The archaeological community’s resistance to pre-Clovis claims was, in some cases, more vigorous than the methodological concerns strictly required, and researchers who persistently argued for earlier dates — as Cinq-Mars did — sometimes found their work marginalized in ways that reflect the sociology of scientific consensus as much as strictly methodological concerns.

Jacques Cinq-Mars was, by accounts of those who knew him, a careful and thoughtful researcher who was convinced by his evidence that Bluefish Caves represented pre-Clovis occupation.

He spent decades arguing for this interpretation, watching other pre-Clovis sites gradually gain acceptance while Bluefish Caves remained controversial, and eventually died without seeing the most compelling vindication of his core claim.

The 2017 paper by Bourgeon, Burke, and Higham is, in a sense, a methodological coming of age for the Bluefish Caves evidence.

The analytical tools available in 2015-2016, when the reanalysis was conducted, were significantly more powerful than those available in 1977-1987.