Talk:İznik pottery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the İznik pottery article.
Article policies
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for İznik pottery:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Turkey may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Comments

[edit] Composition

Hi Marshall 46, a few comments are questions: 1. How can the % formualtion before firng be known after around 400 years? Written documents? 2. Is the % formulation for body and glaze and before or after firing? If the former see question above 3. The component 'soda' needs to be expanded as this can refer to a number of different materials Thanx, Theriac 19:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Theriac. I got that information from Atasoy and Raby, which I consulted in a library. When I have a chance I will read the technical chapter again and see if I can answer your questions. Marshall46 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marshall46. Thanks for the reply. The information as currently written has the potential to be very interesting. But without a fuller explanation, the answers to my questions about pre- or post- firing and soda, it is at best misleading.I myself would also be mosted interested to know how the formulations were identified. In the abscence of written records I can only imagine it is based on the modern analysis on the fired products followed by some significant assumptions on how this could have been achieved.ThanxTheriac 00:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The analysis was done with a Cambridge microscan 9 electron-microprobe. See Atasaoy and Raby, p65.

Marshall46 12:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Marshall46. X-ray microanalysis gives the elements present. Converting elemental results to an oxide content is possible, so the glaze analysis looks sensible. But the quoted body composition does not make sense as the list (silica, frit and clay) are unfired materials. Converting elemental results on fired material to the unfired material takes some huge assumptions. Do the authors describe how this stage was done?ThanxTheriac 13:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This is beyond me. I have relied on the standard work. Marshall46 19:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Marshall46. I was not disputing the validity of the citation in respect to Wikipedia standards (though I question it being the "standard" work). But from the quote it does appear to be potentially flawed. Even with information on the raw materials it is exceptionally difficult, and without this impossible, to state the percentage formulation based on fired analysis. With the stated aim of Wikipedia being verificable sources rather than the truth there is little that can be done to flag this in the article. This does show one limitation with the Wikipedia philosophy of "as long as it has been published then it can be referenced." At best it would be a fudge but I suggest a small addition "According to Carswell From the late 15th century, red .. etc" ThanxTheriac 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


No probs, when I have the text in front of me again I'll add "according to ..." (not Carswell, one of Atasoy and Raby's contributors). I'd be interested to know of a better work - in English, there may be several in Turkish. Marshall46 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marshall46. Thanks, it would improve the article. I am sure there are some very good books in Turkish. The Turkish ceramics industry is successful, and increasing all the time. I would imagine this would stimulate interest, and ensure a strong knowledge base. Thanx--Theriac 17:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Decline

I've tided Gryffindor's contribution. It's not clear how the production of tiles for the Sultan Ahmed mosque "exhausted" the potters or how this exhaustion led to the decline of the potteries. The addition of information about inflation and fixed prices is new to me. Where does it come from? - Marshall46 13:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

I have just tagged the incorrect information of "lead and soda." The reason is these materials are not used in pottery:-

  • There is no material called soda.
  • Lead is a metal. It is not used in frits, glazes or bodies.

I would imagine the author, who obviously has never formulated frits, glazes or bodies, means some forms of sodium or lead compounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.170.191 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Raby states in the place cited that lead was introduced through dross of lead, which was used in Kütahya until the 1940s, and that soda was introduced from a substance known locally as bora, which is a potassium sodium carbonate with some chlorine and sulphate. In my view such details are too technical for the body of the article, but what is stated is now adequately sourced and sufficiently explained here. Marshall46 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Marshall. That makes more sense. The confusion is the article mis quotes the reference: I will modify accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.151 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well done. It would be helpful to other editors if you signed your contributions. Marshall46 (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)