I have an intense distrust of archaeologists. These earth-dusters enter a cave and see a drawing of a man killing a buffalo with a sharp object. Then take detailed notes analyze the soil content and then, three years later, they write a thesis paper stating that people who lived in caves, referred to as "cavemen," killed their prey with a primitive weapon known as a spear. I guess I'm selling these scholars a bit short. The work they do is probably a little more complicated - I just didn't want to do any research. Anyway, for the sake of this article, we are going to leave it at that.
My point is that while analyzing drawings is simple enough, how do we know that these drawings are indicative of what was actually happening? When I was younger I liked the Ninja Turtles so much that I used to draw myself as a one, every time we were asked to sketch a self portrait - I even went as far as changing my name. It was a very awkward experience to walk around high school with a letter jacket that said Leonardo on the front. But imagine a couple thousand years down the road, an archaeologist unearths a painting of a Ninja Turtle approaching a girl at the lunch line. They might think that, in the past, turtles could talk, as well as learn various types of martial arts and they were very unsuccessful with women.
I think he's trying to be funny. Not working, dude.