Which is fair. Scratch marks around the cave were said to be attempts at art. The fact that the bones were in a cave made them conclude that they were "burying" their dead rather than the more plausible conclusion that they died in the cave as a result of some water or gas flooding.
Tried reading the paper and it was surprisingly hard to understand, probably because I don't know anything about the field. That said, I think the critiques make sense. Still, both the peer review and the response in the articles seem so extreme, I wonder if there is something else going on here. Is there some political or ideological divide in this field?
> I do not think that in its present form, the evidence presented in this study is as robust as it should be.
> the manuscript in its current condition is deemed incomplete and inadequate, and should not be viewed as finalized scholarship.
I mean they sound polite, but if you strip back the polite language and understatements they're pretty much calling the authors quacks.