- Email: [email protected]
The Orce skull: anatomy of a mistake
Current events Salvador Moya`-Sola` and Meike Köhler
Institut de Paleontologia M.Crusafont, c/Escola Industrial, 23, 08201 Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain
The Orce skull: anatomy of a mistake Journal of Human Evolution (1997) 33, 91–97
The search for the oldest Europeans is a passionate project. What was the first species to colonize Europe, when and where did these human beings settle, are some of the questions that still remain unresolved. Therefore, it is not surprising that many teams make considerable efforts to find evidence of the first settlers. Every new finding, even fragmentary specimens, are enthusiastically welcomed by scientists and by society in general. Nevertheless, this is not exactly what happened with the fragmentary specimen, popularly known as ‘‘el craneo de Orce’’ (the Orce skull), which for more than 10 years has been claimed to be a human remain by Gibert and his collaborators (Gibert et al., 1989a,b,c; Campillo, 1989; Palmqvist et al., 1995) and Martinez-Navarro (1996). This specimen was found in the locality of Venta Micena, Orce (Granada, Spain) and consists of a small part of a braincase. Actually, it would be the oldest human remain in Europe, if its taxonomic status were confirmed. However, its attribution to Homo has been put into doubt several times (Agusti & Moyà-Solà, 1987; Moyà-Solà & Agusti, 1989), and in spite of its stratigraphic age (Lower Pleistocene) (Agusti et al., 1987; Agusti & Moyà-Solà, 1991, 1992), it has not made any impact on the palaeoanthropological literature of the last 10 years. The peculiar characters of this fragment, which do not fit with the human morphology, attracted widespread criticism and the defenders of its human nature (op. cit.) applied a lot of imagination to try to demostrate the correctness of their hypothesis. Both the fractal analysis of the sagittal suture, as well as the application of palaeoimmunological technologies, doubtlessly resulted from this effort. However, the study of the sagittal suture (Gibert & Palmquist, 1995) is based on a notably simplified, and thus, erroneous drawing (Palmqvist, 1997), and the palaeoimmunological results are not conclusive (Palmqvist, 1997). Nevertheless there still remains the evidence of the anatomy. We will approach the taxonomic status of the Orce fragment from this angle, concluding that it should not be attributed to Homo but to Equus. Most recently, the Orce skull and other fragments of doubtful human nature from the Orce–Venta Micena sedimentary complex (Gibert et al., 1994), have been defined in a certainly curious manner as ‘‘potentially hominid remains’’ (Zihlman & Lowenstein, 1996). What does this mean after 10 years of discussion? What are the requisites of a fossil that is potentially (‘‘possible but not yet actually’’) hominid to become definitely a hominid? Normally, hominid fossils clearly show a correspondingly hominid anatomy, and their attribution does not generate debate (Atapuerca, Carbonell et al., 1995; or Dmanisi, Gabunia & Vekua, 1995). The application of different technologies, such as fractal dimension of the sagittal suture and palaeoimmunological analysis by the team of Gibert (Gibert & Palmqvist, 1995; Lowenstein, 1995) seems to suggest that the anatomy of the Orce fragment is not clear and exclusive, and therefore only these techniques permit a definitive attribution. This is an attempt to discredit, from the very beginning, each morphological approach: ‘‘The role of the immunology is critical here, where the morphology is incomplete’’ (Ph. Tobias in Zihlman & Lowenstein, 1996), ‘‘Given the limitations of conventional anatomy to determine the affinities 0047–2484/97/070091+07 $25.00/0/hu970121
? 1997 Academic Press Limited
92
. ` -` . ¨
