This is the accepted version of the journal article: Alba, David M. «A fistful of fossils : The rise and fall of the Orce Man and the politics of paleoanthropological science». Journal of human evolution, Vol. 165 (April 2022), art. 103166. DOI 10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103166 This version is available at https://ddd.uab.cat/record/256696 under the terms of the license 1 Lead Book Review 2 A fistful of fossils: The rise and fall of the Orce Man and the politics of 3 paleoanthropological science 4 5 David M. Alba 6 7 Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 8 c/ Columnes s/n, 08192 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain 9 10 Conflict of interests 11 The author declares that he is the current director of the ICP and that he also 12 performed his PhD dissertation at the IPS under Moyà-Solà’s supervision when Agustí 13 was the director. He has coauthored papers with both of them and was also 14 acquainted with Gibert and some other researchers mentioned in the text. The readers 15 should therefore take into account that the author’s viewpoints might have been 16 influenced by his position and his personal relationships. 17 18 Acknowledgments 19 Current research by the author is funded by CERCA Programme/Generalitat de 20 Catalunya and R+D+I project PID2020-117289GB-I00 21 (MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/). He thanks Salvador Moyà-Solà for many 22 conversations about the Orce Man affair over the years, and also David Begun, Jordi 23 Galindo, Àngel Galobart, Terry Harrison, Meike Köhler, and Enric Menéndez for 24 providing him, at some point, with details about the history of the IPS. The author is 1 25 also grateful to Pere Figuerola and Salvador Moyà-Solà for reading a previous draft of 26 the manuscript, to Salvador Moyà-Solà also for providing the photographs depicted in 27 Figure 1, to Miquel Carandell Baruzzi for donating a copy of his book to the ICP library, 28 and to the Editor (Clément Zanolli) and three anonymous reviewers for helpful 29 suggestions on a previous draft of this book review. 30 2 1 A fistful of fossils: The rise and fall of the Orce Man and the politics of 2 paleoanthropological science 3 4 The Orce Man. Controversy, Media and Politics in Human Origins Research 5 By Miquel Carandell Baruzzi (2021). Brill, Leiden, 252 pp. €129, ISBN 978-90-04- 6 43149-2 (hardback) and ISBN 978-90-04-43150-8 (ebook). 7 8 1. Introduction 9 The author of the newly released book “The Orce Man” (Carandell Baruzzi, 2021a) is 10 a historian of science who has devoted a large portion of his career to study this affair 11 (Carandell Baruzzi, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2021b). In the best tradition of Lewin's 12 (1987) "Bones of Contention", but probably with greater historiographical rigor, the 13 book is a thorough compendium of ‘everything you always wanted to know about the 14 Orce Man but were afraid to ask’. When I joined the Institut de Paleontologia de 15 Sabadell (IPS) in the late 1990s, gossip about the Orce Man affair was still ongoing and 16 I considered myself relatively well informed about it firsthand. However, the book 17 unfolds with plenty of quirks and twists of the drama that were previously unknown to 18 me and which underscore its deep political connections. In this review, I will introduce 19 the story based on the content of the book (Section 2) and provide my own 20 assessment of its main insights and conclusions (Section 3). Finally, in Section 4 I will 21 explore the serendipitous but far-reaching consequences that the Orce Man affair had 22 on paleoprimatological research in Catalonia, which are only briefly mentioned in the 23 book but which involve the same protagonists and would be worthy of a spin-off. 24 1 25 1.1. Main characters 26 The starring character of the book is Josep Gibert i Clols (1941–2007; see obituary in 27 Gibert Beotas, 2008). Gibert was a PhD student of Miquel Crusafont-Pairó (for 28 biographical details, see Truyols i Santonja, 1986; Crusafont i Sabater, 2019), 29 considered the ‘father’ of the Catalan school of vertebrate paleontology and 30 paleoprimatology (Alba, 2019). In 1969, Crusafont established the IPS as a 31 paleontological research institute and museum in Sabadell (Catalonia, Spain), under 32 the auspices of the Provincial Council of Barcelona (Crusafont Pairó, 1969; Truyols i 33 Santonja, 1986; Crusafont i Sabater, 2019), currently known as the Diputació de 34 Barcelona. Gibert's bachelor degree (1964) was in Geology, and in 1973 he obtained 35 his Ph.D. with a dissertation on fossil insectivorans supervised by Crusafont and 36 performed at the IPS. Gibert remained continued his research there while working as a 37 high school teacher. In 1976, during an expedition to southern Spain in the framework 38 of a research project directed by Crusafont, a team led by Gibert discovered the Early 39 Pleistocene site of Venta Micena in Orce, Granada (Anonymous, 1976; Moyà-Solà et 40 al., 1981; Agustí, 1983; Gibert et al., 1983). The team also included Jordi Agustí 41 Ballester, an undergraduate and future Ph.D. student of Crusafont. In 1979, during a 42 small expedition to Venta Micena, they were joined by Salvador Moyà-Solà, another 43 soon-to-be paleontologist who had just graduated with a bachelor’s thesis supervised 44 by Crusafont. 