relocation of the 1936 mojokerto skull discovery site near perning

Journal of Human Evolution 50 (2006) 431e451

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

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

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

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

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

Received 22 November 2004; accepted 3 November 2005

Abstract

The fossil calvaria known as the Mojokerto child’s skull was discovered in 1936, but uncertainties have persisted about its paleoenvironmen-tal context and geological age because of difficulties in relocating the discovery site. Past relocation efforts were hindered by inaccuracies in oldbase maps, intensive post-1930s agricultural terracing, and new tree and brush growth. Fortunately geologic cross sections and site photographsfrom 1936-1938dnot fully utilized in past relocation fieldworkdclosely circumscribe site geography and geology. These documents match theconditions at just one sandstone outcrop. It is situated on the southern margin of a topographic nose at the upper end of a w18 m-wide gully(w0663760 m E, 9183430 m N, UTM Zone 49M), w15 m southeast of the Kumai et al. (1985) relocation. The relocated discovery bedis w3.3 m of fossiliferous pebbly sandstone, a river-channel deposit cut into tuffaceous mudstone. The sandstone and mudstone beds correspondto original site descriptions. Pebbly sandstone is also found within the skull.

The calvaria is well-preserved and taphonomically similar to large and fragile specimens found among several hundred vertebrate fossilsexcavated from the sandstone in 2001-2002. Since no well-preserved fossils were found intact at the surface of the sandstone, the good conditionof the Mojokerto skull suggests that it was buried fully when discovered. The relocated hominin bed is the uppermost fluvial sandstone of a ma-rine-deltaic sequence in the upper Pucangan Formation. The Mojokerto child probably died along the ancient seacoast, judging from the largeextent of the deltaic facies and evidence that the calvaria experienced minimal transport. The relocated discovery bed is w20 m stratigraphicallyabove the horizon from which the widely cited 1.81� 0.04 Ma 40Ar/39Ar date for the skull (Swisher et al., 1994, Science 263, 1118) wasobtained. Additional field and laboratory results will be required to determine the skull’s age.� 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

* Corresponding author. P.O. Box 548, Bastrop, TX 78602, USA. Tel.: þ1 512 303 9501.

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

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

(C. Hertler).

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

doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.11.002

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

Introduction

The fossil calvaria found in 1936 near Perning, East Java,and known as the Mojokerto child’s skull (Figs. 1 & 2) appearsto indicate that Homo occupied a marine-coast habitat in thePlio-Pleistocene as early as w1.8 Ma. Such an age wouldmake the Mojokerto one of the oldest non-African homininfossils discovered. The marine-coast setting is quite unlikehabitats known for mid-Pleistocene and older hominin popula-tions outside Java.

Efforts to confirm the geological age of the skull and ex-plore the implications of its paleoenvironment have been frus-trated in recent years by uncertainty over the bedrock origin ofthe fossil and field location of the discovery bed. The historyof the find has been evaluated in detail recently (Huffmanet al., 2005), reaffirming an in situ provenience for the homi-nin fossil. Here we document the field relocation of the

discovery site and bed, and discuss the importance of the relo-cation for dating the skull and linking it to a seacoast habitat.

Andoyo, a geological assistant with the Geological Surveyof the Netherlands Indies (Survey), found the Mojokerto skullat a hillside exposure of the Pucangan Formation while search-ing systematically for vertebrate fossils (Huffman et al., 2005).Survey geologist Johan Duyfjes, who had mapped the areageologically, examined the site and emphatically assertedthat the skull had been excavated from bedrock at a depth of1 m. Survey paleontologist G.H. Ralph von Koenigswald iden-tified the specimen as an early hominin. Quaternary geologistHelmut de Terra and archaeologist Hallam L. Movius visitedthe site with von Koenigswald in 1938 and concurred withDuyfjes’ geological assessment of the skull’s context (de Terraet al., 1938).

By WWII, scientists generally accepted the paleontologicaldetermination and considered the Mojokerto skull to be among

Jetis

m52

50m

m0

m57

0663000 m E

0005819N

m 00038190001819

00068190004819

0002819

0665000

0664000 m E

MOJOKERTO

PERNING

Sumbersuko

Sumbertengu

Sambikerep

Klagen

m05

m05

C

Sumberglagah

m52TopographicContour(CI=12.5 m)

Road

Trail

Village

Figure 2A

Mojokerto skulldiscovery area(Figure 2B)

UTM Grid(Zone 49M)

0 1 km

0663000 m

B Java Sea

1000M-

Skull Site

PacificOcean

Indian OceanEASTERN JAVA

B

A

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

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

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

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

skullcap.

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

B

A B

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

1936 maps (Andoyo, 1936; Duyfjes, 1936) to be located east of the tributary of Kali Klagen (Klagen Creek) that is shown in (B). The attributes of the discovery site

and bed, as indicated in 1936-1938 descriptions and documents (Figs. 3A & 5-7), match the geographical and geological conditions at only one locality, our

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

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

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

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

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

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

the oldest hominin fossils known, based on publications thatdescribed the discovery location and geology (Duyfjes,1936, 1938b; von Koenigswald, 1936a,b, 1940; de Terra,1943). Regrettably, the Survey left no permanent marker atthe discovery site, Duyfjes died during World War II, andvon Koenigswald left Java permanently in 1946. As a conse-quence of these and other events, confusion arose over thegeographic and stratigraphic position of the find.

Interest in the Mojokerto skull surged following the 1994publication of a 1.81� 0.04 Ma 40Ar/39Ar date on horn-blende from samples of the Pucangan Formation collectedin the discovery area (Swisher et al., 1994, 2000). However,questions remain about this date, with the field identificationof the discovery site and the relationship of the hominin bedto the dated rock being in doubt. Uncertainties such as thesehave clouded paleoanthropological interpretation of theMojokerto fossil for years (de Vos, 1985, 1994; Semah,1986; Theunissen et al., 1990; Hyodo et al., 1993; Walker

and Shipman, 1996; Lewin, 1998; Klein, 1999; Wolpoff,1999; Langbroek and Roebroeks, 2000; Swisher et al.,2000; Shipman, 2001; Huffman, 2001a; Klein and Edgar,2002; Morwood et al., 2003).

Regardless of the exact age of the Mojokerto skull, itspaleoenvironmental setting will remain important to under-standing early human evolution. Java continues to be the ear-liest maritime terrain known to have been inhabited by earlyhominins, and marine-coast adaptations potentially playeda significant, yet little-understood role in the early homininlineage. The ancient landscape in the Homo erectus districtof eastern Java is notable for its variety of seacoasts, as wellas volcanic mountains, non-volcanic uplands, river valleys,and lake margins (Huffman, 1997, 1999).

Moreover, during periods of low Plio-Pleistocene sea levelwhen the Java Sea and other parts of the Sunda Shelf were par-tially exposed, eastern Java was on the southern rim of a broadterrain inferred to have contained coastal lowlands, lakes,


lagoons and bays (Huffman, 2001b). Given its depositionalsetting in a delta along a marine embayment, the Mojokertochild offers a unique opportunity to understand Homo erectusbehavior in the seacoast habitats of the region, as well as pro-viding clues to the ecology and dispersal of early Homo alongthe coasts of Eurasia.

The potential benefit of clarifying the paleoenvironmentand age of the Mojokerto skull prompted us to attempta relocation of the discovery site and bed in 2001-2002(Huffman and Zaim, 2003). We succeeded in this effort byusing 1936-1938 maps, cross sections, reports and photographs(Figs. 3A & 5-7; Huffman et al., 2002). The documents hadnot been fully utilized for relocation before but closely definethe geologic and geographic parameters of the discovery.

Our relocation results include a new geological cross sec-tion, stratigraphic column, geographically referenced map,aerial photograph, and modern photograph of the discoverysite (Figs. 3B, 4 & 8-10). We address the Mojokerto skull’staphonomy as it relates to the fossils excavated from the relo-cated discovery bed, and the age of the hominin based uponpublished studies. This information, together with ongoing

work on the paleoenvironment and geochronology of the skull,will contribute to more confident interpretation of the homininfossil in terms of human evolution.

Previous relocation efforts

Scientists have had little difficulty using the Duyfjes’ mapsand descriptions to locate the general discovery area and iden-tify the sequence of strata in the Pucangan Formation fromwhich the fossil was recovered (Jacob, 1972; Sartono et al.,1981; Kumai et al., 1985; Semah, 1986; Hyodo et al., 1992,1993; Swisher et al., 2000; Huffman, 2001a; Morwoodet al., 2003). The sequence is moderately well exposed inthe low hills north of Perning village (Figs. 1-4) where thePucangan and Kabuh Formations crop out along a prominentanticline (Kedungwaru Anticline; Duyfjes, 1934, 1936, 1938a,b).However, four circumstances have hindered relocating theexact site of discovery.

First, since the 1930s, agricultural terracing has removed,covered, and recontoured small-scale topographic featuresthroughout the Perning district. These changes affected the

MOJOKERTO CHILD’S SKULL

DISCOVERY RELOCATIONCommemorativeMonument

39Ar / 40Ar Sample 0 20MV = H

A S NS

B

1

1Irrigated Field

1 = Tuffaceous sandstone 2 = Tuff S = Discovery spot of Skull After Duyfjes, ‘36, ’38b

Jacob locations#2 ~ #1

Kumailocation

Duyfjes

Map Loction

2

5m

SANDSTONE& MUDSTONE

SANDSTONE

Delta - Front Facies Delta Plain Facies

(Swisher et al., 1994)

“MONUMENT”SANDSTONE

SANDSTONE MUDSTONEPaleosol

Marine Facies

gully

main ridgenosesmall ridge

broad field

tributaryKaliKlagen

S N

Fig. 3. Geologic cross sections of the Mojokerto skull site. (A) is from Duyfjes (1936, 1938b; legend translated). (B) was made using a Total Data Station, and

extends southward through the Mojokerto skull site relocation to the cliff-face outcrop of the Monument Sandstone (Fig. 2B) where T. Jacob contends that the skull

was found (Jacob location 2; Swisher et al., 2000). The arrows leading from (A) to (B) indicate our repositioning of Duyfjes’ cross section (A) on our own (B).

