I frequently see a trend where the Greeks are represented as being an ancient harbinger to Western culture itself. In my readings I have found this to be unfounded.
I was reading about Alexander the Great (I know, not technically Greek for the most part) and decided to go look up what he looked like. Ancient sources say this while otherwise he's frequently portrayed as very pale and blond.
So did the ancient Greeks look differently as the way they are usually portrayed? And when did the idea that Greeks basically founded Western culture itself start floating around?
As a follow up question: I seem to recall that Greek statuary was sometimes painted. What were the colors of the pigments found in the hair? Does anyone have an idea of where I could find this out?
I just wanted to point out that while the Ancient Greeks did have an idea of themselves as "Greek-speakers" they were composed of distinct ethnic groups marked by dialect and culture. The main ethnic groups (as referred to in Herodotus) were the Dorians (such as Spartans,) Aeolians (Boetians,) Achaeans (Achaea, but spoke Doric,) and Ionians (with origins in Ionia in Asia Minor and including Ionian speakers such as Athenians.)
By the time of Alexander the Great in 356 BC, Greeks had colonies as far west as Gades (modern Cadiz,) and the Ionians had large trading operations extending from Ionia in Asia Minor to Athens in Attica and beyond (to Italy, France, and Spain.) From 750 to 550 the Greeks (all four groups,) colonized throughout the Mediterranean world, including notably Sicily (Syracuse,) north of the Black Sea (Olbia in modern Ukraine,) and Northern Africa (including Apollonia and Eusperides, modern Benghazi.) [Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece, Robert Morkot]
This is all to say, Greek speakers were composed of different ethnic groups, each with their own dialect and cultural identity. The two main groups, Ionians and Dorians, held a rivalry which eventually erupted into the Peloponnesian War. By the time of Alexander, "Greeks" lived from Halicarnassus in Asia Minor (modern Turkey,) to Northern Africa, Italy, and west to Iberia.
I will let the facts speak for themselves but just check out a map or atlas of the Ancient Mediterranean and decide whether these peoples were fair skinned and blond.
EDIT: added of the Ancient Mediterranean since people were assuming I meant to compare to people living in these areas today. I'm not claiming some Greeks were not fair skinned and blond, what I am claiming is Greeks were spread over a wide area and composed of different ethnic groups (each speaking a variant of Ancient Greek.) The fact remains that the Greeks were oriented toward the Mediterranean world and had little to no interest in much of anywhere north of Thrace (let alone Northern Europe.) In fact, Macedon (and Epirus) were considered minor kingdoms when compared to cultural capitals of the Greek world such as Athens (until Macedon's rise, of course.)
I'm having trouble finding a source right now but the reason Greeks are usually shown as Northern Europeans is because in the English speaking world Spartans were usually represented by Scots (and spoke in the Scottish dialect,) while Athenians were represented by Englishmen (speaking Shakespearean English.) This is why a lot of people out there think of Spartans as Scotsmen (even into modern times, look at 300) red beards included. Traditionally this was used as a way to show the difference between Dorians (Scots) and Athenians (English.)
Apart from how crazy this post has become, I want to clarify your question because you seem to be asking about two very separate things.
Were (some) ancient Greeks pale-skinned and fair-haired as contemporary native English speakers use those terms?
In what way did ancient Greeks 'found' Western culture or contribute to its course?
My question for you, OP, is why you seem to think these two are related questions?
I also think it's worth noting that the reference picture that you're using is called the Alexander Floor Mosaic. It is from the House of the Faun in Pompeii and was probably created around 100 B.C. Alexander, on the other hand, died in 323 B.C. So keep in mind that he had already been dead for over 200 years when this was made. But what is encouraging is that it is likely that within those 200 years some contemporary depictions of Alexander could have still existed. So it is possible that this mosaic references some other depiction of Alexander that is now long gone.
Follow-up question about ancient Greek language: is it true that the sky would have been described as 'bronze'? Are there many colors we consider universal today that were either interpreted/described differently in ancient Greece or were completely absent? Does this affect the way that skin colors or hair colors were described in written sources?
What do you mean "not technically Greek". Alexander considered himself Greek and spread Greek culture. Stop falling for FYROM propaganda.
I am pretty sure there were noridc greeks back in those days. Not every greeks had black hair and olive skin.
"I was reading about Alexander the Great (I know, not technically Greek for the most part) "
Last time I checked Alexander was a greek, who worshipped Greek Gods, had Greek name, spread Greek culture and had ancestors who participated in Olympics games(only greeks were allowed).
And when did the idea that Greeks basically founded Western culture itself start floating around?
We know that there were many cultures with science and literature that predated and influenced the ancient Greeks. But much of our knowledge about these cultures is a result of relatively recent archaeological work or textual rediscovery.
The Rosetta stone was only found in 1799, the Behistun Inscription was only copied and published in 1778 - and Akkadian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs were not deciphered until the mid-1800s. The existence of Sumerian was not even suspected until 1850 when Edward Hincks realised that not all cuneiform appeared to be written Akkadian. The Phoenician of the Cippi of Melqart was only interpreted in the late 1700s, the Pyrgi Tablets allowing interpretation of Etruscan were only discovered in the 1960s, and we don't have much writing of either language. All we have of ancient Celtic is a handful of place markers in Lepontic and potentially the Glozel tablets which were discovered in the 1920s and are still not deciphered.
In comparison, especially if we include work in Arabic, some texts of Aristotle and Galen, Euclid's Elements, Ptolemy's Almagest etc have been continuously studied and translated since they were written. They were translated into Latin in the 1100s and were printed within decades of the invention of the press. Obviously some ancient Greek texts such as the New Testament were never 'lost' to western Europe in the first place.
So while we can look at the Epic of Gilgamesh and look at parallels to Homer or the Flood of the Old Testament, Gilgamesh was only translated into a modern language in 1872. We can look at evidence that the Babylonians knew Pythogorean triples, a precursor to the Pythagorean theorem, but the tablet, Plimpton 322, that suggests it was only catalogued in the 1930s and Elements gives the theorem and was never lost. If you were a European intellectual prior to at least the early 1800s, ancient Greece was as far back as written civilisation was known.
Having grown up on the ocean I never questioned the phrase 'wine-dark' sea, because when you look down at the ocean it is dark, and when you look down into a glass of wine it is dark as well. More than dark though; something that can swallow you, something deep and mysterious and heavy, something that calls to sorrow.
It's a poem; it makes perfect sense.
