Talk:Terra sigillata

message: Is there any differense between Terra sigillata and Samian ware or are they same? 213.219.94.17 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Samian ware is TS, but so is Arretine ware & other "red glossed" types. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Old query

message: The terminology is a NIGHTMARE.  This is reflected in the para. in the article dealing with the archaeological material.  The term 'samian ware' is used solely in English-language sources and means the red-gloss wares — or terra sigillata — manufactured in Gaul (Central and Southern France and the Rhineland, in modern terms), which has a surprisingly wide trading distribution in the late 1st century.  South Gaulish samian is sometimes found in the North African provinces, and as far east as Turkey. The label 'samian' has nothing much to do with the island of Samos (long story), and the approved practice is to use a lower-case 's', on the analogy of 'china'.  
In German and French, however, samian ware is called, respectively, terra sigillata and terre sigillée.  Arretine ware, manufactured in Italy, is also called terra sigillata, and indeed is the original pottery type to which that name was applied by antiquarians. As the text of the article observes, archaeologists do not use the term for ARS (African Red-Slip Wares), which are technologically very similar.  Equivalent wares in the Eastern Empire are generally labelled 'Eastern Sigillata' with an additional modifier ('Eastern Sigillata A' etc.) for region and date.  
The issue of plain and decorated is one of the problems:  the word 'sigillata' implies stamped decoration, but of course Arretine, Gaulish samian, some Eastern sigillatas, and ARS were all made in both plain and decorated forms.  It is absolutely archaeologically correct to refer to a South Gaulish Dragendorff 18 or a Central Gaulish Drag.33 as 'samian ware' if you are writing in English and 'terra sigillata' if you are writing in German:  both are completely plain, undecorated vessels.
Even 'red-gloss ware' is not an ideal term, since some of the regional types do not have the characteristically glossy slip of the Italian and Gaulish products, almost certainly because of different clay sources.  Some clays produce better glossy slips than others.  And of course, some glossy-slipped Roman fine ware, including some samian vessels, were deliberately reduced in the kilm to create a black surface.
AgTigress (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I found this puzzling! It might be best to have a seperate section on "Definition of the term". Please feel free to edit as seems best. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry, did you? Sometimes you have to just cut bits from the edit conflict page & open a new window with the article & paste them into that. I thought you might be alarmed by this version - just caused by closing a ref with ) not >. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: It would be useful if the contributor who wrote the sections on modern so-called TS were actually to stipulate exactly what temperature-range he/she means by 'low-fired'.  I think of that as meaning about 500°–800°C, but I'm an archaeologist, and maybe modern potters mean something quite different.  The temperatures used for ancient Italian/Gaulish TS were about 850–1050°C, with the Gaulish products at the upper end of that range.  The kilns were wood-fired updraught kilns.  (see Roberts in Freestone & Gaimster 1997, p.191).  
AgTigress (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Firing temperatures

message: I have noticed that the sections on the modern definition are in American English rather than British English (e.g. 'luster' rather than 'lustre').  Does this mean that American spelling should be used throughout?  AgTigress (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there should be consistency. Per WP:ENGVAR the situation is rather complicated. The first editor was American, but did not use any US-specific English. After the "modern" stuff was added by another US editor, the article was still a stub. Since it has been expanded considerably by 2 UK editors (you & me), and there is an argument that ancient TS has "strong national ties" to the UK - ie it is found here but not in the US, Australia etc - I think we can go all-UK.  I'll change what I spot. Johnbod (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I only spotted one "luster" and one "color" I think, which I've changed. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  English dialect 

message: What about the "snarky dialect"?  Every reference to the modern usage of the term by studio potters has been re-edited with diminutives and dismissals.  "Terra Sig" "so-called"  Really?  Shame.  If you are unfamiliar with the use of TS as a modern potters term, why would you re-write that section?  Hands off.  It makes you look like an idiot.
If you don't like that others are using your "academic" term, move the usage by studio potters into a separate section or into a separate article.  Don't try to edit away its validity just because you are not familiar with it.  - Thank You, an Academic Potter  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.109.219 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone. 

