Vilanova i Piera the path to prehistory

[page-n-1]
Vilanova
i Piera
THE PATH TO PREHISTORY

[page-n-2]
118

THE MEMORY OF VILANOVA:
THE THOUSAND FACES OF A
DONATION
Yolanda Fons Grau
Biblioteca i Arxiu, Museu de Prehistòria
de València
Juan Salazar Bonet
International Programs Valencia,
Florida Satate University

The material legacy of Juan
Vilanova
A few days after the death of
Juan Vilanova y Piera, his widow,
Francisca de Paula Pizcueta, asked
the government to purchase various
collections that her late husband
had gathered together over a period
of almost four decades. This private
legacy consisted of “minerals, rocks
and fossils”, “prehistoric items”, as
well as his library of “magnificent
books”, all still at the family home
in Calle San Vicente in Madrid. The
sale agreements were made with
the Museum of Natural Sciences
of Madrid, establishing sums of
2,939.75 pesetas for the geology
collection, 1,500 pesetas for the
prehistory collection and 4,493
pesetas for his library. Together, this
added up to a considerable amount,
bearing in mind that at the end of
the nineteenth century the average
daily wage of a worker was two
and a half pesetas and a kilo of
bread cost half a peseta. Manuel
Antón, director of the Anthropology
Section of the Museum of Natural
Sciences, played a key role in the
sale of the materials. From Valencia,

like Vilanova, Antón considered the
purchase to be essential for the
museum, because it was “the first
collection of prehistory”. Three years
later, however, only the library and
the prehistory collection had been
passed on to their new owners. In
September 1898, Alfonso Vilanova,
the professor’s son, was still
negotiating the sale, and in fact it
was not completed until 1906.
The Museum of Natural Sciences,
housed at the Goyeneche palace,
was the main destination of
this important legacy. In fact,
Vilanova’s association with the
place had begun when he was 26
years old, after obtaining a post
as professor’s assistant at the
Royal Cabinet of Natural History.
Later, as a professor, he kept up
his association with the museum
and in fact remained in contact
with the institution until the end of
his life. The collection sold by his
widow joined other legacies that
Vilanova himself had donated. The
first of these was the collection of
rocks, minerals and fossils acquired
during his scholarship in Europe,
which had lasted several years. The
collection comprised more than
1000 specimens catalogued by
Vilanova himself in 1851 and given
to the museum, formerly known
as the Museum of Natural History,
although the pieces remained
packed in boxes on the museum’s
premises until 1873. For several
years Vilanova also contributed
materials from Castellón, Teruel and
Valencia, as a result of his work for

[page-n-3]
119

the Geological Map Commission,
and continued to do so from 1884
onwards (Montero, 2003).
In 1910, a section of the Museum
of Natural Sciences became
the Museum of Anthropology,
Ethnography and Prehistory, where
part of the Vilanova prehistory
collection was housed (Fletcher,
1945). In 1942, the collections were
moved from there to the National
Archaeological Museum, which,
created in 1867, had also received
notable donations from Vilanova
during his lifetime. In fact, Vilanova
made his first donation to the
National Archaeological Museum
(comprising materials from the site
of San Isidro, the discovery that had
set in motion the study of prehistory
in the peninsula) on December 24,
1867 (Martos, 2017). This first batch
of 206 objects, which included two
axes from San Isidro, was followed
by others, mainly between 1868 and
1871. Some of the materials were
from the peninsula, excavated and
prospected by Vilanova himself,
while others he had acquired
abroad during his frequent trips
(Barril, and Pérez, 2010: 202).
The Athenaeum of Madrid, of
which Juan Vilanova was a member
and a frequent lecturer, and the
Central University, where he taught,
were institutions with outstanding
historical archives. Vilanova’s
association with the Athenaeum
dated back to 1854, when he was
admitted as a member. Over the
next 40 years and until shortly

before his death, the professor
maintained his links with this
institution, offering annual courses
such as “The Origin of Man”, and
attending seminars and conferences.
However, hardly any documents
from this institution prior to 1939
have come down to us. Although the
library and its stocks survived the
civil war, the historical archive of
the Athenaeum disappeared almost
entirely during the occupation of
the property by the Falangists in the
early 1940s (Herrera et al., 2009).
Vilanova’s association with the
Central University began in 1852,
when he obtained the chair of
Geology and Palaeontology,
and continued until his death. As
a professor, he taught classes,
but he was also involved in the
administration of the university,
and this engagement has left a
significant amount of information
about his activities there. Today the
General Archive of the Complutense
University, as the Central University
has been known since 1943, preserves
a collection of historical documents
in a set of 1,893 boxes that span the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries –
an archive that is likely to shed new
light on the professor’s academic life
during a period of major upheaval
for the university. In addition, 1,500
boxes holding nineteenth- and
twentieth-century documents from
the Rectorate are also preserved
(Olivares, 1997).
Other archives in Madrid and its
surroundings also contain materials

referring to Juan Vilanova y Piera.
The collection entitled “Juan
Vilanova y Piera. Personal File”, in
the General Archive of Alcalá de
Henares, includes the handwritten
examination that Vilanova presented
when he applied for the chair of
Zoology at the University in 1847
(Pelayo, 1995). Other documents
are held at the Academy of Exact,
Physical and Natural Sciences, the
Royal Academy of History, and the
Royal Spanish Society of Natural
History. In Valencia, apart from
the collection at the Library of the
Museum of Prehistory, documentary
sources on Vilanova’s life can be
found at the Museum of Natural
Sciences, the Serrano Morales
Library, the Camilo Visedo Moltó
Municipal Archaeological Museum
of Alcoi, the Nicolau Primitiu Library
and the Municipal Newspaper
Library, which holds the newspaper
articles published by Vilanova in Las
Provincias.
Vilanova’s outstanding academic
career can be seen against the
background of the timid but steadily
growing interest in research in
Spain in the second half of the
nineteenth century. Vilanova worked
together with several pioneers in the
discipline of prehistory. Casiano de
Prado y Vallo (1797-1866), Francisco
María Tubino y Oliva (1833-1888)
and Eduardo Boscá Casanoves
(1843-1924) were researchers from
three different generations with
whom Vilanova enjoyed fruitful
associations. The description and
comparison of the preservation

[page-n-4]
120

of his collections allows us to
contextualize the Vilanova legacy:
his publications in print, the habitual
medium of the time, have been
preserved in a multitude of archives.
Casiano de Prado is, for many
reasons, a key figure in the story of
the first steps of prehistory in the
peninsula. Although his relationship
with Vilanova was competitive
(Pelayo, Gozalo, 2012, 105-108), they
both participated in state projects
at scientific institutions, such as the
Geological Mapmaking Commission
of Spain, and were both interested
in sites such as San Isidro. The
documentation generated by the
dealings of this mining engineer
with official bodies was kept in
the Central General Archive of
Alcalá de Henares. However, in
August 1939, just after the end of
the civil war, the building suffered
a devastating fire that destroyed
practically all of the 140,000
administrative and historical files
from previous centuries, including
the documentation of the Mining
Corps and the General Directorate
of Mining prior to 1873 (González,
2004). Documents referring to
Casiano de Prado can be found in
a score of national archives, but we
have little information of a private or
personal nature.
Francisco María Tubino y Oliva,
a multifaceted author, journalist,
historian and politician, was an
active member of the Scientific
and Literary Athenaeum of Madrid,
where he frequently met Vilanova.

Together with the director of the
National Archaeological Museum
José Amador de los Ríos, they
tried unsuccessfully to found
the Prehistoric Society in 1868.
Vilanova and Tubino made visits
to various peninsular sites, and
travelled across Europe together to
attend the International Congress
of Anthropology and Prehistoric
Archaeology in 1869. Their account
of the journey, published later,
reflects the themes and debates of
the sessions, the excursions made
during the congress, and their
impressions of their trip through
Scandinavia. Like Vilanova, Tubino
contributed prehistoric objects to the
National Archaeological Museum.
Many pf Tubino’s publications, part
of his correspondence and various
documents resulting from his
intense research and dissemination
work have been preserved, but his
personal archive disappeared in a
flood in the province of Jaén.
Finally, the naturalist and professor
Eduardo Boscá Casanoves, whom
Vilanova considered his “dear friend
and pupil”, shared many of Vilanova’s
intellectual interests. In 1866, at the
age of 23, he had already surveyed
sites such as Cova del Parpalló
and Cova Negra with Vilanova; in
addition, Vilanova had been his
professor in Madrid and a member
of his doctorate degree tribunal in
1873. Boscá, committed to Darwinian
theories, was appointed head of
the Technical Commission entrusted
by Valencia City Council with the
management of the palaeontological

collection given to the city by Rodrigo
Botet in 1889 (Salinas, 2001). This
collection, containing the famous
human skeleton of Samborondón,
which Vilanova studied, generated
a large volume of information now
preserved in the Municipal Archive of
Valencia and in the city’s Museum of
Natural Sciences. Sadly, the Cabinet
of Natural History of the University
of Valencia, where Eduardo Boscá
worked for years, was destroyed in
a fire in 1932, and his outstanding
private collection housed in his home
on Avenida del Puerto de Valencia
has also disappeared (Sánchez,
1998; Català, 2004).

