You're both right, gosh dang it!

Helloo! Long time no see!
Anyway, do you want to know what is confusing?
Archaeology. And not the digging up specimens part. The research and the articles part.
You see, people have to prove their claims of "This specimen proves that X people did Y thing." Anndd... Archaeologists love to prove each other wrong. Fervently and sometimes viciously. It reminds me of a nature video where a pack (School? Flock? Ravage??? Lets call it a ravage) A ravage of Squid (It just fits, no?) Tears apart a fellow ravagemate because it was acting tired. It was brutal.
So, to the point.
My archaeology teacher has us discussing and writing papers about a debate that is still going on today in Archaeology called the Clovis-first debate. This debate is about how early people came over to the Americas. Like a good, non-biased teacher, (She's really great, she never tells us what side she's on in any of the archaeological debate) she assigns readings from prominent archaeologists on both sides of the argument.
The problem?
First, technical articles are hard to read. Especially when they start talking about the bifacial fracturing of the lanceolate clovis points and I'm just like, "It looks like a rock...?"
Second, archaeologists are really good at research.
So, I read one article, and I'm thinking, "Holy cow, this guy is right! The original theory is wrong, they came from the Solutreans. Bingo. Problem solved, give this man an award."
And then, the other article, which is against the Solutrean theory, is amazing. It points out all of the places that the other guy has things wrong, or where he didn't provide all the information, etc. etc. However, all it does is prove him wrong, it doesn't provide a solution.
It's all very confusing, because both of the sides have good points, and it's hard to decide what to believe.

So, here's to confusing technical articles!
Love and Sparkles,
Kayla