ARTICLE IN PRESS
Quaternary Science Reviews 26 (2007) 573–576
Reply
Evaluation of the Olduvai subchron in the Orce ravine
(SE Spain)
A Reply to Comment by Agustı́, Oms & Parés on
‘‘Implications for Plio-Pleistocene mammal biostratigraphy
and the age of Orce archaeological sites’’ by Gibert et al.
(2006) QSR 25, 507–525
We welcome the opportunity to respond to this comment
by Agustı́ et al. about the paper describing the landslide
repetition and fictive chronology within a recently pro-
posed boundary section (Orce ravine) for the Late Neogene
calibration of the continental Mammal biochronological
framework of western Europe and eastern Mediterranean
(Agustı́ et al., 2001).
1. Introduction
Since the initial discovery and survey in 1979 by J. & Ll.
Gibert, the fossil-rich cliffs and ravines near Orce, Spain
have generated a great deal of enthusiasm from both the
vertebrate paleontology and paleoanthropology commu-
nities. It became clear after the 1995 international
symposium at Orce (Zihlman and Lowenstein, 1996) that
significant questions remained concerning the chronology
and archaeology of these Orce deposits. The age problem
appeared to be solved in 1997 by Agustı́ and co-workers
with the finding of the ‘Olduvai’ magnetochron (C2n,
1.78–1.94 Ma) in the Orce ravine. This section had already
been the subject of more than a dozen reports covering
Plio-Pleistocene biostratigraphy, micropaleontology and
paleoclimate. Furthermore, the section was adjacent to the
exciting new quarry of Barranco Leon where abundant
lithic artefacts were discovered in 1995 surrounding the
remains of a Hippopotamus antiquus (Gibert et al., 1998).
In 1998, building on Orce ravine’s newly calibrated
chronology, we initiated a detailed study of lithostrati-
graphic and magnetostratigraphic correlation by sampling
the 3 main fossil quarries in the Orce area. Additional
reference samples were taken from the Late Pliocene–Early
Pleistocene transition of Agustı́ et al. (1997) in the Orce
ravine, to refine and utilize the stratigraphic boundaries of
the 4 described magnetozones. In 1999, we reported finding
DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.03.006
0277-3791/$ - see front matter r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.11.002
Reverse polarity through the Venta Micena quarry and
surprisingly, through the ‘Olduvai Normal’ zones in the
Orce ravine (Scott et al., 1999). Finding no magnetozone
boundaries (therefore lacking chronology control), we had
to truncate this research initiative and start a broader
stratigraphic search for a verifiable Normal zone (Scott
et al., 2007). In 2001, Agustı́ and co-workers nominated the
Orce ravine as the 2.0 Ma (minimum) age boundary section
for Neogene mammals of Western Europe They claimed
the Orce ravine held a magnetobiostratigraphically cali-
brated record, and had a comprehensive magnetostrati-
graphic calibration of the Mm Q1 Mammal Neogene unit.
We felt this was a particularly poor choice for either
reference or future sampling, since the section had a
confused stratigraphy (jumbled and repeated by land-
sliding, initially documented by Gibert et al., 1995), and
lacked the magnetozone boundaries necessary to control
the chronology.
Our paper was submitted to QSR in 2003 to recommend
that the Orce ravine should not be used as a reference site
(also called Barranco de Orce, or BO section). This alert
was intended to be broadly accessible to the Neogene
research community, especially for those wanting to sample
or study a calibrated Late Pliocene–Early Pleistocene
section in continental beds. The QSR paper’s primary
concern was the stratigraphy in the Orce ravine, and
specifically the array of non-stratigraphic features pro-
duced during landsliding and surface weathering. The
paper documented the mechanism and timing of this
landslide, and showed how parts of the two original fossil-
bearing beds near the top of the section were sheared and
displaced downhill. Although rich in fossil fragments, the 5
downhill sites (Orce 1–5) were shown to be fault breccias or
displaced from up-slope locations and therefore of ques-
tionable value to biostratigraphy. The paper also docu-
mented Reverse polarity magnetization through the in situ
part of the Orce ravine as well as laterally in the next ravine
(Barranco Leon). Thus, the chronological control used to
calibrate the Late Neogene mammal scale had the
appearance of a modern zone of weathering and alteration,
not the stratiform features expected from a 2 Ma, Late
Pliocene magnetozone.