45 46 1.2. Synopsis 47 The main events of the Orce Man affair are summarized in Table 1. The first paper 48 on Venta Micena estimated an age of ~1.6 Ma for this site (Moyà-Solà et al., 1981). In 2 49 1982, during the first systematic excavations performed at Venta Micena, a ~8 cm- 50 wide skullcap (VM-0) was found and subsequently published as the oldest human fossil 51 in Eurasia (Gibert et al., 1983). This sensational discovery was widely disseminated and 52 soon was dubbed the ‘Orce Man’. But in 1984, after the preparation of the bone’s 53 inner side, the presence of an unusual crest suggested to some foreign researchers 54 that the cranial fragment belonged to an equid. This was leaked to the press and the 55 initial success was soon depicted as a total fiasco. The two younger researchers 56 eventually retracted their original opinion (Agustí and Moyà-Solà, 1987), while Gibert 57 initiated a longstanding crusade to vindicate his scientific credibility (Gibert, 2004). 58 Subsequent discoveries in Orce (Toro-Moyano et al., 2013) and Atapuerca (Carbonell 59 et al., 2008) validated human presence in Iberia well before 1 Ma, but the human 60 status of VM-0, alternatively attributed to an equid (Moyà-Solà and Köhler, 1997) or a 61 ruminant (Martínez-Navarro, 2002), has remained contentious ever since. 62 63 1.3. Aims and scope of the book 64 The Orce Man shows that the scientific controversy summarized above is but the tip 65 of the iceberg of personal, political, and public interests that kept the controversy 66 ongoing for more than two decades. The book differs from previous popularizing 67 accounts written by some of the researchers involved (Martínez-Navarro, 1993; 68 Campillo, 2002; Gibert, 2004) by explicitly avoiding taking sides, being targeted to an 69 international audience, and aiming to go beyond storytelling. The book is well 70 documented based on scientific and newspaper articles, interviews with the main 71 researchers involved in the affair, and archival material. It may be read just for the 72 sake of the story, which will probably appear entertaining to ‘paleoaficionados’ and 3 73 professional researchers alike. However, as its subtitle suggests (Controversy, Media 74 and Politics in Human Origins Research), the book aims to delve into contextual 75 aspects related to the politics of science—with ‘politics’ understood in the worst 76 possible way, as the often devious tactics employed to gain power, resources, and/or 77 credibility, both within and outside academia. 78 At first glance, the Orce Man affair might be seen as just a silly scientific 79 disagreement among Spanish paleoanthropologists. However, the book dives much 80 deeper, highlighting the international, mass media, and political ramifications, while 81 arguing that the study of the affair helps to understand how paleoanthropological 82 research proceeds and provides insight into scientific controversies generally. The 83 main tenet of the book is thus that the Orce Man affair is not “a rarity in Spanish 84 history of science […] unlikely to be repeated” (Carandell Baruzzi, 2021a: 2). 85 Admittedly, the Orce Man affair cannot be understood without reference to its 86 particular historical context (beginning at the post-Francoist Spain of the 1980s that 87 had just transitioned into democracy), but the book provides sufficient background in 88 this regard. I imagine the story may appear outlandish to those for whom the affair is 89 unknown, yet the central theme will sound familiar: the complex power game played 90 among researchers, the media, and politicians, and its consequences for scientific 91 credibility. In this regard, the book constitutes an excellent scholarly contribution to 92 the history of science. 93 94 1.4. Structure and content of the book 95 The book begins with a short ‘rough guide to the Orce Man’ that not only 96 introduces the main researchers involved in the controversy but further refers, among 4 97 others, to the political parties mentioned in the book—an unequivocal declaration of 98 intent by the author. The introduction outlines the historiographic methodology, 99 provides other examples of scientific controversies, and contextualizes the Orce Man 100 affair from historical, political, and scientific viewpoints. Emphasis is put on the ‘hunt 101 for the First European’ that characterized the 1980s and 1990s, in the framework of 102 the then ongoing debate between the young vs. old chronology for the earliest human 103 settlement in Europe (Roebroeks and van Kolfschoten, 1994; Dennell and Roebroeks, 104 1996). By the 1980s, Middle Pleistocene human remains had been described from 105 Atapuerca in Spain (Aguirre et al., 1976, 1987), but the oldest (Early Pleistocene) fossils 106 would not be reported from there until the following decades (Carbonell et al., 1995, 107 2008). 108 The main body of the book is divided into seven chapters. The first four are 109 arranged chronologically: ‘discovery’ (1976–1984), ‘controversy’ (1984–1987), 110 ‘conference’ (1987–1996), and ‘end’ (1996–2007). The fifth chapter describes a similar 111 controversy about the ‘first’ Americans, which despite its merit as a comparative case 112 is too distracting. In contrast, the sixth chapter relating the last revival of the Orce 113 controversy is very pertinent. Finally, the last chapter sets out the main conclusions of 114 the book. It is followed by three short annexes on the anatomy of VM-0, an analysis of 115 news published between 1983 and 1999, the whereabouts of the fossil during 1982– 116 1984, and fthe long list of references. 117 118 2. The rise and fall of the Orce Man 119 2.1. How VM-0 became the Orce Man 5 120 The bone of contention was found in the summer of 1982 by two students. 121 According to Gibert (2004), Moyà-Solà immediately identified it as human, whereas 122 Agustí (1983) reported no ‘eureka’ moment. The initial preparation of the fossil was 123 done by Moyà-Solà in December 1982. Neither Gibert (insectivorans), nor Agustí 124 (rodents), nor Moyà-Solà (artiodactyls) had yet any specialist knowledge on primates, 125 although Agustí and Moyà-Solà were already involved in the hotly-debated hunt for 126 the ‘First European’ (e.g., Carbonell et al., 1981). The trio concluded that VM-0 127 belonged to Homo sp. and thus represented the oldest human fossil from Eurasia. 