The Caucasian reference is well-described in James C. Chatters' book, Ancient Encounters. Jim was the first anthropologist to examine the skull, and he noted that some features appeared Caucasian--and the press ran wild with that.
What he was trying to describe was the differences between the skull and more recent Native Americans in the region. And those differences are more suggestive of Caucasian shape, but that is far from demonstrating Caucasian ancestry.
Much of the earliest skeletal material in the western US has that same look, and it most likely relates to a different migration than that which led to the rest of the Native Americans. Whether it is from an Early Coastal Migration is still unknown, but that is one possibility.
The skeleton is being studied by a team led by Doug Owsley from the Smithsonian, and they are doing what will be the most intensive analysis ever performed on a skeleton in North America. I saw a presentation by Owsley about a year and a half ago, and what they are doing is amazing.
I am still waiting for them to do DNA analyses--that will really help tell the ancestry. There is one perfect tooth in the mandible that would make a great specimen, but I am not aware of their plans or schedule for any such studies.
There is also a lot of good information online.
Hope this helps.
Thanks FRiend. I’m glad reason won out.