lithostratigraphic context for kln-1993.05-snj, a fossil colobine maxilla from jokotingkir, sangiran...

International Journal of Primatology, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2000

Lithostratigraphic Context for Kln-1993.05-SNJ, aFossil Colobine Maxilla from Jokotingkir, SangiranDome

Roy Larick,1 Russell L. Ciochon,1 Yahdi Zaim,2 Sudijono,3 Suminto,3

Yan Rizal2 and Fachroel Aziz3

Received September 15, 1999; accepted November 4, 1999

Jablonski and Tyler (1999) announced a new subspecies of colobine monkeybased on a fossil partial maxilla from the Sangiran dome. The specimen iseasily assigned to a living leaf monkey species—most extant Southeast Asiancatarrhines differ only subspecifically from their Middle Pleistocene earliestlocal fossil ancestors. Yet Jablonski and Tyler (1999) reported an improbableprovenance for the specimen; a mass-flow volcanic breccia generally consid-ered late Pliocene in age. We show that the Lower Lahar was laid down amidsta range of paludal habitats and that its deposition predates the appearance ofall-but-now extinct, water-tolerant mammals on emergent Java. No othercatarrhine fossil has been ascribed to the Lower Lahar, not even hominins,which are the most gregarious members of the group. More probable prove-nance lies in the upper Sangiran or the lower Bapang formations. Eitheralternative would associate the specimen with other catarrhine fossils in moretenable Pleistocene environments. We also unravel errors and inconsistenciesin the contextual report and in the discussion of dome geochronology. Thevarious radiometric, paleomagnetic, and paleontologic studies cited show adiscordance of about 300 Ka (thousand years) across the lithostratigraphicsequence. Plio-Pleistocene biogeographic hypotheses for Java must workwith short and long chronologies.

KEY WORDS: Plio-Pleistocene; Java; tephrostratigraphy; catarrhine biogeography; radiomet-ric dating.

1Department of Anthropology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242.2Institute of Technology Bandung (ITB), Department of Geology, Jalan Ganesha no. 10,Bandung 40132, Indonesia.

3Geological Research and Development Centre (GRDC), Quaternary Geology Laboratory,Jalan Dr. Junjunan no. 236, Bandung 40174, Indonesia.

731

0164-0291/00/0800-0731$18.00/0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation

732 Larick, Ciochon, Zaim, Sudijono, Suminto, Rizal, and Aziz

Fig. 1. Java, Indonesia: catarrhine fossil-bearing areas pertaining to Kln-1993.05-SNJ.Mojokerto Regency localities include the Sumbertengah findspot; the Sumberingin (Ka-buh), Gunung Pucangan, and Djetis geosections; and the Kepuhklagen age sample.Ngawi Regency findspots include Ngandong, Teguan, and Trinil. Nganjuk Regency find-spots include Bangle, Kedungbrubus, and Sumberkepuh. Punung Regency localitiesinclude the Tabuhan fissure findspot and the Song Terus Cave age sample.

INTRODUCTION

In May 1993, a local resident found a well-fossilized partial maxillanear the village of Krikilan (Kln) in the central part of the Sangiran dome(Sragen Regency, Central Java) (Fig. 1). Sartono acquired the fossil andconserved it at Indonesia’s Institute of Technology in Bandung (ITB). InNovember 1995, he took the fossil to Holland, where he died. The fossilwas repatriated through official channels and is now at the headquartersof the Sekretariat Negara in Jakarta (SNJ). No written record about thefossil or its findspot survive at ITB. In this extraordinary context, we there-fore refer to the specimen as Kln-1993.05-SNJ, employing a formula thatdenotes the administrative locality, year and month of discovery, and con-serving institution. We use this formula to identify formally all Sangirandome catarrhine fossils discussed herein (Fig. 2).4

Announcements by Jablonski and Tyler (1994, 1999) and Tyler et al.(1995) each identify the 1993 maxilla as new, and as the oldest or oneof the oldest leaf monkey fossils in Southeast Asia. Together, the threeannouncements present conflicting contextual information and taxonomicconclusion, as if to describe separate discoveries. Jablonski and Tyler (1999)did not refer to the initial substantial report (Tyler, et al., 1995). We aimto unravel inconsistencies and errors in the presentation of findspot location

4The prefixes are three-letter contractions for the administrative village or municipality associ-ated with the findspot (Fig. 2). The suffixes are accepted acronyms for the conserving institu-tion. However, the last letter in each suffix is the first letter of the institution’s city: ITB,Institute of Technology, Bandung; SNJ, Sekretariat Negara (Ministry of Secretary), Jakarta;GMUY, Gadja Mada University, Yogyakarta; NMNHL, National Museum of Natural History,Leiden (Netherlands); GRDCB, Geological Research and Development Centre, Bandung.

Fig. 2. Sangiran dome: fossil findspots and sample locations pertaining to Kln-1993.05-SNJ. Village abbreviations (N-S): Bkl � Brangkal; Skk � Sendangklampok;Wlo � Wonolelo; Nbg � Ngebung; Pro � Pagarejo; Kln � Krikilan; Ckk � Cengklik;Tjg � Tanjung; Pcg � Pucung. Fossil findspots (N-S): NE � � molar Bkl-1983.09-GRDCB; SW � � colobine molar Bkl-1977.08-GRDCB; S15 � Bkl-1969.07-GRDCB;S9 � Wlo-1960.09-GRDCB; S10 � Tjg-1963.05-GMUY; S17 � Pcg-1969.09-GRDCB.Sample locations: the 6 Lower Lahar grain-size samples refer to Zaim et al., (1999);the 2 Lower Lahar age samples refer to F. Semah et al., (2000); the S10 age samplerefers to Curtis (1981); the S17 age sample refers to Obradovich and Naeser (1982).Bottom: Generalized East-West geosection near Jokotingkir: domed and eroded Plio-Pleistocene lithostratigraphic sequence.


and then appraise the purported very early lithostratigraphic context forthe specimen. We then review Jablonski and Tyler’s (1999) discussionof age determinations for the findspot locality. We outline a significantdiscordance in the results of radiometric methods applied to dome volca-niclastic sediments and identify short and long chronologies that vary byabout 300 Ka. Finally, we examine the biogeographic significance of Kln-1993.05-SNJ in the context of two more probable provenance alternatives:either the uppermost Sangiran Formation or, more likely, the lower Ba-pang Formation.

FINDSPOT LOCATION

In the initial announcement, Tyler et al. (1995: 214) allocated thespecimen to volcanic breccias of the Lower Pucangan Formation near theBrangkal River and the village of Sendangklampok (Fig. 2). In the secondannouncement, Jablonski and Tyler (1994: 113), reported the find locationsimply as ‘‘Sangiran in Central Java’’; they do not mention volcanic breccia,only the Lower Pucangan layer. However, the term Pucangan commonlyrefers to a sedimentary formation of fluviatile-to-lacustrine origin that doesnot contain volcanic breccia. In the third announcement, Tyler professesto have overseen the removal of the specimen, while the findspot shifts to‘‘500 m south of Sangiran village,’’ (Jablonski and Tyler, 1999: 320) inclose proximity to the Sangiran 27 (S27, or Kln-1978.07-GMUY) homininfindspot. Volcanic breccia is again the lithological provenance, ‘‘situatedbetween the Lower Pucangan and Upper Kalibeng formations’’ (Jablonskiand Tyler, 1999: 319, 320). Beyond the geographic contradiction, this de-scription ignores the refined lithostratigraphic observations and nomencla-ture in place for the dome for the past 15 years.

Locally, the steep hill on the south edge of Sangiran village is calledJokotingkir, a name that obviates the Sangiran dome-village confusion (Fig.3). The village itself carries the administrative name of Krikilan. JokotingkirHill lies 3 km SSE of Sendangklampok, and nearly 4 km SSE of the BrangkalRiver (Fig. 2). Assuming that the 1993 maxilla does indeed come fromvolcanic breccia, Jokotingkir is a good findspot candidate since, unlikethe Sendangklampok/Brangkal River area, the locality has an outcrop ofunsorted tuff. While the longitude and latitude values should resolve thisproblem, they only compound it. The longitude given—an unqualified ‘‘40�05� E,’’—makes no sense. Reversing the degrees to 04� 05� E produces areasonable reading; not from the Greenwich Prime Meridian, but from theColonial era Batavia Prime Meridian that lies 106� 48� 28’’ E of Greenwich(Cartmell and Parker, 1982: 173; Muehrcke and Muehrcke, 1992: 211). Still,

Lithostratigraphic Context for Kln-1993.05-SNJ 735

Fig

.3.J

okot

ingk

irlo

calit

y(r

edra

wn

afte

rIt

ihar

aet

al.,

1985

a:F

ig.6

).C

onto

urin

terv

al,2

m.T

opog

raph

ican

dlit

host

rati

-gr

aphi

cde

tails

revi

sed

onsi

te,

July

1999

.T

hree

hom

inin

foss

ilfin

dsre

late

toca

nal

bed

exca

vati

onth

roug

hU

pper

Sang

iran

form

atio

nse

dim

ents

:le

ftcr

oss

�K

ln-1

974.

06-G

RD

CB

(Pf,

S22)

;ri

ght

cros

s�

Kln

-197

8.07

-GM

UY

(S27

)an

dK

ln-1

979.

07-I

TB

(Meg

anth

ropu

sII

,S31

).C

ircl

e[0

7�27

.460

’S;1

10�

50.3

60’E

(Gre

enw

ich

PM

)]id

enti

fies

the

only

pum

ice-

rich

laye

rin

the

vici

nity

ofth

eca

nalb

ed,a

ndab

out2

mab

ove

the

unco

nfirm

edS2

7/S3

1fo

ssil

leve

l(cf

.,Sw

ishe

ret

al.,

1994

:11

20).

Thi

sle

nslie

sin

asl

umpe

dex

posu

reof

the

Bap

ang

form

atio

nth

atgi

ves

ada

teof

1.10

�0.

07M

a(T

able

1,co

lum

n7)

.


a Jakarta-based longitude of 04� 05� E (Greenwich-based 110� 53� 28’’ E)lies east of the dome entirely, several kilometers east of Sendangklampokand Jokotingkir, which themselves lie at approximately 110� 50� E. Finally,the latitude reported (70� 25� S) is south of the Antarctic Circle. Here,reversing the digits to give 07� S improves accuracy, but 07� 25� S is stillthe latitude for the Brangkal River, not Jokotingkir.

