Forbidden Archeology_ The Full Unabridged Edition - Michael A. Cremo [344]
There were two other reports on the S10 find: Sartono (1964) and Jacob (1966). the report by Sartono (1964, p. 3) provided a diagram of the beds of the Kabuh formation and the overlying notopuro beds. the S10 skull was assigned to layer 8 in the Kabuh formation. in the general area of the discovery, layer 8 was at the surface. Sartono (1964) did not tell whether the skull was found lying loose on the ground or firmly embedded in layer 8.
Jacob (1966, p. 244) reported that the fragments making up the S10 skull were discovered in two successive months. The first group of fragments was found in July 1963 and was reported by Sartono (1964). the second group was found in August 1963 and was reported in Jacob (1964). Unfortunately, Jacob (1966) did not provide any more definite information about the location and situation of either group of fragments at the time of their discovery than can be found in Sartono (1964) or in his own earlier report (Jacob 1964).
Jacob (1973, p. 476) made this interesting remark about Sangiran, where the S10 find and all the other finds discussed in this section were made: “The site seems to be still promising, but presents special problems. . . . this is mainly due to the site being inhabited by people, many of whom are collectors who had been trained in identifying important fossils. chief collectors always try to get the most out of the primate fossils found accidentally by primary discoverers (Jacob 1964). In addition, they may not report the exact site of the find, lest they lose one potential source of income. Occasionally, they may not sell all the fragments found on the first purchase, but try to keep a few pieces to sell at a higher price at a later opportunity.”
Concerning another find in the Sangiran region, S. Sartono (1967) stated that on January 30, 1965 pieces of a skullcap were obtained by one of his collectors (unnamed) from a local villager, who was also not named. the fossils came into Sartono’s possession towards the end of February 1965. this discovery consisted of 44 fragments of a skullcap, which were “collected all around the site of the skull in the field.” After restoration, the skullcap (S12 in Table 7.2, p. 498) consisted of both parietals, the left temporal, part of the left mastoid bone, a large part of the occipital bone, and a small part of the frontal bone. The S12 skull exhibited the features typical of Homo erectus.
the pieces of this skullcap were found on the surface (Sartono 1967, p. 85) of a slope southwest of the village of putjung. At this point, the Kabuh formation was exposed. Sartono stated that the skull was deposited at the same time as the early Middle pleistocene Kabuh beds. Modern authorities have uncritically accepted Sartono’s age estimate for the S12 skull. But if the skull had been of modern morphology, one suspects that the same authorities would have used the fact that it was found on the surface to rule out a Middle pleistocene age for it.
On July 20, 1969, one of Sartono’s collectors gave him a small fragment of an upper jaw that contained two upper left premolars (S15 in table 7.2, p. 498). From the jaw’s dimensions and shape, Sartono concluded that it belonged to a member of the species Pithecanthropus modjokertensis. But modern authorities tend to classify all the Pithecanthropus species of earlier researchers (P. erectus, P. modjokertensis, P. soloensis, and P. robustus) as Homo erectus.
the S15 jaw was said to have been found lying loose on the surface near ngrejeng village on the northern part of the Sangiran dome. the rock matrix that incrusted it consisted of a grey clay stone. Because the putjangan beds at this point also have a layer of grey clay stone, Sartono (1974) assumed that this specimen was originally embedded in that layer. Sartono