William H. Stiebing

Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions and Other Popular Theories About Man's Past is a truly excellent book that I first read back in my middle school days. Stiebing takes up some of the "speculative history" rampant in the 1960s and 1970s (the book was written in 1984) and dispenses with them in turn: the Deluge and Ark, Atlantis, Velikovskian catastrophism and chronology, ancient astronauts, pyramid mysteries, and "Columbus was last" theories.

Stiebing generally focuses on the weakest arguments and their proponents and picks apart the theories. It is easy to attack Velikovsky's catastrophism. Who really believes now that Venus was spit out of Jupiter? It is easier than easy to attack Erich Von Däniken because he is a hack who bends and even fabricates evidence. Stiebing does also make some relatively stinging logical arguments against some of these theories. For the people who believe that Noah's Ark in on Mount Ararat (Ağrı Dağı) he points out the Bible says "MOUNTAINS of Ararat" (that is, Urartu) and that the various sightings trumpeted by such writers contradict themselves. For those who think the Piri Reis maps precisely shows Antarctica as it was pre-ice he points out it really doesn't and it gets the Americas stunningly wrong.

Some caveats however. First Stiebing is amazingly unimaginative. With a little thought some of these theories at least make some sense. He claims the Queen Chamber's air shafts in the Great Pyramid were abandoned because they decided to build above them in the King's Chamber, yet we now know they extend higher than the King's Chamber and even have little doors. He doesn't even mention the rather convincing case that the so-called Khufu quarry marks found on the blocks of the relieving chambers were 19th century forgeries (I still think the pyramid was built in the time of Khufu, just that the quarry marks are fakes). Nor does he recognize that some people think that Atlantis might be the megalithic builders or that Noah's Ark might be on Masher Dağı or Al Judi.

Second, he doesn't give authors such as Velikovsky credit for the holes they knock into the so-called "Establishment Science." What do I mean? Something IS wrong with ancient chronology (read Centuries of Darkness and Pharaohs and Kings with an open eye), for instance. And it is due to the efforts of Velikovsky that Egyptologists don't really trumpet Sothic dating anymore. Flood proponents might not have proved their brand of geology, but they have noted some problems in standard geology and evolutionary biology. The problems such fringe speculators dredge up are quickly and conveniently dismissed by standard scientists and historians because they straw man the folks that point them out.

The final chapter is a gem, "Popular Theories and the 'Establishment,'" where Stiebing tries to figure out why theories such as Von Däniken's are so popular with the public. It is wonderfully written and makes many eloquent points, for instance, every author claims the establishment is out to get them as if they were a modern-day Galileo yet welcome any support from the same said establishment. I plan to use this chapter if I ever teach a class on historiography.

Lastly, this book is in sore need of being expanded and re-written. Since 1984 there have been scores more books on Noah's Ark and the Deluge. Mention could also be made of books like Forbidden Archaeology. Atlantis books are still popular. Velikovsky's cosmic catatstrophism has spawned Saturnian catastrophism and the Nemesis theory. Velikovsky's revision of ancient chronology should get its own chapter, as new authors such as John Bimson, Peter James, and David Rohl have made saner attempts at chronological revision, and, it should be pointed out, placed compotent yet unignored arguments on the table. Since 1984, Von Däniken is pretty much ignored, though he still writes, but now Zecharia Sitchin has made more compotent arguments in favor of ancient astronauts. Sitchin now has numerous copycats like Laurence Gardner. Joseph Davidovits's interesting theory that the blocks of the pyramid are made of a type of cement could be addressed (look up "pyramids made of cement" on Google, as of late 2006, some academics are picking up on this theory). An entire new chapter could be added to address the theories of Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock, who have reignited the whole "speculative ancient history" genre, and have done so with more academic rigor and aplomb than those who came before. I'm not even going to mention what could be done with Holy Blood, Holy Grail as that has already spawned its own cottage industry.

