Chariots of the Gods Mass Market Paperback – June 15, 1984

I read this book because I watched the show Ancient Aliens. I found the idea interesting but in the show I did not like it too much because the basis of all theories is that, "I don't know, therefore aliens." I gave it a benefit of doubt though because the show is short and they cover a very wide range of history and never really focus in on the core of their beliefs.So in came this book, Chariots of the Gods. There's no real reason why I selected this book other than the fact that the name of it sounds interesting and it also got a lot of reviews. Since I don't know the subject too well, I figured I'd get some sort of starting point.After reading the book I can't say I'm all too convinced about aliens visiting us in the ancient times. In the show Ancient Aliens, the conclusion was, "I don't know, therefore aliens." In the book, the base of the theories are, "If it's possible, then it must be true."At the start of this book, I felt Erich presented a good hypothesis. Could it be possible that in ancient culture they have seen aliens and describe them as gods since they could not interpret the technology? The answer is yes, of course, it's all possible.However I felt where the book failed is how he intends to "prove" his theories.I felt there are many holes in Erich's logic:1) He compares his radical idea to that of other thinkers in the likes of Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and many other who made some radical claims that somehow came out to be true. What Eric failed to realize is that these "thinkers" backed their ideas up with proof and very sound logic. Newton gave his theories based on math and logic. Einstein used math to prove many of his theories. All the radical thinkers used very convincing proof for their ideas that's hard to deny. They didn't say, "Well other people made radical ideas that turned out to be true, so this must be true as well because it's just as radical." Eric didn't really do a good job of sounding convincing to me.2) He says scientists are "wrong" because they have a failed system of thinking. I think Erich made a fatal mistake here. Science is about being able to reproduce some series of thoughts over and over again. Erich is saying that people in the past were visited by aliens and that humans are too dumb to have evolved to what we see today. He makes claims as wild as that humans are hybrid of "gods" where they reproduced with us, all the way to being genetically altered to be smarter. If these things were true, then wouldn't it make sense that we'd find some "oddity" in our dna? Or that we discover that somehow humans of the early period somehow appeared differently than normal? He gives no sound proof other than wild claims and then never backing it up with anything that sounds logical or provable.Erich also claims that scientists HAVE to unprove aliens. Last time I checked, "radical" thinkers proved their claims themselves.3) Many times he claim that certain ancient buildings or land are airstrips of some sort. This is a very famous theory that Erich visits frequently in his book. He shows some photos of areas and say, "It looks like an airstrip." I think Erich is somewhat delusional in this regard because it sounds like (in the time the book was written) probably got bored one Sunday afternoon, pull out an encyclopedia and went, "Oh my, it's an ancient alien airstrip!" I highly doubt that he actually visited any of these so-called "ancient airstrips."I would expect someone who made a radical claim would actually go to these strips and perhaps get samples of soil and other elements. I would expect that if it was a landing strip things like a fuel or energy source, parts of the aircraft, and various other things that would run a major intergalactic air vehicle. However, Erich provides none, and like my claim in #2 point, Erich instead says that it's scientists duty to check this since the theory is possible, it must be fully investigated until proven wrong.4) He claims that various artworks, religion, ideas, and culture are shared across the globe which asserts his claim that aliens must have visited. The first problem I notice is that many of Erich's religious examples only extend to about the first few chapters of any religious text. It seems like after he looked up the encyclopedia on afternoon, he decided to read the first two chapters of the bible and other religious text and go, "Yep, aliens, everyone of em."Erich's claim is that many of the religious monuments are shared across the world. The pyramids were build in South America as well as Egypt nearly the identical latitude in this world. Erich's claim is that it's too much of a coincident for everyone to share the same ideas. Erich claim is that religion is actually the misinterpretation of ancient astronauts due largely because the ancient people would be unable to determine what they're seeing and only describe what they see in ways that are best understood.I think Erich has a good claim here but I think where it fails is that fact that he only read what it appeared to me the first few chapters of all the religion texts. I think he missed out on a very large bulk of many religion and was very quick to say that human imagination differs from region to region and that the same ideas cannot be shared among two people at any point.5) He's very quick to jump to conclusions about monuments being "impossible" to create and that it's equally impossible that someone would just wake up one day and decide, "Hey let's build a pyramid for the next three lifetimes." The main argument is somewhat valid in my opinion in that many of the records were lost about our ancient structure. Erich himself gave an example that if 1,000 years from now someone dug up the statue of liberty they'd probably think we're some sort of religiously crazy country honoring some woman holding