128 Encouraged by other researchers’ opinions, they contacted the Diputació de 129 Barcelona, who took control of the dissemination and political negotiations. They 130 published the find (Gibert et al., 1983) in May 1983, and in June the news had spread 131 even before a press conference with politicians was held in Granada. The nickname 132 ‘Orce Man’ was soon coined by the press, a small museum was inaugurated in Orce, 133 the Diputació de Barcelona agreed to support and promote the IPS, and the renowned 134 French prehistorian Henry de Lumley proposed to Crusafont that they jointly publish 135 the fossil. Henry de Lumley and his wife, the paleoanthropologist Marie-Antoniette de 136 Lumley, visited the Venta Micena excavations in August 1983 (Fig. 1) and confirmed 137 VM-0 was human. That very same day, Crusafont died. The trio continued 138 disseminating their claims (e.g., Agustí, 1983; Agustí et al., 1983a, 1983b), the IPS 139 budget was quadrupled, the trio obtained permanent positions there in January 1984, 140 and Gibert was appointed director. A popularizing book and a big international 141 conference were planned for the near future. 142 143 2.2. From man to donkey: The demise of the Orce Man 6 144 The preparation of the inner side of VM-0, completed in April 1984, revealed an 145 unusual crest that stirred some doubts. After several trips to France, the de Lumleys 146 concluded that the fragment belonged to a young ass. They urged the trio to retract 147 their former opinion that it was human, but Gibert refused. The planned conference 148 was canceled and the de Lumleys leaked the bombshell to the press. In the blink of an 149 eye, the Orce Man turned into a public scandal that shook Spanish society. Journalists 150 used the ‘Orce Donkey’ to mock politicians, but Gibert took the lead in defending the 151 Orce Man. After the 1984 field campaign, he put in place a research agenda based on 152 comparative and molecular analyses, as well as additional fieldwork, while pointing to 153 the discovery of a a human phalanx from Cueva Victoria (Pons Moyà, 1985; Gibert 154 Clols and Pons Moyà, 1985; Gibert et al., 1985)—later reassigned to a gelada by 155 Martínez-Navarro et al. (2005)—in support of an old chronology for the First European 156 (Gibert Clols, 1985). Everything deteriorated when three university full professors and 157 former students of Crusafont sent an open letter to the media in February 1985 158 criticizing Gibert’s methods as unscientific (de Renzi et al., 1985). Andalusian 159 researchers ended their collaboration after the 1985 field campaign and some 160 collaborators of Gibert were evicted from Cueva Victoria owing to the lack of permits. 161 The bad press seriously damaged Gibert’s credibility in the eyes of politicians. Gibert 162 was dismissed as IPS director and replaced by Agustí. Fieldwork permits for 1986 were 163 denied to Gibert, who temporarily regained some credibility after two academic 164 meetings held in Southampton and Sabadell, leading to further permits for 1987. 165 However, with the Diputació’s consent, Agustí and Moyà-Solà (1987) made a public 166 retraction in an attempt to distance themselves once and for all from the controversy. 167 7 168 2.3. The Orce conference 169 During the late 1980s and 1990s, with the help of a loyal team of collaborators, 170 Gibert struck back with a panoply of studies based on anatomy (Gibert et al., 1989), 171 fractal analysis of cranial sutures (Gibert and Palmqvist, 1995), immunological assays 172 (Borja et al., 1997), stone tools (Gibert et al., 1992, 1998), and additional putative 173 human remains (Gibert et al., 1992, 1999). One of the most fervent followers of Gibert 174 was Bienvenido Martínez-Navarro, who became the director of the Orce Museum after 175 obtaining his Ph.D. in 1991. During the 1990s, the debate about the oldest human 176 occupation of Europe was still lively, fueled by the discoveries at Atapuerca (Carbonell 177 et al., 1995) and Dmanisi (Gabunia and Vekua, 1995). After some fieldwork permit 178 denials, changes in the political arena allowed Gibert to organize an international 179 conference in 1995 at Orce, which had ca. 200 in attendance, including renowned 180 paleoanthropologists from Spain (e.g., Emiliano Aguirre and José M. Bermúdez de 181 Castro) and elsewhere (e.g., Ian Tattersall and Phillip Tobias). It highlighted the 182 importance of the Orce sites and recruited some distinguished adherents to Gibert’s 183 cause (e.g., Tobias, 1998). However, as explained in the book, Gibert soon experienced 184 a backlash when the latent rivalry between Orce and Atapuerca regarding the oldest 185 human remains from Western Europe was more crudely expressed in the press (see 186 also Hochadel, 2013). 187 188 2.4. End of the controversy? 