SANGIRAN DOME LITHOSTRATIGRAPHY

Jokotingkir lies at the tectonic center of the Sangiran dome. In thislocality of intense faulting and slumping, sedimentary beds have been dis-placed in ways that defy description and cartography (Fig. 2, bottom, Fig.3). We emphasize the difficulty of understanding any spot in relation toanother here. Complex as they are, Jokotingkir contextual issues may beapproached from the well-published wider framework for dome lithostratig-raphy. Following Dubois’ (1894) discovery of Pithecanthropus erectus nearTrinil village (Tnl-1891.09-NMNHL), and before von Koenigswald’s(1940a,b) initial successes in Central Java, van Es (1931) and Duyfjes (1936,1938) studied the Pleistocene sediments of Mojokerto Regency in EastJava (Fig. 1). At Gunung (Hill) Pucangan, 200 km East of the Sangirandome, Duyfjes identified the Pucangan Formation as a sequence of sands,silts, clays, and intercalated tephra. At Sumberingin (near Kabuh village,some 25 km west of Gunung Pucangan), Duyfjes differentiated the KabuhFormation based on fossil content, not lithological differences (Sondaar etal., 1983: 340). In this way, the Pucangan and Kabuh formations quicklyacquired chronostratigraphic value, equating with the Jetis and Trinil fau-nas, respectively (de Vos et al., 1982: 208). Later, von Koenigswald (1940a)applied the Mojokerto Regency names of Poetjangan or Putjangan (nowPucangan) and Kaboeh (now Kabuh), to formations in the Sangiran dome.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Indonesian–Japanese CTA-41project sought to refine the lithostratigraphy of hominin-bearing formationsacross the eastern half of Java (Watanabe and Kadar, 1985), with a focuson the Sangiran dome (Itihara et al., 1985a). One CTA-41 goal was tocompare distant hominin findspot deposits in order to evaluate the broadformation correlations rampant in the older literature. The Pucangan For-mation as identified in the dome presented a major problem. CTA-41researchers found enough differences to warrant defining a volcanic-lagoon-lacustrine formation unique for the dome, the Sangiran Formation (Itiharaet al., 1985b: 367; Itihara et al., 1994: 123). The varied occurrence andstructure of pumice and breccia tuffs illustrate significant tephrostrati-graphic differences between the Pucangan and Sangiran formations, and


the problems associated with long distance age correlations. At GunungPucangan, the eponymous formation contains a number of pumice deposits,but no volcanic breccia (Kumai et al., 1985: 57). Alternatively, the SangiranFormation as defined, contains no pumice tuff (Itihara et al., 1985a: 17–20;Yoshikawa and Suminto, 1985: 97–101), but it has a basal member ofvolcanic breccia (Itihara et al., 1985a: 19).

Finding analogous distinctions for other distant type sections, CTA-41 defined five Plio-Pleistocene formations unique to the dome: the Puren(formerly Kalibeng), Sangiran (Pucangan), Bapang (Kabuh), and Pohjajar(Notopuro). Together, these deposits represent a few million years of Plio-Pleistocene sedimentation and the events by which the Sangiran dome areaemerged from the sea to receive its first catarrhine immigrants. The Balanuslimestone of the Upper Puren formation marks the initial shift towardterrestrial sedimentation. Itihara et al. (1985a: 17) describe the uppermostPuren levels (member d) as indicating a ‘‘brackish water environment. . . in a gradually shallowing sedimentary basin.’’ In this Solo basin, theupper Puren pollen record includes mangrove forest elements (A.-M.Semah, 1982, 1984). Ostracods indicate a very shallow near shore environ-ment (McKenzie and Sudijono, 1981). Sartono (1990: 5) stated that verte-brate fossils, comprising a narrow range of aquatic crocodilians, turtles,and hippopotami, as well as water-tolerant cervids and elephantids, werein the Kalibeng Formation. One line of evidence commonly given in favorof such provenance is marine invertebrates (bryozoans and Balanus crusta-ceans) that sometimes adhere to vertebrate specimens. Nevertheless, theevidence for Puren Formation vertebrate fossils is dubious.

Tuffs comprising volcanic breccia are commonly given the Indonesianname, lahar. Lahars represent short-term mass flows of water-saturatedloose tephra, most of which is fine-grained or ashy. Flow is initiated witheither a vapor-laden explosive eruption or the structural failure of an ex-isting saturated tephra slope. Subject to gravity, the muddy slurry maydescend and travel avalanche-like at tens of meters per second. Fluvialaction also plays into the deposition and reworking of lahar sediments. Inany event, the resulting tuff has a fine matrix supporting a range of large,angular lithic clasts. The Lower Lahar overlies Puren member d to providethe first member of the Sangiran Formation (the Upper Lahar lies in thePohjajar Formation, two units above the Sangiran Formation). The strati-graphic relationship between the Lower Lahar and the Puren Formationvaries by location (Figs. 2 and 3). At Pagarejo, the Lower Lahar is �1 mthick and conformable with the Puren Formation. At Cengklik, it is tensof meters thick and discordant with the heavily eroded Puren deposits. Insum, the Lower Lahar was a major sedimentary event that at least tempo-rarily rearranged marine and terrestrial habitats across the Solo basin.


Evidence for fauna in the Lower Lahar is equivocal. Van Es (1931:122) listed crocodile and cervid for this period on Java. Von Koenigswald(1940b: 32 [Fig. 2], 34) reported a tooth of Cervus sp. from Lower Lahar.Sartono (1990: 6) maintained that fossil vertebrates could be found withinthe Lower Lahar, ‘‘being victims during the volcanic activities and later onwashed down by running water from elevated areas . . . [to] the Sangiranarea.’’ Nevertheless, Sartono did not cite evidence. Zaim et al. (1999) re-viewed the Lower Lahar in detail. We performed grain-size analyses at sixlocations around Krikilan village (Fig. 2) and found one small fossilizedchip that could be either bone or ivory. In the last 15 years, three pro-grammed surveys have combed the localities and formations of the Sangirandome (Aimi and Aziz, 1985; Widianto et al., 1996, 1997), and none hasreported fossils from the Lower Lahar.

Immediately above the Lower Lahar, the Sangiran Formation revertsback to brackish and marine (Itihara et al., 1985a: 19). Indeed the entirelower half of the Sangiran formation (overlying the Lower Lahar) containsmarine mollusks, e.g., Murex, Anadara, Oliva, Conus, and diatomite andforaminifera. Marine deposits continue to intercalate with the black clayswell into the upper lacustrine half of the formation. The definitive marine-continental boundary in the dome lies in the vicinity of Shell Bed 1, justbelow Tuff 3. There, intensive CTA-41 survey found the stratigraphicallylowest vertebrate fossils just above Tuff 3 (Itihara et al., 1985a: 20), constitut-ing essentially the same fauna purportedly found in the Puren Formation.

The CTA-41 project also investigated all documented hominin find-spots within the Sangiran dome (about 20 at the time) with the goal ofsubstantiating claims of hominin fossils in marine sediments. While theKalibeng attributions could be easily dismissed, the Lower Pucangan desig-nations were more reasonable, but still troublesome: Wlo-1960.11-GRDCB(Pithecanthropus C [Pc], S9) (Sartono, 1961); as well as Jokotingkir speci-mens Kln-1974.06-GRDCB (Pf, S22) (Sartono, 1978; Tyler, Sartono andKrantz, 1995); Kln-1978.07-GMUY (S27) (no primary publication); andKln-1979.07-ITB (Meganthropus II, S31) (Sartono, 1980: 126; Sartono andGrimaud-Herve, 1983: 465; Tyler, Krantz, and Sartono, 1995: 189). Eventu-ally, CTA-41 concluded that no hominin fossil can be attributed below thelevel of Tuff 10. Indeed, virtually all hominin fossils are positioned aboveTuff 11, the uppermost tephra level of the Sangiran Formation (Itihara etal., 1985a: 19, Table 2; Itihara et al., 1985b: Figure 68; Itihara et al., 1994:123, 125, Figure 4). In recent years, dome paleoanthropologists have takengreater care to document local finds. Today, �15 hominin fossils—but nocercopithecids—were located within the Sangiran Formation, all aboveTuff 10.

Along the irrigation canal at Jokotingkir (the level at which the three


locality hominin fossils and, as reported, the 1993 maxilla were found),Puren, Sangiran, and Bapang exposures appear in the context of severalfault blocks. Active since the late Middle Pleistocene, the blocks have beendisplaced enough and the beds have slumped enough to rearrange and toreverse the stratigraphic sequence (Figs. 2 and 3). The mid-1970s canalexcavation provided a horizontal exposure in the area, one that has sincebeen terraced, cultivated, and vegetated. Clearly, large-scale work andrework account for the number and timing of fossil discoveries at Jokotin-gkir Hill. Understanding provenance here is difficult and dating anythingbut a fossil itself poses questions of association. For example, all threeJokotingkir hominins at some point have been ascribed to the KalibengFormation because of its unusual upthrust position at this locality. Sartono(1978; Sartono et al., 1981) recognized the folly of such stratigraphic attribu-tions for hominins. Nevertheless, in a series of papers that parallels thoseannouncing Kln-1993.05-SNJ, Sartono (as the geologist–author) changed,without discussion, the lithostratigraphic provenance for Kln-1979.07-ITB(S31). At the time of its discovery, S31 was attributed to the Lower Pucangan(Sartono, 1980: 126; 1982: 203; Sartono and Grimaud-Herve, 1983: 465).By the mid-1990s, however, S31 had been reassigned to the Kalibeng bedsof Sangiran (Tyler et al., 1995: 189; Tyler, 1997: 503). The year of discoveryalso changed from 1979 to 1980 in these publications.

The Lower Lahar outcrops along the canal at Jokotingkir, and it is theonly such tuff at this locality (Fig. 3). But the 1993 colobine maxilla is verywellpreserved bydomestandards. Itsconditionrecalls that for bones interreddirectly into the lacustrine uppermost levels of the Sangiran Formation orinto the overlying fluvial Bapang Formation. All in all, the Lower Lahar isan incredible provenance for Kln-1993.05-SNJ. Indeed, attributing it to thismember requires either one of two improbable scenarios. The monkey wouldhave lived on the terrestrial flanks of an island volcanic cone some kilometersaway. Its carcass or bones were then transported violently to coastal Jokotin-gkir. Its maxilla remainedintact whilebonesaround itwerecrushed andsplin-tered. In the alternative scenario, the monkey would have lived in a marshycoastal habitat quite extraordinary for Trachypithecus auratus. Then theLower Lahar ripped up the carcass or bones as it flowed across the paludalSolo basin. Both explanations are at odds with the phylogenetic and litho-stratigraphic evidence for the maxilla. As Jablonski and Tyler (1999) indicateand as we verify, the Lower Lahar has an age on the order of 2 Ma (millionyears ago). At this age, Kln 1993.05-SNJ would be twice as old as any otherJavan cercopithecid fossil. Yet, the maxilla is surprisingly modern insofar asit is the same species as the extant Javan lutung (Jablonski and Tyler, 1999:321). Likewise, the Lower Pucangan (Sangiran) Formation is an unlikelyprovenance for the three Jokotingkir hominins. As with the other early speci-


mens of Homo erectus, these fossils probably come from the uppermost levelsof the Sangiran Formation.

