Commentary on the case for Early Pleistocene

Hominids in South-Eastern Spain

Phillip V. TOBIAS
OMSG. FRS (Professor Emeritus)
Palaeo-anthropology Research Group,
Department of Anatornical Sciences,
University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg, South Africa

At least two sets of remains from the Orce (Granada; district of South-Eastern Spain have been claimed to
indicate the presence of hominids in that area in the Earlv Pleistocene. over one millon years ago. From my own
observations on the original specimens, from the published evidence such as the volumes edited by Josep Gibert-
Clols (1989, 1992) and from the independent analvsis by Derek A. Roe of Oxford University (1995), it may
be stated that those remains from Venta Micena pose a somewhat tantalising challenge, whilst those from Fuente
Nueva 3a are less problematical.
These comments were penned in June 1997, nearlv two vears after the Orce Conference took place in
September 1995. As my views were being freely cited in Spain and elsewhere, mainly from correspondence, in
the period following the Orce Conference, it \vas deemed to be useful to set down at first hand my interpretation
of the evidence bearing on the early Pleistocene remains from South-Eastern Spain.

VENTA MICENA: THE SKELETAL EVIDENCE

Three specimens are available: a biparieto-occipital calvarial fragment (VM-0), and two long bones comprising
a juvenile diaphysis or shaft (VM-1960) of what has been claimed to be a juvenile humerus and a probable adult
portion of the shaft of a putative humerus (VM-3691). All three specimens have been claimed to be of human
character (Gibert et al., 1989; Campillo 1992; Gibert et al. 1994a, 1994b; Gibert and Palmqvist, 1995). They
were recovered from Estrato Blanco of the Venta Micena formation.
My brief examination of the original humeral specimens was made at Orce in September 1995, and was
supplemented by the published morphological and quantitative data on these two specimens. Despite their
incompleteness, it seems to me that the features of the available parts of the fossil specimens are compatible with
their being humeri. I have no difficulty in accepting that the morphology of the two fossil humeri ís in keeping
with their being of hominid origin.
As regards the calvarial portion, 1 was aware, at the time when I examined the original specimen, that it
had been suggested that this was derived from an equid skull and not from a hominid skull, a view which has
apparently been espoused by several colleagues. Some features of the calvarial fragment are worthy of special
mention. One is a crest which lies on the inner surface of the posterior part of the specimen, reaches 5.5 mm
in its maximum elevation, lies in or very close to the median sagittal plane (the midline plane of the calvaria)
and is hollowed or concave on its right face and convex on its left face. In modern human crania we find in
this position one or both lips of the superior sagittal sinus groove, which in life lodges the great venous sinus
that travels from anterior to posterior in or close to the midline of the calvaria. In a recent human anatomical
specimen, the sinus enlarges from anterior to posterior. Hence the groove on the endocranium widens and
deepens from front to back, so that, by the time the occipital bone is reached, the lips or at least one of the
two lips is at maximum prominente. This is precisely the position where the strong lip or crest is present in the
Venta Micena calvaria.
It would be unusual to find in modern human crania a crest as elevated as that ofVM-0; but the palaeopathologist,
Domingo Campillo (1989, 1992), from a of study over a thousand recent human crania -both dried anatomical
specimens and cranial radiographs of modern human subjects- has found sinus groove lips as prominent as that
of VM-0 in some modern humans. Thus, this factor on its own ís insufficient to disqualify the calvaria of Venta
Micena from hominid status.
A second feature that was of concern to me in my examination of the original calvarial fragment, as well
as of a cast and endocranial cast which Professor Gibert generously gave to me, was the nature of the endocranial

