ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS AS A MODERN INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL AND OTHER WORLD MYTHOLOGIES:
ILLUSIONARY EVIDENCE, MISINTERPRETATION, RACISM, SEXISM, PSEUDOSCIENCE AND PSEUDOHISTORY
In 1968, Erich Von Daniken’s Chariot of the Gods? was first published. Since then, he has written some twenty-nine books(1). All of his publications have directly or indirectly been the source of a plethora of conspiracy theories. Central to Daniken’s argument is that on a global scale, our ‘ancient’ ancestors were contacted by highly advanced and technologically superior extraterrestrials. According to Daniken, these extraterrestrials altered human genes across the Earth, and it is through the alteration of our genes that ancient societies became able to accomplish all of their greatest architectural achievements. Hidden within his argument is the subtly important alteration of traditional mythologies. Daniken argues that the recording of myths are different societies attempt to record what they perceived were gods, but were actually extraterrestrials. To Daniken, the similarities between ancient Greek and Near Eastern mythologies, for example, may suggest that the cultures were visited by extraterrestrials, and the similarities between the myths reveal that the extraterrestrials were one in the same. Through the use of his theory, new interpretations of traditional myth can be developed, and are thus attractive to contemporary audiences. The theory is popular because it attempts to reinterpret myth from a pseudoscientific point of view. That is to say, the concept of extraterrestrials is to a degree scientifically based, as it is in direct conflict with traditional religions which suggest that people are the result of a god, or gods, creating humankind. Von Daniken subverts this tradition by suggesting that our ancestors’ perceived interactions with the divine were misunderstood, and were thus recorded as interactions with god, or gods, rather than a more scientifically approachable explanation: that these interactions took place between humans and extraterrestrials. When applied, this theory can be used in a broad spectrum of analysis for traditional myth, which increases its appeal because the theory can be applied to nearly every myth of every religion. However enjoyable and approachable this interpretation may seem, there is an important racist and sexist flaw which must be immediately addressed prior to a proper analysis of the popularity of Daniken’s theory, and its application as a reinterpretation of traditional myth.
Hidden within Daniken’s theory is a degree of subtly implanted racism and sexism, and these subtle racist and sexist aspects increase the appeal of his theory to a broad audience, including “western denialists”(2). The term, “western denialist” refers not to those who deny western civilization, but rather to those who deny anything they view as a non-white influence of western civilization. Sarah Bond argues that Daniken’s blatant disregard for the architectural and mythological achievements of non white societies, “discredits the origins of civilizations, and almost entirely of non-white civilizations…”(3). Morag Kersel, an archaeologist at DePaul University, suggested that Daniken’s theory is, “an extension of the 19th century myth of the mound builder. No way could the North American mounds and artifacts have been made by the people of the First Nations, it had to be an ‘alien’ (non local) race…”(4). It is also interesting to note, as Bond points out, the TV show Ancient Aliens, which is based on Daniken’s theories, features a mix of predominantly white male conspiracy theorists posing damaging questions regarding the legitimacy of people’s involvement in architectural structures (5). The subtly reinforced denial of non white cultures architectural achievements undoubtedly increases Daniken’s popularity in racist communities. This is dangerous as it would seem that racist aggression is still an extremely prominent feature of modern society. Daniken’s theory increases that friction by suggesting that non white societies were not civilized enough to create their own culture, and only through the intervention of highly advanced, technologically superior extraterrestrials, non white societies were able to develop culturally, economically, and architecturally. This is further reinforced because white racist communities still hold colonialism as an important aspect of their ideology. They can relate to, and probably enjoy, the idea that extraterrestrials intervened with the same societies that their colonialist predecessors interacted with. The goals of both colonialism and Daniken’s extraterrestrials are the same. Colonialists aimed to ‘improve’ cultures they viewed as less civilized than themselves, and Daniken’s ancient extraterrestrials visited Earth to improve us, and even went so far as to apparently alter our genetic code(6) . This is undoubtedly the most racist and sexist aspect of Daniken’s theory, and when discussing the apparent extraterrestrial intervention of “mans” genealogy (note the sexism), Daniken says:
“Extraterrestrials separated homo sapiens from the ape tribe and made him intelligent by artificial mutation. In their own image. The evolutionary driving force is to be found in this deliberate manipulation…Which race did the first men belong to? …Were the extraterrestrials able to opt between different races from the beginning? Was the pigmentation of dark skin genetically programmed so that the race could settle in hot zones? …Is it possible that the extraterrestrials …deliberately produced different basic races? …As I also attribute high ethical responsibility to a high intelligence, the genetic introduction of differently coloured skins (and other characteristics) may have been meant to have a powerful educative effect. Look around you. No matter what the colour of your skin, you belong to the same species, so live in peace with one another!” (7)
