Talk:Java Man

Requested move

 * Pithecanthropus erectus → Java Man – The article is about remains of a hominid found in Java, which is, AFAIK, universally called "Java Man". When it was first found, it was classified as Pithecanthropus erectus; after decades of debate, it is now Homo erectus.  Since the article is about the skeleton, not an obsolete species classification, this should be at Java Man.  Compare Peking Man or Piltdown Man. --Saforrest 07:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

age of skulls
Moved from article: So how old is the Java man skulls????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.44.8.82 (talk • contribs)


 * What are the ages of these specimens? Badagnani 22:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating and its related factors aren't very reliable, and anything that has to do with creationism (and less accepted theories) would just be refuted and removed. (I realise this is old, but the article still needs work.) --60.240.118.139 02:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Massive rewrite needed
This article needs a huge amount of work, in part because Asian Homo erectus are no longer considered direct human ancestors, and haven't been for quite some time. In particular the second-hand references attributed to Marvin Lubenow, writing a creationist book, should all be confirmed by examining the original sources. I'm also concerned about the quotation attributed to a Time magazine article, ""[Java Man] is a legimate evolutionary ancestor"--just what was in place of the bracketed phrase "Java Man" in the original sentence??? If it said "Homo erectus", then it's not nearly as damning as the person who inserted this sentence thinks. (Edited to add: I'm removing that sentence entirely; the article is online at and that sentence does not appear anywhere in the article.) MrDarwin 13:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted some cleanup, but I am wary of the statement about the alleged "342 page report" and also the various claims I have flagged as needing citations. 82.33.152.5 14:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC) --- And all that stuff about "missing link" seems highly biologically naive - a braver editor than me might consider just dumping that whole sentence. 82.33.152.5 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Keith
I have removed the following para entirely:

Sir Arthur Keith, an anatomist of from Cambridge University, later claimed that the skull cap itself, "[is] distinctly human and reflected a brain capacity well within the range of humans living today", thus refuting Eugene Dubois's original claim that "Java man represents a stage in the devolopment of modern man from a smaller-brained ancestor".

... unless a better source for Keith can be found than Lubenow!

82.33.152.5 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fairness
Is it really fair to state that it's a specimen of homo erectus, when the discoverer himself later said that it was just an a normal gibbon?


 * That is not what Dubois said, not even close; I've edited the sentence in the article to make it clear that such claims are not only misleading but completely false. Follow the referenced link in the article for more information. MrDarwin 15:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we use the primary source for this one instead of a website that sources dubois? (R2d2rox245 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Pictures, more neutrality
This article needs un-edited pictures (like fill ins that somehow prove it), and less "CREATIONIST IS STUPID DURR" that plagues everything that has to do with evolution and creation. --60.240.118.139 02:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This was scienticialy proven as a fraud. I demand that that is said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.26.124 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Creationism has no place in a legitimate science article because it is not at this point legitimate science, find a source for your claim or shut up --Opcnup (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Creationism has every right to be considered in any article which deals with the origins of man. The evidence, if you only but knew it, for any of the evolutionary community's over-blown claims regarding the genesis of the human race is so thin on the ground that it's quite remarkable it gets the credence it does - it's not so much a missing link as a missing chain. The amount of bones found in the last 100 years which might be capable of being attributed to some sort of early model human would not, in fact, fill a single coffin and if people in general would stop rushing to condemn with such zeal everything that smacks of religion - if they would instead begin to question the astounding lack of evidence for the theories they've been force-fed since childhood - then we might all draw a little nearer to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.247.125 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you specify what scientific data you can provide about the Java Man?Jeff5102 (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's just it, isn't it...a couple of teeth, a femur and a skullcap which turned out to belong to a plain old gibbon, if I recall right. Yet, the scientific community gives Java Man a catchy name and shows us what he probably looked like and slots him in to the evolutionary chain - but based on what? A couple of teeth and a femur? And that's the point, these discussion pages are full of people raging against creationist thinking while failing to realise the astounding number of gaps in their own theories.81.156.0.191 (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it? Who has stated then, that these fossils belong to anold gibbon? Annyway, according to TalkOrigins, it was not mr. Dubois: see. And I do not understand why "the scientific community" should liew about this. After all, enough fossils have been found in Africa; "the scientific community" should be happy with them.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr. IP might be confusing the Java Man with the Piltdown Man. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

