This article really fails to explain anything. Headline just makes a statement then the text waffles on without actually making any arguments to support that st

This article really fails to explain anything. Headline just makes a statement then the text waffles on without actually making any arguments to support that statement. So basically from the paper I think they are saying there is morphological variability in the area, but they can see technological consistency (centripetal lavallois, burnt ochre). But I still don't understand why this particular assemblage is evidence for that. Not that I don't believe them, I'm just grumbling that they haven't explained it properly (at least, not well enough for my Sunday morning brain).