What do you think?
Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions and Other Popular Theories About Man's Past
Controversial archaeological and astronomical "discoveries" have been the subject of countless news stories, best-selling books, movies, and television programs. Promoted (but seldom critically evaluated) are the theories that markings in the desert of Peru are the remains of an ancient airfield used by space visitors, that the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt exhibits advanced technology unknown to the ancient Egyptians, and that there were near-collisions between planets of our solar system in historical times.This book critically evaluates many of these popular hypotheses about man's early history. It presents the most important evidence and arguments for and against theories of a universal flood, the lost continent of Atlantis, mysterious pyramid powers, pre-Columbian voyages to America by ancient Egyptians and Phoenicians, and Velikovsky's cosmic catastrophism.Professor Stiebing stresses the need for careful and objective analysis of the "evidence" used to support radical reconstructions of the past. The book discusses radio-carbon dating, archaeological stratigraphy, textual interpretation, and epigraphy as well as emphasis on the proper use of data provided by geology, astronomy and other sciences. It is written in non-technical language and will appeal to a wide audience.
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
Paperback
First published November 30, 1983
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 20, 2025
A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE OF VELIKOVSKY, VON DÄNIKEN, ETC.
Emeritus Professor of Ancient History William Stiebing wrote in the Preface to this 1984 book, “Queries about ancient astronauts, Atlantis, Noah’s Ark, and pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic voyages are continual reminders of the widespread influence and popularity of some very unconventional theories about man’s past… Unfortunately, experts on various aspects of antiquity usually ignore these popular theories. Scholars seldom mention them in their books or lectures, nor do theyp bother to indicate what is wrong with the methodology, evidence, or arguments that are used to support such hypotheses. The silence of leading scholars tends to make the claims of the theorists seem more believable.
“This book has been written for those who want answers to questions like the ones just cited. It is for anyone who has wondered whether Atlantis really existed or whether Egyptians or Phoenicians might have visited America long before Columbus. Each chapter will assess the most important evidence for and against a particular popular theory about man’s early history, and do it (I hope) with a minimum of technical jargon.”
He says about Atlantis, “There is… no known geological force that could destroy a continent in the short time described by Plato. Atlantists point out that there is much evidence that the present-day continents have risen and sunk many times in the past. And they note examples of land being suddenly submerged as a result of earthquakes or volcanic activity. However, these points, while valid, do not support the theory of a sudden collapse of an extremely large island. Geological evidence, particularly the fossil record, indicates that the rise and fall of large land masses is a very slow process occurring over millions of years. On the other hand, the sudden destruction or submergence of land areas by earthquakes or volcanoes is limited in extent. Past examples have seldom caused a loss of more than fifty or sixty square miles of territory at a time.” (Pg. 39)
Of Immanuel Velikovsky, he states, “Scientists argue that the scientific evidence available today does not support many elements in Velikovsky’s scenario. For example, Velikovsky stated that Venus originated in Jupiter. It would be expected, then, that the two planets would have a similar composition. But such is not the case. Jupiter’s density is low, indicating that most of its mass is in the form of light elements such as hydrogen and helium. However, Venus has a density that is close to that of the earth and four times higher than that of Jupiter. There is no way that Venus could contain large amounts of hydrogen, helium, or other light elements. Like Earth, Venus must have a core of heavy metals and a mantle of rocky minerals. There are similar discrepancies between the atmospheres of the two planets.” (Pg. 60)
He continues, “Velikovsky uses the two small moons of Mars to support his case. These satellites were not discovered until 1877, but Velikovsky claims that they were known to the ancients because they had been seen clearly when Mars passed close to the earth. Not only does evidence of ancient knowledge of these tiny moons fail to stand up under careful scrutiny, but their very existence on nearly circular orbits is strong evidence AGAINST Velikovsky’s contention that Mars collided with Venus and repeatedly had close encounters with Earth. If such near-misses had occurred the orbits of the moons would have been severely disturbed, and the probability is that Mars would have lost them to either Venus or Earth, both of which are larger than the red planet.” (Pg. 60-61)
