Not so in this case, and from reading several sources, that may be a cause for controversy;
"The radiocarbon dating method was not used to date the archaeological components at the Friedkin site because there were no carbon samples that would yield reliable and accurate ages. In situ charcoal is not preserved, and all bones are leached of collagen. Dating of bulk sediment organics was not undertaken because these ages are usually inaccurate. For example, two bulk sediment ages from the Clovis horizon (unit 3a) at Excavation Area 8 of the Gault site, located ~400 m upstream of the Friedkin site, produced ages of 7130 ± 40 radiocarbon years before the present (14C yr B.P.) (CAMS-65535; ~7.9 to ~8.0 ka ago) and 9300 ± 40 14C yr B.P. (CAMS-65986; ~10.4 to 10.6 ka ago) (12). These ages are 2 to 5 ka younger than the known age of Clovis."
"Instead, the OSL dating method was used to determine the age of the artifacts at the Friedkin site by dating the floodplain sediments that bury them. This method is well suited for the site because according to the geological principle of inclusions, any items, such as artifacts, in an undisturbed sedimentary deposit, such as the floodplain clays at the Friedkin site, are at least as old as the sediments that contain them. The OSL method has been used for decades to date Late Quaternary deposits and has been shown to yield accurate ages; many tests have shown that OSL ages are in agreement with radiocarbon ages (13). Luminescence dating has also been used to successfully date archaeological sites in North America such as the Clovis horizon at Pavo Real, Texas, and the Archaic, Paleoindian, and pre-Clovis horizons at the Gault site, Texas (12, 14, 15)."