OTHER JAVAN FOSSIL CATARRHINES

Is any part of the Sangiran formation a likely provenance for the1993 maxilla? The other published Javan cercopithecid fossils suggest not.Lithostratigraphic information exists for a small number of fragmentarybut confirmed colobine fossils found during the earliest field studies. Forexample, Dubois (1907: 455) accumulated four specimens between 1891and 1900; one each from deposits at Trinil and Teguan (Ngawi Regency),and at Bangle and Sumberkepuh (Nganjuk Regency) (Fig. 1). Hooijer(1962) later described them, and they have been restudied by de Vos (1989).All the findspots are deposits equivalent to the Kabuh/Bapang series orhigher. The Selenka expedition discovered the fifth colobine fossil severalyears later at Trinil, which Stremme (1911) described. In 1977, a CTA-41crew excavated a colobine molar (Bkl-1977.08-GRDCB) in situ from TrenchIV-2 of their excavation near the Bkl-1969.07-GRDCB (Pd, S15) homininfindspot at Brangkal, Sangiran dome (Fig. 2). The lithostratigraphic refer-ence for Trench IV, step 2 is the Grenzbank zone or basal Bapang formation(Sudijono et al., 1985: 71; Aimi and Aziz, 1985: 159).

All macaque fossils with documented findspots also appear to derivefrom the Kabuh/Bapang Formations or higher. Dubois collected two ma-caque specimens at Trinil (Hooijer, 1962; de Vos, 1989). As noted byJablonski and Tyler (1999), von Koenigswald (1940b) reported cercopi-thecid specimens from the Trinil and Djetis faunas in the dome, but theyremain uncorroborated. Aziz (1989) reported an upper canine in the oldcollections from Ngandong (Ngawi Regency), in terrace deposits that post-date the fossil-bearing sediments of the Sangiran Dome. Within the NWquadrant of the dome, CTA-41 crews found isolated macaque canines andmolars during surface collections in Bapang exposures in the hills betweenNgebung and Sendangklampok, and in the Brangkal River streambed (Aimiand Aziz, 1985: 161–164, 167). Given that all 13 published Javan cercopi-thecid fossils derive from the Bapang or higher formations, an earlierprovenance for the 1993 maxilla may be questioned. Finally, there is thecase of Homo erectus. This hominin is the only other Javan catarrhinespecies of potentially Pliocene age; it did not survive the Late Pleistocene.

JAVAN CATARRHINE GEOCHRONOLOGY

Beyond the issues of provenance, Jablonski and Tyler (1999) demon-strated no strong correlation between any extant absolute date and Kln-


1993.05-SNJ. Errant reporting confounds their age argument as it doestheir contextual statement. Some errors are mundane. For example, noneof the chapters in Watanabe and Kadar (1985) reports a date of ‘‘1.9-2.1Ma,’’ although Ninkovitch and Burckle (1978) do; and none reports anydate for Jokotingkir (Jablonski and Tyler, 1999: 324). Moreover, whileJablonski and Tyler (1999) discuss the results of Nishimura et al. (1980)and Suzuki et al. (1985), they omitted bibliographic references.

More gravely, Jablonski and Tyler (1999) imply that Swisher et al.(1994) report 1.81 � 0.04 Ma for their pumice sample at Jokotingkir. Butthis is incorrect. The 1.81 � 0.04 Ma date is based on a pumice samplefrom ‘‘the Perning area [East Java]’’ (Swisher et al., 1994: 1119). Finally,Jablonski and Tyler (1999) imply that Swisher et al. (1994) determined adate of 1.9 Ma for Jokotingkir. Instead, Swisher et al. (1994) cited Jacoband Curtis’ (1971) date of 1.9 � 0.4 Ma for pumice sampled somewherein the vicinity of their own in Mojokerto Regency. Beyond the inaccuratereporting, provenance issues limit the value of these two dates. NeitherMojokerto sample location has been satisfactorily described in relation tothe Mojokerto Child (Sgh-1936.02-GMUY) findspot. Nor have these sam-ples been related adequately to one another.5 More obviously, neither hasbeen correlated stratigraphically or mineralogically with any tephra in theSangiran Dome, located nearly 220 km to the west.

But Jablonski and Tyler’s (1999) discussion of age suffers from morethan inconsistent reporting. The problem lies in the way absolute age isproduced and consumed for Javan fossils generally and for those of theSangiran dome in particular. We systematically reviewed Dome age deter-minations published in the last three decades. We will show that dateaccuracy has certainly improved over the years, while sampling strategiesremain poorly conceived and reported. The net effect is that, within thedome, absolute dates correlate as much with their method of determinationas they do with lithostratigraphic level. Nevertheless, we can demonstrate

5Java’s three principal administrative regions (West, Central, and East) are divided into alarge number of regencies, each about the equivalent of a US county. A regency nameidentifies the administrative unit and its urban seat. In 1936, the regency name Modjokerto(now Mojokerto) was bestowed on the fossil calotte and findspot of an infant (Duyfjes, 1936;von Koenigswald, 1936). The Modjokerto Child fossil findspot is also commonly reported asPerning, a town about 14 km ENE of Mojokerto city, but still 3–4 km S of the actual findspotnear the village of Sumbertengah (Sartono et al., 1981: 91). Kumai et al. (1985: 55) locatethe precise findspot a few hundred meters south of this village. Perning is the sample localityinitially given for first K-Ar date (1.9 � 0.4 Ma) associated with Sgh-1936.02-GMUY (Jacoband Curtis, 1971; Stross, 1971; Jacob, 1972; Curtis, 1981). Later it was reported as Kepuhklagen,(Perning, Modjokerto) by Jacob (1975b: 321); and still later as Kepuhklagen (Waringinanom,Surabaya), near Perning, north of Mojokerto by Jacob (1978b: 13). The relationship betweenKepuhklagen, Perning (Swisher et al., 1994) and the Sgh-1936.02-GMUY findspot is undefined,spatially and stratigraphically.


on methodological grounds as well as on the consistency of its resultsthat one potassium-based technique—40Ar/39Ar step-heating, small bulksample—is generally reliable. In the end, however, attempts to attach extantage determinations to fossils within the dome must acknowledge the poorcontextual reporting and methodological bias of the published record.

Sangiran Dome Geochronological Methods

The first consistent Plio-Pleistocene chronology for the dome emerged�60 years ago. Based on macro- and micropaleontology, van Es (1931)and von Koenigswald (1940a,b) shared the belief that the Kalibeng andlower Pucangan Formations belong to the Pliocene, and that the Kabuhfit in the Pleistocene. After World War II, Hooijer (1956, 1957) and Sartono(1961, 1969, 1970, 1975) reinterpreted the evidence to shift the PucanganFormation to the earlier Pleistocene and the Kabuh Formation to theMiddle Pleistocene. Only with the introduction of this late or short chronol-ogy does that of van Es and von Koenigswald appear early or long incomparison. During the last two decades, �35 radiometric age determina-tions and several more intercalated microfossil age analyses have beenperformed on dome sediments. It is admittedly difficult to evaluate all thesedata by description alone. We therefore present them graphically in TableI, where columns organize dates by method and publication date whilerows present them by approximate stratigraphic level.

In the 1970s a new generation of microfossil analyses emerged tosupport van Es and von Koenigswald’s original long chronology (Table I,column 1). Ninkovitch and Burckle (1978) updated the age of publisheddiatom assemblages in relation to deep sea cores to suggest 2.1–1.9 Ma forthe base of the Sangiran formation. Sartono et al. (1981) corroborated thatdetermination in their independent analysis of new samples. Siesser andOrchiston (1978) restudied the foraminifera associated with Wlo-1960.11-GRDCB (Pc, S9) to suggest a range of 4.2–1.6 Ma. Studies of calcareousnannoplankton fossils in the Upper Puren and Lower Sangiran formationsalso support the long chronology. Both formations contain late Pliocenespecies and no strictly Pleistocene species (Sartono et al., 1981; Siesser etal., 1984). Thus the age of the marine beds of the lower Sangiran Formationwere determined to lie between NN 16 and NN 18 (3.25–1.65 Ma).

The early 1980s were the period for fission-track and K-Ar studies inthe dome (columns 2–4). With regard to these analyses on Java generally,Orchiston and Siesser (1982: 145) noted that ‘‘most of the available datesare inadequate. Few are reported in any detail; some have been publishedwithout standard deviations; and all are devoid of adequate stratigraphic

Tab

leI.

Age

dete

rmin

atio

ns(m

illio

nsof

year

sag

o)fo

rth

eSa

ngir

ando

me

(col

umns

:an

alyt

ical

met

hod

and

publ

icat

ion

date

;ro

ws:

appr

oxim

ate

stra

tigr

aphi

cle

vel)

a

41

2K

-Ar

6F

oram

s,*

diat

oms,

#F

issi

on-t

rack

3T

otal

fusi

on5

40A

r/39

Ar

7na

nnop

lank

ton

von

Koe

nigs

wal

dF

issi

on-t

rack

bulk

sam

ple

40A

r/39

Ar

Step

-hea

ting

40A

r/39

Ar

Sies

ser

and

(196

8)*

Obr

adov

ich

and

Yok

oyam

aSt

ep-h

eati

ngsi

ngle

grai

nSt

ep-h

eati

ngO

rchi

ston

(197

8)*

Nis

him

ura

Nae

ser

(198

1)*

etal

.(1

980a

)bu

lksa

mpl

eF

algu

eres

(199

8)bu

lksa

mpl

eN

inko

vitc

han

det

al.

(198

0)Su

zuki

and

Obr

adov

ich

and

Swis

her

etal

.(1

994)

*F

algu

eres

etal

.(1

998)

New

Mex

ico

Geo

-B

urck

le(1

978)

#O

rchi

ston

and

Wik

amo

(198

2)N

aese

r(1

982)

*Sw

ishe

r(1

997,

1999

)F

.Sem

ahet

al.

chro

nR

esea

rch

For

mat

ion

Lev

elSa

rton

oet

al.

(198

1)Si

esse

r(1

982)

#Su

zuki

etal

.(1

985)

Cur

tis

(198

1)W

idia

smor

o(1

998)

#(2

000)

*L

ab.,

1999

1P

ohja

jar

Mid

dle

Tuf

f0.

25�

0.07

0.5

0.15

(Not

opur

o)2

Bap

ang

Tek

tite

s0.

67;0

.71

�0.

03*

0.71

�0.

10.

787

(Kab

uh)

3H

igh

pum

ice

1.6

�0.

06*

1.05

�0.

1*1.

07(7

date

avg)

0.7

1.10

�0.

074

0.47

�0.

025

Mid

dle

Tuf

f0.

50�

0.04

0.78

�0.

151.

2�

0.2#

6L

owes

tT

uff

1.47

7L

owpu

mic

e1.

588

Sang

iran

Tuf

fs11

/10

0.57

�0.

031.

16�

0.2

(Puc

anga

n)9

4.2–

1.6*

0.67

�0.

04;0

.4–0

.5#

10T

uffs

6/5

1.49

�0.

321.

71.

5611

Dia

tom

ite?

1.9

12T

uff

1?3.

25–1

.65

(NN

16/1

8)1.

51�

0.25

1.66

�0.

04*?

132.

1–1.

9#

14L

ower

Lah

ar2.

0�

0.06

2.08

;1.6

6�

0.04

#1.