The Vilanova collection in the
Library of the Valencia Museum
of Prehistory
The documentary and bibliographic
collection of Juan Vilanova y Piera in
the Library of the Valencia Museum
of Prehistory originated from the
donation made by Juan Masiá
Vilanova, Vilanova’s grandson. Since
1986, the legacy has expanded
thanks to successive additions. This
year, 2021, Natalia Mansilla Masiá,
Juan Masiá’s granddaughter, has
added more unpublished documents
and objects connected with the
renowned naturalist.
Don Isidro Ballester (1876-1950),
the first director of the Prehistoric
Research Service and the Museum
of Prehistory between 1927 and
1950, already knew that Juan
Masiá possessed a wealth of
documentation on Vilanova. While

[page-n-5]
121

preparing a study on the skulls
in the Cueva de les Llometes in
Alcoi, he consulted the documents
belonging to Masiá, although he
would have never thought that all
this documentation would eventually
become part of the institution that
he directed.
Juan Masiá (1902-1998), professor
of Geography and History at
several institutions in Valencia, had
been a student at the Archaeology
Laboratory of the University of
Valencia (Albelda, Real & Vizcaíno,
2014). He was appointed Provincial
Commissioner of Archaeological
Excavations, and later Provincial
Delegate of Archaeological
Excavations. Masiá felt a very special
bond with Valencian archaeology and
with the Prehistoric Research Service
and the Museum of Prehistory (Martí,
2012). Prior to the donation he had
already exchanged publications with
the museum, although they did not
include any editions associated with
Juan Vilanova.
Three stages can be established in
the donation of documents to the
library. Each one involved different
kinds of documentation. Thus, the
first, made by Juan Masiá in 1986,
comprised printed publications,
manuscripts and photographs
(Goberna, 1990). The second, in
1996, also made by Masiá, basically
consisted of diplomas and academic
titles, medals and insignia, as well as
photographs and a daguerreotype.
The third phase, carried out in two
periods, 2012 and 2021, comprised

photographs of family and
congresses, a map, documents,
fossils, lithic products and two
fifteenth-century parchments
belonging to the family. In this case
the donor was Natalia Mansilla;
concerned that the collections of
the accredited academic might be
broken up, she decided to donate the
materials and documents that were
still in the possession of her family.
Thus, thanks to Juan Masiá and
his granddaughter, the personal
archive of Juan Vilanova as well as
various publications and objects
that he himself acquired are now
held at the Museum of Prehistory.
There are also some documents and
books owned by the family. Because
of the varied nature of the items
contained in the donation, they had
to be catalogued in different ways.
For instance, the personal library of
Juan Vilanova and the first editions
of his works have been added to the
library of the Museum of Prehistory.
Certain titles stand out, such as Les
premiers âges du Métal dans le
Sud-est de l’Espagne by the brothers
Henri and Louis Siret, one of the 100
copies published in 1887, Elements
of Geology by Charles Lyell and
Cours élémentaire de Paléontologie
et de Géologie stratigraphiques
by Alcide d’Orbigny. The medals
and decorations, incorporated in
1996, have been catalogued and
included in the museum’s database
(Gozalbes, 2012).
Juan Vilanova’s personal archive,
a set of documents that he wrote

or received throughout his life,
contain unique and irreplaceable
information regarding his career.
It was described and studied by
Francisco Pelayo, Vicente Salavert
and Rodolfo Gutiérrez (Pelayo
and Gozalo, 2012). Thanks to
the dedication of these three
researchers over many years,
the documentary collection of
approximately 7,000 pages has
now been catalogued. The legacy
consists of a great diversity of
documents, both personal and
official. Seven sets or series have
been created for their description:
Manuscripts, Correspondence,
Printed texts, Documents from
official bodies, Illustrations and
photographs, Field notebooks and
Original texts.
Manuscripts: These comprise notes
from excursions, congresses and
conferences, drafts for possible
future publications, notes for classes
and personal use, summaries of
articles or books, diagrams and
conference drafts, and so on.
In many cases they have been
underlined to be reused in other
manuscripts or are written on the
backs of advertisements.
Correspondence: These letters allow
us to trace Vilanova’s relationships
with, among others, Juan Valera,
Antonio Cánovas del Castillo, Roque
Chabás, Francisco Tubino, Juan
de Dios de la Rada, José Joaquín
Landerer, José Macpherson and
Edouard Verneuil. His communication
with the publishers of some of his

[page-n-6]
122

works is also recorded through
correspondence with Alejandro
Gómez Fuentenebro, editor of the
Compendium of Geology (1872) and
of The scientific journey to Denmark
and Sweden... (1871), with Montaner
and Simón, publisher of The Creation
… (1872-76), which Vilanova edited,
and with Astort Hermanos, with
whom he worked on the Universal
Geographical Atlas (1877).
Printed texts: This section comprises
most of the documentation
accumulated by Vilanova and, to
a lesser extent, by his descendants
after his death. It includes
advertisements, invoices, delivery
notes, press clippings, cards and
conference documents.
The items in these three sections
are often documents that were
reused to become manuscripts or
notes: for example, personal letters,
draft publications, advertisements,
receipts, invoices or calls for
meetings. Vilanova was happy
to use the back of any old sheet
of paper. Thanks to his habit of
recycling ephemeral documents,
the information contained in the
original documents has also been
preserved. This means that we
know where his sons and daughters
studied, or the fees he charged for
some of his publications in journals;
there are also some obituaries,
including Gaudry’s. He reused a
large part of the printed matter and
the correspondence he received,
although not documents from official
bodies. The study of these documents

will not only allow a reconstruction
of his relationships with his family
and friends, the administrators of his
projects, his publishers, his network
of researchers and correspondents or
with politicians, but can also tell us a
great deal about the late nineteenth
century, a time of huge political and
social change.
Documents from official bodies: This
series includes all the documentation
sent to Vilanova by the organizations
with which he was linked throughout
his life: the Madrid Athenaeum,
the Museum of Natural Sciences,
the Central University, the Literary
University of Valencia, the Royal
Academy of History, the Geological
Mapmaking Commission or the
Royal Academy of Exact Physical
and Natural Sciences, among others.
It also includes the titles, awards and
recognitions that he received during
his lifetime.
Illustrations and photographs: This
section comprises more than 100
photographs and postcards, among
them a daguerreotype of Vilanova,
made in early 1854 at Millet’s studio
in Paris, shortly before his return to
Spain after his stay abroad training
as a geologist. Recently, thanks to
the use of modern information and
documentation technologies, the
digitization of many libraries and
archives, and an exhaustive study,
many of the researchers with whom
Juan Vilanova exchanged business
cards at international congresses
and on his scientific trips have been
identified. They include the biologist

and palaeontologist Richard Owen,
the anthropologist and biologist
Armand de Quatrefages, the
physician and anthropologist Paul
Pierre Broca, the historian and
archaeologist Jens Jacob Asmussen
Worsaae, the physician Robert Koch
and the bacteriologist Louis Pasteur.
Thus, Vilanova’s archive contains
their visiting cards, so characteristic
of the late nineteenth century.
Field notebooks: Thirteen notebooks
dated between 1850 and 1889 collect
first-hand notes, comments on
geological excursions and scientific
congresses and trips, some even
recording travel expenses. The main
interest of these notebooks is the fact
that they often contain Vilanova’s
own impressions of these events.
Original texts: These are mainly
manuscripts of speeches given at
various academies or societies.
Among them it is worth highlighting
the manuscript of Vilanova’s
speeches to mark his admission
into the Royal Academy of Exact,
Physical and Natural Sciences,
and the Royal Academy of History,
in addition to the original text of
Iberian History and Protohistory
written in conjunction with Rada.
This information is mentioned in the
article Juan Vilanova and the study
of prehistory, in this same catalogue.

Recent additions
Thanks to the donation of almost
fifty photographs depicting various
moments in the lives of the Vilanova-

[page-n-7]
123

Pizcueta family In 2012 and 2021,
the Illustrations and Photographs
section now sheds light on the more
personal side of the prestigious
academic. The photos are images
of Juan Vilanova at different times
in his life, his wife, Francisca
Pizcueta, his father-in-law, José
Pizcueta Donday, and his children,
grandchildren, nephews and nieces.
There are also photographs of
the participants at the Sixteenth
Congress of the Association
Française pour l’Avancement des
Sciences in Toulouse in 1887, the
Ninth International Congress of
Anthropology and Prehistoric
Archeology held in Lisbon in 1880,
and the Second International
Congress of Geology in 1881, as
well as the business cards of other
researchers. Other interesting
additions are a draft of the
geological map of the province of
Valencia by Coello and Vilanova,
dating from 1882, and other personal
documents.

Two framed parchment notarial
documents from Alcalà de Xivert,
dated 1420 and 1437, are also
included. They are written in Latin
and Gothic cursive script, and were in
the possession of the Vilanova family.

Likewise, several sets of fossil
remains, lithic tools, and fauna
have been added. Their origin is
unknown, but they may have been
samples that Vilanova took with him
on his scientific trips. The first set
comprises brachiopods, a trilobite,
two slates with fern fronds and a
calcareous tufa. The lithic products
basically comprise arrowheads and
flint flakes. Two species make up the
fauna group: four shark teeth and
an elephant molar with a polished
occlusal region.

FOR A SPANISH AND
UNIVERSAL SCIENCE: JUAN
VILANOVA, SCIENTIFIC
COLLABORATION AND THE
STUDY OF GEOLOGY AS AN
INTERNATIONAL PROJECT

The future
The Library’s plan to digitize
and provide online access to the
documentary collection will help to
preserve the archive, by avoiding the
handling of the original documents
and minimize its deterioration.
Juan Vilanova y Piera was one of the
pioneers of Spanish prehistory and
we hope that in the future both his
intellectual activity and the more
intimate aspects of his life can be
explored further. Perhaps their study
will be able to produce a sketch of
the daily life of a nineteenth-century
researcher.

Jesús Ignacio Catalá-Gorgues
Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera,
CEU Universities

Very often, modern science
is defined according to new
theoretical concepts that entail
a radical change in the way the

natural world is interpreted and
explained. Newtonian mechanics,
cell theory, the atomic theory of
chemical elements and biological
evolution are some of those
concepts that make up the popular
vision of the transition to modernity
of the different branches of science.
But this oversimplified vision does
not help us to understand the
complexity of the historical evolution
of science, because it ignores the
ways in which this new knowledge
is achieved and how it becomes
accepted and consolidated inside
a society. Debates about scientific
theory do not emerge in a neutral
environment – and only rarely
as sudden flashes of genius or
the profound thought of great
minds – but in complex networks
of interaction between people who
share intellectual, professional and
material interests concerning the
issues in question. In this regard,
someone like the naturalist Juan
Vilanova, reluctant to accept the
new concepts of Darwinism, was
nevertheless fully aware of the
vital role of scientific societies and
congresses of specialists in the
new ways of practising science
that were emerging in his time.
In fact, Vilanova was one of the
most forward-looking members
of that intermediate generation of
nineteenth-century scientists who
struggled so hard to bring Spain out
of its isolation.
Vilanova was a firm believer in
cooperation between scientists,
and enthusiastically supported

[page-n-8]
124

the creation of scientific societies
which were beginning to make their
mark in the international scientific
community. His involvement in
international geology congresses,
where fundamental agreements for
the standardization of nomenclature
and cartography were adopted,
established his reputation among his
colleagues in Europe and America.
And in Spain too he was one of the
leading proponents of scientific
associations, precisely at a time
when the country was involved in a
process of national construction full
of tensions and disputes, in which
science was a key player on more
than one occasion.