Comparison of the cross sections shows how the geology and geography of the discovery site match conditions at the relocated site and are incompatible with those

at Jacob’s locations 1 and 2 (see also Table 1). Note that Duyfjes’ cross section (A) indicates that the hominin fossil was found in the basal portion of the discovery

sandstone. Swisher et al. (1994, 2000) obtained a 1.81� 0.04 Ma 40Ar/39Ar date from pumice-pebble- and sedimentary-matrix-hornblende collected from the Mon-

ument Sandstone (our name for the unit) at Jacob location 2. The dated bed is mostly volcaniclastic sandstone and conglomerate, but Swisher et al. (1994, 2000:45)

report sampling a primary volcanic deposit, ‘‘a tuff layer that appeared to consist almost entirely of pumice and volcanic matrix.’’ They also measured normal

remanent magnetism in samples from two clay layers at the locality, and interpreted these results to indicate the presence of the Olduvai subchron

(1.77d1.95 Ma; see Cande and Kent, 1995; Gibbard et al., 2004; Gradstein et al., 2004, for geomagnetic polarity time scale, GPTS, and chronostratigraphic ter-

minology). The Monument Sandstone is w20 m stratigraphically below the relocated hominin bed. Hyodo et al. (1992, 1993, 2002) found normal and intermediate

polarities at nine levels extending stratigraphically upwards from the base of the Monument Sandstone (their unit SGI) to 3.2-5.0 m above the base of the relocated

hominin bed (their unit SG2). They assigned this stratigraphic interval to the Jaramillo subchron (0.99e1.07 Ma; see, Semah, 1986, for additional paleomagnetic

results). Morwood et al. (2003) report pumice-zircon fission-track dates of 1.49� 0.13 and 1.43� 0.15 Ma on the Monument Sandstone (sampled in Perning road

quarry) and relocated hominin bed, respectively.


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

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

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

mollusks and are regional mapping marker units in the Pucangan Formation

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

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

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

sandstone and conglomerate is volcaniclastic and frequently cross bedded;

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

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

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

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

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

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

mudstone. DB is the uppermost fluvial sandstone in the delta-plain sequence,

and is capped by an unconformity having at least local importance (noted by

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

Measured sections of this sequence also have been published by Duyfjes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1938a,b), would comprise the post-Jaramillo period of w0.99 Ma and equate

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

discovery area (Fig. 2B), leaving little possibility that the shal-low discovery pit of the Mojokerto skull could have survivedthe last 60þ years. Second, topographic contour lines on the1936 maps are too stylized to accurately reflect the landscapedetails indicated in the old documents. Third, no geographicco-ordinates, such as latitude and longitude, were includedon Duyfjes’ map, nor were any coordinates reported for theMojokerto skull site during the 1930s. Fourth, several reloca-tion approaches were employed in the past, and their contra-dictory results are hard to evaluate due to incompletedocumentation of the relocation efforts.

In 1969 Teuku Jacob made the first reported attempt to relo-cate the point where the Mojokerto skull was found. Apparentlywithout revealing the exact reasoning behind his choice, Jacobidentified the discovery site as a meter-deep rectangular pit‘‘measuring four feet by eight feet . in the middle of a barrenfield.’’ He went again to Perning in 1975, this time with Andoyo,who pointed out a different location for the find (Hyodo et al.,1993; Walker and Shipman, 1996; Swisher et al., 2000:42-43,reported the date of the Andoyo visit as 1969). It has recentlybecome clear that by 1990 Andoyo’s recollection of 1936 eventswas in error (Huffman et al., 2005). His memory of the locationof the site may also have been unreliable in 1975.

Indonesian and Japanese geologists reexamined the Pucan-gan Formation in the general discovery area in 1976-1978. Notknowing of Jacob’s work (Hyodo et al., 1993), they selectedanother location and concluded:

Although we were unable to determine exactly the site andhorizon of the P. [Pithecanthropus] modjoketensis find, thelocality which we assumed and showed in . [a sketchmap] coincides with the locality drawn in Duyfjes’(1936) geological map. The stratum at this locality containsmany vertebrate fossils and resembles the lithofacies ofthe P. modjokertensis-bearing bed described by Duyfjes.(Kumai et al., 1985:61).

Their locality, which we call the Kumai location, is in an ag-ricultural field on a topographic nose where they collected ver-tebrate fossils on the surface in September 1978 (Fig. 2B);team leader N. Watanabe, now deceased, selected the locationbased on information provided by local villagers, togetherwith the distribution of vertebrate fossils in the discoveryarea, as determined by fieldwork (H. Kumai, pers. comm.,2000, 2002).

In 1992, Jacob showed Garniss Curtis and Carl Swisher a 2-3 m high cliff-face outcrop of conglomeratic sandstone belowa recently constructed monument commemorating the Mojo-kerto discovery (Swisher et al., 2000:42-43; see also Hyodoet al., 1993:180). Jacob indicated that the cliff was where An-doyo said the skull was found. The spot is w60 m from thelocation that Jacob identified as the discovery site in 1969.

We call the bedrock exposed in this cliff and field the Mon-ument Sandstone (Huffman and Zaim, 2003), and refer to the1969 and 1992 localities as Jacob location 1 and Jacob loca-tion 2, respectively. Jacob 2 is w110 m south of the Kumailocation. We do not know the exact position of Jacob location1, only that it must sit between his location 2 and the Kumai


location. The relationship of the three locations is most clearlyillustrated in Fig. 3B.

Jacob himself has not published details about his relocationefforts in the years since he took Andoyo to Perning. Concernabout the relocation issue led Susan Anton, Garniss Curtis,Carl Swisher and Agus Suprijo (Jacob’s assistant) to attemptto pinpoint the field location of the discovery from several1930s photographs. They did not find the site, but believedthat it ‘‘must be within a few meters, or perhaps a few tensof meters, distant from the Mojokerto monument’’ (Swisheret al., 2000:98). This is near the Monument Sandstone outcropwhere in 1992 they collected the rock sample used for datingpurposes (Fig. 3B).

Our initial fieldwork in 1999 and 2000 indicated that thestratigraphic difference between beds at the Kumai and Jacob2 locations was of potential significance in assessing themeaning of the published radioisotopic date for the skull(Huffman, 2001a). About the same time, Morwood et al.(2003) concluded that the find site was near Jacob 2, but didnot publish the reasoning behind their choice. A more compre-hensive relocation effort was needed.

Relocation of the discovery site and bed

In 2001 and 2002, we relocated the discovery outcrop of theMojokerto skull, and found numerous in situ vertebrate fossilsin the relocated hominin bed (Huffman et al., 2002). We alsomapped the area around the relocated site with a Total DataStation, measured detailed stratigraphic sections through thediscovery sequence, and determined the stratigraphic level ofthe relocated discovery bed (Figs. 2B, 3B, 4 & 8-10; Huffmanand Zaim, 2003). To achieve a reliable relocation, we com-pared old maps to new ones, and then far more importantly,matched 1930s photographs and descriptions to conditionson the ground.

1936 & recent maps

We first sought to constrain the relocation effort by compar-ing 1936 maps to recent maps and aerial photographs, whichhad not been available to previous investigators. The approachseemed promising, because Duyfjes’ (1936) published loca-tion is the same as the one that Andoyo (1936) inscribed ona 1:25,000 topographic map five days after the discovery,and Andoyo had apparently surveyed the point with a transit(Huffman et al., 2005). Insurmountable problems arose, how-ever, when we overlaid 1936 maps on a composite of the newdigital topographic maps and high-resolution aerial photo-graphs (Figs. 1C & 2A).

There is a considerable difference in topographic contour-ing on the old and new maps. A tributary of Klagen Creek(Kali Klagen), which lies west of the discovery site (Figs.1C & 2B), is positioned too far to the east on the 1936maps. The geographic placement of roads and road intersec-tions also is off by 20-50 m at some points. These inaccuraciescan be detected because an Army Map Service (1942/1943)

chart of the area is available. It has road tracks and contouringsimilar to Duyfjes’ and Andoyo’s maps, and corresponds moreclosely to the aerial photograph than do the maps used by thediscoverers. Drafting errors evidently were introduced whenSurvey personnel prepared the hand-drawn base maps onwhich Andoyo plotted the discovery location. The best resultthat our comparison of old and new maps achieved was a gen-eral match of hills, valleys, creeks and roads.

Based upon this match, the discovery point taken fromDuyfjes’ map is repositioned on the present-day landscape ata small ridge lying between the Kumai and the Jacob 2 loca-tions (Fig. 2B). This point is 80-100 m from the locations.When either location was forced to fit the point on the 1936maps, geographic features did not line up on the overlay. How-ever, the geographical accuracy of the point on Andoyo’s(hence Duyfjes’) 1936 map cannot be verified because An-doyo’s survey notes have not been located. The starting placeof his traverse on the day of the discovery may have been atone of the areas inaccurately drawn on the base map. Andoyoalso might have made mistakes while surveying. Therefore,the map overlay exercise does not exclude or favor any loca-tion within the discovery area.

1930s documentation

The inconclusive results from the use of map overlays ledus to compare information from other 1930s site documentswith the landscape and geology in the discovery area. Fortu-nately the old documents allow for a precise reconstructionof the geography and geology around the site.

The documentation indicates that the discovery was madeat an outcrop of conglomeratic tuffaceous sandstone in theupper Pucangan Formation; the strata at the site dippedw10 � along the northern flank of the Kedungwaru Anticline(Andoyo, 1936; Duyfjes, 1936, 1938a,b; von Koenigswald,1936a,b; de Terra, 1943; Movius, 1944:82, termed the litho-logy ‘‘breccia’’). Terrace deposits were absent, and soil devel-opment was limited, so that near-surface deposits did notobscure the bedrock geology at the site (Fig. 3A; de Terraet al., 1938; de Terra, 1943; Movius, 1944; this situationhas been confirmed by Kumai et al., 1985; Huffman, 2001a;Huffman and Zaim, 2003).