189 Interest from the media progressively diminished after the conference, but 190 Martínez-Navarro and Palmqvist, who had privately expressed some doubts to Gibert, 191 ultimately changed sides and created an opposing team. Martínez-Navarro was 8 192 dismissed as director of the Orce Museum, while Palmqvist even accused Gibert of 193 fraud and corrected his fractal analyses (Palmqvist, 1997) based on a new drawing 194 provided by Moyà-Solà. The latter, in turn, restated that VM-0 was “just a common 195 and ordinary horse” (Moyà-Solà and Köhler, 1997: 96). Andalusian authorities 196 requested that Gibert return the material to Orce—which he did with some 197 reluctance—and since 1999 Gibert was never again allowed to direct fieldwork at 198 Venta Micena. He directed some campaigns at other Orce sites within the framework 199 of a larger project including Martínez-Navarro and Agustí. However, Gibert was finally 200 accused of excavating without proper permits and excluded from fieldwork altogether, 201 while Palmqvist and Martínez-Navarro obtained approval for a long-term project of 202 their own. Martínez-Navarro (2002) reinterpreted VM-0 as a ruminant and Gibert 203 devoted greater efforts to Cueva Victoria. Despite receiving some political and 204 scientific (e.g., Campillo et al., 2006) support, during the 2000s, the Atapuerca 205 fieldwork directors more forcefully rejected the human status of the Orce remains in 206 the press. The controversy faded away after Gibert’s death in 2007. 207 208 2.5. The ‘Orce Boy’ in the Internet age 209 A human deciduous premolar found in 2002 at the Orce site of Barranco León was 210 subsequently described in the Journal of Human Evolution (Toro-Moyano et al., 2013) 211 by a team of authors including Martínez-Navarro, Agustí, Palmqvist, and even 212 Bermúdez de Castro (one of the team leaders at Atapuerca). The find, nicknamed the 213 ‘Orce Boy,’ was announced as the oldest human fossil from Europe in a press 214 conference. However, controversy soon arose because the paper omitted any 215 reference to Gibert’s work in Orce. Following several complaints to the journal editor, 9 216 the paper, which was published online, was temporarily withdrawn and subsequently 217 replaced by a modified version that included references to Gibert's work. The book 218 highlights that, despite similarities with the previous controversy, Internet blogs and 219 social networks allowed researchers and the general public to more directly engage in 220 public debates about the ‘Orce Boy.’ 221 222 3. Lessons from the Orce Man affair 223 So, was it human or not? According to the book, it does not really matter, at least 224 from the viewpoint of the history of science. The most controversial scientific issue of 225 the Orce Man affair was the taxonomic allocation of VM-0. However, the disputes 226 were mostly motivated by "a fight for a scientific or even a public 'niche'" and “hid 227 issues like personal or political disagreements, economical interests and efforts to gain 228 public prominence" (Carandell Baruzzi, 2021a: 184). The book convincingly argues that 229 the affair reveals the complex power game played by researchers, politicians, 230 journalists, and society in general amid paleoanthropologists’ struggle for research 231 funds, fieldwork permits, and access to fossils. This gruesome panorama of science 232 ‘red in tooth and claw’ does not always (or even often) apply, and the Orce Man affair 233 is an extreme example. However, it should come as no surprise to professional 234 paleoanthropologists and, by making it so explicit, the book serves as a kind of warning 235 not to fall into the same trap as Gibert. 236 In retrospect, early claims of human presence at Venta Micena based on a 237 fragmentary and partly prepared cranial fragment were precipitate to say the least. 238 However, from a political standpoint, they constituted a great move that reaped 239 substantial benefits from the IPS researchers’ perspective. In contrast, Gibert’s ensuing 10 240 insistence on the human status of VM-0 was ultimately revealed as a poor strategic 241 decision. To what extent Gibert’s stubbornness was motivated by his strong scientific 242 convictions, his will to reinstate his credibility, or a personal grudge following his 243 dismissal as IPS director in 1985 is rather irrelevant. I have no doubt that Gibert was 244 not bluffing: he was convinced of human presence at Orce. Indeed, the subsequent 245 discovery of archeological and undisputed human remains (the Orce Boy) vindicated 246 his views and undoubtedly contributed (even if in a rather tortuous way) to the 247 advance of paleoanthropological knowledge. So why is the Orce Man affair perceived 248 as a fiasco? The book contrasts the Orce Man story with the great success of 249 Atapuerca but it tends to downplay the sheer weight of scientific evidence. Had Gibert 250 also found abundant and unambiguous fossil human remains, the controversy would 251 likely never have escalated in the way it did. Given the lack of undisputed evidence to 252 support his claims, Gibert often counter-attacked his critics by alluding to the 253 paradigm-shifting nature of his interpretations. Admittedly, he happened to be on the 254 winning side of the debate about the old vs. young chronology of human settlement in 255 Europe. However, the paradigm shift was not because of the Orce finds. 256 By stressing the political factors involved, the book might give the false impression 257 that the normal functioning of paleoanthropological research is less rigorous than in 258 other scientific disciplines. However, the book convincingly shows that fossil evidence 259 was not the only, or even the most important, factor at play in the Orce Man 260 controversy. As noted by Groves (1988: 271), “the line between deliberate fraudulence 261 and subconscious exercises in position-pushing is a very thin one", and being anywhere 262 near that line exposes an individual’s scientific credibility to attack. The book argues 263 that a researcher’s credibility—perhaps their most important asset, on which funding, 11 264 career progression, and access to fossils and fieldwork permits depend—does not 265 merely hinge on being right or wrong, but is also contingent upon the aforementioned 266 power game and