Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Tyrian purple

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A note

[edit]

I know that Wiktionary [1] says that TP is a crimson, but it gives no reference. The swatch I added is a purple, and has a reference that claims to be based on the real Murex trunculus. If anyone can find a reliable reference to support the Wiktionary version, then I'll amend my swatch or add an alternative one. --Heron 11:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster OnLine says that Tyrian purple is "crimson or purple". The American Heritage Dictionary says "reddish". Also, the Wikipedia article on purple says that Tyrian purple "was closer to crimson than our idea of purple", but it gives no reference. --Zundark 10:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just found a more detailed reference at Grove Art Online (OUP) [2] under "Ancient Near East, §II, 6(i): Textiles: Introduction, (b) Manufacture". It says that the Phoenicians made "dark reds" from Murex brandaris at Tyre and "true purple" from M. trunculus at Sidon. I suggest, therefore, that lexicographers are confusing "Tyrian red" with "Tyrian purple". --Heron 12:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Where do you get the phrase Tyrian red from? As you've just said, the colour of the Tyrian dye (that is, Tyrian purple) was dark red. Also, looking in my copy of Chambers I find that the first meaning given for purple is "crimson (hist.)". It seems clear that the meaning of purple has changed over time (which is common for colour names), and that Tyrian purple (from which the word purple derives) was not purple in the usual modern-day sense. --Zundark 10:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. My "M. trunculus = purple" idea came from a Kramer Pigmente swatch [3] that called M. trunculus "Tyrian purple". I think Kremer have misnamed their swatch. Tyrian Red does exist, though, and it looks like this: __________. I worked this colour out by combining this page [4] that equates Tyrian Red to RHS colour code 66A, with this page [5] that equates RHS 66A with RGB #b80049. I now claim that "Tyrian red" and "Tyrian purple" are the same crimson colour from M. trunculus, not to be confused with "Royal purple" and "Imperial purple", which are purple in the modern sense. All that said, I think that as an encyclopedia we must admit that the colour of Tyrian purple is debatable. There are some interesting quotes on this from Classical writers in "The Mutability of Blue" by Ryan J. Huxtable. --Heron 18:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe those quotes could be included in the article. (By the way, I notice that the page that says RHS 66A is RGB b80049 is using a gamma of only 1.4, so it would need to be adjusted in order to be correct for sRGB, the usual RGB colour space). --Zundark 19:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. With a gamma of 2.2, I make that #990024, which looks like this: __________. That's closer to Pliny's 'congealed blood'. --Heron 19:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

As I write, this article contains two uses of BCE (one in a footnote) and two of BC. This ought to be standardised - I haven't done so as I don't know whether there's a convention for articles on this subject to use one in particular. 86.132.143.27 23:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made them consistent. There is no Wikipedia convention on which to use, but BCE is unknown to many people, so using BC makes the article clearer. --Zundark 08:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I've added a photo of 6,6'-dibromoindigo powder against a neutral gray background. In the coming weeks I'll attempt to dye some swatches of cotton and wool using the procedure given by V. Daniels, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A:Chemistry 184 p73-77 (2006). I've only got 250 mg of the stuff but it should be sufficient to dye several 10X10cm piece. I would expect that the dye on cloth will be slightly different than the powdered dye. Daniels reports that the dye comes out slightly redder on wool and more blue on cotton and nylon, with the sequence being wool : silk : linen : cotton : nylon. To my mismatched-socks-looks-ok-to-me eye the powder is a very close match to the bar on the front page comparison chart labeled "Tyrian Purple (Imperial Purple) (Hex: #66023C) (RGB: 102, 2, 60)" __________. The actual color produced by extracting snail juice can vary quite a bit. During the dying process, the water soluble leuco form of 6,6'-dibromoindigo can photodebrominate under UV, which renders the shade more blueish and less purple. Two debrominations yield plain old indigo. Sex, age and species differences in the various Murex shells give different amounts of mono and dibromoindigorubin which are more of a reddish purple. These also can photodebrominate to give the quite red indirubin. I'll dig out the references and add this if it seems appropriate. Hey, this is my first edit so cut me some slack. --Brochis 05:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! For your future images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be used in all Wikimedia projects (the French Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia, Wikibooks, etc.). Once you've uploaded an image to the Commons, you can use it in an article just as if you had uploaded it here. Let me know if you have questions or need any help. —Bkell (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


A reference of Jesus' cloak

[edit]

Quote from the insight book:

The color of the cloak with which Jesus Christ was clothed on the day of his execution has caused some persons to argue that a discrepancy exists in the Bible record with reference to this garment. Matthew said that the soldiers “draped him with a scarlet cloak” (Mt 27:28), while Mark and John say that it was purple. (Mr 15:17; Joh 19:2) However, instead of being a discrepancy, such a variation in describing the garment’s color merely gives evidence of the individuality of the Gospel writers and the fact that they were not in collusion. Matthew described the cloak as it appeared to him, that is, according to his evaluation of color, and he emphasized the garment’s red hue. John and Mark subdued the red tint, calling it purple. “Purple” can be applied to any color having components of both blue and red. So, Mark and John agree with Matthew that the garment was red to some extent. Of course, background and light reflection could have given it different casts. A body of water varies in color at different times, depending upon the particular color of the sky and the reflection of light at a given time. So, when such factors are considered, it is seen that the Gospel writers were not in conflict in describing the color of the cloak that mocking Roman soldiers clothed Christ with on the last day of his human life.

