This theory completely blurs the boundary between 'history' and 'myth'. Do you think this is beneficial or harmful to our pursuit of truth?

Hello, regarding this question, I'd like to share some of my thoughts. This is indeed a core issue, not just concerning theories like the Anunnaki; it fundamentally touches upon how we view the "past."

My core argument is: From the perspective of seeking "factual truth," this ambiguity is extremely harmful; but from the perspective of seeking "cultural truth" or stimulating thought, it can occasionally yield some unexpected "benefits."

Sounds contradictory, right? Don't worry, let me break it down for you.

Why is it "harmful"? — It's like playing by soccer rules on a basketball court

Imagine historiography as a courtroom with strict rules. What do we need to "determine the truth" about a historical event (i.e., whether it actually happened)?

Evidence (Physical Proof): Such as unearthed artifacts, ruins, bones.
Written Testimony (Human Proof): Such as letters, official records, stone inscriptions written by people of the time.
Cross-Verification: Comparing evidence and testimony from different sources to see if they align. For example, if Chinese historical records mention a great flood in a certain year, and archaeology finds flood sediment layers dating to precisely that period, that's very compelling.

This process is called "historical research methodology." Its core principles are falsifiability and evidence first. If you claim something happened, you must provide evidence that everyone can examine.

Theories like "the Anunnaki were aliens who created humans" have their biggest problem in undermining this very system of rules.

How do they do this?

Treating "Myth" as a "Codebook": They interpret records like the Sumerian King List, where kings supposedly reigned for tens of thousands of years, not as ancient exaggerations of "divinity" and "antiquity," but as "encoded information," claiming that a "year" actually represents another unit of time, or an alien lifespan. This interpretation cannot be proven or disproven. If I say a year represents a day, and someone else says it represents an orbital cycle, no one can convince the other because the rules are gone.
Selective Blindness: They latch onto any evidence that "looks like" proof (e.g., a figure in a mural wearing a "helmet"), while ignoring thousands of pieces of evidence that "don't look like" proof (e.g., the vast majority of normal murals, everyday objects, burial customs). It's like a detective focusing only on a suspect's shoe matching a footprint, while ignoring their rock-solid alibi.
Appealing to the "Unknown": When traditional historiography can't explain a phenomenon (e.g., how Stonehenge was built), its conclusion is "We don't know yet, we need more evidence." The conclusion of these alternative theories is "Because you don't know, it must have been aliens." This is a logical fallacy, using one unknown to explain another.

Therefore, from the perspective of seeking "historical fact," blurring the lines between "history" and "myth" is disastrous. It's like saying that in a courtroom, a lawyer's imagination or dreams carry the same weight as DNA reports or surveillance footage. The inevitable result would be a landscape riddled with miscarriages of justice, pushing us further away from the truth.

So why might it also be "beneficial"? — An intellectual "stimulant"

Although these theories are unreliable for "truth-seeking," they can sometimes have unexpected positive effects in two other areas.

Stimulating Public Interest, Acting as a "Gateway": Let's be honest, proper historical and archaeological research can be a bit dry for the average person. A stratigraphy report or pottery shard analysis is far less captivating than a story about "aliens creating humans." Many people (including myself initially) probably first developed a strong interest in Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian, or Mayan civilizations precisely after reading books like Chariots of the Gods?. Even though this "gateway" points down a misleading path, it at least brings you to the doorstep of history. As long as you are a curious and critically thinking person, you will eventually spot the flaws in this narrative and actively seek out more reliable sources. From this angle, it serves as a tool for "popularization" and a "stepping stone for popular science."
Challenging Established Thinking, Forcing Mainstream Reflection: Sometimes, mainstream academia can also fall into certain patterns of thought. The emergence of some "heretical ideas" is like throwing a stone into a calm pond, creating significant ripples. To refute these theories, historians and archaeologists are forced to re-examine their own evidence and logical chains, explaining to the public in a more accessible and compelling way "why we believe the pyramids were built by humans, not aliens." This process, in itself, is a "reinforcement" and "upgrade" of their own theories. Even though the challenger is wrong, its existence forces the defender to become stronger.

To summarize my view

Think of it this way:

Historiography is like building a sturdy house. Every brick (piece of evidence) must be tested, every step (research method) must strictly follow standards. The goal is to make the house safe, reliable, and habitable (approaching the truth).
"Blurring the lines between history and myth" is like designing a wildly imaginative art installation. It's cool, eye-catching, and sparks your imagination, but you definitely wouldn't want to live in it because it could collapse at any moment.

Therefore, my stance is:

Keep them strictly separate.

We can appreciate the novelty and inspiration brought by that "art installation," and even be grateful that it sparked our interest in "building houses." But when we genuinely want to understand the structure of the house and seek a place to live securely, we must return to rigorous architecture.

For us as individuals, the best approach is: Use the curiosity sparked by "mythical stories" to knock on the door of "serious history." Maintain an open mind, not dismissing possibilities lightly; yet uphold the bottom line of rationality, understanding the difference between imagination and evidence. This way, on the path to seeking truth, we can have both enjoyment and avoid getting lost.