Vilanova and the foundation of
the Spanish Society of Natural
History
On February 8, 1871, eleven men
aged between 20 and 63 years
old met in the staff room of the
Industrial Institute of Madrid.
Some were academics: university
professors, their assistants and
students, and there were also
priests, soldiers and even bankers
(Gomis Blanco, 1998). This diverse
group, made up of commoners
and aristocrats, liberals and
conservatives, philo-Krausists and
Catholics, was brought together by
their common dedication to natural
history. At that time, scientific activity
was far less professionalized than it
is today; nevertheless, to the extent
that their respective ways of life
allowed them to devote themselves
to research, all these men were

outstanding scholars of the fauna,
flora and geology of Spain.
​​
The
aim of their meeting was to lay the
foundations for a national scientific
society which would provide Spanish
naturalists with a forum for debate,
and a vehicle for publication, that
could publicize the advances being
made in the knowledge of the
country’s natural environment.
Indeed, the rich variety of Spain’s
flora and fauna attracted
many foreign scholars, who
enthusiastically explored this corner
of south-western Europe in search of
new species to add to the catalogue
of the continent’s biodiversity.
Others were interested in the
complex geological conformation
of Spain, both the peninsula and
its archipelagos – in this case not
only in the interests of expanding
scientific knowledge, but for
economic and even political reasons
as well. In fact, the knowledge
of Spain’s natural environment
owed more to foreigners than to
the Spanish themselves. For those
gathered in Calle de Atocha on that
day, it was vital to promote science
in a country in ferment caused by
the political frenzy of the Six Years of
Democracy from 1868 to 1874. This
political revolution had precipitated
a change first in the dynasty and
then in the government, and had left
many broken dreams behind; but it
also led to irreversible changes in
the political system which, even after
the return of the monarchy under
the Bourbons, was unable to reestablish the remnants of absolutism

that had endured until the middle of
the century.
As mentioned above, the naturalists
were ideologically divided on
the way to build Spain at that
historical crossroads. They did
agree, however, on the importance
of assigning science a major role
in that construction, and on the
condition that this science should be
practised by Spaniards. The country
had not always been a wasteland in
terms of the cultivation of naturalistic
knowledge; in ancient times, in
fact, it had given the world several
prominent figures. Now was the
time for collective action, the time
to join forces. Evoking the historical
past of the country’s science was all
well and good, but the most urgent
task was to promote knowledge of
the country’s natural environment
among the Spanish people
themselves and thus encourage
them to play a more prominent role
in this research. Until then – and
quite understandably, given the
scant interest shown by the country’s
inhabitants – the most important
contributions to the scientific study
of the peninsula had been made by
foreigners.
Of all the branches of science,
after geography, none was so
closely associated with the land
as natural history. Its study was
a patriotic duty, as knowledge of
the natural environment had many
obvious practical applications
that might help to increase the
country’s economic prosperity. So

[page-n-9]
125

the progress of Spanish natural
history had intellectual, material and
even moral justifications, at a time
when nationalism in Europe was
proliferating (Casado de Otaola,
1994).
Juan Vilanova was, of course, one of
the eleven naturalists at the meeting.
Along with his pupil José María
Solano y Eulate (1841-1912), Marquis
of Socorro, he represented the field
of earth sciences. There were also
botanists and zoologists of various
specialities, and indeed the main
branches of natural history were
quite evenly represented. On that day
they decided to found the Sociedad
Española de Historia Nacional (the
Spanish Society of Natural History,
or SEHN), whose objective would
be, according to the minutes, “to
promote the study of Natural History
in Spain by making the country’s
natural products known”; and that
the society would do so through a
periodical publication, the Anales
de la Sociedad Española de Historia
Natural (the Annals of the Spanish
Society of Natural History). From
the following year onwards the
Annals appeared regularly, a large
volume each year containing original
studies sent in for publication, and,
in an appendix, the minutes of the
society’s monthly sessions where
both administrative and scientific
questions were discussed. The first
of those ordinary sessions was held
on March 1, although the session
of March 15 is taken as the date of
the official foundation of the SEHN
(Gomis Blanco, 1998).

Vilanova was actively involved
in both the foundation and the
consolidation of the society. The very
first volume of the Annals contained
an article of his entitled “Prehistory
in Spain” (Vilanova y Piera, 1872).
He was a frequent participant at
the sessions, as witnessed by his
numerous interventions until only a
few years before his death, in which
he gave first reports of observations
and discoveries and reviews of his
scientific visits. He also tried to build
up social support for the SEHN and
bolster its finances by introducing
new members, including one lady
from the aristocracy. Finally, he
became president in 1878, after
serving as vice-president the
previous year (Pelayo López and
Gozalo Gutiérrez, 2012, pp. 54-55).
Although it is doubtful whether
the SEHN ever really constituted
an integrated project for the
promotion of the natural sciences
in late nineteenth-century Spain
(in fact, the articles in the Annals
reported only the personal research
conducted by the members) it did
manage to establish cooperation
among Spanish naturalists. Key
elements in this were the fact that,
from the very first moment, the
society’s endeavours were not
limited to the Madrid circles that
had brought it into being, and the
practice of holding regular meetings
to which members from outside
Madrid were invited, and which
were replicated from 1885 onwards
in other cities through the founding
of local sections. The proactive

engagement of Vilanova and other
veteran naturalists was vital; far
from sitting back and enjoying the
benefits of their official positions,
they understood that natural history
could only contribute effectively to
the construction of a new Spain if it
was able to gather together all the
various naturalist projects underway
in the different regions of the
country – professional or amateur,
nationwide or focused locally –
and setting aside any ideological
differences.

Vilanova and his involvement in
other collaborative projects
To this day, the SEHN remains the
reference point of non-medical
scientific associations in Spain.
Before its foundation, however, other
scientific societies had been created,
including the Spanish Anthropological
Society (SAE), founded in 1865, in
which Vilanova was also involved.
Though created only a few years
before the SEHN, the SAE was born in
a very different intellectual climate:
the legislation on academic and press
freedoms was draconian, and any
subject that might clash with Catholic
dogma would be severely repressed.
As a result, for the first years of its
existence the SAE recorded barely
any activity. After the revolution of
1868, however, the SAE gained a
significant public presence and its
membership increased notably. In
1874 it launched its own publication,
the Revista de Antropología, whose
appearance marked the most active
and successful decade in the short life

[page-n-10]
126

of this scientific society. The journal
was unable to survive the death of
its promoter, the anatomist Pedro
González de Velasco (1815-1882)
– a figure linked to the Institución
Libre de Enseñanza, a follower of
the positivist currents of physical
anthropology, a friend of the French
specialist Paul Broca and, as a result,
receptive to evolutionary theses
(Verde Casanova, 1994). Despite the
obvious scientific and ideological
distances between them, Vilanova
was not deterred from joining the
SAE project; indeed, at the beginning,
he was one of the members who
applied to the government for
authorization of the constitution of
the society. During his busiest period,
he was a member of several of the
study commissions that were being
set up for specific purposes, and
he demonstrated his support for
the society’s journal by publishing
an article in several instalments in
its first volume, under the title of
“Origin, Antiquity and nature of man”
(Vilanova y Piera, 1874).
Vilanova also worked hard to
publicize the Bulletin promoted by
the Madrid Geographical Society
(SGM), of which he was, again, a
founding member. According to its
main promoter, Francisco Coello
de Portugal y Quesada (1822-1898),
cartographer and former military
engineer, the new society was born
with the aim of putting Spain once
and for all on a par with other
nations which had been promoting
geographical studies for decades.
At the inaugural meeting of the

SGM in 1876, Coello expressed his
displeasure that Spain had not
been represented at the Second
International Geographical Congress
held in Paris the previous year.
He was another scientist who was
concerned about his country’s lack of
interest in exploring other lands, in a
context in which Spain did the bare
minimum to defend what was left
of its overseas empire and seemed
reluctant to turn its sights to Africa,
where the ambitions of the European
powers were now firmly centred
(Rodríguez Esteban, 1996, pp. 141142). So the nationalist element was
unequivocally present in the form
of a kind of colonial yearning, but
also, of course, in the insistence on
the need for a more comprehensive
knowledge of Spain itself. This
subject, of course, interested
Vilanova a great deal. The study of
geography, at that time, was going
through a particularly tumultuous
period in terms of its definition as a
science; also affected by the impact
of evolutionism, the overlapping of
its interests with those of geology
could not be ignored (Livingstone,
1992, chapters 6 and 7). Hence,
several naturalists had joined the
SGM at the very beginning, among
them Vilanova, and he was one
of the most vociferous in calling
for geography to be grounded
in the knowledge of the natural
environment. In fact, physical
geography accounted for almost
40% of the SGM’s publications
during its first ten years of existence
(Rodríguez Esteban, 1996, p.
172). Many of these were written

by Vilanova, whose “Geological
Review of the Province of Valencia”
appeared over four years and in
twelve instalments in the Bulletin of
the SGM (Pelayo López and Gozalo
Gutiérrez, 2012, p. 55). Vilanova,
therefore, participated in a very
conspicuous way in this resurgence
of studies on Spanish natural history,
from a relatively wide range of
scientific perspectives, and with
the encouragement of a nationalist
sentiment that sought to capitalize
on science in order to promote the
construction of a Spain that was
more in step with the modern world.
But science was also beginning to
be conceived as an endeavour that
crossed national borders. In this
regard as well, Vilanova showed
himself to be a man of his time.

Not only for Spanish science:
Vilanova and the international
geological congresses
Vilanova’s internationalist
vocation owes a great deal to the
circumstances of his own life. As one
of the few Spanish scientists of his
generation officially authorized to
study abroad (he spent four years
in France between 1849 and 1853),
he was not only able to establish
fruitful contacts, but also he became
aware of the demands of a science
that needed to transcend state
borders in order to achieve its goals.
Considered abstractly, it seems
obvious that scientific study should
be internationalist, free of political
and economic interests, and devoted
to the noble task of increasing natural

