I saw the skull on BBC world news. Not much to go on there. The big issue was the angle at which the spine attached to it. At an angle would mean a knuckle-walker, up-and-down would mean a biped. There have been some mighty parlous fossils specimens that whole theories and reputations have been built on. Soon to be overturned by the next big discovery.
One of my favorites is the arguments over the most primitive stone tools, i.e., were they naturally or manually chipped?
Yup. George Carter was continuously finding stone axes, etc. He would take them to archaeologists and they would say that they were manmade stone tools...until, he told them he found them in California. These 'axes' he found came to be known as Carterfacts.
"The most controversial site is Saint Eble, just below Mont Coupet, in southcentral France. Here one finds quartz fragments that look manmade to some archeologists, but seem products of natural fracturing to others. These crude objects are what some American archeologists call "Carterfacts," after G. Carter, who has found similar rock fragments in the Americas and dates them much, much earlier than 12,000 B.P.