“Berlin and Kay also found that the number of basic color terms tends to increase with the complexity of the civilization. They speculated that this explains the relative poverty of color terminology among the ancients–e.g., the Greeks had terms only for black, white, yellow, and red because theirs was a relatively uncomplicated culture, at least from a technological standpoint.” (Emphasis mine)
Uncomplicated. Wow. Now here I was thinking that Ancient Greece represented a confluence of human achievement that has rarely been seen since. Architecture, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, politics, etc. etc. ETC! What was I thinking? :smack:
I recall reading many years ago that Joseph’s “coat of many colours” was a mis-translation of “coat of many fabrics” and that there are far fewer references to colour in the Bible than you would find if it were written by modern man.
Mmmm, yes… But at the time I’m sure that they considered their technology to be complicated. As did (and do) folks wherever they are in history, and to consider the technology before them to be uncomplicated. And no one can argue with the quality of their thought that is certainly the cornerstone of today’s sciences. Does the number of color names directly correlate with innovations in technology? Should we anticipate even more names for colors as our technology improves?
I’d be far more likely to swallow this if it were tied in some way to complexity in the fashion industry, or the visual arts. After all, do we really need a name for teal, or puce, or chartreuse except in these fields?
A) There was, in fact, a huge explosion in color names with the invention of coal-tar dyes in the 19th century.
B) Technology as it stood for the average Greek was very simple indeed. Some craftsmen had complex crafts, but Ion Kanonikos didn’t know much about them, because there were no elementary schools giving “general science” classes and no “Techné on Parade” productions to fill empty time in the Theatre. Greece gave the world science and mathematics, but it was Rome that first got really serious about engineering.
C) The last I looked, Joseph’s coat was suspected of being nothing more than a “coat with long sleeves”.
Didn’t modern archeologicqal analysis reveal that the Pantheon was once painted in a riot of different colours and very much not like the white version we see today.
I tend to suspect that nature has always represented itself to us in the multitude of hues we see today, and that the ancients saw them in much the same way as well. My guess would be that an increase in the number of names for the nearly infinite graduation of wavelength colors would be more a result of the development of the technology necessary to reproduce those graduations of hues than any sudden population-wide mutation and evolutionary change in color perception. After all, how long do you suppose such a change would take to become so widely dispersed even among isolated primative cultures without contact with the rest of the species gene pool. Or are we dwelling once more upon how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Those familiar with the “Calvin and Hobbes” comic strip will remember this dialog between Calvin and his father:
Calvin: How come old photographs are always black and white? Didn’t they have color film back then? Father: Sure they did. In fact, those old photographs are in color. It’s just that the world was black and white then. The world didn’t turn color until sometime in the 1930s, and it was pretty grainy color for a while, too. Calvin: But then why are old paintings in color?! If the world was black and white, wouldn’t artists have painted it that way? Father: Not necessarily. A lot of great artists were insane. Calvin: But… But how could they have painted in color anyway? Wouldn’t their paints have been shades of gray back then? Father: Of course, but they turned colors like everything else did in the ’30s. Calvin: So why didn’t old black and white photos turn color too? Father: Because they were color pictures of black and white, remember?
At least the sculptural friezes on buildings like the Parthenon woul dhave been painted (BTW, Shalmanese, the Parthenon is in Athens, the Pantheon in Rome)
Calvin and Hobbes were special heroes of mine. After hearing Calvin’s father’s logic I now suspect I know why. Anyone with their tongue buried that firmly in their cheek is welcome to be my friend.
I understand that this thread absolutely has nothing to do with my comment but, after searching for sometime now I cannot find the thread that deals with my comment. I would only say to my comment is that the tests that were performed at MIT in 1962 only proved that the coriolis does have an effect on the direction that water drains based on it’s location (eg northern hemisphere, or southern hemisphere).
Welcome to the boards. If you decide to join and subscribe, you’ll be able to \use the search engine and find instantly dozens of threads which deal with the coriolis effect.Here’s a recent one with lots of replys.
Reply to that one if you want to keep discussing that subject.
First, I recognize that Cecil’s original column had to do with early man’s perception of color, rather than historical color terminology (in which case, the Calvin & Hobbes dialogue may have more relevance than my original post). Nevertheless, it would seem that historical records of color terminology may be all we have to go on. John W. Kennedy’s first comment would, to me, be more in support of the fashion (or textile) industry theory rather than that of advancing technology.
It’s a bit of a slippery slope, and I know that this is not a skiing thread, but: At which point do we define technology as simple or compex? The Bronze Age? The Iron Age? Archimedes and the lever? Hero of Alexandria with his pneumatics and steam engines? While technology was not widely implemented, it seems difficult to believe that it is the implementation of technology, rather than its conception, that shapes one’s ability to percieve color.