66�

0.04

/1.7

7�

0.08

*15

Pur

enM

iddl

eT

uff

3.25

–2.3

(NN

16)

2.3

(Kal

iben

g)16

Tuf

f1

2.99

�0.

47

a Err

orle

ss40

Ar/

39A

rva

lues

are

from

(Sw

ishe

r(1

997)

;F

algu

eres

(199

8);

Fal

guer

eset

al.

(199

8);

Wid

iasm

oro

(199

8);

and

Swis

her

(199

9).


information. . . . When new results come to hand, they should be publishedwith abundant contextual data, the cursory reporting of dates must cease.’’Nearly 20 years later, this pattern of cursory reporting continues, renderingsuspect even the results of newer, more accurate methods for studyingdome geochronology.

Observing the fission-track results 20 years after most were published(columns 2 and 3) they appear highly scattered. This variance may be theresult of errors in standardization or overall counting (Faure, 1986: 343).Moreover, the consistently young dates (column 2) have perhaps resultedfrom underestimating the number of tracks from errors in correcting forfading or track annealing (Aitken, 1995: 271). In light of all recent evidence(columns 3–7), the fission-track dates of von Koenigswald (1968), Nishi-mura et al. (1980), and Watanabe et al. (Orchiston and Siesser, 1982: 136)(column 2) now appear too young to have interpretive value. At the oppo-site extreme, Obradovich and Naeser’s (1982) single date (row 3, column3) is too old.

The primary dome volcanic minerals, hornblende and plagioclase, lendthemselves to potassium (K)-based age analysis. However, in the dome,these minerals exhibit low K levels (�0.2%) and low radiogenic yields(1–2% 40Ar*) (Deino et al., 1998: 73). Under these conditions, K-Ar (totalfusion) techniques can suffer from the effects of atmospheric K contamina-tion. As the results are subject to high analytical uncertainties in theseconditions, the early attempts to apply K-Ar were few. In stark contrastto the fission-track results, the earliest K-based analyses produced old dates(Table I, column 4). Nevertheless, in that the dates were few and reportedwith incomplete contextual information, they have largely been dismissed.

During this early period of radiometric analysis, several teams devel-oped Geo-Polarity Time Scale (GPTS) correlated magnetostratigraphiesfor the Sangiran Dome (Yokoyama et al., 1980b; F. Semah, 1982; Shimizuet al., 1985). All of them support a short chronology. Moreover, a secondgeneration of analysis and correlation has generally given similar results(Yokoyama and Koizumi, 1989; Danisworo, 1992; Hyodo et al., 1992, 1993;Hyodo, 1998; Baba et al., 2000; F. Semah et al., 2000). However, two prob-lems prevent these paleomagnetic studies from shedding much light onJokotingkir chronostratigraphy. First, each magnetostratigraphy has beenGPTS-correlated using dates determined by the same or closely relatedteams. The aforementioned magnetostratigraphy authors are, in essence,the same radiometric age authors listed in Table I. In turn, these GPTScorrelations simply recapitulate each team’s own radiometric age bias inpaleomagnetic terms. Second, Normal and Intermediate polarities seemoverrepresented in all of the sequences. Swisher (1994, 1999) suggests thatBrunhes Period surface weathering has produced Normal overprints


throughout the dome exposures. He concludes that many of the Normaldirections are instead mixed polarities that were not resolved by commonlyused Alternating Field demagnetization methods. Brunhes Normal over-printing may contribute two interpretive problems in dome GPTS correla-tions. The Brunhes Normal chron may be identified too far down in thesequence, and smaller artifact zones of Normal or mixed polarity may beidentified as representing Jaramillo and Olduvai Normal subchrons toohigh in the sequence. In any event, the GPTS correlations will remain inquestion until this radiometric discordance is resolved.

Currently, a number of 40Ar/39Ar procedures have replaced the K-Armethod. They are defined on the technique for releasing 40Ar* (total fusionor step-heating), and sample type and size (single grain or bulk sample)(Table I, columns 5–7). 40Ar/39Ar step-heating methods can effectively purgeatmospheric contamination to produce relatively high radiogenic yieldswith low background radiation levels. But even here there is debate. TheFrench group working in the dome used single grain 40Ar/39Ar analysis onsingle hornblende grains derived from fine-grained matrix (Falgueres, 1998;Falgueres et al., 1998; F. Semah et al., 2000). In support of single-grainanalysis, they can cite concordant results in a variety of conditions (Ruffetet al., 1991).

However, we believe that single-grain analysis is subject to a significantproblem in the dome. Individual phenocrysts culled from fine matrix ofmost dome sediments are highly weathered and they often show epigeneticmineral inclusions. Both aspects may combine to produce interfering signalsfor any one grain analyzed. At this point, the most consistent 40Ar/39Arresults are obtained by step-heating small bulk mineral samples obtained inepiclastic pumice. Swisher and the Berkeley Geochronology Center (BGC)have applied these techniques on Java (Table I, column 5) (Swisher, 1997;Swisher et al., 1994; Swisher and Curtis, 1998; Widiasmoro, 1998; Swisher,1999). Currently, we are also using this technique to achieve results gener-ally parallel with those of BGC.

Method Discordance

Dome tephra are organized most visibly into �15 water-laid ashytuffs or tuffaceous silt layers. Six of them lie within the hominin-bearinglithostratigraphy, four of which—the Lowermost, Lower, Middle, and Up-per Tuffs of the Bapang Formation—are traceable at numerous domelocalities. Unfortunately, the isolated mineral grains in these fine-graineddeposits are often so weathered as to be unsuitable for K-based analysis.Therefore geochemists conducting K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar studies have pre-


ferred volcanic pumice, in which phenocrysts are more protected. Theproblem is that pumice most commonly appears as localized epiclasticlenses in the Bapang and Pohjajar formations. Consequently, only the upperreaches of the hominin-bearing sequence are subject to analysis, and thepumice lenses themselves have not served as marker beds.

Virtually all dome radiometric determinations suffer from the flawsoutlined by Orchiston and Siesser (1982). Nevertheless, the Table I datematrix illustrates internally consistent long and short chronologies thatmimic the old paleontologically derived hypotheses. Microfossil evidenceas well as K-Ar, and 40Ar/39Ar step-heating, bulk sample analyses (columns1, 4, 5, and 7) produce older dates. Alternatively, fission-track and 40Ar/39Ar single grain analyses yield comparatively young dates. The discordanceaverages about 300 Ka through the hominin-bearing lithostratigrapic se-quence (rows 8 to 3), but there are also significant subtleties.

Omitting the youngest fission-track dates, the short chronology is de-fined by the fission-track dates aligned with the CTA-41 project (Suzukiand Wikarno, 1982; Suzuki et al., 1985) (column 3) and the 40Ar/39Ar singlecrystal dates reported by the French group (column 6). On close inspection,however, these two dating sequences match each other only in the hominin-bearing sequence. In the lower levels, the CTA-41 fission-track dates con-verge with those of the long series. Given the bracketing dates in rows 12and 16 of column 3, the CTA-41 results could actually corroborate the 2-Ma long chronology Lower Lahar dates in columns 1, 4, and 5. Likewise,the column 6 date for the Pohjajar Middle Tuff diverges, leaning towardthe young side.

Other patterns emerge as one moves up the tephrostratigraphy. Atcolumn 5, rows 6 and 7, BGC 40Ar/39Ar bulk sample results place the baseof the Bapang Formation well into the early Pleistocene. Our own workin progress supports this hypothesis. Nevertheless, these results contradictthe association of the 1.66 � 0.04 Ma date with the lower Pucangan bySwisher et al. (1994: 1120). Instead, the long chronology generally placesthe lower Sangiran stage at nearly 2 Ma. Clearly, the basal Bapang sedimentsmark volcanic activity and tectonic uplift that transformed Solo Basin froma paludal littoral to a fully terrestrial fluvial lowland. This change in sedi-mentary regime provided shifting fluviatile microenvironments that servedto trap faunal remains into a number of sparse bone beds across the Bapangsequence. Putting this transformation near the Plio-Pleistocene boundary,the long chronology suggests it could be coeval with tectonic events, climaticcooling, and faunal turnovers that are global in extent.

Evidence for relatively old age in Bapang hominin fossils has beenavailable for over 20 years. Jacob (1975a) reported a 0.83 Ma average forfour dates associated with finds in the southern part of the dome, but later


specified that the dates range from 0.908–0.781 Ma (Jacob, 1978a: 35).Evidently, three samples were taken to bracket the Tjg-1963.05-GMUY(P V, S10) findspot, while a fourth was drawn in some relationship to thePcg-1965.01-GMUY (P VII, S12) findspot (Jacob, 1975a: 1030, 1978b: 14).Orchiston and Siesser (1982: 136) recognize, given the published reports,that it is impossible to know from which locality and level any of the datesderive. Later, Curtis (1981: 16) reported that ‘‘a split of one of these sampleswas run at Berkeley under improved conditions, and it yielded a date of1.2 � 0.2 Ma. . . . This date must be superior to the 0.83 Ma figure.’’ Thereis a 75% chance that this date is associated with the three Tanjung findspotsthat themselves lie in the middle range of the Bapang sedimentary sequence.The 1.2 � 0.2-Ma date could therefore indicate the age of an importantBapang middle range hominin level.

We found that throughout the SE quadrant of the dome, pumice lensespermeate the catarrhine-bearing sequence above the Middle Tuff of theBapang Formation. We call these lenses collectively the Bapang highpumice. As many as 11 hominin fossils may be attributed to this zone. AtPucung, sediments at the base of the high pumice zone hold Pcg-1969.09-GRDCB (S17), the most complete cranium of Homo erectus in Asia. Thecurrent 40Ar/39Ar step-heating, bulk sample methods consistently give datesof about 1 Ma for the high pumice (row 3, columns 5 and 7). In the briefestof notes, Obradovich and Naeser (1982: 286) report fission-track and K-Ar dates apparently for the upper part of the high pumice zone at Pucung,‘‘12 m above the site of H. erectus VIII [S17]’’ (row 3, columns 3 and 4).While the fission-track date is anomalous in its extreme age, the K-Ardetermination matches the current 40Ar/39Ar step-heating, bulk sample re-sults (row 3, columns 5 and 7).

Jokotingkir Tephrostratigraphy

In light of the discordance, there are only a small number of tephraanalyses relevant to Kln-1993.05-SNJ. On the long side is the original BGCdate (1.66 � 0.04 Ma) for a pumice sample from Jokotingkir (Table I,column 5). Unfortunately, Swisher et al. (1994: 1120, paragraph 3) vaguelydescribe the context of their sample. They give an approximate verticaldistance (2 m) above the underlying S27/S31 Lower Pucangan find level.But they neither named the volcanic pumice rich layer sampled nor tiedtheir work with the four CTA-41 measured sections at Jokotingkir (cf.Itihara et al., 1985a: Figs. 2 and 9). Furthermore, they did not identify or


make reference to the level of the S27/S31 findspot.6 In fact, they couldnot have sampled pumice from the upper Sangiran formation because thereis none.

