Hans Henrich Hock Quotes

A close reading of the Rg-vedic passages in which terms meaning white or light and dark or black are employed in reference to human beings convinces me that a racial interpretation of these terms is not required by textual evidence.

He even-handedly takes up three Aryan Invasion interpretations and three Indian Origin interpretations from the Vedic texts, and cautions us at the very outset (HOCK 2005:283) that “the passages in question and their interpretation do not provide cogent support for the hypotheses they are supposed to support”, while reasonably conceding that “this does not mean that either of the two theories is therefore invalidated. It merely means that the evidence in question is not sufficiently cogent to provide support for the respective hypothesis and therefore must be considered irrelevant. First of all, neither hypothesis rests solely on the evidence here examined; and it is in principle perfectly possible that other evidence can show one hypothesis to be superior to the other”. He even reasonably concedes the possibility that “any new evidence or better interpretation would, in true scientific spirit, be able to overturn the so far victorious hypothesis”, or that “in principle none of the currently available evidence stands up under scrutiny and that nevertheless, one or the other hypothesis was historically coreect, except that the evidence in its favour has not been preserved for us”. ... And in his conclusion to the article, he writes: ”Personally, I feel that most of the evidence and arguments that have been offered in favor either of the Aryan In-Migration hypothesis or of the Out-of-India are inconclusive at closer examination” (HOCK 2005:303).

The expression róma prthivyâh (1.65.8) ‘the body-hair of the earth’ ‘the plants’, suggests that the metaphor of tvac- as the ‘skin’ or surface of the earth was well established in the poetic language of the Rig-Veda.

Best of all is his classic ending, declaring his honesty and openness: “Throughout I have endeavored to live up to the desiderata outlined at the beginning, namely being transparent and vulnerable – transparent by providing supporting evidence that is easily available to verification, and vulnerable by being open to challenge and potential falsification. As I stated at the outset, this, I believe, is the only way that we can establish a common ground for those working in Vedic studies. Without this common ground there is nothing to evaluate the many conflicting theories without either questioning each others’ motives, or saying ‘Trust me, trust me’. As I tell my students: If people merely say ‘Trust me, trust me’, don’t trust them, don’t trust them. And as to questioning each others’ motives, it is good to note that people as different in their motives as Elst and Zydenbos have stated on the Indology List that what really counts is the evidence and its interpretation – even racists and communalists can come to correct results if their evidence and their methodology are correct (however much we may deplore their ideologies and biases)” (HOCK 2005:303-4).

Early Sanskrit literature offers no conclusive evidence for preoccupation with skin color. More than that, some of the greatest Epic heroes and heroines such as Krshna, Draupadi, Arjuna, Nakula and (...) Damayanti are characterized as dark-skinned. Similarly, the famous cave-paintings of Ajanta depict a vast range of skin colors. But in none of these contexts do we find that darker skin color disqualifies a person from being considered good, beautiful, or heroic. Even more significant, in these and other passages in Sanskrit literature that characterize a person's skin color as dark, this characterization applies to individuals - we have no evidence of the classification of entire racial groups in terms of skin color.

The abuse of linguistic prehistory and early history in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries is well known. A racial interpretation of the earliest stages of Vedic Sanskrit, projected back into Proto-Indo-European, formed fertile ground for the racist "Aryan" ideology, the most horrific outgrowth of which was the genocide of Jews, Gypsies or Roma and other so-called "inferior" races carried out by the Nazis in the name of Germany. It is also a fact that a somewhat milder form of racism characterizes a large part of the overall Indology of the 19th and early 20th centuries. (232)

Moreover, in [RV 2.20.7 , 1.101.1] , Geldner's translations of the krsnayonih... as meaning 'having blacks or embryos of the blacks in their wombs' is quite recherché; a more natural interpretation would be 'having dark wombs', and this interpretation permits a reading 'having dark interiors' - which could refer either to dark interiors of the dasas forts or to the dark world in which the forts of the dasas /dasyus are located , in contrast to the 'light' world of the aryas. In fact the close similarity between the expressions... 'he created land for Manu' in [RV 2.20.7] and... 'making broad light for the arya' in [RV 7.5.3 - 6] provides strong support for the view that words for light and dark are indeed used to refer to the earth, land, or world of aryas vs dasas.

