Why Most Ancient Civilizations Had No Word for the Color Blue

In an old Zen sto­ry, two monks argue over whether a flag is wav­ing or whether it’s the wind that waves. Their teacher strikes them both dumb, say­ing, “It is your mind that moves.” The cen­turies-old koan illus­trates a point Zen mas­ters — and lat­er philoso­phers, psy­chol­o­gists, and neu­ro­sci­en­tists — have all empha­sized at one time or anoth­er: human expe­ri­ence hap­pens in the mind, but we share real­i­ty through lan­guage and cul­ture, and these in turn set the terms for how we per­ceive what we expe­ri­ence.

Such obser­va­tions bring us to anoth­er koan-like ques­tion: if a lan­guage lacks a word for some­thing like the col­or blue, can the thing be said to exist in the speaker’s mind? We can dis­pense with the idea that there’s a col­or blue “out there” in the world. Col­or is a col­lab­o­ra­tion between light, the eye, the optic nerve, and the visu­al cor­tex. And yet, claims Maria Michela Sas­si, pro­fes­sor of ancient phi­los­o­phy at Pisa Uni­ver­si­ty, “every cul­ture has its own way of nam­ing and cat­e­go­riz­ing colours.”

The most famous exam­ple comes from the ancient Greeks. Since the 18th cen­tu­ry, schol­ars have point­ed out that in the thou­sands of words in the Ili­ad and Odyssey, Homer nev­er once describes any­thing — sea, sky, you name it — as blue. It wasn’t only the Greeks who didn’t see blue, or didn’t see it as we do, Sas­si writes:

There is a spe­cif­ic Greek chro­mat­ic cul­ture, just as there is an Egypt­ian one, an Indi­an one, a Euro­pean one, and the like, each of them being reflect­ed in a vocab­u­lary that has its own pecu­liar­i­ty, and not to be mea­sured only by the sci­en­tif­ic meter of the New­ton­ian par­a­digm.

It was once thought cul­tur­al col­or dif­fer­ences had to do with stages of evo­lu­tion­ary devel­op­ment — that more “prim­i­tive” peo­ples had a less devel­oped bio­log­i­cal visu­al sense. But dif­fer­ences in col­or per­cep­tion are “not due to vary­ing anatom­i­cal struc­tures of the human eye,” writes Sas­si, “but to the fact that dif­fer­ent ocu­lar areas are stim­u­lat­ed, which trig­gers dif­fer­ent emo­tion­al respons­es, all accord­ing to dif­fer­ent cul­tur­al con­texts.”

As the Asap­SCIENCE video above explains, the evi­dence of ancient Greek lit­er­a­ture and phi­los­o­phy shows that since blue was not part of Homer and his read­ers’ shared vocab­u­lary (yel­low and green do not appear either), it may not have been part of their per­cep­tu­al expe­ri­ence, either. The spread of blue ink across the world as a rel­a­tive­ly recent phe­nom­e­non has to do with its avail­abil­i­ty. “If you think about it,” writes Busi­ness Insider’s Kevin Loria, “blue doesn’t appear much in nature — there aren’t blue ani­mals, blue eyes are rare, and blue flow­ers are most­ly human cre­ations.”

The col­or blue took hold in mod­ern times with the devel­op­ment of sub­stances that could act as blue pig­ment, like Pruss­ian Blue, invent­ed in Berlin, man­u­fac­tured in Chi­na and export­ed to Japan in the 19th cen­tu­ry. “The only ancient cul­ture to devel­op a word for blue was the Egyp­tians — and as it hap­pens, they were also the only cul­ture that had a way to pro­duce a blue dye.” Col­or is not only cul­tur­al, it is also tech­no­log­i­cal. But first, per­haps, it could be a lin­guis­tic phe­nom­e­non.

One mod­ern researcher, Jules David­off, found this to be true in exper­i­ments with a Namib­ian peo­ple whose lan­guage makes no dis­tinc­tion between blue and green (but names many fin­er shades of green than Eng­lish does). “David­off says that with­out a word for a colour,” Loria writes, “with­out a way of iden­ti­fy­ing it as dif­fer­ent, it’s much hard­er for us to notice what’s unique about it.” Unless we’re col­or blind, we all “see” the same things when we look at the world because of the basic biol­o­gy of human eyes and brains. But whether cer­tain col­ors appear, it seems, has to do less with what we see than with what we’re already primed to expect.