Fragmentary vertebrate fossils occurred at the surface ofthe site; their presence is what prompted Andoyo to dig therein February 1936 (Duyfjes, 1936). Although in situ fossilswere not abundant in the discovery sandstone (von Koenigs-wald, 1936b), Andoyo evidently found the skull after diggingonly 1 m deep into the bedrock (Huffman et al., 2005). His ex-cavation notched into the bedrock, and was no more thanw2 m north-south and w7 m east-west, even after additionaldigging took place during April 1936 (Figs. 3A, 5A & C, 6A& 7; see also North View 1 in Huffman et al., 2005, figure 10).The skull was found in the basal 0.5 m of the sandstone bed,which has a total stratigraphic thickness of at least 4 m onDuyfjes’ site cross section. The dip drawn on the cross sectionis, however, w14 �, not the w10 � stated in written accounts.The bed therefore might be somewhat thinner than 4 m.


The cross section indicates that the discovery pit was loc-ated on the north side of a w16-m wide, w7-m deep gully,which was floored by an irrigated agricultural field(Fig. 3A). The discovery bed was underlain by w2-3 m ofwhite-weathering argillaceous tuff. This was underlain by an-other sandstone bed, which made up the lower portion of thenorth wall of the gully and also contained in situ non-homininmammalian fossils (Duyfjes, 1936, 1938b; de Terra, 1943).Sandstone comprised the entire southern wall of the gully(Fig. 3A).

The portion of the gully near the site was located onlya short distance east of a tributary of Kali Klagen (Fig. 5A& C). The gully ended eastward at a terrace wall (Fig. 6A).There was a broad field beyond the wall and southeast ofthe site (Fig. 7). The gully was situated on the south side ofa low topographic nose that was a prominence on a main ridgelying to the north (Fig. 6A). The tributary to Kali Klagen oc-cupied a broad valley northwest of the nose but narrowedsouthward at the western tip of the nose (Figs. 5, A & C, & 7).The Perning-Sumbertengu road, the only one in the area, wasclearly visible from the site along the western ridge line.The ridge rose southward in the area directly west of thesite (Figs. 5, A & C, & 7A).

2001-2002 field relocation

Our field relocation efforts were conducted at the height ofthe dry season when vegetation had died back and fields werefallow. Our crew devoted almost a week to clearing brush andscraping soil away from key hill slopes. This exposed impor-tant bedrock outcrops and allowed us to better compare thelandscape evident in 1930s’ photographs to the current terrain(see Fig. 9, for example).

We used high-resolution aerial photographs and modern to-pographic maps (enlarged to as much as 1:500), hand-heldGPS units, and a Total Data Station (TDS) to establish ourfield positions (Fig. 2). Earlier efforts utilized pre-WWII topo-graphic maps and less precise means of geographic positioning(e.g., Kumai et al., 1985, made a plane-table ‘‘geological routemap,’’ while Swisher et al., 2000, used a held GPS; H. Kumaiand C. C. Swisher III, pers. comm., 2000). Our investigation ofthe stratigraphy of the hominin-producing sequence (Figs. 3B& 4), carried out concurrently with relocation efforts, benefit-ed greatly from fresh exposures of the Pucangan Formation inan active quarry along the Perning-Sumbertengu road(Fig. 2A; see photograph in Huffman and Zaim, 2003).

A comparison of the 1936-1938 site photographs and writtendescriptions with conditions visible on the ground today permitthe exclusion of portions of the area as candidates for the discov-ery site (Table 1; Fig. 3). Most notable among the excludedpoints is Jacob location 2, the site where Swisher et al. (1994,2000) obtained the samples for their w1.8 Ma date (Huffmanet al., 2002). Also excluded are locations elsewhere in the Mon-ument Sandstone, including Jacob location 1, and the smallridge where we repositioned the site using the Duyfjes map.

Only one locality in the discovery area matches the descrip-tions and photographs from the 1930s (Huffman et al., 2002).

Table 1

Topographic and geologic features of the Mojokerto skull sitedbased on 1936-

1938 documentsdcontrasted with features of locations that we exclude as can-

didates for the site. The locations are: SR, the small ridge (the location trans-

ferred from Duyfjes, 1936, and Andoyo, 1936, maps); J1, Jacob location 1

(in a broad field south of the small ridge); J2, Jacob location 2 (at the cliff below

the commemorative monument at the southwest corner of the broad field); CM,

a cliff w70 m east of the monument where there is a 16-m wide gully.

Location Features of the location Contrasting feature of the site

SR

� w5-m tuffaceous mudstone

crops out on steep, south-

facing slope below a sand-

stone bed1[3B]

� a valley occurs to the north of

the location [3B; 8]

� a broad field lies to the south

of the location [2B; 3B]

� a gully and nose lie to the

northwest of the location,

separating it from the Kali

Klagen tributary; the tributary

is >15 m below the small

ridge [2B; 8]

� only 2-3 m tuffaceous mud-

stone crops out on the steep

slope below the hominin

sandstone [3A]

� a ridge occurs to the north of

the site [6]

� a gully lies to the south of the

site [3A]2

� the tributary is directly north-

west of the nose with the site;

the tributary is 7-15 m below

the nose [5; 7]

J1

� lies in a broad flat area [2B;

3B]

� the small ridge is to the north

[2B; 3B]

� lies on a topographic nose [3

A]

� a gentle hill slope is to the

north [6]

J2

� at a cliff face [3B]

� lies directly north of the Kali

Klagen tributary [2B; 3B]

� the tributary lies in a narrow

valley near the location;

a steep-sided ridge is farther

to the west [2]

� ridges hide the Perning-Sum-

bertengu road

� the Monument Sandstone oc-

curs without a tuffaceous

mudstone bed [3B]

� no vertebrate fossils were

found3

� on a hillside [6]

� lies north of 16-m wide gully

that is well east of the tribu-

tary [3 A; 6]

� the tributary is in broad val-

ley near the site; the slope

of the ridge farther to the

west rises gently [5; 7]

� the road is visible [5; 7]

� the discovery sandstone over-

lies a 2-3 m thick tuffaceous

mudstone [3 A]

� many fossils occur (Table 2)

CM

� at a cliff face above a 16-m

wide gully

� the gully narrows eastward

into a small gorge [2B]

� a field and then the small

ridge lie to the north

� on a hillside above a w16-m

wide gully [6]

� the gully broadens eastward

into a field [7]

� a hill slope rising to a ridge

lies on the north [6]

The numbers in brackets refer to Figure numbers. Figures 2B, 3B and 8 identify the

locations. Figure 3 compares 1936 and 2002 cross sections that show key features

of the locations and the site. Figures 5-7 present historic photographs of the site.1 Vertebrate fossils were collected at the surface on the north side of the

ridge, suggesting the possibility that this sandstone is fossil-bearing, but test

pits in the bedrock recovered no fossils.2 There is no field evidence that farmers filled a gully and removed the hill; an el-

derly farmer, who OFH interviewed through a translator in 2000 about the possibil-

ity of a hill having been removed, said no earthmoving on this scale had taken place.3 Jacob reported that he found several fossils in two 1� 2� 2 m pits dug in

the sandstone near the monument (pers. comm. to OFH/YZ in 2001); however,

our fieldwork is significant for noting an absence of fossils in the Monument

Sandstone, both at the cliff and elsewhere in the areadthis includes the size-

able exposure of the Sandstone in the Perning road quarry, which we examined

in 1999, 2001 and 2002, as it was expanded (Fig. 2A); see also Kumai et al.

(1985) and Hyodo et al. (1993).


B

1

D

3

3

2

1

TREES &BUSHES(partial)

BANANA PLANTAT MOJOKERTOSKULL SITE

YOKE &BASKETS

VONKOENIGSWALD

2 GULLY

1 NOSE

RIDGE3

A

C

Perning-Sumbertengu Road

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This site is north of the small ridge and close to, but not exactlyat, the Kumai location. Figure 8 illustrates the topographic set-ting north of the small ridge. The Kumai location sitsatop a topographic nose. A flat-bottomed gully lies to the southof the nose, and a broad valley is to its northwest along the trib-utary of Kali Klagen. The nose merges eastward into a slope

that rises northward into a large ridge. This is the main east-west ridge in the discovery area. In general form, the nose,gully, valley and ridge are identical to the principal features sur-rounding the site, as determined from 1930s’ records.

The gully terminates eastward at a terrace wall (Fig. 6A).Approximately 18-m wide by w5-m deep, the gully is only


B

B

A

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

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

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

north-south and w7 m east-west (¼w7 m3 with the volume approximated as a right-triangular prism). Sandstone formed the back walls of the pit, judging from old

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

w2 m wider and shallower than the topographic profile onDuyfjes’ cross section (Fig. 3). The situation therefore fitsthe requirement based upon the old documents that the dis-covery site is north of the upper reaches of a small gully. Be-yond the terrace wall to the east, the agricultural fieldswiden, again matching conditions in an old site photograph(Fig. 7). The gully-nose combination no longer exists eastof the wall, and thus the site could not have been locatedthere (Fig. 8).

The outcrop geology at the upper end of the gully also cor-responds to the old site documents, particularly Duyfjes’ crosssection (Fig. 3A). Sandstone makes up the entire south wall

and most of the north wall of the gully (Fig. 3B). A persistentlight-colored tuffaceous mudstone bed is exposed in the northwall between the sandstone and the agricultural soil of thenose (Fig. 9). The mudstone averages w2.2 m thick and variesin thickness from w1 to 3 m. It is overlain by several metersof pebbly (volcaniclastic) sandstone.

This sandstone is our candidate for the Mojokerto discoverybed. In addition to cropping out north and northeast of theupper end of the gully, the sandstone underlies the agriculturalsoil atop the nose (Fig. 9). The soil zone is where Kumai et al.(1985) made their surface collection of vertebrate fossils (H.Kumai, pers. comm., 2000).


