Consider this for a moment. The mostly Oxford based researchers contend that analysis of stone tools can yield information relating to biological or cultural dispersion.
Even if the authors of the paper were able to reliably identify the culture or "species" of human responsible from a given assemblage of stone tools, any analysis concerning the distribution or "pattern of dispersal" would relate only to preservation conditions and chance detection. The idea that a species could be tracked by simply referring to a set of etically described stones is critically flawed and therefore the results are untestable and unscientific.
Any (subjectively) perceived similarities between so called East African lithic assemblages and those from elsewhere is moot in the face of the continuity of in-situ technological development evident from the Middle Palaeolithic into the Upper Palaeolithic at sites throughout Europe.
The assertion that "Most researchers accept that Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa during the late Middle Pleistocene" is argumentum ad populum and ignores the mounting genetic, fossil, stone tool and cultural evidence which refutes it.