The ancient astronaut hypothesis — also called the paleocontact hypothesis,\nand, in its popular television form, \"ancient aliens\" — is the interpretive\ntradition proposing that intelligent beings from beyond Earth visited the planet\nin prehistory or antiquity and shaped human religion, technology, and culture. It\ntreats a recurring set of phenomena — anomalous megalithic monuments,\ncross-cultural myths of sky-descending beings, precocious astronomical knowledge\nin pre-modern cultures, and the \"gods\" of the world's scriptures — as candidate\nrecords of real contact with a non-human civilisation rather than as products of\nautonomous human development.
\nThe Wheel of Heaven framework belongs to this wider family.\nBut where much of the field proceeds by speculative interpretation of ancient\nevidence, the corpus grounds its reading in the Raëlian canon — the\ncontact account Claude Vorilhon (Raël) reported in 1973 — and in the\nearlier, more disciplined work of Jean Sendy; and it is careful\nto distinguish its own position from the better-known reconstructions of \nErich von\nDäniken\n and \nZecharia Sitchin\n. It should be said plainly at the outset that the\nfield as a whole is rejected by mainstream archaeology and the academic study of\nreligion, which regard it as pseudoscience. The corpus shares many of those\ndisciplines' specific objections while parting company on the underlying question\nof whether any real contact lies behind the traditions.
\nThe term pairs \"astronaut\" — from Greek astron (\"star\") and nautēs (\"sailor,\nnavigator\") — with \"ancient,\" casting the sky-beings of old traditions in the\nvocabulary of modern spaceflight. The combination is a deliberate anachronism: it\nasserts that figures the old texts describe as gods or sky-visitors are better\nunderstood as travellers with a technology than as supernatural deities. The field\ntravels under several names. \"Paleocontact hypothesis\" and\n\"extraterrestrial-intervention hypothesis\" are the more academic labels; \"ancient\naliens\" is the popular usage, fixed by the long-running History Channel series of\nthat name; German writers speak of Prä-Astronautik or Paläo-SETI, French of\nthe hypothèse des anciens astronautes. Wheel of Heaven prefers \"ancient\nastronaut theory\" and generally avoids \"ancient aliens,\" whose pop-cultural,\nsometimes mocking connotation tends to obscure the more serious textual work the\ncorpus is interested in.
\nThe word hypothesis is worth keeping in view. It marks the field's claims as\nprovisional and offered for examination, not as settled doctrine — a distinction\nits more disciplined practitioners insist on and its popular presentations often\nblur.
\nAntecedents. Before the field had a name, several nineteenth- and\nearly-twentieth-century currents prepared its ground. The Theosophy of Helena\nBlavatsky (The Secret Doctrine, 1888) described advanced \"Masters\" guiding human\nevolution; Charles Fort (The Book of the Damned, 1919) catalogued the anomalies\nthat later writers would mine; and H. P. Lovecraft's fiction populated Earth's deep\npast with \"Great Old Ones\" from the stars. None of these was yet the hypothesis —\nTheosophy worked within an esoteric cosmology and Lovecraft wrote avowed fiction —\nbut together they seeded the imagery on which the later field would draw.
\nThe mid-century wave. The modern field took shape in the 1950s and 1960s\nalongside the post-war UFO phenomenon (treated in the Forerunners\nentry). Morris Jessup's The Case for the UFO (1955), the Soviet mathematician\nMatest Agrest's 1959 essays reading the terraces of Baalbek and the destruction of\nSodom in technological terms, and Jacques Bergier and Louis Pauwels's Le Matin des\nmagiciens (1960) circulated the idea widely; in France, Robert Charroux built a\npopular alternative history on it.
\nThe 1968–1970 pivot. Three works published within two years fixed the modern\nshape of the field. Jean Sendy's Les dieux nous sont nés (1968) and Ces dieux\nqui firent le ciel et la terre (1969) read the Hebrew Elohim as a physical,\nplural presence rather than as a transcendent single God. Erich von Däniken's\nChariots of the Gods? (1968) carried a similar thesis to a mass audience and\nbecame one of the best-selling non-fiction books of the century. And Giorgio de\nSantillana and Hertha von Dechend's Hamlet's Mill (1969) argued — without any\nappeal to extraterrestrials — that a vast body of world myth encodes the slow\nastronomical cycle of the precession of the equinoxes. Sendy and Hamlet's Mill\nboth matter disproportionately to Wheel of Heaven, for reasons given below.