B

A

B

C R O P P E D

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

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

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

grapher’s location. The man in the pit, H. de Terra or possibly H.L. Movius, was at approximately the same spot that the men were positioned in North View

1 (Huffman et al., 2005, figure 10) and North View 2 (Fig. 6B). This spot may have been known in the late 1930s to be the exact point of discovery of the Mo-

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

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

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

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

The relocated discovery sandstone is a fluvial deposit. It hasa broad channelized base, prominent cross-bed sets and otherbedding indications of mid-channel river bars, including pre-served dune surfaces (mega-ripples) on the bars. During2001-2002 we opened the lower 2 m of the sandstone for ex-cavation, and recovered several hundred vertebrate fossils.These include terrestrial mammals, crocodile, turtle, fish andfreshwater mollusks (Table 2; Huffman and Zaim, 2003;Zaim et al., 2003). The upper part of the sandstone was notexposed in our excavations, but must occur between nearbyoutcrops of fine-grained sandstone and mudstone. The fullthickness of the sandstone is w3.3 m using a 7.5 � dip(see below).

The relocated discovery bed is overlain by 4-5 m of mud-stone on which a paleosol had developed. This paleosol mud-stone is unconformably overlain by sandstone and mudstonewith burrows and marine mollusks. These beds are the basalstrata of a marine unit capped by Mollusk Member III, as map-ped by Duyfjes (1934, 1936, 1938b). Our relocated discovery

bed is therefore the uppermost fluvial sandstone of the coarselyclastic, rapidly prograding deltaic sequence lying betweenMollusk Members II and III (Figs. 3B & 4).

Kumai et al. (1985:59) present a stratigraphic sequence atour relocation site that is similar to the one that we observed.They apparently attributed the Mojokerto discovery site toa 1.3 m medium- to coarse-grained pebbly sand bed, overlainby 1.5 m of medium-grained sand with granules (Hyodo et al.,1993, referred these sands as SG2). They found 1.1 m of siltbelow their 2.8 m sand (equivalent to our w3.3 m relocateddiscovery sandstone). They report 3.5 m of silt above the sand-stone. These two silt beds correspond to our tuffaceous mud-stone and paleosol mudstone, respectively.

Determining the structural dip (and hence stratigraphicthickness) is problematic in the discovery area. The sedimen-tary succession consists of deltaic deposits with fore-set bed-ding, large-scale cross-bed sets, and cut-and-fill features thatconfound point observations of structural attitude (Fig. 4).We employ a 7.5 � average structural dip. This is based on


numerous individual strike and dip measurements taken whenmeasuring stratigraphic sections. Duyfjes’ report of a steeperdip at the site (10-14 �, see above) was probably due to his hav-ing less stratigraphic control in this complex sedimentary sit-uation. We note, for example, that the closest strike and dipvalues (7-15 �) on his 1934 geologic map were recorded alongthe Perning-Sumbertengu road. This is w500 m from the dis-covery site and >30 m stratigraphically below the relocatedhominin bed. The strata along the road preserve the foresetbedding with sedimentary and structural dip as high as 27 �.

Given the intensive agricultural terracing in the area, it isnot surprising that the 1936-1938 excavation pit no longer ex-ists, and that the present-day micro topography differs in smallways from the conditions shown in Duyfjes’ site cross sectionand the old photographs. These differences are reconciled ifwe assume that, since the 1930s, farmers flattened the nose,cut back the gully walls a bit, raised the gully floor withw2 m of fill, rebuilt the gully-field transition, and terracedthe hillside northeast of the site.

Micro-topographic changes such are these are certainlywithin the farmers’ earth-moving capabilities. For example,the local men hired for our excavation crew readily dugback the sandstone bedrock with their normal agriculturaltools and transported the debris to nearby fields in buckets.Moreover the changes that we infer to have occurred aroundthe site are within the range of modification evident many pla-ces in the Perning area, as the little-exploited 1930s landscapewas developed into the intensely farmed terrain of today.

Because the geology and geography immediately north of theupper end of the gully are, with the exceptions noted, to the sameas conditions documented for the discovery site in 1936-1938,we conclude that our relocation site and the sandstone that weexcavated are the Mojokerto skull site and the discovery bed.

1936-38 & 2001 photographs

In order to test the validity of our field relocation efforts andfix the position of the discovery site as precisely as possible, weoverlaid the old site photographs on images made in 2001. Thenew photographs were taken from vantage points that were asclose as possible to those used in 1936-1938. The overlaysmatch well (Figs. 9 & 10). We also plotted the vantage pointsand scene-center lines of the old photographs onto an aerial pho-tograph and a map. This more comprehensive form of compar-ison also verifies the relocation (Figs. 2A & 8).

Overlays were made for the 1936-1938 photographs that wecall North View 2 and Northwest View. The new north viewphotograph (Fig. 9) was taken from a spot high on the southgully wall. From this vantage point, the gully, gully-field tran-sition, nose, and main ridge to the north are visible in the samerelative positions as seen in North View 2. A new northwestview photograph was taken using similar criteria (Fig. 10).We are more confident in relocating the point from whichthe North View 2 photograph was taken than the location atwhich Northwest View was photographed.

The overlays for North View 2 and Northwest View weremade independently of one another. Each overlay was judged

to be correct when the ridge lines, gully and field boundaries,and other topographic features on the old images correspondedto those seen in the modern photographs (Huffman et al.,2002). Once this result was achieved, the 1936-1938 discoverypit was transferred to the new north view and northwest viewimages (Figs. 9 & 10). In both cases the pit transfers to thefield relocation of the discovery site. The transferred point issomewhat lower in elevation and farther to the south on themodern north view than on the northwest view. The topo-graphic features used to align the new and old photographsbegin to mismatch when the old images are shifted laterallyon the modern images in an amount that is equivalent toonly a few meters on the ground.

It was not possible to complete a Southwest View overlaycomparison. Numerous trees now line the north edge of thegully and obscure the view beyond the nose when lookingsouthwestward across the relocation from the point used forSouthwest View in 1938 (Figs. 5A & 8). It is also exception-ally difficult to stand near this point because the ground hasbeen cut away by agricultural terracing.

A map-view comparison of the 1936-1938 photographs andthe modern landscape provides an even more comprehensivetest of our relocation effort. Because trees do not hamper themap-view approach, we were able to include the SouthwestView along with the two other views. This method makesuse of the fact that the discovery pit lies at the approximatecenter of the three old photographs. In each case, the site fallsalong a map line (the scene-center line of the photograph) thatextends from the vantage point through the pit and across theterrain beyond. The intersection of the three scene-centerlines, once they are correctly positioned on the map, preciselydefines the map location of the discovery site.

To achieve this result, we constrained the vantage points ofthe North View 2, Northwest View and Southwest View to thesmall map areas that fieldwork indicated were acceptable. Wethen forced the scene-center lines to intersect at the relocationnorth of the upper end of the gully, but not necessarily at thebest field estimate of the relocation. We limited the pit to mod-ern locations where the pit floor would lie at or slightly belowthe projected contact between the tuffaceous mudstone and re-located hominin sandstone (Fig. 6). We allowed this positionto fall above the present-day land surface, where necessary,because of the likelihood that the rock around the Mojokertoskull was dug away completely in 1936 and the pit destroyedby farming activities since 1938. We assumed that the placewhere the man stood in the North View 2 photograph wasthe actual discovery point of the calvaria (Fig. 6).

The final positioning of the relocation site and vantage pointsproduces a close correspondence between the features seen inthe old photographs and the topographic elements of the modernterrain, both as represented on the map and aerial photograph(Figs. 2 & 8) and determined by fieldwork. For example, theSouthwest View scene-center line aligns along the nose(Fig. 8), and intersects the ridge with the Perning-Sumbertenguroad where it rises to the south (Figs. 2A, 5A & C). Additionally,the intersection of the scene-center line of the Northwest Viewand the road ridge closely approximates that found in the old


GULLY

FIELD

SMALL RIDGE

MAIN RIDGE

NOSE

BROAD

VALLEY

WEI

VW

S 5.giF

WEI

V W

N

01 &

7 .gi

F

WEI

V N

9 &

6 .

giF

STEEP SLOPESWITH TREES& BRUSH

OLD PHOTOGRAPHVANTAGE POINT &SCENE CENTERLINE

DUYFJES’ ‘36/’38BCROSS SECTION(FIGURE 3A)

DUYFJES1936 MAPLOCATION(APPROX.)

KUMAI ET AL.1985 HOMINIDSITE

mN

TERRACEDFIELDS INVALLEYS

TERRACEDFIELDS ONHILL SLOPES

WATER COURSE

2001-2002EXCAVATIONS

MOJOKERTOSKULL SITERELOCATION

0 20 40M

RELOCATIONSTrib

uta

ry

o

f

ne

ga

lK

i

la

K

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

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

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

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

photograph. Even the distinctive shape and high point of theridge line seen in 1938 are recognizable today.

The intersection of the scene-center lines in Fig. 8matches closely our best field estimate of the point wherethe man stood in North View 2. The comparison of 1936-1938 and 2001 photographs therefore substantiates our fieldrelocation.

This point is w3 m south of the nearest place in our exca-vations that we dug into the relocated discovery bed (w6 msouth of a concrete pillar inscribed ‘‘ITB August 2002’’ thatwe placed at the west end of our long excavation face atthe terrace wall; Fig. 8). We made a TDS measurement atbest field-estimate of the relocation, and also took 943 GPS(Garmin eTrex Vista set for WGS 84) readings at a singlestation in the TDS grid. The average of the readingsand TDS measurements combine to give UTM (Zone 49M)co-ordinates for the relocated site of 0663760 m E and9183430 m N.

Discussion

Bed & matrix lithology

The validity of our relocation might be tested further bycomparing the lithology and fossil taphonomy of the relocateddiscovery bed to the matrix in the Mojokerto specimen and itsstate of bone preservation. The lithological comparison isaddressed first.

In 1936, von Koenigswald (1936b:1001dtranslated)described the matrix as ‘‘greenish, slightly conglomeratic tuff-aceous sandstone.’’ The greenish color presumably indicatesthat the rock was little weathered, because weathering andsoil formation in the discovery area turns rock to brownishand reddish hues. Good quality photographs of the specimentaken in 1936 reveal fill that is consolidated, medium- tocoarse-grained, and apparently pebbly (Huffman and Zaim,2003; Huffman et al., 2005).


