More funding for DNA analysis, and a reduction in holotypes as we find these apparent sub-speciations are actually just the same. I don't think there is much we can do about national pride: when individual economies decide to declare a find is culturally significant for their global view, the best science can do is help them overcome the mindset, by applying science.

That said, genuinely new finds are exciting no matter what. If it takes a decade for the family tree logistics to settle down, so be it.

I like Gruber. Lots of people hate Gruber because he was abrasive. It's not that dissimilar to astrophysics where people have love and hate relationships with the scientists and the theories. Historians do a better job than me untangling this in 50 years time.

Sorry that’s not my question. What is the alternative hypothesis here that you are suggesting we be open to?

That Chinese arguments about the emergence of modern human culture in their territory be accepted. The tenor of the arguments are "that's bullshit"

Without being ad hom, the Chinese view is culturally informed for domestic political reasons. My view is to ask if even after reduction of (sub) speciation labels their view remains tenable, and there is a case to be made for East West cultural dispersion before historic time. Given out of Africa, at least some ground state of flow is west east.

> ad hom

Hilariously ironic usage. ("to/against the human/person")

Well, the archeological evidence doesn’t line up with the Chinese propaganda story. I’ll step it up a notch even: the archeological record directly contradicts that narrative. People have given it serious consideration, and found it lacking.