- Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 -
As mentioned at the very beginning, when I started writing this book, I had two main goals. First, to provide the reader with the maximum possible illustrative material within the framework of this publication. And secondly, to clearly demonstrate that the collection of Ica stones cannot be a modern falsification. However, if anyone else still has skepticism about the authenticity of the Iki litothek, we will try to use the method "by contradiction"
Let's try to take the position of a traditional scientist, an adherent of the evolutionary point of view and who considers the collection of Ica stones a grandiose hoax. But with two important caveats. First, this scientist does not pretend that such a collection does not exist (at least out of respect for the gigantic amount of work that the "hoaxers" have done to mislead our gullible humanity). Secondly, this scientist recognizes the legitimacy of using the principle of "presumption of innocence" in science, since the basis for accusation of falsification of this fact is the thesis traditional for science - "this cannot be, because it can never be", but at the same time it is completely ignored that this collection is an archaeological fact. These stones are man-made, they are found in the ground,they have a certain antiquity (since they were discovered in situ in pre-Spanish burials). In order to prove their modern origin (i.e. to prove the fact of falsification), allegations and accusations alone are not enough.
Those. Such a scientist initially believes that the collection of Ica stones is not an archaeological fact, but, indeed, a skillful and sophisticated falsification. Then the following conclusions should automatically follow from this.
1. In the first half of the twentieth century, somewhere in Peru, an underground workshop (or several workshops) was created, which was engaged in the manufacture of stones with drawings made using the engraving technique. The question that tens of thousands of stones were artistically processed by one person is simply stupid.
2. This "workshop" possessed significant human and technical resources, sufficient to transport tens of thousands of stones and boulders weighing up to several hundred kilograms.
3. In the "workshop" worked masters with significant experience in artistic stone carving. They had a fairly modern (for those years) technique necessary for engraving andesite.
4. The "workshop" employed chemists who, using any technology (unknown, however, to modern science), were able to imitate the natural patina on the objects being made.
Promotional video:
5. In the "workshop" there were qualified specialists in paleozoology who could not only provide magazines or books with images of extinct animal species that existed at that time, but also, by virtue of their imagination, predict future discoveries of paleontologists (as is the case with the dorsal plates of sauropods).
6. In the "workshop" there were also doctors who could advise artists on organ transplantation: heart, brain and other complex surgical operations (in the 60s!).
7. Specialists-archaeologists (or professional huqueros) were present in the “workshop”, who were able not only to discover ancient burials, but also to open them, to lay several samples of the “workshop's” products there, and then to preserve them so that subsequent excavations did not show any violation of cultural layer.
8. The activities of the "workshop" were so deeply conspiratorial that the burial of "products" in the vicinity of settlements did not attract any attention of local residents, government officials and even professional robbers of antiquities, whom such activities of "mystifiers" could only harm.
9. The organizers of the "workshop" had a very significant financial capacity, sufficient both for organizing the above volume of work, and for carrying out these works over a long period of time.
To all these arguments, one can add a number of considerations about the entire complex of images on the Ica stones. Here you can find a significant number of facts that do not correspond in any way with normal logic, and even less do not fit with the logic of the alleged "falsifiers". Many of these points I have deliberately focused on throughout the book.
The question of why such a "hoax" was undertaken also remains unanswered. The retail price of Ica stones of several dollars per piece, sold by robbers in the 60-70s, could in no way recoup the cost of their manufacture. Consequently, here one can only assume an aim for the future that is most insidious in its strategy: in 30-50 years these stones will cost hundreds of times more (there will be something for the grandchildren to live on). Although the money needed to organize such "work" could be used more effectively at that time. In addition, during my trips to Peru, I made sure that Ica stones are not in great demand among visiting collectors, who are attracted, first of all, by ceramics of ancient Indian masters, and, of course, jewelry. And thenand other Peruvian "black archaeologists" find much more than stones with fantastic images.
And, finally, the sophisticated logic of the "mystifiers" is completely incomprehensible. Let's say they made a hundred - a thousand stones with dinosaurs, another hundred - with surgical operations, "designed" it competently (for example, a "stone library" in an abandoned cave) and would have done their own business on this. Why "lump in one heap" so many sensational and "anti-scientific" stories and topics, each of which, even individually, immediately arouses suspicion of mystification, since it contradicts all modern scientific ideas and common sense? Doesn't this whole set of necessary assumptions contradict the same common sense?
Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity of a thorough scientific study of the Ica stone complex. Therefore, this book is the result of a preliminary acquaintance with the collection of Dr. Cabrera and a study of the currently available publications on this topic and materials available on the Internet (and there are very few of them, by the way). I must admit that I do not have a clear idea of the nature of this cultural phenomenon. And I am not in a position to offer a ready-made concept of "life and death" of an ancient society that left us with the Ica littoral. Therefore, in concluding the book, I would only like to once again cite the main considerations that can be made at this preliminary stage.