39
 TOMAS, Phillip V

impressions in the region of the superior parietal lobule of the cerebrum (Tobias, 1997). When I "read" these
impressions with eye and fingertip, it seemed to me that the endocranial marking of the superior parietal lobule
vas divided rather sharply into two moieties, an anterior and a posterior, by a transverse crest which would have
corresponded with a sulcus crossing the lobule transversely. This transverse crest did not appear to represent the
lissura parieto-occipitalis. However, it is entierely possible that this transverse crest represented the pars marginalis
sulci cinguli, in a case in which this marginal part was better developed than is usual in most modern human brains
that I have examined. Hence, this endocranial pattern 00 its own does not disqualify the specimen from hominid
identity.
There were thus two anatomical features of the calvaria VM-0 which appeared to be unusual, if this
fragment had belonged to a human-like cranium. Neither of these two features is sufficent to disqualify the
specimen from having belonged to a hominid: I stated this at Orce, at the time when I examined the original
specimen in September, 1995. However, in respect of both of these features, it must be admitted that we have
very little available information on the variability of these two anatomical traits in the hominids that were living
in the early Pleistocene. If we take into account the known range of variability of these two traits in modern
human crania, both features could be accommodated within the range of modern humans. I have net studied
the range of variation of these two features in modern equid crania of young or adult equid specimens.
Another morphological variable about which there has been controversy, is the pattern of the sagittal suture
of the calvaria VM-0. The original fractal analysis of the suture by J. Gibert and P. Palmqvist (1995) pointed
strongly to its hominid affinities. However, doubts have subsequently been expressed on the basis of a different
tracing of the sanee sagittal suture (Palmqvist 1997). It is possible that one of the two tracings has been made
on the endocranial surface, in contrast with the other tracing which might have been made on the ectocranial
surface of VM-0. The structure of the sagittal suture may vary appreciably betwen the two surfaces in modern
and ancient hominid crania. Moreover, changes in the patterns of the sagittal suture occur with age - and in
a different way and at different times on the inner and the outer surfaces of the cranial bone. Obviously, different
conclusions would be expected if one studied the patterns of the sagittal suture internally, from what would be
learned if one studied the pattern externally. However, even if both tracings ofVM-0 are ectocranial, as Palmqvist
(1997) avers, it remains true that the sutural pattern is highly variable from cranium to cranium on both the
endocranial and the ectocranial surfaces of the calvaria. We know a good deal about the variability of this suture
in some (but not all) populations of modern humans. I doubt whether we have such detailed information on
the ontogenetic and inter-individual variability of the sagittal suture in modern and ancient menibers of the
horse family. Moreover, we have little information on the variations of the sagittal suture in earlier taxa of
hominids, such as Horno erectus, Neandertal populations, or even the so-called archaic Horno sapiens. For these
reasons, the study of this suture, even by the modern, refined technique of fractal analysis, is not very likely to
throw definitive light on the systematic (taxonornic) affinities of the individual represented by VM-0. On the basis
of presently available knowledge, even if were possible to control for the age of an individual, and for the surface
traced and studied, it seems most doubtful and problematical whether it would be valid or accurate for the
pattern of the sagittal suture to be used for the identification of the species represented by VM-0.
I conclude that the pattern of the sagittal suture does not disprove, nor support, the claim that the cranium
was of a hominid.
At Orce, I stated that the morphology of the calvaria VM-0 seemed to be compatible with hominid status,
but that without further remains, une could note be 100 % certain. Futher, I stated without qualification that
the morphology of the two humeri was fully compatible with hominid status. In the two years that have elapsed
lince then, I have seen no new evidence that would lead me to change this view. If one considera the three
specimens as an ensemble, their morphology is compatible with hominid structure, and provides evidence
pointing to, but not absolutely establishing, the presence of hominids in Venta Micena at the time when the
Estrato Blanco of the deposit was formed. This statement is based solely on the anatomical features of the t h ree
specimens. I shall now look at the biomolecular and archaeological evidence.

