Remember how I say that old claims never die? Or that David Childress is a relentless self-plagiarist? Well, here it comes again. This week the UK edition of the Huffington Post published a somewhat incoherent piece by Abhaey Singh celebrating historical revisionism. Singh attempted to attribute all manner of modern boons to Indian origins (sometimes correctly, other times less so), another theme we’ve found in the ethnocentric presentation of alternative history. For example, Singh attributes Einstein’s physics to ancient Indian texts. “Prominent German genii from Albert Einstein to the Nazi scientists and inventors who later migrated to the United States or USSR, were eager students of Indian texts such as the remarkably advanced Upanishads.” This is an odd claim that I’ve seen more than once in Indian writing, and it does not follow that simply reading ancient texts implies that these texts are responsible for later discoveries. The claim seems to come from the fact that J. Robert Oppenheimer cited the Bhagavad Gita in reaching for a poetic metaphor for the atomic bomb, the Nazi search for Aryan origins in Tibet, and the myth that Einstein was a fan of Helena Blavatsky’s warmed over Indian mysticism. Like many in India, Singh seems perversely proud of the Nazis. But you really want to know about David Childress. Singh cites Childress as proof that ancient Indians had superior sewage systems. Note, though, the change Singh makes from Childress’s original. Here’s Singh writing this week: According to American author of historical revisionism, David Hatcher Childress, ancient India's plumbing-sewage systems were so sophisticated that they are still superior to those of many developing countries today. Large public baths were also in existence in the Indus Valley Civilisation, thousands of years before the creation of similar Roman baths. “A wonder to modern-day researchers, the cities [were] highly developed and advanced. A remarkable early example of city planning.” David Hatcher Childress. Now let’s go back to Childress’s original, as given in Lost Cities of China, Central Asia and India (1985, rev. 1998, p. 239): A wonder to modern-day researchers, the cities are highly developed and advanced. The way that each city is laid out in regular blocks, with streets crossing each other at right angles and the entire city laid out in sections, causes archaeologists to believe that the cities were conceived as a whole before they were built: a remarkable early example of city planning. Even more remarkable is that the plumbing-sewage system throughout the large city is so sophisticated, it is superior to that found in Pakistan, India and many Asian countries today. Sewers were covered, and most homes had private toilets and running water. Furthermore, the water and sewage systems were kept well separated. Note that Childress claimed that the Indus Valley plumbing was more sophisticated than that of India, which Singh isn’t willing to admit, since it undercuts his message of Indian greatness, so he simply cuts it out and replaces it with a generic “developing countries.” But was this book really Singh’s source? It’s hard to tell. Here’s Childress writing in 1991, in Vimana Aircraft of Ancient India and Atlantis (p. 80): A wonder to modern-day researchers, the cities are highly developed and advanced. The way that each city is laid out in regular blocks, with streets crossing each other at right angles and the entire city laid out in sections, gives archaeologists cause to believe that the cities were conceived as a whole before they were built: a remarkable early example of city planning. Even more remarkable is that the plumbing-sewage system throughout the large city is so sophisticated, it is superior to that found in Pakistan, India and most Asian countries today. Sewers were covered, and most homes had private toilets and running water. Furthermore, the water and sewage systems were kept well separated. Here he is in 1996, writing in Lost Cities of Atlantis, Ancient Europe and the Mediterranean: A wonder to modern-day researchers, the cities are highly developed and advanced. The way that each city is laid out in regular blocks, with streets crossing each other at right angles and the entire city laid out in sections, gives archaeologists cause to believe that the cities were conceived as a whole before they were built—a remarkable early example of city planning. Even more remarkable is that the plumbing-sewage system throughout the large city is so sophisticated that it is superior to that found in many Pakistani (and other) towns today. Sewers were covered, and most homes had toilets and running water. Furthermore, the water and sewage systems were kept well separated. A wonder to modern-day researchers, the cities were highly developed and advanced. The way that each city was laid out in regular blocks, with streets crossing each other at right angles and the entire city laid out in sections, gives archaeologists cause to believe that the cities were conceived as a whole before they were built—a remarkable early example of city planning. Even more remarkable is that the plumbing/sewage systems throughout the large cities were so sophisticated—superior to those found in Pakistan, India and many Asian countries today. Sewers were covered, and most homes had private toilets and running water. Furthermore, the water and sewage systems were kept well separated. Now let’s look at his magnum opus, Technology of the Gods (2000, p. 164): A wonder to modern-day researchers, the cities are highly developed and advanced. The way that each city was laid out in regular blocks, with streets crossing each other at right angles and with each city laid out in sections, causes archaeologists to believe that the cities were conceived as a whole before they were built—a remarkable early example of city planning. Even more remarkable is that the plumbing-sewage system throughout the large cities is so sophisticated that it is superior to that found in many Pakistani (and other) towns today. Sewers were covered, and most homes had toilets and running water. Furthermore, the water and sewage systems were kept well separated. Notice that each repetition is just slightly different from the preceding one. This means that Childress isn’t just copying and pasting out of ignorance—he’s deliberately recycling text.
