Replies

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.

BTW, I'm not a fan of Sitchin's outlandish assertions, but this one appears of interest, this elephant claim. There are numerous ways the Olmecs might have lived in South America without leaving genetic traces to find so easily. The evidence for cocaine in ancient Egypt would appear to argue for some contact between the land masses, since that plant is not indigenous to the African continent.

Since you posted it and I was not familiar with the "mud dobber" dating claim, I DID dig for your claimed carbon dating (or any dating at all) of the Ica Stones and found diddly squat from anybody except those "believers" quoting each other. Not ONE scholarly or scientific paper reporting such dating was returned on several searches, including websites that are convinced the stones are genuine.

You made the assertion that these artifacts were ancient and had been scientifically dated by dating an attached "mud-dobber" nest. Now you assert it is "Material imbedded in the carving fissures..." that is the source of the dating. Carbon dating has come a long way in the past 40 years or so, but it still requires more material than could be obtained from the fissures in a scratch in a stone. In addition, I could find NO citations or links to such test.

I assert that they are forgeries. My assertion is backed up by the forgers admitting their forgery, explaining their method AND DEMONSTRATING it to order. The ORIGINAL SOURCE of the very first stone sold to Dr. Javier Cabrera (the "finder") admitted he made it. When the forgers were asked why they forged the stones they said it was easier than farming.

The dating of the French and Basque cave drawings is irrelevant.

The images on the Ica Stones are not "carved" they are scratched, removing the "aged" surface glaze. Then the stones were placed in a chicken yard to be artificially "aged" by "expert" chickens pooping on them.

MHGinTN, I am interested in Cryptoarchaeology and find the arguments that the Olmecs had at least contact with some negroid persons to be compelling, but serious consideration of such claims is DAMAGED by the inclusion of such easily refuted frauds as the Ica Stones. The Olmec controversy is seriously researched by qualified scientists and you can find scholars on both sides as well as peer reviewed articles examining the disputed information. With the Ica Stones, you find, on the stone's are authentic side, gullibility, unscientific claims, spurious reports of non-existant carbon dating, and outlandish theories to explain the anachronistic images... on the other we find the evidence the stones are frauds and all serious scholars and scientists dismiss them as such.