\nSitchin and the elaboration of the system. Zecharia Sitchin's The 12th\nPlanet (1976) and the twelve-volume Earth Chronicles that followed gave the\nfield its most detailed single reconstruction: a planet \"Nibiru\" on a 3,600-year\norbit, and the Sumerian \nAnunnaki\n as its inhabitants, who — on Sitchin's reading —\nengineered humanity as a labour force to mine gold. In the same year Robert\nTemple's The Sirius Mystery argued that the Dogon of Mali preserved knowledge of\nthe companion star Sirius B that they could not have obtained unaided.
\nTelevision and the widening audience. From 2009 the History Channel series\nAncient Aliens, hosted by Giorgio Tsoukalos and featuring von Däniken among\nothers, carried the material to a global television audience and made its imagery\nubiquitous — while drawing sustained criticism from scientists and historians for\npresenting contested claims as established fact.
\nContemporary textual currents. A more recent strand works closely with the\nbiblical text itself. Mauro Biglino, for seventeen years a\ntranslator of Hebrew for the Vatican's Edizioni San Paolo, argues that a strictly\nliteral reading of the Hebrew Bible describes the Elohim as physical beings rather\nthan a single transcendent deity; the Australian writer Paul Anthony Wallis\n(Escaping from Eden, 2020) develops a comparable comparative reading across the\nHebrew and Mesopotamian material. This textual-philological work sits closer to the\ncorpus's own method than the monument-cataloguing of the earlier popularisers.
\nErich von Däniken (b. 1935) is the field's principal populariser. His method\nis to catalogue apparent anomalies — the engineering of the Egyptian pyramids, the\nNazca lines, the Easter Island moai, the vision of Ezekiel — and to read them as\ntraces of visiting technology. The reach of Chariots of the Gods? is hard to\noverstate; its method, however, has been widely faulted, including by other writers\nwithin the field, for selective use of evidence and for the assumption that ancient\npeoples could not have built their own monuments.
\nZecharia Sitchin (1920–2010) built the field's most elaborate reconstruction\nfrom Sumerian and Akkadian sources. On his account the Anunnaki — whose name he\nglossed as \"those who from heaven to earth came\" — were visitors from Nibiru who\ncreated humanity through genetic engineering. His readings of the cuneiform are\nrejected by professional Sumerologists, who note that he was not a trained reader\nof the languages and that the astronomical claim for Nibiru has no observational\nsupport. Sitchin nonetheless remains one of the most widely read authors in the\ntradition, and his identification of the Anunnaki with the biblical Elohim\nis a point the corpus takes seriously even as it rejects the framework he built\naround it.
\nJean Sendy (1910–1978) is, for Wheel of Heaven, the most consequential figure\nin the field's history. A Russian-French translator and writer, Sendy read\nGenesis as a compressed historical-cosmological record, mapped its\n\"days\" onto the precessional ages, and adopted the Hamlet's Mill framework early.\nHe published L'Ère du Verseau (\"The Age of Aquarius\") in 1970, three years before\nVorilhon's reported contact. The corpus treats Sendy as its principal pre-Raëlian\nsource; his detailed treatment lives in the Jean Sendy entry.
\nMauro Biglino and Paul Anthony Wallis represent the contemporary textual\nwing described above — the closest of the field's currents, in method, to the\ncorpus's own reliance on close reading of the Hebrew Bible.\nAlongside them a broader population of authors and broadcasters — Robert Temple\n(the Dogon–Sirius argument), David Hatcher Childress, Giorgio Tsoukalos\n(host of Ancient Aliens), and the late Lloyd Pye — carry the popular field,\nwith methods and reliability that vary widely from one to the next.
\nThe corpus is a self-aware member of the ancient astronaut family, but it differs\nfrom the rest of the field in both method and substance.
\nGrounded in a contact account, not in inference. The popular field reasons\nfrom ancient evidence toward a hypothesis of contact. The corpus reverses the\norder: it begins from the Raëlian account of a direct encounter, reported by\nVorilhon (see Message from the Designers), and\nreads the ancient evidence in that light. This is a foundational premise of the\nframework — not a conclusion mainstream scholarship shares — and the entry marks it\nas such rather than presenting it as demonstrated.
