Hans Henrich Hock

"“….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)."

"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."

"[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]."

"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."

"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, 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."

"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.”"

"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 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."

"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])."

"Note also the widespread use of uru- loka- 'wide space' found eg in RV 1.93.6.(Agni and Soma have made wide space for the sacrifice) and RV 6.23.7 (Indra is asked to create wide space for the worshipper) and note the related u loka- . The similarity to the uru jyotih found in some of our earlier examples goes beyond the fact that the two collocations are used in the same general contexts and with about the same meaning , and beyond the fact that the same adjective (uru) is used in both collocations - etymologically , loca is derived from the root ruc- shine and thus comparable in meaning to jyotih light."

"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’."

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

"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."

"Closer examination suggests an alternative interpretation of the terms ‘black’ or ‘dark’ as referring to the dark world of the dasas/dasyus in contrast with the light world of the aryas, an interpretation which is in perfect agreement with the contrast between good/light and evil/dark forces that pervades the Vedas (and has parallels in many, perhaps most other traditions around the world)."

"First, wherever there is sufficient context for interpretation (which excludes [11], [12], and [13]), either the same line or verse or a closely neighboring one contains a reference to the ‘sun’ [5], [6], and [9], to ‘broad light’ [7], or to ‘red’ or ‘fiery’ beings [8].23 These references are marked in roman."

"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 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)"

"A closer study of all the passages that provide sufficient context for interpretation shows that the black or dark of the Dasas/Dasyus is not contrasted with the light or white skin color of the Aryas, but with their bright, sunny world. (236)... Even the expression tvac "skin" does not need to be understood literally, but can also refer to the surface of the earth. In general, the assumption of racial self- and external identification, as well as the alleged parallel with the English conquest of India for the time of the alleged Indo-Aryan immigration to India, is extremely questionable. (236-7)"

"In the case of Pirak, however, it must be admitted that the cultural innovations do not appear to be clearly Indo-European. Perhaps there was only indirect contact via other ethnic groups in Seistan. (244)"

"A great difficulty is the fact that archaeology offers no firm evidence either for the Aryan invasion theory or for the Aryan emigration theory, or even for the historically attested multiple later immigrations or invasions into South Asia - at least if we restrict ourselves to the evidence of skeletal types and general cultural tradition. As already indicated earlier, invasions of this kind probably do not leave the kind of traces that traditional archaeology would expect. (246)... We can therefore conclude that the Aryan invasion theory is preferable to the emigration theory. But this conclusion is only valid as long as our knowledge of Indo-European culture and expansion or of the Indus culture remains unchanged... If, on the basis of this decipherment, the language of the Indus culture should clearly prove to be Indo-Aryan, then our conclusion would of course have to be revised fundamentally. (246-7)... All existing interpretations of the early and prehistory of South Asia are at best scientific hypotheses, hypotheses that differ only in their degree of probability. In view of the often tense political situation in India with regard to the Hindutva and Dravida self-image, it is in my opinion appropriate to remember the hypothetical nature of these hypotheses. There is no such thing as complete certainty and there cannot be. Why should people then be hostile, heretical or even beat each other up over these hypotheses? (247)"

"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)."

"He emphasizes an approach where truth is the “ultimate goal”, but “truth is always conditional, to be superseded by better evidence or interpretation of evidence” (HOCK 2005:282)."

"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)."

"He also expresses his opinion about the Vedas that “whatever their original and/or secondary purposes may have been, they were not intended as data bases for latter-day historians”, and suggests that “whatever historical evidence they contain, therefore, can only be gleaned by a careful, philologically well-grounded reading of the lines – and between the lines – of the texts” (HOCK 2005:303).He emphasizes the need for “other” and “better” evidence (than astronomical references in the Rigveda) “to establish a date for the Rigveda” (HOCK 2005:303) and (than isolated words in the Avesta) to determine “historical movements in the Indo-Iranian linguistic territory” (HOCK 2005:295)."

"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)."

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