Oh - I saw the BBC tv programme on this, and it looked at the stones showing a heart transplant and the magazine article they were clearly copied from.

Humans and dinosaurs not coexisting has nothing to do with evolutionary theory; it’s because no solid evidence of coexistence has been found (such as a fossil of a carnivorous dinosaur with human remains-that have teeth marks matching the fossilized dinosaur teeth-in its stomach area).

On a related matter, we know from fossilized (complete) remains that the Tyrannosaurus Rex had short forelimbs with two-fingered claws (Note the amount shown on the stone) and that the Triceratops didn’t have back plates. This isn’t theory, this is fact. However, that’s not the only reason why the stones are believed to be fake.

The patina isn’t in the grooves of the stones like it should, the man who “found them” successfully recreated a stone for the BBC using the hoaxing methods he admitted to in a prior interview, he refused to show where the stones were “found” (which would allow for dating to be determined), and other “evidence” he found was shown to be of recent origin.

I admittedly haven’t heard about the shards that you’re referring to, but I suspect that talkorigins.org might have the answers you seek (a quick glance shows that they discuss an “anomolous” hammer and iron pot).

Excellent point! Now that I think about it, its arms look too long…

“The fact that one of the stones shows a Triceratops with Stegosaurus-style back plates (the second stone pictured) is a dead giveaway of a hoax.”

Not to mention the theropod on the stone below it, with the badly outdated upright stance…

The October 2001 Fortean Times article, “Jurassic library - The Ica Stones” by Filip Coppens goes into more detail about why the stones are hoaxes:

“The first-hand observation by Neil Steede that, even though the stones he examined did have this patina, there was no patina in the grooves. This suggests that while the stones were certainly very old, the carvings were clearly of far more recent origin”

“[Neil Steede] concluded that these “definitely genuine” stones show a finer workmanship and have less deep cuts than Cabrera’s stones. This is a clear indication of a more highly skilled manufacturer than Cabrera’s artisan. Furthermore, they are restricted to depicting conventional humans and existing animals, not extinct animals; nor do they include any examples of the more exotic motifs of the Cabrera stones.”

“…if humans existed that far back, how did they survive the several global cataclysms that contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs and huge percentages of other extant life-forms? If dinosaurs lived into the Modern Era, why did they suddenly disappear?” The fact that no fossils showing dinosaur remains that can be dated to a time when humans existed have been found and how no other cultures in South America make reference to dinosaurs both point to the stones being hoaxes.

Let’s not forget that Dr. Cabrera also had clay statues depicting dinosaurs that were similar to works made by Basilo Uschuya. Also, the statues were tested in the 90’s and found to be “relatively young” (as in they could’ve been made “20 years ago”) and that they still contained water.

Also, Mr. Uschuya made a custom Ica stone that said “BBC TV” on it for a man by the name of Ray Sutcliffe in 1977. I think that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he faked the Ica Stones.

Come to think of it, didn’t Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana help make some of the stones? I also thought I once read something about Basilo Uschuya hiring others to produce the stones.

I have always found it interesting how it is that around the world, almost every society of the past, there are stories and even carved evidence of at least some dinosaurs surviving up to the point where someone took the time to somehow preserve his/her memory of them, and yet just because someone in Europe a few centuries ago made the claim that these creatures couldn’t have lived with humans that is who the whole world listens to, even the christian church with their record of at least one dino in Job 40:15, called behemoth. Most Bibles with notes in the margins will say that behemoth would be an elephant or hippo, even though the description does not come close. The reason for this is because when the Bible was translated into english for the first time, europeans had just wandered down into the heart of Africa and discovered that there are large animals down there. Size wise, the 2 sound similar.