Clifford A. Wilson book gives an expose of Erich von Daniken's unscientific and also poor understanding of what Bible texts he used. It is too bad this little book is out of print. I'm keeping my copy.

Von Däniken claims that the myths, arts, social organizations, etc., of ancient cultures were introduced by astronauts from another world. He questions not just the capacity for memory, but the capacity for culture and civilization itself, in ancient peoples. Prehistoric humans did not develop their own arts and technologies, but rather were taught art and science by visitors from outer space.

Where is the proof for von Däniken's claims? Some of it was fraudulent. For example, he produced photographs of pottery that he claimed had been found in an archaeological dig. The pottery depicts flying saucers and was said to have been dated from Biblical times. However, investigators from Nova (the fine public-television science program) found the potter who had made the allegedly ancient pots. They confronted von Däniken with evidence of his fraud. His reply was that his deception was justified because some people would only believe if they saw proof ("The Case of the Ancient Astronauts," first aired 3/8/78, done in conjunction with BBC's Horizon and Peter Spry-Leverton)!

However, most of von Däniken's evidence is in the form of specious and fallacious arguments. His data consists mainly of archaeological sites and ancient myths. He begins with the ancient astronaut assumption and then forces all data to fit the idea. For example, in Nazca, Peru, he explains giant animal drawings in the desert as an ancient alien airport. The fact that the lines of the drawing would be useless as a runway for any real aircraft because of their narrowness is conveniently ignored by von Däniken. The likelihood that these drawings related to the natives' science or mythology is not considered. He also frequently reverts to false dilemma reasoning of the following type: "Either this data is to be explained by assuming these primitive idiots did this themselves or we must accept the more plausible notion that they got help from extremely advanced peoples who must have come from other planets where such technologies as anti-gravity devices had been invented." His devotion to this theory has not dwindled, despite contrary evidence, as is evidenced by still another book on the subject, Arrival of the Gods : Revealing the Alien Landing Sites at Nazca (1998).

There have been many critics of von Däniken's notions, but Ronald Story stands out as the most thorough. Most critics of von Däniken's theory point out that prehistoric peoples were not the helpless, incompetent, forgetful savages he makes them out to be. (They must have at least been intelligent enough to understand the language and teachings of their celestial instructors--no small feat!) It is true that we still do not know how the ancients accomplished some of their more astounding physical and technological feats. We still wonder how the ancient Egyptians raised giant obelisks in the desert and how stone age men and women moved huge cut stones and placed them in position in dolmens and passage graves. We are amazed by the giant carved heads on Easter Island and wonder why they were done, who did them, and why they abandoned the place. We may someday have the answers to our questions, but they are most likely to come from scientific investigation not pseudoscientific speculation. For example, observing contemporary stone age peoples in Papua New Guinea, where huge stones are still found on top of tombs, has taught us how the ancients may have accomplished the same thing with little more than ropes of organic material, wooden levers and shovels, a little ingenuity and a good deal of human strength.

We have no reason to believe our ancient ancestors' memories were so much worse than our own that they could not remember these alien visitations well enough to preserve an accurate account of them. There is little evidence to support the notion that ancient myths and religious stories are the distorted and imperfect recollection of ancient astronauts recorded by ancient priests. The evidence to the contrary--that prehistoric or 'primitive' peoples were (and are) quite intelligent and resourceful--is overwhelming.

Of course, it is possible that visitors from outer space did land on earth a few thousand years ago and communicate with our ancestors. But it seems more likely that prehistoric peoples themselves were responsible for their own art, technology and culture. Why concoct such an explanation as von Däniken's? To do so may increase the mystery and romance of one's theory, but it also makes it less reasonable, especially when one's theory seems inconsistent with what we already know about the world. The ancient astronaut hypothesis is unnecessary. Occam's razor should be applied and the hypothesis rejected.

When I first read Chariots of the Gods years ago, it grabbed me like no book before. The hypothesis was staggering, the evidence astounding. I recall my teenage enthusiasm over learning the origins of our species. But as the years went by and I grew more cynical and crotchety, and saw much of the "evidence" disputed and discredited, I've had to back off on the conviction that Von Daniken was right about ancient aliens visiting Earth and spawning the race of Man.

However, since its publication, the pendulum of mainstream science has swung toward belief of life on other planets--even intelligent life. There remains many reasons to keep an open mind on the subject: unexplained and credible UFO sightings; our own space travel capabilities; the statistics supporting intelligent alien life; reports of ongoing alien abduction and breeding; the unsolved mysteries of Man's origin; and a good deal of Von Daniken's compelling evidence that has not been otherwise explained. Every decade or so there is a paradigm shift in the body of scientific knowledge Man has accumulated, which always makes us more enlightened, but also proves that throughout the past we were wrong on many things and never as smart as we thought we were. There's no reason to think the trend won't continue.

So who knows what really happened in our past? Surely, much of Von Daniken's premise is inaccurate, but that doesn't change the fact that his book is a highly stimulating and entertaining read. I loved it. --Christopher Bonn Jonnes

First of all, it's not science-fiction. Just because mr. Daniken's interpretations are different from the typical archeologist community, it doesn't mean they're bad. He is not preaching anything, just stating his theories based on facts. Yes, facts. He did make some mistakes, but he was perfectly able to correct them in other books later on. And his hypothesis didn't come out of thin air; the mythological "coincidences" he stated are worthy of mention and study, and he did travel all around the world to explore the sites. He did meet several people to interview, etc. This book hooked me to the mysteries of ancient history, and then I discovered other brilliant authors like Charles Berlitz, Robert Charroux and Graham Hancock. And no, mr. Daniken doesn't think a trivial thing is evidence of extraterrestrial visits; the hints he shows are more than interesting, and it's about time someone criticizes and rebutes traditional history. And I read that book for the first time at age 13 (I'm now 16), it opened my eyes to new concepts, it made me start asking more questions, and rebutting some major problems and contradictions of our history as told in classes. Why were we never told in school that Glozel's site existed (cf. Robert Charroux's Mysterious Unknown Book), which contradicts our modern thinking of when writing appeared? Why were we never told about Nazca's plains? Many people seemed to misunderstand Mr. Daniken's interpretation: he doesn't think the *drawings* are the landing sites, the large fields next to it are. Many said the idea of the drawings in the sand as landing strips was ludicrous; indeed it is, Mr. Daniken said they were SIGNS to these landing sites, just to clear out the confusion. Well, this is getting long, so I'll finish by saying this book is worthy of recognition.

It is a thought provoking book. Forces the reader to think differently. Sometimes the author nearly convinces the reader about his view point. It appears to be that Erich is fully confident that even the God do his matters on "Hit & Trial" methods. Appart from that, the author has done good research on various eras and times of the world.