thus deeply influenced by political interests and public opinion 267 through the press. By using a controversial fossil to support his claims, in the 268 framework of an ongoing public debate with many intermingled interests (from 269 different research teams, the mass media, and various local administrations and 270 political parties) at stake, Gibert was brave enough to risk his reputation. The book 271 shows how, at some point, the focus of the debate shifted from the scientific evidence 272 to Gibert’s scientific credibility, thereby making him an easy target for his critics and 273 rivals. Due to the public nature of the conflict, the Orce Man became a fertile soil for 274 supposedly scientific debates that were nothing but a fight for power in which 275 researchers, politicians, and journalists were all engaged. As a result, Gibert’s initial 276 success in terms of impact and visibility soon turned into failure in terms of funding 277 and fieldwork permits. 278 Yet the book goes one step beyond. To understand the take-home message of the 279 book it is essential to realize that the author contends that Atapuerca and Orce are just 280 different sides of the same coin: “When a discovery is made, popularization and 281 supposed exaggeration are crucial in order to construct a whole machinery and 282 narrative around the discovery to ensure popular support and funding. From this point 283 of view, the beginning of a supposed failure story such as the Orce Man is no different 284 in its core from a success story like Atapuerca” (Carandell Baruzzi, 2021a: 192). In 285 other words, the analysis of scientific controversies such as the Orce Man affair are 286 useful precisely because they highlight the political, media, and personal interests that 287 are also at play, albeit often in a more subtle manner, in the absence of public 12 288 controversy. All researchers have to play this power game to some extent, and hence 289 we are all prone to unconsciously overinterpret our results in favor of our preferred 290 hypotheses and exaggerate our discoveries in front of the press. While it is “imperative 291 to stop assigning a starring role to each new fossil discovery” (Almécija et al., 2021: 292 857), the truth is that fossils have become a form of currency in paleoanthropology. So 293 researchers are emboldened by stakeholders (from funding agencies to journals, 294 institutions, the media, and even politicians) to exaggerate the importance of their 295 fossil finds, not only because it has become acceptable to do so, but especially because 296 such behavior seems to be, at least in the short term, highly rewarded. In this regard, 297 the book should probably serve as a warning not to push the power game of science to 298 its limits (see below). 299 One might say that Gibert chose to bet on the power game of science and that— 300 despite his charisma and proficiency in the political arena and the media—his 301 credibility was seriously damaged along the way. In part, this happened because he 302 was not lucky with the fossils, but to a larger extent because his cards (the Orce Man) 303 were not good enough in the first place. As a result, Gibert was ultimately 304 overpowered by competing research teams that acted on their own behalf (to control 305 the Orce sites and fossils) within a very politicized environment. In my opinion, the 306 main lesson to extract from the Orce Man affair is that scientists should never go all-in 307 when making bold and potentially controversial claims in public unless based on a 308 winning hand of solid evidence—namely, fossils of incontrovertible importance even if 309 their interpretation may be disputed. This is crucial in paleoanthropology if only 310 because it is one of the few disciplines without industrial or medical applicability that 311 attracts a lot of public attention. Just imagine how ugly this power game would look if 13 312 huge economical profits were at stake, as is the case in biomedical research. Based on 313 the Orce Boy issue, the book further argues that the Internet has changed to some 314 extent the rules of this complex interplay between scientists and stakeholders. 315 However, apart from the increased democratization of science, the Internet also has 316 the potential to make matters worse by amplifying the toxic power game that the Orce 317 Man affair so clearly exemplifies. 318 319 4. Epilogue 320 The book explains that the initial success of the Orce Man secured the continuation 321 of the IPS after Crusafont’s death and cursorily relates that Miocene ape discoveries 322 throughout the 1990s and 2000s “did not receive as much media attention as the Orce 323 Man” even if they “certainly helped to reinforce the Institut’s position in the last 324 twenty years” (Carandell Baruzzi, 2021a: 191). As I explain below, this is an 325 oversimplification that obscures yet another power game that took place at the IPS 326 and was deeply influenced by the Orce Man affair, showing how these games can 327 proceed in the absence of public controversy. 328 Before the systematic excavations of Venta Micena, but in the framework of the 329 same research project led by Crusafont, in May 1981 Gibert, Moyà-Solà and Agustí 330 resumed excavations at the Miocene ape-bearing site of Can Llobateres, where they 331 recoved twelve hominoid teeth. Crusafont was already very ill and asked his 332 collaborator and former student Juana María Golpe-Posse to finish the study of the 333 Vallès-Penedès hominoids on her own. However, sometime in the early 1980s 334 Crusafont also gave permission to David R. Begun (then a Ph.D. student) to study all 335 the hominoid remains (including those excavated in 1981). Golpe-Posse did not publish 14 336 her study until the next decade (Golpe Posse, 1993). In the meantime, Moyà-Solà 337 decided to devote himself to fossil primates and reached an agreement with Begun to 338 reopen excavations at Can Llobateres and jointly describe the teeth found in 1981. 