If the Gods of the Past Were Not Gods: Interdisciplinary Reflections on Ancient Divinity, Interpretation, and Human Meaning

Introduction

Across civilizations, human beings have populated the heavens with gods. From Mesopotamian sky deities to Mesoamerican feathered serpents and Greco-Roman Olympians, divine figures descend from the sky, intervene in human affairs, and depart, often promising return. Jacqueline Alves Souza opens Visitantes do Céu: Entre Mito, História e Realidade with a provocative but carefully framed question: E se os deuses do passado não fossem deuses? Rather than offering a sensationalist claim, Souza invites readers to reconsider how ancient peoples may have interpreted extraordinary phenomena using the conceptual tools available to them. Her work does not demand belief; it demands reflection. This essay explores her guiding question through archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, and the history of science, engaging critically with both proponents of ancient astronaut theories and their strongest skeptics. Ultimately, the question is less about extraterrestrial visitors and more about human epistemology, how meaning is constructed in the face of the unknown.

Souza’s Core Argument: Reframing, Not Replacing, the Divine

Souza’s central contribution lies in her refusal to reduce ancient narratives either to literal divine intervention or to simplistic modern explanations. She proposes that myths, religious texts, and iconography may encode experiences that were real to their observers but interpreted symbolically or theologically. Rather than asserting that ancient gods were extraterrestrials, she asks whether divine language might reflect encounters with phenomena, natural, technological, or psychological, that exceeded contemporary explanatory frameworks.

This framing aligns with a hermeneutic approach: myths are not lies, nor are they scientific reports. They are meaning-making systems. Souza treats ancient texts as cultural artifacts shaped by cosmology, power structures, and human imagination. Her question thus destabilizes rigid binaries between belief and disbelief, faith and fraud. Importantly, she avoids asserting conclusions that exceed available evidence, positioning her inquiry as exploratory rather than declarative.

Anthropology and the Cultural Logic of Gods

Anthropology provides a crucial lens for evaluating Souza’s question. Early societies routinely personified natural forces, social hierarchies, and cosmic order through divine figures. As Mircea Eliade (1959) argued, myth is a way of grounding human existence within a sacred cosmos. Gods descending from the sky may symbolize authority, fertility, or celestial cycles rather than literal beings.

However, anthropology also recognizes that myth often preserves memory. Claude Lévi-Strauss (1963) noted that myths encode structural truths about human experience, even when detached from historical events. Souza’s approach resonates here: ancient peoples may have witnessed rare astronomical events, comets, meteor impacts, eclipses, or encountered technologically advanced outsiders within their own world, later mythologized as divine.

Anthropology thus neither confirms nor dismisses Souza’s question. Instead, it reveals why such interpretations would have been culturally inevitable. To ancient observers, the sky was not empty space; it was the realm of power.

Archaeology and Its Limits

Mainstream archaeology remains cautious, and rightly so. Scholars such as Kenneth Feder (2019) emphasize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Monumental architecture like the pyramids or Machu Picchu, often cited by alternative theorists, can be explained through known human engineering, social organization, and incremental innovation. Archaeological records demonstrate continuity rather than rupture.

Yet archaeology also acknowledges gaps. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is not evidence of presence either. Souza’s contribution lies in highlighting these epistemic limits without exploiting them. She does not claim archaeology is wrong; she suggests it is incomplete, as all sciences are. Her question operates in the space between what is known and what is assumed.

Ancient Astronaut Hypotheses: Von Däniken and Sitchin

Erich von Däniken (1968) popularized the idea that ancient gods were extraterrestrial visitors, citing architectural feats, ancient artwork, and mythological texts as evidence. His work resonated because it offered a modern myth, aliens replacing gods, while retaining a sense of cosmic wonder. However, von Däniken’s methodology has been widely criticized for selective evidence, anachronistic interpretations, and lack of falsifiability.

Zecharia Sitchin (1976) went further, proposing that the Anunnaki of Sumerian texts were extraterrestrial beings who engineered humanity. While linguists and Assyriologists have repeatedly rejected his translations, Sitchin’s work persists in popular culture because it offers coherence and narrative clarity where history fails and feels fragmented.

Souza’s work differs fundamentally from both towering figures in extraterrestrial visitors, von Däniken and Sitchin. She does not present ancient astronaut theory as fact but as a lens, one among many, that reflects modern anxieties about origins, technology, and transcendence. Where von Däniken and Sitchin assert answers, Souza preserves the question.

Astronomy and the Shock of the Sky

Astronomy provides a sobering context. Ancient skies were darker, clearer, and more psychologically overwhelming. Rare celestial events in the eyes of the ancient man could appear terrifying or miraculous. Carl Sagan (1995) emphasized that humans are pattern-seeking creatures, especially when confronted with the vastness of the cosmos. Without scientific models, ancient observers naturally attributed intention to celestial phenomena.

Sagan’s work is essential here because it validates awe without surrendering rigor. He acknowledged humanity’s longing to not be alone while warning against mistaking desire for evidence. Souza’s framing aligns with this balance. She does not deny the possibility of extraterrestrial life; she questions whether ancient narratives should be retrofitted with modern assumptions.

Skepticism as Method, Not Dismissal

Scientific skeptics such as Michael Shermer (2011) and Brian Dunning (2014) argue that alternative ancient theories often underestimate ancient intelligence and overestimate mystery. They warn that attributing achievements to outsiders risks a subtle form of cultural diminishment. Souza avoids this trap by centering ancient peoples as meaning-makers rather than passive recipients of intervention.

Her question is thus methodological: How do we interpret ancient texts responsibly? Skepticism, in this sense, is not hostility toward wonder but discipline in interpretation. It asks not only what could have happened, but why a particular explanation appeals to us now.

History of Science and Changing Explanations

The history of science demonstrates that explanations evolve. Phenomena once attributed to gods, disease, lightning, planetary motion, are now understood through empirical models. Souza’s question echoes Thomas Kuhn’s (1962) insight that paradigms shape perception. Ancient people explained the unknown using theological paradigms; modern readers risk imposing technological paradigms in response.

Thus, asking whether ancient gods were “not gods” may reveal more about modern secular imagination than ancient belief. The danger is not curiosity but projection. Souza’s restraint keeps her inquiry grounded.

Conclusion: The Value of the Question

“If the gods of the past were not gods,” what were they? Souza does not answer definitively, and that is her strength. Her work invites interdisciplinary humility, reminding readers that myth, science, and history are not adversaries but complementary modes of understanding. Ancient gods may have been metaphors, memories, misinterpretations, or meaning systems, perhaps all at once.

By engaging archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, and skepticism, Souza reframes a popular question into an intellectual exercise rather than a speculative claim. In doing so, she honors both ancient imagination and modern critical thought. The enduring lesson is not that the gods were aliens, but that humans have always looked to the sky to understand themselves. 

San José, Costa Rica

Sunday, February 15, 2026

📚 References

Dunning, B. (2014). Skeptoid: Critical thinking about the paranormal. Wiley.

Eliade, M. (1959). The sacred and the profane: The nature of religion. Harcourt.

Feder, K. L. (2019). Frauds, myths, and mysteries: Science and pseudoscience in archaeology (9th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural anthropology. Basic Books.

Sagan, C. (1995). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Random House.

Shermer, M. (2011). The believing brain. Times Books.

Sitchin, Z. (1976). The 12th planet. Stein and Day.

von Däniken, E. (1968). Chariots of the gods? Putnam.

Souza, J. A. (2025). Visitantes do céu: Entre mito, história e realidade. Independent publication.