Lee Olsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
[...]
> So the experimental work showed it could be done
> with a wood dugout, but the oral tradition needs
> backup DNA or some unequivocal artifacts to prove
> it.

Here is what I meant by "unequivocal artifacts" to prove it.
Briefly. During the Kennewick Man lawsuit (Archaeologists vs US Government), only artifacts found at sites excavated under controlled conditions by qualified archaeologists (with permits) and published in site reports were considered as admissible evidence. Even diagnostic artifacts found by qualified and permitted archaeologists during surface surveys could not be used. Simply because there was no way to prove later Native Americans didn't relocate older material found elsewhere as far away as other states.

[www.jasoncolavito.com]
This interview between Jason Colavito and Dr. Janet Six about a possible Mexican spearpoint found in Hawaii and the eventual outcome of tests would not be valid evidence in a US court. Had the finders of the spearpoint left it where they found it, photographed it, marked the spot so it could be re-found and then took the photo to a qualified local archaeologists for further investigation, a far better case possibly could have be made. As it is, even if sourced to Mexico, it is nothing more than a shoe-box curio without provenance.

[...]