Von Daniken’s use of the words, “him” and “men” in reference to human origin is undoubtedly sexist. He suggests that humans originate from men, and presumes that female extraterrestrials would have had sex with human men in order to create the new human race in their own — alien — image. Von Daniken assumes a gender spectrum that only consists of male and female extraterrestrials, though there is no evidence whatsoever that extraterrestrials are gendered, and as Carl Sagan points out, life outside of Earth would be much different than life is here on earth(8); it is easy to imagine that life outside our planet would not be gendered. Furthermore, in one of Daniken’s most recent books Odyssey of the Gods, he re-works hypothesis and says:
“… [Extraterrestrial] space commanders had sex with pretty daughters of men. Mutants resulted from these unions: huge monsters, the Titans of olden times. Another group of ETs undertook genetic engineering, and created mutants of all kinds…they [alien-human-mutants]… knew how to work iron, make alloys, and create dreadful weapons or robots.”(9)
Daniken still assumes that extraterrestrials would be attracted to humans, but now stresses the importance of male to female attraction in myth. This fits well with his theory, as there are numerous instances in Greek mythology, for example, where Zeus and other male gods become inexorably attracted to human women. Often Zeus, or other male gods, will transform themselves and trick women into pregnancy. Daniken’s theory would suggest that the transformation of these gods is the work of an actual extraterrestrial, transforming ‘himself’ with the intention of sexual pleasure, but resulting in unfortunate genetic modification. This theory attempts to explain all of the strange human-monster-hybrids in Greek mythology(10). That these hybrids of mythologies are the unfortunate results of extraterrestrials failed attempts at perfecting genetic modification: they created monsters rather than another group of extraterrestrials which were successful with their genetic modification, and created hybrids that could craft, and “work iron”. The second group of hybrids that Daniken describes in the passage from Odyssey of the Gods (those who can craft) would be our direct ancestors, descendants from those who defeated the ‘monster-hybrids’ and recorded those defeats in myth. This subversion or add-on to his original theory is also pseudoscientific and sexist. Daniken’s assumption that extraterrestrials would be attracted towards humans reflects the conformity towards gender binary of his theory. There is no evidence to suggest that alien life would be gendered, or even have different sexes. His only evidence is presented in the adaptation of the myth; that our ancestors misinterpreted sexual interactions with gods that were actually extraterrestrials. Without this supposed misinterpretation, his theory would be less popular and attractive. The sexual aspect of our apparent misinterpretation of myth enhances its appeal because it modifies some of the most powerful and emotional qualities of the myth, but from a pseudoscientific, and completely different alien perspective. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the extraterrestrials in Daniken’s theory who did not have sex with women are our direct ancestors. Daniken does not (to my knowledge) suggest this in his original work. Suggesting a revision to his original theory may reflect his acknowledgment of the sexism in his first hypothesis. This subversion makes it more appealing by furthering his pseudoscientific approach by suggesting the superior extraterrestrials (our direct ancestors) used genetic modification over sexual interference.
Daniken’s description of different races being created by extraterrestrials as a means of education is also racist, and ignores basic concepts such as evolution and migration. His racism, it seems, is not intentional, as he does acknowledge that humans are of one species and suggests that we should not fight against one another because of racial separation. Daniken is undoubtedly a product of his time, and it is reflected throughout his early work, but less present in his contemporary writings. His language is sometimes questionable, and reflects even the language used by academic writing when Daniken’s work was first being published (Daniken’s description of “Red-Indians”(11) is particularly striking). Daniken probably did not mean to attract the ‘western denialists’ that Bond describes, and I do not personally believe he is racist. A large portion of his work aims to not only discredit the accomplishments of non white cultures, but he also attempts to discredit some of the most — what I would describe as ‘white’ — historical bible myths. Suggesting that he is racist for discrediting the accomplishments of the Egyptians or Mayans, for example, would work if he did not also discredit the work of the accomplishments of Christians. His discrediting of the myth of Genesis(12) and several mythological relics such as the Ark of the Covenant(13) reveal that he is not simply aiming to apply his theory specifically to non white cultures, but to all cultures who achieved some sort of mythology based on religion.