\nA synthesis of Sendy and the Raëlian canon. The corpus's distinctive move is\nto integrate Sendy's systematic interpretation of the biblical and comparative\nmaterial with the Raëlian contact narrative. The two converge on several points —\nthe Elohim as a physical plurality rather\nthan a transcendent God, Genesis as a garbled record of a real cosmological\nhistory, the present as the opening of an Aquarian age — and the corpus reads the\nRaëlian account as confirming and extending the framework Sendy had already\nsketched.
\nThe precessional spine. Following Hamlet's Mill, the corpus organises the\nlong history of contact around the precession of the equinoxes, tracking the\nalliance's work across the roughly twenty-six-thousand-year cycle. Santillana and\nvon Dechend proposed no extraterrestrials whatever; the corpus borrows their\nstructural argument about myth and precession, not their conclusions, and says so.
\nEpistemic discipline. The corpus labels the status of each of its claims —\ndistinguishing what a source states directly, what a comparison suggests, what the\nframework infers, and what is frank speculation. That discipline is what the claim\nbadge on this page reflects, and it is meant precisely to answer the standard charge\nagainst the field: that it presents speculation as fact. The related interpretive\nmethod — reading old gods as real figures later mythologised — is treated under\nNeo-Euhemerism.
\nRespect for the human record. Much of the field assumes that ancient peoples\ncould not have raised their own monuments or worked out their own astronomy. The\ncorpus does not. It reads contact as occasional cultivation rather than as a\nsubstitute for human achievement — a stance nearer to mainstream archaeology's on\nthe competence of ancient builders than to von Däniken's.
\nBecause Sitchin's is the reconstruction most often confused with the Wheel of\nHeaven reading, the differences are worth stating directly. In the corpus:
\nOn one point the corpus does stand with the field generally: it holds, as a canon\nclaim, that the Sumerian Anunnaki and the biblical Elohim name the same creators.\nWhat it rejects is Sitchin's particular reconstruction of who those creators were\nand why they came. The disagreement is over interpretation, not over identity.
\nThe ancient astronaut hypothesis is not accepted by mainstream archaeology, the\nhistory of religion, or the wider scholarly community, which classify it as\npseudoscience. Its objections deserve to be stated fairly, because several of them\nare sound.
\nThe standard critique — set out at length in Kenneth Feder's Frauds, Myths, and\nMysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology (first edition 1990, now in\nits tenth) and in Jason Colavito's The Cult of Alien Gods (2005) and ongoing\ncommentary — runs along several lines. It charges that the field cherry-picks\nsupportive details and ignores their context; that it rests on the condescending\nassumption that non-European peoples could not have produced their own monuments\nand astronomy, an objection with real moral and evidentiary force; that its claims\nare often framed so as to be unfalsifiable; and that specific reconstructions —\nSitchin's Sumerian, Temple's Dogon — collapse under expert scrutiny. Carl Sagan,\nwho as a young astronomer had granted the abstract possibility of ancient contact\nin Intelligent Life in the Universe (1966, with I. S. Shklovsky), later became\none of the tradition's most effective critics.
\nThe corpus's response is not to wave these criticisms away but to accept most of\nthem as valid against the field's excesses. It agrees that cataloguing monuments\nwithout context proves little; that the dismissal of indigenous achievement is both\nmistaken and offensive; and that unfalsifiable claims are worthless. Where it parts\ncompany is on a narrower question: it holds that a disciplined reading, anchored in\nspecific texts and honest about each of its inferential steps, can still recover a\nreal history of contact behind some of the traditions — and that the field's\ngenuine insight should not be discarded along with its bad method. That is a\nminority position, held against the scholarly consensus, and the corpus presents it\nas exactly that rather than as an established result.
\nVorilhon, Claude (Raël). Le Livre qui dit la vérité. 1974.
\nVorilhon, Claude (Raël). Les Extra-Terrestres m'ont emmené sur leur planète. 1975.
\nVorilhon, Claude (Raël). Accueillir les Extra-Terrestres. 1979.
\nVorilhon, Claude (Raël). Message from the Designers. Tagman Press, 2005.
\nSendy, Jean. Les cahiers de cours de Moïse. Julliard, 1963.
\nSendy, Jean. La lune, clé de la Bible. Julliard, 1968.
\nSendy, Jean. Les dieux nous sont nés. Grasset, 1968.