2. Stratigraphy versus landslide
Unfortunately, the comment by Agustı́ et al. ignores the
structure and lithostratigraphy at the Orce ravine, issues
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
574 Reply / Quaternary Science Reviews 26 (2007) 573–576
that are paramount to any attempted biostratigraphy or
biozonation. In this reply, we will continue to make the
argument that it is physical stratigraphy that underpins the
logic and accuracy of all proposed stratigraphies (bio-,
magneto-, or chron-). Steno’s ‘three laws for the inter-
pretation of strata’ express the fundamental logic and the
usefulness of stratigraphic context to historical geology
(Steno, 1669). Landslides violate this general logic, and the
Orce ravine landslide was shown to be particularly
problematic, with vertebrate fossils being collected from
low-angle, fluidized shear zones (fault breccias, see Fig. 5
in the QSR paper), not from an undisrupted sedimentary
sequence.
In our opinion, a compelling argument was made
in the QSR paper that a gravity-driven landslide
event, during the Holocene, produced the unusual section
seen in the Orce ravine. Agustı́ et al. in previous papers
and in this comment, have consistently disregarded this
mechanism. They have appealed to ‘tectonic displacements’
(Agustı́ et al., 1997), and to ‘the occurrence of major
neotectonic faults’ (Oms et al., 2000a) in the Orce
ravine. This alternative mechanism, of older strain
produced by tectonic stress, has the attractive possibility
that many of the features of physical stratigraphy (and
magnetozones) might be correlated across simple faults.
Oms (1998) considered this type of passive-marker
correlation for the slide-block containing Orce-2 and
Orce-3. Of interest are the paleomagnetic directions
reported from these ‘sites’, which were particularly
scattered and labeled as uncertain. Directional inconsis-
tency would be expected in samples collected from fault
breccias, where shearing and grain rotation during
fluidization of this granular media changes the remanent
magnetization.
A recent map of the Orce area covering 30 km2 (Oms
et al., 2000a) showed no landslides, which we would
claim cover 43 km2 (Fig. 2 in the QSR paper). Those
features in the QSR paper described as detachment
planes within or delimiting the landslides (Figs. 3–5),
were ‘major neotectonic faults’. A few kilometers to
the west of the Orce ravine is an intensely deformed
zone (2 km wide) with folding and tilting of 101 to 451 This
is a significant neotectonic feature, with structural in-
formation related to plate tectonic stresses during the mid-
Pleistocene, but was unnoticed or disregarded across 5 km2
of this map. All the discordant features found in the Orce
ravine are distinct in style and orientation from this nearby
example of neotectonic activity. These distinctions are
relevant for the active research into the neotectonic
evolution of the Betic Range. For Late Neogene biostrati-
graphers and vertebrate paleontologists, the immediate
relevance of the landslide explanation ranges from
‘reference paleontological sites’ being replaced by fault
breccias and dismembered beds, to the numerous biozones
from the Late Pliocene through Early Pleistocene being
condensed into a single Early Pleistocene zone of short
duration.
3. Intrinsic inconsistencies in systematics and biozonation
Some specific statements in Agustı́ et al. should be
addressed. We disagree with the initial characterization of
the QSR paper as ‘‘yan extensive review of the age of the
first human presence in Spain.’’ This paper was focused on
the stratigraphy (litho-, bio- and magneto-) of the Orce
ravine. The serious and diverse stratigraphic shortcomings
observed in the Orce ravine motivated the QSR paper, and
were thought to be of significance to a wide range of the
Journal’s readers. Until then, the Orce ravine had the only
magnetozone boundary in or around the Orce paleontolo-
gical/archeological sites, and as such was critical to
their chronology. The last part of the discussion section
(Section 7.3) gives a general overview of the age of
archeological sites, as modified by the new data from the
Orce ravine and adjacent Barranco Leon section. This was
summarized as: ‘‘Precise dating of the archeological
sites cannot be made from available paleomagnetic
data,y’’ (p. 522).
