How do creationists explain some recent hominid discoveries Recent discoveries of more than 15 complete fossilised skeletons of a newly defined early human designated Homo naledi are yet to be dated, but scientists say their primitive features, small brains and small statures mean they are probably at least 2 million years old.

National Geographic provides a very detailed coverage of the naledi find.

I would be particularly interested in how Young Earth Creationists explain early human species such as Homo naledi. I am not just looking for an explanation of their apparent age, because on one view, these near-human fossils should not even exist.
Here's what Ken Ham had to say regarding the news of this discovery:


  No scientist witnessed the origin of man, and evolutionary scientists
  only believe there were intermediate evolutionary links between an
  ape-like ancestor and man because they have disregarded God’s Word and
  substituted their own fallible opinions in its place 
  
  ...
  
  The only way to find an ape-man—or a “bridge” between apes and humans—is to
  misinterpret fossils of either an ape or a human as something in
  between.


Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell of Answers in Genesis provides a more thorough review and in her assessment claiming these bones are human is a stretch. 

In general most Young Earth Creationists would recognize that claims such as this are based on the presuppositions and biases of the person making the claim. In other words the scientist(s) in question assume that Evolutionary Theory is true and interpret the facts to fit that framework. Other scientists would interpret the same facts based on the assumption that the Bible is true and reach a completely different conclusion.