[page-n-11]
127

knowledge for the good of humanity.
But the truth is that scientific
enterprise is very frequently linked
to the centres of political power of
a particular moment; and in the
specific context of the nineteenth
century, a key part of the affirmation
of a modern state within clearly
defined borders was a knowledge
of its natural environment. So the
power of the state was projected
onto the knowledge of the territory
that it administered, the basis of the
construction of an identity called the
“nation”. In fact, the emergence of
these complex new entities collided
head-on with the internationalist
ideal. From the point of view of
geological cartography, for example,
the problem arose of coordinating
the representations of the territory of
each country with the ones produced
by neighbouring states. Obviously,
there would be no discrepancies
in the description of stratigraphic
formations that crossed borders, but
at the same time mapmaking was an
exercise of sovereignty; a map could
be an instrument of national and
international politics, and the data
that it contained could be modulated
according to the interests of the state.
This tension is one of the examples
of the paradox of “big science” in
the second half of the nineteenth
century, when scientific projects that
required international collaboration
were put under enormous pressure
by the increasingly strained relations
between countries, which frequently
competed with each other to extend
their respective areas of influence
(Schroeder-Gudehus, 1990). Thus,

politics interfered with the dreams of
a genuinely universal science.
Vilanova is acknowledged as one
of the first European geologists
to propose the organization of an
international congress, as early as
1867, with the aim of standardizing
the nomenclature of the discipline.
The proposal was rather premature,
but it bears witness to Vilanova’s
awareness of the need to provide
a science in the process of
consolidation with standardized
frameworks for communication.
For the proposal to bear fruit,
contributions were made over the
following years by the different
European countries, but in fact the
main impetus came from the United
States, via the American Association
for the Advancement of Science.
The First International Geological
Congress was held in Paris in 1878; it
was attended by Vilanova, who, as
ever, played a particularly active role.
Apart from nomenclature, another
key area for the standardization
of geological communication
was cartography: a visual code
was needed to allow a universal
interpretation of maps. This was
another of the priorities addressed at
the congresses after Paris. Vilanova
attended the second meeting, held
three years later in Bologna, as vicepresident. There, he became one
of the most prominent defenders of
the internationalist line, supported
especially by Italian, French, British
and American authors, who called
for the formation of a standardized

framework to be complied with by all
geologists. They met opposition from
their German, Austrian and Russian
colleagues, who were reluctant
to change the working practices
developed in their respective national
scientific traditions (Ellenberger,
1999; Vai, 2002). In fact, a great deal
of diplomatic work went on behind
the scenes at the congresses, but
Spain was a country with little weight
in the international arena and had
little influence on the events, despite
Vilanova’s efforts and his wellearned prestige. Vilanova himself
was much more highly regarded
and supported abroad than in his
own country. The first international
congresses were largely ignored
by the Spanish government and
official bodies such as the Spanish
Geological Map Commission, but
Vilanova was commissioned by the
congress committee to compile an
international dictionary of geological
and geographical terms. The first
printed version, written in French and
Spanish, was presented by the author
in Berlin on the occasion of the Third
International Geological Congress
in 1885 (Pelayo López and Gozalo
Gutiérrez, 2012, pp. 64-65).
Vilanova participated in other
international and national
congresses which we will not
mention here. The list of scientific
societies of which he was a member
is also too long for us to record them
all. In any case, this necessarily brief
review of Vilanova’s contributions
to various associations and joint
projects in natural history and

[page-n-12]
128

earth sciences bears witness to
his awareness of the new forms of
scientific study required in a world
divided into nation states, eager for
territorial control but at the same
time in urgent need of channels of
international cooperation. Certain
retrospective judgments based on
future developments in geology,
which he was in no position to
foresee, present him as someone
who did not always know how to
choose the ”correct line” (Julivert,
2014, p. 122); but Vilanova must be
understood as a geologist absolutely
of his time, involved both in the main
theoretical controversies and in the
most important lines of practical
action that defined the study of the
earth sciences in the second half of
the nineteenth century.

JUAN VILANOVA AND
THE HARMONY BETWEEN
SCIENCE AND RELIGION:
HIS CREATIONIST CRITIQUE
OF DARWINISM
Francisco Pelayo López
Instituto de Historia (CSIC)

A devout Catholic, the Valencian
naturalist Juan Vilanova believed
that there was a harmony between
the Biblical account of the creation
in Genesis and the data that
were emerging from research in
the natural sciences, especially
in geology, palaeontology and
prehistory. This belief in the
harmony between science and

religion was a constant feature
of his academic career. Vilanova
defended creationism; he
believed that all species, and most
importantly the human race, were
created by design, and rejected
the evolutionism of both the French
transformists and of Darwin.
Already in his first book, the Manual
of Geology applied to agriculture
and the industrial Arts (Madrid,
1860-61), Vilanova annexed 13 pages
at the end of volume II, in which
he tried to show the concordance
between Genesis and the sciences.
He would revise the text, with slight
modifications, in the Compendium
of Geology (Madrid, 1872) and
in volume VIII of The Creation...,
published in Barcelona (​​1872-76).
Vilanova maintained and expressed
his belief in this harmony in the
works that he published throughout
his academic life.
Vilanova’s belief in creationism
and his opposition to Darwinism
have been examined in detail in
previous work (Pelayo, 1998; Pelayo,
1999; Pelayo and Gozalo, 2012).
Here, to discuss his position we will
draw on his books and articles,
but we also analyse his role at the
Spanish Society of Natural History
(SEHN), regarding the controversy
about the organic character of the
Eozoon canadense, which Vilanova
rejected, and his criticisms of Albert
Gaudry, professor of palaeontology
at the National Museum of Natural
History in Paris, for the latter’s
defence of the Protriton petrolei

as an example confirming the
theory of evolution. We discuss the
disapproving comments on the
evolutionary ideas compiled in The
Creation: Natural History written
by a Society of Naturalists..., which
Vilanova, editor of the book, added
in notes to the text that Francisco
Tubino had written on the works
of Darwin and on the current state
of knowledge of anthropology.
Finally, our description of Vilanova’s
anti-Darwinian ideas includes his
criticisms of the theory of evolution
in the comments he made at
international congresses on the
contributions of authors sympathetic
to transformism.
In the section on palaeontology in
his Manual..., Vilanova presented
for the first time his creationist ideas
and his criticism of transformism.
He stated that the analysis of the
palaeontological record showed
that the same fossils were found in
the same sedimentary layers and,
furthermore, that the finding of
identical fossils was limited to certain
depths. These data seemed to prove
that a successive series of creations
and extinctions had taken place over
the course of geological history.
Vilanova maintained that different
creations had taken place over time.
The most visible manifestation of this
phenomenon was the independence
of the fossil fauna and flora that
characterized geological periods,
which did not come from direct
generation from the species that
had preceded them. So Vilanova

[page-n-13]
129

believed in the immutability
of species; he argued that
palaeontology showed that there
had been many and varied periods
characterized by different physical
and biological environments, with
a flora and fauna entirely different
from those that preceded and
succeeded them. Vilanova insisted
that that palaeontological data did
not confirm the transmutation of
some species into others. He did not
deny the existence of intermediate
forms, but limited them to orders
and classes and, perhaps, to
lower-category types, but certainly
not to species, since species had
been shown to be independent of
one another. Species might suffer
deviations in their appearance,
producing types which were very
different from the original and
which, subjected spontaneously
or artificially to selection and
the multiple and complex action
of inheritance, might become
a new variety, and even a new
race. Depending on whether the
external conditions were indifferent,
favourable or hostile, the variety
was maintained, accentuated or
extinguished.
In the 1860s, Vilanova directed his
scientific interests towards prehistory,
a new discipline that was emerging
at that time. His first criticisms of
Darwinism appeared in a series
of articles dedicated to the origin
and age of the human race. In
them, he defended the independent
creation of species against the
positions of Lamarck and Darwin.

He criticized transformism on the
grounds that its occurrence would
require an immeasurably long
time, something that both reason
and the Bible opposed. Vilanova
argued that the postulates of the
Darwinian hypothesis were not
borne out by palaeontology, insofar
as the theory proposed that organic
matter had started at the lowest
degree of complexity possible.
Darwinian theory required a series
of transformations according to the
principles of natural selection and
the struggle for existence, in addition
to time as a necessary condition
for the emergence of the variety of
organisms recorded.
For Vilanova, the immediate
implication of this theory applied
to the human race was that “the
natural and proper ancestor of
humanity should be the most perfect
monkey among the living”, be it the
orangutan, the chimpanzee, the
gorilla or some fossil species from
the Tertiary period. He claimed that
the human race was represented
by a species from a single primitive
couple, like the others, from which
the different existing races came; this
meant that science confirmed what
was stated in Genesis.
In later work he defended that
the most primitive periods were
represented by various types, such
as trilobites, cephalopods and
brachiopods, organisms of relative
organic complexity, and that this
refuted the gradual increase
advocated by Darwinists. For him,

the various organic types had
appeared, not slowly and gradually,
but suddenly and instantaneously;
this would confirm the principle that
primitive organic forms were not
the result of a slow and continuous
transformation of previous ones, but
the direct and immediate work of an
omnipotent Creator.
Vilanova rejected the possible
influence of environmental agents
in the process of speciation and
believed that living beings were
completely independent of the
environment in which they lived.
Therefore, the origin of species
should be attributed to the action
of an “infinite power”, regulating
physical forces and organisms and
maintaining the necessary harmony
and adaptation. Comparing the
relative degree of organization of
the components of the Silurian fauna
with the later ones, he deduced that
the simplest forms were predominant
in the more modern times, and
that this was incompatible with the
fundamental principles of Darwinism:
namely, natural selection and the
struggle for existence.
Vilanova based his defence of
creationism and his rejection of
evolutionism on the data known
to the palaeontology of his time,
since the incompleteness of the
fossil record was, as Darwin himself
acknowledged, the weakest link in the
theory of descent with modification.
Vilanova capitalized on this weak
link to refute Darwinism. He did not
accept Darwin’s argument about

[page-n-14]
130

the scarcity of fossil materials,
because in his opinion the British
naturalist used this argument simply
to explain why his theory was not
confirmed by the facts. Darwin held
that the simplest organisms in terms
of organic complexity had been
lost or had not yet been found, and
that this was the only reason for the
absence of such specimens in the
oldest fossil soils. In Vilanova’s opinion
the palaeontological data did not
bear out these assumptions, which
were one of the basic implications
of Darwinism. Therefore, if life
had not appeared with the degree
of organic simplicity assumed by
Darwin, most probably it had not
developed through an indefinite
and uninterrupted series of slow
and successive transformations, as
evolutionary theory claimed. This is
the background to the controversy
surrounding the Eozoon canadense,
“the dawn of life”. The discovery
of the Eozoon canadense in 1858,
in Precambrian rocks, triggered a
debate on the first appearance of life
on Earth, between this supposed fossil
and the “primordial fauna” of what
Joachim Barrande called Silurian, a
fauna composed by trilobites and
other fossil invertebrates.

Species onwards, Darwin noted that
in 1859 he had already suggested
the existence of living beings prior
to the Cambrian period, and so the
finding of the Eozoon confirmed this
theory. For Vilanova, however, the
palaeontological record showed that
the Eozoon was not the organism
that had initiated life and universal
fauna on the globe, as evolutionary
theory supposed. The beginning of
such an extraordinary phenomenon
was the primordial fauna, which did
not present the simplicity of types
that Darwin’s supporters were so
eager to see.

The importance of the Eozoon to
the debate on Darwinism was that
the existence of this organism could
confirm Darwin’s theory regarding
the date of the appearance of life
on Earth, as well as the increase in
organic complexity developing from
a single “primordial form”. From
the fourth edition of The Origin of

Gaudry noted that the modern
types of batrachians seemed to be
very recent, since only some of their
representatives had been found in
Tertiary contexts; he was surprised
that vertebrates with such a simple
organization had appeared so late
in the course of time. This was an
obstacle to evolutionary theory.