of this fossil, other more precise methodological approaches were used, . . . morphometric analysis of cranial sutures, and the detection . . . of . . . proteins.’’ (Palmqvist, 1997). Nevertheless, the Orce fragment is actually sufficiently complete for a conventional approach by the means of comparative morphology and does permit a classification without any ambiguity. The hominid affinities Following the analysis made by Gibert and collaborators (Gibert et al., 1989a,b,c; Campillo, 1989; Gibert and Palmqvist, 1995; Martinez-Navarro, 1996; textual cites from Campillo, 1989), we agree that (1) ‘‘the exocranial morphology with the lambdoid angle of about 119) . . . is completely within the human variability’’, (2) the curvature of the parietal bones is wide; and (3) the morphology of the endocranial surface shows a sagittal grove which continues through the fragment of the occipital bone. However, these features are not diagnostic for hominids, as they are common in many other mammals. The statement that the lambdoid angle is ‘‘completely within the human variability’’ is not an exclusive human characteristic and with the same arguments one can affirm that it is ‘‘completely within the horse variability’’ (lambdoid angle in extant Equus between 66) and 143), Gibert et al., 1989a). The observation of a wide parietal curvature is only useful for larger parietal surfaces, as the degree of curvature per se is not diagnostic, but only in the context of parietal size. Curvatures of surfaces of the size of the Orce fragment (75 mm transversal diameter) can easily be found in other mammals such as young equids, rhinos etc. Also the mention of an endocranial sagittal grove is superfluous, as this grove can be found in many other mammals. At the end of his analysis, Campillo (1989) concluded that ‘‘we can affirm that we have found no evident differences between the skull of Orce, and the morphologies . . . found in present day skulls’’. But where are the evident features diagnostic (autapomorphic) for humans? A taxonomic approach based on the lack of differences, but not on exclusive characteristic hominine features is erroneous and leads to the disappointing statement that the Orce fragment is a ‘‘potentially hominid remain’’ (Zihlman & Lowenstein, 1996) until there are features that positively prove the pertenancy to the genus Homo. But a ‘‘Homo in spe’’ does not provide any base for hypotheses about where, when and how the first humans came to Europe or other important questions and thus, it lacks any scientific value. On the other hand, there are a series of statements we disagree with: (1) absence of vestiges of the fronto-parietal suture (Campillo, 1989). This suture is clearly visible on the exo- and endocranial surface (Figure 1) and even partially on the exocranial surface (Figure 2). (2) the digital impressions do not differ from the habitual ones which are found in present day children (Campillo, 1989). This statement is not correct, as the anatomy of the inner surface is not usual in hominids but in other mammals such as equids. (3) ‘‘The sutures are of simple denting, just as it occurs quite often in the fossil men’’ (Campillo, 1989). This observation is wrong as demonstrated in Palmqvist (1997). (4) ‘‘The presence of a sagittal crest (endocranial) . . . does not weaken the diagnosis . . .’’ (Campillo, 1989), while, in fact, an endocranial sagittal crest comparable with that of the Orce fragment does not exist in any human skull. All these features suggest that the Orce skull does not belong to Homo.
:
93
Figure 1. Upper: Endocranial view of the skull fragment (VM-0) from Venta Micena (Orce, Granada, Spain). The arrows indicate the coronal suture of the right side. Lower: Drawing of the same view. P, parietal; F, frontal, CS, coronal suture; SS, sagittal suture; O-I Occipital or interparietal; CT,: tentorial crest. Grafic scale 2 cm.
The equid affinities The taxonomic attribution of the Orce fragment is, however, not as difficult as suggested by the team of Gibert, as in fact it yields valuable information: (1) the only weakly closed suture suggests that the individual was young (infantile or juvenile);
94
. ` -` . ¨
Figure 2. Exocranial view of the skull fragment from Orce (VM-0). This photograph was taken in 1984, previous to every kind of manipulation for cleaning or restoring (the internal side). The black arrows indicate the coronal suture to be clearly visible in the upper part of the specimen. This does not allow the attribution of this specimen to the genus Homo.