On the short side are 40Ar/39Ar step-heating single grain dates for apair of Lower Lahar samples in the vicinity of Krikilan: 1.66 � 0.04 Ma atPagarejo, and 1.77 � 0.08 Ma at Cengklik (Falgueres, 1998; Falgueres, etal., 1998; F. Semah et al., 2000) (Fig. 2; Table I, row 14, column 6). Thesetwo dates corroborate the older fission-track dates, and indeed carry thec. 300 Ka discordance through to the Lower Lahar. Observing that theirown Puren date is identical to the Jokotingkir date of Swisher et al. (1994),F. Semah et al. (2000) suggested that there is no method discordance, andthat both groups sampled the Lower Lahar to obtain identical dates withslightly different 40Ar/39Ar procedures. In accord with this hypothesis, Widi-asmoro (1998: 45) relates the BGC date directly to the Lower Lahar (TableI, row 14, column 5). Still, the description of Swisher et al. (1994: 1120)sampling 2 m above the hominin findspot in a pumice-rich layer contradictsthis interpretation. The Lower Lahar must lie below the findspot and it is,in any event, pumice-poor. Moreover, Swisher (1999) later reported an40Ar/39Ar step-heating bulk sample date of 2.08 Ma for the Lower Lahar(Table I, row 14, column 5).

Independently, we tried to replicate the results of Swisher et al. (1994).Close examination of all canal-level sedimentary exposures at Jokotingkirbrought to light just one pumice-rich epiclastic lens (Fig. 2). Clearly, it lieswithin Bapang-type sediments, not in the Sangiran (Pucangan) sedimentsto which the S27/S31 findspot has been loosely attached. Just as clearly,CTA-41 survey identified Bapang exposures at this point at Jokotingkir.While Itihara et al. (1985a) did not discuss their Jokotingkir sections (Fig.9: Sections 54, 55, 60, 61), their drawings indicate a lowest or basal Bapangexposure in the locality. Nevertheless, their locality map (1985a: 16; ourFig. 2) shows this exposure as a massive block of Bapang sediment slumpeddown the steep slope. Like the Bapang Formation exposures higher uptoward Krikilan village, the canal level sediment is silty and contains no

6The provenance issues of Kln-1978.07-GMUY (S27) and Kln-1979.07-ITB (MeganthropusII, S31) are disconcerting. Specimen S27 has no primary publication and S31, as treatedamong descriptive reports (Sartono, 1980; Sartono and Grimaud-Herve, 1983; Tyler, Krantzand Sartono, 1995), has no real statement of provenance. Oral histories conflict as to whereand how these fossils were discovered and to how they got to their respective conservinginstitutions. S27 is a heavily built maxilla and S31 is the very thick posterior calotte. As bothrepresent robust individuals deriving from a low stratigraphic level, they have been linkedin taxonomic assignment to Meganthropus. In the end, we have not been able to confirmthe common notion that these two specimens share a findspot or provenance level in theSangiran (Pucangan) formation. Ironically, Sangiran 31 appears, mistakenly we presume, asa labeled point at Sendangklampok on two hominin fossil findspot maps of the dome (Widi-anto, 1993: 67; Widianto et al., 1996: 113).


foraminifera. These characters contrast with common observations on thelower reaches of the Bapang Formation; they are sandy and, at least in thewestern and northern sectors, abundant with foraminifera.

Our 40Ar/39Ar step-heating, small bulk sample analysis for this pumicelens yields 1.10 � 0.07 Ma (Table I, column 7), which compares with thosefor our Bapang high pumice samples and with the BGC seven-run average(1.07 Ma) for similar levels (Swisher, 1997, 1999; Widiasmoro, 1998). Insum, our attempts to identify and date the pumice-rich layer at Jokotingkiryield evidence very different from that specified by Swisher et al. (1994). Ourlithostratigraphic investigation corroborates most CTA-41 observations atthe locality, and our 40Ar/39Ar analysis gives results consistent with BGC’snumerous dates for higher levels in the Bapang sequence.

Absolute ages for all dome tephra will remain in question until the40Ar/39Ar bulk sample/single grain discordance is resolved. In this regard,one may ask: Is our 40Ar/39Ar bulk sample date (1.10 � 0.07 Ma) too oldfor a stratigraphically high middle or upper Bapang deposit? Are the French40Ar/39Ar single grain dates (1.66 � 0.04 Ma, 1.77 � 0.08 Ma) too youngfor the stratigraphically low Lower Lahar? How are we to interpret the40Ar/39Ar bulk sample date (1.66 � 0.04 Ma) of Swisher et al. (1994),which initially suggested a long chronology for the Sangiran dome? Is it acorroborating date for the Lower Lahar (but out of sequence in its ownchronological series), or an anomalous date for an upper Bapang pumicelens?

SUNDA CATARRHINE BIOGEOGRAPHY

The local contextual issues surrounding the 1993 maxilla suggest sev-eral ways in which catarrhines may have colonized Java. If the specimenbelongs to the Upper Sangiran Formation, colobines joined with homininsin relative early dispersal, notwithstanding any specific absolute date. Ma-caques followed, as indicated by their basal Bapang provenance within thedome. Alternatively, if the fossil belongs to the Bapang Formation, Homoerectus represents the only early catarrhine arrival. Colobines then accom-panied macaques during a second catarrhine wave.

In the most general terms we can now link basic geologic and faunalevidence to understand the biogeographic relationship between Java andmainland Asia. Of greatest interest are the conditions under which a rangeof mainland Asian catarrhines could have dispersed to Central and EastJava. We attempt to use the terrestrial emergence sequence of Ninkovichet al. (1982) to calibrate the faunal succession recently outlined by de Voset al. (1994), van den Bergh et al. (1996) and F. Semah (1997). The early


part of the sequence, through the Lower Sangiran Formation, can be datedreliably via microfossils: Ninkovitch and Burckle (1978) with diatoms (2.1-1.9 Ma), Siesser and Orchiston (1978) via foraminifera determination (4.2to 1.6 Ma), and Sartono et al. (1981) using calcareous nannoplankton analy-sis (3.25-1.65 Ma) (Table I, column 1). Recently, the late Pleistocene andHolocene component received 14C analysis (Simanjuntak et al., 1994; Fal-gueres et al., 1998) and amino acid racemization study (Drawhorn, 1995).However, given the extant radiometric discordance, we do not posit abso-lute dates for those parts of the emergence and dispersal sequences repre-sented by the Upper Sangiran and Lower Bapang formations.

The Indonesian Arc encompasses the current Malay Archipelago—theIndonesian islands and the Malay Peninsula—and the underlying westernSunda Shelf. When emergent, this area represents the primary faunal dis-persal corridor from the mainland and across the islands. This corridor,and Java’s link with the mainland, has varied as the arc has risen and lateras sea level rapidly fluctuated to expose and re-inundate the western SundaShelf. Ninkovich et al. (1982) used contemporary Sunda Shelf bathymetryand deep sea-bottom oxygen isotope records to estimate the Plio-Pleisto-cene emergence sequence. In this model, abrupt but relatively small climate-induced changes in sea level mediated mainland connections, in conjunctionwith slow tectonically-induced uplift. As the Pliocene proceeded, a generallycooling global climate tied up enough seawater to forge Java’s first tenuouslinks with the mainland. Thus during the late Middle Pliocene, the Satirfauna colonized the island. Tetralophodon bumiajuensis and Hexaprotodonsimplex are archaic, water-tolerant forms and well-adapted to paludal envi-ronments. The presence of Geochelone (giant tortoise) and the total lackof carnivores also reflect island conditions.

Next, the stronger cold spikes of the late Pliocene should have reducedsea level 40–60 m below present, which would be enough to link Javamore firmly with the mainland. At this point, the Sangiran Dome areahad productive shallow lacustrine habitats with occasional paleosols. TheseUpper Sangiran Formation deposits thus document the infilling and dryingof submarine eastern Java. Sangiran Dome pollen indicates drier conditionswith more grasses (A.-M. Semah, 1982, 1984). The contemporary Ci Saatfauna still reflects somewhat isolated conditions, but its more advancedelephantids and bovids suggest a turnover. Although the arrival of onecarnivore (Panthera) points to a terrestrial filter route, the fauna is stillarchaic. No large mammals present in the Pliocene survived the Pleistocene.However, the massive hominin fossils S27 and S31 suggest that a robustHomo erectus (Meganthropus) reached Central Java at this time. Kln1993.05-SNJ, a modern colobine, would therefore represent the only knownCi Saat cercopithecid.


The basal Bapang deposits mark the beginning of important volcanicactivity and uplift in Central Java, which transformed the Sangiran Domearea into fully terrestrial fluvial lowland. The period produced the TrinilH.K. (Hauptknochenschicht, or main bone level, Ngawi Regency) fauna,known best from Dubois’ (1896) work at Trinil, and von Koenigswald’s(1934, 1935) later collections at numerous localities. For de Vos et al. (1994:131), the Trinil H.K. fauna, like the earlier Satir and Ci Saat, has fewspecies, suggesting mainland connection through a filtered corridor. Thepresence of three carnivores makes it more balanced than the Ci Saatfauna, while numerous large bovids indicate an open woodland biotopecorresponding to a glacial stadial. On clear lithostratigrapic evidence, theother 13 published Javan cercopithecid fossils can be placed in this fauna.According to de Vos et al. (1994) the succeeding Kedungbrubus (NganjukRegency) fauna has a more mainland character. The high turnover andlarge number of bovids in this fauna, as well as the dry climate pollen inthe upper Kabuh/Bapang Formation, suggest the Sunda Shelf had fullyemerged to hold an open woodland environment. The contemporary Javanhominins are mostly classic Homo erectus. No cercopithecid fossils havebeen attributed to the Upper Bapang formation specifically, or to theKedungbrubus fauna generally (de Vos et al., 1994).

Insofar as it is much later and quite spotty across the Malay Archipel-ago, the paleontological record for Pongo contrasts sharply with that forthe other catarrhines. Nevertheless, it provides insight on the earlier Plio-Pleistocene catarrhine dispersal sequence. Given the heat and humidity ofAsian ape habitats, bones do not preserve well in the open. The commonfossil ape evidence therefore comprises teeth or just tooth crowns aban-doned by scavengers in caves. Lida Air cave in Sumatra provides the bestearly record with 1163 such dental specimens. Amino acid racemizationanalysis suggests that one species of Pongo arrived by 75–80 Ka (Drawhorn,1995: 12–13). At this date, Pongo would have been present for the cata-strophic eruption of Danau Toba. Sometime after this event, a slightlydifferent form of Pongo appears at Sibramabang Cave (Drawhorn,1995).

