The landing marker theory never really had much going for it once you start pulling it apart. The lines aren't load-bearing - the soil beneath would crumble under any significant weight or thrust. Von Däniken made it compelling storytelling, but it's not compelling evidence.
That said, I don't think the theory is completely dead in the sense that it still raises a worthwhile question: why are some of these formations only truly visible from altitude? The ceremonial/astronomical explanations are far more credible, and the work researchers like Johan Reinhard did connecting the lines to water sources and ritual pathways makes genuine archaeological sense.
What bugs me is how quickly people swing between two extremes - either ancient aliens built everything or it's all just religious ceremony, nothing to see here. The honest position is probably somewhere murkier. We don't fully understand the cosmological worldview of the Nazca people, and until we do, any confident explanation feels premature.
I've spent years looking at crop circle formations in Wiltshire and Staffordshire, and one thing that work teaches you is that humans are extraordinarily capable of creating large, geometrically precise patterns with surprisingly basic tools. The Nazca people were skilled engineers operating within a culture we barely understand.
What's everyone's take on the water ritual hypothesis specifically? That one seems to be gaining traction in academic circles lately.
