Javier Cabrera Darquea, a Peruvian physician, received a small carved rock as a gift for his birthday.The stone apparently came from a small town in Peru called Ica. Cabrera seems to have had a great interest in prehistoric extinct fish, because when he saw the carved rock he recognized as such (Polidoro 2002, Carroll 2002, Feder 2010). Cabrera never identified the fish, or mentions how he knows the fish is an accurate depiction of said unidentified species (Carroll 2002). Cabrera became so fascinated with the little stone that he went looking for more.One of the most successful fringe writers of recent years, Graham Hancock is a leading light of a group of people who like to call themselves the ‘New Egyptologists’ to give a spurious sense of academic credibility.Others include his contemporary David Rohl, who has proposed a radical new chronology of Egyptian history to align it with the chronology of the Old Testament by reducing the dates of Egyptian kings.So, as always we must ask, What are the Ica Stones really?The stones themselves are varying sized pieces of Andesite, which is a type of hard volcanic rock.Cabrera has claimed that andesite is too hard to carve using stone tools (Carroll 2002), so for him it’s a sign that the stones were carved using advanced technology, like so many of the stones depict.
Then there is that pesky patina, which many supporters claim is evidence of the carvings great age.But this article by archeologists seems to rely on flecks of wood and other datable material picked from the exterior of the pyramid.Which makes a huge assumption, that anything dropped there was dropped during the construction and not a thousand years later.In the meantime, here is a blog post outlining why Graham Hancock has failed to impress mainstream archaeologists. Hi, genuinely interested in how archeology has dated the great pyramid.Far as I know, reliance is placed on the cartouche discovered in one of the internal chambers in late 1800s.