(2) the degree of the parietal curvature (sagittaly and transversally), the general size of the specimen, and the slenderness of the bone suggest that it belongs to an infantile or juvenile large mammal; (3) the suture is much more complex than suggested and figured previously by Gibert & Palmqvist (1995) and actually resembles those of other mammals such as equids (Palmqvist 1997); (4) the morphology of the endocranial surface is characterized by small and deep digital impressions and well-marked transversal sulci. While the morphology of Equus and other ungulates resembles that of the Orce specimen extraordinarily (see Gibert et al., 1989c, figure 21), Homo habitually shows even parietals without important digital impressions and
:
95
Figure 3. Detail of the posterior part of the sagittal suture and the parieto-occipital suture of VM-0. The complexity of these sutures is clearly visible.
only traces of meningeal arteries. Basing our hypothesis on the norm either seen in humans or in equines, this morphology cannot be attributed to Homo. Yielding to temptation to look for a case of extreme variability or a pathological case as a reliable pattern for the Orce fragment is a methodological mistake and only possible when misguided by wishful thinking. (5) the posterior part of the Orce fragment preserves a small portion of the occipital or interparietal, with a sharp crest running towards and ending close to lambda, considered by Agusti & Moyà-Solà (1987) and Moyà-Solà & Agusti (1989) homologous to that of equines. This crest shows a height of 6 mm, and taking into account that it was somewhat damaged during the restoration process, it would probably have been even higher. Gibert et al. (1989c) thought this crest to be very different from those of equines, essentially for two reasons: the internal occipital protuberance (tentorial process) is not observable and the crest runs beyond lambda. The first argument is irrelevant because the lack of the protuberance is due to the fact that the posterior part of the occipital, where this protuberance is located, is not preserved. The second argument is an error because the crest does end in lambda (Figure 1). Thus, there is no difference between the equine morphology and that of the Orce fragment. Although Campillo & Barcelò (1989) mention ‘‘similar’’ crests in human occipitals, none of them is as sharp and high as that of the Orce specimen, which, however, strongly resembles those of Equus.
96
. ` -` . ¨
(6) the Orce fragment has a coronal suture. Although the external surface of the specimen is strongly damaged by abrasion and the anterior part suffered several fractures, this suture is clearly observable and even unconsciously figured by the team of Gibert (Gibert et al. 1989, Figure 17; Campillo, 1989, Figure 8). The internal surface is perfectly preserved and allows observation of the coronal suture over a long distance, particularly on the right parietal (Figure 1, 2), where it runs only 4 cm from lambda and crosses perpendicularly the sagittal suture. The presence of the coronal suture is denied by those who defend the human nature of this fragment (Gibert et al., 1989a,b,c; Campillo, 1989; Gibert and Palmqvist, 1995; Martinez-Navarro, 1996). This suture is key for the taxonomic assessment of the Orce fragment, because it gives us the sagittal length of the parietals: 4 cm. This makes an attribution to Homo impossible. Similar distances are frequent in Equus. This last argument, together with the general morphology of the Orce fragment, enable us to conclude that this specimen belongs to the cranium of an immature Equus altidens, very frequent in the locality of Venta Micena, and that it is unnecessary to look for limits of variability or pathologies: it is just a common and ordinary horse. References Agustí, J. & Moyà-Solà, S. (1987). Sobre la identidad del fragmento craneal atribuido a Homo sp. en Venta Micena (Orce, Granada). Estudios Geológicos 43, 535–538. Agusti, J. & Moyà-Solà, S. (1991). Les faunes de mammifères du Pléistocene inférieur et moyen de l’Espagne: implications biostratigraphiques. L’Anthropologie 95(4), 753–764. Agusti, J. & Moyà-Solà, S. (1992). Mammalian dispersal events in the Spanish pleistocene. Courier Forsch.