The complex of Ica stones, together with a collection of clay and wooden sculptures, is probably a kind of "library" or an ancient "encyclopedia" left for posterity. It can also be assumed that it was made not by representatives of an ancient highly developed civilization, but by its closest heirs, who survived after a global earthly cataclysm. In this case, I will not use the term "Great Flood", nor will I suggest the time of this event. But the study of this complex of images allows us to put forward a number of fairly well-founded assumptions.
First, the general picture of the life of human society, displayed in the complex of the "library" of Iki, on the whole, corresponds to the initial level of development of civilization. In the language of modern historical science, this level can be defined as a transition to an early class society. Animal husbandry, agriculture and fishing reflect the complex nature of the economy of this society. Judging by the images of tools and weapons, the bearers of this culture mastered the production of metals. The battle scenes indicate the presence of military conflicts. That is, in general, this is the level of development of civilization, well known from the archaeological cultures of the ancient Indians of South America discovered today.
However, the level of development of science, reflected in the iconographic complex of Iki, does not correspond at all to the socio-economic level of the depicted society. Medical knowledge, primarily in surgery, and possibly in genetics, is quite comparable with modern ones. It is difficult to judge the degree of development of astronomy from the available figures. But the use of telescopes for observing the starry sky, as well as the use of magnifying glasses for studying micro-objects, indicate the presence in this society of optical instruments corresponding to a much higher level of technical development. Where could they come from, together with knowledge of medicine and astronomy? It is on this that the above assumption is based.
In the event of a global earthly cataclysm, nearly perished human communities are thrown to a much lower level of development. But among the surviving representatives inevitably had to be members of the social and intellectual elite, who retained a certain amount of practical knowledge that could be used in conditions after the disaster. Judging by the images, the surviving scientists also managed to preserve some of the tools that they continued to use. The question of the technique of engraving images on andesite also remains open.
The drawings of the aircraft are made on the Ica stones in an abstract form. Perhaps only memories of them have survived? Or can you find another explanation related to the fact that for artists who made images on stones, access to the ancient technique was closed?
As for dinosaurs and extinct mammals, judging by the detail of the images, there is no doubt that the people of this ancient society not only saw these species of extinct animals with their own eyes, but also closely interacted with them.
I love and read a lot of science fiction, or rather, the more widespread genre now, fantasy. And I never tire of being amazed at the imagination and imagination of the authors who create breathtaking pictures of various human (and non-human) societies and cultures. However, when you come across historical phenomena like the complex of Ica stones, and begin to study them, you realize that the distant past of mankind in its versatility and mystery can be an order of magnitude superior to even the boldest fantasies of modern authors. And this is understandable. Any writer creates within the framework of the worldview system inherent in his era (or somewhat ahead of it). But the writer, as a rule, remains within the framework of the dominant system of logic in his time. But the logic of the creators of the Iki litothek defies our modern understanding, first of all, becausethat the information contained in it does not correspond to modern ideas about the past of our planet. But, in my opinion, a thorough study of this cultural and historical phenomenon will allow one to find the "keys" to the disclosure of its mysteries.
The collection of Ica stones poses a huge number of questions for researchers and makes them think about the very foundations of our ideas about the past of the planet and human civilization. And finally, I would like to once again draw attention to the paradox of the Iki litothek as a source. We would like to hope that the material presented in this work leaves no doubt about the authenticity of the Ica phenomenon as an archaeological fact. For it to become a historical fact, it must be interpreted within the framework of a certain historical concept or theory. This is the paradox. Lithok Iki combines pictorial materials that can be explained within the framework of one or several hypotheses, it does not even matter whether such a hypothesis is acceptable for academic science or not. An unknown ancient civilization with fantastic knowledge in medicine? Why not. People living with dinosaurs? It is enough to turn on the TV or remember dozens of modern films - "dynotopias". Aircraft of the ancients? Other (sunken) continents inhabited by unknown peoples? Mermaids, gnomes and other fantastic human beings? All these topics are not new to the mass perception of modern man. And people who are not bound by the dogmas of official science and are familiar with the relevant facts, all the more, will not find in this something fundamentally new for themselves. But when all this is collected in one "heap" and, moreover, is shown against the background of the habitual way of life of the ancient society, it is then that the paradoxical character of this historical source is formed. And, perhaps, the solution to this paradox,even if it is speculative (that is, not verified by other facts, but built in the form of a hypothetical model), it will allow us to “pull out” the thread of answers to other questions posed to us by the legacy of the Ancients.
Author: ANDREY ZHUKOV