Yes, I agree that they are both important, but which is really more important? I think the findings are. But by looking at Graham's first post on the release, you can see what his priorities are. Instead of discussing the discoveries first, he begins by complaining that his name was left out, and went on about how if it wasn't for Graham Hancock, and without Graham Hancock, and by removing Graham Hancock from the equation, etc. To me it just smacked of self importance, but maybe its just my personal take on the matter. And as for the Michaelangelo analogy, I think that Howard Carter would have been a better choice, since unlike Michaelangelo, Graham Hancock did not build the Indian structures, he merely found them. But now that I think of it, weren't they actually found by local fishermen? I don't hear Graham clammoring for the inclusion of their names, and if it wasn't for those fishermen, and without those fishermen, and by removing the fishermen from the equation, etc. I think I have made my point and that's all I wanted to do. Now let's not let this overshadow Graham's finds any longer. There are many more important issues, such as the dating of the site, etc that we should focus on.