One of the best ways to test out the hypothesis that there were enormous and unexpected leaps forward in science and technology and that these leaps are evidence of the introduction of such innovations by aliens is by putting things in context. We talked about how taking things out of their archaeological context is one of the ways that pseudoscientists push the idea that objects represent something they don’t. It would stand to reason that doing the opposite would be a good way to debunk them.
Farming is a good example. Using the pseudoarchaeologist’s idea that it was given to us by aliens breaks down when you look at the time around the rise of agriculture. It didn’t simply spring up from nowhere, with no history or prelude. Evidence of things like horticulture, and even early stages of agriculture show that it was a process, much more so than it would have been if aliens had simply given it to us.
The same is true for writing. We didn’t suddenly have the complex and diverse writing systems we have today. Not only that, but we see today that there are many stages of language, and languages don’t start with writing. It’s just one part of a bigger spectrum.
Of course, all of this is also not taking into account how much ancient humans were really capable of. Besides that, we can see in the modern era that technology is advancing faster than ever, completely with out the aid of aliens. Because it’s based in ethnocentrism (and straight up racism) a lot of these claims don’t argue that all ancient humans weren’t capable of things, only ancient humans who weren’t white Europeans.
In chapter six of “Chariot of the Gods” Von Daniken completely disregards story tellers, asking in one part “how did anyone come to describe a lamp from which a magician spoke when the owner wished?” He makes the claim that ancient people must have seen magical things before in order to come up with such amazing tales. He also claims that “such ideas no longer astonish us today, for the television set shows us talking pictures at the turn of a switch.” As if people didn’t come up with the stories we see on tv, didn’t invent the tv itself. Von Daniken removes ancient people so much from modern people they feel like a completely different species with no similarities at all. He also claims that the stories created by ancient people were so imaginative and amazing modern literature pales in comparison but, says who? Claiming that people couldn’t think of creative stories on their own because the story was good stands out as the most ridiculous argument he’s made, and he’s made a lot of ridiculous arguments.
There is evidence throughout history of the evolution of art, from cave paintings to comic books, human beings express themselves. It wasn’t aliens who gave (all of us) inspiration.
Pseudoarchaeologists have the habit of wanting to not only remove things from their context but to completely ignore it. When it comes to archaeology the moment we choose to view something as being only from one moment in time and not looking at everything that came before it, and how this object or site might shape the things that came after it; we will have failed to do our best to understand the past.
This is evident in the section of Chariot of the Gods that you chose to analyze. What struck me especially was the passage about T.V. I enjoyed especially when you said. “As if people didn’t come up with the stories we see on tv, didn’t invent the tv itself.” Von Daniken manages even to alienate modern inventions such as the television from the hard work and accomplishments that were done by people. These were events that occurred during his lifetime! Von Daniken also does not recognize that he is ignoring one of the biggest factors of what makes humanity more than just the cousins of primates. Our ability to imagine and our innate desire to tell stories. Its something Von Daniken actively participates in. No one would have begrudged him his imagination. And since he published Chariots of the Gods he has no doubt been telling his own narrative. The one that all pseudoarchaeologists tell themselves, that they are a victim and that the truth is out there. They are right about one thing because one of the other major drives for humanity is the pursuit of truth. They just never went farther than their own opinions to find that truth.