Source Count: 12 | Weighted Score: 23 | Source Confidence: [3/5] | Primary Tier: 2–4 | Last Updated: March 10, 2026
Keywords: Ica stones, Acámbaro figurines, dinosaur, human coexistence, Javier Cabrera, Waldemar Julsrud, forgery, engraved stones, ceramic figurines, Peru, Mexico, Guanajuato, andesite, patina, creationism, fraud
Category Tags: forbidden archaeology, hoax, fraud, out-of-place artifact, creationism
Cross-References: M_1_01 — OOPArts Catalog · M_4_01 — Suppressed Discoveries · M_4_05 — Giant Claims Skeletal Evidence · R_1_01 — Biology Evolution Overview

QUICK SUMMARY

The Ica stones and Acámbaro figurines are two separate collections of artifacts cited in forbidden archaeology and creationist literature as alleged evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs — a claim that contradicts the established geological and paleontological record by approximately 63 million years (non-avian dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous, ~66 Ma; Homo sapiens appeared ~300,000 years ago). The Ica stones are a collection of ~15,000+ andesite cobblestones engraved with images depicting dinosaurs, advanced surgery (including heart and brain transplants), telescopes, and other anachronistic scenes, amassed by Peruvian physician Dr. Javier Cabrera Darquea (1924–2001) from the 1960s onward in the town of Ica, Peru. The Acámbaro figurines are ~33,000 ceramic figurines depicting humans, dinosaurs, and fantastical creatures, collected by German merchant Waldemar Julsrud beginning in 1944 near Acámbaro, Guanajuato, Mexico. Both collections have been conclusively identified as modern forgeries: (1) In the case of the Ica stones, local farmer Basilio Uschuya publicly confessed in 1975 to carving the stones and selling them to Cabrera — he demonstrated the technique on camera (carving designs and applying shoe polish and fire to create artificial patina); other local artisans confirmed ongoing production of stones for the tourist trade; (2) the Acámbaro figurines were subjected to thermoluminescence (TL) dating by the University of Pennsylvania in 1952 and independently tested again in the 1970s — initial tests on a few uncontrolled samples produced old dates, but subsequent controlled TL testing by Carriveaux and Pendarvis (1976) showed that when proper protocols were followed, the figurines had been recently fired (modern manufacture). Additionally, some figurines reportedly included recognizable modern pop-culture imagery. Neither collection has any provenance from controlled archaeological excavation, and both are rejected by mainstream archaeology and paleontology.

1. VERIFIED CLAIMS (Tier 1 — Peer-Reviewed / Scholarly Consensus)

1.1 Non-Avian Dinosaur Extinction Timeline

• Non-avian dinosaurs went extinct at the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K-Pg) boundary, ~66 million years ago — this is established by radiometric dating of the K-Pg boundary clay layer, the iridium anomaly, the Chicxulub impact structure, and the global fossil record (Schulte et al., 2010, Science)
• Homo sapiens emerged ~300,000 years ago (Homo genus ~2.5 Ma) — the gap between the last non-avian dinosaurs and the first hominins is ~63 million years
• Any artifact depicting accurate human–dinosaur coexistence would require an extraordinary revision of the entire geological and biological record — no such revision is warranted by the evidence

1.2 Confession and Demonstrated Forgery (Ica Stones)

• Basilio Uschuya, a farmer from Ocucaje near Ica, publicly stated that he carved the stones himself and sold them to Dr. Cabrera for income; he and his wife demonstrated the carving technique using dental drill-like tools, hand chisels, and applied artificial patina with shoe polish and oven-baking
• Uschuya's confession was documented in a 1975 interview with Erich von Däniken (who had initially promoted the stones in The Gold of the Gods, 1973) and in subsequent press reports
• Local artisans in the Ica region continue to produce carved stones for tourist sale — the practice is well-documented
• No Ica stone has been found in a controlled archaeological context — all came through Cabrera's personal purchases from local suppliers

2. CREDIBLE CLAIMS (Tier 2 — Academic / Debated but Supported)

2.1 Pre-Columbian Stone Engraving Tradition

• The Ica region does have a genuine archaeological record of engraved stones from pre-Columbian cultures (Nasca, Paracas) — small stones with geometric, animal, and human designs are found in legitimate archaeological contexts
• The forgery industry built on this genuine tradition, making the fakes more plausible to untrained observers
• Dr. Cabrera may have begun with a small number of genuinely ancient engraved stones (without dinosaur imagery) and then been supplied with increasingly elaborate modern carvings by local producers who recognized a profitable market

2.2 Acámbaro Figurines Investigation

• Charles di Peso (Amerind Foundation) examined the collection in 1952 and found:
• Figurines were found in no identifiable archaeological stratum — all were "discovered" by paid local laborers at the direction of Julsrud
• The surfaces showed no patina or mineral encrustation consistent with long burial
• Some figurines were made of recently fired clay and broke along fresh fracture surfaces
• Initial TL dating at the University of Pennsylvania (1969–1972) produced some anomalously old dates, but these were later attributed to methodological problems (testing clay composition rather than last-firing event; soil contamination affecting luminescence signals)
• Subsequent TL testing with proper controls confirmed modern manufacture

