The problem for manuscript illumination was getting a pigment that would make that brilliant blue. The only way they could do it at that time was to use lapis lazuli, a mineral mined in just one area of Afghanistan. When ground up, this mineral would produce a color called ultramarine. It was highly sought after in western Europe, meaning it had to be traded over several thousand miles.
Obviously this was far too expensive to use in other than very small amounts. Clothing, for example, even expensive luxury clothing, could not be colored ultramarine. Instead the best medieval people could manage for their clothes was indigo, dark blue, which could be made from certain plants.
Even though lapis lazuli was as valuable as gold, it was extremely desirable. Recently archaeological excavations at a former nunnery at Dalheim, in Germany, has discovered miniscule traces of lapis lazuli on the teeth of a woman's skeleton. (Her teeth actually look pretty good--no cavities!)
It is quite clear where the traces came from. The nunnery, like most religious houses, copied and illuminated books. Religious books would have luxurious illustrations that required bright blue. An eleventh-century nun worked on a book's illustrations, doubtless bending close over the very small image she was creating, and kept licking her brush to give it a narrow point as she delicately painted the blue bits. Tiny flecks of lapis lazuli became embedded in the plaque on her teeth, where she would not have noticed them (the modern archaeologists looked at her teeth with a microscope).
The nunnery of Dalheim and its manuscripts were destroyed long ago, probably during the Thirty Years War in the sixteenth century. The foundations of its small church and the skeletons in its cemetery are about all that remain. It is indicative of how little we know about the Middle Ages, in spite of everyone's best efforts.
This case also is suggestive of the activities of medieval women. It used to be thought that all women, even nuns, were passive and uneducated, and that all art and writing was done by men. This is now known to be false, and the example of the eleventh-century nun (it's pretty easy to tell if a skeleton is a man or a woman) is a further indication of the artistry of medieval women. It's too bad that we will never now be able to see the manuscript she was working on.
The discovery of the flecks of blue on the skeletal teeth was carried out as part of the larger project Science of the Human Past. Here's the link to a news article about the discovery.
(For any readers just starting to look at my blog now, I've put in links above to a lot of other entries you may find of interest.)
© C. Dale Brittain 2019
For more on medieval nuns, art, and so much more, see my new ebook, Positively Medieval: Life and Society in the Middle Ages.
The dental lapis lazuli proves nothing! The nuns were illiterate and, without comprehension, merely making identical copies of texts that the monks had written. Just kidding. In truth, I don’t understand how historians would have ever believed such in light of examples such as Hildegard von Bingen, and evidence from many convents that the nuns administered large estates. No doubt some historians believed that, and perhaps believed (and still believe) many other dubious things as well, but surely what you describe was never an uncontested opinion?
ReplyDeleteSorry. You are totally wrong.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a historian, so will take your word for it. But you're saying that, in light of forensic evidence, it's no longer the case? And, if it what you say was true in the past, was evidence such as the writings of Hildegard, or historical records of convents administering large estates unknown at that time? If your answer is that the facts were known but were ignored in favor of "scientific consensus," that certainly calls into question scientific consensus on other topics of our day.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Alyosha, I may have misunderstood your post. (Missed the Just Kidding.) I think in fact we agree. Historians long assumed women had no power, but that was because (a) they went into the records with that assumption and thus ignored whatever contrary evidence they found, and (b) because they "knew" the Middle Ages were Bad, then "of course" women were oppressed. In fact, as medievalists have recognized for at least 40 years, medieval women had more opportunities and agency than women in 19th-century Britain.
ReplyDeleteIf I try to be amusing by beginning with a provocation, I must bear some of the blame if the provocation overshadows the words that follow. I take it, then, that Antonia’s school is more of the 19th century than the medieval model? I’ve been delighted by many of your Wizard of Yurt romantic/medieval themes, like the quest for the blue rose and the journey through hell, but if you want to add a dash of Victorian, I won’t complain. That era is also fascinating.
ReplyDeleteI’ve wondered at the degree to which some of the male wizards are opposing a female student. At first (in the context of the story) it made sense as a matter of tradition. But after a couple of years of contrary evidence, it becomes bizarre behavior on the part of seemingly intelligent people: sacrificing lives and careers. But now I’m wondering if the anti-female attitude, even if initially genuine, is a smokescreen for a deeper plot :-). I realize, of course, that as an author and creator you can’t respond to that hypothesis in a straightforward manner. I look forward to reading your next Starlight Raven novel when it comes out.
Interesting discussion! In many ways Yurt is more 19th-century than medieval. The way I see it is that it is what the Middle Ages would have been like if it had continued until the 19th century with working magic and skipped the New World discovery (which doesn't exist in the Yurt universe), the Reformation, the French Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution, plus gunpowder. But it still had some version of the Enlightenment. (Fantasy, right?)
ReplyDeleteMedieval people were entirely capable of misogyny, even if medieval women had more rights than their 19th-century descendants. Women couldn't be priests, period, nor attend universities. This was just taken for granted. There was a lot of separate-but-equal (like well educated nuns).
Unfortunately misogyny is alive and well in the 21st century (and certainly was in the 20th), even if at a lower level. My own sister, a professor, was told by her department chair that he would never allow a "girl" to gain tenure (she did anyway, but he had to be overruled). The US equal rights law of 1964 outlawed discrimination because of race or sex; the "sex" was added by those who opposed the bill, thinking it would make it so ridiculous that it would be voted down.
Even though few will say openly these days that "chicks aren't as smart as men," plenty still act that way and still believe it in their hearts. A phrase of my youth, "Women have to do twice as well as men to be considered their equals. Fortunately this is not difficult."
I offer condolences about your sister’s shabby treatment. But the department chair was overruled, and the equal rights law was passed. So, at least in cases when the oppressed are twice as competent as the oppressors, prejudice has its limits. And I’m guessing that the disappointed department chair did not try to assassinate your sister or to launch terrorist attacks against the university. I’m not suggesting that prejudices don’t exist, but that the career risks taken, and level of resources being expended on nefarious plots at the wizard’s school imply deeper motives in play.
ReplyDelete