The possibility that "ancient aliens" visited Earth in the distant past is something that's always fascinated me. As I've written about before, it's an idea that was discussed in highbrow, pseudo-academic circles long before Erich von Daniken, but it's since become inextricably associated with his name due to the enormous popularity of his books. Von Daniken gives his target audience exactly what they want - easy-to-understand sensationalism, without having to worry too much about historical or anthropological credibility. The flipside is that he's a sitting target for debunkers.
Back in November 2015 I did a post called Space-Gods and Venusians, the latter part of which dealt with an early book-length debunking of von Daniken, The Space Gods Revealed (1976) by Ronald Story. Though I missed it at the time, a few months earlier (on 21 January 2015 - coincidentally 9 years ago to the day) fellow blogger Kid Robson produced a post of his own about another book, also from 1976, in a similar vein: The Gospel According to Science Fiction by John Allan (pictured above alongside Ronald Story's book).
Kid's blog usually focuses on comics and collectables, occasionally touching on other aspects of popular culture and nostalgia - and it's highly recommended to anyone interested in such things. Kid has recently been good enough to post a few guest pieces by myself, and he's just drawn my attention to that earlier post - Chariots of the Frauds - thinking it might be of interest to me. It certainly is, and with his permission I'll summarize the gist of it here (or you could just read the original by clicking on the link in the previous sentence).
As Kid points out at the start of his post, when von Daniken's books first came out they were such a hit with the public that ideas from them found their way into 1970s popular culture. To quote Kid:
Comic-book readers saw such themes played out in the four-colour pages of Jack Kirby's The Eternals, and TV programmes mined the topic for its rich seam of interest and controversy.He goes on to talk about John Allan's book, which he says was written from a religious perspective, although that doesn't detract from the book's interest. Here's Kid again:
What I found interesting was how it dealt with so-called 'evidence' that, on a superficial level at least, seems quite persuasive. For example, according to von Daniken, there's an island in the Nile called Elephantinos, which has been so named for centuries, and is shaped, apparently, like an elephant. However, this shape can only be noticed from the air - so who, von Daniken wonders, went up to find out - and how did they do it?This is characteristic of von Daniken. He poses a seeming mystery and leaves it at that, without investigating further. But as Kid says:
The Greek word elephantinos doesn't translate as 'like an elephant' as von Daniken claims, but simply means 'ivory'. Guess what, though? The island was once the site of an ivory market, hence, unsurprisingly, the name.Even more tellingly, Kid points out that aerial pictures of the island don't actually look anything like an elephant - something I'll come back to in a moment. He concludes his post with a rhetorical question:
Was von Daniken ignoring the facts and loading the dice in his favour for the purpose of selling a few books, or was he serious in his speculations on the origins of mankind?
I'm sure everyone will have their own views on that question. Personally I'd put most weight on the first alternative - that, unless von Daniken was extraordinarily stupid, he must have realized he was twisting the facts and stretching the truth to get an interesting "story" across to his avid readers. But speaking as a writer myself, if that was a cynical ploy designed to sell books, then all I can say is more power to him! It's fair enough to speculate that ancient humans may have been helped along by aliens (I wouldn't rule out that possibility myself), but most of von Daniken's so-called evidence is flimsy to say the least. As I said earlier, this makes him an easy target for debunkers. I even had a go at it myself, ten years ago, in an online "Classroom" article called What Are the Flaws in the Ancient Astronaut Theory?
As for the specific case of Elephantine Island, Kid is quite right that it's shaped nothing like an elephant. Ronald Story makes the same point in The Space Gods Revealed, amusingly noting that the island "looks more like a spaceship than an elephant!" It's the large, vaguely phallic-shaped island in this image from Google Maps:
16 comments:
It should be me who's thanking you for those guest posts, AM, not you thanking me, as my blog would've been devoid of any material for 'Crivvies' to read had you not written them. Sadly, because Von Daniken has been largely discredited due to his playing fast-and-loose with the facts, the idea of alien visitation has also suffered in the potential credibility stakes - except amongst diehard proponents of the theory. It could perhaps have happened - who can ever say for sure?
Thanks Kid - looks like it was a win on both sides with those guest posts, then! If I want to show off about nostalgic possessions I've kept from the 1960s and 70s (that have no particular fortean connections), then your blog is a much more appreciative forum than this one would be.
You make a great point about how "downmarket" writers like von Daniken can discredit ideas that, if treated in a more scholarly and sober way, might have been taken much more seriously. That's really a problem that plagues the whole topic of alien life.
The "ancient astronaut" theory is regarded as a bit racist nowadays because it implies that non-white civilisations of the past were incapable of building great monuments like the pyramids etc.
Yes, that's a point I made in that Classroom article ten years ago.
Surely if Egyptians had been white, though, the ancient astronaut theory would still have implied that they were incapable of building the pyramids on their own? So is it really racist, or just 'earthist'?