He says of Erich von Däniken’s theories about the Nazca lines in Peru, “Why ancient astronauts in spaceships needed an airfield is never explained. Presumably their space vehicles would have taken off vertically as ours do today, so it is difficult to see how they would have left long straight lines that suggest runways. Von Däniken posits such vertical take-off craft in his account of Ezekiel’s vision, but the spacemen at Nazca must have had airplanelike vehicles that had to taxi before taking off. Von Däniken does not seem to have observed that a number of the presumed landing strips run right across hills and ridges formed by dried river beds, or that when its covering of pebbles and stones is removed the soil of the Nazca Plain is too soft for use by aircraft.” (Pg. 94)
He adds, “It should also be noted that since the ancient peoples of Peru worshipped the sun, the moon, and other heavenly bodies, the fact that the Nazca figures could be appreciated only from the air does not prove that these people knew of ancient astronauts. It is more likely that the designs were meant for these natural gods (sun, moon, and stars) than for spacemen from above.” (Pg. 96)
He argues, “The ‘Baghdad batteries’ are not the products of an advanced technology in which electricity was an important source of power. The use of these ovoid clay jars containing a copper cylinder and an iron rod caped with bitumen is still unknown… If filled with an electrolyte, they might have functioned as simple batteries. However, experiments show that they would have generated only about one-half volt of electricity. That is enough electricity to electroplate silver to copper, and possibly that is the purpose for which they were made. If they were used as batteries, it is clear that their makers did not fully understand the nature and potential of electricity. No signs of any other electrical devices have been found among the remains of the Parthians or other people of ancient Mesopotamia. Surely if knowledge of electricity had been imparted by spacemen, there would have been a more extensive application of it than the production of a few one-half volt batteries!... these ‘batteries’ may be examples of discoveries … that did not develop their potential… Such discoveries… do not prove the existence of some otherworldly technology.” (Pg. 104)
He acknowledges about the pyramids, “We cannot be sure EXACTLY how they did it [built them], for the Egyptians left no written descriptions or manuals for pyramid construction. But such an admission does not mean that their building methods are a complete mystery. Analysis of the monuments themselves (especially those left unfinished), the implements used by the builders, and paintings and reliefs from later dynasties enable us to reconstruct the techniques used to effect a pyramid.” (Pg. 117)
He explains, “Alleged portraits of Negroes and Caucasians have often been used as evidences of Old World voyages to America… The American Indians are basically of Mongoloid descent… When the Spaniards first arrived in the New World they observed Negroid features among some Indians. The gene pool of the people who became the American Indians probably contained these Negroid elements before they migrated from Asia into the Americas, for some Negroid characteristics still occur among many Mongoloid groups in Asia… Models for the bearded ‘Caucasian’ figures also could have been found among the native American population.” (Pg. 139-140)
This book will be of great interest to those studying such ‘unconventional’ theories.
Emeritus Professor of Ancient History William Stiebing wrote in the Preface to this 1984 book, “Queries about ancient astronauts, Atlantis, Noah’s Ark, and pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic voyages are continual reminders of the widespread influence and popularity of some very unconventional theories about man’s past… Unfortunately, experts on various aspects of antiquity usually ignore these popular theories. Scholars seldom mention them in their books or lectures, nor do theyp bother to indicate what is wrong with the methodology, evidence, or arguments that are used to support such hypotheses. The silence of leading scholars tends to make the claims of the theorists seem more believable.
“This book has been written for those who want answers to questions like the ones just cited. It is for anyone who has wondered whether Atlantis really existed or whether Egyptians or Phoenicians might have visited America long before Columbus. Each chapter will assess the most important evidence for and against a particular popular theory about man’s early history, and do it (I hope) with a minimum of technical jargon.”