MOLECULAR EVIDENCE FOR EARLY PLEISTOCENE HOMINIDS IN SOUTH-EASTERN SPAIN

At Orce in September 1995, I was more impressed by the evidence of the fossil proteins of the VM bone
specimens, as were determined by the studies of two different groups, using two different technical approaches.
One group was that of Jerold Lowenstein, who was a pioneer in the radio-immuno-assay (RIA) of fossils and
is recognised as one of the world.'s leading authorities in such studies: his laboratory is in the University of

40
 COMMENTARY ON THE CASE FOR EARLY PLEISTOCENE HOMINIDS IN SOUTH-EASTERN SPAIN

California at San Francisco, U.S.A. The other group was that of Concepcion Borja and Enrique Garcia Olivares
(1995) of the University of Granada in Spain. Both groups detected human albumin in VM-0 and VM-1960,
Lowenstein (1995) detected human collagen and transferrin in V•-0, \ vhil e Borja's team detected human
immunoglobulin in VM-1960 and VM-3691. The convergente of the t \vo laboratories, working independently
of one another, by two different methods, provides very stron g, evidence in support of the conclusion that the
bones from Venta Micena are of hominid origin (Borja et al. 1997). For dais reason. I stated at Orce that the
evidence of the fossil proteins was more convincing than of the skeletal morphology, in the establishment of their
hominid origin.
When the molecular and the skeletal data are considered together. the picture afforded by the bio-anthropological
evidence is that the three bones are of human origin. Thus, on their oyen, thev provide evidence that hominids
were present in the Orce region well down in the Early Pleistocene. The case is strengthened when one takes
into account the archaeological evidence, especially that from Fuente Nueva (vide infra).

CULTURAL EVIDENCE FOR EARLY PLEIS'FOCENE HOMINIDS IN SOUTH-EASTERN SPAIN

• Two kinds of cultural evidence have been adduced by Josep Gibert and his team in support of the presence
of signs of hominid handiwork in the Venta Micena deposit: one relates to the modification of bones by breakage
and cutmarks (Gibert and Jimenez, 1991, Jimenez and Gibert, 1993). From scanning electron microscopic studies
of those bones which were found in situ at Venta Micena and which show apparent cutmarks, and a comparison
of these apparent cutmarks with those previously identified on bones from Olduvai in Tanzania and Lake Turkana
in Kenya, they have concluded that the Venta Micena marks are similarly to be regarded as signs of hominid
activities. No other adequate explanation of the marks on the Venta Micena hones has been proffered (Roe,
1995), The bones affected were obtained from the Estrato Blanco from which the hominid bones emanated.
The second line of cultural evidence relates to stones which have been recovered from Estrato Blanco at Venta
Micena and also from the earlier Estrato Negro at several other sites in the vicinity (such as Barranco del Paso-
Cortijo Alfonso, Barranco León and Cortijo de Doña Milagros) (Gibert et al., 1992; Roe, 1995). I have
examined but not studied these claimed artefacts and manuports, but I am impressed by the critical study by
D. A. Roe of the stones which J.Gibert placed at the disposal of himself and his team at the Donald Baden-
Powell Quaternary Research Centre, Oxford University. Fractured stones and stone transported to the site are
certainly present and Roe acknowledges that some `struck . surfaces are detectable, as also some struck flakes,
although he does not exclude the possibility that they could have been produced by natural mechanical forces.
On the other hand, when one considers the sources of various rocks represented in the collection of stone found
among the Early Pleistocene animal bones, they have all been transported from at least a few kilometres away.
Of them, Roe (1995) states, "Apart from human portage, there seems to be no obvious natural explanation (such
as the presence of stream channels) that could account for their presence where they were found. They cannot
properly be rejected as manuports (which Roe defines as "...pieces of stone which were not worked, but whose
presence where discovered is specifically attributable to transport by humans (op. cit., p. 6)) until a good
alternative explanation for their presence has been provided". (Roe, 1995: page 7).
Thus, there is suggestive evidence for the presence of the marks of hominid cultural activities at Venta
Micena, although on the oasis of the stockpile of material which was available at the time when Derek Roe
made his initial independent study, the case had not yet been irrefutably proven. More material needed to be
recovered from Venta Micena and to be subjected to the most critical study, such as that to which Jimenez and
Gibert (1991, 1992) had subjected the cutmarks on the Venta Micena bones.
A further study by Tixier, Roe, Turq and others ( 1995) has led the authors "d'affirmer la presence d'outils
lithiques taillés dans le Pléistocéne inferieur du sud de la Péninsule Ibérique" ("to assert the presence of lithic
artefacts during the Lower Pleistocene in the South of the Iberian Peninsula") (Tixicr et al., pago 71).
To summarise on the contribution which Venta Micena has made to our thinking on early hominids in
Europe, from that site specifically, the identification -by anatomical and molecular means- of hominid bones
provides very persuasive evidence that hominids were present at Venta Micena in the Early Pleistocene. Cultural
evidence of the hominid presence is provided by the quarzite and silex pieces which were found in sítu with
the animal bones, boda the stones which appear to have been modified, and those which were probably
manuports, and by the claimed cutmarks on contemporaneous hones.