Daniken’s approach to the Old and New testaments are particularly intriguing, and his description of important relics such as the Ark of the Covenant draw in a broad contemporary audience which can relate — and to a degree interact — with the relics and myths he is interpreting. Daniken presents his theory about the Ark of the Covenant in his book Signs of the Gods and frames his analysis as a detective story in the style of Agatha Christie. In the opening passage of the chapter, after describing Agatha Christie’s appeal as a popular detective author, Daniken says:
“Agatha Christie was talking about fictitious crime. I want to tell you about a crime which actually took place, but nevertheless fulfills all the conditions which the grand old lady laid down for a first-class detective story. For me the crime began in a religion class. We were told that God commanded Moses to build an ark [of the Covenant].”(14)
The framework of his approach is important because it is in the style of a detective story. This increases its appeal to a wider audience as people who were reading his books were probably more familiar with Agatha Christie than the actual texts of the Old and New Testaments. Daniken’s readers know and understand some of the Greek or Christian mythological stories, but that does not imply they have actually engaged and interacted with the texts from a grander perspective than what was being orally taught in Sunday school, or, elementary and high schools. Agatha Christie is someone his audience not only relates to, but actually engaged with by reading and knowing her novels. Her stories are easier to read and understand than the Old and New Testaments, and Daniken’s framework of his theory immediately invigorates the reader by suggesting that his approach is relatable, and just as emotionally intriguing as a story told by one of the greatest detective authors. Furthermore, Daniken’s asserts an element of personal conviction by suggesting a ‘crime’ in religious teachings, of which his theory is based. The description of religious schools as criminal further increases a broader contemporary audience because often people’s memories of religious school, or Sunday school, from when they were young seemed almost criminal. Often, long lasting memories from Sunday school are not the teachings themselves, but rather the intriguing things that mystify or fascinate us when we are young; things like the Ark of the Covenant. The ‘crime’ of Sunday school to Daniken is the description of the Ark as man made, to his audience the crime was simply being in Sunday school, but his audience can interact with his theory because they relate to the crime, and remember the object of mystery or fascination.
Daniken suggests that the Ark is a manna machine, built by extraterrestrials and given to the Israelites in order to supply them on their journey through the desert with, “[a] food rich in protein, namely manna.” (15). According to Daniken, for, “unknown reasons extraterrestrials were interested in separating a group of people from their environment and cutting them off from all contact with the ‘rest of mankind’ for two generations.” (16). Throughout his account of the various transactions and events of people who interacted with the Ark, Daniken emphasizes a series of mystical qualities which intrigue the reader, and further enhance a pseudoscientific appeal. This includes his description of powerful, damaging radioactive rays that emit from the Ark, and a radioactive reactor which powered the Ark (17). His description of Ark as a machine powered by a radioactive reactor which emanated powerful radioactive rays is important because these are profoundly modern concepts. Its production of ‘mana’, as powered by a radioactive reactor, is an attempt to connect a modern scientific concept such as electricity, with a mystical concept such as ‘mana’. The combination of both mystical and modern interpretation of the Ark creates a pseudoscientific approach which leaves readers concluding that the Ark musthave been made by extraterrestrials because the Israelites were not ‘modern’ enough to craft it. When Daniken published Signs of the Gods in 1980, radioactivity and nuclear power — and everything brought with it — was an extremely relevant and polarizing topic almost everywhere in the world. Suggesting that one of the most recognized and surviving ancient cultures used something with both anciently mystical and modernly scientific qualities creates a new level of mysticism of the traditional myth which was not present during its original telling. The combination of modern, mystical and alien, work so well with the Ark of the Covenant because it is an object of fascination a wide variety of people can relate with. People understood that it had apparent mystical qualities, unexplained powers, and generally seemed an ‘alien’ object due to its mysticism. Daniken’s injection of modern science fuels his extraterrestrial theory by blending both the mystic qualities people associate with the Ark, and the fascination people have with the apparent scientific achievements the Israelites would have had without the help of extraterrestrials. The Ark’s appearance as a powerful object of fascination and mystery in cinema was explored in Raiders of the Lost Ark, which aired the same year as Daniken’s Ark theory emerged in Signs of the Gods. I imagine the combination of both interpretations of the object would have enhanced Daniken’s theory to those who were familiar with both the film and his writing. It is worth noting here that the Ark of the Covenant is but one example pulled from a plethora of others presented in Daniken’s books. I chose to analyze his interpretation of the Ark of the Covenant because it has always been a personal favourite object of fascination. Generally speaking Daniken’s approach when analyzing mythological objects — real object or not — is the same, regardless of the object or the myth describing the objects origin.
