Only ONE person is responsible for finding the icastones and he has been implicated in the forgery. Stones cannot be "dated" to indicated any timeframe they may have been converted into artifacts. Please provide a peer reviewed article link for the "mud daubber" dating... exactly what percentage of the "mud" was composed of carbon that could be dated? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I'm not in the mood to dig for the data on the caves in Southern France (Lescaux? --sp?--). Suffice it to say, the scientists were able to date the mud deposit, though I don't know if it was carbon dating. May have been an isotope dating method other than carbon.
Material imbedded in the carving fissures was how the original testing weighed for very ancient in the initial stones found in the Peruvian cave. I'm not in the business of proofing these stories, or debunking them if you will. I just find them interesting.