The date is not typically dropped from discussions — it still represents real information about the burial, even if that information is compromised — but it is now accompanied by explicit acknowledgment of the dating concerns rather than being cited as a straightforward chronological anchor.

This is how science should work: not by treating old results as permanently authoritative, but by subjecting them to ongoing methodological scrutiny as methods and understanding improve.

The Jazwa et al.

2021 paper did not invalidate the Buhl burial as an archaeological resource.

It accurately characterized the limits of what its single, potentially compromised date can support.

The broader implication for the Western Stemmed Tradition chronological debate is that the WST’s earliest dates now rest primarily on other sites — Cooper’s Ferry, Paisley Caves, the Connley Caves — that have more robust, multiply redundant chronological frameworks.

The Buhl date’s contribution to that framework is diminished, though not eliminated, by the dating concerns.