-Inst. Senckenberg 153, 69–77. Agusti, J., Moyà Solà, S. & Pons, J. (1987). Venta Micena (Guadix-Baza Basin, South-eastern Spain): its place in the Plio-pleistocene mammal succesion in Europe. Geol. Romana 23 Campillo, D. (1989). Estudio del Hombre de Orce. In Los Restos Humatios de Orce i Cueva Victoria (J. Gibert & C. Campillo y E. Garcia-Olivares, Eds). pp. 109–186. Instituto Paleontologia ‘‘M. Crusafont’’-Diputación de Barcelona. Campillo, D. & Barcelo, J. A. (1989). Estudio morfometrico de la cara interna de la escama del hueso occipital. In Los Restos Humatios de Orce i Cueva Victoria (J. Gibert & C. Campillo y E. Garcia-Olivares, Eds). pp. 109–188. Instituto Paleontologia ‘‘M. Crusafont’’-Diputación de Barcelona. Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., Arsuaga, J. L., Diez, J. C., Rosas, A., Cuenca-Bescós, G., Sala, R., Mosquera, M. & Rodriguez, X. P. (1995). Lower Pleistocene hominids and artifacts from Atapuerca TD-6 (Spain). Science 269, 826–830. Gabunia, L. & Vekua, A. (1995). A Plio-Pleistocene hominid from Dmanisi, East Georgia, Caucasus. Nature 373, 509–512. Gibert, J. & Palmqvist, P. (1995). Fractal analysis of the Orce skull sutures. J. hum. Evol. 28, 561–575. Gibert, J., Campillo, D., Ribot, F., Ferrandez, C., Martinez-Navarro, B. & Caporicci, R. (1989). Anatomical study: Comparison of the hominid cranial fragment from Venta Micena (Orce, Spain) with fossil and extant mammals. Hum. Evol. 4, 283–305. Gibert, J., Sánchez, F., Malgosa, A. & Martinez-Navarro, B. (1994). Dècouvertes des restes humains dans les gisements d’Orce (Grenade, Espagne). Noveaux restes humains d Orce. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences de Paris 319, sèrie 11, 963–968. Gibert, J., Ribot, F., Ferrandez, C., Martinez-Navarro, B. & Caporicci, R. (1989a). Caracteristicas diferenciales entre el fragmento de craneo de Homo sp. De Venta Micena (Orce, Granada) y los Equidos. Estudios Geologicos 45, 121–138. Gibert, J., Ribot, F., Ferrandez, C., Martinez-Navarro, B., Caporicci, R. & Campillo, D. (1989b). Anatomical study: comparison of the cranial fragment from Venta Micena (Orce; Spain) with fossil andextant mammals. Hum. Evol. 4, 283–305. Gibert, J., Ribot, F., Ferrandez, C., Martinez-Navarro, B. & Ruz, M. (1989c). Diagnosis diferencial del fragmento de cráneo de Homo sp. del yacimiento de Venta Micena (Orce, Granada). In Los restos humatios de Orce i Cueva Victoria (J. Gibert & C. Campillo y E. Garcia-Olivares, Eds). pp. 31–108. Instituto Paleontologia ‘‘M. Crusafont’’Diputación de Barcelona. Lowenstein, J. M. (1995). Immunological reactions on fossil bones from Orce. Abstracts of the International Congress of Human Paleontology, Orce, Granada, 27.
:
97
Martinez-Navarro, B. (1996). Similarities between skull fragment VM-0 from Orce (Spain) and the Homo erectus holotype from Trinil (Java). Revista Espahola Paleontol 11, 120–121. Moyà Solà, S. & Agusti, J. (1989). Una reinterpretación del fragmento craneal de Orce: Equus stenonis COCHI. In Los restos humatios de Orce i Cueva Victoria (J. Gibert & C. Campillo y E. Garcfa-Olivares, Eds). Instituto Paleontologia ‘‘M. Crusafont’’-Diputación de Barcelona. 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. hum. Evol. 33, 83–89. Zihlman, A. & Lowenstein, J. M. (1996). A Spanish Olduvai? Curr. Anthropol. 37, 695–697.
