You "explained it away". You just chose to ignore their testimony.
Who was the archaeologist who found this stone? Were there dinosaurs on the stone?
"Then again in 1998, after four years of investigation, Spanish investigator Vicente Paris declared the stones a hoax (Ica N.d.). He stated that the stones showed traces of modern paints and abrasives. The strongest evidence he presented was the crispness of the shallow engravings; stones of great age should have substantial erosion of the surfaces (Ica N.d.).
Finally, a recent examination of the stones, done in Barcelona by José Antonio Lamich, founder of the Spanish “Hipergea” research group, revealed signs of sandpaper and recent carvings, backing up Paris’ investigations (Polidoro 2002, Feder 2010)."
Let's say that all of the known hominid transitional fossils (e.g. Lucy) were found by two farmer guys from Africa. Those farmers never showed a single scientist where they found them. Years later, they admit that they faked every single one of them. On top of that, others found evidence of modern tool marks and chemicals on and in the hominid fossils. Would you be saying the same thing about those hominid fossils as you are saying about the Ica stones?