it's not a matter of trust. They have shown evidence that it was a calendar, because they figured out how it worked as a calendar. They provide no eveidence that it served a religious function.
My "prejudice" stems from re-enactment, and dealing with archeologists who were experts at digging things up, but completely useless at interpretation. They didn't know the first thing about any of the crafts of the time, had never used a forge or even seen a blacksmith at work, yet routinely intepreted artifacts from a dig where a forge was present. Instead of admitting ignorance, or asking for expert advice, they'd label stuff as "ritual".
So yes, I'm a bit prejudiced. And reading a report about an artfact where it's cheerfully labelled as "ritual" with no proof or evidence provided, does get me ranting in the comments.
My "prejudice" stems from re-enactment, and dealing with archeologists who were experts at digging things up, but completely useless at interpretation. They didn't know the first thing about any of the crafts of the time, had never used a forge or even seen a blacksmith at work, yet routinely intepreted artifacts from a dig where a forge was present. Instead of admitting ignorance, or asking for expert advice, they'd label stuff as "ritual".
So yes, I'm a bit prejudiced. And reading a report about an artfact where it's cheerfully labelled as "ritual" with no proof or evidence provided, does get me ranting in the comments.