a torch. But Erich doesn't state this theory in this fashion with the statue of liberty. What he actually states is that in the future, people will be too primitive to understand what they are seeing and draw incorrect religious conclusions about the statue of liberty. This implies that in today's world looking back at ancient pyramids, we're too "dumb" to figure out that it was some sort of alien relic.I think Erich discredits too greatly about humans. The main fact is that a lot of information is lost about ancient days and similarly our time in the future will probably be greatly misunderstood. It's hard to take a collective thought of millions of people who lived in this world and summarize it in one or two paragraphs. Just as much, information about the past that are missing doesn't necessarily mean that some great ancient alien came down and filled in the gap. It's sort of like saying that if a court case involves someone walking down the street and some timeframe was unaccounted for then it means they must have done the crime. That's basically what Erich is saying here that since the time cannot be accounted for and that things just "appeared" without a back story that it must means aliens were involved in some fashion. That logic to me is irresponsible and highly speculative.He also states that ancient Egyptians were smart enough to know that reviving dead tissue was possible and were given some sort of formula by aliens to mummify their bodies so that in the future they can return. This is so silly that I don't even know where to begin. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you're going to die someday and throughout our times, many men and women tried to reverse this process. Ancient Egyptians were no exception and they had their own ideas about living forever just as much as in our modern times we have the desire to find everlasting life.6) Erich claims that humans are too dumb to figure out stuff and require a kick start. To begin, it doesn't take a human a very long time to figure out that good things reach for the sky and bad things go into the ground. When you plant a tree it reaches for the skies, not go into the ground. Man looks upwards into the sky knowing that in that lies a great mystery. Throughout time man knew flight was possible because birds flew and things go up in the air for a little while. Man also knew, just as the most primitive animal, is that light is better than darkness. The sun is the source of life for all and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.With that said, Erich claims that man's observation of the sky, flight, and so fort are impossible to imagine. That man cannot dream or use his imagination about the stars. What is known is that since the dawn of time man has looked up to sky and taken great records of the stars. If ancient aliens came down to earth, why then would man suddenly make observations about the stars? If we were too "dumb" to have known about it, then why build all these monuments and help the "aliens" go back to the stars? It makes no sense and Erich didn't give enough of a proof to really make a conclusive statement favoring it.7) Erich claims that aliens came to earth. This is probably the most fundamental of the questions but his claim is that aliens visited earth a long time ago and need fuel source to return home. Basically Erich claims that most of the ancients "air strips" were created so that the vehicles used by the aliens could be harvested for fuel. The question comes to why is it a world wide effort if the aliens just needed to go back home? Then comes the question why did they need the help of the primitives to build something only they can understand? Wouldn't it take longer to teach the people than it would to just having it done yourself? Erich claim that aliens somehow jump start our world and civilization and that aliens did a lot of great stuff. Yet, he found no proof of anything that the aliens left in terms of advancement. I would imagine that a lot of people got injured or sick building these monuments and wouldn't it make sense that the aliens would teach advance medical science to the primitives so that they're better suited? And also wouldn't it make sense that the aliens would leave behind advanced techniques in clothes, ropes, weapons, etc? Wouldn't they have to guard their ancient airstrips from looters of the time? Or what about the equipments? If massive tonnage of rocks and earth had to be moved, wouldn't there be records of things like bulldozers, advanced cranes, etc? Nothing of the sort can be given by Erich and he only tells us that aliens came here for no apparent reasons and did all these indirect things to us without any sort of direct method. This would equate to us going to another planet, finding the native life there, requesting them to do something, not give them any sort of tools or method, and expect results. It just doesn't make sense and no fossil records or tools, or anything can be found that Erich can give.The simple question comes to why? Which is unanswered and I think the biggest problem with Erich's idea.Overall I am pleased with the book. It presented some wild ideas but I think Erich made impressive claims but was unable to prove any of them reasonably or at least give a sound logic. Erich sounds like he just read the first few chapters of religion, looked at a few pictures, then made this book. Overall it's fun, but now I'm more convinced that this "ancient aliens" idea is just a silly thing. Not necessarily lying but most certainly not thought out very well. You can't prove what happened 100 years ago much less 100,000 years ago and you can go only on what is left. Many things will be missing over time and get lost. I think Erich needs better proof than, "Hey look it's possible therefore I have to be right because other people's radical ideas were later proven to be true as well."