Niah cave on Kalimantan (Borneo) provides another record. Pongospecimens were in the 114-inch level in the Hell trench, 36 cm below thelevel, dated to 39.6 Ka (Harrisson, 1959). Moreover, von Koenigswald(1940b: 210–211 [Figs. 9, 10], 228–229 [Fig. 9], 230–231 [Figs. 9, 10, 12])found more than 200 Pongo molars in a late Pleistocene fissure fill atTabuhan (Punung Regency, Central Java) (Badoux, 1959; Drawhorn, 1995:25). These late Pleistocene contexts associate Pongo with the humid-adapted Punung fauna that includes the first Javan Homo sapiens (de Vos1984). The humid-adapted cultural sequence in Song Terus cave (Punung


Regency) gives 14C readings of 125k–45 Ka (Simanjuntak et al., 1994; Fal-gueres et al., 1998).

More difficult are a number of isolated molars found in open contexts. AtTrinil, Dubois (1896) found two teeth, which he attributed to Homo erectus(Trinil 1 and Trinil 4). Later, Gregory (1916), Miller (1923), Weidenreich(1937), von Koenigswald (1940b), and Hooijer (1948) diagnosed them asPongo. However, von Koenigswald (1967) subsequently retracted his origi-nal attribution; a decision that Drawhorn (1995) supports. Nevertheless, vonKoenigswald (1940b) identified several tooth crowns as ape in the SangiranDome and he consistently supported the presence of very old Pongo in thePucangan Formation (von Koenigswald, 1982). Widianto (1991) acceptedDubois’ and von Koenigswald’s identifications and added �6 more cheekteeth to the Dome Pongo list: premolars S16a and S24 (2 teeth) from theBapang formation; and 3 right upper molars (Ardjuna 1a, 1b, 1c) from theSangiran Formation. The findspots for all these teeth are difficult to evaluate.Finally, Aziz and Saefudin (1996) report a molar of Pongo from the basalBapang formation or Grenzbank Zone at Brangkal (Bkl-1983.09-GRDCB).

There are three problems with these identifications. The Kabuh/Ba-pang and Pucangan/Sangiran evidence for Pongo consists of isolated teethonly. Pongo pygmaeus and Asian Homo erectus molars overlap greatly insize, and both species have heavily crenulated or wrinkled molar crowns.They are difficult to distinguish, especially when worn. Second, the habitatsrepresented by the Trinil H.K. fauna are open and relatively dry—not atall the environment in which to expect Pongo (de Vos, 1984). Third, thereis the relatively great age of the Sangiran dome sedimentary series. Theshort chronology has the Bapang Formation dating to about 0.8 ma, alreadyan order of magnitude older than any Archipelago cave deposit. Followingthe long chronology, these isolated teeth would be half again asancient.

In sum, we propose a more integrated biogeographic scenario for thecatarrhine colonization of Java, although we can only assume the mostgeneral chronological outline. The water-tolerant Satir fauna arrived atJava’s eastern reaches before a terrestrial corridor emerged early duringthe late Pliocene. Later, most likely during the late Pliocene, a swampysweepstakes route appeared. At this point, a robust Homo erectus probablycolonized Java, along with several archaic Ci Saat mammals. Recognizablymodern colobines and macaques seem to have followed only after a fullyterrestrial corridor emerged. Depending on the chronology employed, thismay have occurred very early in the Pleistocene or toward its middlereaches. Pongo, occupying a quite specialized niche, arrived only in the LatePleistocene, about the same time as modern humans with more culturallyspecialized adaptive niches.


CONCLUSION

Two factors render suspect the announced provenance of Kln-1993.05-SNJ. The first involves the unexplained change in the Kln-1993.05-SNJfindspot from the Sendangklampok/Brangkal River area to Jokotingkir.This change may relate to the other contemporary revisions in contextfor central dome. By 1990, Sartono reversed his opinion to one whereinvertebrate fossils could be retrieved in the Puren and Lower Lahar sedi-ments, all localized around Krikilan village and well exposed only at Jokot-ingkir. Then, coincident with the discovery of Kln-1993.05-SNJ, Sartonochanged the lithostratigraphic provenance and discovery date for anotherJokotingkir fossil, Kln-1979.07-ITB (Meganthropus II, S31). S31 went fromplacement in the Sangiran Formation proper to a listing in the Upper Purenor Kalibeng Formation—from above the Lower Lahar to below it. Sartono’ssecond generation reports on Jokotingkir during the early 1990s seem opento question.

The second factor is the outright improbability of the proposed LowerLahar lithostratigraphic provenance on both chronologic and phylogeneticgrounds. When the biostratigraphic and radiometric evidence is systemati-cally reviewed, it is clear that the Sangiran Formation Lower Lahar waslaid down quickly on the order of 2 Ma. Thus, if Kln-1993.05-SNJ, asTrachypithecus auratus, belongs to the Lower Lahar, it must be older thanany Asian catarrhine outside the Siwaliks. Such a date and its paleoenviron-mental implications push Kln-1993.05-SNJ into an untenable ecologicalscenario: an essentially modern leaf monkey sharing Pliocene paludal habi-tats with archaic aquatic and water-tolerant species.

Radiometric dates are absolute in name only. Each method and eachanalysis provides only an approximation to true age. Tough questions re-quire that contextual reporting be greatly improved and that radiometricmethod discordance be understood and resolved. Archaeologists and pa-leoanthropologists struggle with similar issues in other regions. On Java,the geochronologic context for Plio-Pleistocene catarrhines must be rebuilton stronger contextual evidence and on tempered claims for absolute age.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This review reflects collaboration between the Department of Geology,Institute of Technology Bandung (ITB) and the Department of Anthropol-ogy, University of Iowa (UI). At ITB, we receive support from Dr. I. G.Widiadnyana Merati, Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Dr. PudjoSukarno, Dean of Faculty of Mineral Technology. We are also aided by


the Geological Research and Development Centre, Bandung, Mr. BambangDwiyanto MSc, Head; and the National Archaeological Research Centre,Jakarta, Dr. Haris Sukendar, Head. Field research permits 7450/V3/KS/1998 and 3174/V3/KS/1999 were issued by the Indonesian Institute ofSciences (Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia), Jakarta. Three organiza-tions funded fieldwork: the UI Center for Global and Regional Environ-mental Change, Dr. Gregory Carmichael and Dr. Jerry Schnoor, Directors;the UI Central Investment Fund for Research Enhancement, Dr. David J.Skorton, Vice President of Research; and the Human Evolution ResearchFund, University of Iowa Foundation. 40Ar/39Ar analyses were provided bythe New Mexico Geochronological Research Laboratory, Socorro, NM,Dr. Matthew Heizler, Co-Director. In the field, we enjoyed assistance fromDr. Johan Arif and Dr. Sujatmiko. Our illustrations were drawn with theefforts of Ms. Shirley Taylor and Ms. Nancy Zear, UI Medical Photography,and Mr. Joe Artz, Office of the State Archaeologist, UI. Ms. Kate Dernbachedited the manuscript. Finally, we acknowledge kind assistance from Drs.Luis Gonzalez, Etty Indriati, Teuku Jacob, Mark Reagan, Truman Siman-juntak, and Harry Widianto.

REFERENCES

Aimi, M., and Aziz, F. (1985). Vertebrate fossils from the Sangiran dome, Mojokerto, Triniland Sambungmacan areas. In Watanabe, N. and Kadar, D. (eds.), Quaternary Geologyof the Hominid Fossil Bearing Formations in Java, Geological Research and DevelopmentCentre, Special Publication 4, Bandung, Indonesia, pp. 155–197.

Aitken, M. J. (1995). Chronometric techniques for the Middle Pleistocene. In Roebroeks, W.and van Kolfschoten T. (eds.), The Earliest Occupation of Europe: Proceedings of theEuropean Science Foundation Workshop at Tautavel (France), 1993, University of Leiden,Leiden, pp. 269–275.

Aziz, F. (1989). Macaca fascicularis (Raffles) from Ngandong, East Java. Publ. Geol. Res.Devl. Ctr. (Bandung, Indonesia), Paleont. Ser. 5: 50–56.

Aziz, F., and Saefudin, I. (1996). An isolated tooth of orang utan (Pongo pygmaeus) from theSangiran area, Central Java, Indonesia. Publ. Geol. Res. Devl. Ctr. (Bandung, Indonesia),Paleont. Ser. 8: 47–50.

Baba, H., Aziz, F., Narasaki, S., Sudijono, Kaifu, Y., Suprijo, A., Hyodo, M., Susanto, E. E.,and Jacob, T. (2000). New hominid fossil tooth from Sangiran, Central Java. J. Hum.Evol. 38: 855–862.

Badoux, D. M. (1959). Fossil Mammals from Two Fissure Deposits at Punung (Java). Ph.D.Dissertation, University of Utrecht, Netherlands.

Cartmell, V., and Parker, V. (1982). Appendix B: Guidelines to determine the scale of a map.In Cartmell, V., and Parker, V. (eds.), Cartographic Materials: A Manual of Interpretationfor AACR2, American Library Association, Chicago, pp. 172–173.

Curtis, G. H. (1981). Establishing a relevant time scale in anthropological and archaeologicalresearch. In Young, J. Z., Jope, E. M., and Oakley, K. P. (eds.), The emergence of man.Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., Ser. B, 292: 7–20.

Danisworo, C. (1992). Magnetostratigraphy of Plio-Pleistocene deposits in the Sangiran area,Central Java. Proc. Indones. Assoc. Geol., XXI Annu. Scient. Meetg., pp. 477–485.


Deino, A. L., Renne, P. R., and Swisher, C. C. III (1998). 40Ar/39Ar dating in Paleoanthropologyand Archeology. Evol. Anthrop. 6(2): 63–75.

de Vos, J. (1984). Reconsideration of Pleistocene cave faunas from South China and theirrelation to the faunas from Java. Cour. Forsch.-Inst. Senckenberg 69: 259–266.

de Vos, J. (1989). The environment of Homo erectus from Trinil H.K. In Hominidae: Proceed-ings of the 2nd International Congress of Human Paleontology, Editoriale Jaca Book,Milan, Italy, pp. 225–229.

de Vos, J., Sartono, S., Hardja-Sasmita, S., and Sondaar, P. Y. (1982). The fauna from Trinil,type locality of Homo erectus: A reinterpretation. Geologie Mijnb. 61: 207–211.

de Vos, J., Sondaar, P. Y., van den Bergh, G. D., and Aziz, F. (1994). The Homo bearingdeposits of Java and its ecological context. Cour. Forsch.-Inst. Senckenberg 171: 129–140.

Drawhorn, G. M. (1995). The Systematics and Paleodemography of Fossil Orangutans (GenusPongo). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis.

Dubois, E. (1894). Pithecanthropus erectus, eine Menschenahnliche Uebergangsform aus Java.Landesdruckerei, Batavia.

Dubois, E. (1896). On Pithecanthropus erectus: a transitional form between man and the apes.Scient. Trans. R. Dubl. Soc. 6: 1–18.

Dubois, E. (1907). Eenige van Nederlandschen kant verkregen uitkomsten met betrekkingtot de kennis der Kendeng-fauna (fauna van Trinil). T. Kon. Nederl. Aardr. Gen., ser. 224: 449–458.

Duyfjes, J. (1936). Zur geologgie und stratigraphie des Kendeng-gebietes zwischen Trinil undSoerabaja (Java). De Ing. Nederl.-Indie 3(4): 136–149.

