Editing Java Man (section)

===Other discoveries on Java===
{{further|Solo Man|Mojokerto child|Sangiran}}
After the discovery of Java Man, Berlin-born paleontologist [[Gustav Heinrich Ralph von Koenigswald|G. H. R. von Koenigswald]] recovered several other early human fossils in Java. Between 1931 and 1933 von Koenigswald discovered fossils of [[Solo Man]] from sites along the [[Bengawan Solo River]] on [[Java (island)|Java]], including several skullcaps and cranial fragments.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Schwartz|first1=Jeffrey H. |last2=Tattersall|first2=Ian |title=The Human Fossil Record, Craniodental Morphology of Genus Homo (Africa and Asia)|date=2005|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|page=450}}</ref> In 1936, von Koenigswald discovered a juvenile skullcap known as the [[Mojokerto child]] in [[East Java]].{{sfn|Swisher|Curtis|Lewin|2000|p=42}} Considering the Mojokerto child skull cap to be closely related to humans, von Koenigswald wanted to name it ''Pithecanthropus modjokertensis'' (after Dubois's specimen), but Dubois protested that Pithecanthropus was not a human but an "ape-man".{{sfn|Theunissen|1989|pp=161–62}}

Von Koenigswald also made several discoveries in [[Sangiran]], Central Java, where more fossils of early humans were discovered between 1936 and 1941.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=593|title=Sangiran Early Man Site|publisher=UNESCO World Heritage Centre|access-date=2014-07-02}}</ref> Among the discoveries was [[Sangiran 2|a skullcap of similar size]] to that found by Dubois at the Trinil 2 site. Von Koenigswald's discoveries in [[Sangiran]] convinced him that all these skulls belonged to [[early human]]s. Dubois again refused to acknowledge the similarity. Ralph von Koenigswald and Franz Weidenreich compared the fossils from Java and Zhoukoudian and concluded that Java Man and Peking Man were closely related.{{sfn|Theunissen|1989|pp=161–62}} Dubois died in 1940, still refusing to recognize their conclusion,{{sfn|Theunissen|1989|pp=161–62}}{{sfn|Swisher|Curtis|Lewin|2000|pp=76–79}} and official reports remain critical of the Sangiran site's poor presentation and interpretation.<ref>{{citation |author=UNESCO World Heritage Committee |title=State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List |year=2002|url= https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2002/whc-02-conf202-17reve.pdf |pages=29–30}}</ref>