\nSendy, Jean. Ces dieux qui firent le ciel et la terre. Robert Laffont, 1969. English: Those Gods Who Made Heaven & Earth. Berkley, 1972.
\nSendy, Jean. L'Ère du Verseau. Robert Laffont, 1970.
\nSendy, Jean. Nous autres, gens du Moyen Age. Julliard, 1973.
\nde Santillana, Giorgio, and Hertha von Dechend. Hamlet's Mill: An Essay Investigating the Origins of Human Knowledge and Its Transmission Through Myth. Gambit, 1969.
\nvon Däniken, Erich. Erinnerungen an die Zukunft. Econ-Verlag, 1968. English: Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past. G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1969.
\nvon Däniken, Erich. Zurück zu den Sternen. Econ-Verlag, 1969. English: Gods from Outer Space. Souvenir Press, 1970.
\nvon Däniken, Erich. Aussaat und Kosmos. Econ-Verlag, 1972. English: The Gold of the Gods. Souvenir Press, 1973.
\nvon Däniken, Erich. Erscheinungen. Econ-Verlag, 1974. English: Miracles of the Gods. Souvenir Press, 1975.
\nSitchin, Zecharia. The 12th Planet. Stein and Day, 1976.
\nSitchin, Zecharia. The Stairway to Heaven. St. Martin's Press, 1980.
\nSitchin, Zecharia. The Wars of Gods and Men. Avon, 1985.
\nSitchin, Zecharia. The Lost Realms. Avon, 1990.
\nSitchin, Zecharia. When Time Began. Avon, 1993.
\nSitchin, Zecharia. The Cosmic Code. Avon, 1998.
\nSitchin, Zecharia. The End of Days. William Morrow, 2007.
\nBiglino, Mauro. Il libro che cambierà per sempre le nostre idee sulla Bibbia. Mondadori, 2011.
\nBiglino, Mauro. Antico e Nuovo Testamento: Libri senza Dio. Uno Editori, 2012.
\nBiglino, Mauro. La Bibbia non parla di Dio. Mondadori, 2015.
\nWallis, Paul Anthony. Escaping from Eden: Does Genesis Teach that the Human Race was Created by God or Engineered by ETs?. Axis Mundi, 2020.
\nWallis, Paul Anthony. The Scars of Eden: Has the Original Bible Story Been Corrupted by Humans?. Axis Mundi, 2021.
\nAdamski, George, and Desmond Leslie. Flying Saucers Have Landed. T. Werner Laurie, 1953.
\nAgrest, Matest M. \"Astronauts of Yore.\" Literaturnaya Gazeta, 1959. English translation in Sputnik (1960).
\nBergier, Jacques, and Louis Pauwels. Le Matin des magiciens. Gallimard, 1960. English: The Morning of the Magicians. Stein and Day, 1963.
\nCharroux, Robert. Histoire inconnue des hommes depuis cent mille ans. Robert Laffont, 1963.
\nDrake, W. Raymond. Gods or Spacemen?. Amherst Press, 1964.
\nJessup, Morris K. The Case for the UFO. Citadel, 1955.
\nTemple, Robert K. G. The Sirius Mystery. St. Martin's Press, 1976.
\nPye, Lloyd. Everything You Know Is Wrong. Adamu, 1997.
\nChildress, David Hatcher. Various works. Adventures Unlimited Press.
\nTsoukalos, Giorgio A. The Ancient Alien Question: A New Inquiry into the Existence, Evidence, and Influence of Ancient Visitors. New Page, 2013.
\nFeder, Kenneth L. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. Mayfield, 1st ed. 1990; subsequent editions through 10th ed. McGraw-Hill, 2020.
\nColavito, Jason. The Cult of Alien Gods: H. P. Lovecraft and Extraterrestrial Pop Culture. Prometheus Books, 2005.
\nColavito, Jason. jasoncolavito.com. Ongoing online commentary and criticism.
\nCarroll, Robert T. The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. Wiley, 2003.
\nSagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Random House, 1996.
\nSagan, Carl, and I. S. Shklovsky. Intelligent Life in the Universe. Holden-Day, 1966.
\nKlass, Philip J. UFOs Explained. Random House, 1974.
\nBlavatsky, H. P. Isis Unveiled. J. W. Bouton, 1877.
