Hans Henrich Hock Quotes

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)

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]).

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’.

In the Gopatha Brahmana, brahmins are sukla white, while the Kathaka samhita uses the term sukla white to refer to the vaysia, and more significantly, characterizes the rajsanya as dhumra dark. Later on the caste colors are sukla white for the brahmin, rakta red for the kshatriya, pita yellow for the vasya, and krsna black for the sudra. Classifications of this type, for which there seem to be counterparts in Chinese and Japanese drama and ritual, make no sense in racial terms ... But the classical system of color association can be made sense of in 'ideological ' terms: white, i.e. ritually pure for the brahmin, red the color of blood for the warrior caste, yellow the color of ripe grain and perhaps also of gold... and black the opposite of ritually pure white for the serfs etc who came to be excluded from the ritual at a fairly early period.

Geldner's interpretation of [RV 9.73.5 , 10.116.4 ] strike me as even more arbitrary, given the limited context; Grassmanns' interpretation that the reference is to darkness or a dark cloud is at least equally possible.

In light of the preceding discussion, the racial interpretation of the of the notions light/white and dark/black found in Geldner's translations and echoed or precedented in numerous other publications must be considered dubious. Where there is sufficient context for interpretation, we find that the notions can at least equally well be read as an ‘ideological’ distinction between the ‘dark/black’ world of the dāsas/dasyus and the ‘light/white’ world of the āryas.”

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).

[RV 1.100.18] is the only one among these that contains a word meaning white or light. Given that the very next line begins with a reference to the sun, it is perfectly natural to assume that white or light here refers to the brightness of the sun or of a world that is illuminated by the sun, see Sayana's interpretation. Geldner's tentative equation of white/light with skin color is not required by the context.

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].

A few things can be established with certainty, others with a good degree of likelihood, and yet others remain entirely uncertain.

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.

“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’.

The word tvac 'skin' ... does not necessarily designate human or animal skin, but can also refer to the surface of the earth. Examples of this occur in RV 1.79.3, 1.145.5., 10.68.4, and possibly 4.17.14. An important variant, in the expression roma prtivyah (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 Rigveda. In [RV 1.130.8, 9.41.1-5, 9.73.5] , therefore, the reference may well be to the 'dark earth' or 'dark world' of the dasas/dasyus, which contrasts with the broad light of the aryas, which is lit up by the sun or by 'fiery beings'.

“….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).