<i>A bigger issue may be the site’s rapid erosion. Most of the artifacts were found after they’d fallen out of the bluff, which means their place in the geologic timeline is obscured. Nine artifacts were found in place, and only three were able to be dated using charcoal flecks found next to them.</i><p>Hat's off to him for publishing it. There are currently serious problems with the peer reviewed publishing process, starting with the fact that it was born in an era when the scientific world was smaller and people reviewing your work may have known you or someone vouching for you and this is generally no longer true.<p>But we do rely heavily on where in a sediment layer a thing was found to try to date it, so with that piece missing for most items, arguing about the defects of the power review process is kind of moot. He should probably work at addressing this issue and maybe that's the piece he doesn't really want to wrestle to the ground to begin with in the peer review process.