\nBlavatsky, H. P. The Secret Doctrine. Theosophical Publishing Company, 1888.
\nCampbell, Bruce F. Ancient Wisdom Revived: A History of the Theosophical Movement. University of California Press, 1980.
\nHanegraaff, Wouter J. New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. E. J. Brill, 1996.
\nFort, Charles. The Book of the Damned. Boni and Liveright, 1919.
\nFort, Charles. New Lands. Boni and Liveright, 1923.
\nFort, Charles. Lo!. Claude Kendall, 1931.
\nWells, H. G. The War of the Worlds. William Heinemann, 1898.
\nStapledon, Olaf. Last and First Men. Methuen, 1930.
\nStapledon, Olaf. Star Maker. Methuen, 1937.
\nClarke, Arthur C. Childhood's End. Ballantine, 1953.
\nClarke, Arthur C. 2001: A Space Odyssey. New American Library, 1968.
\nLem, Stanisław. Solaris. MON, 1961.
\n[See Forerunners entry References section]
\nHancock, Graham. Fingerprints of the Gods. Crown, 1995.
\nHancock, Graham. Magicians of the Gods. Thomas Dunne, 2015.
\nHancock, Graham. America Before. St. Martin's Press, 2019.
\n\"Ancient astronauts.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts.
\n\"Erich von Däniken.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken.
\n\"Zecharia Sitchin.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin.
\n\"Jean Sendy.\" Wikipedia. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Sendy.
\n\"Mauro Biglino.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauro_Biglino.
\n\"Ancient Aliens (TV series).\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens.
\n\"Jason Colavito.\" jasoncolavito.com. Contemporary skeptical criticism of the ancient astronaut field.
\n\"Kenneth Feder.\" Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Feder.
\n", "extra": {"alternative_names":["Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis","Ancient Astronaut Theory","Ancient Aliens hypothesis","paleocontact hypothesis","extraterrestrial-intervention hypothesis","ancient-extraterrestrial-hypothesis"],"category":"Methodology","claim_type":"direct","core_claim_ids":["woh-claim-0001"],"core_versions":{"woh-claim-0001":"0.1.0"},"editorial_pass":"2026-07","entry_type":"concept","infobox":{"candidate_evidence":"Anomalous ancient monuments; cross-cultural mythological motifs of sky-descending beings; sophisticated pre-modern astronomical knowledge; religious-textual content involving celestial encounters; structural similarities across global mythologies","core_proposition":"Extraterrestrial beings visited Earth in prehistoric or ancient past and influenced human cultural, religious, and technological development","corpus_positioning":"Wheel of Heaven framework operates within broader tradition while diverging methodologically: Vorilhon source-textual grounding rather than speculative interpretation; Sendy-Vorilhon synthesis; Hamlet's Mill precessional framework integration; disciplined epistemic-pluralism methodology","distinguished_from":"Mainstream archaeology and history of religion (which treats human cultural development as autonomous); UFO contactee tradition narrowly (which focuses on contemporary contact rather than ancient); science fiction (which is explicitly fictional); various occult and esoteric traditions (which operate within different theoretical frameworks)","mainstream_status":"Rejected as pseudoscience by mainstream archaeology, history of religion, and skeptical scholarship; principal academic-skeptical engagement in Feder, Colavito, others","principal_period":"Modern formulation: 1950s-present; broader antecedents in late nineteenth-century occult tradition and earlier speculative engagement","principal_proponents":"Erich von Däniken (popularizer); Zecharia Sitchin (Sumerian-Anunnaki framework); Jean Sendy (principal corpus-influence figure); Mauro Biglino (contemporary textual-philological engagement); Paul Anthony Wallis; Robert Temple; Robert Charroux; David Hatcher Childress; Giorgio Tsoukalos; Lloyd Pye; others","status_in_framework":"The broader interpretive tradition within which the corpus operates; the corpus is a self-aware member of the family that differs from it in method and substance; a key category for locating the framework in the contemporary intellectual landscape","type":"Interpretive tradition / methodological category proposing extraterrestrial influence on prehistoric and ancient human development"},"lang":"en","lang_prefix":"","references":[{"id":"those-gods-who-made-heaven-and-earth","note":"Jean Sendy's *Ces dieux qui firent le ciel et la terre* (1969) — principal pre-Vorilhon textual reading of the Hebrew Bible's *Elohim* as a physical extraterrestrial civilization."