Duyfjes, J. (1938). Geologische kaart van Java 1:100,000: Toelichting bij Blad 110 (Modjok-erto). Wet. Meded. Dienst Mijnb. Ned. Oost-Indie. Bandung, Indonesia.

Falgueres, C. (1998). Dating layers and fossils in Sangiran Dome: methods and results. InSimanjuntak, H. T. (ed.), International Colloquium on Sangiran: Man, Culture, and Envi-ronment in Pleistocene, Solo, Indonesia, Japan Foundation and National Research Centreof Archaeology, Jakarta, pp. 46–47.

Falgueres, C., Saleki, H., and Semah, F. (1998). Recent dating of prehistoric sites in Java.In Falgueres, C., Grimaud-Herve, D., and Semah, F. (eds.), Origin of Settlements andChronology of Paleolithic Cultures in Southeast Asia, Symposium Program, MuseumNational d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.

Faure, G. (1986). Principles of Isotope Geology (2nd edition). John Wiley & Sons, New York.Gregory, W. K. (1916). Studies on the evolution of the Primates. Part II: Phylogeny of recent

and extinct anthropoids, with special reference to the evolution of man. Bull. Amer. Mus.Nat. Hist. 35: 258–355.

Harrisson, T. (1959). RadioCarbon-14C datings B.C. from Niah: a note. Sarawak Mus. J. IX(13–14) :136–138.

Hooijer, D. A. (1948). Prehistoric teeth of man and the orang-utan from central Sumatrawith notes on the fossil orang-utan from Java and southern China. Zool. Meded. RijksMus. Nat. Hist. 29: 175–301.

Hooijer, D. A. (1956). The lower boundary of the Pleistocene in Java and the age of Pithecan-thropus. Quaternaria 3: 5–50.

Hooijer, D. A. (1957). The correlations of fossil mammalian faunas and the Plio-Pleistoceneboundary in Java. Proc. Kon. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 60: 1–10.

Hooijer, D. A. (1962). Quaternary langurs and macaques from the Malay Archipelago. Zool.Verh. Mus. Leiden 55: 1–64.

Hyodo, M. (1998). The Sangiran geomagnetic excursion and its chronological contributionto the Quaternary geology of Java. In Simanjuntak, H. T. (ed.), International Colloquiumon Sangiran: Man, Culture, and Environment in Pleistocene, Solo, Indonesia, Japan Foun-dation and National Research Centre of Archaeology, Jakarta, p. 48.

Hyodo, M., Sunata, W., and Susanto, E. E. (1992). A long term geomagnetic excursion fromPlio-Pleistocene sediments in Java. J. Geophys. Res. 97 (B6): 9323–9335.

Hyodo, M., Watanabe, N., Sunata, W., Susanto, E. E., and Wahyono, H. (1993). Magnetostra-tigraphy of hominid fossil bearing formations in Sangiran and Mojokerto, Java. Anthrop.Sci. 101: 157–186.


Itihara, M., Sudijono, Kadar, D., Shibasaki, T., Kumai, H., Yoshikawa, S., Aziz, F., Soeradi,T., Wikarno, Kadar, A. P., Hasibuan, F., and Kagemori, Y. (1985a). Geology and stratigra-phy of the Sangiran area. In Watanabe, N., and Kadar, D. (eds.), Quaternary Geologyof the Hominid Fossil Bearing Formations in Java, Geological Research and DevelopmentCentre Special Publication 4, Bandung, Indonesia, pp. 11–43.

Itihara, M., Kadar, D., and Watanabe, N. (1985b). Chapter VIII: Concluding Remarks. InWatanabe, N. and Kadar, D. (eds.), Quaternary Geology of the Hominid Fossil BearingFormations in Java, Geological Research and Development Centre Special Publication4, Bandung, Indonesia, pp. 367–378.

Itihara, M., Watanabe, N., Kadar, D., and Kumai, H. (1994). Quaternary stratigraphy of thehominid fossil bearing formations of the Sangiran area, Central Java. Cour. Forsch.-Inst.Senckenberg 171: 123–138.

Jablonski, N. G., and Tyler, D. E. (1994). The oldest fossil monkey from southeast Asia. Am.J. Phys. Anthrop. (Suppl. 18): 113–114.

Jablonski, N. G., and Tyler, D. E. (1999). Trachypithecus auratus sangiranensis, a new fossilmonkey from Sangiran, Central Java, Indonesia. Int. J. Primatol. 20: 319–326.

Jacob, T. (1972). The absolute date of the Djetis beds at Modjokerto. Antiquity 46(182): 148.Jacob, T. (1975a). L’Homme du Java. La Recherche 6: 1027–1032.Jacob, T. (1975b). Morphology and paleoecology of early man in Java. In Tuttle, R. H. (ed.),

Paleoanthropology: Morphology and Paleoecology, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 311–325.Jacob, T. (1978a). The puzzle of Solo Man. Mod. Quater. Res. Southeast Asia 4: 31–40.Jacob, T. (1978b). New finds of lower and middle Pleistocene hominines from Indonesia and

an examination of their antiquity. In Ikawa-Smith, F. (ed.), Early Paleolithic in Southand East Asia, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 13–22.

Jacob, T., and Curtis, G. H. (1971). Preliminary potassium-argon dating of early man in Java.Contr. Univ. Calif. Archaeol. Res. Fac. 12: 50.

Kumai, H., Itihara, M., Sudijono, Shibasaki, T., Aziz, F., Yoshikawa, S., Akahane, S., Soeradi,T., Hayashi, T., and Furuyama, K. (1985). Geology and stratigraphy of the Mojokertoarea. In Watanabe, N., and Kadar, D. (eds.), Quaternary Geology of the Hominid FossilBearing Formations in Java, Geological Research and Development Centre Special Publi-cation 4, Bandung, Indonesia, pp. 55–62.

McKenzie, K. G., and Sudijono (1981). Plio-Pleistocene Ostracods from Sangiran, Java. Geol.Res. Devl. Ctr., Paleoanthrop. Ser. 1: 29–51.

Miller, G. S. (1923). Notes on the cast of Pithecanthropus molars. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist.48: 527–530.

Muehrcke, P., and Muehrcke, J. O. (1992). Map Use: Reading, Analysis, and Interpretation,3rd edition, JP Publications, Madison, WI.

Ninkovich, D., and Burckle, L. H. (1978). Absolute age of the base of the hominid-bearingbeds in Eastern Java. Nature 275: 306–308.

Ninkovich, D., Burckle, L. H., and Opdyke, N. D. (1982). Palaeographic and geologic settingfor early man in Java. In Scrutton, R. A., and Talwani, M. (eds.), The Ocean Floor, JohnWiley and Sons, New York, pp. 211–227.

Nishimura, S., Thio, K. H., and Hefuwat, F. (1980). Fission-track ages of the tuffs of thePecangan and Kabuh formations, and the tektite at Sangiran, Central Java. In Nishimura,S. (ed.), Physical Geology of Indonesian Island Arcs, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan,pp. 72–80.

Obradovich, J. D., and Naeser, C. W. (1982). Age of Homo erectus from Java. Geol. Surv.Prof. Pap. 1275: 285–286.

Orchiston, D. W., and Siesser, W. G. (1982). Chronostratigraphy of the Plio-Pleistocene fossilhominids of Java. Mod. Quater. Res. Southeast Asia 7: 131–149.

Ruffet, G., Feraud, G., and Amouric, M. (1991). Comparison of 40Ar/39Ar conventional andlaser dating of biotites from the North Tregor Batholith. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta55: 1675–1688.

Sartono, S. (1961). Notes on a new find of a Pithecanthropus mandible. Departmen Perindu-strian Dasar/Pertambangan Djawatan Geologi, Publikasi Teknik Seri Paleontologi 2: 1–51.


Sartono, S. (1969). On the Plio-Pleistocene boundary of Java. Bull. Nat. Inst. Geol. Min.,Bandung 2(2): 1–19.

Sartono, S. (1970). On the stratigraphic position of Pithecanthropus mandible C. Proc. Inst.Tekno. Bandung 4: 91–102.

Sartono, S. (1975). Implications arising from Pithecanthropus VII. In Tuttle, R. H. (ed.),Paleoanthropology: Morphology and Paleoecology, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 327–360.

Sartono, S. (1978). The site of Homo erectus mandible F. Mod. Quarter. Res. Southeast Asia4: 19–24.

Sartono, S. (1980). Homo erectus ngandongensis: the possible maker of the ‘‘Sangiran flakes.’’L’Anthropologie (Paris) 18: 121–131.

Sartono, S. (1982). Sagittal cresting in Meganthropus palaeojavanicus von Koenigswald. Mod.Quarter. Res. Southeast Asia 7: 201–210.

Sartono, S. (1990). Short guide to Sangiran and Trinil, Java (Indonesia), Indo-Pacific PrehistoryAssociation and National Research Centre for Archaeology, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Sartono, S., and Grimaud-Herve, D. (1983). Les parietaux de I’hominide Sangiran 31.L’Anthropologie (Paris) 87: 465–468.

Sartono, S., Orchiston, D. W., Siesser, W. G., and Djubiantono, T. (1981). Upper PlioceneSediments in Sangiran, Central Java (Indonesia). Buletin Geologi (Institut TeknologiBandung) 5: 1–25.

Semah, A.-M. (1982). A preliminary report on a Sangiran pollen diagram. Mod. Quarter. Res.Southeast Asia 7: 165–170.

Semah, A.-M. (1984). Palynology and Javanese Pithecanthropus environment. Cour. Forsch.-Inst. Senckenberg 69: 237–243.

Semah, F. (1982). Pliocene and Pleistocene geomagnetic reversals recorded in the Gemolongand Sangiran domes (Central Java). Mod. Quarter. Res. Southeast Asia 7: 151–164.

Semah F. (1997). Plio-Pleistocene reference sections in Indonesia. In van Couvering, J. A.(ed.), The Pleistocene Boundary and the Beginning of the Quaternary, Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Cambridge, pp. 264–272.

Semah F., Feraud, G., Saleki, H., Falgueres, C., and Djubiantono, T. (2000). Did Early Manreach Java during the Late Pliocene? J. Archaeol. Sci. 28(1).

Shimizu, Y., Mubroto, B., Siagian, H., and Untung, M. (1985). A paleomagnetic study in theSangiran area. In Watanabe, N., and Kadar, D. (eds.), Quaternary Geology of the HominidFossil Bearing Formations in Java, Geological Research and Development Centre SpecialPublication 4, Bandung, Indonesia, pp. 275–308.

Siesser, W. G., and Orchiston, D. W. (1978). Micropaleontological reassessment of the ageof Pithecanthropus Mandible C from Sangiran, Indonesia. Mod. Quarter. Res. SoutheastAsia 4: 25–30.

Siesser, W. G., Orchiston, D. W., and Djubiantono, T. (1984). Micropaleontological investiga-tion of Late Pliocene marine sediments at Sangiran, Central Java. Alcheringa 8: 87–99.

