Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / May 2004

on

homonid?

"Nebraska Man" it

finder

later identified

"Nebraska Man"

to be

The ?Man of Orce? Meets the Press

June 11, 1983, saw the fossil?s public presentation in
Spain. Prominent Spanish, French, and British
scientists had already vouched for its authenticity,
and political support was quickly forthcoming. A
Spanish monthly enthused: ?Spain, and especially
Granada, is now at the forefront of [human] antiquity
in the macrocontinent of Eurasia.?

What was the ?Man of Orce? really like? Scientists
described him as a recent emigrant from Africa. This
particular fossil, it was said, belonged to a young
man who was about 17 years old and five feet [1.5 m]
tall. Probably he was a hunter and collector who may
not have yet learned to use fire. Likely he had
already developed a rudimentary language and religion.
He ate fruit, cereals, berries, and insects, along
with the occasional remains of animals that hyenas had
killed.

On May 12, 1984, only two weeks before an
international scientific seminar on the subject,
serious doubts arose as to the fragment?s origin.
After the meticulous removal of calcareous deposits
from the interior part of the skull, the
paleontologists found a disconcerting ?crest.? Human
skulls do not have such a crest. The seminar was
postponed.

The Madrid daily El Pa?s carried the headline,
?Serious Indications That the Cranium of the ?Man of
Orce? Belongs to an a.s.? Finally, in 1987, a
scientific paper written by Jordi Agust??and Salvador
Moy?, two of the paleontologists involved in the
original discovery, declared that X-ray analysis had
indeed confirmed that the fossil belonged to a kind of
horse.

This debacle arose for several reasons, none of which
have much to do with the scientific method. The
dramatic discovery of human ancestors rarely remains
for long in the exclusive domain of the scientists.
Politicians were quick to jump on the bandwagon, and
scientific rigor was eclipsed by nationalistic fervor.

A regional minister of culture declared that it was a
proud moment for Andalusia ?to be the setting of such
a great discovery.? When doubts about the find were
expressed in some circles, the regional government of
Andalusia stoutly maintained that ?the remains were
authentic.?

Such an insignificant fossil (about 3 inches [8 cm] in
diameter) acquires enormous importance in part because
of the lack of evidence to support the supposed
evolution of man. Despite the fossil?s meager
proportions, the ?Man of Orce? was hailed as ?the
greatest paleontological find of recent years, as well
as the missing link between the typical African man
(Homo habilis) and the oldest man of the Eurasian
continent (Homo erectus).? Fertile imagination and
not-so-scientific guesswork sufficed to fill in the
details about the appearance and way of life of the
?Man of Orce.?

A year or so before the discovery of the ?Man of
Orce,? the leader of the scientific team, Dr.?Josep
Gibert, had speculated about the surprises that the
area undoubtedly held in store. ?It is one of the most
important concentrations of the inferior Quaternary in
Europe,? he asserted. And even after the true identity
of the fossil was revealed, Dr.?Gibert insisted: ?The
international scientific community firmly believes
that in the Guadix-Baza area [where the fragment was
found], sooner or later, a human fossil more than a
million years old will be found, and that will
certainly be a great discovery.? Indeed, wishful
thinking!

A codiscoverer of the ?Man of Orce,? Dr.?Salvador
Moy?, honestly admitted: ?Dr.?Jordi Agust? and I found
it very difficult to accept that the fossil was not
humanoid.?However, science is concerned with
discovering the truth, even though it may not be to
our liking.?

The controversy that has surrounded the ?Man of Orce?
illustrates how vexing a task it is for paleontology
to unearth the truth concerning the so-called
evolution of man. Despite decades of digging, genuine
remains of man?s supposed simian ancestors have not
come to light. Although it may not be to the liking of
some scientists, could it be that the dearth of solid
evidence points to the fact that man is not a product
of evolution after all?

An impartial observer might well ask himself if other
renowned ?ape-men? are any more substantial than the
?Man of Orce? has proved to be. As history has amply
demonstrated, science can lead men to the truth, but
scientists are by no means immune to error. This is
especially so when political, philosophical, and
personal bias clouds the issue?and when so little is
used to try to explain so much.