I would test the alien hypothesis by first picking a specific artifact or site I wanted to prove as being extraterrestrial. I would consider the technology that was available before and after the supposed innovative leap occurred. I would look at the knowledge and technology the culture’s contemporaries had. Did the culture I am studying have contact with other cultures, and how might ideas and resources have spread between them? What materials were used to create this site or artifact and where did they come from? What was the environment like at the time of construction? Often new innovations come from necessity, while others come at times when surplus resources are available and some can be diverted to creative pursuits.  Another way to test whether it would have been possible for humans to have built or created something is to physically attempt it. This might not be realistic for all sites or artifacts.

In Chariots of the Gods, Von Daniken discusses the Nazca Lines. He with what seems to be a relatively unbiased, but basic description of the incredibly long and straight lines found in the Palpa Valley. Then Von Daniken says, “The archaeologists say that they are Inca roads. A preposterous idea!” (Von Daniken 26) Von Daniken explosively rejects the established theory from the site and goes on to question a need for roads that intersect. Von Daniken also reveals that Nazca pottery and other ceramic artifacts are found throughout the area surrounding the lines. However, Von Daniken insists that this is no reason to attribute the roads to the Inca culture. Von Daniken also claims that because the lines have not been extensively excavated that his “hypothesis” cannot be disproved. Whether he understands that to excavate is to destroy is unclear. Von Daniken is doing everything in his power to absolutely stip the Nazca lines from their cultural context.  Now that he believes he has fully convinced his audience that there’s at least a chance he could be right he goes on to say, “In that case, what purpose did the lines at Nazca serve? According to my way of thinking they could have been laid out on their gigantic scale by working from a model and using a system of co-ordinates or they could also have been built according to instructions from an aircraft.” (Von Daniken 27). The only evidence he has is a lack of evidence to the contrary. 

In the Bay of Pisco, an 820-foot glyph attributed to the Nazca depicts what looks like a trident to modern eyes. Von Daniken asks, “What madness could have driven them to create the 820-ft-high stone signs on the red cliffs south of Lima?” (Von Daniken 28). He says that the only possible reason would be an attempt to contact their gods, who according to him are extraterrestrials. But by making these suppositions Von Daniken is completely discounting the contexts in which these glyphs were made and makes a mockery of the religion the ancient Nazca people.  

Von Daniken also goes onto say, “The identification of finds can no longer remain a matter for archaeology alone.” (Von Daniken 28). Von Daniken insists that archaeologists need to be more open to including scientists from other disciplines. Which if Von Daniken knew anything about archaeology, he would know how frequently other fields are involved in the collection and interpretation of archaeological data. Von Daniken is trying to delegitimize the knowledge and expertise of what he would call mainstream archaeologists and isolate them from their authority to interpret sites. And he also phrases it as though archaeologists have actively excluding everyone else.