Institut de Paleontologia M.Crusafont, c/Escola Industrial, 23, 08201 Sabadell, Barcelona, Spain
The Orce skull: anatomy of a mistake Journal of Human Evolution (1997) 33, 91–97
The search for the oldest Europeans is a passionate project. What was the first species to colonize Europe, when and where did these human beings settle, are some of the questions that still remain unresolved. Therefore, it is not surprising that many teams make considerable efforts to find evidence of the first settlers. Every new finding, even fragmentary specimens, are enthusiastically welcomed by scientists and by society in general. Nevertheless, this is not exactly what happened with the fragmentary specimen, popularly known as ‘‘el craneo de Orce’’ (the Orce skull), which for more than 10 years has been claimed to be a human remain by Gibert and his collaborators (Gibert et al., 1989a,b,c; Campillo, 1989; Palmqvist et al., 1995) and Martinez-Navarro (1996). This specimen was found in the locality of Venta Micena, Orce (Granada, Spain) and consists of a small part of a braincase. Actually, it would be the oldest human remain in Europe, if its taxonomic status were confirmed. However, its attribution to Homo has been put into doubt several times (Agusti & Moyà-Solà, 1987; Moyà-Solà & Agusti, 1989), and in spite of its stratigraphic age (Lower Pleistocene) (Agusti et al., 1987; Agusti & Moyà-Solà, 1991, 1992), it has not made any impact on the palaeoanthropological literature of the last 10 years. The peculiar characters of this fragment, which do not fit with the human morphology, attracted widespread criticism and the defenders of its human nature (op. cit.) applied a lot of imagination to try to demostrate the correctness of their hypothesis. Both the fractal analysis of the sagittal suture, as well as the application of palaeoimmunological technologies, doubtlessly resulted from this effort. However, the study of the sagittal suture (Gibert & Palmquist, 1995) is based on a notably simplified, and thus, erroneous drawing (Palmqvist, 1997), and the palaeoimmunological results are not conclusive (Palmqvist, 1997). Nevertheless there still remains the evidence of the anatomy. We will approach the taxonomic status of the Orce fragment from this angle, concluding that it should not be attributed to Homo but to Equus. Most recently, the Orce skull and other fragments of doubtful human nature from the Orce–Venta Micena sedimentary complex (Gibert et al., 1994), have been defined in a certainly curious manner as ‘‘potentially hominid remains’’ (Zihlman & Lowenstein, 1996). What does this mean after 10 years of discussion? What are the requisites of a fossil that is potentially (‘‘possible but not yet actually’’) hominid to become definitely a hominid? Normally, hominid fossils clearly show a correspondingly hominid anatomy, and their attribution does not generate debate (Atapuerca, Carbonell et al., 1995; or Dmanisi, Gabunia & Vekua, 1995). The application of different technologies, such as fractal dimension of the sagittal suture and palaeoimmunological analysis by the team of Gibert (Gibert & Palmqvist, 1995; Lowenstein, 1995) seems to suggest that the anatomy of the Orce fragment is not clear and exclusive, and therefore only these techniques permit a definitive attribution. This is an attempt to discredit, from the very beginning, each morphological approach: ‘‘The role of the immunology is critical here, where the morphology is incomplete’’ (Ph. Tobias in Zihlman & Lowenstein, 1996), ‘‘Given the limitations of conventional anatomy to determine the affinities 0047–2484/97/070091+07 $25.00/0/hu970121
? 1997 Academic Press Limited
92
. ` -` . ¨