We disagree with Agustı́ et al. in stating that we had
difficulty understanding rodent systematics and biostrati-
graphy, and that this difficulty was not the result of, some
vaguely suggested, intrinsic inconsistencies in the literature
about the Orce ravine. The QSR paper directly exposed the
intrinsic inconsistencies in all facets of the stratigraphy
published about the Orce ravine. Intrinsic inconsistencies
in systematics and biozonation were the specific topic for 3
pages (Section 7.2). Intrinsic inconsistencies in stratigraphy
(landslide Sections 3–5) and chronology (paleomagnetism
Sections 6–7.1) were the specific topic for 11 pages. No
attempt was made to be vague or merely suggestive with
the sentences:
Biostratigraphic studies in the BO section show defi-
ciencies in all aspects: systematics, stratigraphy, biozo-
nation and absolute datings.’’y ‘‘The low number of
specimens together with the unrecognized repetition of
the BO fossiliferous layers by landsliding led to
misinterpretations of the faunal associations and there-
fore, biozones.’’ (p. 520).
4. Multi-component remanence and magnetozones
We consider the statements about paleomagnetic analy-
sis in Agustı́ et al. to be specious and counter-productive.
We disagree with the statement that in the QSR paper the
primary remanent magnetization component was retrieved.
This opinion should be compared to the figures and text:
We were unable to isolate a simple single component
magnetization above 1301, with either a Normal or a
Reverse direction. What we did find were multi-
component magnetization directions that were consistent
mixtures of Normal and Reverse directions. (p. 513).
Agustı́ et al. ignored our extensive discussion of multi-
component remanence (pp. 513–516) and its implications
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Reply / Quaternary Science Reviews 26 (2007) 573–576
to magnetozone determination. For Orce Ravine’s multi-
component data the linear regression technique, useful for
single-components, produces the direction of the secondary
vector, or a mixture of the vectors, not the ancient direction
(e.g. Fig. 8). It is a misuse of the linear regression technique
to analyze specimens with fully overlapping thermal or
coercivity spectra (Dinarés and McClelland, 1991; Halim
et al., 1996; Tauxe, 2005).
In the QSR paper, we explained both the origin and the
features expected from mixtures of unresolved 2-compo-
nent, antipodal magnetizations. Fig. 9 was specifically
developed to expose and quantify the ratios within these
mixed, 2-component remanent data. This detailed graph
showed the sub-equal mixtures of Normal (modern) and
Reverse (ancient) components from 4 stratigraphic levels,
including specimens from Orce ravine’s only in situ
paleontology sites. ‘‘The in situ fossil-bearing sites O-6
and O-7 are of Reversed polarity.’’ (p. 516). These results
were the opposite of those previously published (Agustı́
et al., 1997), which showed 2 Normal magnetozones
covering 8 m.
Agustı́ et al. sidestepped our explicit and direct challenge
(p. 515) to those using the VGP technique when confronted
with multi-component data. That form of calculation
could give arbitrary polarity interpretations when uncriti-
cally applied. The QSR paper pointed out that virtual
poles calculated from multi-component data have no
useful geomagnetic meaning. A more appropriate metho-
dology was suggested for multi-component remanence,
based on the angular difference (I’) between the measured
and expected directions. Agustı́ et al.’s opinion about
VGP’s can be compared to Tauxe (2005; Section 2.3.1
Plotting Magnetic Directional Data) in which the advan-
tages of D’, I’ was explained before introducing the VGP
calculation.
As explained in the QSR paper, the rote application of
these single-component methodologies was what led to the
reporting of artificial ‘Normal’ magnetozones in the Orce
ravine. These inappropriate methodologies also obscured
the observation that Reverse polarity components could be
found throughout the section. This remains unappreciated
in Agustı́ et al., where the terms multi-component
magnetization, or magnetozones are missing. The term
remagnetization appears, but this term is both vague and
not placed in stratigraphic context.