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in 2021.

Relat­ed Con­tent: 

A 3,000-Year-Old Painter’s Palette from Ancient Egypt, with Traces of the Orig­i­nal Col­ors Still In It

How the Ancient Greeks & Romans Made Beau­ti­ful Pur­ple Dye from Snail Glands

Dis­cov­er the Cyanome­ter, the Device Invent­ed in 1789 Just to Mea­sure the Blue­ness of the Sky

YIn­Mn Blue, the First Shade of Blue Dis­cov­ered in 200 Years, Is Now Avail­able for Artists

How Ancient Greek Stat­ues Real­ly Looked: Research Reveals Their Bold, Bright Col­ors and Pat­terns

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness


by | Permalink | Comments (28) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!


Comments (28)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • M Downey says:

    If there was no word for blue, how did peo­ple describe the sky?

    Blue does appear in nature. Birds, fish, snakes, lizards, insects all appear with blue.

  • robert jordan says:

    Like you would know.

  • robert jordan says:

    Like you would know.
    Mo, that was­n’t me but glad to know I am NOT alone in my thoughts.

  • Dennis Roberts says:

    I’m sor­ry but this just isn’t true. I’m see­ing a lot of that “no one could see the col­or blue until mod­ern times because no one had a word for blue” meme on FB, again. Please stop repost­ing non­sense. Sor­ry, but this is sil­ly and humans haven’t changed that much in 2000 years.

    The Latin word for light blue is caeruleus. Sky blue was cae­lestis (celes­tial, lat­er used to mean divine or heav­en­ly.) The ancient Greek for dark blue was kuanos and the word for light blue was glaukos. The ancient Greek word for green was chloros (from which we get chloro­phyll). The Greeks could tell green from blue just fine. So could the Romans and every oth­er ancient cul­ture.

    Some­times before sim­ply repeat­ing things because they sound cool we should stop and look at the evi­dence first.

  • GREEK NEMESIS says:

    DAMN RIGHT, REGARDING ANCIENT GREECE! OBVIOUSLY WE KNEW HOW TO EXPRESS OURSELVES IN WHAT HAS TO DO WITH COLOURS! WHAT THEY SAY HERE ARE INACCURATE AND STUPID! IN FACT, SOME OF THESE WORDS, ARE STILL IN USE TO DATE! WE STILL USE “CHLOROS” TODAY, AS WELL AS “KYANOS” (…In ancient Greece though, it was pro­nounced as “KYANUN”)! DON’T LISTEN TO THESE MORONS! THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!

  • Jeff Stark says:

    In reply to Den­nis Roberts: the Greek words you cit­ed, as with many words, have mul­ti­ple mean­ings and are not spe­cif­ic to col­or. The words are more close­ly asso­ci­at­ed with lumi­nos­i­ty, bright­ness or dark­ness. The word “kuanos” might be blue-black but has oth­er clos­er asso­ci­a­tions with enam­el and met­al. The word “chloros” might be descrip­tive of yel­low-green but also of fresh­ness and vital­i­ty, and, para­dox­i­cal­ly, dread, as in pale green with fear (chloron deos). The word “glau­cos” is not just blue-grey but also lumi­nous or gleam­ing and was even used to describe olives. The word might have asso­ci­a­tions more promi­nent than col­or. In that con­text, chloros does not just mean “green”, kuanos is not just “dark blue” and glau­cos is not just “ight blue”. In that respect, the words are not colors.The con­text in which the words were used is more rel­e­vant than the mere def­i­n­i­tion of col­or.

  • gwr says:

    This same post was on your site a while back and was round­ly debunked. Not sure why you chose to run it again.

  • Pam says:

    Unbe­liev­able we read­ers have to fact check eas­i­ly-debunked non­sense. I guess this is what hap­pens when edi­tors are done away with.

  • Jeff says:

    You need words and cul­ture to see col­ors. There are no blue jays or blue whales. They aren’t even ani­mals. You all just dont get it. Things that cant talk see only black and white out­lines of the world.

  • Henry The Greater says:

    Did these peo­ple not know about Lapis, azure, cyan? Just a quick Google search can tell you that this is just not cor­rect. Ancient peo­ple all over the world had words for blue. If it exist­ed in ancient times there is cer­tain­ly a prop­er and rec­og­nized way to com­mu­ni­cate what it is.

