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 … - Hans Henrich Hock

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.”

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.

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’.