978a 'The puzzle of Solo Man', Modern Quaternary Research in SE Asia 4:31-40. 1978b 'New finds of Lower and Middle Pleistocene Hóminines from Indo- nesia and an examinatioh of their antiquity', in: F. Ikawa-Smith (ed.), Early Palaeolithic in South and East Asia, pp.13-22, The Hague. Jacob, T., R. P. Soejono, L. G. Freeman, and F. H. Brown 1978 'Stone tools from Mid-Pleistocene sediments in Java', Science 202: 885-887. Koenigswald, G. H. R. von 1935 'Die fossilen Saugetierfaunen ', Proceedings Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen 38:188-198. 1936a 'Early Palaeolithic stone implements from Java', Bulletin Raffles Museum Singapore Bl:52-60.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access Fossil Man from Java, his Age, and his Tools 433

Koenigswald, G. H. R. von 1936b 'Über Altpalaeolithische Artefakte von Java', Tijdschrift Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap, 2e ser., 53:41-44. 1939 'Das Pleistocan Javas', Quartdr 2:28-53. 1940 'Neue Pithecanthropus-Funde. 1936-1938', Wetenschappelijke Mededelin- gen Dienst.van den Mijnbouw in Nederlandsch-lndië 28:3-232. 1968 'Das absolute Alter des Pithecanthropus eréetus Dubois', in: G. Kurth (ed.), und Hominisation, 2nd rev. ed., pp.195-203, Stuttgart. 1975 'Tektite studies XI. Muong-Nong glass and the origin of tektites', Proceedings Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen B78,5:403-407. 1978a 'Tektite studies XII. Minute tektites from Central Java', Proceedings Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen B81,l:55-60. 1978b 'Lithic industries of Pithecanthropus erectus of Java', in: F. Ikawa- Smith (ed.), Éarly Palaeolithic in South and East Asia, pp.23-27, The Hague. Koenigswald, G. H. R. von, & A. K. Ghosh 1973 'Stone implements from the Trinil beds of Sangiran, Central Java', Proceedings Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen B76,l:l-34. Lehmann, H. L. . 1936 Morphologische Studiën auf Java, Stuttgart. Movius, H. L. 1944 Early man and Pleistocene stratigraphy in Southern and Eastern Asia, Papers Peabody Museum 19,3, Cambridge. 1949 The Lower Palaeolithic cultures of Southern and Eastern Asia, Trans- actions American Philosophical Society 38,4, Philadelphia. Mulvaney, D. J. 1970 'The Patjitanian : some observations', Mankind 7:184-187. Narr, K. J. 1980 'Grobe Steinartefakte: Steinzeitfragen Südostasiens', Allgemeine und Vergleichende Archdologie - Beitrdge - 2:29-65. Ninkovich, D., & L. H. Burckle 1978 'Absolute age of the base of the hominid-bearing beds in Eastern Java', 275:306-308. ' : Nishimura, S., H. Thio, & F. Hehuwat 1980 'Fission-track ages of the tuffs of the Pucangan and Kabuh formations, and the tektite at Sangiran, Central Jawa', in: S. Nishimura (ed.), Physical Geology of the Indonesian Island Arcs, pp.72-80, Kyoto. Oppenoorth, W. F. F. 1932 'Homo (Javanthropus) soloensis. Een plistoceene mensch van Java', Wetenschappelijke Mededelingen Dienst van de Mijnbouw in Neder- landsch-lndië 20:49-74. Orchiston, D. W., & W. G. Siesser 1982 'Chronostratigraphy of the Plio-Pleistocene fossil hominids of Java', Modern Quaternary Research in SE Asia 7:131-149. Sartono, S. 1964 Stratigraphy and sedimentation of the easternmost part of Gunung Sewu (East Djawa). Publikasi teknik seri geologi umum 1, Bandung. 1979 'The stratigraphy of the Sambungmacan site in Central Java', Modern Quaternary Research in SE Asia 5:83-88.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access 434 Gert-Jan Bartstra

Sartono, S. 1980 'Homo erectus ngandongensis: the possible maker of the "Sangiran flakes"', Anthropologie 18:121-131. Sémah, F. 1982 'Pliocene and Pleistocene geomagnetic reversals recorded in the Ge- molong and Sangiran domes (Central Java)', Modern Quaternary Research in SE Asia 7:151-164. Sémah, F., A.-M. Sémah, S. Sartono, Y. Zaim, & T. Djubiantono 1981/82 'L'age et 1'environnement des Homo erectus de Java: nouveaux résultats paléomagnétiques et palynologiques', l'Anthropologie 85/86:509-516. Siesser, W. G., & D. W. Orchiston 1978 'Micropalaeontological re-assessment of the age of Pithecanthropus mandible C from Sangiran, Indonesia', Modern Quaternary Research in SE Asia 4:25-30. Soejono, R. P. 1961 'Kebudajaan Patjitan', Publikasi Mipi 2:234-241. 1982 'Trends in prehistorie research in Indonesia', Modern Quaternary Research in SE Asia 7:25-31. Stein Callenfels, P. V. van 1932 'Les ateliers néolithiques de Punung et Patjitan', Hommage du Service des Indes Néerlandais au Ier Congres des Préhistoriens d'Extrême- Orient a Hanoi:25-27. Vos, J. de, S. Sartono, S. Hardja-Sasmita, & P. Y. Sondaar 1982 'The fauna from Trinil, type locality of Homo erectus; a reinterpreta- tion', Geologie & Mijnbouw 61:207-211. Yokoyama, T., S. Hadiwisastra, A. Hayashida, & W. Howtoro 1980 'Preliminary report on paleomagnetism of the Plio-Pleistocene series in Sangiran and Trinil areas, Central Jawa, Indonesia', in: S. Nishimura (ed.), Physical Geology at the Indonesian lsland Arcs, pp.88-96, Kyoto. Zahringer, J. 1963 'K-Ar measurements of tektites', Radioactive dating. Proceedings Symposium Radioactive Dating Vienna:2&9-305. Zahringer, J., and W. Gentner 1963 'Radiogenic and atmospheric argon content of tektites', Nature 199:583.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 08:44:35PM via free access