To sum up, Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions and Other Popular Theories About Man's Past should be bought not only by those who disdain such crackpot theories, but by those who enjoy reading them or might believe in them. Stiebing's book will make you a better historian and a better fringe theorist, if you are one.… (más)

Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions and Other Popular Theories About Man's Past is a truly excellent book that I first read back in my middle school days. Stiebing takes up some of the "speculative history" rampant in the 1960s and 1970s (the book was written in 1984) and dispenses with them in turn: the Deluge and Ark, Atlantis, Velikovskian catastrophism and chronology, ancient astronauts, pyramid mysteries, and "Columbus was last" theories.

Stiebing generally focuses on the weakest arguments and their proponents and picks apart the theories. It is easy to attack Velikovsky's catastrophism. Who really believes now that Venus was spit out of Jupiter? It is easier than easy to attack Erich Von Däniken because he is a hack who bends and even fabricates evidence. Stiebing does also make some relatively stinging logical arguments against some of these theories. For the people who believe that Noah's Ark in on Mount Ararat (Ağrı Dağı) he points out the Bible says "MOUNTAINS of Ararat" (that is, Urartu) and that the various sightings trumpeted by such writers contradict themselves. For those who think the Piri Reis maps precisely shows Antarctica as it was pre-ice he points out it really doesn't and it gets the Americas stunningly wrong.

Some caveats however. First Stiebing is amazingly unimaginative. With a little thought some of these theories at least make some sense. He claims the Queen Chamber's air shafts in the Great Pyramid were abandoned because they decided to build above them in the King's Chamber, yet we now know they extend higher than the King's Chamber and even have little doors. He doesn't even mention the rather convincing case that the so-called Khufu quarry marks found on the blocks of the relieving chambers were 19th century forgeries (I still think the pyramid was built in the time of Khufu, just that the quarry marks are fakes). Nor does he recognize that some people think that Atlantis might be the megalithic builders or that Noah's Ark might be on Masher Dağı or Al Judi.

Second, he doesn't give authors such as Velikovsky credit for the holes they knock into the so-called "Establishment Science." What do I mean? Something IS wrong with ancient chronology (read Centuries of Darkness and Pharaohs and Kings with an open eye), for instance. And it is due to the efforts of Velikovsky that Egyptologists don't really trumpet Sothic dating anymore. Flood proponents might not have proved their brand of geology, but they have noted some problems in standard geology and evolutionary biology. The problems such fringe speculators dredge up are quickly and conveniently dismissed by standard scientists and historians because they straw man the folks that point them out.

The final chapter is a gem, "Popular Theories and the 'Establishment,'" where Stiebing tries to figure out why theories such as Von Däniken's are so popular with the public. It is wonderfully written and makes many eloquent points, for instance, every author claims the establishment is out to get them as if they were a modern-day Galileo yet welcome any support from the same said establishment. I plan to use this chapter if I ever teach a class on historiography.

Lastly, this book is in sore need of being expanded and re-written. Since 1984 there have been scores more books on Noah's Ark and the Deluge. Mention could also be made of books like Forbidden Archaeology. Atlantis books are still popular. Velikovsky's cosmic catatstrophism has spawned Saturnian catastrophism and the Nemesis theory. Velikovsky's revision of ancient chronology should get its own chapter, as new authors such as John Bimson, Peter James, and David Rohl have made saner attempts at chronological revision, and, it should be pointed out, placed compotent yet unignored arguments on the table. Since 1984, Von Däniken is pretty much ignored, though he still writes, but now Zecharia Sitchin has made more compotent arguments in favor of ancient astronauts. Sitchin now has numerous copycats like Laurence Gardner. Joseph Davidovits's interesting theory that the blocks of the pyramid are made of a type of cement could be addressed (look up "pyramids made of cement" on Google, as of late 2006, some academics are picking up on this theory). An entire new chapter could be added to address the theories of Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock, who have reignited the whole "speculative ancient history" genre, and have done so with more academic rigor and aplomb than those who came before. I'm not even going to mention what could be done with Holy Blood, Holy Grail as that has already spawned its own cottage industry.

To sum up, Ancient Astronauts, Cosmic Collisions and Other Popular Theories About Man's Past should be bought not only by those who disdain such crackpot theories, but by those who enjoy reading them or might believe in them. Stiebing's book will make you a better historian and a better fringe theorist, if you are one.… (más)