Simanjuntak, H. T., Semah, F., Semah, A.-M., and Forestier, H. (1994). Chronologie de laprehistoire Indonesienne: recherches recentes sur les montagnes du sud de Java. InManguin, P.-Y. (ed.), Southeast Asian Archaeology 1994: Proceedings of the 5th Interna-tional Conference of the European Association of Southeast Asian Archaeologists, Centrefor Southeast Asian Studies, University of Hull, Hull, pp. 37–42.

Sondaar, P. Y., de Vos, J., and Leinders, J. J. M. (1983). Reply: Facts and fiction around thefossi mammals of Java. Geologie Mijnb. 62: 339–343.

Stremme, H. (1911). Die Saugetiere mit Ausnahme der Proboscidier. In Selenka, L. andBlanckenhorn, M. (eds.), Die Pithecanthropus-Schichten auf Java, Engelmann, Leipzig,pp. 82–150.

Stross, F. H. (1971). Applications of the physical sciences to archaeology Science 171: 831.Sudijono, Shibasaki, T., Yokshikawa, S., Aziz, F., and Furutani, M. (1985). Brangkal Site. In

Watanabe, N., and Kadar, D. (eds.), Quaternary Geology of the Hominid Fossil BearingFormations in Java. Geological Research and Development Centre, Special Publication4, Bandung, Indonesia, p. 71.

Suzuki, M., and Wikarno (1982). Fission-track ages of pumice tuff, tuff layers and javites of


hominid fossil bearing formation in the Sangiran area, Central Java, Proc. XI Int. Cong.,Vol. 2, INQUA, Moscow, p. 322.

Suzuki, M., Wikarno, Budisantoso, Saefudin, I., and Itihara, M. (1985). Fission-track ages ofpumice tuff, tuff layers and javites of hominid fossil bearing formation in the Sangiranarea, Central Java. In Watanabe, N. and Kadar, D. (eds.), Quaternary Geology of theHominid Fossil Bearing Formations in Java. Geological Research and DevelopmentCentre, Special Publication 4, Bandung, Indonesia, pp. 309–358.

Swisher III, C. C. (1994). Response to Dating hominid sites in Indonesia. Science 266: 1727.Swisher III, C. C. (1997). A revised geochronology for the Plio-Pleistocene hominid-bearing

strata of Sangiran, Indonesia. (Paper presented at the Paleoanthropological Society An-nual Meeting, St. Louis, MO). J. Hum. Evol. 32 (4): A23.

Swisher III, C. C. (1999). Antiquity of Homo erectus in Java: 40Ar/39Ar dating and paleomag-netic study of Sangiran and Kedungbrubus areas. International Symposium on Palaeoan-thropology, 12-16 October 1999, Beijing, China: Abstracts, p. 78. Institute of VertebratePaleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Swisher III, C. C., Curtis, G. H., Jacob, T., Getty, A. G., Suprijo, A., and Widiasmoro. (1994).Age of the earliest known hominids in Java, Indonesia. Science 263: 1118–1121.

Swisher III, C. C., and Curtis, G. H. (1998). 40Ar/39Ar dating of Plio-Pleistocene hornblendesfrom Java, Indonesia, using CO2 laser incremental heating techniques. Dual Congress,1998. Joint meeting of the International Association for the Study of Human Palaeontol-ogy and the International Association of Human Biologists, Sun City, SA, 1998. OrganisingCommittee of Dual Congress 1998, Colloquium 8.

Tyler, D. E. (1997). New and significant fossil finds from Sangiran, Central Java. In Jablonski,N. G. (ed.), The Changing Face of East Asia During the Tertiary and Quaternary, Centreof Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, pp. 498–515.

Tyler, D. E., Jablonski, N., and Sartono, S. (1995). Earliest known monkey fossil from theIndonesian Archipelago: an announcement. In Bower, J. R. F., and Sartono, S. (eds.),Palaeo-Anthropology: Evolution and Ecology of Homo erectus. Pithecanthropus Centen-nial Foundation, Leiden University, Leiden, NL, pp. 213–216.

Tyler, D. E., Krantz, G. S., and Sartono, S. (1995). The taxonomic status of the ‘Meganthropus’cranial (Sangiran 31) and the ‘Meganthropus’ occipital fragment III. In Bower, J. R. F.,and Sartono, S. (eds.), Palaeo-Anthropology: Evolution and Ecology of Homo erectus.Pithecanthropus Centennial Foundation, Leiden University, Leiden, NL, pp. 189–201.

Tyler, D. E., Sartono, S., and Krantz, G. S. (1995). Homo erectus mandible F (Sangiran22) from Java: an announcement. In Bower, J. R. F. and Sartono, S. (eds.), Palaeo-Anthropology: Evolution and Ecology of Homo erectus, Pithecanthropus CentennialFoundation, Leiden University, Leiden, NL, pp. 203–206.

van den Bergh, G. D., de Vos, J., Sondaar, P. Y., and Aziz, F. (1996). Pleistocene zoogeographicevolution of Java (Indonesia) and glacio-eustatic sea level fluctuations: a background forthe presence of Homo. In Bellwood, P. (ed.), Indo-Pacific Prehistory: The Chiang MaiPapers, Volume 1, Bull. Indo-Pacif. Prehist. Assoc. 14, Canberra, Australia, pp. 7–21.

van Es, L. J. C. (1931). The Age of Pithecanthropus. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, NL.von Koenigswald, G. H. R. (1934). Zur stratigraphie des javanischen Pleistocan. De Ing.

Nederl.-Indie 1(4): 185–201.von Koenigswald, G. H. R. (1935). Die fossilen Saugetierfaunen Javas. Proc. Kon. Nederl.

Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 38: 188–198.von Koenigswald, G. H. R. (1936). Ein fossiler Hominide aus dem Altpleistocan Ostjavas.

De Ing. Nederl.-Indie 3(4): 149–157.von Koenigswald, G. H. R. (1940a). Preliminary note on new remains of Pithecanthropus

from Central-Java, Proceedings of the Third Congress of Prehistorians of the Far East,24th January–30th January, 1938, Raffles Museum and Government Printing Office,Singapore, pp. 91–95.

von Koenigswald, G. H. R. (1940b). Neue Pithecanthropus-Funde 1936–1938. Ein Beitragzur Kenntnis der Praehominiden. Dienst. Mijnb. Ned.-Indie Wet. Med. no. 28: 1–218.

von Koenigswald, G. H. R. (1967). Die Pithecanthropus-kiezen uit de collectie Dubois. Konin-klijke Akademische Wetenschappen Versl. Verg. Afd. Naturkuunde 76: 42–45.


von Koenigswald, G. H. R. (1968). Das absolute Alter des Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois.In Kurth, G. (ed), Evolution und Hominization, Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, pp. 195–203.

von Koenigswald, G. H. R. (1982). Distribution and evolution of the orang utan, Pongopygmaeus (Hoppius), In L. E. M. de Boer (ed.) The Orang utan: Its Biology and Conserva-tion. W. Junk, The Hague, pp. 1–15.

Watanade, N., and Kadar, D. (eds.), (1985). Quaternary Geology of the Hominid Fossil BearingFormations in Java: Report of the Indonesia–Japan Joint Research Project, CTA-41,1976–1979, Geological Research and Development Centre, Special Publication 4, Ban-dung, Indonesia.

Weidenreich, F. (1937). The dentition of Sinanthropus pekinensis: A comparative ondontogra-phy of the hominids. Paleontol. Sinica new ser. D, no. 1, 1–180 (text); 1–121 (atlas).

Widianto, H. (1991). The hominid dental remains of Java: a metrical study. In Bellwood, P.(ed.), Indo-Pacific Prehistory 1990, Proceedings of the 14th Congress of the Indo-PacificPrehistory Association, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, Vol. 2, Bull. Indo-Pacif. Prehist. Assoc.11, Canberra, Australia, pp. 23–35.

Widianto, H. (1993). Unite et diversite des hominides fossiles de Java: Presentation de resteshumains fossiles inedits. Ph.D. Dissertation, Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Insti-tut de Paleontologie Humaine, Paris.

Widianto, H., Simanjuntak, T., and Toha, B. (1996). Laporan Penelitian Sangiran: PenelitianTentang Manusia Purba, Budaya, dan Lingkungan. Berita Penelitian Arkeologi No. 46,Proyek Penelitian Arkeologi Jakarta, Pusat Penelitian Arkeologi Nasional, DepartemenPendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Widianto, H., Toha, B., Simanjuntak, T., and Hidayat, M. (1997). Laporan Penelitian SitusSangiran: Proses Sedimentasi, Posisi Stratigrafi dan Kronologi Artefak Pada EndapanPurba Seri Kabuh dan Seri Notopuro. Berita Penelitian Arkeologi No. 1, Bagian ProyekPenelitian Purbakala Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, Balai Arkeologi Yogyakarta, PusatPenelitian Arkeologi Nasional, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Yogyakarta,Indonesia.

Widiasmoro (1998). Late Tertiary–early Quaternary magmatic arc and its relationship tothe sedimentation processes in Sangiran, Central Java. In Simanjuntak, H. T. (ed.),International Colloquium on Sangiran: Man, Culture, and Environment in the Pleistocene,Solo, Indonesia. Japan Foundation and National Research Centre of Archaeology, Ja-karta, pp. 45–46.

Yokoyama, T. S., Hadiwisastra, S., Hantoro, W., Matsuda, T., and Nishimura, S. (1980a). K-Ar age of the ‘‘Lahar Tuff’’ lowest part of the Pucangan formation, Pleistocene ofSangiran, Central Java, Indonesia. Riset, Geologi dan Pertambangan, Lembaga IlmuPengetahuan Indonesia 3: 1–7.

Yokoyama, T. S., Hadiwisastra, S., Hayashida, A., and Hantoro, W. (1980b). Preliminaryreport on the paleomagnetism of the Plio-Pleistocene series in Sangiran and Trinil areas,Central Jawa, Indonesia. In Nishimura, S. (ed.), Physical Geology of Indonesian IslandArcs, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 88–98.

Yokoyama, T. S., and Koizumi, I. (1989). Marine transgressions on the Pleistocene Pucanganformation in the Sangiran area, Central Java, Indonesia. Paleogeogr., Paleoclimat., Paleoe-col. 72: 177–193.

Yoshikawa, S., and Suminto (1985). Tuff layers and pumice tuff beds of the Pliocene andPleistocene sediments in the Sangiran area. In Watanabe, N., and Kadar, D. (eds.),Quaternary Geology of the Hominid Fossil Bearing Formations in Java, Geological Re-search and Development Centre Special Publication 4, Bandung, Indonesia, pp. 97–104.

Zaim, Y., Larick, R., Ciochon, R. L., Suminto, Rizal, Y., and Sujatmiko (1999). Karakteristiksatuan Lahar Bawah dari formasi Pucangan di Sangiran, Jawa Tengah. Buletin Geologi(Institut Teknologi Bandung) 31(2): 67–84.

lithostratigraphic context for kln-1993.05-snj, a fossil colobine maxilla from jokotingkir, sangiran...

Documents