of this fossil, other more precise methodological approaches were used, . . . morphometric analysis of cranial sutures, and the detection . . . of . . . proteins.’’ (Palmqvist, 1997). Nevertheless, the Orce fragment is actually sufficiently complete for a conventional approach by the means of comparative morphology and does permit a classification without any ambiguity. The hominid affinities Following the analysis made by Gibert and collaborators (Gibert et al., 1989a,b,c; Campillo, 1989; Gibert and Palmqvist, 1995; Martinez-Navarro, 1996; textual cites from Campillo, 1989), we agree that (1) ‘‘the exocranial morphology with the lambdoid angle of about 119) . . . is completely within the human variability’’, (2) the curvature of the parietal bones is wide; and (3) the morphology of the endocranial surface shows a sagittal grove which continues through the fragment of the occipital bone. However, these features are not diagnostic for hominids, as they are common in many other mammals. The statement that the lambdoid angle is ‘‘completely within the human variability’’ is not an exclusive human characteristic and with the same arguments one can affirm that it is ‘‘completely within the horse variability’’ (lambdoid angle in extant Equus between 66) and 143), Gibert et al., 1989a). The observation of a wide parietal curvature is only useful for larger parietal surfaces, as the degree of curvature per se is not diagnostic, but only in the context of parietal size. Curvatures of surfaces of the size of the Orce fragment (75 mm transversal diameter) can easily be found in other mammals such as young equids, rhinos etc. Also the mention of an endocranial sagittal grove is superfluous, as this grove can be found in many other mammals. At the end of his analysis, Campillo (1989) concluded that ‘‘we can affirm that we have found no evident differences between the skull of Orce, and the morphologies . . . found in present day skulls’’. But where are the evident features diagnostic (autapomorphic) for humans? A taxonomic approach based on the lack of differences, but not on exclusive characteristic hominine features is erroneous and leads to the disappointing statement that the Orce fragment is a ‘‘potentially hominid remain’’ (Zihlman & Lowenstein, 1996) until there are features that positively prove the pertenancy to the genus Homo. But a ‘‘Homo in spe’’ does not provide any base for hypotheses about where, when and how the first humans came to Europe or other important questions and thus, it lacks any scientific value. On the other hand, there are a series of statements we disagree with: (1) absence of vestiges of the fronto-parietal suture (Campillo, 1989). This suture is clearly visible on the exo- and endocranial surface (Figure 1) and even partially on the exocranial surface (Figure 2). (2) the digital impressions do not differ from the habitual ones which are found in present day children (Campillo, 1989). This statement is not correct, as the anatomy of the inner surface is not usual in hominids but in other mammals such as equids. (3) ‘‘The sutures are of simple denting, just as it occurs quite often in the fossil men’’ (Campillo, 1989). This observation is wrong as demonstrated in Palmqvist (1997). (4) ‘‘The presence of a sagittal crest (endocranial) . . . does not weaken the diagnosis . . .’’ (Campillo, 1989), while, in fact, an endocranial sagittal crest comparable with that of the Orce fragment does not exist in any human skull. All these features suggest that the Orce skull does not belong to Homo.
:
93
Figure 1. Upper: Endocranial view of the skull fragment (VM-0) from Venta Micena (Orce, Granada, Spain). The arrows indicate the coronal suture of the right side. Lower: Drawing of the same view. P, parietal; F, frontal, CS, coronal suture; SS, sagittal suture; O-I Occipital or interparietal; CT,: tentorial crest. Grafic scale 2 cm.
The equid affinities The taxonomic attribution of the Orce fragment is, however, not as difficult as suggested by the team of Gibert, as in fact it yields valuable information: (1) the only weakly closed suture suggests that the individual was young (infantile or juvenile);
94
. ` -` . ¨
Figure 2. Exocranial view of the skull fragment from Orce (VM-0). This photograph was taken in 1984, previous to every kind of manipulation for cleaning or restoring (the internal side). The black arrows indicate the coronal suture to be clearly visible in the upper part of the specimen. This does not allow the attribution of this specimen to the genus Homo.
