But the best you can hope for if your theory becomes widely accepted is to become the new orthodoxy. A new orthodoxy to be railed against by all the others with their own interpretation of the data. If we were to substitute the word "academics" for the word "people" in your post we may be closer to the truth. People have an unfortunate habit of sticking to their own ideas rather than adopting mine. Archaeology (certainly pre historic archaelogy that is entirely dependent on the field evidence) is just about interpretation. Nothing is proven ever, there is only the prevailing orthodoxy. And there is the fun in my opinion...

Archaeology is not a science. It has used science in illuminating ways but it is not a science in itself - because: No two archaeological sites are the same, not possible to verify one's conclusions in a repeatable fashion. Archaeological data is always corrupt and incomplete. But most of all archaeology is not a science because it is an offshoot of anthropology...