I love how apologists can take the fact that two accounts contradict each other and claim that it somehow makes their case stronger. Beetfarm Louie (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

End of murex purple production in the byzantine empire?

[edit]

Somebody hasn't read Jacoby well enough.In his 2000 article "The production of silk textiles in Latin Greece" (in Τεχνογνωσία στη λατινοκρατούμενη Ελλάδα [Technology in Latin-Occupied Greece],(Ημερίδα, Αθήνα, 8 Φεβρουαρίου 1997, Γεννάδειος Βιβλιοθηκη), Athens: Politistiko Technologiko Idryma ETBA, 2000) he has found a reference to athenian, euripian and karystian fishermen harvesting purple-giving molluscs at Gyaros - in 1208. He links this to athenian shellfish mounds from the medieval period. Should be corrected in the main text.

Shades of Tyrian purple colour comparison?

[edit]

The text implies a range of colours, as do the bullets (3), yet on my monitor I'm seeing only the last 2 while the first bullet has blank space to its right. What's up? Ed8r (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purple

[edit]

This discussion is copied and pasted here by Invertzoo (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC) from the Gastropod Project talk page:[reply]

What is terminology of natural dyes (purple) from sea snails?

This should be clarified and properly referenced in all of these articles.--Snek01 (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions. Yes this really does need more research and some citations! But with these ancient purple dyes from the Mediterranean, information such as which dye came from which species, and what was meant by the ancient words used for the snails and for the dyes, or what was said (sometimes incorrectly) in old historical accounts of this, I think that all this information is just not very well known. Historians mention these things, but they are not usually concerned at all about the biology or taxonomy. Even archeologists (who sometimes find the broken shells of the species that were used) are not always reliable when it comes to species identification, etc.
As for the two American dye murex species, the Western Atlantic Plicopurpura patula (Linnaeus, 1758) and the Eastern Pacific congener Plicopurpura pansa (Gould, 1853) they would have had local names as dye sources in pre-colonial times and even more recently, but it's possible that what the names were/are for either the dye or the snail is not available in the literature.
Here is one useful webpage:[6] Having the more up-to-date binomial name makes it easy to get good search results. Invertzoo (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory info

[edit]

The second picture on the right shows a bright, vibrant chromatic purple color that most people would immediately recognize as "royal purple", while Justinian I's cloak and the RGB samples lower in the article show a much darker redder shade consistent with the "clotted blood" color mentioned by Pliny.

While I realize the term "purple" has likely changed meaning since then, the article shows two vastly different shades, states they are the same thing, then doesn't explain why. I'm in no way a subject matter expert, so many somebody can help out. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion that the vibrant purple swatch shown in the image is actually Mauveine, which was marketed as "Tyrian Purple" when it was introduced. The color seems to match the swatch in that article. The image caption claims it's the 6,6'-Dibromindigo, but the original source (German) [7] makes no mention of the chemical as far as I can tell. But it's definitely inconsistent with the RGB color swatches, and this image of the mollusc: [8]. I suggest we try to find a more verifiable image. vlad§inger tlk 03:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. That's not Tyrian purple. Tyrian purple becomes reddish ("clotted blood") when used to dye cloth. -- 202.124.73.147 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So why is that image still there? 108.34.206.74 (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, no consensus has been reached regarding which image to use in its place. I recommend checking out the image mentioned by vlad§inger, above. If it is available for addition to Wikimedia Commons (I'm unfamiliar with all the image rules), then it should be added, and the proposed image substitution discussed on this Talk page. It's a very illustrative image.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

This article should only be about the dye - there should be a separate article about its chemistry. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 15:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. That all depends on how long this article gets. Per WP:SS, a great many related things can be kept in the same article until length forces a split and summary. Most of the articles on chemical elements (for example) actually do NOT have separate articles about their chemistry. None of the shorter ones do. SBHarris 03:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They belong together. The chemistry is essential to understanding the dye. -- 202.124.73.147 (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

references

[edit]

http://www.chriscooksey.demon.co.uk/tyrian/

CMYK for websites

[edit]

The CMYK for websites doesn't seem to make sense. It's a bright magenta sort of colour. When I turn the RGB one into CMYK I get C52 m99 y81 k7, which looks more like what it should be. 87.246.103.137 (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenician claim.