339 Owing to the Orce Man dispute with Moyà-Solà, Gibert was left out of the paper 340 (Begun et al., 1990) and did not participate in the 1990s excavations that led to the 341 discovery of a partial skeleton of Hispanopithecus (Moyà-Solà and Köhler, 1993, 1996). 342 Gibert did not give up on the apes and supervised a Ph.D. dissertation on the Vallès- 343 Penedès hominoids performed by his student Francec Ribot Trafí, thus aggravating the 344 tensions with Moyà-Solà. However, once the dissertation’s main conclusions were 345 published (Ribot et al., 1996), Gibert remained focused on the Orce Man affair and did 346 not pursue further the study of hominoids. In 1996, I joined the IPS as a student of 347 Moyà-Solà, whose collaboration with Begun had already ended abruptly in 1993. The 348 latter subsequently pursued a successful career focused on Miocene apes, but his 349 relationship with Moyà-Solà was not restored until 2011, eventually leading to some 350 recent joint publications. 351 After a progressive deterioration of the relationships between Moyà-Solà and 352 Agustí, the stagnation of the IPS in the early 2000s led Moyà-Solà to complain to the 353 Diputació, and tensions exploded after the discovery of the Pierolapithecus skeleton at 354 Abocador de Can Mata in late 2002. According to The Orce Man, the description of 355 Pierolapithecus (Moyà-Solà et al., 2004) helped to strengthen the IPS despite attracting 356 much less attention from the media than the Orce Man—although, in fact, 357 Pierolapithecus achieved a greater international impact. Parallels with the the Orce 358 Man affair include leaking the discovery to the press in 2003, and the announcement 359 of its description in a press conference co-organized by the Diputació de Barcelona. 15 360 Even the fossil was nicknamed by the press. If attention from the media soon vanished 361 it was because there was no controversy to sustain it, except for minor academic 362 disagreements (Begun and Ward, 2005; Moyà-Solà et al., 2005). Yet the consequences 363 of the publicity were far-reaching (Alba, 2019). To make a long story short, in 2005, 364 when the IPS ran the risk of becoming a local museum devoid of research, the Catalan 365 government commissioned Moyà-Solà to design a new paleontological research 366 institute. Agustí left to join another research center and the Institut Català de 367 Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont (ICP) was established in 2006 in the framework of the 368 CERCA system (Research Centers of Catalonia) under the auspices of the Catalan 369 government and the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB). Later, the Diputació 370 transferred the former IPS and part of its personnel to the Catalan government and 371 both institutions were merged into the current ICP. Concomitantly, the ICP budget 372 progressively increased (until the harsh economic crisis of a decade ago), and funds 373 were provided to support a new building within the UAB campus. All this gave Moyà- 374 Solà the opportunity to consolidate his research group on fossil primates, and allowed 375 me to eventually establish a group of my own. 376 The positive consequences for the consolidation of the IPS immediately after 377 Crusafont’s death and the Orce Man’s initial success were intended by its 378 codiscoverers, but the long-term consequences for paleoprimatological research in 379 Catalonia could not have been predicted at the time. Had it not been for the Orce Man 380 affair, it is highly unlikely that either Moyà-Solà or even Gibert would have been hired 381 by the IPS after Crusafont’s death. In which case, Moyà-Solà would never have devoted 382 himself to the study of fossil primates and the Miocene ape remains excavated by 383 Crusafont would likely have been published by Begun alone; excavations at Can 16 384 Llobateres would not have been resumed and no one would have enforced 385 paleontological surveillance at the Can Mata dump, without which the skeletons of 386 Hispanopithecus and Pierolapithecus would never have been found; the IPS would 387 probably have become just a small local museum devoid of research; and most 388 importantly, I would have not devoted myself to fossil primates and you would not be 389 reading this book review! 390 So, who cares if the Orce Man was human… From the viewpoint of 391 paleoprimatology writ large, it was worth all the fuss. 392 393 References 394 Aguirre, E., Basabe, J.M., Torres, T., 1976. Los fósiles humanos de Atapuerca (Burgos): 395 nota preliminar. Zephyrus 26–27, 489–511. 396 Aguirre, E., Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M. (Eds.), 1987. El Hombre Fósil de 397 Ibeas y el Pleistoceno de la Sierra de Atapuerca. Junta de Castilla y León, Soria. 398 Agustí, J., 1983. Crónica de un hallazgo. La Vanguardia 21 August 1983, 25. 399 Agustí, J., Moyà-Solà, S., 1987. Sobre la identidad del fragmento craneal atribuido a 400 Homo sp. en Venta Micena (Orce, Granada). Estudios Geol. 43, 535–538. 401 Agustí, J., Gilbert, J., Moyà-Solà, S., 1983a. Características del "Hombre de Orce". La 402 Vanguardia, 21 August 1983, 47. 403 Agustí, J., Gibert, J., Moyà Solà, S., 1983b. El “Hombre de Orce”: su significado en la 404 evolución de los primeros pobladores de Europa. Rev. Arqueol. 29, 16–21. 405 Alba, D.M., 2019. Pròleg. In: Crusafont i Sabater, M. (Ed.), Miquel Crusafont i l'Origen 406 de l'Home. Editorial Comanegra, Barcelona, pp. 11–20. 