message: I have changed the title of the section called 'History' to make clearer the difference between the historical and archaeological definitions and the one used by modern potters. AgTigress (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a bit fiddly, with the various disparate sections. Perhaps just drop the "Historical and archaeological definitions" header, have the short medicinal section first on grounds of age (if that sense is older), & then on to the Roman pottery. The lead has already introduced all three. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of heading 

message: I have started to expand the bibliography, as I can't really expand the main text till I have written the basics under all the headings (Forerunners, Arretine, South Gaul, Central Gaul, East Gaul, African Red Slip, Eastern sigillata).  In case anyone should raise the issue, citing essential references in French and German is unavoidable for this subject, as for so many relating to the Roman Empire.  AgTigress (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: There is a very nice little article on TS on German Wikipedia (dealing only with the main, Roman meaning),  http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Sigillata , and I shall be following a rather similar layout in this one, though I'd rather write my own than just translate the German one.  However, there is an illustration of an Arretine Dragendorff 11 from Novaesium there that I would dearly like to use, but I can't get the link to work -- something to do with its copyright classification, I think. This is it: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:201005151401_NE_CSM_Aretinische_TS.jpg&filetimestamp=20100522232434
I'll have to take my own photo, I suppose. AgTigress (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's not on Commons, only on German WP. My German isn't up to the copyright notice, but he only took in May 2010, & may be willing to upload it to Commons - ask him at  - I dare say English will be understood. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Wikipedia article on TS 

message: I have started putting in some pictures to liven this up, but in due course, some of them will need to go into the text at a larger size: this is just a temporary measure. AgTigress (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary mini-gallery 

message: It would be helpful if the original editor or someone else who understands the curious usage of the term Terra Sigillata in modern studio pottery were to explain it a little more fully.  There are sentences both in the lead and in the section on the modern material that are wholly unclear to me:  it seems that TS is used to refer specifically to the slip, not to the ware as a whole, which is totally different from the archaeological definition.
 
And what does this sentence mean: 'Traditionally, terra sigillata was only used on low-fired earthenware'?  Traditionally when?  In the Roman period (when the firing temperature of sigillata, around 1000°C, was in the higher range achieved in the wood-fired kilns), or whenever modern potters started using these fine slips (and when was that)? What temperature is actually meant by 'low-fired'?  I have added a sentence emphasising that the slip of ancient TS is not burnished before firing.  I have also pointed out that there are modern potters who make replica Roman TS, using the Roman methods (that is, the traditional ones!), and that their products should not be confused with this other modern meaning. AgTigress (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To add a superscript note saying "citation needed", just put  (with the double curly brackets) at the point where you want the note to appear.  However, when you're actively working on an article I think it's usually best not to do that, because if the editor who added that text is not around, you may find there is no response to that note for months or years.  I'd suggest that you raise the points on talk page (as you have done), and if there's no response, and no editor who is working on the page can come up with anything in support of the material in question, then just delete it, with a note on the talk page saying why.  It's worth having a search of Google books to see if anything can be found to support any text you delete, but in a situation like this, where you're an expert on the topic, I'd just go ahead and write the article as you see fit, and work with whichever editors show up to help. Mike Christie (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Or  produces the same result. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I've left a query at his talk page, though he's an ISP (no name, just a number). I'd certainly remove 'Traditionally, terra sigillata was only used on low-fired earthenware' - more your area of expertise than his. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More work needed on 'modern' section 

message: I have now put in the first two sections of my sub-headings.  This makes it look a bit unbalanced at the moment:  five regional subdivisions to come, and I know practically zilch about one of them (Eastern sigillatas). Does it look all right?  Anything that is against WP guidelines?  I must try to photograh a Megarian bowl if we have a nice one on display.  AgTigress (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great stuff!  I've brought Dragendorff into the main text, as his numbers are being used. Which of the many La Madeleines was the potting one? Johnbod (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Now part of Laneuveville-devant-Nancy, on which we have a one-line stub. Not sure it's worth linking. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded sections begun 