Kumai LocalityDiscovery Site

From North View 2

Agricultural Fill

WATER COURSE(hidden)

ESRUOC

RETAW

Fill

Mudstone

Sandstone

Field in Gully

Gully North Wall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duyfjes (1936, 1938bdtranslated) characterized the dis-covery bed as ‘‘conglomeratic sandstone’’ composed of sandand gravel of volcanic origin (volcaniclastic). Before visitingthe Mojokerto discovery field site, de Terra (1938;1943:443) studied the mineral composition of the fill withinthe skull and rock cleaned from it; after the fieldwork ‘‘inthe laboratory in Bandoeng, [de Terra] compared the materialfrom the pit and found it to be identical with the matrix.’’ Nomore detailed data from his comparison have been located.

The sandstone in the skull was covered with paint after deTerra’s examination, thus limiting direct observation and de-scription. During a hands-on examination of the fossil in1992, however, Swisher scraped away some of the paint andfound a light-colored pumice pebble in the matrix (Swisheret al., 2000:48, 87, photograph). Jacob later gave Swisherand colleagues a fragment of the pumice pebble. It playeda key role in their dating studies (Swisher et al., 1994, 2000).

Images of the matrix produced from computed tomography(CT) scanning have recently become available (Coqueugniotet al., 2004; Balzeau et al., 2005). Balzeau et al. (2005) findthat the matrix is heterogeneous. It contains a coarse layerin the antero-superior portion of the cranial cavity, and muchfiner-grained material elsewhere. Based upon images theypublished, the coarser layer is very-coarse-grained sandstonewith granules and pebbles.

Our excavations reveal substantial vertical and horizontalgrain-size variations in the relocated discovery bed. Medium-to very-coarse-grained, conglomeratic sandstone predominated.Granule-pebble conglomerate and fine-grained sandstone werepresent in lesser volumes. Only one thin lens of mudstone and

very-fine-grained sandstone was encountered within the portionof the bed that we exposed. The material immediately surround-ing our excavated fossils varied from coarse-grained sandstoneto pebble conglomerate. Only one fossil was encased in rock asfine as medium-grained sandstone.

The bed is gray when fresh, and reddish where affected byiron-oxide staining. The sandstone consists of subangular tosubrounded volcanic-rock fragments, feldspar, quartz andmafic minerals. Well-rounded, light-colored pebbles and smallcobbles of pumice with pyroxene and hornblende phenocrystsare a prominent gravel component (Huffman and Zaim, 2003).Most of the gravel consists of rounded, darker and denser vol-canic rock types, what Duyfjes (1938b) characterized as an-desite. The largest pumice clasts we found were 5-10 cm ingreatest dimension. This is several times larger than the typicaldarker and denser volcanic pebbles.

The pebbly coarse-grained fill in the skull appears to beclosely similar, if not identical, to the typical lithology ofthe relocated hominin bed. The skull matrix is consistent inthis way with the lithology of the bed. However, the Monu-ment Sandstone and some other units in the sequence containpebbly coarse-grained sandstone also. The pebbly matrixtherefore does not tie the skull to the relocated discoverybed unequivocally. The statement of Swisher et al.(1994:1119) that only one stratum in the discovery area (ourMonument Sandstone) contains ‘‘pumice and volcanic ma-trix’’ similar to the infilling of the Mojokerto skull is at oddswith our field observations.

Although the fine matrix in the skull is finer-grained thanthe bulk of the relocated hominin bed, the difference does


not eliminate this stratum as the source of the Mojokerto hom-inin fossil. The bed where we excavated it might have con-tained less fine-grained sandstone than it did at the point ofdiscovery, located several meters away. The calvaria alsomight have lain on a river bottom in a position that affectedthe sediment size coming into the cranial cavity. The fill mighthave been finer (or coarser) than the surrounding matrix. Fur-thermore, the grain size of the river sediment might havechanged over time in ways preserved within the calvaria butnot fully represented by the deposit. The matrix-bed compar-ison therefore is of limited value as a test for our relocationbecause of insufficient lithological information on the filland other uncertainties.

Mojokerto skull & 2001-2002 fossils

It would be valuable to compare the state of preservation ofthe hominin specimen and the vertebrate remains found with it

in 1936 to the fossils that we excavated from the relocatedhominin bed in 2001-2002. Regrettably, the 1936 non-homininfossils appear to have been lost, and von Koenigswald did notpublish a comparison of the fossilized condition of the child’sskull versus that of the associated fossil remains (Huffmanet al., 2005). Furthermore, we were not permitted to examinethe original Mojokerto skull.

Our comparison of the preservational states therefore waslimited to assessing the condition of our excavated fossilsfrom direct observation and the skull from casts, photographs,drawings and recently published analyses (Storm, 1994; An-ton, 1997; Huffman and Zaim, 2003; Coqueugniot et al.,2004; Balzeau et al., 2005; Krovitz and Shipman, in press).This comparison is nonetheless valuable. In addition to help-ing to evaluate our relocation results, it provides a basis fortesting the conclusion that skull was buried in sandstonewhen discovered and for proposing that the hominin died onthe Mojokerto coastal plain.

B

B

RIDGERIDGE

NOSENOSE

FIELDFIELD

Site

April 1938

August 2001

A

Perning-Sumbertengu Road

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

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

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

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

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

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

process, indicates the relocated Mojokerto discovery site.


The Mojokerto specimen is conspicuously well-preservedconsidering that it is a rather complete immature calvaria andwas deposited with gravelly sand in a high energy sedimentarycontext. The facial bones were apparently lost prior to deposi-tion as a result of a kind of damage (Le Fort III fracture) that iswidely observed in juvenile hominin cranial remains (Krovitzand Shipman, in press; P. Shipman, pers. communication,2004). Most of the zygomatic arches, the right frontal torusand the basilar occipital also were destroyed.

The preserved vault is w13 cm anteroposteriorly and onlya few millimeters thick. The coronal suture and perhaps theanterior fontanelle were not fully closed at the time of the child’sdeath (Balzeau et al., 2005). The bones of the vault were, how-ever, sufficiently fused to prevent further disarticulation. Thereis no recognized evidence of ante-mortem injury or carnivoredamage on the skull. Little if any indication of pre-burialweathering is found. Equally remarkable, given the sedimentarysetting, is the lack of noticeable fluvial abrasion of the bone.This is true even along the very thin edges of the fragile leftsupraorbital margin and the frontal zygomatic process.

Detached fragments of the right posterior orbit are embed-ded in the matrix of the specimen. While recently publishedCT scans show no other facial fragments embedded in thematrix, the scanning also reveals that the bony labyrinth, ves-tibule and cochlea are present on both sides, and the internalsurface of the cranial vault is well-preserved (Coqueugniotet al., 2004; Balzeau et al., 2005). This latter conclusion isalso indicated by venous markings visible on the natural en-docast where bone was apparently lost during collection(Krovitz and Shipman, in press). The brain tissue must havebeen largely, if not entirely, absent when sand filled the cranialcavity.

The vault and occipital were subtly deformed in shape afterburial. Several bone pieces were pushed into the matrix. Somefracture edges are beveled. This damage evidently took placebefore fossilization while the calvaria retained some plasticity(Krovitz and Shipman, in press). Other fractures penetrate intothe matrix (Balzeau et al., 2005). Late forming deformation ofthis kind is not surprising. The hominin bed was buried by sev-eral hundreds of meters of strata before folding, uplift and ero-sion brought it to the present-day ground surface (Duyfjes,1938a,b).

Based on the good condition of the calvaria, it scarcelyseems possible that the Mojokerto skull was either reworkedfrom a substantially older deposit or, once the vault was filledwith sand, moved for a long distance along the river bed. Ev-idently the calvaria was transported empty for only a short dis-tance as part of the gravelly bedload of the river.

No new hominin fossil specimens were found in our 2001-2002 excavations of the relocated Mojokerto discovery bed.All of the recovered vertebrate fossils are individual elementsor fragments of elements (Huffman and Zaim, 2003). Over20% of the 250 specimens collected have been identified tothe species, genus or family level. Identification was made pri-marily on the basis of teeth (Table 2). The vast majority of theexcavated vertebrate remains were broken prior to burial. Mostshow evidence weathering and abrasion. The assemblage also

includes, however, well-preserved specimens that are as large,fragile and little weathered as the juvenile hominin calvaria.

Seven specimens have a long dimension>10 cm: 1) a nearlycomplete and very well-preserved shed antler of Axis lydekkeri(w30 cm long; Zaim et al., 2003); 2) a complete bovid scapulawith spine (w25 cm long); 3) a nearly complete posterior tho-racic vertebra of proboscidean (w25 cm long); 4) a nearlycomplete cervid/small-bovid rib (w30 cm); 5) a partial artio-dactyl innominate (w20 cm long); 6) a largely complete leftcervid/small-bovid radius (w18 cm long); and 7) a partial tur-tle carapace. Other sizeable fossils include a well-preservedcubonavicular of a large bovid (w6 cm long), a right maxillafragment (w9 cm long) of Panthera tigris with canine and P3,a proboscidean thoracic neural spine (w10 cm long), anda partial left bovid ulna (w10 cm long).

In addition to a size >10 cm, several of these fossils shareother taphonomic similarities with the Mojokerto skull. Thebovid scapula preserves bone only a few millimeters thick atthe infraspinous fossa. This fossil does show some evidenceof weathering at the superior surface of the scapular spineand infraspinous fossa near the inferior angle. The artiodactylinnominate consists of an acetabulum w6 cm in diameter withpartial illium and ischium. This fossil was broken but not fullydisarticulated before burial, similar in history to the homininskull.

The proboscidea vertebra consists of the centrum and neu-ral arch with both the pre- and post-zygapophyses intact. Thisfossil is considerably more massive than the Mojokerto skulland particularly oversized when compared with the associatedrock clasts. The flat surfaces and edges of the proboscideanfossils show little if any evidence of weathering. The presenceof the w7 cm-long neural spine on the vertebral specimen anda separate thoracic neural spine are further indications of min-imal pre-burial weathering, breakage and fluvial transport ofthe proboscidean bone.

A spectrum of taphonomic histories is evident in the speci-mens that we excavated from the relocated hominin bed.Nonetheless, some of the fossils are clearly similar to theMojokerto skull in showing little indication of pre-burialweathering and abrasion. The condition of the child’s calvariatherefore is consistent with discovery in the relocated homininbed based upon its paleontological content. The newly exca-vated fossils also have several other implications for under-standing the Mojokerto skull discovery.

First, the fortuitous nature of the find is underscored by thesmall number of large fragile fossils that were found in therelocated hominin bed and on the surface in the other portionsof the Perning district that we surveyed. The excavated fossilswere dispersed in the relocated discovery sandstone at anaverage density of w3.75 specimens/m3. No densely fossilif-erous lens, lithology, or horizon was found. Several 1 m3-sizedvolumes of sandstone contained no fossils at all. The relocatedMojokerto discovery sandstone has a greater vertebrate-fossildensity than any other bed that we encountered in the vicinityof the discovery (see also Hyodo et al., 1993).

It therefore seems unlikely that Andoyo found a denselyfossiliferous deposit at the skull site in 1936. Rather, the


evidence indicates that he unearthed the juvenile hominincalvaria from sandstone having a modest density of vertebrateremains. And his discovery excavation may have been lessvolumetrically than 1 m3 and was probably less than w7 m3

in volume (Fig. 6).Second, because fragile fossils degrade severely when they

weather out of the relocated discovery sandstone, a specimenas well preserved as the hominin calvaria was unlikely to havebeen exposed to any significant surface weathering before itwas found by Andoyo.

Only fragmentary fossil remains are mentioned in reportsfrom the 1930s as having been seen at the surface in the areaaround the discovery site; there was no report of surface homi-nin material (Huffman et al., 2005). We found isolated teeth andsmall fragments of long bone and antler loose on the surfacenear the relocated site. Similar fossils were surface collectedby Kumai et al. (1985), including cervid and bovid teeth, mam-mal bone fragments, and a turtle shell (Aimi and Aziz, 1985).However, since the surface specimens found in the last 30 yearsare at least as likely to be exposed by agricultural activity as bynatural weathering of bedrock, they do not help us to determinehow fossils weather out of the relocated hominin bed.

We found only one fossil at the surface embedded in thesandstone prior to excavation. The specimen was a highlyweathered and fragmented turtle carapace (Huffman andZaim, 2003). Some of the larger excavated fossils, such asthe antler and radius, showed evidence of natural in situ break-age. This fracturing would help explain severe fragmentationof fossils upon exposure to weathering at the surface.

No in situ vertebrate fossils were observed at the surface ofother sandstone beds in the discovery area. Moreover, few fos-sils were seen embedded in natural or terrace outcrops of sand-stone anywhere in the portion of the Perning district that wesurveyed. None of these fossils was as fragile and well pre-served as the hominin skull.

Given conditions in the Perning district, it is difficult toimagine circumstances that would have permitted the Mojo-kerto specimen to erode out of sandstone bedrock with thecalvaria largely intact and filled with sandstone. The well-preserved condition of the Mojokerto calvaria therefore arguesstrongly for an in situ discovery of a buried specimen, just asthe discoverers stated unequivocally was the case.

Finally, given the taphonomic evidence at hand, we con-clude that the Mojokerto child is likely to have died withinthe ancient Mojokerto Delta. Fluvial transport of the calvariawas apparently limited. Sedimentary facies relationships inthe Pucangan Formation indicate that the Mojokerto Deltawas at least 10 km across; the river feeding the Delta originat-ed in highlands many tens of kilometers upstream (Duyfjes,1938a,b; Huffman, 2001a,b; Huffman and Zaim, 2003). Itseems likely therefore that the child lived in and died on theancient delta plain near Perning, where its remains were sub-jected to defleshing and disarticulation.

Less likely is the possibility that the child’s body was carriedintact by flood waters from a long distance upstream, exposed toweathering in the Delta, and then reincorporated into the riverbriefly before burial in the relocated discovery bed. Long-

distance transportation of carcasses, even live animals, is notedin the historical record of Java as having occurred during lahar-related floods (volcanic mudflows; Carthaus, 1911:27-28; deTerra, 1943:449, in part quoting Franz Junghuhn). However,the terrestrial-vertebrate assemblage in the relocated homininbed lacks the taphonomic hallmarks of a mass-kill event andprovides no specific support for long-distance transport bylahars or other floods. Lahar ‘‘breccias’’ do occur in thePucangan Formation of the Mojokerto area, but they are foundwest of Perning and stratigraphically above and below the levelof the hominin stratum (Duyfjes, 1934, 1938a,b).

Implications for the age of the skull

The widely cited 40Ar/39Ar date for the Mojokerto skull,1.81� 0.04 Ma (Swisher et al., 1994, 2000), was obtainedfrom material collected w20 m stratigraphically below the re-located hominin bed (Figs. 3 & 4). The hominin fossil is there-fore w1.8 Ma or younger. At least five other sources ofambiguity surround the age of the skull, which consequentlycannot be determined accurately at this time.

First, Morwood et al. (2003) conclude that the skullis less than w1.49 Ma, having obtained 1.49� 0.13 and1.43� 0.15 Ma fission-track dates on pumice-clast zirconsfrom the Monument Sandstone and relocated hominin bed,respectively (their ‘‘Pumice Horizon 5’’ sample is from thePerning road quarry, and ‘‘Pumice Horizon 6’’ from our relo-cated discovery site, judging from their location descriptions;Fig. 2).

Second, the age determinations of both Swisher et al. (1994)and Morwood et al. (2003) are subject to the questionable butcommon assumption in studies of the hominin-bearing forma-tions of Java that the dated pumice was erupted shortly beforedeposition of the sampled bed. The risks in this line of reasoningare highlighted by recent radioisotopic dates from a single laharunit at Sangiran Dome. Bettis et al. (2004) obtained 40Ar/39Arplateau ages spanning nearly a million years on hornblende sep-arates from various pumice clasts collected from this lahar. Thestudy leaves no doubt that substantial supporting evidence is re-quired to justify accepting as the age of deposition a date froma pumice clast or a set of clasts. Reworked pumice is possiblewhether it is in a lahar deposit or a conglomerate that is lessclearly related to a volcanic mudflow.

Swisher et al. (1994, 2000) dated hornblende from pumicegravel and a sandy matrix found in what appeared to be a tufflayer of the Monument Sandstone (Fig. 3). However, the evi-dence they provide is not sufficient to accept the layer as a pri-mary volcanic deposit and the 1.81� 0.04 Ma date as thedepositional age (de Vos, 1994; de Vos and Sondaar, 1994;Swisher, 1994). Even if active volcanism was involved, thereare other sources of ambiguity. Swisher et al. (1994) apparent-ly combined clasts which were not necessarily the same age toobtain hornblende from the pumice, and did not have a meansof eliminating epiclastic hornblende from the matrix sample.The mixing of hornblende could produce an average40Ar/39Ar date that is significantly older than the youngest vol-canic product in the bed.


Morwood et al. (2003) also combined pumice clasts in theirdating samples and had concerns over reworked material. Theclasts from the relocated-hominin bed were selected from grav-el composed of diverse rock types. The Monument Sandstonesample, on the other hand, was collected from a layer contain-ing virtually all-pumice gravel of various clast sizes. This situ-ation improves the chance that the pumice was introduceddirectly into the river system as lapilli and bombs by volcaniceruption (see also Huffman and Zaim, 2003). Even in the caseof the Monument Sandstone sample, however, the fission-trackanalyses of individual grains give widely scattered results, andmixed-eruption ages are potentially involved.

Therefore, while the abundance of fresh labile volcaniclas-tic detritus in the Perning section argues for active volcanism(Huffman, 2001; Huffman and Zaim, 2003), the radioisotopicdeterminations published so far do not necessarily date thedeposition of the sedimentary sequence.

Table 2

Taxonomic list of vertebrate remains excavated from the relocated Mojokerto

skull bed in 2001-2002

Class Osteichthyes

Subclass Actinopterygii

Order Siluriformes

Family Siluridae indet.

Class Reptilia

Order Crocodylia

Family Crocodylidae

Crocodylus sp.

Family Gavialidae

Gavialis sp.

Order Chelonia

Family Trionychidae

Trionyx sp.

Class Mammalia

Order Carnivora

Family Felidae

Panthera tigris

Order Proboscidea indet.1

Order Artiodactyla

Family Suidae

Sus sp.

Family Hippotamidae

Hexaprotodon sivalensisFamily Cervidae

Axis lydekkeri

Rusa sp.

Family Bovidae

Duboisia santeng

[large-bodied bovid(s)]2

Identifications were done largely by (JdeV) comparing the Perning material

with Trinil fossils in the Dubois collection at Naturalis in Leiden. Cervid re-

mains comprise w50%, large-bodied bovids w10%, and aquatic taxa

w10% of the identified Perning vertebrate fossils. Excavated material was par-

tially screened and no small non-aquatic mammalian fossils were recovered.1 These probably represent Stegodon trigonocephalus and/or Elephas hysu-

drindicus, judging from the proboscideans in other fossils assemblages from

eastern Java.2 Presumably these represent Bibos palaeosondacius (related to the native

cattle of Java), Bubalus palaeokerabau (a water buffalo), and perhaps Epilep-

tobos groeneveldtiidthree species that are common in the hominin formations

of eastern Java (see de Vos & Sondaar, 1982; Aimi & Aziz, 1985).

Third, available magnetostratigraphic studies (Semah,1986; Hyodo et al., 1992, 1993) do not uniquely constrainthe age of the relocated hominin bed. The data are difficultto interpret because of scattered results in the hominin-bearingpart of the section. Moreover, the paleomagnetic sampling didnot cover the entire Pucangan sequence exposed in the Perningdistrict. This significantly limits the opportunity to tie the sec-tion to the Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale (GPTS). Therealso are no complimentary studies elsewhere in the Pucanganand Kabuh outcrop belt of the greater Mojokerto area that areavailable to substantiate the Perning determinations.

Semah (1986:386) obtained ‘‘very scattered results’’ strati-graphically above Monument Sandstone, continuing as high asthe base of a zone of normal polarity overlying the PucanganFormation in the Kabuh Formation. His readings below theMonument Sandstone were predominantly reversed polarities,which leads him to conclude that the lower part of the Perningsection is older than the Brunhes Chron (>0.78 Ma).

Hyodo et al. (1992, 1993) also obtained predominantlyintermediate polarities together with some normal polarities inthe Monument Sandstone and in the section as highstratigraphically as the base of Mollusk Member III (Fig. 3).These workers assign the interval to the Jaramillo subchron(0.99-1.07 Ma). They conclude that the Olduvai subchron(1.77-1.95 Ma) is in Mollusk Member II, and that intermediatepolarities between Mollusk Member II and the Monument Sand-stone correlate to Hyodo’s Sangiran excursion in the section atSangiran Dome (w180 km to the west). However, their assign-ments of the Perning sequence to the GPTS imply a dramatic andunexplained change in the rate of deposition or significant un-recognized stratigraphic gaps within the section (Fig. 4). Theircorrelation of the marine-nonmarine transition at Perning toa similar transition at Sangiran Domedused to support their dat-ing of the Mojokerto skulldfails to take into account strati-graphic and facies variations known to occur in theintervening Pucangan outcrop belt (Duyfjes, 1936, 1938a,b).

Neither Semah (1986) nor Hyodo (1998, 1999, 2002)appear to have identified unequivocally reversed polarities inor above the Monument Sandstone. Swisher et al. (1994; Fig-ure 3) found that two clay layers in the Monument Sandstonehave normal remanent magnetism. If the radioisotopic materialthey dated was ‘‘reworked’’ from significantly older bedrock,the normal polarity interval could represent the older portionof the Brunhes chron (<0.78 Ma) or be part of the Jaramillo(0.99-1.07 Ma) or Cobb Mountain (w1.2 Ma) short-durationnormals, rather than be in the Olduvai subchron (1.77-1.95 Ma), as Swisher et al. (1994) contend is the case (Semah,1986; Hyodo et al., 1992, 1993, 2002; de Vos and Sondaar,1994; Morwood et al., 2003).

Fourth, the hominin-bearing deltaic sequence might haveaccumulated very rapidly. If so, the time span it representsmight be less than the precision error in thousands of years ofradioisotopic age determinations (Huffman, 2001a), and avastly shorter a period of geomagnetic history than was envi-sioned by Semah (1986) and Hyodo et al. (1992, 1993; Figure 4).We did not identify, nor have others reported identifying, anunconformity within the section between marine Mollusk


Horizons II and III (Fig. 4). The vertical sequence of lithofaciesis consistent with an unbroken progression of depositional envi-ronments from delta slope to flood plain, and the localized pro-gradation of a delta lobe into a shallow water embayment(Huffman and Zaim, 2003; see also: Morwood et al., 2003).

Such a lobe might have been active for only a small fractionof the time represented by the entire lateral and vertical accumu-lation of the Pucangan Formation between Mollusk Horizons IIand III, a stratigraphic interval of deltaic sedimentation thatDuyfjes (1938a,b) traced along many tens of kilometers of out-crop in the greater Mojokerto area. The present-day delta of theBrantas River (Porong delta lobe), which lies w50 km southeastof Perning and is roughly the size of the ancient Perning lobe,prograded more than 5 km since 1880 (Hoekstra, 1989). Thishigh rate of deposition underscores the possibility that the Pern-ing delta lobe represents<104 years, and the relocated bed is es-sentially the same geological age as the Monument Sandstone(Huffman and Zaim, 2003).

The progradation of the Perning lobe has been linked toa glacio-eustatic sea-level low stand and hominin dispersalto Java across the Sunda Shelf (based upon the w1.8 Madate for the skull; Anton, 2002). However, it appears to beat least as likely that deposition took place during high-orfalling-sea level, and hominin immigration occurred duringclimatic conditions unaffected by high-latitude glaciation.

Finally, although both terrestrial-vertebrate and marine-invertebrate fossils have been found in the Perning districtand the stratigraphy of the region is well described, publishedpaleontological data are insufficient to date the Mojokertoskull precisely. The relocated hominin bed rests on >100 mof exposed Pucangan strata and is overlain by w300 m of Pu-cangan and Kabuh formations (Duyfjes, 1934, 1938a,b). Thesebeds are folded and unconformably overlain by many tens ofmeters of flat lying Brantas-River fill near Mojokerto (Duyfjes,1935). Geologists working over many decades have consid-ered the Pucungan beds to be mid-Pleistocene or older onthe basis of these geological relations.

The percent of modern mollusk species in Mollusk Mem-bers II and III was once used to date the strata in which theMojokerto skull was found (Cosijn, 1931, 1932; van Es,1931; Martin, 1932; Duyfjes, 1936). von Koenigswald (1934,1936a) recognized a fossil mammalian fauna in the upper Pu-cangan near Perningdthe Jetis fauna. He believed that thefauna indicated an early Pleistocene age for the Mojokertoskull. However, the exact stratigraphic positions of onlya few of the critical fossils (Duyfjes, 1938b) were reported.Most of them apparently were surface finds. Also the upperPucangan in the area includes strata above and below thehominin-bearing horizon. This complicates determining thestratigraphic relationship of the Mojokerto skull to the re-ported species. And the Jetis assemblage may be much youn-ger Pleistocene than von Koenigswald thought it was (de Voset al., 1982, 1994; de Vos, 1985, 1994). The vertebrate fossilsknown from the Kabuh Formation in the Perning district(Duyfjes, 1938a,b) are not age diagnostic, and therefore donot help in establishing a minimum age for the Mojokertoskull.

The fossils excavated from the relocated hominin bed(Table 2) include four taxadHexaprotodon sivalensis, Axislydekkeri, Rusa sp., and Duboisia santengdthat have beenused to distinguish various extinct mammalian faunas in Java(de Vos et al., 1982, 1994). The assemblage in the relocatedhominin bed clearly does not correlate with the oldest and youn-gest of these faunas (Satir, Punung and Wajak Faunas). The largecervid Rusa is not present in the Trinil Fauna from the Pithecan-thropus erectus bed at Trinil and the hominin-bearing BapangFormation of Sangiran Dome. The excavated material thereforeappears to represent one of three faunas that are older or youngerthan the Trinil Fauna: the Ci Saat Fauna (older), which occurs inthe Sangiran Formation of Sangiran Dome and was defined onthe basis of West Java localities; the Kedung Brubus Fauna(younger), which is recognized on the basis of sites near KedungBrubus village located along the Pucangan-Kabuh outcrop beltbetween Perning and Trinil, and also is known from the BapangFormation of Sangiran Dome; or the Ngandong Fauna (younger)found in the hominin-bearing Solo River terrace deposit atNgandong, north of Trinil.

Sartono et al. (1981) and Zaim (1981) list planktic forami-nifera from an unspecified site(s) in the clay facies of thePucangan Formation. This facies underlies the hominin-bearing sequence, and forms a lateral facies equivalent to itnorth and east of the Perning district (Duyfjes, 1934,1938a,b). Neither the original sample(s) nor illustrations ofspecimens are available, further complicating age interpretationof the assemblage. Several of the listed species are valuablebiostratigraphically in the Plio-Pleistocene time frame (e.g.,Globigerinoides jistulosus, Globorotalia tosaensis and Globi-gerinoides extremus; Gradstein et al., 2004; R.M. Leckie,pers. communication, 2005). Marine microfossils may ultimatelyhelp to determine the age of the skull, but do not do so now.

In summary, additional field and analytical results are neededto date the Mojokerto fossil more exactly than latest Pliocene orearly-mid Pleistocene in age. The w0.3 Ma difference betweenthe 40Ar/39Ar and fission-track age determinations must be re-solved. For any of these radioisotopic dates to be considered otherthan a maximum age, better evidence must be advanced to showthat the dated material was erupted shortly before deposition atPerning. Additional paleontological and magnetostratigraphiccontrol and radioisotopic dating would seem to be required.Geochronological conclusions have to be evaluated further interms of the potential for temporal stratigraphic breaks in thesection, rates of deposition, and the regional stratigraphic(including sequence stratigraphic) context.

Conclusions

Although intensive agricultural activity over the last 60years has changed the appearance of the discovery area, infor-mation from maps, reports, and photographs dating from the1930s has been used to relocate the discovery site of the Mo-jokerto child’s skull. Other potential sites, including thoseproposed in the past as probable discovery locations, wereexcluded by comparing the topography and geology observedin the field to the same documentary evidence (Table 1).


The relocated site lies on the south slope of a topographicnose situated near the upper end of a small gully and isw15 m southeast of the location proposed by Kumai et al.(1985). The main topographic features surrounding the relo-cated site match those seen in three photographs dating fromthe 1930s (Figs. 5-7). The relocation of the discovery site issubstantiated further by new site photographs (Figs. 9 & 10),a detailed site map (Fig. 8), and an aerial photograph of thearea (Fig. 2). The relocated site has UTM (Zone 49M) co-ordinates of 0663760 m E and 9183430 m N.

The relocated discovery horizon is in the lower portion ofa w3.3 m thick, vertebrate-bearing conglomeratic sandstonebed. The lithology of the bed is consistent with what is knownabout the matrix within the hominin calvaria. The bed is theuppermost fluvial sandstone body in the prograding deltaic se-quence lying between Pucangan Formation Mollusk MembersII and III (Fig. 4). The relocated discovery stratum is w20 mstratigraphically above the bed that Swisher et al. (1994) datedby a 40Ar/39Ar method at 1.81� 0.04 Ma (Fig. 3B). The dateis therefore a maximum age for the Mojokerto skull. The datealso conflicts with the fission-track age determinations re-ported by Morwood et al. (2003).