In another anti-Darwinian
intervention, this time at the SEHN,
Vilanova discussed a work by Gaudry,
which had mentioned the discovery
of fossil remains of amphibians in the
palaeozoic period that confirmed
evolutionary theory (Gaudry 18741875). For Vilanova, Gaudry was
adapting the facts to fit a theory.
Gaudry’s position on evolutionism,
and whether or not he can be
considered Darwinian, has been
the subject of several studies and
debates; whatever the case, Gaudry
is acknowledged as a member of the
French transformist school.

The fossil remains of batrachians
discovered in the upper part of the
palaeozoic sites of Muse and Autun
in France were named Protriton
petrolei by Gaudry, a name that
indicated that they had been the
predecessors of salamanders. He
noted that “… ces Batraciens sont
tels qu’un évolutionniste devait les
imaginer dans un terrain ancien: par
queue très-courte, leur tronc et leurs
membres où dominent les caractères
des Salamandres, leur tête où
dominent au contraire les caractères
des Grenouilles, ils diminuent la
distance qui nous semblait séparer
les Urodèles des Anoures” (Gaudry,
1874-1875). Vilanova altered this
paragraph of Gaudry’s by replacing
“evolutionist” with “Darwinian”; for
Vilanova these were synonyms,
although they may not have been for
Gaudry. At the end of the paragraph,
Vilanova also added the phrase
“forming the bond between these two
groups of amphibians”.
During the course on prehistory that
he taught at the Madrid Athenaeum,
Vilanova argued with Manuel de la
Revilla, who had reproached him for
his opposition to Darwinism and for
placing science at the same level as
revelation; by so doing, said Revilla,
all that Vilanova had achieved was
to demonstrate an “intelligence as
petrified as a fossil” and to defend
an “ancient science” and a “dying
belief” (Revilla, 1875). Vilanova
responded in his article “Darwin’s
theory”, in which he criticized those
who, boasting of their independence,
challenged the principle of authority

[page-n-15]
131

and were ready to accept the
doctrines that came from beyond the
Pyrenees if they were formulated by
a scientific eminence. He regarded
this group as the “new inquisitors”,
since they dismissed the efforts
of scholars who, like him, wanted
to study the new theories before
subscribing to them. At the opposite
extreme, he said, he had also been
criticized by others for treating
Darwinism too leniently.
Vilanova spoke of Darwinian,
evolutionary or transformist theory
without differentiating between
these three terms, ignoring
the importance that Darwin
attributed to the mechanism
of natural selection and the
importance that Lamarck and the
French transformists attributed
to the inheritance of acquired
characters and the influence of the
environment. In any case, Vilanova
stated that he was reluctant to
admit this theory since it did not
conform to the facts, or to the
unity of creation. According to
evolutionism, he said, matter was
capable of producing life by itself,
starting with the simplest organisms
of all which had managed to
develop into more sophisticated
forms thanks to the action of certain
laws termed natural selection and
the survival of the fittest; eventually
they reached the level of humans,
the last link on the zoological scale.
Vilanova based his rejection on
the same premises that he had
expressed in his previous work, that
is, that in all the layers of sediment

there were clear and evident
traces of the most varied types,
from zoophytes and bryozoans to
vertebrates, which all coexisted,
and that the intermediate types that
the evolutionary theory required
were conspicuous by their absence.
The first monkeys or primates had
appeared in relatively modern
times and the fossil remains of
these mammals belonged to
genera and species that could be
well determined; to date, no one
had proven the transition of these
organisms towards what had been
called the prelude to humankind,
while on the other hand extremely
old fossilized human remains had
been found that were identical
to the bones of modern humans.
Finally, he claimed that if the
struggle for existence and natural
selection were applied in the human
species, one would have to consider
human beings to be the same as the
bulls, sheep and horses that English
breeders adapted and modified
as they wished, in order to meet
particular needs or the whims of
fashion (Vilanova, 1876a).
Revilla replied, recalling that he had
criticized Vilanova’s efforts to align
science with the doctrine of Genesis
and to combat Darwinism, and that
Vilanova’s attacks on this theory
were poorly founded and even less
profound. He stated that he had
not criticized The Creation…, the
volumes on natural history compiled
by Vilanova: among other things, he
noted that in that work Vilanova had
accepted a treatise on anthropology

written by the Darwinian Tubino
(Revilla, 1876)
Vilanova replied again, protesting
that Revilla had called him a new
inquisitor for not bowing down to
Darwin or Haeckel; for Revilla, he
said, these thinkers seemed to be
more infallible pontiffs than the
Pope. As Revilla had derisively
branded him a Darwinist for
accepting Tubino’s treatise on
anthropology The Creation…,
Vilanova acknowledged and
defended the ideas of his colleague,
but insisted that the data from the
palaeontological undermined the
fundamental principles of Darwinism
(Vilanova, 1876b).
On this point Revilla was wrong.
In Tubino’s text, Vilanova had
systematically noted the questions
referring to the theory of evolution
with which he did not agree, and
which appeared at the bottom of
the page as “editor’s notes”. In a
dozen cases Vilanova distanced
himself from Tubino’s position,
criticizing statements such as,
for example, that Monera were
the origin of animals; that the
transformist hypothesis was the
most reasonable; the expression
that it was “better to be a perfected
ape than a degenerate Adam”; the
claim that for creationists species
were established by a special and
instantaneous act of providence;
that for Darwin species and race
were synonyms; the existence of
pre-Adamites; or Haeckel’s idea
that humankind had arisen in

[page-n-16]
132

Lemuria, a hypothetical submerged
continent.
Almost at the end of his career,
Vilanova returned to the question
of the harmony between science
and Genesis, writing a highly critical
review for the Royal Academy of
History of the work by the Jesuit
Juan Mir entitled The Creation as
it is contained in the first chapter
of Genesis, published in 1890.
Vilanova recalled that in his first
book he had tried to demonstrate
the perfect conformity and harmony
between the history of the Earth
and the Cosmos and the narrative
of Genesis, showing the slow and
gradual appearance of organisms
which had led some authors to
see it as a kind of foundation
of evolutionary theory. With the
passage of time, he said, his
convictions on this harmony had
strengthened rather than weakened
(Vilanova, 1891). In this way, and
thirty years later, Vilanova closed the
circle of his defence of the existence
of a harmony between science and
religion, which entailed an implicit
rejection of Darwinism.

JUAN VILANOVA, A PIONEER
IN SPANISH GEOLOGY AND
PALAEONTOLOGY AT THE
UNIVERSITY
Rodolfo Gozalo Gutiérrez
Departamento de Botánica y Geología,
Universidad de Valencia

In the second half of the nineteenth
century, several attempts were made
to modernize the Spanish university
system, among them the Pidal Plan
of 1845 and the Moyano Law of 1852.
One of the changes implemented
was the introduction of geology
as one of the subjects required
to obtain the degree of Doctor of
Science. As a result, Juan Vilanova
would become the first professor of
Geology and Palaeontology at the
University of Madrid, in 1854.
The courses in geology were to be
taught at the Museum of Natural
Sciences of Madrid. Mariano
Graells, director of the museum,
regarded Vilanova as the ideal
candidate for the professorship, and
urged him to complete his geological
training in Paris, where he had
been for the best part of four years.
During his time in Paris, which had
initially been intended to last only
two years, he had not just received
training as a geologist but had
visited numerous sites of geological
interest. Finally, Vilanova returned to
Spain in early 1854.
On February 24, 1852, the chair
of Geology and Palaeontology at
the Central University of Madrid

had been created expressly
for Vilanova. He took up the
chair without having to pass an
examination, because it was felt that
he had already amply demonstrated
his ability, and he took up the post
on January 16, 1854. Years later,
in 1873, the professorship was
divided between Geology and
Palaeontology, by Royal Decree;
Vilanova, as holder of the chair,
chose Palaeontology, and began
teaching this subject in 1878.
As a young man he had extended
his studies in Europe, arriving in
Paris in early November 1849, with
letters of recommendation from
Graells and Pérez Arcas. From the
very first moment he was in contact
with the scientific community, and
was admitted to several scientific
societies.
In Paris he studied and worked
with leading geologists and
palaeontologists such as Prévost,
Dufrenoy, Bayle, Ch. d’Orbigny
and Élie de Beaumont. Vilanova
interacted with them not only as
a student, but also as a colleague
on what today would be termed
a postdoctoral stay. Thanks to his
position, he received advanced
theoretical and practical training
and was able to make field trips to
sites in France, Switzerland and Italy
with leading specialists in regional
geology. The experience established
him as a seasoned field geologist
and an expert in the Mesozoic and
Cenozoic eras, and the training he
received stood him in good stead

[page-n-17]
133

when he went on to carry out his
regional studies in eastern Spain.
During his stay and his travels,
he saw that in both geology and
palaeontology French scientists
were grouped into two schools. In
geology the division was between
Prévost’s theory of current causes
and Élie de Beaumont’s theory of
mountain formation via vertical
uplifts. The supporters of Prévost’s
actualist or uniformitarian geology
maintained that the same physical,
chemical and mechanical agents
that were at work today had given
rise in remote times to all geological
phenomena; there was no need
for the occurrence of extraordinary
events, although it did require an
indefinite extent of time. In contrast,
the catastrophic school of uplifts,
while acknowledging the value of
this view, maintained that current
phenomena, both geological and
physical, were only a weak reflection
of phenomena of earlier times and,
consequently, that their causes had
been of a greater “order” or, at least,
of an energy that bore no proportion
to the effects that could be observed
in the present. For Vilanova, in most
of the cases that were observed in
nature, Prévost’s theory appeared
more convincing.
There were also two trends in
palaeontology, which Vilanova
called the “school of details”, led by
Deshayes and A. D’Orbigny, and
the “school of the broad view”, led
by Bayle. For the advocates of the
“school of details”, catastrophists in

palaeontology, the fossil fauna and
flora were limited by fixed temporal
and geological boundaries, which
they could not cross, and which
made it possible to recognize
the “geological horizons”; they
accepted sudden extinctions of
fauna and flora, and successive
creations, a system that Vilanova
fully supported. For Bayle and his
school, the disappearance of fauna
and flora was gradual and the fossil
species passed from one geological
period to another, without any
catastrophic events. According to
Vilanova, however, this was not what
one observed in nature; rather, one
saw sudden changes in the biota at
different levels.