(2) the degree of the parietal curvature (sagittaly and transversally), the general size of the specimen, and the slenderness of the bone suggest that it belongs to an infantile or juvenile large mammal; (3) the suture is much more complex than suggested and figured previously by Gibert & Palmqvist (1995) and actually resembles those of other mammals such as equids (Palmqvist 1997); (4) the morphology of the endocranial surface is characterized by small and deep digital impressions and well-marked transversal sulci. While the morphology of Equus and other ungulates resembles that of the Orce specimen extraordinarily (see Gibert et al., 1989c, figure 21), Homo habitually shows even parietals without important digital impressions and
:
95
Figure 3. Detail of the posterior part of the sagittal suture and the parieto-occipital suture of VM-0. The complexity of these sutures is clearly visible.
only traces of meningeal arteries. Basing our hypothesis on the norm either seen in humans or in equines, this morphology cannot be attributed to Homo. Yielding to temptation to look for a case of extreme variability or a pathological case as a reliable pattern for the Orce fragment is a methodological mistake and only possible when misguided by wishful thinking. (5) the posterior part of the Orce fragment preserves a small portion of the occipital or interparietal, with a sharp crest running towards and ending close to lambda, considered by Agusti & Moyà-Solà (1987) and Moyà-Solà & Agusti (1989) homologous to that of equines. This crest shows a height of 6 mm, and taking into account that it was somewhat damaged during the restoration process, it would probably have been even higher. Gibert et al. (1989c) thought this crest to be very different from those of equines, essentially for two reasons: the internal occipital protuberance (tentorial process) is not observable and the crest runs beyond lambda. The first argument is irrelevant because the lack of the protuberance is due to the fact that the posterior part of the occipital, where this protuberance is located, is not preserved. The second argument is an error because the crest does end in lambda (Figure 1). Thus, there is no difference between the equine morphology and that of the Orce fragment. Although Campillo & Barcelò (1989) mention ‘‘similar’’ crests in human occipitals, none of them is as sharp and high as that of the Orce specimen, which, however, strongly resembles those of Equus.
96
. ` -` . ¨
(6) the Orce fragment has a coronal suture. Although the external surface of the specimen is strongly damaged by abrasion and the anterior part suffered several fractures, this suture is clearly observable and even unconsciously figured by the team of Gibert (Gibert et al. 1989, Figure 17; Campillo, 1989, Figure 8). The internal surface is perfectly preserved and allows observation of the coronal suture over a long distance, particularly on the right parietal (Figure 1, 2), where it runs only 4 cm from lambda and crosses perpendicularly the sagittal suture. The presence of the coronal suture is denied by those who defend the human nature of this fragment (Gibert et al., 1989a,b,c; Campillo, 1989; Gibert and Palmqvist, 1995; Martinez-Navarro, 1996). This suture is key for the taxonomic assessment of the Orce fragment, because it gives us the sagittal length of the parietals: 4 cm. This makes an attribution to Homo impossible. Similar distances are frequent in Equus. This last argument, together with the general morphology of the Orce fragment, enable us to conclude that this specimen belongs to the cranium of an immature Equus altidens, very frequent in the locality of Venta Micena, and that it is unnecessary to look for limits of variability or pathologies: it is just a common and ordinary horse. References Agustí, J. & Moyà-Solà, S. (1987). Sobre la identidad del fragmento craneal atribuido a Homo sp. en Venta Micena (Orce, Granada). Estudios Geológicos 43, 535–538. Agusti, J. & Moyà-Solà, S. (1991). Les faunes de mammifères du Pléistocene inférieur et moyen de l’Espagne: implications biostratigraphiques. L’Anthropologie 95(4), 753–764. Agusti, J. & Moyà-Solà, S. (1992). Mammalian dispersal events in the Spanish pleistocene. Courier Forsch.