Hans Henrich Hock Quotes

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]).

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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 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'.

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].

[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.

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.

“….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).