The blue gemstone lapis lazuli has been mined in Afghanistan since the 7th century BC. It was highly prized in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and was mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh several times.
Egyptian terms for blue are tangled up with those for lapis, including several variations of “the real thing” and “fake lapis,” which I believe was the term for the fired faience pieces that took on a lapis-blue/green color.
So it may be that the word for blue arose from something specifically and fantastically blue, but the usage spread to other inarguably blue objects like the sky, making it a very definite color-designation word.
The linked article included a link to “the dress” that I had only been able to view as Blue&Black from the beginning. For nostalgia sake, I clicked the link and the pic of the dress clearly showed up as White&Gold.
Moni: ‘…that can’t be right. Maybe there’s another pic showing it as Blue&Black.’
scrolls down
no other pic
scrolls back up
Moni: ‘Holy sh-t! The same pic now looks Blue&Black! How the heck did I see White&Gold just seconds ago???’
So that bit about the daughter describing the sky as “white” before settling on “blue” really made sense to me in that weird moment above.
The modern russian words, light blue (голубой, goluboy) and dark blue (синий, siniy). , match the ancient greek words.
“The ancient Greeks classified colours by whether they were light or dark, rather than by their hue. The Greek word for dark blue, kyaneos, could also mean dark green, violet, black or brown. The ancient Greek word for a light blue, glaukos, also could mean light green, grey, or yellow.”
As hilariously caricatured by Terry Pratchett:
“The forest of Skund was indeed enchanted, which was nothing unusual on the Disc, and was also the only forest in the whole universe to be called – in the local language – Your Finger You Fool, which was the literal meaning of the word Skund.
The reason for this is regrettably all too common. When the first explorers from the warm lands around the Circle Sea travelled into the chilly hinterland they filled in the blank spaces on their maps by grabbing the nearest native, pointing at some distant landmark, speaking very clearly in a loud voice, and writing down whatever the bemused man told them. Thus were immortalised in generations of atlases such geographical oddities as Just A Mountain, I Don’t Know, What? and, of course, Your Finger You Fool.
Rainclouds clustered around the bald heights of Mt. Oolskunrahod (‘Who is this Fool who does Not Know what a Mountain is’) and the Luggage settled itself more comfortably under a dripping tree, which tried unsuccessfully to strike up a conversation.”
― Terry Pratchett, The Light Fantastic
I’m actually not sure about the rocks - we don’t have a Grand Canyon, or anything like it. I’m going to go somewhat out on a limb and say that the majority of the exposed rocks to be seen in England are some shade of grey or buff.
Most, sure, but the Old Red Sandstone is world-famous (to geologists) and can often run to quite orange.
Also, orange clays were historically sought-after, both for themselves (as ochre) and as an iron ore. Most ochre is called red and yellow, but it actually tends to be orange in reality, because the two types occur mixed together. Bog iron deposits are often orange-stained as well. Also, orange surface weathering of limonite (gossan, a Cornish term) are an important clue to buried ores.
So it would be a colour people in Britain would have looked out for. But they called it red .
Several of these last posts have got me about what gives a color concept sufficient salience to a culture for a unique color world to develop.
No need to discriminate orange clays from red clays or yellow clays so no need to develop a word for orange. No need to discriminate the blue sky from the white sky (but light from dark sky matters).
Except that as an artist, there are three primary colours from which all the other colours are made. One of the primaries is blue, so it’s a hard one to avoid.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That doesn’t mean you must call it “blue,” as opposed to a “type of green.”
Which is what this thread is all about, yes, but in the underlying technical/physical world, blue and green *are *distinct and fundamental colors. It’s not some arbitrary, culture-centric choice of late-stage humans.
I opened the OP thinking it was about this, but alas not.
Not that there’s anything wrong with this thread.
Which is a major pun/funny if anyone follows the Tekhelet business, but I’ll leave that to the reader’s discretion.
Not so. They’re as fundamental and distinct as the group of radio stations between 88.5 FM to 91.3 FM is fundamental and distinct from the group between 91.3 and 92.5 FM on your radio dial.
Blue and green are both distinct, sure. But what makes either one of them more fundamental than cyan, or aquamarine, or turquoise, or teal?
Spoken like a modern artist, who has never known a time when you couldn’t just get any color of paint you can imagine off the shelf at your local hardware or art-supply store. Most human cultures for most of history have had only a very limited set of useful pigments available, and blue usually wasn’t one of them. Your set of available colors was just what pigments you had, plus whatever you could get by combining those pigments, and if you wanted a color that couldn’t be produced by combining those pigments, that was just tough luck.
This is only really a thing with modern artist’s materials. Historically, artists preferred pure pigments - if you wanted green, you used green pigments. Otherwise you’d be usingdesaturated colours and worse, thebrightest blues were worth more than their weight in gold, why would you muddy those up? Or mix costly carmine with toxic orpiment when there’s natural orange ochres and umbers?
Which is why the RGB theory of primary colours was only first expounded by d’Aguilon *in 1613 *and even then in a treatise on optics, not pigment mixing. Not saying colour mixing wasn’t known before that, of course it was, but I am that the “RYB=All Colours” system wasn’t really even occurring to anyone before the Scientific Revolution - if it had, Cennini would doubtless have delineated it in Il Libro dell’Arte or Da Vinci wouldn’t have used a six-colour system .
As it is, it’s been asserted that ‘There is no historical source prior to the 18th century that starts with three “primary” or “primitive” colors and explains how to mix all other colors from them’ - I don’t really have a reason to doubt that assertion based on what I know, though
Are they? Is this blue, or green?
In fact blue is no more “primary” than magenta, yellow, and cyan (which is turquoise not blue), which are the pigments printers use. Or red, green, and blue, like in television monitors.
As Chronos points out, an artist in the ancient world simply did not have blue to work with until Egypt and the Mayans independently developed blue pigments. It easy to avoid that which does not exist.
Anyway primary colors as far as biology goes are the three different cone receptors, which have peak reactivity at a violet blue (S), at a greenish cyan (M), and at a yellowish (L), with ranges around each of less strong response. (Note that red does not get any of them as a peak response but the brain interprets the experience as red when L>M>>S stimulation, which red light does, while blue is experienced when S receptors are stimulated much more than L and M ones.) And farther upstream the main color themes are the opponent processes of green vs magenta and blue vs yellow.
In no real physical or physiological or technical way is blue any more “primary” or “distinct and fundamental” than is green or violet or magenta.
That’s not true. They certainly worked with azurite pigment before the development of Egyptian Blue.
Cite for significant use of azurite before the Egyptians used it please.
I see what you did there.