GEOLOGY AND
PALAEONTOLOGY IN
VILANOVA’S MANUALS
Vilanova published three manuals
on general geology: the Manual
of Geology applied to agriculture
and industrial arts (1860-61), the
Compendium of Geology (1872) and
volume VIII of The Creation (1876).
A comparison of the three texts
shows that their contents are almost
identical, varying only in terms of
length and in the presence or absence
of the chapters on applied geology.
Despite the fifteen-year gap between
the first text and the last, there are
very few modifications at all, and
hardly any of the novelties that were
recorded during that time period
were introduced; at most, Vilanova
made slight changes to certain
specific aspects. It can be said without

detriment to his work that, although
his first book can be considered
modern, the later ones were already
slightly out of date for his time.
From 1854 to 1877, Vilanova taught
the doctoral course “Geology
and Palaeontology”. The syllabus
followed the Manual of Geology, a
work which was awarded a prize
by the Academy of Sciences, and
which reflected the geological and
palaeontological knowledge that
Vilanova had acquired on the field
trips during his training. The Manual
of Geology provided the conceptual
framework for Vilanova’s teaching
of geology, with a catastrophicactualist conception of stratigraphic
and palaeontological aspects, an
acceptance of Élie de Beaumont’s
catastrophist theory of the formation
of the mountains, and a belief in the
compatibility of science and Genesis.
From the methodological point of
view, the main feature of the Manual
is that, despite its catastrophist
conception of certain moments in
the history of the Earth, for the most
part it subscribes to actualism or
uniformitarianism; indeed, the book
includes a chapter dedicated to
current causes
Thanks to the award given by the
Academy, the Manual of Geology
remained a set textbook for
ten years. Once this period had
passed, Vilanova published the
Compendium of Geology in 1872,
which is a summary of the Manual,
without the volume on the Atlas.
Presumably, it was the book used by

[page-n-18]
134

Vilanova and by teachers at other
centres of secondary and university
education.
Among the few differences between
these works, perhaps the most
significant was the introduction of
the hydrothermal theory for the
origin of granite in the Compendium,
where Vilanova briefly explains this
theory and the investigations that
led to its formulation. The other
important change occurs in the
“Table of General Classification of
Eras” in the Compendium, in which
the author modifies the division
of materials termed Quaternary
and Modern in order to reflect the
findings of recent research and also
probably due to his growing interest
in what he termed “protohistory”.
A detail that shows us that Vilanova
was keeping abreast of the
advances of geology in all its fields
is, for example, the introduction in
the chapter entitled “Geognosy” in
The Creation of the petrographic
classifications of rocks presented
by Zirkel and von Lassaulx in 1873.
Curiously, Vilanova does not accept
that the classification of rocks can
be independent of the era in which
they outcrop and considers that
each type of igneous rock is formed
in relation to a specific uplift, in
accordance with the ideas of Élie de
Beaumont; so, in his table he retains
a “neptunic series” (i.e., sedimentary
rocks) and an “igneous series” –
ideas whose popularity was already
waning at this time.

From 1874 onwards, Vilanova
devoted himself mainly to the
study and dissemination of
palaeontological and prehistoric
issues. To understand his conception
of palaeontology, in addition to the
three works already mentioned, the
syllabus he devised for this course
in 1876 and 1878 and his speech
on the occasion of his admission
to the Academy of Sciences in
1875 are of great interest. For him,
palaeontology was not only the
cornerstone of historical geology,
but also provided the solutions to
problems posed by philosophy,
botany and zoology and was
the “strongest defence” against
theories and speculations that were
not based on observation of the
facts. Basically, the importance of
palaeontology was that it aspired
“to the knowledge of the origin
of life, of the organic species and
other groups in the classification
of nature and of the distribution of
organic beings in time and space”.
In addition, he considered that
palaeontology demonstrated the
unity of the plan of creation and
that life had begun with the simplest
forms, although not through
spontaneous generation. Vilanova
maintained that species were
fixed; he accepted the possibility
of intraspecific variability, but not
the unlimited variation posited by
Lamarck or Darwin. The conception
of organic change in Vilanova’s
palaeontology coincides with the
conceptions of the French biologists
Cuvier and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire,
with a design of creation, the work

of God, which develops over time
following a pre-established plan.
For Vilanova, species lived
continuously from their creation
until their abrupt and sudden
extinction, the causes of which were
physical. This fact was corroborated
by the harmony between the fauna,
flora and the terrain in which they
were found. These physical causes
might be due to the formation of
a mountain range, although this
formation did not have to be almost
instantaneous; in his opinion, slow
and continuous geological action
could originate a catastrophic
phenomenon. With respect to the
extinction of species, Vilanova
appears to us to be a catastrophist
with an actualist method, but he is
much less precise when it comes
to addressing the issue of their
appearance. In his attempts to
shed light on this problem, he lists
three hypotheses that had been
proposed:
1. The transfer of local fauna.
2. A single creation and
appearance of new species by slow
transformation.
3. Successive creations (the theory
that he preferred).
In any case, the most important
subject in his work is applied or
stratigraphic palaeontology. He first
analysed the basic stratigraphic
elements on which the studies
were based and then presented
a detailed description of the
different geological eras with the

[page-n-19]
135

formations and the fossils they
contain, which made it possible to
date the materials, and indicated
the environmental conditions of
each period. As his conclusion on
the matter of the appearance of
species, Vilanova says: “Let it be
concluded, then, that the animals
of the various geological faunas
do not come, by direct generation,
from the species that preceded
them but are independent of each
other, at least in the well-marked
types of both faunas and periods”.

THE APPLICATION OF GEOLOGY:
ARTESIAN WELLS
Vilanova’s profound interest in the
application of geology to practical
issues, especially to agriculture and
groundwater, is amply reflected in
both the Manual and The Creation.
Both works end with a chapter on
geotechnical engineering, focusing
on the most important applications
of geology: that is, mining,
agriculture and groundwater.
Finally, he expanded on these last
two topics in two books, Agricultural
geology and Theory and practice
of artesian wells and the art of
finding water (1880). There is
also evidence that Vilanova gave
lectures on agricultural issues and
artesian wells in many different
forums, notably at the Athenaeum,
and he also published several more
popular works on the subject.
His book Theory and practice of
artesian wells and the art of finding
water was considered by Martínez

Gil (1994) as the first hydrogeology
treatise written in Spain, and indeed
one of the first in the world. Vilanova
was aware of the importance that
the exploitation of groundwater
might have for the development of
agriculture and industry in Spain.
This work presents a detailed
description of groundwater; how
it works, how it is found, and how
it is extracted. Given the limited
technical knowledge of the time,
only wells where the water flowed
on the surface (i.e., artesian wells)
or was located very close to the
surface could be exploited, so it is
natural that the title of the book
and its contents should refer to
artesian wells.
The book presents many new
ideas about groundwater and
provides interesting information
on drilling techniques and the
machinery required. It describes
the water cycle with great clarity,
noting that groundwater is found
in permeable soils hemmed in
by other impermeable ones, and
divides wells into artesian and
inverse or absorption. Another
point to highlight is that Vilanova
was aware that the aquifers had
to be recharged, and that this
recharging depended on both the
geological and meteorological
conditions of the region, as
occurred with flooding; in this
case he proposes some activities
related to public works and the
need to repopulate the mountains.
In conclusion, this is one of the first
and most complete treatises on

hydrogeology, which deals with
both theoretical and practical
aspects and gives us a thorough
insight into the understanding of
this subject in the last third of the
nineteenth century, as well as the
hopes and expectations offered
by the possibility of exploiting the
underground waters.
Vilanova also sought to put these
ideas into practice, preparing
reports for the creation of artesian
wells and participating in several
plans for drilling wells in both Alcalà
de Xivert and Alcoi. Curiously, after
1880, his interest in groundwater
waned and there are no records of
his involvement in its study after this
date. Perhaps the lack of tangible
results of his projects and the
significant financial outlay that they
must have entailed made him focus
on other scientific questions.

THE PROVINCIAL GEOLOGICAL
REPORTS
From the point of view of geological
and palaeontological research,
Vilanova’s most important
publication were the provincial
reports on Castellón (1859), Teruel
(1870) and Valencia (1893). He never
gave up this line of research, and
indeed several authors mention
a provincial report of Alicante
that was never published, and the
Masiá Vilanova Archive contains an
extensive draft entitled “Geological
and Agricultural Review of El Salar”,
a report on parts of the provinces of
Almería and Granada.

[page-n-20]
136

He began this work as soon as he
returned from his preparatory trip
to Europe. In 1859, he published his
geological report of the province
of Castellón and shortly afterwards
another for Teruel (1863), although
it was not published until 1870. An
unusual feature of these reports is
that they pay great attention to the
physical and chemical conditions
of the soil and its decomposition,
especially in relation to agricultural
uses, and they also have a notable
palaeontological content. The
geological report of the province
of Valencia was published in book
form in 1893. Previously it had been
partially published in the Boletín
de la Sociedad Geográfica of
Madrid, without the chapters on soil,
vegetation and prehistory.
The general layout of these works
is very similar, with an introduction
describing the geographical location
and the weather, and the rest
divided into five parts:
1. Geognosy (a description of the
main geological units and their
characteristics)
2. Description of the rocks, their state
of decomposition and the causal factors
3. Topsoil (i.e., soil analysis)
4. Agricultural recommendations
and precepts, almost all of them
describing possible improvements
5. An appendix dedicated to artesian
wells and, in the case of Valencia, to
“protohistory”.
All the reports contained several
high-quality plates, mainly depicting

fossils in Castellón and Teruel or
archaeological materials in Valencia,
in addition to the geological
sketch map of the province. In
any case, the palaeontological
section is limited exclusively to the
use of fossils as markers of eras,
giving only the indication of their
taxonomic name, the author who
described the species, the locality,
and the age. Despite the scarcity
of palaeontological information,
the quality of the plates means that
these reports contain materials that
are useful for modern-day studies.

CONCLUSION
As researchers, we can say that
Vilanova was one of the most
important Spanish geologists and
palaeontologists of his time. Most of
his field work involved the collection
of new data in different parts of
Spain, in an attempt first to create
geological maps of the country and
its provinces, and then to improve
on them. And through his theoretical
manuals, he tried to offer Spanish
society a foundation for the study of
geology comparable to those already
existing in neighbouring countries, and
to promote the study of some of the
discipline’s more practical aspects.1

1
Most of the information contained
here was analysed in Pelayo and Gozalo
(2012), where the original references and
previous works can be found.