  • ecojam says:

    “The past was erased, the era­sure was for­got­ten, the lie became the truth.”

  • Allen says:

    Blue first came about as a feel­ing.

  • Ceres Eris says:

    The fact you talk about blue ink in mod­ern times, but leave out the rich his­to­ry of use of lapis lazuli in ancient civ­i­liza­tions, is dubi­ous at best.

  • AVB says:

    But you could say the same about English.“I’m feel­ing blue”, “He’s in a black mood”, “You’re too yel­low to stand up for your­self”, “Your record needs to be whiter than white”, “When i first came here, i was pret­ty green”, “I’m not sure, it’s a pret­ty grey area, as far as i’m con­cerned”. I could go on.

  • Chris Jones says:

    This arti­cle is in no way true. Look across Britain and you see the Romans using blue in their tile from the 1st — 4th cen­turies. If the Romans knew blue so did Homer, unless he was col­or blind.

  • Siddhartha Saggar says:

    Inter­est­ing how an entire arti­cle on “blue” writ­ten with­out a ref­er­ence to the expen­sive Lapiz Lazuli, based on which count­less paint­ings were drawn for mil­lenia, and also Indi­go. The only ref­er­ence is of the Pruss­ian Blue which, which is a rel­a­tive­ly recent addi­tion to the list of avail­able blue pig­ments. Indi­an sub­con­ti­nent lan­guages, such as San­skrit and Tamil, have had the words for blue even in her ancient scrip­tures.

  • Joseph says:

    To Chris Jones who says of Homer “unless he was col­or blind.” In point of fact, Homer was blind, com­plete­ly blind. So he saw no blue and no oth­er col­or. I don’t know what to make of most of the argu­ments here on either side, but most­ly they are all “unthink­ing.” If some­one, for exam­ple, used blue in a paint­ing or tile, it does­n’t prove they would rec­og­nize it as blue, it only means that among the media avail­able, that one was pleas­ing. And what I’ve just said does­n’t indi­cate (or prove) the arti­san did­n’t rec­og­nize blue as blue either. Any study of the use of words is a study of lan­guage, not biol­o­gy, and the absence of a word is just absence with no spe­cif­ic mean­ing.

  • OJJ says:

    Among the first writ­ten, first scribed, first repeat­ed Sumer­ian to Assyr­i­an Epic of Gil­gamesh tablets in clay and that was most val­ued as chisled out in cuni­form in blue lapis lazuli stone. Blue was val­ued.

  • Mike J says:

    Oth­ers are doing a good job of debunk­ing this arti­cle, but I thought I’d go even fur­ther back. The first 5 books of the Old Tes­ta­ment are about 4000 years old. The Hebrew words “t’chelet” and “tekhelet” which mean blue are used many times in the con­text of col­or describ­ing God’s pave­ment in heav­en (Exo­dus 24:10), the col­or of the tas­sels the Hebrews were to wear on the edge of the gar­ments (Num­bers 15:38–39), col­or of stones on the priests ephod and the cov­er­ing over it (Exo­dus 39:10–13, 39:22), and the taber­na­cle cur­tains were made using blue, pur­ple and scar­let thread and then held togeth­er with blue yarn (Exo­dus 37:8–12). I could go on… but you get the point. The Hebrews knew blue long before “the mod­ern times.” Obvi­ous­ly you failed to actu­al­ly do research in com­ing up with this arti­cle.

  • M. Kanellis says:

    It’s sim­i­lar to the fact that peo­ple did­n’t have a word for pink until rel­a­tive­ly recent­ly (17th cen­tu­ry). Before we start­ed using a word for it, it was just con­sid­ered a shade of red, just like light blue does­n’t have a spe­cial name, it’s just a shade of blue. So until we had a name for it, we did­n’t real­ly see it, or at least did­n’t see it as a colour in its own right. Pink was named for car­na­tions which have a ragged or pinked (zigzag) edg­ing.

    We can per­ceive colours like blue and green, but there are many shades that are inde­ter­mi­nate and dif­fi­cult to cat­e­go­rize as one or the oth­er. It is not at all strange to think that at one time colours in this range were per­ceived as one extend­ed colour group.