41
 TOI3IAS, Phillip

FUENTE NUEVA

Stronger cultural evidence for the presence of hominids at the sanee early period has been forthcoming from
Fuente Nueva 3 in the Orce Basin. Indisputable stone artefacts have been recovered from the sane horizon as
has yielded Early Pleistocene fauna (as has been revealed by the excavation of A. Turq, which is quoted by Roe,
1995). Broken stones as well as probable manuports have been found also in the older Estrato Negro at some of
the other Orce Basin sites, such as Barranco Léon.

COMMENTS

Further investigations of Estrato Blanco and Estrato Negro, at those sites in the Orce Basin where these two
strata are preserved and available for excavation, should be an important objetive for the immediate future.
Among the purposes will clearly be the need to recover more hominid skeletal remains, and indisputable stone
artefacts found in association with the Early Pleistocene animal bones, and the confirmation, over a wider area,
of the dating that has been claimed for the Orce hominid remains. Josep Gibert and his associates have claimed
a dating, based largely on paleomagnetic results, of 1.6-1.8 million years before the present (Gibert et al, 1992).
That would be close to the oldest part of the Early Pleistocene as defined at present. The Pliocene-Pleistocene
boundary is placed at 1.8 million years ago, although an INQUA Committee under the chairmanship of T.C.
Partridge of Johannesburg, is at present investigating the perceived need for that boundary to be shifted back
in time to a little older than 2.0 million years. This claim by Gibert and his associates was discussed at the Orce
Meeting in 1995. Some investigators held that the paleomagnetic results were compatible with less ancient dating
than 1.6 million years, but none of the discussants held that it could be less than about 1.2 million years. Even
on this less archaic dating, these are the oldest dates for the hitherto established presence of hominids in Europe.
They exceed even the dating of 0.8 million years for the hominid remains from Gran Dolina, Atapuerca (Burgos),
in northern Spain, and the possible dating proponed for the cranium of Ceprano, Italy.
Already there is evidence from elsewere-Ubeidiya in Israel, Dmanisi in Georgia, Java in Indonesia and,
probably also China, for the presence of hominids out of Africa before 1.0 million years ago. Aside from the
Dmanisi remains (1.4Myr), the Orce Basin has furnished evidence for the presence of the oldest hominids in
the European continent.

SUMMARY

Several sites in the Orce Basin have revealed evidence indicative of the presence of hominids in the Early
Pleistocene. These remains are dated to over 1.0 million years, while they may be as old 1.6 million years.
The putative hominid skeletal remains from Venta Micena in the Orce Basin show a molecular "fossil
protein" pattern which aligns them with hominids, but not with equids. This is supported by the anatomical
evidence of the two presumptive humeral shafts from the Estrato Blanco in the Venta Micena deposits. The
bioparieto-occipital partial calvaria shows some unusual anatomical features ifVM-0 is a hominid specimen. The
presence of a prominent sagittally orientated crest on the interna' surface of the occipital fragment adjacent to
the point lambda is unusual for a modern human calvaria. Moreover, the itnpressiones digitatae, in the region
where the superior parietal lobule of the cerebral hemisphere abutted against the calvaria, point to a bipartite
superior parietal lobule with anterior and posterior moities. On the endocast ofVM-0, these arcas are separated
by a depression that would have rnatched a transverse sulcus on the original brain. These morphological traits
are rather puzzling if VM-0 is a hominid, and at first they led me to hesitate over the systematic identification
of VM-0. However, the studies of Campillo (1989) and of Campillo and Barceló (1989) show that the features
of the fragment VM-0 are compatible with those of a hominid. Because I believe that we do not possesS sufficient
information on the variability of the endocranial and ectocranial manifestations of the sagittal suture and of its
variance with the age of the individual, among different individuals and in different hominid species, nor on the
variability in different equid species, I do not consider that the pattern of the sagittal suture may validly be
adduced as evidence in support or rebuttal of the hominid status of VM-0.
The biochemical studies of VM-0 by Borja et al. (1992, 1995, 1997) and by Lowenstein (1995, 1997) leave
little room for doubt that the affinities of the proteins of VM-0 lie with the hominids, not with equids, to the
crania of which VM-0 has been likened by some colleagues. These studies also support the assignment of the
humeral specimens to the hominids.