After watching Ancient Aliens for more than ten years, I finally read this wonderful book. Thank you, Erin von Daniken for sharing your knowledge and fantastic theories.

I am a believer in the ancient alien theory and I believe we are not alone in this universe and buy into most of the explanations defending these ideas. I found so far that the book is a good read but am little perplexed. There is a disclaimer at the credits in the book stating that "This book is a work of fiction and names, places and characters are of the imagination of the author". Why would he make a confusing disclaimer like that? So I find myself wonder how much, if any of this is actually true or just imagination and how much more I want to read since I am not into fiction.

A good read for a beginner.

I am only on chapter 4, but I already absolutely love it. I originally, like most of you, heard of Erich's work through the tv show Ancient Aliens that more or less features his research and theories. This being the most popular of his books, I bought it to sink my teeth into some more details and get deeper into the theories, because I think they are fascinating. When my book arrived, I was so excited, and after just the first two chapters, any doubt in this theory had left my mind. The first two chapters are all about putting the universe into perspective, then he describes a hypothetical scenario followed by a "Why couldn't this have happened to our ancestors?" It's very compelling and very convincing and in my opinion, makes way more sense than what mainstream scientists try to shove down our throats.It infuriates me that in school and in the news we are always told what to believe. This guy came along with his own theory and millions of people are picking up on this idea because it makes more sense than the history books, in my opinion. And for the naysayers that say he is crazy, who are they to decide who is right and wrong? A theory is like an opinion, and can't be redacted just because somebody says it should be. For so long everyone thought the world was flat, because it would be impossible for people to stand on the underside of a globe. They thought the earth was the center of the universe. Science advanced and we found out they were wrong. Science has been wrong before, but they seem to not want to accept that, and just stay in their bubble, ignorant to the rest of the theories out there because surely they think they could never be wrong again. I truly believe that if this topic were researched further with the most advanced technology, we would find something incredible. Unfortunately, that day may never come if the coming generation's brilliant minds are forced into narrow-minded thinking. It would take generations and generations of open-mindedness, but eventually I hope the world comes to be as fascinated in these theories as I am, and move forward with more research and testing. Furthermore, with the Mars One project approaching, what are we doing? We are finding a planet that is habitable, and we're going to colonize it. One day ancestors of native Martian humans will tell their grandchildren about how they came from a distant planet. If we are going to be aliens on Mars, is it really logical to think this is the first time a civilization has ever traveled to another planet? Can you confirm without a doubt that we are the first beings to travel through space and land on another surface different from our own? I don't think so.The book is written in a very easy to comprehend writing style. Instead of using huge complex words and sentences that 90% of the population wouldn't understand, he writes in a more personal style and describes things very well. His words have great imagery to them which also helps to completely understand his message.If you have an open mind and are not opposed to learning about the ancient astronaut theories, you MUST read this book. I think it's a great place to start, and I already have a list of books compiled that I want to read next.- Amanda Zamiska, Pittsburgh, PA

Not sure why I even bought this, a moment of madness during quarantine perhaps? Only halfway through and I certainly feel like refunding already.I was aware of Däniken speculations prior to purchasing as I had seen him featured on the Ancient Aliens TV show - which is complete "pooh pooh" in and of itself as Däniken would say (Go on YouTube and search "Ancient Aliens Debunked") - but felt compelled to read his actual work because American television dramatic music and excessive editing often detracts from the message.However I found his writing to be tedious, repetitive and actually quite condescending - does he really have that little faith in the ingenuity of mankind? I find a lot of his points could easily be argued against even by someone outside the academia. I feel like Däniken was simply attempting to profiteer off the back of the UFO trend that spiked after the Area 51 incident. And profit he did.Not even entertaining.

I was very disappointed with this book , when I bought the original version back in 1975 it was cram-packed with hundreds of colour pictures and it was this that made the book so special , the words are all there but the pictures apart from a few poor black and white pictures in the middle of the book just doesn't do it for this latest version .I have not seen the much older version , which is a great shame , another case of making something cheaper but not better .