India then?
I dont know if I misunderstood then, if I did sorry then, but on the history of Indonesia it suggests that the Java man came from India here. But here I think it implies that it came from Africa here. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Man
Wow this is interesting stuff dude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.182.76 (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge?
Merge with Trinil 2? Discuss. Kortoso (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hasan di Tiro's writings against Indonesia and Javanese
Hassan called Indonesian rule over Aceh and other places like East Timor, West Papua and the Moluccas as Javanese domination.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ArvtbBOPwGIC&pg=PT125&dq=tiro+javanese&hl=en&sa=X&ei=F-A1U-3WIqi0sQSw0IGQDw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=tiro%20javanese&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=T61pQx1w3soC&pg=PA70&dq=In+Hasan+di+Tiro's+terms,+“indonesians”+are+a+“non-existent+human+species”+(di+Tiro+1984a,+68).+In+his+writings,+the+very+idea+of+Indonesia+is+an+absurd+falsehood,+a+thin+façade+covering+Javanese+dominance.+His+“redeclaration+of+independence+”&hl=en&sa=X&ei=c_M1U6T4DMLIsASp-YKQBQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA

Tiro engaged in racist rhetoric against Javanese, calling them "barbarians", "stupid", "insolent", relatives of monkeys, and insinuated that they were descended from Pithecanthropus erectus in his play, "The drama of acehnese history 1873-1978"

http://books.google.com/books?id=ArvtbBOPwGIC&pg=PT126#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=T61pQx1w3soC&pg=PA71&dq=At+one+point+he+reminds+his+readers+that+monkeys+were+“a+very+distant+relative+of+the+Javanese,+but+relatives+nevertheless”+(212).+Elsewhere+he+returns+to+the+theme+that+the+Javanese+“have+strong+traces+of+pithecanthropus+erectus+lines”+(+317).&hl=en&sa=X&ei=m_Q1U-aQELPUsAT6nIBw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA

The drama of acehnese history 1873 1978

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BywGzWY70a8gZjk5NTI3ZTEtMDc3Ni00ZDQ3LWE0NDUtYTQyMTU1OTJhNDll/preview?pli=1

http://en.bookfi.org/book/1320922

http://bookre.org/reader?file=1320922

http://www.acehbooks.org/search/detail/4169?language=ind

http://www.acehbooks.org/pdf/00371.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/89450652

http://www.worldcat.org/title/drama-of-achehnese-history-1873-1978-a-paly-in-viii-acts/oclc/525862312

http://mbox.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/06/04/citizen-hasan-di-tiro-dies-‘dignified-end-conflict’.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=ArvtbBOPwGIC&pg=PT125&lpg=PT125&dq=The+drama+of+acehnese+history+1873+1978&source=bl&ots=swnpl-Xn2l&sig=iYp8SMGsKGXRq3EPqbVDO3pwYeA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6UBYU-SPOsvMsQSMzoKIBA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The%20drama%20of%20acehnese%20history%201873%201978&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=M5SpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=The+drama+of+acehnese+history+1873+1978&source=bl&ots=Gh4KRJdxKp&sig=O8TrO3iguBLp5WZLBUT8agNf5vs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6UBYU-SPOsvMsQSMzoKIBA&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=The%20drama%20of%20acehnese%20history%201873%201978&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=fG_eSAAACAAJ&dq=The+drama+of+acehnese+history+1873+1978&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7EFYU9ygB6TQsQSIroDABA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw

http://books.google.com/books?id=Y8UPKFrtjb0C&pg=PA424&lpg=PA424&dq=The+drama+of+acehnese+history+1873+1978&source=bl&ots=uuiectoKuV&sig=h41XSLdPfXerwhZbIVA6bEhmue8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6UBYU-SPOsvMsQSMzoKIBA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBg

Rajmaan (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Lede image
Might this be something? -- -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 08:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this looks interesting! Do you know when this photo was first published? This will determine whether it is in the public domain, and therefore whether we can use it on this page. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/bin/search/simple/process?query=The+hall+of+the+age+of+man gives no hits on the book title, indicating no editions had their copyright renewed, and have thus been in the public domain since 1968. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001632299 gives 4 editions, you can choose the one with the best image and upload it to commons with the tag. Thanks, --  CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If it was first published in the United States in 1921, as the "hathitrust.org" entry seems to indicate, then it's in the public domain in the US and we can tag it with, which applies to older material than . The problem is that without the book in hand to scan it, I have no idea how to upload that picture, because it's not an electronic file. Any idea how to do it? Madalibi (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll do it this evening. -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 11:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, that would be even simpler! Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There you go, if you wish to use it please do. I chose the 1929 edition as it was the highest quality. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions, or find any more images in that book. -- -- CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you! We'll see where this fits once the text has grown a little. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Scope of the article
A question: is this article devoted narrowly to the Homo erectus fossils found by Eugène Dubois in 1891–92 – the most important of which is Trinil 2 – or more broadly to all the specimens of Homo erectus that have been found on Java Island, including in Sangiran, Mojokerto, and Ngandong, all of which can also be loosely called "Java Man"? Madalibi (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

New article on a Javanese hominin fossil
I just finished writing Mojokerto child, which is the fossilized skullcap of a young Homo erectus that was found (in 1936) in East Java just like Dubois's fossils. The article is far from complete (it has no description of the fossil itself, for example), but I think it's a good beginning.