},{"id":"the-coming-of-the-gods","note":"Sendy's *L'Ère du Verseau* (1970) — Aquarian-age framing adopted by the corpus as a principal Sendy source-text."},{"id":"hamlets-mill","note":"Santillana and von Dechend (1969) — precessional-framework analysis adopted by the corpus as the structural organizing principle for the alliance's work on Earth."},{"id":"fingerprints-of-the-gods","note":"Graham Hancock (1995) — principal contemporary alternative-archaeology engagement intersecting the Ancient Astronaut tradition."},{"id":"intelligent-design-message-from-the-designers","note":"Consolidated Vorilhon/Raël material (2005) — primary corpus source-textual basis grounding the framework's adopted reading."},{"id":"the-book-which-tells-the-truth","note":"Vorilhon (Raël), *Le Livre qui dit la vérité* (1974) — the inaugural 1973 Puy-de-Lassolas contact."},{"id":"extraterrestrials-took-me-to-their-planet","note":"Vorilhon (Raël) (1975/1976) — the Périgord visit and the home-planet exposition."},{"id":"lets-welcome-the-extraterrestrials","note":"Vorilhon (Raël), *Accueillir les Extra-Terrestres* (1979) — the embassy project and the Aquarian transition."},{"id":"the-bible-is-not-a-sacred-book","note":"Mauro Biglino's strict-literal Hebrew Bible series (2010– / 2011 Italian) — contemporary textual-philological engagement methodologically closer to corpus discipline than broader popularizers."},{"id":"the-naked-bible","note":"Biglino and Cattaneo (2022) — strict-literal Hebrew Bible survey extending the Biglino method."},{"id":"escaping-from-eden","note":"Paul Anthony Wallis (2020) — contemporary engagement reading the Hebrew Bible's plural *Elohim* as the Sumerian Sky People."},{"id":"the-scars-of-eden","note":"Wallis (2021) — continuation of the *Escaping from Eden* engagement; cross-cultural Hebrew Bible corruption thesis."},{"id":"echoes-of-eden","note":"Wallis (2021) — further extension of the comparative cuneiform-Hebrew reading."},{"id":"ancient-apocalypse","note":"Graham Hancock's 2022 Netflix series — contemporary popular alternative-archaeology engagement intersecting the Ancient Astronaut tradition."}],"same_as":["https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q646988","https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts"],"see_also":[{"description":"The principal pre-Vorilhon figure whose framework the corpus integrates into its version of the hypothesis.","path":"wiki/jean-sendy","title":"Jean Sendy"},{"description":"The interpretive method underlying the corpus reading of ancient testimony as garbled contact record.","path":"wiki/neo-euhemerism","title":"Neo-Euhemerism"},{"description":"Contemporary textual-philological engagement judged methodologically closer to corpus discipline than the popularizers.","path":"wiki/mauro-biglino","title":"Mauro Biglino"},{"description":"The direct Vorilhon revelation grounding the corpus rather than speculative interpretation of ancient evidence.","path":"wiki/message-from-the-designers","title":"Message from the Designers"},{"description":"The corpus term for the transmitted contact record the hypothesis reads across ancient cultures.","path":"wiki/the-tradition","title":"The Tradition"},{"description":"The earlier authors who anticipated the hypothesis before its twentieth-century popularization.","path":"wiki/forerunners","title":"Forerunners"}],"timeline":["age-of-aquarius"]} }, "links": { "self": "/v1/wiki/ancient-astronaut-hypothesis/", "canonical_html": "https://www.wheelofheaven.world/wiki/ancient-astronaut-hypothesis/", "index": "/v1/wiki/", "schema": "/v1/schema/wiki-entry/", "related": [{"slug": "jean-sendy", "title": "Jean Sendy", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/jean-sendy/" },{"slug": "neo-euhemerism", "title": "Neo-Euhemerism", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/neo-euhemerism/" },{"slug": "mauro-biglino", "title": "Mauro Biglino", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/mauro-biglino/" },{"slug": "message-from-the-designers", "title": "Message from the Designers", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/message-from-the-designers/" },{"slug": "the-tradition", "title": "The Tradition", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/the-tradition/" },{"slug": "forerunners", "title": "Forerunners", "kind": "WikiEntry", "type": "see_also", "url": "/v1/wiki/forerunners/" }] } }