The QSR paper concluded that the Orce ravine’s modern
weathering ‘Normal’ zone should not be used as a 2 Ma
‘Olduvai Normal’ age control. Agustı́ et al. repeatedly
stated that by 1998, the effects of remagnetization were
considered for the Orce ravine and this led them to discard
and no longer use this ‘problematic magnetostratigraphy’.
Two points of contradiction should be made: (1) The
Neogene research community was not informed of this de-
calibration of the Late Pliocene/Early Pleistocene transi-
tion. The only reference given is Oms’s (1998) dissertation,
which listed remagnetization among numerous other
possible factors to explain correlation problems to sections
575
within and around the Orce area. (2) In subsequent papers
by these authors, they make uniformly favorable reference
to the Orce ravine’s results of Agustı́ et al. (1997). Positive
statements cover the full range of topics: chronology
(Oms et al., 2000a; Agustı́ et al., 2001), biostratigraphy
(Oms et al., 1999; Agustı́ et al., 2001), magnetostratigraphy
(Agustı́ et al., 1999; Agustı́ et al., 2001), correlations to its
‘Olduvai’ subchron (Oms et al., 1999; Agustı́ et al., 2001),
and even support for the primary origin of remanent
magnetization (Oms et al., 1999). Uniquely, Oms et al.
(2000b) makes no mention or reference to the research of
Agustı́ et al. (1997), even though they report a different
magnetostratigraphy and chronology from Barranco Leon,
adjacent to the Orce ravine.
5. Conclusions
The Orce ravine’s micro-vertebrate fossil record has an
extensive literature, as summarized in the QSR paper and
discussed by Agustı́ et al. Now however, the region’s
biostratigraphy should be rebuilt using only those sites
from no displaced in situ sedimentary rocks. For the Orce
ravine section these should be restricted to Orce-6 and
Orce-7; all other sites (Orce-1–5) are affected by landslide
processes, without a straightforward stratigraphic context.
The challenge for the future will be the difficult task of
parsing the historical development and calibration of the
existing Late Neogene continental biostratigraphy after
removing these non-sedimentary sites. This will involve
efforts to untangle the far-reaching influences these land-
slide sites have had on the earlier, interwoven calibration
studies.
In summary, many of the statements by Agustı́ et al. are
unsubstantiated and all avoid the underlying basic issue of
stratigraphy. The conclusions from our QSR paper remain
as follows: Decades of sampling within the landslide
dismembered Orce ravine produced numerous fictive
biozonations, all generated from the displaced parts of
the same strata. The in situ part has no magnetozone
boundaries, with Reverse polarity having been found
throughout. The previously reported ‘Olduvai’ Normal
zone is not ancient, but the product of modern weathering,
mineral alteration, and inapposite analysis. While the Orce
ravine section should be avoided as a reference, the
numerous other Late Neogene sections in the Baza Basin
will become important for calibrating the chronology of
western European mammals.
References
Agustı́, J., Oms, O., Garcés., M., Parés, J.M., 1997. Calibration of the late
Pliocene–Early Pleistocene transition in continental beds of the
Guadix-Baza basin (Southeastern Spain). Quaternary International
40, 93–100.
Agustı́, J., Oms, O., Parés, J.M., 1999. Calibration of the Early–Middle
Pleistocene transition in the continental beds of the Guadix-Baza Basin
(SE Spain). Quaternary Science Reviews 18, 1409–1417.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
576 Reply / Quaternary Science Reviews 26 (2007) 573–576
Agustı́, J., Cabrera, L., Garcés, M., Krijsman, W., Oms, O., Parés, J.M.,
2001. A calibrated mammal scale for the Neogene of Western Europe
State of the Art. Earth Science Reviews 52, 247–260.
Dinarés, J., McClelland, E., 1991. A cautionary tale for palaeomagnetists:
a spurious apparent single component remanence due to overlap of
blocking-temperature spectra of two components. Geophysical Re-
search Letters 18, 1297–1300.