  • Exquisite Spam says:

    I’m afraid this is tosh. In fact, Japan used blue as a word more than green. You will still get elder­ly Japan­ese say “Aoi desu!” (It’s blue!) In the con­text od the light is blue, why aren’t we mov­ing? Even though the traf­fic light is in fact green. Also, you can iden­ti­fy colours bet­ter if you know the word for that colour.

  • Your teacher says:

    Com­plete myth. Lapis lazuli was sig­nif­i­cant­ly prized in the ancient world. Egyp­tians wor­shipped the blue lotus.

    Go back to school kid

  • Your teacher says:

    Com­plete myth. Lapis lazuli was sig­nif­i­cant­ly prized in the ancient world. Egyp­tians wor­shipped the blue lotus.

    Go back to school kid

  • Titus Crapulus says:

    So when peo­ple went to pre-Greece Bronze Age Baby­lon, they could only mar­vel at the Ishtar Gate, but not describe its colour?

    Although my favourite bit was ““blue doesn’t appear much in nature — there aren’t blue ani­mals, blue eyes are rare, and blue flow­ers are most­ly human cre­ations.””
    Appar­ent­ly these peo­ple could­n’t see the sky or sea…
    Lack of men­tion in Homer is prob­a­bly down to the scan­sion of the poem and/or the use of repet­i­tive phras­es to make it eas­i­er to remem­ber. “Wine-dark sea” stands out and sounds bet­ter much more than“blue sea”.

  • Carol Elaine Wassmann says:

    Dear Mr.Dennis Roberts
    God’s short hand 👏👌 is the obvi­ous… there­fore, it is not nec­es­sary too state the obvi­ous of every­day things.
    Unfor­tu­nate­ly, God Almighty has suf­fered the con­se­quences of Mankind’s tom­fool­ery. Say­ing the sky or water 🌊💦 is blue in ancient times, is real­ly not nec­es­sary… Unnec­es­sary words.The
    Plan­et 🌍🌎 is ten bil­lion years old, the holy Bible says if we don’t know what colour the water and sky should be by now, is there any hope for US.

  • Asahab says:

    Bull­shit. Indi­go was invent­ed and used as dye from à plant from ancient time.

  • Kevin Loria says:

    “If you think about it,” writes Busi­ness Insider’s Kevin Loria, “blue doesn’t appear much in nature — there aren’t blue ani­mals, blue eyes are rare, and blue flow­ers are most­ly human cre­ations.”
    “In fact,” con­tin­ues Loria, “humans did­n’t learn to look up until the late 18th cen­tu­ry. This was around the same time that humans invent­ed blue birds, berries, and but­ter­flies. And water.”

  • Jeff says:

    The trolls abound. Even here. So I will join in with some pon­tif­i­ca­tion.

    The col­or blue may have exist­ed in ear­ly civ­i­liza­tions. Egypt­ian blue was a dis­tinct col­or around 2000 BCE. Lapis lazuli has been trad­ed for tens of thou­sands of years and prob­a­bly have trad­ing ori­gins in prehistory.There has been some con­fu­sion about what col­or it was as it was also known as sap­phire, which can be just about any col­or (rubies are sap­phires). For the most part, only roy­al­ty and wealthy mer­chants had access to either sap­phire or lapis lazuli so it might be pos­si­ble that a huge por­tion of the ancient pop­u­lace nev­er saw it and would­n’t know what that col­or was.

    The point is that reds and browns and yel­lows abound because the col­ors are so eas­i­ly repro­duced from clay, oth­er earths and plants and there are lots of words to describe them. Blue was nev­er com­mon and was, with pur­ple, a roy­al dis­play and not asso­ci­at­ed with the hoi pol­loi. The hoi pol­loi would­n’t even know what that blue was. The sky is some­times blue so they would know that.

    Just this last week a study was pub­lished that announced a new col­or, olo, that is a hue of blue that only five peo­ple in the world have expe­ri­enced. How could that be described to peo­ple who haven’t seen it? And what about women who have 4 cones in their eyes and can see thou­sands of more col­ors than those with 3 or like 10 mil­lion more than those with 2 cones. How would you describe blue to a per­son with 2 cone col­or blind­ness (tri­tanopia) who can’t see blue?

    The point of the arti­cle, I think, was that per­cep­tion varies accord­ing to cul­tur­al and phys­i­cal influ­ences and blue just ain’t a com­mon thing.

Leave a Reply

Quantcast