3. SPECULATIVE CLAIMS (Tier 3 — Possible but Unverified)

3.1 Identification of Depicted Animals

• Some defenders argue that the engraved images on Ica stones or Acámbaro figurines do not actually depict dinosaurs but rather stylized versions of known living animals (lizards, crocodiles, rhinos) or mythological creatures — this is an alternative interpretation within the forgery framework that does not affect the conclusion of modern manufacture

4. DUBIOUS CLAIMS (Tier 4 — No Credible Source / Contradicted by Evidence)

4.1 Human–Dinosaur Coexistence

• DEBUNKED The central claim — that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and this was recorded in pre-Columbian art — is contradicted by the entire geological, paleontological, and radiometric dating record; the artifacts are modern forgeries, not ancient documents

4.2 Suppression by "Mainstream Science"

• DEBUNKED Claims that the Ica stones and Acámbaro figurines were "suppressed" by scientists afraid to overturn evolutionary theory are not supported — the collections were investigated, tested, and found to be modern; repeated testing confirmed the conclusion

4.3 Advanced Ancient Surgery (Ica Stones)

• DEBUNKED Some Ica stones depict heart transplants, brain surgery, and cesarean sections with modern surgical detail — these images include anachronistic details (modern surgical instruments, suture techniques) consistent with a modern carver copying from medical textbooks

Counter-Arguments

• The sheer volume of the collections (15,000+ Ica stones, 33,000+ Acámbaro figurines) has been cited by defenders as evidence against forgery ("too many to fake") — however, the production was commercial and ongoing over decades, involving multiple local artisans paid per piece; high volumes are expected under these conditions
• Some proponents cite initial TL dates for the Acámbaro figurines — but these results were obtained under inadequate controls and contradicted by subsequent testing with proper protocols

IMAGES

No images assigned yet.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Cabrera Darquea, J | 1976 | ∅ | El Mensaje de las Piedras Grabadas de Ica | ∅ | ∅ | Inti Sol Editores | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
2. Di Peso, C.C | 1953 | "The Clay Figurines of Acámbaro, Guanajuato, Mexico" | American Antiquity | ∅ | 18.4::388–389 | ∅ | ∅ | doi:10.2307/277107 | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
3. Schulte, P. et al | 2010 | "The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous–Paleogene Boundary" | Science | ∅ | 327.5970::1214–1218 | ∅ | ∅ | doi:10.1130/0-8137-2384-1.191 | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
4. Von Däniken, E | 1973 | ∅ | The Gold of the Gods | ∅ | ∅ | Souvenir Press | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
5. Hapgood, C | 1973 | ∅ | Mystery in Acámbaro | ∅ | ∅ | Self-published | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
6. Nickell, J | 2007 | "The Ica Stones" | Skeptical Inquirer | ∅ | 31.2::26–28 | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
7. Fitzpatrick-Matthews, K | 2010 | "The Ica Stones and Acámbaro Figurines" | Bad Archaeology | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
8. Feder, K.L. | 2017 | ∅ | Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology | ∅ | ∅ | Oxford University Press | 9th | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
9. Julsrud, W | 1952 | ∅ | Enigma of the Acámbaro Figurines | ∅ | ∅ | Unpublished manuscript | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
10. Polidoro, M | 2002 | "Ica Stones: An Unfounded Fantasy" | Skeptical Inquirer | ∅ | 26.5::24 | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
11. Russell, J.S | 1972 | "Thermoluminescence Dating of the Acámbaro Collection" | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | Report, University of Pennsylvania Applied Science Center for Archaeology | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅
12. Coe, M.D. | 2015 | ∅ | The Maya | ∅ | ∅ | Thames and Hudson | 9th | ∅ | ∅ | ∅ | ∅

CROSS-REFERENCE INDEX

Last Updated: March 10, 2026

<table border="1" cellpadding="12" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 2px solid #888; margin-top: 2em; background: #fafafa;">

<tr><td>

⚠️ AI-Assisted Research Disclaimer

This document was generated and structured with the assistance of AI tools.

While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, AI-assisted content may

contain errors, misattributions, or unintended inaccuracies. **Always

verify claims, dates, and sources independently** before citing or relying

on any information presented here.

• Sources may contain errors. Bibliography entries and cross-references

are checked by automated systems, but mistakes can occur. If something

looks wrong, it may be.

• Speculative and unverified claims are clearly labeled. This project

uses a four-tier evidence system:

• Tier 1 — Verified: Peer-reviewed, established scientific consensus.
• Tier 2 — Credible: Academically supported, debated but grounded.
• Tier 3 — Speculative: Plausible but unverified by mainstream science.
• Tier 4 — Dubious: No credible support or contradicted by evidence.
• This project maps multiple perspectives — not a single truth. Mainstream,

alternative, and skeptical viewpoints are presented side by side for

critical comparison, not endorsement. Inclusion does not imply agreement.

• We are actively improving. Source verification, factuality scoring,

and bibliography enrichment are ongoing. Each revision adds stronger

citations, corrects identified errors, and expands coverage.

📖 For full details on our verification methodology, scoring systems, and

quality metrics, see: Fact-Checking & Verification Systems

Think Openly. Check the sources. Draw your own conclusions.

</td></tr>

</table>