Ica stones

The thumbnails are organized by row on subject matter, in the order: natural science, culture, medicine, and animals.

1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8
11	12	13
16	17	18	19

Analysis

In the case of the Ica stones, one first has to determine their authenticity. The story given in the sources is plausible, in that it is highly unlikely that a farmer in a village could have made the stones, purely because he (or they) lacks the knowledge that is behind what is portrayed. In fact, it is the body of knowledge behind what is portrayed that is the main argument of the skeptics.

The body of knowledge is: the existence of dinosaurs, i.e. the right species of dinosaurs, of the geometry of the world, of comets, of telescopes, of surgical procedures, of Incan/pre-Incan habits (the smoking, the worship), of the Nazca lines, etc. Each or several parts of this body may be plausible for a simple farmer, the combination isn't, the farmer would have to be a kind of Leonardo da Vinci of all farmers. Of course, this argument doesn't apply to the discoverer: Dr. Cabrera. So if the stones are a hoax, Dr. Cabrera is the hoaxer.

Now there is one argument for dr. Cabrera to be a hoaxer, and several against. The argument for is the one of achieving fame. Money can be ruled out, given the way he has used his treasure (giving away pieces, not offering them for sale, not being secretive). The arguments against are: if you make a hoax, you want to be recognized, you make it plausible (like something one is already looking for: the archaeopteryx, the missing ape-man link, etc.). Secondly: the amount of specimen: for a good hoax you only need a few or tens or hundreds, and more than 10,000 is an overkill; why take the bother to make so many, you don't know if the bait is taken. Thirdly: the stones are stylistically very consistent. In order for one person to make 10,000 stones would take decades, and one would expect stylistic changes over the years. The stones give the impression of a stylistic tradition. Note: this is also the argument of number, which is the clou to much of these authenticity questions: the more specimens, the more certainty. It is their number that make the Ica stones stand out from similar finds, or claims. Note 2: The occurrence of forgeries after the stones have become known is of course high, but this doesn't diminish the status of the originals.

So at this point the conclusion is that the chances of the Ica stones being authentic are reasonable (at least two to one).

Now about their contents, for the moment taking they are authentic. The argument of the skeptics that the stones must be false because they portray the combination of men and dinosaurs is of course superficial. It says implicitly that all pictures should be taken literally. Of course they should not. The stones might be for religious purposes, to demonstrate hierarchy or prowess, or they might even have been for amusement. Given that they needn't be taken literally, the remarkable thing about the Ica stones is that they show knowledge of dinosaurs. And knowledge of telescopes, surgery, etc., in short: of advanced science. Now that really is a puzzle, and a puzzle to such a degree, one might almost conclude that the stones have to be a hoax.

So at this point, what is necessary is to make an inventory of the images of the Ica stones, and match this with the body of knowledge expected from a physician with some hobbies. Or, to substantiate their authenticity: specimen that show knowledge the doctor could not have. The set shown above does not meet his criterion. Notably absent is higher technology, which one would expect to coincide with higher knowledge (physicians are not known for their technological knowledge either).

On the other hand: on the skeptics rests the burden to show that the stones are easy to make in modern time. This should not be too difficult, if they are right. The problem of the skeptics is that their arguments are usually as badly constructed (see here) as the arguments of those that draw all kinds of far reaching and fantastic conclusions from the stones. They should not discuss these claims, but concentrate on disproving the stones authenticity; there they fail, thus far.

For other subject, go to the Collection list page.