Skeptophilia (skep-to-fil-i-a) (n.) - the love of logical thought, skepticism, and thinking critically. Being an exploration of the applications of skeptical thinking to the world at large, with periodic excursions into linguistics, music, politics, cryptozoology, and why people keep seeing the face of Jesus on grilled cheese sandwiches.
Showing posts with label colors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label colors. Show all posts

Friday, February 7, 2025

To dye for

The history of dyes is actually way more interesting than it sounds.

People have been coloring cloth (and pottery, and cave walls, and their own bodies) for a very long time, but all colors don't turn out to be equally accessible to the palette.  Red, for example, is fairly easy, especially if you don't care if it's not screaming scarlet and has a slight brownish tint (what we'd call "brick red"), because that's the color of iron oxide, better known as rust.  Iron oxide is plentiful, and I know from messing around with pottery glazes that it's got two properties: (1) mixed with other minerals and/or heated in the absence of oxygen, it can give you a variety of other colors, from black to dark blue to green; and (2) it sticks to everything.  I have brushes I use in the glazing process that I used once or twice to apply an iron-based glaze, and now they're permanently stained red.

Other colors, however, aren't so easy.  Some of the more notoriously difficult ones are true blues and purples; our appending the word "royal" to royal blue and royal purple is an indicator of the fact that back then, only the really rich could afford blue or purple-dyed cloth.  Blue can be achieved using small amounts of cobalt, or finely powdered lapis lazuli, but neither is common and although they have other uses (cobalt in pottery pigments, lapis in paints) neither works well for dyeing cloth.  Lapis, in fact, was used to produce the finest rich blue pigment for oil paints, which got named ultramarine because the mineral was imported from what is now Afghanistan -- a place that was ultramarinus ("beyond the sea") to the people in Italy and France who were using it.

But dyeing cloth was another matter.  One solution was, bizarrely enough, a secretion of a sea snail of the genus Murex.  These snails' hypobranchial glands produce a gunk that when purified produces a rich purple dye that is "color fast" on cloth.

How anyone thought of doing this is an open question.  Maybe they just smeared slime from various animals on cloth until they found one that worked, I dunno.

Be that as it may, the color of the dye was called φοῖνιξ (phoinix) by the ancient Greeks, and the sea traders who cornered the market on producing and selling the dye were called the Φοίνικες (Phoinikhes).  We anglicized the word to Phoenicians -- so Phoenician means, literally, "people of the purple."

The reason all of this colorful stuff comes up is a paper in Science Advances that describes how a group of chemists in Portugal successfully determined the origin of a purple to blue (depending on how it's prepared) watercolor pigment called folium that was used in medieval watercolors.  It is a gorgeous color, but all previous attempts either to replicate it or to determine its source had been unsuccessful.  The difficulty with trying to figure out things like this is that there was no standardized naming system for plants (or anything else) back then, so the name in one place could (and probably did) vary from the name in another place.  Reading manuscripts about natural dyes from that time period, about all we can figure out is "it's made by boiling this plant we found" or "it's made from special snail slime," which doesn't really tell us much in the way of details.

Samples of medieval folium on cloth [Image courtesy of Paula Nabais/NOVA University]

In the case of folium, it was known that it came from a weedy plant of some sort, but there was no certainty about which plant it was or where it grew.  But now some Portuguese chemists have identified the source of folium as the seedpods of a roadside weed in the genus Chrozophora, a little unassuming plant in the Euphorbia family that likes dry, sunny, rocky hillsides, and when you grind up the seedpods, creates a knock-your-socks-off purple dye.  The dye was then applied to cloth, and you took small bits of the cloth and soaked them in water when you were ready to use them to make a natural watercolor paint.

The scientists were able to determine the chemical structure of the dye itself, which is pretty astonishing.  But even finding the plant was a remarkable accomplishment.  "We found it, guided by biologist Adelaide Clemente, in a very beautiful territory in Portugal [called] Granja, near a very beautiful small town Monsaraz -- a magical place, still preserved in time," said study co-author Maria João Melo, in an interview with CNN.  "Nobody in the small village of Granja knew [anything] about this little plant.  It may look like a weed, yet it is so elegant with its silvery stellate hairs that combine so well with the greyish green, and what a story there is behind it."

I'm always impressed with how intrepid our forebears were at using the resources around them to their fullest, but as with the snail slime, I'm mystified as to where that knowledge came from.  Some of it was probably by happy accident -- I think fermented milk products like yogurt and cheese probably were discovered because of milk that spoiled in just the right way, for example.  But bread has always mystified me.  Who first thought, "Let's take these seeds, and grind 'em up, and add this fungus powder to it with water until it gets all bubbly and smells funny, then stick it in the fire!  That'll be delicious with jam spread on it!"