Gibert, L., Albaladejo, S., Gibert, J., 1995. Estratigrafı́a del barranco de
Orce. ‘Abstracts’ Proceedings of the International Conference on
Human paleontology, Orce 1995. Museo de Prehistoria y Paleonto-
logı́a de Orce, Granada, pp. 147–247.
Gibert, J., Gibert, L., Maestro, E., Iglesias, A., 1998. Two oldowan
assemblages in the Plio-Pleistocene deposits of the Orce region, SE
Spain. Antiquity 72, 17–25.
Gibert, Ll., Scott, G., Ferràndez, C., 2006. Evaluation of the Olduvai
subchron in the Orce ravine (SE Spain). Implications for Plio-
Pleistocene mammal biostratigraphy and the age of Orce archae-
ological sites. Quaternary Science Reviews 25, 507–525.
Halim, N., Cogné, J.P., Courtillot, V., Chen, Y., 1996. Apparent
synfolding magnetization as a result of overlap of pre- and post-
folding magnetizations. Geophysical Research Letters 23, 3523–3526.
Oms, O. 1998. Magnetoestratigrafı́a i litoestratigrafia de la conca de
Guadix-Baza i altres punts del Neògen continental de la Serralades
Bètiques. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.
Oms, O., Dinarés, J., Agustı́, J., Parés, J.M., 1999. Refinements of the
European mammal biochronology from the magnetic polarity record
of the Plio-Pleistocene Zújar section, Guadix-Baza Basin, SE Spain.
Quaternary Research 51, 94–103.
Oms, O., Agustı́, J., Gabàs, M., Anadon, P., 2000a. Lithostratigraphical
correlation of micromammals sites and biostratigraphy of the upper
Pliocene to lower Pleistocene in the Northeast Guadix-Baza basin
(Southern Spain). Journal of Quaternary Sciences 15 (1), 43–50.
Oms, O., Parés, J.M., Martinez-Navarro, B., Agustı́, J., Toro, I.,
Martı́nez-Fernández, G., Turq, A., 2000b. Early human occupation
of Western Europe: Paleomagnetic dates for two paleolithic sites in
Spain. PNAS 97 (19), 10666–10670.
Scott, G.R., Gibert, L., 1999. Evaluation of the Olduvai subchron in the
Orce Region. Workshop on the Guadix-Baza Basin (Andalucia Spain)
and the chronostratigraphy of the terrestrial Plio-Pleistocene in
Europe, INQUA, SEQS and EuroMam Workshop. Orce, Granada,
May 27–29, pp. 11–12.
Scott, G.R., Gibert, L., Gibert, J., 2007. Magnetostratigraphy of the Orce
region (Baza Basin), SE Spain: new chronologies for early Pleistocene
faunas and hominid occupation sites. Quaternary Science Reviews,
in press, doi:10.1016/j.Quascirev.2006.09.007.
Steno, N., 1669. De Solido Intra Solidium Naturaliter Contento
Dissertationis Prodromus: Florence, Italy (translated by J.G. Winter,
1916, University of Michigan Studies. The Macmillan Co., New York).
Tauxe, L., 2005. Online Lectures in Paleomagnetism.
/http://earthref.org/MAGIC/books/Tauxe/2005/S.
Zihlman, A.L., Lowenstein, J.M., 1996. A Spanish Olduvai? Current
Anthropology 37, 695–697.
L. Gibert
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya,
Department Enginyeria Minera i Recursos Naturals
Farinera 2, Castella del Valles, 08211 Barcelona, Spain
E-mail address: gbeotas@hotmail.com
G. Scott
Berkeley Geochronology Center 2455 Ridge Rd.
Berkeley CA 94709, USA
E-mail address: gscott@bgc.org
C. Ferràndez-Cañadell
Department d’ 6stratigrafia, Paleontologic i Geociències
Marines, Facultat de Geologia, Universitat de Barcelona.
Marti Franquès s/n, E-08028,
Barcelona, Spain
E-mail address: carlesferrandez@ub.edu