He says about Atlantis, “There is… no known geological force that could destroy a continent in the short time described by Plato. Atlantists point out that there is much evidence that the present-day continents have risen and sunk many times in the past. And they note examples of land being suddenly submerged as a result of earthquakes or volcanic activity. However, these points, while valid, do not support the theory of a sudden collapse of an extremely large island. Geological evidence, particularly the fossil record, indicates that the rise and fall of large land masses is a very slow process occurring over millions of years. On the other hand, the sudden destruction or submergence of land areas by earthquakes or volcanoes is limited in extent. Past examples have seldom caused a loss of more than fifty or sixty square miles of territory at a time.” (Pg. 39)
Of Immanuel Velikovsky, he states, “Scientists argue that the scientific evidence available today does not support many elements in Velikovsky’s scenario. For example, Velikovsky stated that Venus originated in Jupiter. It would be expected, then, that the two planets would have a similar composition. But such is not the case. Jupiter’s density is low, indicating that most of its mass is in the form of light elements such as hydrogen and helium. However, Venus has a density that is close to that of the earth and four times higher than that of Jupiter. There is no way that Venus could contain large amounts of hydrogen, helium, or other light elements. Like Earth, Venus must have a core of heavy metals and a mantle of rocky minerals. There are similar discrepancies between the atmospheres of the two planets.” (Pg. 60)
He continues, “Velikovsky uses the two small moons of Mars to support his case. These satellites were not discovered until 1877, but Velikovsky claims that they were known to the ancients because they had been seen clearly when Mars passed close to the earth. Not only does evidence of ancient knowledge of these tiny moons fail to stand up under careful scrutiny, but their very existence on nearly circular orbits is strong evidence AGAINST Velikovsky’s contention that Mars collided with Venus and repeatedly had close encounters with Earth. If such near-misses had occurred the orbits of the moons would have been severely disturbed, and the probability is that Mars would have lost them to either Venus or Earth, both of which are larger than the red planet.” (Pg. 60-61)
He says of Erich von Däniken’s theories about the Nazca lines in Peru, “Why ancient astronauts in spaceships needed an airfield is never explained. Presumably their space vehicles would have taken off vertically as ours do today, so it is difficult to see how they would have left long straight lines that suggest runways. Von Däniken posits such vertical take-off craft in his account of Ezekiel’s vision, but the spacemen at Nazca must have had airplanelike vehicles that had to taxi before taking off. Von Däniken does not seem to have observed that a number of the presumed landing strips run right across hills and ridges formed by dried river beds, or that when its covering of pebbles and stones is removed the soil of the Nazca Plain is too soft for use by aircraft.” (Pg. 94)
He adds, “It should also be noted that since the ancient peoples of Peru worshipped the sun, the moon, and other heavenly bodies, the fact that the Nazca figures could be appreciated only from the air does not prove that these people knew of ancient astronauts. It is more likely that the designs were meant for these natural gods (sun, moon, and stars) than for spacemen from above.” (Pg. 96)
He argues, “The ‘Baghdad batteries’ are not the products of an advanced technology in which electricity was an important source of power. The use of these ovoid clay jars containing a copper cylinder and an iron rod caped with bitumen is still unknown… If filled with an electrolyte, they might have functioned as simple batteries. However, experiments show that they would have generated only about one-half volt of electricity. That is enough electricity to electroplate silver to copper, and possibly that is the purpose for which they were made. If they were used as batteries, it is clear that their makers did not fully understand the nature and potential of electricity. No signs of any other electrical devices have been found among the remains of the Parthians or other people of ancient Mesopotamia. Surely if knowledge of electricity had been imparted by spacemen, there would have been a more extensive application of it than the production of a few one-half volt batteries!... these ‘batteries’ may be examples of discoveries … that did not develop their potential… Such discoveries… do not prove the existence of some otherworldly technology.” (Pg. 104)
He acknowledges about the pyramids, “We cannot be sure EXACTLY how they did it [built them], for the Egyptians left no written descriptions or manuals for pyramid construction. But such an admission does not mean that their building methods are a complete mystery. Analysis of the monuments themselves (especially those left unfinished), the implements used by the builders, and paintings and reliefs from later dynasties enable us to reconstruct the techniques used to effect a pyramid.” (Pg. 117)
He explains, “Alleged portraits of Negroes and Caucasians have often been used as evidences of Old World voyages to America… The American Indians are basically of Mongoloid descent… When the Spaniards first arrived in the New World they observed Negroid features among some Indians. The gene pool of the people who became the American Indians probably contained these Negroid elements before they migrated from Asia into the Americas, for some Negroid characteristics still occur among many Mongoloid groups in Asia… Models for the bearded ‘Caucasian’ figures also could have been found among the native American population.” (Pg. 139-140)
This book will be of great interest to those studying such ‘unconventional’ theories.
January 3, 2019
Very cool. Each chapter is split between a brief historical summary of a conspiracy theory and it's debunking. The debunkings are all much less interesting than the summaries, but still a fun read for anyone with a cursory interest in the subject matter.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews