[vc_row fade_scroll=”yes” enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930724485{padding-bottom: 25px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text el_class=”abstract”]Erich von D\u00e4niken<\/b> passed away recently.
\nMany know him as an author, researcher, and figure who has marked the cultural debate of recent decades. However, I feel the need to remember him above all as a man and a conversation partner, because that is where everything we have shared and built together over time originated.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1767098866913{margin-top: 20px !important;margin-bottom: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_single_image image=”2434″ img_size=”large” alignment=”center”][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930770591{margin-top: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]Every meeting with Erich in Interlaken had a rhythm that repeated itself almost naturally.<\/p>\n
Long hours in his study, without haste, and then dinner together. But in reality, there was never a real separation between these moments. The conversation that began among the books continued at the table, with the same intensity and spirit. An intensity that I would also describe as playful, in the best sense of the word: that of children who have fun even when they are serious. It was a lightness that came from his human qualities, from the way he related to people, as if we had known each other forever, with genuine familiarity.<\/p>\n
His study was a real workplace. It was not theatrical, not built to impress. Books, notes, photographs, materials collected over decades of travel. But above all, it had something that has become rare today: time. Time to think, to go back, to dwell on a detail, to not have to come to a conclusion right away. It is important to say this, because Erich is often remembered for the answers he proposed. I believe, however, that his greatest value lay in the questions he had the uncommon courage to ask.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1767098929894{margin-top: 20px !important;margin-bottom: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_single_image image=”2458″ alignment=”center”][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930857330{margin-top: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]This attitude did not come out of nowhere.<\/p>\n
Erich had a solid cultural background, with a humanistic bent. He studied at the Coll\u00e8ge Saint-Michel in Fribourg, a historic institution with a Jesuit tradition, where for centuries generations have been trained to engage directly with texts. In that context, one did not learn what to think, but how to read: to read ancient sources, to recognize their stratifications, to distinguish the text from subsequent interpretations, to accept that a text can pose problems instead of solving them. It is an education that teaches reasoned doubt, not denial. And this had a profound effect on his way of looking at ancient religious writings: not as untouchable stories, but as historical documents to be questioned with respect and seriousness. In this, we fully recognized ourselves.<\/p>\n
Erich never spoke \u201cagainst\u201d ancient texts. On the contrary, he had a deep respect for them. But he took them seriously. And taking a text seriously sometimes means asking uncomfortable questions.<\/p>\n
His work was often misunderstood precisely because of this. He was not motivated by a desire to destroy certainties, but by a desire to understand whether traditional explanations were really sufficient.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1767098929894{margin-top: 20px !important;margin-bottom: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/2″][vc_single_image image=”2454″ alignment=”center”][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”1\/2″][vc_single_image image=”2450″ alignment=”center”][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row enable_content_animation=”yes” animation_preset=”Fade In Up” css=”.vc_custom_1747930857330{margin-top: 20px !important;}”][vc_column width=”1\/6″][\/vc_column][vc_column width=”2\/3″][vc_column_text]It should be clarified that our work was never the same.<\/p>\n
Erich started from places, artifacts, and testimonies collected in the field. I start from texts, words, the Hebrew language, grammar, and literal meaning. These are two different paths, which should not be confused and should not be forced to coincide. Yet, over time, we realized that the underlying question was often the same: are we really sure we understand what we have before us? Or are we reading and interpreting through categories that do not belong to those contexts?<\/p>\n
It is from this convergence of questions, not answers, that our work together was born.<\/p>\n