If it's human, it's the best human gap-filler between Homo erectus and "later Homo sapiens." Not sure if they mean Heidelbergensis or Idaltu. The next latest thing.
If you accept Homo erectus as human, no problem. If you don't, then why does this look so much like erectus and come right after it in time, etc.?
I would like to know what are the empirically tested rules for the interpretation of bones. I rather think they may compare to the empirically tested rules of astrology.
If the posterior superior angle of the left parietal bone is more pronounced in one skull than in another, may we conclude the former individual was more block-headed, and hence more primitive, than the other? I put it crassly, but what are the empirically tested rules for interpreting a find? What are the emprically tested rules for interpreting the strata in which they are found?
It seems to me there is enough variation in bone morphology of the current human population that, if any or all happened to be found buried in sediment at various levels, they could be rendered as having a history ranging over millions of years.