So some shitskins moved some rocks and sticks into the shape of a very primitive looking fish and the site gets classified as a sacred site? That's graffiti at best and hardly significant. The "natives" were conquered and so was their "culture". The only thing that would likely be learned from studying that site is that they were primitive heathens with low artistic talent. Sorry not sorry.
Let's see, what else is 1,000 years old and represents the artistic expression of a native people?
Oh yeah, this is ...
I'm sick of people trying to equivocate the worth of this with that.
Piles of rocks and dirt scratches don't make a world heritage site just because it's 1,000 years old. Sometimes garbage is still just garbage, even if it's old garbage.
I know right. Can't we get back to real archaeology about people that built shit not made of mud. I don't give a fuck how many beads and loin cloths some savage was buried with.