JUAN VILANOVA Y PIERA AND
THE STUDY OF PREHISTORY
Bernat Martí Oliver
SIP and Museu de Prehistòria de València
Rosa Enguix Alemany
SIP and Museu de Prehistòria de València

From the 1860s until his death in
1893, Juan Vilanova was the main
instigator of the study of prehistory
in Spain. Between 1849 and 1853 he
completed his training in geology
and palaeontology abroad, mainly
in Paris, at the three institutions that
taught these disciplines there: the
School of Mining, the Museum of
Natural History and the University
of the Sorbonne. So he was well
aware of the advances being
made in Europe in the field of
natural history, and of the scientific
disputes regarding the immutability
of species or the formation of the
Earth’s surface between the actualist
or uniformitarian school and that of
the catastrophists, in an environment
the question of the origin and
antiquity of humanity was attracting
increasing attention.
After returning to Spain and taking
possession of the chair of Geology
and Palaeontology at the University
of Madrid in 1854, Vilanova kept
abreast of European research.
His Manual of Geology applied to
agriculture and the industrial arts
was published in 1860-1861m the
first Spanish work to describe the
new findings regarding fossil man.
When studying the Quaternary
period, he noted that the flood levels

[page-n-21]
137

of Picardy, in France, contained
evidence of stone tools made by
humans alongside the remains
of extinct fauna. There, Boucher
de Perthes had been excavating
the terraces of the rivers and his
work had been acknowledged by
leading naturalists in France and
Britain, such as Prestwich, Falconer,
Lyell, Buteux, Gaudry and Rigollot.
In addition, Vilanova explained
that one of the most curious facts
in the Earth’s history was the
coincidence in time between the
diluvial formation of the valleys
and the sediment that filled the
caves containing bones of animals,
particularly of mammals now extinct.
This means that the diluvial sediment
in these caves offered evidence
of human activity alongside with
the bones of antediluvian animal
species, thus confirming the great
antiquity of humankind.
Elsewhere in Europe prehistoric
research already dated back
several decades, but in Spain
it faced fierce opposition from
the Church. A militant Catholic,
Vilanova devoted the last chapter
of the Manual to the concordance
between the account of Genesis
and the new evidence emerging
from geology and palaeontology
regarding the timescale of the
history of the earth and the human
species – a concordance that had
been under intense pressure ever
since the publication of Darwin’s
Origin of the Species in 1859, which
transformed the conception of the
origin of humanity. In the following

decades the theory of the evolution
of species became the centre of the
controversy between science and
religion, a debate on the origin of
humankind between creationists
and evolutionists that stretched far
beyond the scientific domain.
Thus, since 1860, Spanish naturalists
had echoed the work carried out
in France and the United Kingdom
on the origin and early days of
humanity. In 1863, the discovery of
a human jaw in Moulin Quignon
provided direct testimony of the
existence of fossil man. Foreign
naturalists began to carry out
fieldwork in Spain; in 1862, Lartet,
Verneuil and Prado had discovered
the San Isidro site in Madrid and
identified a palaeolithic axe, and
in 1864 Prado published the study
of this site. For his part, Vilanova
made another trip abroad, and
on his return to the University of
Madrid he spoke of the enthralling
question of the age of humankind in
the inaugural lecture of the 1864-65
academic year.
In the summer of 1866, Vilanova
toured the province of Valencia with
the young Eduard Boscà to assemble
the geological report on the region.
During excavations in the Cova del
Parpalló in Gandia, he recovered a
remarkable set of bones and utensils
made of flint. The same summer, he
explored the Cova Negra de Xàtiva,
whose surface was covered by a
thick layer of grey and yellowish silt
caused by flooding; there, Vilanova
also found stone knives and fossil

bones, as at Parpalló, suggesting
that the two caves corresponded to
the Age of the Reindeer. In addition,
he prospected a very important bone
breccia in Tavernes de la Valldigna,
and heard reports of the discovery
of other prehistoric materials in a
cave in Ador and in the caves of Sant
Nicolau in l’Olleria, Avellanera in
Catadau, and Meravelles in Gandia.
Vilanova included these prehistoric
caves in the Agricultural Geognosy
Report of the province of Valencia,
which he presented to the Valencia
Economic Society of Friends in the
spring of 1867. He continued his
prospecting campaigns in that year
and in 1868.
Vilanova repeatedly expressed
his preference for the term
“protohistory”. In his view, it makes
no sense to speak of prehistory if we
agree that “history” covers the whole
existence of humanity and that, as
a result, nothing could have existed
before the first humans. In the same
year, 1866, he began to publish a
long series of articles on the “Origin
of Man” and the “Antiquity of the
Human Species”. In 1867 he took part
for the first time in meetings on these
matters abroad, at the assembly
of the Geological Society of France
and at the second International
Congress of Anthropology and
Prehistoric Archaeology (CIAAP),
both held in Paris. At these meetings
he exhibited prehistoric discoveries
made in Spain, at San Isidro and
at the sites in Valencia. In 1868 he
gave an account of his trips in the
province of Valencia conducting

[page-n-22]
138

geological and prehistoric research
in a series of articles he published in
Las Provincias, where he announced
that he had presented the results of
his explorations in the Vall d’Albaida
and the Marquisate of Llombai at
the third session of the CIAAP in
Norwich and London. His lecture
“Prehistoric remains in Valencia”,
written in French, gives an account of
his fieldwork and the understanding
of Valencian prehistory at the time.
The caves of Parpalló, Cova Negra,
Bolomor, Meravelles, Avellanera,
Sant Nicolau and others in Ador,
Tavernes de la Valldigna and
Alcalà de Xivert, are recognized as
testimony of the two Stone Ages.
Castellet del Porquet in l’Olleria,
Molló de les Mentires in Aielo de
Malferit, two hills in Bellús and other
“mounds of earth” on mountain tops
were interpreted as Neolithic and
early Bronze Age burial mounds. He
would later add to this list; in 1869,
at the fourth session of the CIAAP
in Copenhagen, he described the
most important studies of prehistoric
archaeology carried out in Spain
since 1846, and mentioned the
meadow of Torreblanca and the
mounds of La Falaguera in Alfarb,
and the Ontinyent quarry.
The conferences and articles in
which Vilanova disseminated
the new science would lead the
University of Valencia to set up a
commission, led by the naturalist
R. Cisternas, to supervise the
first prehistoric archaeological
excavation campaign in the region,
at the mound of the Molló de

les Mentires, in 1869. Prehistoric
studies were also carried out by the
Valencian Archaeological Society
after its creation in 1871 in Orihuela,
of which José Vilanova y Piera, N.
Ferrer y Julve, and S. Moreno Tovillas
were also members.
In 1871, Vilanova and F.M. Tubino
published their book The scientific
journey to Denmark and Sweden,
on the occasion of the International
Prehistoric Congress held in
Copenhagen in 1869. As well as a
chronicle of the congress itself, the
work is an introduction to prehistoric
archaeology, the history of research
in the field and the relationship
with geology as the foundation of
its methodology. Another part was
devoted to the description of a large
number of sites and museums in
Denmark and Sweden, as well as the
journey there. On the way back to
Spain, in Brussels, Vilanova explored
the valleys of the river Meuse and
its tributary the Lesse, as well as
the series of caves in the area that
Schmerling had studied in the 1830s.
In Paris, Vilanova was particularly
interested in the Quaternary terrains
of the Seine and also visited the
galleries of the archaeology museum
in Saint Germain-en-Laye.
Vilanova’s next publication was
The origin, nature and antiquity of
man, in 1872, which can considered
the first textbook of the science
of prehistory in Spain. Vilanova
defended the unity of the human
species, created independently in
accordance with the Biblical story,

against the theories of Lamarck
and Darwin. The species were
fixed and each period contained
a set of animal and plant species
that differed from the previous
and subsequent ones, which were
the result of different creations. If
we accept the unity of the human
species, the conclusion is that
the different races and the vast
​​
exist
number of languages that
today took an extremely long
time to form, extending perhaps
back to the Tertiary period.
After the Pliocene and Miocene,
the Palaeolithic, Archaeolithic,
Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze and
Iron periods follow on from one
another, defined by their geological,
palaeontological, archaeological
and anthropological features – that
is, the sites themselves, the animals
that accompanied humans, and
the human products and remains.
Vilanova considered that it was the
geological and palaeontological
characteristics that determine the
chronology of a site, and not the
order suggested by the evolution
of the productions, which was
particular to each site or region.
The appendix, entitled “Spanish
Prehistory”, is the first essay on
peninsular prehistory and includes
the most significant sites: San
Isidro, Argecilla, the Cueva de los
Murciélagos in Albuñol, la Cueva
de la Mujer, the lands exploited
for bone mining in Palencia and
other northern provinces of Castile,
Gibraltar, Parpalló and Cova Negra,
and so on. In this book Vilanova
introduced the term “Mesolithic”

[page-n-23]
139

as a synonym for the Age of the
Reindeer or Knives; he regarded it as
a period of transition, in contrast to
the theory of a hiatus between the
Palaeolithic and the Neolithic.
Vilanova also attended the seventh
session of the CIAAP in Stockholm,
in 1874, accompanied by his brother
José and other Spanish naturalists,
although he did not give a lecture.
In the autumn of 1874 he taught a
course in prehistoric science at the
Madrid Athenaeum and his classes
were summarized and published in
the Revista Europea. In these classes,
Vilanova went over the themes
discussed at the Stockholm Congress
and expressed his opposition to
Mortillet’s thesis of the existence
of a hiatus between the Age of
the Reindeer and the Neolithic:
according to anthropological
criteria, there was no extinction
or replacement of human races,
nor any phenomena that would
have made a large part of Europe
uninhabitable, nor any significant
alterations of diluvial fauna, except
for the fall in the number of large
mammal species; nor was there a
rupture in the continuous series of
stone tools, which ranged from the
most rudimentary to others made
of polished stone. In contrast, with
regard to palaeolithic and mesolithic
sites, he did accept Mortillet’s
proposal that the different periods
should be given the names of the
sites that were most representative of
their archaeological character. This
classification divided the Stone Age
into five periods, which take their

names from the eponymous sites
in France: Acheulean, Mousterian,
Solutrean and Magdalenian, and
Robenhausian, from the stilt-house
settlements of Switzerland. However,
sectors open to the new currents of
thought regarded Vilanova’s support
for prehistory to be at odds with the
conservative tendency underlying
his lectures at the Athenaeum,
and this contradiction was publicly
criticized by Revilla in the Revista
Contemporánea in December 1875.
Vilanova’s status as a naturalist was
widely acknowledged, but his fierce
opposition to Darwinism and his
attempts to harmonize science with
revelation were considered serious
errors.
In 1876 Vilanova again surveyed a
Valencian site, following reports of a
cave in Enguera containing dozens
of human skeletons. He then visited
the Cueva de las Calaveras, de las
Maravillas or de los Muertos, as
well as the Cueva de la Carrasquilla
and the Cueva Santa, accompanied
by members of the archaeological
society of Valencia. In 1879 he made
a small excavation at the stilthouse of Bolbaite, together with
his brother José and the discoverer
of the site, F. Palop. And in 1880,
in a radical change of scenery, he
became involved in the defence of
the authenticity and importance
of the paintings in the Cave of
Altamira, discovered in 1879 by Sanz
de Sautuola. In September, Vilanova
visited Altamira in the company of
Sautuola to write a report, and then
gave two lectures, in Torrelavega

