Ultraviolet light reveals how ancient Greek statues really looked
125 replies, posted
[QUOTE=janky;24274428]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.[/QUOTE]
Actually, the Romans, being in Italy, were quite tanned themselves. They didn't base slavery or social holding based on color, like modern societies seem to do occasionally, but sadly.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;24274581]Actually, the Romans, being in Italy, were quite tanned themselves. They didn't base slavery or social holding based on color, like modern societies seem to do occasionally, but sadly.[/QUOTE]
My bad then. May be a different civilization I'm thinking about.
[QUOTE=janky;24275082]My bad then. May be a different civilization I'm thinking about.[/QUOTE]
They did how ever find people who had a lot of hair, as in facial and body hair on their chest/back as uncultured, uncivilized and of no regard.
Something interesting as well: Romans [I]were[/I] racist towards people of darker skin color, but in a different way then we're used to: They found Ethiopians "too skittish."
Uh, I remember reading about this in Cracked.com article a couple of weeks ago
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;24276082]Something interesting as well: Romans [I]were[/I] racist towards people of darker skin color, but in a different way then we're used to: They found Ethiopians "too skittish."[/QUOTE]
Hm. I don't remember reading that. Just shows that even I still have lots to learn :hist101:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.