Bjerstedt (1960) submits evidence that a preference for red colors is characteristic of "stimulus-receptive" personalities, most typically children who display immediate need-gratification. Since this trait is also markedly associated wich primitivity (Doob, 1958), it might be expected that redness had a particularly strong impact on the perceptual mechanism of ancient man. There is evidence for the early perceptual primacy of red (Geiger, 1880; Schrader, 1890). Indo-European languages share a common term for red (Sanskrit "rudhra;" Latin "ruber;" Gothic "raud;" Keltic "ruad;" Greek "erythros"). The concept of blueness evolved much later and had to be separately invented (Sanskrit "nili;" Latin "coeruleus;" Greek "cyan;" Teutonic "blau"). The absence of "blue" is notable in ancient scriptures (Rig-Veda, Zend-Avesta, Bible, Koran, Homeric Epics). Aristotle and Xenophanes did not "see" blue in the rainbow. Great ambiguity also surrounds the use of "green" (Slavic "zelenu;" Greek "chloros"). Both words were derived from Aryan roots meaning "yellow." In the time of Hesiod and Homer, "chloros" was still applied to yellow objects. The linguistic transmutation of "yellow" to "green" could not have occurred had a clear concept of green existed. The explanation for color vocabulary deficiencies has been that early man named only colors that were culturally important. Since generic words for color usually derive from skin, hide, complexion, etc. (Buck, 1949), it is reasoned that blue and green were absent because they were not animal colors. This hypothesis is unconvincing since it implies that sky, water and vegetation lacked a cultural, hence perceptual, impact. It is suggested here that psychological traits associated wich primitivity contributed to the earlier conceprualizacion and naming of "redness."