-Inst. Senckenberg 153, 69–77. Agusti, J., Moyà Solà, S. & Pons, J. (1987). Venta Micena (Guadix-Baza Basin, South-eastern Spain): its place in the Plio-pleistocene mammal succesion in Europe. Geol. Romana 23 Campillo, D. (1989). Estudio del Hombre de Orce. In Los Restos Humatios de Orce i Cueva Victoria (J. Gibert & C. Campillo y E. Garcia-Olivares, Eds). pp. 109–186. Instituto Paleontologia ‘‘M. Crusafont’’-Diputación de Barcelona. Campillo, D. & Barcelo, J. A. (1989). Estudio morfometrico de la cara interna de la escama del hueso occipital. In Los Restos Humatios de Orce i Cueva Victoria (J. Gibert & C. Campillo y E. Garcia-Olivares, Eds). pp. 109–188. Instituto Paleontologia ‘‘M. Crusafont’’-Diputación de Barcelona. Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., Arsuaga, J. L., Diez, J. C., Rosas, A., Cuenca-Bescós, G., Sala, R., Mosquera, M. & Rodriguez, X. P. (1995). Lower Pleistocene hominids and artifacts from Atapuerca TD-6 (Spain). Science 269, 826–830. Gabunia, L. & Vekua, A. (1995). A Plio-Pleistocene hominid from Dmanisi, East Georgia, Caucasus. Nature 373, 509–512. Gibert, J. & Palmqvist, P. (1995). Fractal analysis of the Orce skull sutures. J. hum. Evol. 28, 561–575. Gibert, J., Campillo, D., Ribot, F., Ferrandez, C., Martinez-Navarro, B. & Caporicci, R. (1989). Anatomical study: Comparison of the hominid cranial fragment from Venta Micena (Orce, Spain) with fossil and extant mammals. Hum. Evol. 4, 283–305. Gibert, J., Sánchez, F., Malgosa, A. & Martinez-Navarro, B. (1994). Dècouvertes des restes humains dans les gisements d’Orce (Grenade, Espagne). Noveaux restes humains d Orce. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences de Paris 319, sèrie 11, 963–968. Gibert, J., Ribot, F., Ferrandez, C., Martinez-Navarro, B. & Caporicci, R. (1989a). Caracteristicas diferenciales entre el fragmento de craneo de Homo sp. De Venta Micena (Orce, Granada) y los Equidos. Estudios Geologicos 45, 121–138. Gibert, J., Ribot, F., Ferrandez, C., Martinez-Navarro, B., Caporicci, R. & Campillo, D. (1989b). Anatomical study: comparison of the cranial fragment from Venta Micena (Orce; Spain) with fossil andextant mammals. Hum. Evol. 4, 283–305. Gibert, J., Ribot, F., Ferrandez, C., Martinez-Navarro, B. & Ruz, M. (1989c). Diagnosis diferencial del fragmento de cráneo de Homo sp. del yacimiento de Venta Micena (Orce, Granada). In Los restos humatios de Orce i Cueva Victoria (J. Gibert & C. Campillo y E. Garcia-Olivares, Eds). pp. 31–108. Instituto Paleontologia ‘‘M. Crusafont’’Diputación de Barcelona. Lowenstein, J. M. (1995). Immunological reactions on fossil bones from Orce. Abstracts of the International Congress of Human Paleontology, Orce, Granada, 27.
:
97
Martinez-Navarro, B. (1996). Similarities between skull fragment VM-0 from Orce (Spain) and the Homo erectus holotype from Trinil (Java). Revista Espahola Paleontol 11, 120–121. Moyà Solà, S. & Agusti, J. (1989). Una reinterpretación del fragmento craneal de Orce: Equus stenonis COCHI. In Los restos humatios de Orce i Cueva Victoria (J. Gibert & C. Campillo y E. Garcfa-Olivares, Eds). Instituto Paleontologia ‘‘M. Crusafont’’-Diputación de Barcelona. 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. hum. Evol. 33, 83–89. Zihlman, A. & Lowenstein, J. M. (1996). A Spanish Olduvai? Curr. Anthropol. 37, 695–697.