Ancient DNA and new inference methods have transformed the study of human origins, but consensus has not followed. In a new review, I argue that the evidence for pervasive structure and admixture in hominin history makes complexity, not simplicity, the appropriate prior, and I identify two blind spots that impede resolving it. First, every inference passes through summaries of the data, and those summaries bound what can be recovered. Second, the space of candidate models is vast, and we lack principled ways to explore it. That is a limit of practice rather than of data. Because omitted processes bias the ones we do estimate, and because competing model classes are rarely fit to common data, a reported best model carries little evidence about the models nobody tried, though withholding a summary before fitting and fitting competing classes to common data both help. The field needs to study the model exploration process itself.