42
 COMMENTARY ON THE CASE FOR EARLY PLEISTOCENE HOMINIDS IN SOUTH-EASTERN SPAIN

The signs of cutmarks on some of the contemporaneous Venta Micena bones, and the evidence of stone-
collecting and modifying at Venta Micena Estrato Blanco, as well as at Fuente Nueva-3, add a convincing cultural
dimension to the testimony that a tool-using and tool-making hominid was present in the Orce Basin during
the early Pleistocene, between 1.6 and 1.0 million vears ago.
The totality of the evidence, b ological and cultural. from the Orce basin po nts strongly to this conclusion:

Orce has provided the first evidence that ancient humans «ere present in (Western) Europe
over a million years ago.

A CKNOWLED GEMENT S

I am grateful to the Mayor of Orce (Granada), Mr Leandro Torres Alchapar, whose letter of enquiry to me,
dated 26th March 1997, as to my viewpoint on the remains attributed to "Orce Man", stimulated me to write
this Commentary.
Dr Josep Gibert i Clols kindly allowed me access to the sites and to the original material from Venta Micena
and from other sites in the Orce Basin. My understanding of the problem of the Orce and Murcia remains has
been greatly helped by discussions and exchanges of correspondence with Professor Josep Gibert i Clols, Dr
Domingo Campillo, Professor Michael Walker, Dr Paul Palmqvist and Dr Bienvenido Martinez Navarro, to all
of whom I am most grateful.
Mr S'fiso Mthembu kindly typed the manuscript.