Yes, I didn't used the word "racist" in my own article (which you can still click on in the link above, if you like) - that was Colin's word. But as you say, Kid, it really has nothing to do with race, in the sense of skin colour - just the perception of other cultures as being more primitive - hence less competent, less knowledgeable and less intelligent - than one's own. I recently came across the weird term "otherization" for this effect. It's a technical term in anthropology that basically means we look down on any humans we consider "other" to ourselves. I think we're all guilty of it to some extent, and it's a better word than "racist" which has much nastier, personal-abuse overtones.
Andrew, I think Kid means that the "ancient astronaut" theory denigrates the entire human race, not just non-white cultures, as it implies the human race was incapable of rising above its' original primitive state without the help of aliens. You have to wonder if the ancient astronauts' early civilisations were themselves aided by EVEN MORE ANCIENT astronauts!
Sorry Colin, I was typing quickly and didn't properly explain what I was getting at. I meant that the people the Ancient Alien theorists are looking down on aren't necessarily people of other ethnicities, but anyone from cultures they perceive to be more primitive than themselves. That includes, for example, the people who built Stonehenge as well as the Pyramids. But I do think there's always an element of "otherization", so I disagree with you that they're necessarily denigrating the whole of humanity. In particular, they're not denigrating themselves, only people they imagine to be less civilized. For example many of the things they talk about (such as Puma Punku, crystal skulls, Quimbaya jets, Dendera lightbulb, etc etc) aren't beyond OUR technology, just (according to the Ancient Astronaut interpretation) beyond the technology of the past.
But I do agree with you that ascribing the origins of human civilization to aliens doesn't really explain anything, it just pushes the problem back to a previous iteration. When I say I think it's likely that alien spacecraft visited the Earth in the distant past, I'm only talking about robotic probes of the kind we ourselves send out, which are only designed to gather data rather than interfere in someone else's development.
I've been reading about 'Chariots Of The Gods' on Wikipedia and apparently the book suggests that humans in the future might take advanced technology to primitive societies on other planets thus continuing the ancient astronaut tradition. That's assuming humans will ever have the ability to travel to planets in other solar-systems - something that will remain in the realm of science fiction as far as I'm concerned. We are far more likely to destroy ourselves first.
Wikipedia also says that the "ancient astronaut" idea is really just a rip-off of HP Lovecraft's stories 'The Call Of Cthulu' and 'At The Mountains Of Madness' both of which I've read.
Thanks Colin - your first point is interesting, but it's unlikely ever to happen in the sense of face-to-face meetings with aliens. People nowadays are much too worried about contamination (either us contaminating the aliens or vice versa) to risk landing on a planet that already has its own biology. But I suppose tutoring aliens via remote learning is something future humans might be arrogant enough to try (and the aliens, if they have any sense, will hopefully send it straight to the spam folder without reading it).
As for your second point - don't forget that Lovecraft stole many of his ideas from Charles Fort's Book of the Damned (1919), which is probably the earliest non-religious source for the idea that we were nurtured by extraterrestrials in the past.
I think you've said before that you never buy any of my books (or anyone else's), but if you do decide to break the habit, I'd recommend particularly "Pseudoscience and Science Fiction" which has a chapter about the decades of to-ing and fro-ing between fiction and speculative "non-fiction" on the subject of ancient astronauts. As regards possible dealings with intelligent aliens in the real world, you could do worse than my Astobiology book - now available in a "coffee table" illustrated format as well as the original paperback and ebook. There's also an audiobook version of it, if you'd prefer that.
Surely, though, all civilisations were less 'civilised' in the early days, AM? Unless the Ancient Alien theorists' ancestors were capable of building things like pyramids, etc., then the whole human race at one time fell into the category of 'more primitive', did it not?
Exactly right, Kid. To be honest, that was what I was trying to say, but I'm never very good at expressing myself clearly in these comment threads because I type too quickly.
Changing the subject slightly, teaching ancient humans how to build pyramids wasn't really the brightest possible idea, in terms of speeding up their progress. Teaching them how to make steel, or concrete, or sewers, or water distribution systems would have been much more useful.
Neither am I, because I forgot to specifically say what I meant to, though you seem to have caught it. Ancient Alien theorists weren't singling out any earlier culture to 'look down on' as primitive, as they'd have regarded all of them as being in precisely the same boat. Why is it so difficult sometimes to say exactly what we mean? Gets harder for me every day.
As do lots of other things, Kid. I never really felt like I was getting any older until my early 60s, but since then everything is suddenly going downhill!
Going back to Colin's original point that started all this rambling, the fact is that the humans of 2,000 to 6,000 years ago really DID do all those impressive things on their own, and (whether you'd brand it "racist" or not - I wouldn't) it's really insulting to say they couldn't posisbly have been capable of it, therefore it must have been aliens.
Personally, I've never had a problem accepting that humans did all these things, so am often quite surprised that anyone thinks they couldn't. Hey, if I can tie my own shoelaces (most of the time anyway), then the ability of humans is almost limitless. (That comparison might not withstand scrutiny, but you know what I mean.)
Post a Comment