Some quick responses to your comment.
The fellow 2nd from the left to me looks questionable ... in that he seems the most varied, in skull morphology and dentition!
I would wonder if all his 'pieces' are present and if the dna of the jaw matched the dna of the skull and of the eye ridges.
The skulls were all found to be within the tolerance level of morphological variance allowed for modern humans, as such despite what appears to be glaring difference, the research community accepts these as being five examples of Homo erectus. As for DNA, these fossils are way to old for any DNA analysis. The leading archaeogenetics researchers state that it will never be possible to extract and analyse DNA older than 1.5 million years, it will be too fragmented and degraded and of no use. It is also not normal to find viable DNA in hominin fossils, they tend to be found in conditions that do not favour survival of genetic material (hot dry places) rather than ideal conditions (extremely cold places). The oldest hominin DNA ever to be successfully recovered and analysed is 430,000 years old - from the Sima Hominins.
Not saying its a booboo, just saying it looks like a decided effort not to waste any fragments. Nothing untoward intended, but for my tastes, the difference is really 'much'! I would want to know who and the steps taken and the where of the find, etc ... oops, there went my invite to visit!
I only have the academics papers and claims to go on. So far no expert that examined the skulls has found any fault in the reconstruction.
As for being located where they were ... and the fact that they were insular in their settlement ... not difficult to imagine a hunting party being somehow lost from their main range, and being stranded (natural catastrophy, capture/escape, or ??) ... and living out their lives in another area (how far removed?) ... for the duration. Not a happy story, but possible.
If that seems entirely unlikely to you, please say so. I'm just thinking with minimal facts.
Although the skulls are dated to around 1.8 million years ago they are recognised to be from different times, some being separated by thousands of years. This would seem to counter the possibility of a lost hunting party, there must have been a large viable population present for several millennia.
As for that cave art ? -- Chauvet? ... wow, impressive, and linked (from my view) with the Corbel Niches -- Puma Punku => Giza.
Its in the eye of the beholder, but that's impressive.
Makes sense it would not be a widely portrayed scene. 16 predators. ... also noted in Magicians of the Gods in varios locals from Peru to Gobekli Tepi. A sigil of an age. :-)
In a very real way those first abstract art pieces are linked to every piece of art ever done since then. The same style of cross hatch is also found on a 480,000 year old shell from Java.
Thank you for your comments