This is an interesting read (I have yet to read the actual peer-reviewed articles). My first question had to do with issues of using radiocarbon for sites that are so young (within last 500 years). I know it's super unreliable for the Maya area. I believe they are using Bayesian statistics to play with the dates, which I remain clueless about (I keep trying to understand them but I find no one can effectively explain them to me). Also, is it not pushing it a bit to suggest that it "removes the Eurocentric and historical lens, allowing an independent time frame for sites and past narrative"? Is it not more of just a matter of moving from relative to absolute dating? I'm not sure I entirely agree that it removes the Eurocentric gaze... I'm often wary of current work that claims to "decolonize" the archaeological record, as often they are mere platitudes tacked on to a new fancy scientific method or gobble-dy-gook theory that overwhelms the actual data. Looking to engage in conversation if anyone is interested! :)

https://theconversation.com/archaeologists-have-a-lot-of-dates-wrong-for-north-american-indigenous-history-but-were-using-new-techniques-to-get-it-right-129422