And here -- grinding up the seedpods of a random weed ended up producing one of the rarest and prettiest dyes ever discovered.  Undoubtedly the brainstorm of some medieval artist or botanist (or both) who happened to get lucky.  Makes you wonder what other plants are out there that could have odd artistic, medicinal, or culinary uses -- especially in places of enormous biodiversity like the Amazonian rainforest, where there are probably as many plant species that have not been identified as there are ones that have been.

So if you needed another good reason to preserve biodiversity, there it is.

****************************************

Saturday, September 12, 2020

Color my world

 I'm not absolutely certain about this, but I strongly suspect that every time I taught my biology students about the physiology of color vision, someone asked, "Is it possible that we see colors differently?  Like, what you call red is the color I see as green, but we've both learned to call it red?"

My usual response was, "It's possible, given that I can't see the world through your eyes and interpreted by your brain.  I only have access to my own perceptive apparatus.  However, it's pretty unlikely, given that your eyes and brain are structured pretty much identically to mine, so there's no reason to surmise they see the world in a radically different way.  The most parsimonious explanation is that we all perceive colors alike."

That parsimonious explanation got a boost this week by a paper in Psychological Science called, "Universal Patterns in Color-Emotion Associations Are Further Shaped by Linguistic and Geographic Proximity," by a huge team led by Domicele Jonauskaite of the University of Lausanne.  The researchers asked 4,598 volunteers from different cultures to answer questions about the connections they saw between colors and emotions.  In English, for example, we talk about seeing red, being green with envy, or feeling blue.  Presumably other cultures also associate colors with emotions -- but are the correspondences the same across cultures?

[Image is in the Public Domain]

Interestingly, the answer appears to be yes.  There were a few unusual ones that popped out, such as the association in China of the color white with sadness.  White is traditionally worn at Chinese funerals, thus the link.  The same was found with the color purple in Greece; in Greek Orthodox culture, purple is considered the color of mourning.

But there were far more similarities than differences, including some that when you think about it, are rather odd.  Red is one of the only colors that has connection to two essentially opposite emotions; it is the color both of love and of anger.  This same link turns out to be relatively uniform across cultures.  (The anger part might be because of the association with violence and blood; the connection to love is the stranger one.)  Likewise, brown is the color that has the least emotional impact, regardless what culture you are from.

Unsurprisingly, the closer two cultures were geographically and linguistically, the more similar the correspondences were.  That much you'd expect, because of an overlapping or shared heritage.  But even accounting for that, there were more similarities than differences even between very distantly-related cultures.  "There is a range of possible influencing factors: language, culture, religion, climate, the history of human development, the human perceptual system," said study co-author Daniel Oberfeld of Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.  "Many fundamental questions about the mechanisms of color-emotion associations have yet to be clarified."

It does, though, settle one thing; we are very likely to all see colors the same way.  Your blue and my blue, for example, are perceived alike, and if we were somehow to switch bodies, we wouldn't suddenly see the world painted in a completely different palette.  If that weren't true, why would yellow be the color of cowardice in both the United States and west Africa?

This doesn't, of course, answer the question of why yellow is for cowards in the first place.  Other than the obvious ones like red=blood, the color-to-emotion correspondences are pretty weird.  But it does seem to support the conjecture that regardless of why we link emotions to colors, my color perception works the same as yours does.

Just as well.  Trying to picture a world where the grass is orange and the sky is yellow is making my head hurt.

**************************************

Humans have always looked up to the skies.  Art from millennia ago record the positions of the stars and planets -- and one-off astronomical events like comets, eclipses, and supernovas.

And our livelihoods were once tied to those observations.  Calendars based on star positions gave the ancient Egyptians the knowledge of when to expect the Nile River to flood, allowing them to prepare to utilize every drop of that precious water in a climate where rain was rare indeed.  When to plant, when to harvest, when to start storing food -- all were directed from above.

As Carl Sagan so evocatively put it, "It is no wonder that our ancestors worshiped the stars.  For we are their children."

In her new book The Human Cosmos: Civilization and the Stars, scientist and author Jo Marchant looks at this connection through history, from the time of the Lascaux Cave Paintings to the building of Stonehenge to the medieval attempts to impose a "perfect" mathematics on the movement of heavenly objects to today's cutting edge astronomy and astrophysics.  In a journey through history and prehistory, she tells the very human story of our attempts to comprehend what is happening in the skies over our heads -- and how our mechanized lives today have disconnected us from this deep and fundamental understanding.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]