17 407 Almécija, S., Hammond, A.S., Thompson, N.E., Pugh, K.D., Moyà-Solà, S., Alba, D.M., 408 2021. Fossil apes and human evolution. Science 372, 587, eabb4363. 409 Anonymous, 1976. Excavaciones y exploraciones. Bol. Inf. Inst. Paleontol. Sabadell 8, 410 15–17. 411 Begun, D.R., Ward, C.V., 2005. Comment on "Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, a new 412 Middle Miocene great ape from Spain". Science 208, 203c. 413 Begun, D.R., Moyá-Sola, S., Kohler, M., 1990. New Miocene hominoid specimens from 414 Can Llobateres (Vallès Penedès, Spain) and their geological and paleoecological 415 context. J. Hum. Evol. 19, 255–268. 416 Borja, C., García-Pacheco, M., Olivares, E.G., Scheuenstuhl, G., Lowenstein, J.M., 1997. 417 Immunospecificity of albumin detected in 1.6 million-year-old fossils from Venta 418 Micena in Orce, Granada, Spain. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 103, 433–441. 419 Campillo, D., 2002. El Cráneo Infantil de Orce: El Homínido Más Antiguo de Eurasia. 420 Bellaterra, Barcelona. 421 Campillo, D., Cuesta, M. M., Garcia-Guixé, E., Chimenos, E., Devenat, L., Baxarias, J., 422 2006. An occipital crest in an infant cranium from the Roman necropolis of Francolí 423 (Tarragona, Spain): Implications to the interpretation of the Orce skull. Rev. Esp. 424 Antropol. Fís. 26, 93–101. 425 Carandell Baruzzi, M., 2010. L'Home d'Orce: una controvèrsia pública. MSc. Thesis, 426 Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona / Universitat de Barcelona. 427 Carandell Baruzzi, M., 2013. Homínidos, dudas y grandes titulares: La controversia del 428 Hombre de Orce en la prensa española (1983-2007). Dynamis 33, 365–387. 429 Carandell Baruzzi, M., 2015. Orce Man. A public controversy in Spanish human origins 430 research. 1982-2007. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. 18 431 Carandell Baruzzi, M., 2016. L’obsessió d’un país en construcció democràtica: “És el 432 nostre avantpassat l’Home d’Orce?”. UAB Divulga, 18/03/2016. 433 https://ddd.uab.cat/record/148364. 434 Carandell Baruzzi, M., 2021a. The Orce Man: Controversy, Media and Politics in Human 435 Origins Research. Brill, Leiden. 436 Carandell Baruzzi, M., 2021b. La controversia del Hombre de Orce. Investigación y 437 Ciencia 535, 50–51. 438 Carbonell, E., Estevez, J., Moyà-Solà, S., Pons-Moyà, J., Agustí, J., de Villalta, J.F., 1981. 439 "Cueva Victoria" (Murcia, España): Lugar de ocupación humana más antiguo de la 440 península Ibérica. Endins 8, 47–57. 441 Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., Arsuaga, J.L., Díez, J.C., Rosas, A., Cuenca 442 Bescos, G., Sala, R., Mosquera, M., 1995. Lower Pleistocene hominids and artifacts 443 from Atapuerca-TD6 (Spain). Science 269, 826–830. 444 Carbonell, E., Bermúdez de Castro, J. M., Parés, J. M., Pérez-González, A., Cuenca- 445 Bescós, G., Ollé, A., Mosquera, M., Huguet, R., van der Made, J., Rosas, A., Sala, R., 446 Vallverdú, J., García, N., Granger, D. E., Martinón-Torres, M., Rodríguez, X. P., Stock, 447 G. M., Vergès, J. M., Allué, E., Burjachs, F., Cáceres, I., Canals, A., Benito, A., Díez, C., 448 Lozano, M., Mateos, A., Navazo, M., Rodríguez, J., Rosell, J., Arsuaga, J. L., 2008. The 449 first hominin of Europe. Nature 452, 465–469. 450 Crusafont i Sabater, M., 2019. Miquel Crusafont i l'Origen de l'Home. Editorial 451 Comanegra, Barcelona. 452 Crusafont Pairó, M., 1969. Història de la Paleontologia a Sabadell. Joan Sallent Sucr, 453 Sabadell. 19 454 de Renzi, M., de Porta, J., Truyols, J., 1985. La paleontologia i l’afer de l’home d’Orce. 455 Avui 6 March 1985, 10. 456 Dennell, R., Roebroeks, W., 1996. The earliest colonization of Europe: The short 457 chronology revisited. Antiquity 70, 535–542. 458 Gabunia, L., Vekua, A., 1995. A Plio-Pleistocene hominid from Dmanisi, East Georgia, 459 Caucasus. Nature 373, 509–512. 460 Gibert Clols, J., 1985. Acción antropogénica en el Pleistoceno Inferior de Cueva Victoria 461 (Cartagena, Murcia). Paleontol. Evol. 18, 43–48. 462 Gibert, J., 2004. El Hombre de Orce: Los Homínidos que Llegaron del Sur. Almuzara, 463 Córdoba. 464 Gibert Clols, J., Pons Moyà, J., 1985. Estudio morfológico de la falange del género 465 Homo de Cueva Victoria (Cartagena; Murcia). Paleontol. Evol. 18, 49–55. 466 Gibert, J., Palmqvist, P., 1995. Fractal analysis of the Orce skull sutures. J. Hum. Evol. 467 28, 561–575. 468 Gibert, J., Agusti, J., Moyà-Solà, S., 1983. Presencia de Homo sp. en el yacimiento del 469 Pleistoceno Inferior de Venta Micena (Orce, Granada). Paleontol. Evol. Publ. esp., 1– 470 12. 471 Gibert, J., Pons, J., Ruz, M.C., 1985. Comparación métrica y morfológica de la falange 472 del género Homo de Cueva Victoria (Cartagena, Murcia) con las de primates y 473 ursidos. Paleontol. Evol. 19, 147–154. 474 Gibert, J., Ribot, F., Ferrández, C., Martínez, B., Caporicci, R., 1989. Características 475 diferenciales entre el fragmento de cráneo de Homo sp. de Venta Micena (Orce, 476 Granada) y los équidos. Estudios Geol. 45, 121–138. 20 477 Gibert, J., Iglesias, A., Maillo, A., Gibert, L., 1992. Industrias líticas en el Pleistoceno 478 Inferior de la región de Orce. In: Gibert, J. (Ed.), Proyecto Orce-Cueva Victoria (1988- 479 1992). Presencia Humana en el Pleistoceno Inferior de Granada y Murcia. Museo de 480 Prehistoria Josep Gibert, Castellar del Vallès, pp. 219–281. 481 Gibert, J., Gibert, L., Iglesias, A., Maestro, E., 1998. Two ‘Oldowan’ assemblages in the 482 Plio-Pleistocene deposits of the Orce region, southeast Spain. Antiquity 72, 17–25. 483 Gibert, J., Gibert, L., Albadalejo, S., Ribot, F., Sánchez, F., Gibert, P., 1999. Molar tooth 484 fragment BL5-0: The oldest human remain found in the Plio-Pleistocene of Orce 485 (Granada province, Spain). Hum. Evol. 14, 3–19. 