Skull shape is genuinely informative about some aspects of human prehistory.

It is not a reliable guide to genetic ancestry in the way that DNA analysis can be.

The history of paleoanthropology includes multiple examples of morphological similarities that later turned out not to reflect close genetic relationships, and multiple examples of close genetic relationships between populations with strikingly different morphological profiles.

The lesson is not that morphological analysis is useless.

It is that morphological analysis requires careful interpretation, with explicit acknowledgment of its limitations and without the overconfident conclusions that earlier researchers sometimes drew from it.