In 2011, Ronald Frietze uses the term “pseudohistoria” in the chapter of his book Invented Knowledge and describes it as an important aspect of Daniken’s popularity. When discussing the effect of pseudohistory in popular culture, Frietze says:
“…many people cannot distinguish good evidence from bad, or logical and empirical argumentation from seemingly impressive but ultimately empty rhetoric. Sadly, formal education has slighted the development of critical thinking. It is a difficult, time-consuming, under-appreciated and even dangerous thing for educators to teach. So many don’t and many can’t.”(18)
This echo’s a concept put forward by William H Stiebing in 1984. When discussing pseudoscience in popular culture, Stiebing says:
“Professional scholars may not have the time or the inclination to extensively discuss every popular theory that appears. But if they spent a little more time making their methodology understandable, maybe the public would be able to recognize the problems with popular theories without professional help. What is needed are more works written without scholarly jargon that not only describe what is known about the past, but also tell how we know it.” 19
It is clear there is a large educational gap between the general public and scholars or students whom study the past from an academic standpoint. This educational gap, I believe, is the devastatingly impactful impetus in the popularity of Daniken’s theory. The blend of mysticism and pseudoscience results in the pseudohistory described by Frietze. As formal post secondary education becomes more expensive every year — consider living costs increase annually for students, regardless of tuition costs — the gap between those formally trained to critically think and analyze historical evidence, and those who are not trained to do such, increases exponentially. Arguably, faster growing than the cost of an education, is the ever increasing educational gap between academic analysis, and pseudohistorical or pseudoscientific analysis of traditional myth. This pseudohistorical subversion, coupled with the integration of extraterrestrials as the replacement of the traditional gods in myth appeals to a large portion of the general public because of the difficulty in reaching a common ground between academic analysis and pseudohistorical rhetoric. This pseudohistorical rhetoric is fueled by the aforementioned educational gap and the inexorable fascination people have with our historical past. Objects or stories of historical fascination will always intrigue people, regardless if their interaction with that object or story is academic or casual. Furthermore, as the educational gap between academic and casual interpretation increases, the racist and sexist elements of Daniken’s theory explode into the forefront of conspiracy, and thus become popularized. This is a highly dangerous aspect of pseudoscience and pseudohistory, as they both stand as polar opposites towards academic thought and reasoning.
This article has not taken into consideration the truly vast amount of material Daniken’s theory has influenced. Further analysis would reveal the truly powerful impact his theory has had on the general public and the general public’s attitude towards our mythological and historical past. Undoubtedly, the alien aspect of Daniken’s interpretation of myth, and its incredible popularity, suggests something extremely important about people’s social behaviour in relation to the myth and modern story telling. This social aspect, I believe, could possibly reveal something about people’s ever changing definition of non-human characters — or monsters — and their integration within contemporary literary and theatrical genres. Daniken ultimately uses clever writing to perpetuate his myth, and readers are left concluding that they know far less about history, archaeology and mythology than what they remembered from high school or Sunday school. This creates a powerful educational gap between academic and casual interpretations of textual or material evidence, and inexorably perpetuates the racist and sexist elements of Daniken’s theory. These racist and sexist elements remain hidden from non-academic interpretations because of the educational gap between casual and academic studies. Clearly, a bridge must be built between the academic and the non-academic. It seems as if it becomes harder every year for people to access readable material which is not only informative and correct, but also scholarly approved. We live in a world where climate change is arguably not true, and vaccinations — arguably people’s greatest scientific achievement — could be unhealthy. One can easily find evidence for, and form a decent hypothesis suggesting that the moon landing was a hoax, but then struggle to scientifically explain why that is not true. Why is that? Where exactly have we gone wrong and what can we do to fix it? I do not have those answers, but I can start by suggesting that North American post-secondary institutions begin employing the same strategy that some European universities are using: Free post-secondary education. This is a powerful tool which not only draws in a larger spectrum of people towards formal education, but also motivates people to believe in themselves; that they too, can get an education, despite the overwhelmingly powerful elitist stigma put forward though the current financial blockade surrounding post-secondary education.
Endnotes
1. Fritze, Ronald. Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions (London: Reaktion Books, 2009), 201.
2. Bond, Sarah. Hyperallergic. “Pseudoarchaeology and the Racism behind Ancient Aliens” (New York: Hyperallergic Media, 2018). https://hyperallergic.com/470795/pseudoarchaeology-and-the-racism-behind-ancient-aliens/
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Daniken, Erich Von. Signs of the Gods. Translated by Michael Heron. (New York: Souvenir Press, 1980), 67.
7. Ibid, 68–69.
8. Sagan, Carl. Cosmos (New York: Ballantine books & Random House, 1980), 29.
9. Daniken, Erich Von. Odyssey of the Gods: The History of Extraterrestrial Contact in Ancient Greece. Translated by Matthew Barton and Christian Von Arnim. (New Jersey: The Career Press, 2012), 37.
10. Ibid, 38.
11. Daniken, Erich Von. Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past. Translated by Michael Heron (London: Souvenir Press, 1969), 73.
12. Ibid, 50–61. Daniken dedicates an entire chapter to extraterrestrial involvement in Genesis.
13. Daniken, Erich Von. In Search of Ancient Gods: My Pictorial Evidence for the Impossible. Translated by Michael Heron (New York: Souvenir Press, 1973), 51.
Daniken, Signs of the Gods, Chapter 1.
14. Daniken, Signs of the Gods, 11.
15. Ibid, 17.
16. Ibid, 18.
17. Ibid, 52.
18. Fritze, 219
19. Stiebing, Jr, William H. Ancient Astronauts Cosmic Collisions and Other Popular Theories about Man’s Past (New York: Prometheus Books, 1984), 174.