486 Gibert Beotas, L., 2008. Dr. Josep Gibert Clols (1941-2007): In memoriam. Quat. Sci. 487 Rev. 27, 1091–1092. 488 Groves, C.P., 1988. Book review: Bones of Contention: Controversies in the Search for 489 Human Origins. J. Hum. Evol. 17, 270–273. 490 Hochadel, O., 2013. El Mito de Atapuerca. Orígenes, Ciencia, Divulgación. Edicions 491 UAB, Bellaterra. 492 Lewin, R., 1987. Bones of Contention. Controversies in the Search for Human Origins. 493 Simon & Schuster, New York. 494 Martínez-Navarro, B., 1993. El Hombre de Orce: Historia de un Descubrimiento. 495 Proyecto Sur de Ediciones, Granada. 496 Martínez-Navarro, B., 2002. The skull of Orce: parietal bones or frontal bones? J. Hum. 497 Evol. 42, 265-270. 498 Martínez-Navarro, B., Claret, A., Shabel, A. B., Pérez Claros, J. A., Lorenzo, C., 499 Palmqvist, P. (2005). Early Pleistocene "hominid remains" from southern Spain and 500 the taxonomic assignment of the Cueva Victoria phalanx. J. Hum. Evol. 48, 517–523. 21 501 Moyà-Solà, S., Köhler, M., 1993. Recent discoveries of Dryopithecus shed new light on 502 evolution of great apes. Nature 365, 543–545. 503 Moyà-Solà, S., Köhler, M., 1996. A Dryopithecus skeleton and the origins of great-ape 504 locomotion. Nature 379, 156–159. 505 Moyà-Solà, S., Köhler, M., 1997. The Orce skull: Anatomy of a mistake. J. Hum. Evol. 506 33, 91–97. 507 Moyà-Solà, S., Agustí, J., Gibert, J., Pons-Moyà, J., 1981. El yacimiento cuaternario de 508 Venta Micena (España) y su importancia dentro de las asociaciones faunísticas del 509 Pleistoceno inferior europeo. Paleontol. Evol. 16, 39–53. 510 Moyà-Solà, S., Köhler, M., Alba, D.M., Casanovas-Vilar, I., Galindo, J., 2004. 511 Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, a new Middle Miocene great ape from Spain. Science 512 306, 1339–1344. 513 Moyà-Solà, S., Köhler, M., Alba, D.M., Casanovas-Vilar, I., Galindo, J., 2005. Response 514 to comment on "Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, a new Middle Miocene great ape 515 from Spain". Science 308, 203d. 516 Palmqvist, P., 1997. A critical re-evaluation of the evidence for the presence of 517 hominids in Lower Pleistocene times at Venta Micena, Southern Spain. J. Hum. Evol 518 33, 83–89. 519 Pons Moyà, J., 1985. Nota preliminar sobre el hallazgo de Homo sp. en los rellenos 520 cársticos de Cueva Victoria (Murcia, España). Endins 10–11, 47–50. 521 Roebroeks, W., van Kolfschoten, T., 1994. The earliest occupation of Euroope: A short 522 chronology. Antiquity 68, 489–503. 523 Tobias, P.V., 1998. Some comments on the case for Early Pleistocene hominids in 524 south-eastern Spain. Hum. Evol. 13, 91–96. 22 525 Toro-Moyano, I., Martínez-Navarro, B., Agustí, J., Souday, C., Bermúdez de Castro, J. 526 M., Martinón-Torres, M., Fajardo, B., Duval, M., Falguères, C., Oms, O., Parés, J. M., 527 Anadón, P., Julià, R., García-Aguilar, J. M., Moigne, A.-M., Espigares, M. P., Ros- 528 Montoya, S., Palmqvist, P., 2013. The oldest human fossil in Europe, from Orce 529 (Spain). J. Hum. Evol. 65, 1–9. 530 Truyols i Santonja, J., 1986. L’obra científica del doctor Miquel Crusafont i Pairó (1910- 531 1983). Butll. Inst. Cat. Hist. Nat. 53, 19–36. 532 533 Figure caption 534 535 Figure 1. Josep Gibert, Jordi Agustí, and Salvador Moyà-Solà at Orce in August 1983, 536 during the visit of the de Lumleys: a) General view of the outcrops; b) from left to right, 537 J. Gibert, Henry de Lumley, J. Agustí, and S. Moyà-Solà; c) S. Moyà-Solà excavating; d) 538 from left to right, H. and Marie-Antoinette de Lumley, J. Agustí, and J. Gibert; e) from 539 left to right, J. Gibert,J. Agustí, H. de Lumley, and S. Moyà-Solà. Photographs kindly 540 provided by S. Moyà-Solà. 541 23 Table 1 Chronological summary of the main events involved in the Orce Man affair. Year Description of the main events 1976 The Early Pleistocene site of Venta Micena is discovered by a team from the IPS led by Gibert 1982 The first systematic excavation at Venta Micena lead to the find of a skullcap fragment (VM-0) interpreted as human 1983 VM-0 is described by Gibert, Agustí, and Moyà-Solà as the oldest remain of Homo sp. from Eurasia; the discovery is widely publicized as the Orce Man in the media; Crusafont dies while the de Lumleys, who confirm the human status of VM-0, are visiting Venta Micena 1984 Gibert, Agustí, and Moyà-Solà get permanent positions at the IPS and Gibert is appointed director; the preparation of VM-0 reveals an internal crest that supports its alternative interpretation as an equid; Gibert disagrees and the de Lumleys leak this information to the press; the public controversy begins 1985 Three university full professors publicly criticize the methods of Gibert and colleagues as unscientific; Gibert is replaced by Agustí as IPS director and starts a personal crusade to vindicate the human status of VM-0 and Early Pleistocene human presence at Orce 1987 Agustí and Moyà-Solà retract their former views publicly and in print 1995 Gibert organizes an international conference at Orce to convince other researchers about the importance of the Orce sites 1996–1997 Martínez-Navarro and Palmqvist, former collaborators of Gibert, turn against the latter; Martínez-Navarro is dismissed as director of the Orce Museum; Palmqvist and Moyà-Solà publish respective articles supporting that VM-0 is not human 2007 Gibert dies and the controversy starts to progressively fade out 2013 The publication by Gibert’s former collaborators of a human tooth from the Orce site of Barranco León (the ‘Orce Boy’) revives the controversy because Gibert’s work is initially ignored in the paper Abbreviation: IPS = Institut de Paleontologia de Sabadell.