John Hawks unwittingly asks the question that disproves "out of Africa" - and proves how important Peter Klevius* anti bias definition of science is.

* No dude, self referencing isn't at all stupid but rather necessary in this particular case.

John Hawks: The problem is that we don’t know if these (African middle stoneage Homo) populations ever met.

Peter Klevius: Africa's middle stone age covers a few hundred thousand years. Yet Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis managed (according to out of Africa dreamers) to end up on Flores and Luzon more than at least a million years earlier. By changing direction you get a fluctuating source isolation capable of exporting new variants and avoiding the "meeting problem" (hybridization which might produce some interesting phenotypes but no true evolution).

Peter Klevius suggestion to John Hawks: Why don't you come out now from your African closet while you still have some honor left?Moreover, your bone expertice hugely outperforms Peter Klevius, who, in turn, could tell you something about Homo naledia.

Peter Klevius evolution formula: From production (isolation) to end consumption (diversity). After meeting with Richard Leakey in the 1980s Peter Klevius started wondering about mongoloid features of  native Africans. This led to Jinniushan and the rest is history - spiced with Homo floresiensis and Denisovans.

Citations ought to be aligned with the problem - not with bias. Drawing and text by Peter Klevius (1992). However, citations are easy to manipulate through cherry picking or by offering "advisory" citation lists. And then these lightly or heavily skewed citatiions constitute the building blocs of a scientific aproach that is biased in line with peer reviewers  (Klevius 1992, chapter Science and References).