[edit]

I'm not sure how to best deal with this. No one takes any claims of Phoenicans in Mexico seriously today, but such ideas were very popular up through the middle of the 20th century. I do know that The hyperdiffusionist Grafton Elliot Smith wrote that "After a very thorough and critical analysis of all the facts of this truly remarkable case of transmission of an extraordinary custom, Mrs. Nuttall justly concludes that “it seems almost easier to believe that certain elements of an ancient European culture were at one time, and perhaps once only, actually transmitted by the traditional small band of . . . Mediterranean seafarers, than to explain how, under totally different conditions of race and climate, the identical ideas and customs should have arisen ” (pp. 383 and 384)." Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

I have removed the [citation needed] tags, replacing them with in-line citations from the two new sources (4 and 17) that I've added. Omnitaus (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purpura from the italian wiki

[edit]

I was comparing the english wiki and the italian wiki and they show two different colours for tyrian purple. The italian one is RGB (178; 42; 35) HEX #B22A23 __________ it is a shade of red and indeed it is called also red purple in italian. The italian wiki also points out that the english word purple, that for the image of the cloth painted with dibromoindigo in the top of this article, is called violet in italian and is not the true purpura (porpora).

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porpora

19:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Connacht (talk)

Classify as shade of magenta or red-violet?

[edit]

Considering its description as reddish-purple and hue on the HSV system, it would seem like a good idea to add this to the list and category of shades of magenta and/or red-violet. 165.225.39.71 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

different dates

[edit]

the section labelled History says that this dye remained in use "until 1453 AD, with the fall of Constantinople." lower down, in the Background section it says that production, "came to an abrupt end with the sack of Constantinople in 1204." picky of me to note that there's only 250 years difference but this needs to be resolved. Constantinople was sacked as part of the fourth Crusade in 1204, but continued to operate as the centre of the Latin Empire of Constantinople until 1261 when it reverted to the Byzantine Empire until 1453 when it was conquered by the Ottoman Turks and became part of their empire. the source cited for the 1453 quote says, on page 25, "In areas ruled by Byzantium, the industry continued until the Turkish conquest of the city in 1453, and Pope Paul II's decree of 1464 that cardinals' robes should, henceforth, be dyed with kermes (an insect dye) rather than whelk dye, is usually considered to indicate a response to the final loss of the industry." I don't have access to the second source for the 1204 quote, but I think it possible that the Wikipedian who wrote the 1204 comment has simply confused sack and fall without realising that they are very different things. Cottonshirtτ 03:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Tyre, Lebanon"

[edit]

the name Tyrian purple does not refer to tyre of Lebanon but the more ancient kingdoms like Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) אמיר יוגב (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The philosopher Heracles of Tyre"?! Who's that?

[edit]
"The Roman mythographer Julius Pollux, writing in the 2nd century AD, asserted (Onomasticon I, 45–49) that the purple dye was first discovered by the philosopher Heracles of Tyre, or rather, by his dog, whose mouth was stained purple from chewing on snails along the coast at Tyre." Ref at end of paragraph: Malalas.

No such philosopher seems to have ever existed. Either misunderstanding by Julius Pollux or Malalas, if this is indeed based on Malalas' work (is it, or is it just sloppy editing?), or rather by the Wiki editor who wrote this. Now the Internet is full of these exact words, copied over and over again.

There is indeed a conflation of Melqart with Heracles, and there was an important temple of Heracles-Melqart at Tyre.

Even if the philosopher did indeed exist, or if he was made up by an ancient author, this must be clarified, since there is no trace of such a philosopher the user can find. The conflation of Phoenician Melqart with Greek Heracles is confusing enough. Arminden (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Arminden:, good catch! Thanks for bringing this up. If I were you I'd go straight to the source. The passage may have been misquoted, or written over from the original. This is the source, on page 126 in the scroller (https://archive.org/details/onomasticon01polluoft/page/n125/mode/2up). It roughly translates: The Story of Purple Dye ... The story goes that the god Hercules was walking along the shore with a nymph whom he loved, named Tyre. As they walked, his dog bit into a sea snail (murex) lying on the beach, and its mouth became stained with a vivid purple color. The nymph, fascinated by the beautiful color, requested a garment of that hue from Hercules. Responding to her request, Hercules, the mighty hero, found many sea snails and extracted the purple dye from them. From then on, the use of purple spread widely and became a prized dye, especially used in royal and priestly garments. This story marks the origin of the legendary "Tyrian purple," a dye that was costly and held in high regard.

In the ancient Mediterranean, syncretism was very common, especially when deities shared similar attributes. In Tyre, the Greeks identified the Phoenician god Melqart with Heracles. This Heracles-Melqart syncretism allowed the Greeks to interpret Melqart within their own mythological framework, likely leading to the association mentioned in Pollux’s work. Clarifying this background could definitely help avoid confusion here. Thanks for raising this! el.ziade (talkallam) 14:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for clarifying the question about the source. Would you mind doing the edit yourself? Sorry, but I already have a terribly bad conscience about spending far too much time online. Thanks.
Syncretism: I'm very well aware of the phenomenon, thanks. It would be interesting to know where the two connect, since the two figures seem quite different in their respective mythologies (possibly some common attributes?), but maybe under Melqart rather than here. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]