• Ultraviolet light reveals how ancient Greek statues really looked
    125 replies, posted
Science, you have yet to fail me.
It might be because I've only ever seen these statues unpainted, but the painted ones look kinda weird.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;24225733] Speaking of foreigners, the word Barbarian means "Foreigner" in Latin, although it's an adopted word from Greek. At it's most basic, the word is meant as an onomatopoeia: Romans/Greeks believed that anyone speaking in their native tongue (aka, non Greek/Latin) might as well be saying, "Bar bar bar bar" (an ancient equivalent of "blah blah blah.") [/QUOTE] Actually, ''Barbarus'' which forms our word Barbarian, comes from another Latin word ''Barba'' meaning beard, which is the belief that those with Beards (ie Vikings) were Barbarian people who came to pillage. The latin word for foreigner is ''Peregrinus''. Fuck yeah, being Fluent in Latin now has meaning. The roman word for ''blah blah'' is ''rem'' or actually ''blah''.
Call me depressing or whatever but it can't be just me who thinks they look better unpainted :geno:
Magnificent!
I was at a museum a while ago where they had painted some copies to look like they did originally. Ugliest shit ever.
[QUOTE=Piggah;24233996]Actually, ''Barbarus'' which forms our word Barbarian, comes from another Latin word ''Barba'' meaning beard, which is the belief that those with Beards (ie Vikings) were Barbarian people who came to pillage. The latin word for foreigner is ''Peregrinus''. Fuck yeah, being Fluent in Latin now has meaning. The roman word for ''blah blah'' is ''rem'' or actually ''blah''.[/QUOTE] You've got your history mixed up pretty horribly. Even the Western Roman Empire had collapsed before anyone had even heard about the Vikings, and the Mediterranean sea and particularly the Apennine Peninsula remained almost untouched by them. In short, Vikings and Ancient Romans do not belong in the same time nor the same place. You're also wrong about the word "barbarian". I can't find any earlier sources, but Herodotus wrote The Histories circa 420 BC, mentioning "barbarians" in the introduction - referring to non-Greeks. This should suffice to prove that the word wasn't coined by the Romans. [quote=The Histories]Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἥδε, ὡς μήτε τὰ γενόμενα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων τῷ χρόνῳ ἐξίτηλα γένηται, μήτε ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά, τὰ μὲν Ἕλλησι τὰ δὲ [b]βαρβάροισι[/b] ἀποδεχθέντα, ἀκλεᾶ γένηται, τά τε ἄλλα καὶ δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίην ἐπολέμησαν ἀλλήλοισι.[/quote]
so the WERE colored
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;24225255]Absolutely! For instance, I've never heard of the famous [url=http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/baths.html]roman bath houses[/url] until I watched a few documentaries about them on the History Channel[/QUOTE] Wow I learned about the Bath Houses in my Natural Disasters Class in grade 11. We were watching a video on Pompeii.
[QUOTE=Piggah;24233996]Actually, ''Barbarus'' which forms our word Barbarian, comes from another Latin word ''Barba'' meaning beard, which is the belief that those with Beards (ie Vikings) were Barbarian people who came to pillage. The latin word for foreigner is ''Peregrinus''. Fuck yeah, being Fluent in Latin now has meaning. The roman word for ''blah blah'' is ''rem'' or actually ''blah''.[/QUOTE] I tried checking Wikipedia to see if my Latin teacher was screwing with me, then I saw this under "origin of the word Barbarian." [quote]The word "barbarian" comes into English from [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin"]Medieval Latin[/URL] [I]barbarinus[/I], from [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language"]Latin[/URL] [I]barbaria[/I], from Latin [I]barbarus[/I], from the ancient [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language"]Greek[/URL] word βάρβαρος ([I]bárbaros[/I]). The word is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopeia"]onomatopoeic[/URL], the [I]bar-bar[/I] representing the impression of random hubbub produced by hearing a spoken language that one cannot understand, similar to [URL="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blah"]blah blah[/URL] and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babble"]babble[/URL] in modern English.[/quote] So it is an onomatopoeia, with bar-bar being the equivalent to blah blah.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24229197]Why is it that as society progressed onward, people started treating slaves worse and worse? It seems odd that a slave in the human trafficking rings these days is treated like shit while a Greek one was treated fine. I understand the purpose is different now but still.[/QUOTE] Back then slaves were harder to get, so they were more expensive. Nowadays in central asia and other places they use a model "inspired" by 18th Century Britain - workers are paid slightly less than the factory landlord-owned shops charge plus rent, so they have to take out a loan from the landlord's bank and they're stuck there until they die or get sent to the workhouse. Of course, we don't have workhouses any more, so the sweatshop workers just work until they die. They're treated worse certainly than the transatlantic slaves, but no-one cares about them it seems, everyone's just bothered about apologising about slavery, "I'm dreadfully sorry that people the same colour as me hurt people the same colour as you 300 years ago," while everyone's wearing clothes produced by these poor bastards working themselves to death in some shitty factories. Even factory owners who don't want to follow the sweatshop model have to because they have to lower their prices to get contracts from the multinationals who pretty much control the clothing market, and lower prices mean lower wages. It pisses me off SO FUCKING MUCH.
