Home› Main Category› Clubhouse
The color blue: Ancient Origins
It's everywhere, but apparently our ancestors couldn't see it. And humans can see a million shades, just not blue. In ancient languages, the color blue isn't mentioned; not in ancient Chinese, Icelandic, or Greek. Homer described the ocean as "the wine dark sea" and not "the deep blue sea." (Wine dark sea actually sounds more poetic IMO.) No mention of blue in the original Hebrew version of the Bible. Some modern humans apparently can't see blue either. And it's not just language, either. In one test, Herdsmen from Mumbai were asked to pick out the blue square from 12 identical green squares which is obvious to us, but many of them could not tell the difference, and those who did had to ponder on it. Their language, like ancient ones, has no word for blue.
I got this information from Ancient Origins, a website that deals with Ancient Subjects. It's a good read if such things interest you.
Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
Replies
:-)
The article refers to “as late as 1800s” hinting that humans could not “see” the color. Yet it is well known that during the Renaissance in Europe (when trade with the countries that produced the Lapis Lazuli was more commonplace) blue was a highly prized and EXPENSIVE pigment which was used in many of the masters paintings, usually on the robes/clothing of royalty or religious figures like Jesus and the Virgin Mary, and for the creation of expensive fabrics to dress royalty.
The Adoration of the Magi - Giovanni di Paolo - 1460
Salvator Mundi - Leonardo DaVinci - 1499
By the way, great website, thanks for sharing.
It’s a °IIIII° thing 😎
It’s a °IIIII° thing 😎
How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again! -- Mark Twain
How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again! -- Mark Twain
There are languages spoken by people who would starve to death without access to rice, but they have no specific word for rice, instead the word they use for rice is the same word that they use for 'food'.
I would see colors and describe them as brown or white, and then be informed that actually the colors were taupe or ivory. I saw the colors but had never associated those specific words to describe them. To me, taupe never existed and ivory was a material, not a color.
The Japanese do not use the word 'No' in the same manner as westerners but they understand the concept of no, they just do not use that word.
If you asked a western grocer if he had any bananas, he might reply "No, I do not have any bananas" where a Japanese grocer would reply "Yes, I do not have any bananas"
That still runs into a couple problems:
1. Conceptually a caveman probably doesn't have enough of whatever he's using to paint an elaborate background like the sky. He's going to assume the viewer can fill that in for themselves - because "DUH! IT'S EVERYWHERE!" - and just put down the important subject matter. You probably aren't going to see that kind of portrayal until more complex orders of societies emerged. Also, in a more primitive mind with no understanding of air as matter, the sky might be "nothing" in their heads, and there's no reason to paint nothing. That kind of "photo realism" came later. You'd have to look for representations of blue plants, birds, or reptiles - if such existed in the area and if they thought those were important enough to paint.
2. Water is a bit of a problem. While there are those postcard lagoons that are unquestionably "BLUE!", rivers, ponds, and lakes are often the color of whatever is suspended in them. For a sea-based c
3. The pigment would have to exist where the art was painted. Blue would probably be a toughie in a lot of places.
4. You can get a lot across without a big palette. Just look at your daily black & white comic strips. If the only crayon you had was a charred stick...
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again! -- Mark Twain