To prove or disprove a hypothesis, one has to follow the process of the previous individual or group and be able to come out with the same answer, if not a similar one. I would test this hypothesis through several simple steps. Starting with the evidence that is being claimed to come from aliens, I would go through and see if there is a relation to any other known site or artifact. Cross-referencing the information found about the artifacts and technologies. Using the information I gathered, I would go on to compare the newfound material with the area it is supposedly from. Comparing the cultures, peoples, materials, and technologies that were said to be around the same spot. Sussing out any and all possible solutions as to why there were signs of life there. When creating a hypothesis correctly it is only logical to explore every explanation or pattern that could possibly suggest something different. However, there is sufficient evidence to prove that humans advanced technologies through the simplest explanation which is evolution.
The case I choose is the city of Tiahuanaco, an old city located in South America. When first looking at this case I looked at the way it is written, the use of fluffy words and dramatic descriptions is questionable. The book stated that it had an environment unfit for humans with amazing architecture and art, perfect for the idea that aliens came down providing humans and helping to make the area livable. To start, the book was written in the late ’60s when the world was not as big. It was a time of inner focus not outer. Places like Peru or other South American areas are more apt to be known as exotic. Allowing the writer to be able to use the description “an unknown planet” for the environment and landscape. It is common to see living organisms be able to adapt and live in unfit and dangerous places.
Humans are very adaptable and do it rather quickly. It takes a few days for a person to acclimate to the weather of a new place and be able to function naturally. If people were to settle, you can see even more resounding evidence in the first generation of kids to be born. They would be able to handle the climate and area even better than their parents, giving over to progression and evolution. As for the amazing architecture, technology and more civilized way of life, there are tons of examples to compare it to. Taking a look at Romes advanced aqueducts that provided an exceptional amount of water to the large population as well as bathhouses and other luxuries. The inhabitants of Tiahuanaco could have used a similar technique to that of the when the Pyramids of Giza were built. Civilization is known for its deep history and amazing advancements. The artwork could be compared to that of the giant buddhas found in the areas of Eastern Asia. As well as indigenous groups’ beadwork, pottery, casting, and weaving methods. They perfected and produced amazing artwork that seems almost impossible in such a rugged time.
I enjoyed your response because it really demonstrates how simple it is to refute pseudoarchaeological claims by using actual scientific processes. Because true archaeology is all about context and linking artifacts to other known peoples, cultures, and styles, your description of the process of testing these hypotheses is a great illustration of the knowledge gathering framework of archaeological science. Your mention of the “simplest explanation” reminded me of a philosophy class I took last semester (PHL 130: Logic & Reasoning). We had a lecture on how to evaluate the validity of hypotheses, and one of the criteria was that a well-written hypothesis would be consistent with the existing body of knowledge (i.e. not make any more assumptions than necessary). The ancient alien hypotheses make hundreds of unfounded assumptions – aliens exist, aliens could travel in space, aliens found earth, aliens could communicate with humans … the list goes on forever.
Placing the book within its chronological context (1960s) to examine the racist undertones of a lot of Von Daniken’s “examples” is an important thing to do when analyzing his work. Chariots of the Gods was clearly written for a white, western audience – Von Daniken’s use of the word “our” to describe Eurocentric societies and the word “savage” (yikes!) to describe any other people makes the racist undertones of these “theories” blatantly clear.
Humans are indeed adaptable and intelligent beings, and when you take this into account (as Von Daniken refuses to) Tiahuanaco becomes less of an inexplicable mystery and more of an achievement to celebrate.
Nice job on this post, it seems like a common theme that cross-referencing information doesn’t occur in cases like this. Non-modern civilizations are always seen as primitive, like they would definitely need outside help to achieve the grand things they accomplished by simple evolution. I liked the way you point out the difference in time period’s affect on the outrageous claims being made, it is true that in the 60s people would be more likely to believe that such strange and far away third world countries like South America would not be able to accomplish much on their own. Deep rooted racism of the time would also be a contributing factor in the belief of alien presence among these civilizations. If the Romans could build such a grand and influential civilization and culture, then why can others like the Tiahuanaco? The adaptability of humans in quite astounding and I’m sure adaptation to the ‘unfit and dangerous’ place where this civilization lived happened more smoothly than we give them credit for. Its disrespectful and racist for people to claim that undocumented extraterrestrials built this prospering and beautiful group of people up to their peak in building the Pyramids of Giza. Technological advancements are not limited to European and North American civilizations. I believe the most amusing part in all the claims made on how civilizations like this advanced so far, is when there is almost no proof of the events they’ve fabricated. It’s best to stick to trusting real archaeologists with tangible evidence.