Experts argue that a name for an ancient human ancestor, named Cecil Rhodes, should be changed to help decolonize science.
The species homo rhodesiensis, named after Rhodesia – which in turn took the name of the British imperialist – should be called homo bodoensis, scientists say.
The reclassification is partly a bid to shed colonial associations – as well bring clarity to a confusing chapter of human evolution.
Scientists were conducting a fresh analysis of fossilised bones unearthed in Africa and Eurasia dating back to a poorly understood age which palaeoanthropologists have dubbed ‘the muddle in the middle’.
The fossils are roughly the same age and were considered distinct so they were assigned homo heidelbergensis and homo rhodesiensis.
According to new research, they were actually the same species.
Scientists in the journal Evolutionary Anthropology have now said homo rhodesiensis – which lived between 400,000 and 125,000 years ago – should be renamed homo bodoensis, after a skull was found in Bodo D’ar, Ethiopia.
However, this would also eliminate the Rhodes reference.
The species homo rhodesiensis, named after Rhodesia – which in turn took the name of the British imperialist Cecil Rhodes – should be called homo bodoensis, scientists say (Pictured: Statue of Rhodes at Oxford University)
Rhodes was an imperialist and businessman, as well as a politician. He drove the annexation vast swathes land in southern Africa in late 19th century.
The removal of his statue at Oriel College was demanded by the Rhodes Must Fall campaign at Oxford University.
Predrag Radovic, of University of Belgrade’s department of archaeology, said to The Daily Telegraph that while the connection with Cecil Rhodes is not the main argument for rejecting the taxon name as such, it should not be overlooked.
“We believe that the aim to decolonize palaeoanthropology in a socially responsible way is important, and Cecil Rhodes is a problematic namesake.
“Many of my colleagues are uncomfortable with the use of the name Rhodesiensis for a hominin specie.”
Although Professor Chris Stringer from the Natural History Museum agreed with the study’s naming system, he stated that rules of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature say “you can’t just cancel any species name you don’t love”.