According to ancient astronaut pundits, we are supposed to believe that ancient myths and legends are literal records of extraterrestrial intervention, while alternative historians argue that these same myths and legends instead record the intervention in the human past of an advanced, lost civilization on the order of Atlantis. Both groups, of course, selectively interpret myths and legends to support their preconceived points of view.
But what does it really mean to say that we must take myths and legends literally? Let’s look at a few and then compare them to the stories these speculators won’t tell you about.
Recently, Philip Coppens made the case that we should take as evidence of extraterrestrial dispensation the Famine Stela, a Ptolemaic-era monument recording a dream supposedly experienced by the architect Imhotep two millennia earlier, in which a god tells Imhotep that he (the god) will give Egypt rocks aplenty. This, Coppens said, is proof of the alien origins of architecture. We are also told by Erich von Däniken and others that the Book of Ezekiel is a literal record of the descent of a flying saucer in Biblical times. Giorgio Tsoukalos tells us that a fourteenth-century Arab text’s description of the supernatural inspiration for Egypt’s Great Pyramid five thousand years earlier is proof of an extraterrestrial master-plan.
On the other hand, Atlantis theorists from Ignatius Donnelly on down inform us that Plato’s Timaeus and Critias are to be taken as history, not allegory, and followed to the letter to find Atlantis, except where such literalism interferes with the selective changes they wish to induce to fit Atlantis to their pet theory. Graham Hancock tells us that pre-Columbian legends of savior gods are to be taken as literal records of the lost white race of Atlantis visiting the Americas (whereas ancient astronaut writers prefer to see them as aliens, and earlier Christian missionaries as wandering European saints or the devil in disguise).
While no two theorists agree on exactly what such myths mean, all agree on one thing: ancient people are not capable of making things up, or reporting false information. Their stories are derived from real life and are therefore a reliable guide to the past.
So what do these theorists make of the following stories?
These tales misattribute known constructions to wrong builders. But, you may say, so what? This is Roman material, so it isn’t relevant. Let’s have a few more.
Pshaw! Arabs. Not relevant to aliens or Atlantis, despite Jacques Bergier’s claim that the Qur’an’s story of Iram of the Pillars was an extraterrestrial act of explosive destruction.
Fine, let’s have some more, and this time let’s include both prehistory and supernatural power, ancient alien writers' favorite themes:
(All of the above examples, excepting Stonehenge, are drawn from Lord Raglan’s The Hero, wherein he provides full citations for each.)
So, I ask ancient alien speculators and lost civilization hypothesizers this: If these folktales, myths, legends, and traditions proved wrong in the face of known historical facts, what warrant do we have for assuming that your selections from myth, legend, and tradition are true? If you do not believe the fairies built the British dolmens, or Charlemagne’s wife built Roman amphitheaters, how can we trust a medieval Arab writer that the pyramids were inspired by sky beings, or a Ptolemaic stela that an Egyptian god bequeathed the rocks used to build the first pyramid? In short, why do you get to pick and choose what the rest of us should accept as true, and based on what objective criteria?
11/2/2012 08:52:07 am
Why do they get to pick and choose? Because it's easier than thinking clearly.
11/2/2012 03:12:09 pm
the mouth of the just shall meditate wisdom and his tongue shall speak judgment....
11/5/2012 10:24:07 pm
Exactly! I've always wondered why many scholars correlate 'ancientness' with 'truthiness', as if 'It is an ancient text, then it must be true!' and use that as evidence to defend their points. Recently comes to mind this old document that talks about Christ having a wife and of course the quick logic everywhere was 'well, if it was an old writing, then it must be true!'. And the worst part is that the people arguing against the case could only say 'well, we have to do further testing to see if this is really an old document!' as if their only hope of disproving the argument was solely based on wether the text was old or not. It all makes it sound as if jerks without time on their hands are an invention of the 21st century, while there is plenty of evidence as you stated that clearly proves that ancient not necessarily means reliable evidence. Again, I am not making a claim against or in favor of this particular Christ controversy, just using it as a modern day example.
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Terms & Conditions
Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.