Nc.4NnoSV.c (SOLO) 451
recognized (e.g., Bartstra et al., 1988); the hominids
come from the High Terrace. Dating has long been
controversial, but opinion has generally sided with von
Koenigswald’s (1939) faunal assesment of the site as
Upper Pleistocene, although a Middle Pleistocene age
has recently been championed by some (e.g., Santa
Luca, 1980). Bartstra et al. (1988) relocated the origi-
nal site and obtained U-series dates ranging from
about 100 to 50 Ka on bone samples obtained there.
They expressed only modest confidence in the dates,
but were able to confirm that the associated fauna had
been subject to minimal transport and was contempo-
raneous with the hominids. Most recently, Swisher
et al. (1996) reported ESR and U-series dates on bovid
teeth from the original excavation and from new exca-
vations adjacent to the hominid site and in the same
lithological horizon. After carefd correction for ura-
nium leaching, the samples yielded mean ages of
27-46 Ka by ESR and 31 Ka+ by U-series. These
dates are surprisingly young, and have been questioned
by Griin and Thorne (1997), who have once more
raised the spectre of reworking and noncontemporane-
ity of the fauna with the hominids. However, at this
point, an age of ca. 40 Ka for the Ngandong hominids
does appear plausible.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT
A relatively limited number of rather crude and water-
worn stone implements (cores and flakes) is known
from the High Terrace. These have been baptized the
“Ngandong culture” (Movius, 1944) and the “Ngandong
industry’’ (van Heekeren, 1972). In the absence of con-
vincing evidence for reworking of the deposits, these
lithics must be associated with the hominids. Bartstra
et al. (1988) have emphasized the lack of bifaces and
that these tools do not fit within the chopper/chopping
tool complex as defined by Movius (1944).PREVIOUS DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES
These are some of the most-debated hominid fossils
ever-presumably because they combine rather “ar-
chaic” cranial morphology with (in some cases) quite
impressive cranial capacities. In his description of the
first five Ngandong individuals, Oppenoorth (1932)
evinced considerable uncertainty about their affinities.
He saw Neanderthal affinities in some specimens but
not in Ngandong 1, to which he applied the new name
Homo (Javanthropus) soloensis. By 1937, however, Op-
penoorth had abandoned the Neanderthal argument,even though von Koenigswald (1934) had applied the
nomen Homo neanderthalensis soloensis to the Ngan-
dong hominids, and Weidenreich (1937) had gone
so far as to baptize them Homo primigenius asiaticus,
although he declared them to be more primitive than
the Neanderthals. At about the same time Dubois
(1936) claimed that the Ngandong specimens repre-
sented the same hominid as found at Zhoukoudian,
although he too later modified his opinion (Dubois,
1940), comparing the Solo skulls more closely to that
from Wadjak (clearly a Homo sapiens, although Dubois
preferred Homo wadjakensis). In his posthumous and
unfinished 1951 monograph on the Ngandong
hominids, Weidenreich articulated the notion that all
nonaustralopith hominids belonged to the species
Homo sapiens, and professed to be totally uninterested
in nomenclature while strongly hinting that the affini-
ties of “Solo man” lay most closely with the various
varieties of “Pithecanthropus,” including those of
Zhoukoudian Locality 1. This, however, conflicted
with his 1947 conclusion that “Pithecanthropus
soloensis” lay on the line between “Pithecanthropus erec-
tus” and modern Australians (while the Zhoukoudian
hominids were antecedents of modern Mongoloids): a
theme later taken up by Wolpoff and colleagues (e.g.,
Wolpoff et al., 1984). Multiregionalism aside, in recent
decades debate has tended to oscillate between
whether to assign the Ngandong hominids to an
“evolved” form of Homo erectus or to an “archaic”
version of Homo sapiens-with a distinct inclination
toward the latter since Santa Luca (1980), in the most
recent monographic treatment of the Ngandong
hominid assemblage, not only referred these fossils
unequivocally to Homo erectus but placed all Javanese
Homo erectus in the same (nominate) subspecies.
Schwartz and Tattersall (2000) have pointed to signifi-
cant morphological differences between the Ngandong
crania and classic Homo erectus specimens from Trinil
and Sangiran. Holloway (2000) gives the following
cranial capacities: Ngandong 1: 1172 ml; Ng 6: 1250 ml;
Ng 7: 1013 d, Ng 12: 1135 ml; Ng 13: 1231 ml;
and Ng 14: 1090 ml.MORPHOLOGY
The most completely preserved specimens, Ngandong 7
and 14, are described in detail below, as is the only spec-
imen of a juvenile, Ngandong 2. The other specimens
are then included in a general morphological summary
of the assemblage, with variations and exceptions noted.