Now to reiterate my question from the previous section: what is the scope of this article? Do we discuss fossils like the "Mojokerto child" and the debates surrounding it, or do we take a narrow view of "Java Man" as the specimens that Dubois discovered in the 1890s. I would personally prefer a broad page on all Javanese Homo erectus fossils so that we can give readers a good survey of all the main issues — identification and naming, dating, significance in Out of Africa I story, etc. — but I don't want to impose my view without at least some kind of discussion! This page has 44 watchers. What do the other 43 think? Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Over in Cro-Magnon land, a similar issue has been brewing. I'd say that Java Man and Cro-Magnon are outdated terms and can continue to be used as specific terms for assemblages or paleolithic cultures, but calling Mojokerto "Java" is something that we should leave to the paleo gurus. Is that what they are calling it? Then add Mojokerto as a new section. Otherwise, the skull is probably another Homo erectus. My $0.02. And 42 to go. Kortoso (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your ideas, ! You're right: the simplest solution is to see what reliable sources say about this topic. On the one hand, specialists no longer use the term "Java Man" in their technical writings except when they tell Dubois's story. They prefer to speak of Sangiran 2, Trinil 2, and the like. On the other hand, the Mojokerto child is the centerpiece of Java Man (2000), a popular book written by paleontologist Carl Swisher, geochronologist Garniss Curtis, and science writer Roger Lewin. In 1994, Swisher and Curtis proposed to date the Mojokerto fossil to 1.81 million years, and they used that date to push Homo erectus's departure from Africa back to almost 2 million years ago. This means even specialists can use "Java Man" when writing for a popular audience, because that term is very recognizable. Also, from what I've seen, paleontologists often discuss all Javanese H. erectus fossils as a whole even if they don't have a single name for that group of fossils. This topic — that is, Javanese Homo erectus fossils as a whole — therefore exists, and it would be great to have a page on it.
 * So we have at least two options:
 * Option 1: we keep Java Man narrow and hope that someone will create a broad page on "Javanese Homo erectus" (or something like that) to discuss the other relevant Javanese fossils. (The broader Javanese hominins would also be worth creating, but it would have to include Homo floresiensis, Solo Man and Meganthropus.)
 * Option 2: we take "Java Man" as a convenient label for the topic "Javanese Homo erectus", so we keep this page broad. Of course we make sure to explain the distinction between the narrow and wide (and popular vs. scientific) meanings of "Java Man". We keep "Java Man" as a title because it's more recognizable than "Javanese Homo erectus".
 * Note that even if we choose Option 1, it might be a good idea to develop this page as something broad first. Then once we have enough material or we see that things don't really fit together well, we can spin out that new page on Javanese Homo erectus. "Java Man" as nursery.
 * That's $0.04 worth of opinions. I doubt we'll reach $0.88, but it would be great to see what even more editors think! Madalibi (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

village of Sangiran, Central Java
I cannot find evidence for a village of Sangiran, Central Java. This site appears to be an excavation site only and not a village. Can someone provide a reference for the community at this location? Kyle(talk) 23:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . You're right! I missed that blunder when I expanded the article, but I've just corrected it. Thanks for pointing it out! Madalibi (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . Your edit is an improvement. I see no reason for additional clarification, although I will leave a note of my findings. According to | this pageThe Sangiran appears to be a dome which has eroded leaving behind at least five distinct layers. Some of these layers are rich in fossil and tool - chip findings. Many years ago it was suggested that a village must have been present to create such tools. The theory of a Sangiran Village has been repeated in many other places although no actual village has been confirmed and it does not appear on the map. Kyle(talk) 00:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again, . The fact that so many human and pre-human fossils and tools have been excavated there shows that it must have been some kind of settlement, though not necessarily a "village". Maybe the site was selected to be close to the raw stones that they used to make the tools? It would be interesting to see what reliable sources have to say about this as we develop the Sangiran page. I have all the books I need at home, so I might turn to it this summer if I have time. Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)