The fact that racial interpretations arose in the 19th century is not surprising , given the prevalence at the time of quasi-scientific attempts to provide a justification for racially based European imperialism , and the well known scramble of the European powers to divide up the non-European world. Moreover, the British take-over of India seemed to provide a perfect parallel to the assumed take-over of prehistoric India by the invading ‘Aryans’.

The aim should be not to “forestall all dissenting voices”, but (a) to “invite meaningful debate”; (b) “to invite the scholarly challenges and ensuing debate that can lead to better insights and closer approximation of the truth”; (c) “to go beyond what can be grasped at first contact, and as a consequence of having to defend perceptions against competing views, to investigate matters more thoroughly”; (d) to “approximate truth more closely”; (d) to “go beyond initial impressions and beyond the validation of preconceived interpretations”; (e) to “embrace the scientific approach of being transparent and vulnerable – transparent by being open to verification in terms of providing supporting evidence and discussing potentially conflicting evidence, and vulnerable by being open to challenge and potential falsification“; (f) “to evaluate the very different perspectives that are current and thus to reach beyond the differences in perspective, ideology or bias” (HOCK 2005:282-3).

“….the ‘Sanskrit-origin’ hypothesis runs into insurmountable difficulties, due to the irreversible nature of relevant linguistic changes [….but….] the likelihood of the ‘PIE-in-India’ hypothesis cannot be assessed on the basis of similar robust evidence” (HOCK 1999a:2), and that “The ‘PIE-in-India’ hypothesis is not as easily refuted as the ‘Sanskrit-origin’ hypothesis, since it is not based on ‘hard-core’ linguistic evidence, such as sound changes, which can be subjected to critical and definitive analysis. Its cogency can be assessed only in terms of circumstantial arguments, especially arguments based on plausibility and simplicity” (HOCK 1999a:12).

Words meaning white light are widely used in reference to the world of the Aryans or their gods, and so are terms meaning broad, wide (note the combination of broad and light in the uru jyotih broad light of [RV 7.5.3 - 6]).

Moreover, to get his racial interpretation in [RV 4.6.13-14], Geldner has to unnecessarily assume "attraction", i.e. inaccurate agreement between krsna black and sahasra 'thousands'. This is not necessary if we interpret krsna as a sandhi form krshnah and construe it as modifying puro 'forts'. Under this interpretation, of course, krsna refers not to people , but to forts.

Examples 6-9 contain references to black or dark or even black skin; and Geldner's interpretation is almost consistently a racial one. Closer examination, however, shows that either within the same line or verse , or in a closely neighboring one, we find references to the sun [RV 1.130.8, 4.6.13-14], to broad light [7.5.3-6], or to red or fiery beings [RV 3.31.21].

“Indo-Europeanists must exercise caution, lest they unwittingly support ideologically motivated agendas”!

Further, elsewhere in the Rig-Veda the word tvac- ‘skin’, which occurs in [1.130.8 ], [9.41.1,5], and [9.73.5], does not necessarily designate human or animal skin, but may refer to the surface of the earth. Examples of this use occur at RV 1.79.3, 1.145.5, 10.68.4, and possibly 4.17.14. The expression róma prthivyâh (1.65.8) ‘the body-hair of the earth’ ‘the plants’, suggests that the metaphor of tvac- as the ‘skin’ or surface of the earth was well established in the poetic language of the Rig-Veda. In [1.130.8 ], [9.41.1,5], and [9.73.5], therefore, the reference may well be to the ‘dark earth’ or ‘dark world’ of the dasas/dasyus that contrasts with the urújyótih ‘broad light’ of the aryas, which is lit up by the sun or by ‘fiery beings’. In this regard note the close similarity between the expressions ájanayan mánave ksâm ‘he created land for Manu’ in [2.20.7] and urújyótir janáyann âryaya ‘making broad light for the arya’.