The microscopy techniques, the taphonomic criteria, and the AMS dating methods applied in the reanalysis were not available to Cinq-Mars in the same form.

The fact that the reanalysis produced more compelling evidence than the original excavations is not a reflection on Cinq-Mars’s competence; it reflects the development of the field in the decades between the two studies.

This pattern — original evidence that is compelling but not conclusive, followed decades later by reanalysis using improved methods that produces more definitive results — is not unique to Bluefish Caves.

It appears repeatedly in the history of the early Americas debate, and it reflects a general truth about archaeological science: the methods for analyzing evidence improve faster than new evidence is found.