Discovery Fossils of Herto Man were first recovered in 1997 from the Upper Herto
Member of the
Bouri Formation in the
Middle Awash site of the
Afar Triangle, Ethiopia. The materials are: BOU-VP-16/1, a nearly complete skull missing the left skullcap; BOU-VP-16/2, skull fragments; BOU-VP-16/3, a
parietal bone fragment; BOU-VP-16/4, a parietal fragment; BOU-VP-16/5, a nearly complete skull of a 6- or 7-year old; BOU-VP-16/6, a right upper
molar; BOU-VP-16/7, a parietal fragment; BOU-VP-16/18, parietal fragments; BOU-VP-16/42, an upper
premolar; and BOU-VP-16/43, a parietal fragment. This region of the world is famous for yielding a series of ancient human and
hominin species stretching as far back as 6 million years.
"H. s. idaltu" In a simultaneously published paper, anthropologists
Tim D. White,
Berhane Asfaw, David DeGusta, Henry Gilbert, Gary D. Richards,
Gen Suwa, and
Francis Clark Howell described the material as just barely outside what is considered an "anatomically modern human" (AMH), beyond the range of variation for any present-day human. They instead considered the earliest "AMHs" specimens from
Klasies River Caves, South Africa, or
Qafzeh cave, Israel. They did this by comparing BOU-VP-16/1 with the Qafzeh 6 skull, the
La Ferrassie 1 skull (a male
Neanderthal,
H. (s.?) neanderthalensis), the
Kabwe 1 skull ("
H. (s.?) rhodesiensis"), and 28 present-day male skulls. Consequently, they classified Herto Man as a new
palaeosubspecies of
H. sapiens as "
H. s. idaltu" (with the presumed male BOU-VP-16/1 as the
holotype), which represents an intermediary morph between "
H. (s.?) rhodesiensis" and present-day
H. s. sapiens. The name comes from the local
Afar language idàltu "elder". Similarly transitional specimens (at the time, not well-dated) tentatively assigned to "late archaic
H. sapiens" had been reported from Ngaloba, Tanzania;
Omo, Ethiopia;
Eliye Springs, Kenya; and
Jebel Irhoud, Morocco. (above) is anatomically similar to Herto Man. White
et al. made note of this, but still considered Herto Man "clearly distinct". In 2014, anthropologists Robert McCarthy and Lynn Lucas considered a much larger sample than White
et al.—using several specimens representing "archaic
Homo", Neanderthal, "early modern
H. s. sapiens", and
Late Pleistocene H. s. sapiens—and arrived at the same conclusion as Lubsen and Corruccini. Citing these two studies, in 2016, Stringer, in his review of literature regarding the derivation of
H. s. sapiens, said the name
idaltu, "does not seem justified." The main issue of palaeosubspecies validity lies in the vague definitions of "species" and "subspecies", especially when discussing a
chronospecies (an unbroken lineage which gradually changes, making the exact end-morphology and start-morphology of the ancestor and descendant species unresolvable). The original describers in 2019 still upheld the name "
H. s. idaltu" because their argument, "depended largely on discrete traits," whereas Mcarthy and Lucas, "focused only on the gross cranial metrics", but also stated debating the exact taxonomic names and labels is overall not as important as understanding trends in human evolution. ==Anatomy==