This also applies to buildings There's a single building by the British Museum that's painted garish colours; it's awesome [img]http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs260.snc4/40351_10150236719910444_768630443_14319984_4759710_n.jpg[/img]
I think "slaves" treated "today" are treated worse than centuries ago because back in Roman times, there was a very real chance that you too one day could end up a slave some how, so why would you want to treat your own shitty, lest in some karma like way you would too. These days, the slavers rarely become the slaves, and so have nothing to fear.
Wow. For centuries we admired the classic work of the ancients, marveling at their use of beautiful, simplistic marble masterfully crafted. These guys were so fucking beastin', they didn't NEED color for their art. And now we find out that they painted their shit with a color scheme that looks like tacky home arts & crafts. [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;24242632] So it is an onomatopoeia, with bar-bar being the equivalent to blah blah.[/QUOTE] I fucking lol'd.
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;24251115] And now we find out that they painted their shit with a color scheme that looks like tacky home arts & crafts. [/QUOTE] Well yeah if you compare it to modern day artwork and such, it'll look odd and perhaps ugly. But if you look at it in the perspective it was created, these are beautiful artworks, created by the zenith of civilization and culture.
I'm gonna have to tell my Greek myth teacher about this. Also, I wonder if the Parthenon was painted as well...
Statues of ancient cultures look better as they age, it seems. They look rather ugly when painted (well, the first one is nice, the second one is kind of bleh.) Like when I visited Xi'an, China to see the Terra Cotta Soldiers, they had examples of what they would have looked like, but something about the dusty brown of material itself brought out a much more interesting art than what they painted on. At least, that's how I see it.
[QUOTE=-Ben_Wolfe-;24251687]Statues of ancient cultures look better as they age, it seems. They look rather ugly when painted (well, the first one is nice, the second one is kind of bleh.) Like when I visited Xi'an, China to see the Terra Cotta Soldiers, they had examples of what they would have looked like, but something about the dusty brown of material itself brought out a much more interesting art than what they painted on. At least, that's how I see it.[/QUOTE] It's that feel of age when you see it. It feels old because it looks old, so it makes the experience all the more interesting. No one goes to see things made just a few days ago, but if something looks so old it's from another age of humanity, people will flock to it, to get a glimpse of their ancient past. Almost romantic, in a way.
[QUOTE=-Ben_Wolfe-;24251687]Statues of ancient cultures look better as they age, it seems. They look rather ugly when painted (well, the first one is nice, the second one is kind of bleh.) Like when I visited Xi'an, China to see the Terra Cotta Soldiers, they had examples of what they would have looked like, but something about the dusty brown of material itself brought out a much more interesting art than what they painted on. At least, that's how I see it.[/QUOTE] It's because old relics and artifacts just seem cooler because people who are long gone made them and appreciated them, then they were forgotten and found again. It's just cool to see this stuff as the Greeks saw it.
These are fucking sweet.
Personally I like the washed out black and white look more myself(for obvious reasons), but I suppose these are more festive.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;24225238]Wow, they look... Oddly underwhelming.[/QUOTE] I would imagine that the UV light technique only shows a simple colour up, I would imagine that shading and highlights don't show up as readily because of the layering of darker/lighter paints. I would imagine that is they had spent so much time to carve a statue, they would spend a long time painting it to make it look realistic as they could. None the less, its interesting to see what the basic colours might have been.
They look more stylish in white, methinks. Also, I'm pleased to see such an interesting discussion about ancient cultures on Facepunch.
[QUOTE=Piggah;24233996]Actually, ''Barbarus'' which forms our word Barbarian, comes from another Latin word ''Barba'' meaning beard, which is the belief that those with Beards (ie Vikings) were Barbarian people who came to pillage. The latin word for foreigner is ''Peregrinus''. Fuck yeah, being Fluent in Latin now has meaning. The roman word for ''blah blah'' is ''rem'' or actually ''blah''.[/QUOTE] I thought "rem" was only like our "thing" [editline]01:56PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;24251998]It's that feel of age when you see it. It feels old because it looks old, so it makes the experience all the more interesting. No one goes to see things made just a few days ago, but if something looks so old it's from another age of humanity, people will flock to it, to get a glimpse of their ancient past. Almost [b]romantic[/b], in a way.[/QUOTE] Dohohoho
They seem so much more majestic and powerful as blank white marble.
With statues like that, it makes me wonder what colors the cities were. I mean, everyone always depicts Rome and Greece as a marble white. When it could have actually been really colorful.
[QUOTE=DrLuke;24225157]It amazes me over and over how a man actually managed to shape rock so smoothly with a hammer.[/QUOTE] Crystal skulls man, we [I]still[/I] can't recreate that shit today. [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Crystal_skull_british_museum_random9834672.jpg[/img] Fuckin' Mayans how do they work?
[QUOTE=bravehat;24273268]Crystal skulls man, we [I]still[/I] can't recreate that shit today. [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Crystal_skull_british_museum_random9834672.jpg[/img_thumb] Fuckin' Mayans how do they work?[/QUOTE] I thought those were proven to be fakes? Though I could be wrong.
To all the people saying that the skintones are really light, think about this: If I'm not mistaken, the Romans saw tanned skin as a sign of slavery - if you had tanned skin, it meant you were outside doing labor all day. The sculpture's skintone may have been intentionally overly-pale, the same way an actor's skin in Hollywood movies is overly-tan. Or the method they're using to detect the paint just doesn't pick it up, who knows.
well they look alot fucking better now
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.