What can I say , I read this in the 1970s as a child and I am still fascinated by it. I bought this for my son who has been watching Ancient Alien Civilisations which the author Daniken does some narration on. It’s thought provoking and does make you think about where we came from. Is it provable , probably not , but is it possible ? It’s a thought provoking book and a lot of theories about ancient civilisations are now being taken more seriously as opposed to just being laughed at. Are we descended from Alien intervention ? Who knows but Daniken who has been laughed at for his theories , may have the last laugh ! Its another alien conspiracy theory from the master of them .

In one of his introduction pieces to this edition, he tells you some of the things in this book were incorrect. One that I can remember is the post that purportedly didn't rust but does. In the afterword Daniken categorically states the pyramids were man-made. Then why did he claim within the book it would be impossible for the Egyptians do have achieved it? At least he could have edited the text in order to outline this change of mind but that would negate his story.Now to the book as it is. It's basically in 3 parts; ancient gods, UFO's and whether aliens could exist. These are interspersed throughout the book but those are what sticks out as the main points of the book. The first being, was god an astronaut. No, he wasn't. The premise to his theory is that knowledge couldn't come without somebody giving man the idea. To use my example rather than Danikens; the bike couldn't have been thought up by man, some superior being must have shown man a bike like vehicle and then man copied it. That's how it seems to be for poor old ancient man. Too dumb to create things and could only make "new" things because he had been shown something of a similar thing before. Man inventing anything to Von Daniken is more far fetched than an alien telling us about it. So all the stories of God's moving about the sky were astronauts from another planet. Filling ancient man's head with things he was too stupid to invent. Doesn't sound plausible in the slightest, not when you consider what has been invented since man became more than an animal. He moves on to UFO'S in modern times, which he seems to sidestep around, due to the negative press it would have been getting around the time of the books release, I would imagine. Although he does seem to pop in at the end, they could be the ancient gods but are keeping their distance, in order not to scare us. In the ancient days though scaring the local cave men was fine. Which seems to be counter to what these gods were about. That alien beings are able to exist on other planets is where the book begins. It visits it again later in order to add weight to his ancient astronaut theory. That life is possible in the infinite universe should be pretty much a yes. That doesn't mean anyone has ever come here though, as the astronomical distances between stars means that if we did get "guests" I doubt they'd not leave greater evidence of having been here. Rather than freaking out the locals so they draw pictures in caves and lines in the desert.To enlarge on my last point a little. During the book Daniken tells a tale of earth astronauts going to a primitive planet, messing about a bit and then leaving. If we did go to another planet and become gods to the people, why leave no evidence but somehow leave knowledge for primitive peop!e that doesn't actually help them out. If I can ask about astronauts that seem to be actual people instead of Danikens blink and you'll only remember us as all powerful gods kind. You land on this planet, see the ape like beings, why start inter breeding or manipulating them to be more like us; why? Why would these astronauts feel the need to mess with creatures in order to make them more like them? If you want to continue your race on another planet, then you'd just stay and over time become the dominant species on that world. The popping to and fro from the earth would be great if space wasn't so big. So it has to be the one initial meeting and then offski. So if they did alter apes to be more like them, then who are the space gods? Are these other aliens who popped in later? It seems to crack his theory a bit. To keep coming back again and again, why suddenly just stop. Or are they the UFO's? Or actually none of those things. We evolved due to natural selection and over a long time we got into large communities, then civilisation arose. Tales of God's in the sky are just that just tales. Not stories of ancient visitor's at all.He mentions that God spoke in the plural in Genesis, make man in our image, after our likeness; a little look into the history of the bible shows that at that time, they believed that the other gods were real. Such as the Egyptians gods to them would be real hence Yahweh having the plagues, etc, descend upon Egypt. Yahweh beat the Egyptian gods. The subjects he seems to attribute to ancient astronauts falls away when you actually check for more than 5 minutes what is meant in the original text or picture.He mentions some books that debunked his ideas but doesn't mention the fantastic (but hard to find) The Space Gods Revealed that debunks a lot of his "facts" back in the 70's.If you want to believe that God came from space then this will help you as a starting point but if you aren't, I'd read it just to see how duped people can be by half truths and stretching facts to fit a theory, can actually be.

Absolutely brilliant book! Fantastic content and extremely addictive.Bad side!What a rubbish publishing!! Horrible paper!! Images barely visible, had to find these pics online in order to understand meaning. Shame on whoever decided to publish it extremely cheap way.