and Santander. In the first he
presented a general overview of
prehistoric times and of the most
important Spanish sites, and in the
second he focused on the Cave of
Altamira: the geological structure,
the characteristics of the tools made
of stone or bone, and especially
the wall paintings. The paintings of
Altamira correspond to the Age of
the Reindeer or the Knives; they are
contemporary to the deposit left by
the cave-dwellers there and are
artistically superior to the ones made
on stone, deer horns and ivory in the
caves of Massat, La Madeleine and
others in France. However, Vilanova
warned that these unique creations
are bound to “provoke serious and
perhaps passionate discussions, not
always inspired by the love of truth”.
Vilanova then attended the ninth
session of the CIAAP in Lisbon,
where he was authorized by the
ministry to invite the attendees
to a visit to the Santillana cave,
although finally the visit did not take
place. At the congress, Vilanova
was a member of the commission
given the task of examining
the flint utensils from the Otta
deposits and deciding whether
they should be attributed to the
Tertiary period, a hypothesis that
he opposed. His lecture suggested
the existence of a true Copper Age
in Spain. In contrast to Europe,
where metallurgy was believed
to have begun with bronze and
was a consequence of Eastern
imports, in Spain the presence in
the same site of polished stone

[page-n-24]
140

axes and copper axes showed
that there was an autonomous
transition from the Neolithic to
the Age of Metal, and therefore
an indigenous manufacture of
copper instruments. Examples of
this production are the axes, one
of diorite and one of copper, found
in the dolmen of Olleria. Vilanova
interpreted new discoveries like
the burials in the Serreta la Vella
of Monòver in 1882, and those in
the Cave of the Llometes of Alcoy
in 1884, as indicating the same
line of continuity between the
Neolithic and the Age of Metal.
The discovery and subsequent
excavation of the Llometes by E.
Vilaplana was reported in detail
by the newspapers of Alcoy, which
maintained conflicting positions
on the meaning and importance
of the cave (an early example of
the controversy that prehistory in
our country still generates today).
Vilanova went to Alcoy to support
the research led by Vilaplana;
they agreed to write a joint
report, although finally it was not
published.
As for Altamira, in the absence
of any objective research the
discussion about cave art soon
became markedly ideological. By
the end of September 1880, the local
press in Santander were echoing
conservative positions that rejected
the antiquity of the paintings and
dismissed prehistory, and a report
was also being prepared by the
Institución Libre de Enseñanza.
This report, written by Quiroga y

Torres, issued a largely negative
verdict regarding the prehistoric
antiquity of the wall paintings
after comparing them with the
paintings found in La Madeleine;
the polychromy and aesthetic
quality of Altamira, read the report,
suggested the involvement of an
artistically advanced people of
relatively recent times. Likewise,
the report of the Frenchman Harlé,
who made two visits to Santander to
study the paintings at first hand in
March and April 1881, rejected their
antiquity. Vilanova maintained his
active defence of the importance
of the prehistoric art of Altamira,
and in the summer of 1882 he
provided sound arguments to refute
Harlé’s objections at the session
of the French Association for the
Advancement of Science in La
Rochelle.
In 1883, in fulfilment of the will of
F. de Castro, a public competition
was organized to offer a prize for
a report on the prehistoric times of
Spain. In 1885 Vilanova presented
his entry, entitled Protohistory or
Primitive History of the Iberian
Peninsula, which was awarded the
prize in 1886. Protohistory is divided
into two parts. The first describes the
development and current state of
protohistoric studies in general, with
a dual focus on the foundation of
geological studies and on the state
of research in Europe. The second
part describes the results obtained
in the Iberian Peninsula and the
Canary Islands, and the relationship
with North Africa. This report was

not immediately published but it
appeared in 1890 in the book by
Vilanova and Rada to which we will
refer later.
In this Protohistory of 1885, Vilanova
explained the importance of the
cave of Altamira within the set
of sites from the Magdalenian
period, transcribing extensively
Sanz de Sautuola’s description of
the materials and paintings, and
repeating the arguments he had
used to refute Harlé’s report, which
had been approved by Cartailhac
at the Algiers meeting of the French
Association for the Advancement
of Science. He also added a note
lamenting his compatriots’ lack of
interest in defending the importance
of these paintings. The controversy
persisted and grew more intense,
and the discussions within the
SEHN, at the end of 1886, reflected
the profound ideological conflict
that existed inside the community
of naturalists. The debate did not
seek to answer or refine Vilanova’s
arguments: the refusal to accept
the great antiquity of the Altamira
paintings was based, above all, on a
priori considerations about art and
art history and about the capabilities
of prehistoric humanity. No one paid
any attention to the new parallels
being discovered in caves in France,
or to fundamental issues such as
the presence of bison remains in the
prehistoric sites of Western Europe. In
his book describing the importance
of the palaeolithic site of Altamira
published in 1887 Cartailhac did not
even mention the paintings.

[page-n-25]
141

Due to his reputation as a diligent
propagator of prehistoric science,
and the growing acceptance in the
academic world of the importance
of the discipline, Vilanova was
made a member of the Academy
of History in 1888, and entered the
institution in 1889. Two key facets
qualified him as a reference point
for other scientists: his wealth
of knowledge of the advances
of prehistory in Europe and also
in Spain, and his moderate and
orthodox Catholicism. The speech
he gave on his admission to the
academy in 1889 was to be his last
on the prehistory or protohistory
of the peninsula. The following
year, 1890, the Historia general
de España was published, written
by members of the Academy of
History, under the direction of A.
Cánovas, in weekly instalments.
The first volume, Iberian Geology
and Protohistory was written in
conjunction with J. D. de la Rada,
and comprised three sections
dedicated to the geology of the
Iberian peninsula, protohistory in
general, and Iberian protohistory.
The book does not indicate the
contribution of each author, but
the contents clearly correspond to
Vilanova’s work and research. In
fact, the second part of the book,
“Iberian protohistory” (1890: 415627), which includes an introduction
to the history of the new discipline
in Spain and Portugal and the
chapters dedicated to each period
from the Palaeolithic to the Iron
Age, broadly reproduce his report
of 1885, with very few modifications.

In the summers of 1889, 1890 and
1891, as was his custom, Vilanova
attended meetings and congresses
abroad, including the CIAAP session
in Paris in 1889. Back home, he
reported a new Mesolithic site in
the Cova del Moro de Teulada in
1889; in 1890 he reported A. Ibarra’s
discovery of a deposit of unusual
copper axes in Elche, and in 1891
he explored the Cabezo Redondo
in Villena. The arrival of Rodrigo
Botet’s American palaeontological
collection in Valencia in the summer
of 1889 also caught his attention.
The Academy now frequently
received reports of new findings.
Unfortunately, in 1892 Vilanova
became ill; those closest to him
reported that he was still working
on the notes for the geological
report of Alicante, which finally
he was unable to finish. He
completed the revised version of
the geognostic-agricultural report
of Valencia, written in 1867, and
which had been published between
1881 and 1884 in the bulletin of
the Geographic Society. It was
published in book form in 1893
along with an appendix on the
protohistory of the province.
The report of 1885, Vilanova and
Rada’s book of 1890 and the speech
at the Academy of History, written
in the first months of 1889, reflect
his belief that prehistoric research is
like geological and palaeontological
research: that is, that we can link
together the diluvium of the valleys
and the sediment of the caves, and
that the variety of the production

of a deposit indicates its belonging
to broad cultural stages, just as
fossils do for geological periods.
Humankind appeared suddenly,
with all the distinctive features of its
lineage, with very little difference
in physique with regard to what it
is today. Vilanova accepted that
there had been an intellectual and
moral development since then,
and that, from a stage more or
less of savagery, as he writes in
the report of 1885, humanity had
gone through the successive stages
that are reflected in the material
culture and in the ways of life of
the different ages and periods.
The small physical changes that
appeared had caused the variety of
the human races, of which the first
fossil race was that of Canstadt or
Neanderthal, to which the skull of
Gibraltar belonged. The geological
determination of the lands
containing the fossils challenged
the existence of humankind in the
Tertiary period, as he proved in
Otta, in 1880. In the Quaternary,
possibly starting from Asia, human
populations expanded along the
route to North Africa, where there
was increasing evidence from the
Chellian and Mousterian periods,
and reached the peninsula via
the isthmus of Gibraltar. These
human groups, the first settlers
in the Quaternary period, are the
original Iberians who developed
continuously and autonomously until
the Iron Age. New population groups
arrived in the peninsula, but the
impact of their arrival was palliated
by those who are already there;

[page-n-26]
142

all races survived and coexisted in
different areas, and none of them
were responsible for the changes
in the Neolithic period or the Age of
Metals.
The aborigines passed through
the cultural stages of the three
ages proposed by Scandinavian
archaeologists, and also roughly
conformed to Mortillet’s system
for the sites in France. However,
Vilanova insisted that the validity of
foreign models was only relative,
because in each site the process
of evolution may differ in terms of
chronology, rhythm and mode; for
instance, in the peninsula, pottery
may have appeared before the
Neolithic, and there was no hiatus
between the Mesolithic and the
Neolithic. The sites he had studied,
such as Argecilla, demonstrated
the autochthonous nature of the
transition processes that crossed the
Neolithic, Copper and Bronze Ages.
Reading the books of Cartailhac
in 1886 and the Siret brothers in
1887 did not change his thinking.
Cartailhac made two important
warnings, about the limited value of
exhaustive counts of findings without
any context, and about the Valencian
caves surveyed by Vilanova
(Parpalló, Cova Negra, Sant Nicolas,
Meravelles and Avellanera), of which
he said that Vilanova had provided
inaccurate references. In contrast,
Vilanova insisted on relativizing the
differences between the sites in
space and time, while emphasizing
the continuity and autonomous

development. In the chapters
dedicated to each period, from the
Palaeolithic to the Iron Age, Vilanova
examined the entire peninsula
presenting all the information at his
disposal, though without addressing
the problems of definition of the
four characters on which the
periodization of prehistory must be
based. Thus, the documentation
of so many sites in Spain, against
the background of the reflections
and problems open in the context
of Europe, draws a picture of the
continuity of the population from the
most distant origins to the present,
and is an invitation to pursue its
research further.

[page-n-27]