Pop Eduard, Hilgen Sander, Adhityatama Shinatria, Berghuis Harold, Veldkamp Tom, Vonhof Hubert, Sutisna Indra, Alink Gerrit, Noerwidi Sofwan, Roebroeks Wil, Joordens Josephine
Naturalis Biodiversity Center, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA, Leiden, the Netherlands; Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9514, 2300 RA, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Naturalis Biodiversity Center, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA, Leiden, the Netherlands; Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit, de Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J Hum Evol. 2023 Mar;176:103312. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103312. Epub 2023 Feb 4.
In the early 1890s at Trinil, Eugène Dubois found a hominin skullcap (Trinil 2) and femur (Trinil 3, Femur I), situated at the same level ca. 10-15 m apart. He interpreted them as representing one species, Pithecanthropus erectus (now Homo erectus) which he inferred to be a transitional form between apes and humans. Ever since, this interpretation has been questioned-as the skullcap looked archaic and the femur surprisingly modern. From the 1950s onward, chemical and morphological analyses rekindled the debate. Concurrently, (bio)stratigraphic arguments gained importance, raising the stakes by extrapolating the consequences of potential mixing of hominin remains to the homogeneity of the complete Trinil fossil assemblage. However, conclusive evidence on the provenance and age of the hominin fossils remains absent. New Trinil fieldwork yielded unmanned aerial vehicle imagery, digital elevation models, and stratigraphic observations that have been integrated here with an analysis of the historical excavation documentation. Using a geographic information system and sightline analysis, the position of the historical excavation pits and the hominin fossils therein were reconstructed, and the historical stratigraphy was connected to that of new sections and test pits. This study documents five strata situated at low water level at the excavation site. Cutting into a lahar breccia are two similarly oriented, but asynchronous pre-terrace fluvial channels whose highly fossiliferous infills are identified as the primary targets of the historical excavations (Bone-Bearing Channel 1, 830-773 ka; Bone-Bearing Channel 2, 560-380 ka), providing evidence for a mixed faunal assemblage and yielding most of the hominin fossils. These channels were incised by younger terrace-related fluvial channels (terminal Middle or Late Pleistocene) that directly intersect the historical excavations and the reconstructed discovery location of Femur I, thereby providing an explanation for the relatively modern morphology of this 'bone of contention'. The paleoanthropological implications are discussed in light of the current framework of human evolution in Southeast Asia.
19世纪90年代初，欧仁·杜布瓦在特里尼尔发现了一个古人类头盖骨（特里尼尔2号）和股骨（特里尼尔3号，股骨I），它们位于同一水平面上，相距约10 - 15米。他将它们解释为代表一个物种，即直立猿人（现在的直立人），他推断这是猿类和人类之间的过渡形式。从那时起，这种解释就受到了质疑——因为头盖骨看起来很古老，而股骨却出奇地现代。从20世纪50年代起，化学和形态学分析重新引发了这场争论。与此同时，（生物）地层学的论据变得更加重要，通过推断古人类遗骸潜在混合的后果对整个特里尼尔化石组合的同质性的影响，使 stakes 增加。然而，关于古人类化石的来源和年代的确凿证据仍然缺乏。新的特里尼尔实地考察产生了无人机图像、数字高程模型和地层观测结果，在此将它们与对历史挖掘记录的分析相结合。利用地理信息系统和视线分析，重建了历史挖掘坑及其中古人类化石的位置，并将历史地层与新剖面和探坑的地层联系起来。本研究记录了挖掘现场低水位处的五个地层。切入火山泥流角砾岩的是两条方向相似但不同步的阶地前河流通道，其富含化石的填充物被确定为历史挖掘的主要目标（含骨通道1，83万 - 77.3万年；含骨通道2，56万 - 38万年），为混合动物群组合提供了证据，并出土了大部分古人类化石。这些通道被较年轻的与阶地相关的河流通道（末次更新世中期或晚期）切割，这些河流通道直接与历史挖掘和股骨I的重建发现位置相交，从而为这块“争议骨头”相对现代的形态提供了解释。根据东南亚人类进化的当前框架讨论了古人类学意义。