The Mojokerto fossil is remarkably well preserved giventhat it was an immature calvaria deposited with gravellysand in a swift flowing river. Fossils recovered by excavationsin the relocated discovery sandstone include Panthera tigris,Proboscidea, Sus sp., Hexaprotodon sivalensis, Axis lydekkiri,Rusa sp., Duboisia santeng, large-bodied Bovidae, Crocodilussp., Gavialis sp., Trionyx sp., Siluridae, and fresh-water mol-lusks (Table 2). The Mojokerto child’s skull is consistenttaphonomically with the few relatively large, fragile terrestri-al-vertebrate remains in this assemblage.

Well-preserved fossils such as the Mojokerto skull were notfound on the outcropping surfaces of the relocated homininbed or other Pucangan sandstones (and occur very rarely asloose surface finds) in the discovery district. These observa-tions support the conclusion based upon historical evidence(Huffman et al., 2005) that the hominin fossil was encasedin Pucangan Formation sandstone and protected from surfaceexposure when discovered.

The good condition of the skull and the large size of the an-cient Mojokerto Delta favor the conclusion that the hominindied in the deltaic environment in which it was deposited.The Mojokerto child therefore provides evidence for a sea-coast Homo erectus population in Southeast Asia, and raisesinterest in the role that maritime adaptation might have playedin the dispersal and paleoecology of early hominins.

Acknowledgements

We thank Aart Berkhout, Bernhard W. Seubert and JohanVolker for the translating documents; Richard Buffler, Dju-haeni and Frank Wesselingh for contributing to Fig. 4; SimonR. Gowen and Rony L. Swennen for evaluating the age of thebanana plant in old site photographs; Todd Green and Christo-pher Huffman for producing challenging graphics; Dale

Hudler for Total Data Station training and post-field analysis;Hisao Kumai, Michael Morwood and Carl Swisher III for dis-cussing their past work in the discovery area; Mark Leckie andWilliam Mclntosh for advice on planktic foraminifera and ra-dioisotopic dating, respectively; and Pat Shipman for contrib-uting observations on the Mojokerto skull taphonomy and1930s documents. The manuscript was improved by commentsfrom Richard Buffler, Pat Shipman, Lucy Todd and four anon-ymous reviewers. Financial support from the Leakey Founda-tion and the National Science Foundations (BCS 0113688) toOFH and the German Research Foundation (HE-3593/1-1) toCH is gratefully acknowledged.

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site. Geological Research and Development Centre, Paleontological and

Stratigraphy Section, Bandung, Indonesia.

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

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

Anton, S., 2002. Evolutionary significance of cranial variation in Asian Homo

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

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

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

Geographical Section HIND 1090, Great Britain.

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

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

Nasional (Bakosurtanal), Jakarta.

Bakosurtanal, 1999. Peta Rupabumi Digital Indonesia 1:25.000 Lembar 1508-

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

taan Nasional (Bakosurtanal), Jakarta.

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

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

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

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

erectus immigration into Central Java, Indonesia: the Sangiran Formation

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

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

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

6093e6095.

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

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

schichten auf Java. Geologische und Palaontologische Ergebnisse de

Trinil-Expedition (1907 und 1908). Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann,

Leipzig, pp. 1e33.

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

brain growth in Homo erectus and implications for cognitive ability. Nature

431, 299e302.

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

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

lingen van het Geologisch-Mijnbouwkundig Genootschap voor Nederland

en Kolonieen IX, 113e119.

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

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

delingen van het Koninklijk Nederlands Geologisch Mijnbouwkundig

Genootschap, Geologische Serie IX, 135e148.

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

tific Field Report of the American Southeast Asiatic Expedition for


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

tion of Washington, D.C.

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

Scientific Monthly LI, 112e124.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pp. 215e220.

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

Cranium 11, 103e107.

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

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

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

1726e1727.

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

from Trinil, type locality of Homo erectus; a reinterpretation. Geologic

en Mijnbouw 61, 207e211.

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

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

Years of Pithecanthropus. The Homo erectus Problem. Forschungsinstitut

Senckenbeberg, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 129e140.

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

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

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

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

dung, Indonesia.

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

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

Geological Research and Development Centre, Bandung, Indonesia.

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

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

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

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

bij Blad 110 (Modjokerto). Dienst van den Mijnbouw in Nederlandsch-

Indie, Bandung, Indonesia, p. 68.

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

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

Bandung, Indonesia, p. 79.

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

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

tional Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS)/International Union of

Geological Sciences (IUGS).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanfilippo, A., Schmitz, B., Shackleton, N.J., Shields, G.A., Strauss, H.,

Van Dam, J., van Kolfschoten, T., Veizer, J., Wilson, D., 2004. A Geologic

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

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

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

Nederlandsche Geografische Studies, 87. Koninklijk nederlands aardrijk-

skundig genootschap p. 213.

Huffman, O.F., 1997. Physiographic diversity in the homeland of Homo erec-tus, Java. Abstracts with Program, Geological Society of America 1997

Annual Meeting 29 (6), A319.

Huffman, O.F., 1999. Variety in the paleoevironment of early Homo erectus of

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

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

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

jhev.2001.0464.

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

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

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

and Environment in Pleistocene Times, Proceedings of the International

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

Jakarta. The National Research Centre of Archaeology/Ecole Francaise

d’Extreme-Orient/Yayasan Obor Indonesia, pp. 231e256.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9323e9335.

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

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

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

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

Paleomagnetic dates of hominid remains from Yuanmou, China and other

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

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

Catalogue and Problems. Proceedings of the Fifth and Sixth Symposium

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

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

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

46, 148.

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

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

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

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

British Museum, London, pp. 103e116.

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

Turtle, R.H. (Ed.), Paleoanthropology, Morphology and Paleoecology.

Mouton, The Hague, pp. 311e325.

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

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

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

Sons, New York, p. 288.

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

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

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

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

in press.

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

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

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

Quaternary Geology of the Hominid Fossil Bearing Formations in Java;

Report of the IndonesiadJapan Joint Research Project, CTA-41, 1976-

1979; Special Publication 4. Geological Research and Development

Centre, Bandung, Indonesia, pp. 55e61.

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

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

jhev.l999.0334.

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

Science, Maiden, Massachusetts, p. 526.

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

opgenomen antiklinaal in de Resdientie Soerabaja. Verhandelingen van

het Geologisch-Mijnbouwkundig Genootschap voor Nederland en Kolo-

nieen IX, 149e151.

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

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

chaeol. 57, 1e4.


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

eastern Asia. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology

and Ethnology, Harvard University XIX (8), p. 125

Sartono, S., Semah, F., Astadiredja, K.A.S., Sukendarmono, M.,

Djuiantono, T., 1981. The age of Homo modjokertensis. Mod. Quater.

Res. Southeast Asia 6, 91e102.

Semah, F., 1986. Le peuplement ancien de Java ebauche d’un cadre chronolo-

gique. L’Anthropologie (Paris) 90 (3), 359e400.

Shipman, P., 2001. The Man Who Found The Missing Link. Eugene Dubois

and His Lifelong Quest to Prove Darwin Right. Simon & Schuster, New

York, p. 514.

Storm, P., 1994. De morfologie van Homo modjokertensis. Cranium 11 (2/Oc-

tober), 97e102.

Swisher III, C.C., 1994. Response (to de Vos, J., & Sondaar, P., 1994). Science

266, 1727.

Swisher III, C.C., Curtis, G.H., Jacob, T., Getty, A.G., 1994. Age of the earliest

known hominids in Java, Indonesia. Science 263, 1118e1121.

Swisher III, C.C., Curtis, G.H., Lewin, R., 2000. Java Man. How Two Geolo-

gists’ Dramatic Discoveries Changed Our Understanding of the Evolution-

ary Path to Modern Humans. Scribner, New York, p. 256.

Theunissen, B., de Vos, J., Sondaar, P.Y., Aziz, F., 1990. The establishment of

a chronological framework for the hominid-bearing deposits of Java: a his-

torical survey. In: La Porte, L.F. (Ed.), Establishment of a Geologic Frame-

work for Paleoanthropology. Special Paper-Geological Society of

America, 242, pp. 39e54.

van Es, L.J.C., 1931. The Age of Pithecanthropus. Martinus Nijhoff, The

Hague, p. 142.

von Koenigswald, G.H.R., 1934. Zur Stratigraphie des javanischen Pleistocan.

De Ingenieur in Nederlandsch-Indie, IV. Mijnbouw & Geologic, De Mij-

ningenieur 1 (11), 185e201.

von Koenigswald, G.H.R., 1936a. Ein fossiler hominide aus dem Altpleistoc~an

Ostjavas. De Ingenieur in Nederlandsch-Indie, IV. Mijbouw & Geologie,

De Mijningenieur Jaargang III (8), 149e157.

von Koenigswald, G.H.R., 1936b. Erste mitteilung uber einen fossilen homini-

den aus dem Altpleistocan Ostjavas. Proc. Kon. Akad. Wet. XXXIX (8),

1000e1009.

von Koenigswald, G.H.R., 1940. Neue Pithecanthropus-Funde 1936e1938;

Eine Beitrag zur Kenntnis de Prae-Hominiden. Wetenschapplijke Mede-

deelingen Dienst van Mijnbouw NederlandscheIndie 28, 1e232.

Walker, A., Shipman, P., 1996. The Wisdom of the Bones: in Search of Human

Origins. Random House, New York, p. 338.

Wolpoff, M.H., 1999. Paleoanthropology, second ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston 379 p.

Zaim, Y. 1981. Revisi umur serta stratografi formasi Pucangan di daerach

Perning, Mojokerto. Ikatan Ahli Geologi Indonesia (Pertemuan Ilmiah Ta-

hunan Sepuluh 8-10 Desember 1981, Bandung), 23, i-10.

Zaim, Y., de Vos, J., Huffman, O.F., Aziz, F., Kappelman, J., Rizal, Y., 2003.

A new antler specimen from the 1936 Perning hominid site, East Jawa,

Indonesia, attributable to Axis lydekkeri (MARTIN, 1886). J. Miner.

Technol. (Journal JTM) X (1), 45e52. Institute Teknologi Bandung,

Bandung.

relocation of the 1936 mojokerto skull discovery site near perning

Documents