As for Indus Valley sewers—they were really great by ancient standards, and it’s true that many Third World countries have poor sanitation and infrastructure, though this was more true for more places in 1985 than today. But it’s also like saying that the Romans had better amphitheaters or the Inca better walls than you’d find in most impoverished areas of the world today: It’s a comment more on the deplorable lack of basic infrastructure and resources in some parts of the world than a testament to “superior” ancient development. After all, the ancient sewers were part of the most sophisticated culture of their day, while Childress compares them to the very worst of our modern world, not the best. But any claim, once made, will be recycled endlessly. And nothing will stop it.
29 Comments
Only Me
7/22/2013 07:03:31 pm
The absolute WORST way to make the case for why your country/culture is the seed of modern civilization.
Reply
Dear Sir,
Reply
7/26/2013 01:16:46 am
Far be it from me to point out the obvious, but I made it quite clear that Singh was paraphrasing Childress, not quoting him.
Reply
M. V. Jain
7/26/2013 01:24:09 am
Ok - now that you have said that, I no longer give you the benefit of the doubt because there is SUBSTANTIAL evidence of the India-Greek travel of ideas and philosophy, and it is clear that you have not done your research!! I genuinely thought you made a mistake - now it is almost certain that you may not actualy know what you are writing about! 7/26/2013 01:35:07 am
I assume you are referring to older articles such as: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1397302?uid=3739696&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102182347623
M. V. Jain
7/26/2013 01:42:17 am
Hi - I would suggest that you start with 'The History of Ancient Thought', a book by American author Thomas McEvilley. There are a number of other sources on ethnocentric bias that span mathematics and sciences as well as philosohy. Best wishes. 7/26/2013 01:50:00 am
He was an art historian with controversial views. I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. There is little doubt that ideas diffused across the ancient Near East; but you were suggesting direct and sustained contact early on in Greek history, which simply cannot be proved archaeologically.
M. V. Jain
7/26/2013 02:02:14 am
We'll agree to disagree! Please show me just ONE reliable source where Thomas McEvilley is shown to be more controversial than a single one of the historians upon whom European history has been built! Good luck with that! Ironically, a number of these very people have been shown to be incredibly biased - either agents of colonial regimes or paid writers by states - did you know that or can that also not be true because you haven't researched it ? 7/26/2013 03:02:40 am
His position on the eastern influence in the development of Western civilization is controversial since it is not universally recognized. That doesn't make it wrong; just that it is not the mainstream view. Typically, the eastern influence on Greece is thought to be from the Near East, not India. Hesiod, for example, shows clear affinities to Hittite myth. However, the similarities between the Vedas and the Iliad are the product of a joint Proto-Indo-European heritage rather than direct contact in the Archaic. So, you'd need to define your terms about specific influences you see.
M. V. Jain
7/26/2013 03:13:35 am
You are an academic and I respect all academics and so will reply once more to what you have said to politely point out that your knowledge is very limited on this subject. What you say above is PART of the story - it is clear that you have not researched more than what you know and summarise above. I can only politely ask you to do so, THEN comment. If academics were to read your comments and reviews, they would either break down to pieces what you have said and show you in how many ways you are just plain wrong, or maybe biased. Also, misattributing quotes or facts to people and historians can be taken very seriously, and you should also be prepared to back up what you say word for word, point for point of you really know what you are talking about. If you don't, it is best not to pose as an expert on a subject that many people take very seriously and spend lifetimes uncovering. 7/26/2013 01:00:17 am
Sorry - by 'puff' I mean a puff of breath, not anything else, in case you think I was being rude. Best wishes.