REFERENCE S

BORJA C. and GARCIA-OLIVARES E. (1995). Detection and characterisation of proteins in fossils from Venta
Micena and Cueva Victoria by immunological methods. International Conference of Human Palaeontology
(Orce, Granada), 26.
BORJA C., GARCIA-PACHECO J.M., RAMIREZ-LOPEZ J.P. and GARCÍA-OLIVARES E. (1992).
Cuantificación y caracterización de la albumina fósil del cráneo de Orce. In: J. Gibert, D. Campillo, E.
García-Olivares, A. Malgosa, E Martinez and B. Martinez (eds). Proyecto Orce-Cueva Victória (1988-1992).
Presencia humana en el Pleistoceno inferior de Granada y Murcia, pp.415-423. Orce (Granada): Museo de
Prehistória y Paleontología "J. Gibert".
BORJA C., GARCÍA-PACHECO J.M., GARCÍA-OLIVARES E., SCHEUENSTUHL G. and LOWENSTEIN
J.M. (1997). Immunospecificity of albumin detected in 1.6 million-years-old fossils from Venta Micena in
Orce, Granada, Spain. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 103: 433-441.
CAMPILLO D. (1989). Estudio del Hombre de Orce. In: J. Gibert, D. Campillo and E. García Olivares (eds.)
Los restos humanos de Orce y Cueva Victória, pp. 187-220. Sabadell: Institut de Paleontologia Dr. M.
Crusafont.
CAMPILLO D. (1992). Estudio del Hombre de Orce. In: J. Gibert (ed.) Presencia humana en el Pleistoceno inferior
de Granada y Murcia, pp. 341-370. Orce (Granada): Museo de Prehistoria y Paleontología "J. Gibert".
CAMPILLO D. and BARCELÓ J.A. (1989). Morphometric study of the internal surface of the squama occipitalis.
In: J. Gibert, D. Campillo and E. García Olivares (eds.) Los restos humanos de Orce y Cueva Victoria, pp.
109-186. Sabadell: Institut de Paleontología M. Crusafont.
GIBERT, J. (ed.) (1992). Proyecto Orce-Cueva Victoria (1988-1992): Presencia humana en el Pleistoceno inferior de
Granada y Murcia. Orce (Granada): Museo de Prehistória y Paleontología "J. Gibert".
GIBERT J., ARRIBAS A., MARTINEZ B., ALBADALEJO S., GAETE R.,GIBERT L., PEÑAS AS C., and
TORRICO R. (1992): Sintesis cronoestratigráfica del Pleistoceno inferior de la región de Orce. In: J.
Gibert (ed.) Proyecto Orce-Cueva Victoria (1988-1992): Presencia humana en el Pleistoceno inferior de Granada
y Murcia. pp. 107-112. Orce (Granada): Museo de Prehistória y Paleontología "J. Gibert".
GIBERT J., ARRIBAS A., MARTINEZ B., ALBADALEJO S., GAETE R., GIBERT L., OMS O., PEÑAS AS C.,
and TORRICO R., (1994 a). Biostratigraphie et magnétoestratigraphie des gisements á presence humaine
et action anthropique du Pléistocene inférieur de la région d'Orce (Granada, espagne). C.R. Acad. Sci.
Paris III 318: 1277-1282.
GIBERT J., CAMPILLO D. and GARCÍA OLIVARES E. (eds.) (1989). Los restos humanos de Orce y Cueva
Victória. Sabadell: Institut de Paleontología M. Crusafont.

43
 TOMAS, Phillip V

GIBERT J. and JIMENEZ C. (1991). Investigations into cut-niarks on fossil bones of Lower Pleistocene age
from Venta Micena (Orce, Granada, Spain). Human Evolution, 6: 117-128.
GIBERT J. and PALMQVIST P. (1995). Fractal analysis of the Orce skull sutures. J.Hum. Evol., 28: 561-575.
GIBERT J., SÁNCHEZ E, MALGOSA A., and MARTÍNEZ B. (1994 b). Découverte des restes humaines dans
le gisement d'Orce (Granada, Espagne). C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, III 319: 963-968.
JIMENEZ C., and GIBERT J. (1993). Estudio comparado de los "cut-marks" de Venta Micena. In Gibert J.
(ed.). Proyecto Orce-Cueva Victdria (1988-1992): Presencia humana en el Pleistoceno inferior de Granada y Murcia,
pp. 307-339. Orce,Granada: Museo de Prehistoria y Paleontología "J. Gibert".
LOWENSTEIN J. (1995). Immunological reactions in fossil bones from Orce. Congreso Internacional de Paleontología
Humana. Orce, Granada, Spain, September 1995.
PALMQVIST P. (1997).A critical re-evaluation of the evidence for the presence of hominids in Lower Pleistocene
times at Venta Micena, Southern Spain. J. 1114111. Evol., 33: 83-89.
ROE D.A. (1995). The Orce Basin ( Andalucía, Spain) and the initial palaeolithic of Europe. Oxford J. Archaeology,
14 (1): 1-12.
TIXIER J., ROE D., TURQ A., GIBERT J., MARTINEZ B., ARRIBAS A., GIBERT L., GAETE, R.,
MAILLO, A., and IGLESIAS, A. (1995). Presence D'industries lithiques dans le Pléistocene inférieur de
la région d'Orce (Grenade, Espagne): quel est l'état de la question? C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, II: 71-78.
TOBIAS P.V. (1998).Were the lower and middle Pleistocene Europeans capable of spoken language? In: Homínids
and their Environment in the European Lower and Middle Pleistocene (ed. J. Gibert). Proceedings of International
Congress of Human Palaeontology, Orce, Spain, September 1995.

44