Maybe the best explanation is simply frustration. There are many obvious problems with current archaeological theory and practice which stem from errors dating back to the sciences infancy in North America and maybe slightly earlier in Europe. There is no place in theoretical science for mere speculation such as that which archaeology has long been subject to. When mere speculation replaces gainable understanding and unchecked becomes a large part of long-accepted theory it becomes more than an issue. Eventually, it renders the science ineffective. Not that a course correction would be so difficult but compounding issue number two is a hierarchy of academia which has no place in science refuses to examine any possibility of mistakes having ever been made by their predecessors. If you are familiar with Ales Hrdlicka and the travesty he perpetrated on the science by throwing all of humanity under the ignorance bus for nothing more than his own ego you would likely find these same practices being perpetrated to this very day.
Study the picture I have linked closely. If an archaeologist told you it was indeed an artifact would you take issue with that assessment? If an archaeologist told you it was nothing more than a naturally occurring rock, would you take issue with that assessment? I can tell you as an avocational archaeologist, which I never intended to be, that it is most definitely without a shred of doubt an artifact. You would play hell finding a professional archaeologist in North America who would concur with that assessment. The difference being that I have spent countless hours studying similar artifacts to the point that I am completely familiar with the patination and erosion processes of many different types of stone as well as the individual functionalities uses and wear patterns associated with most of the artifacts I collect. A process which includes the creation of lithic reproductions for testing by applying them to the exact same tasks they were designed for with identical wear patterns being produced. The professional archaeologist would complacently dismiss it without so much as picking it up to examine it because it lacks conchoidal fracture as well as fear of ridicule he would be subject to by his colleagues for investigating a stone with a facial likeness on it. I have seen only one archaeologist take enough note of one of the most perfectly etched faces on a stone I have ever seen, that he actually posted a pic on an archaeological forum site. The words which accompanied the pic: " If I didn't know any better". It received the expected eye roll responses from his colleagues. My question: Where does this Knowledge come from and what scientific substance supports it? I could expand on many more flawed theories and lack of understanding but I'll rest my case here for now. Opinion?