Reply
7/26/2013 01:00:47 am
Sorry - by 'puff!' I mean a puff of breath, not anything else, in case you think I was being rude. Best wishes.
Reply
M. V. Jain
7/26/2013 01:11:51 am
I have just re-re read your quoting analysis, and I am sorry to say that it is 100% wrong and misrepresents what was actually written and quoted. YOur general analysis would be fair if your quoting were accurate, but I think you have made a BIG mistake there!
Reply
7/26/2013 01:18:06 am
Oh? Do tell. What exactly did my copying and pasting from the original article somehow not correctly copy and paste?
Reply
M. V. Jain
7/26/2013 01:26:02 am
No, it did. But the person who chose what to copy and paste and how to describe what he is copying and pasting is being dishonest I think!!
Reply
M. V. Jain
7/26/2013 01:30:11 am
I have just read the Einstein bit too - again, you have totally quoted out of context!! I don't even need to explain that one - just read it again with a fair and reasonable frame of mind..nothing wrong with it!!
Reply
M. V. Jain
7/26/2013 03:30:00 am
Oh - and by the way, don't be surprised if someone takes legal action against you for suggesting that someone likes the Nazis when they just mention them in a different context. That comment proves how unreliable what you say is and I have lost respect for you as an academic having just seen that reference again - I know of his work and have seen him on TV - you haven't got a clue what or who you are talking about!
Reply
7/26/2013 03:37:06 am
You are intentionally misreading what I wrote. I said nothing about anyone liking Nazis.
Reply
M. V. Jain
7/26/2013 04:18:41 am
Be responsible and fair, sir - that's all! How on earth did a reference to evil Nazi scientists make an author 'proud' of them ? That's very poor analysis and an warranted accusation that I know people would react very strongly to, because it is an aspersion which is wrong and unjustifiable! 7/26/2013 04:27:24 am
He called them (the scientists at least) German geniuses and praised them for reading Indian texts. How is one supposed to take that?
M. V. Jain
7/26/2013 04:42:25 am
You have answered your own question!! Either you are deliberately manipulative or too stubborn to accept reasonable criticism of your writing.
Reply
Tara Jordan
7/26/2013 04:43:18 pm
Maximum turn off. Jason arguing with an individual who has the debating of an ice scraper.
Reply
Only Me
7/27/2013 10:11:15 am
Oh yeah, this discussion escalated rather quickly, didn't it? So far, Jason is manipulative, stubborn and just flat out wrong, but Mr. Jain has yet to specify exactly what Jason has wrong.
Reply
Tara Jordan
7/27/2013 03:21:00 pm
I have to confess,I am still trying to understand exactly what is going on.Can we criticize Jason for something he actually did?.
Only Me
7/27/2013 05:25:38 pm
That's just it, Tara. Apparently, Mr. Jain is a great admirer of Singh. Jason's mistake was addressing the article Singh wrote, then subjecting it to analysis. By his own admission, Mr. Jain has attended Singh's speeches and followed his work, but his fiery defense of a man he doesn't know personally is rather....odd.
Tara Jordan
7/27/2013 06:54:34 pm
Someone who cites David Hatcher Childress in a "serious paper" (I personally consider The Huffington Post to be an ideological rag) only appeals to a readership who's IQ can't reach room temperature.
Tara Jordan
7/27/2013 03:17:05 pm
"The debating skill of an ice scraper......"
Reply
Ginger Wentworth
7/28/2013 08:53:11 am
I just want to know what ancient Greeks mentioned Indian writings or Indian gods or Indian thinkers or Indian philosophies. From Mr. Jain.
Reply
Rose McDonald
3/25/2016 12:11:22 pm
Jason; Jain is indulging in an old, and cowardly rhetorical tactic, the strawman. When one's argument is proved worthless, as I believe Jain's has been, one simply presents an unrelated argument and tries to use it as a means of proving their original premise. The strawman invariably involves accusations of intellectual and academic dishonesty, plagiarism, and deliberate misquotes. Jain's premise is built on flawed logic, weak supporting documentation, and over-blown ego. The strawman argument is a tactic invariably used by the proponents of fringe theories, ancient aliens, etc, and what Mike Heiser has termed Paleobabble.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
February 2025
|