message: I'm redirecting this here, as the coverage is much better, but this paragraph contains material we don't yet have, so I'm giving it here for future reference:
Samian has nothing to do with the island of Samos but was once thought to have originated there, and the name has stuck, at least in British usage. It may also be derived from the Latin verb samiare, to polish. It can be identified from its pinkish or orange fabric and a distinctive smooth red surface created by dipping the unfired pot in slip before putting it in the kiln. The specific technology varied but the main idea was to have a slip that melted or sintered at a lower temperature than the body of the pot. One way of achieving this was to use potassium carbonate from wood ash to act as a flux. Some sigillatas therefore have a higher percentage of potassium in the shiny surface material than in the body of the pot (Mirti et al. 1999). It was produced in industrial quantities and archaeological evidence implies that it was still in heavy demand as examples showing signs of repair as well as shoddy imitation pseudo-Samian types have been excavated.
(Ref is: * P.Mirti, L.Appolonia & A.Casoli 1999 Technological features of Roman Terra Sigillate from Gallic and Italian centres of production Journal of Archaeological Science vol. 26 pp1427–35)  Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's rather what I suspected, so I just left it here on talk. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Samian ware]] 

message: I have added three profile drawings to the mini-gallery.  If anyone hates them, feel free to remove them.  :)   AgTigress (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profile drawings 

message: Thank you to whoever put the heading in, which I think is a good idea, separating it clearly from the 'African Red Slip' section.  I have changed it slightly, because 'Roman wares' is too general, I think.  :)  AgTigress (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. As I said in the edit summary, it might be split into rows & moved higher up. For example one could put the 4 profiles at the end of the section mentioning Dragendorff.  But I think mid-text galleries should normally just be one row. I've bumped the sizes up rather randomly - this is a difficult issue, & its impossible to please everyone. I have my preferences set at 300px, so say 150 looks tiny to me. The default is 180, & I avoid fixing the size below that except for very tall slim images (it measures the horizontal axis).  But for people with small laptop screens, or big widescreen ones, the layout looks very different. But at least they can see the image!
Annoyingly, the stats-collecting has so far failed for the day the article was on the main page at DYK, as the lead item too. They may turn up - I'd guess at least it had 6-7,000 views, maybe much more. Of course the majority don't read the whole thing, as always. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading for gallery

message: Moved from the article: "A sintered or high fired colloidial slip can develop a glaze like surface when fired at temperatures above the earthenware range so the statement that a fusible slip loses its polish when high fired is not technically accurate" Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  An IPA writes 

message: The introduction claims:the meaning of 'terra sigillata' is 'clay bearing little images' (Latin sigilla). This is wrong, the sigillum does not refer to the decoration, but to the production marks of the pottery workshops that were stamped into the clay before firing, they are often found on roman glossy red slip pottery, hence the name Terra sigillata. Also, I've never read TS roughly translated as 'sealed earth, I think that something like this would be more appropriate: "terra (earth) is a common designation for pottery (which is fired earth, hence terracotta), "sigillare" means "to seal, to impress a mark on something" ("sigillum" = "seal, stamp, mark"), therefore terra sigillata could be translated as "stamped/marked earthenware " --Quinbus Flestrin (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of "sigillata" 

message: "The finish called 'terra sigillata' by studio potters can be made from most clay" doesn't make sense, so I changed it to moist. Revert me if I'm wrong. Dgndenver (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small spelling correction 

message: 'Closely related pottery fabrics made in the North African and Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire are not usually referred to as terra sigillata, but by more specific names, e.g. African red slip wares.'
This reads like 'Christians scholars are not allowing Muslims into the discussion'. 2A01:C23:5D91:F500:75C3:8271:C03C:6D46 (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't! Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist definitions