Anthropology and Archaeology took a "wrong turn" for *many*, but not *all*, practitioners at a certain point. And it became heretical to go against the "consensus" except when you had excellent evidence. 130,000 years is problematic for a couple of reasons. First and notably, the integration, admixture, and ultimate replacement of the Neandertals hadn't happened yet. If you're saying the group came from that population. So you'd need to have tools and artifacts that match the technology they'd have had at the time. Or skeletal evidence. If you're saying they were the non-mixed group, then the resultant population wouldn't have (obviously) the same Neandertal admixture and SNPs, most likely. If you're then saying that later on, the admixture happened with the second group that came over, then that's all well and good, but again you'd need evidence. If you're saying they all died out, which is the default position, you're up there at the start trying to explain how an archaic hominid from that long ago had technology that doesn't show up anywhere else for ~80-100K years.
