Archaeological reconstructions are a great opportunity to remind folks that the past was way more colorful than we think. It's just that stone and clay last way longer than paint does.

6:46 AM · Sep 23, 2021

46
1,720
70
7,151
Like the terracotta army of Qin Shi Huang; when first excavated, they were brightly painted. Exposure to air caused rapid deterioration of the pigment, resulting in the look we're all familiar with now, which the sculptors never actually intended. (last photo is a reconstruction)
3
234
5
1,078
That's the difference between classical and "Neo-Classical." Neo-classical aesthetics are architecture are inspired by the picked-clean bones of a long-dead past, not the past as it was in life. Ancient cultures would have NEVER let these buildings just stay white.
17
153
6
1,042
Replying to @Iron_Spike
This is why I hate protrayals of the past being all brown and gray, they had colors, we just don't see them that way thanks to colors not aging as well as... stone.
0
1
0
41
Replying to @Iron_Spike
the past was gaudy as hell and i love it
0
1
0
30
Replying to @Iron_Spike
One of my favourite pet theories is that the Beaker culture might have had similar geometric patterns woven into their clothing as are impressed upon their pottery. There's no way to prove it because we have no Beaker textiles but it makes me happy to think about.
1
0
1
46
Everyone needs to wear clothes, making clothes in the preindustrial era took a lot of time, fabric production would have been prominent in their society - but we have no idea what they wore beyond being able to guess at the materials used.
1
0
0
19
Replying to @Iron_Spike
Like one of my favorite finds was this absolutely vibrantly stunning paint job found inside an eatery in Pompeii:
5
35
1
374
Also drives home that the reconstructions that stop with only the base layers of the paint (as in that shot Spike posted) are probably still doing it wrong. They clearly knew how to do shading and detail work when painting in Ancient Rome and Greece.
2
4
0
141