The archaeological record does indeed contain many great achievements that we attribute to ancient people and cultures– the pyramids in Egypt, the Nazca lines, Stonehenge, etc… Let’s allow for two possibilities for the creation of these structures: help from extraterrestrial beings, or genuine ingenuity on the part of ancient peoples. We’ll systematically break down the arguments for both to see which is more likely.
Some people believe that the only way that ancient people could have possibly made large architectural structures like Stonehenge or the Pyramids was with help from beings who had superior technology. This technology would have been used to create perfect geometry, move materials, aid construction, and align the structures with elements in our solar system. They also argue that many of these features (especially the Nazca lines) are so large that it makes the most sense to view them from above, and that they were intended to be seen by beings in vehicles capable of flight.
The one thing that I cannot argue against in the ancient astronaut argument is the fact that many features become even more impressive when seen from above is undeniable, but the rest of the landscape needs to be taken into context. For example: is it possible to see the Nazca lines from neighboring hills or mountains? Why is the only option to view them from a plane or a flying saucer?
Culture, just like the landscape, also needs to be taken into context. When we examine Stonehenge from a cultural perspective we have to ask ourselves: is it really so unbelievable that these people would not have been able to align the stones to the solstices and equinoxes themselves? Especially since Stonehenge was build over thousands of years, allowing plenty of time for observation of the cycles of the sun, stars, and planets.
The same question must be asked when looking at the Egyptian pyramids. Along with the “great” pyramids that we think of, there are other, older pyramids that demonstrate that the Egyptians went through a trial and error development process before constructing the three pyramids at Giza. If the creation of the pyramids can only be explained by help from a more advanced civilization, then why do we have this evidence of development of a technology over time.
When looking at the three examples I have discussed above through the lenses of the Ancient Astronaut theory and through the context of the archaeological record, I cannot do anything but conclude that the ancient civilizations and the people that belonged to them need to be given the credit they are due, rather than being discounted and passed over for a theory that has no actual evidence.
First of all, I really liked the way that you set up your post by explaining the extraterrestrial involvement, and human capabilities. I in no way support any theory that involves the presence of aliens, but I will say for not knowing exactly how the pyramids were built, it is captivating knowing all of the math/science involved in building them. One thing I have learned is that Nubians were enslaved by the Egyptians to help build the pyramids, and even Egyptians were rotated through (like a draft in my understanding) to help construct the pyramids. The kings of Egypt also used architects, like Imhotep, who designed these large pyramids. I don’t doubt that a human was able to correctly size everything up mathematically. Perhaps they had used a different sort of math to figure it out than what we understand today. They could have very well had their own way of doing architecture, math, science, etc. The Nazca lines are not something I had heard of or really learned about until this class, however, since seeing them in our notes, it makes most sense they are just geoglyph to a god. Or perhaps the meaning of the geoglyph is something like fertility or helps with crops/rain. There are so many different possibilities with these glyphs that could be looked into that it doesn’t seem overly bizarre that humans created them on their own. Also, since we know these images can be seen from a neighboring hill, I wouldn’t outrule the possibility that someone was standing on one instructing the people where to make the lines at. I have always disliked the fact that people are so willing to believe alien interference when it seems our ancestors were unable to do such things by themselves. We are descendants from these people, why would we criticize our own lineage? Yes, they didn’t have the tools we have today, however they had tools that were useful in their time that they knew how to use. When people today simply don’t understand something, aliens are the go to answer, and that keeps perpetuating these conspiracy theories.
Honestly, I had a bit of trouble approaching this blog post. My issue was that we had to approach the conceptual theory that extraterrestrial could have been a honest answer behind some of the greatest worlds phenomena. The approach you took to deduct the topic was one I found quite useful. I feel like its helpful to look at each comparison from both augments to better understand the topic at hand. While I also agree that the view of the Nazca Lines from above is probably the most accurate portrayal of them, I also can not help but ask why is it that they can only be viewed from a position in the air. The show “Ancient Aliens” does not give context in which these phenomena are found. While I know of the Nazca Lines, mostly because of the extraterrestrial “theory,” I’m not educated on the surrounding terrain, including the elevation levels. I’m also curious if there are nearby hills or mountains. This is the type of information that “Ancient Aliens” leaves out, as well as leaving out what archaeologists seem to believe, or why archaeologists seem to interpret things they way they have. Like your example of the construction of the Egyptian pyramids, there is no evidence- whether it is archaeological or written- to prove their theory of the interference of extraterrestrials. As for an archaeologists opinion, they can show you physical evidence as to why they have come to the conclusion that Egyptians were perfectly capable of creating the pyramids themselves.
I thoroughly enjoyed the way you approached this blog post. Your blog’s structure was clear and concise and made for a very enjoyable reading experience. While your approach to this topic allows the reader to address multiple cases, and deconstruct both arguments with corresponding evidence, as well as giving a genuine analysis of both arguments. Throughout your post you address some very good points, in particular, I enjoyed your argument about the way these monuments that are frequently used in support of ancient astronauts theory are often required to be viewed from an aerial view. However, this does not necessarily mean that these monuments were built with the help of ancient astronauts. There is plenty of evidence that many ancient civilizations had developed a keen understanding of astronomy for their time, the numerous communities that worshiped sun deities is an example of this. Additionally, many ancient groups used constellations to assist in navigation and to create calendars. So the idea that they may have built monuments aligned with particularly important constellations in their culture is not in any way outlandish and would make a lot of sense. Furthermore, because many ancient societies firmly believe that there were deities that lived in the sky, for example in ancient Egypt alone they worshiped, Ra the sun god, Khonsu a moon god, Khepri one of the several solar gods, and Nut a sky goddess. Because of their devout belief in these gods, it would make logical sense that they would align some of these monuments with constellations to honor them. This same line of thinking could be applied to the Nazca Lines and the Stonehenge.
First of all, props for the creative title. Secondly, I really like how you approached the first section of the assignment. I thought it was a much more meaningful evaluation of the hypothesis by breaking down both sides of the explanations for the creations- extraterrestrial life, or ancient peoples, rather than just one. I also found it interesting how other than simply discounting all evidence against ancient aliens, you also included evidence FOR their existence as well. Even though the information is contradictory from your case, I still find it valuable to include the point, “… many features become even more impressive when seen from above..”. In doing so, it shows that you are not being biased or trying to force a certain viewpoint. Instead, it shows that you are presenting all the information, which I think makes your case stronger. While I appreciate all of the different examples provided throughout your post, I would also suggest maybe going into depth on one certain case in order to fully highlight the process by which you took to determine whether the creations were the doings of ancient peoples or alien astronauts. I think that reflecting on the importance of context throughout your post when considering these cases was also a really smart choice. Context is key, especially in the example of the Egyptian pyramids that you used. When looking at the case of the pyramids and their complexity, it might be easy for one to say “well it had to be aliens”, because they are so enormous, sophisticated, etc. But, when placed into context and bringing up how they were built over thousands of years after trial and error, the audience is able to realize how the innovations were actually constructed and consider other, more realistic explanations than aliens.