Talk:Silk

Tussah

Maybe Tussah should get it's own subsection describing it. It's not really a type of silk, but a different way of harvesting silk.

Odyssey Reference (19.232-235)

In the Odyssey, 19.233, it is mentioned that Odysseus wore a shirt "gleaming like the skin of an onion" (varies with translations, literal translation requested).

The comparison of Odysseus' tunic to the skin of a *dried* onion is actually on two grounds: (a) that it glistened, and (b) that it wrapped the body perfectly due to its softness. Furthermore, verse 235 is somewhat ambiguous, but one of the possible interpretations is that many women (who also made clothes for their families) wondered about the fabric and/or the weaver's skill. The original text reads:

τὸν δὲ χιτῶν' ἐνόησα περὶ χροῒ σιγαλόεντα,
οἷόν τε κρομύοιο λοπὸν κάτα ἰσχαλέοιο·
τὼς μὲν ἔην μαλακός, λαμπρὸς δ' ἦν ἠέλιος ὥς.
ἦ μὲν πολλαί γ' αὐτὸν ἐθηήσαντο γυναῖκες.

And I noted the tunic about his body, all shining
as is the sheen upon the skin of a dried onion,
so soft it was; and it glistened like the sun.
Verily many women gazed at him in wonder.

(The English translation comes from http://www.perseus.org)

--212.107.31.35 09:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Byzantine Literary Reference

A very close parallel can be found in Erotokritos, the famous 17th century romance by Vincenzo Kornaros written in the Cretan dialect. In Part II, v. 415-420 the poet describes the (fictional) Prince of Byzantium as he appears before his host, the (fictional) King of Athens:

Eφόρειε κάποιαν φορεσάν, π' όσοι κι αν τη θωρούσι,
ίντά'ναι, πώς να γίνηκε, δεν ξεύρουσι να πούσι·
ήλαμπε τόσο κ' ήστραφτε, που κάθε φως θαμπώνει,
και η λαμπυράδα τση η πολλή την ομορφιάν τση χώνει·
γιατί δεν ήτον μπορετό κιανείς να του σιμώσει,
και [η ακτίνα] τω' ρουχώ' να μην τον-ε θαμπώσει.

He wore a certain dress, which none that looked at it
could say what it was or how it was made;
it glowed and shone so much that it dimmed all other lights
and took its beauty from its great shimmer;
for it was not possible for anyone to go near him
without being dazzled by [the radiance] of his clothes.
(Ad hoc translation from Cretan Greek into English)

This is arguably an allusion to the silk riches of the Byzantine Empire and, most likely, a direct reference to the Odyssey itself.
212.107.31.35 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Expansion

<blockqhuote>Perhaps the first evidence of the silk trade is that of an Egyptian mummy of 1070 BC. In subsequent coenturies, the silk trade reached as far as the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, Europe, and North Africa.

Egypt is farther from China than India or the Middle East, so how does it make sense that expansion to those areahs happened "in subslequent centuries"? Nakamura2828 17:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to know how to wash silk... Not about silk actually, but about "reetha", which is used in washing it.Needsinfo 11:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

silk-producing goats

Someone with greater interest in the topic could push this info into the article:

Jeffrey Turner or Nexia Biotechnologies developed silk-producing goats. =)

By injecting the orb weaver gene into the father of Mille and Muscade, Nexia bred she-goats whose mammary glands are able to produce the complex proteins that make up spider silk. Their milk looks and tastes like the real thing, but once its proteins are filtered and purified into a fine white powder, they can be spun into tough thread. [1]

http://www.nexiabiotech.com/en/03_bio/05.php

-- Sy / ^(talk) 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is cool. I'm going to add it to the spider silk article though, because this page is about silkworm silk. Tocharianne 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mommes Merger

Mommes is an orphan article that is only linked to from here. I can't think of any other article for which it will be useful to link directly to unit of measure for silk. Any objection to simply merging the article into this one? QuixoticKate 19:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always support merging orphans, but how about a page for Units of textile measurement? We could include Denier (measure), Tex (unit), Thread count and Thread (unit of measurement) (a cotton yarn measure, equal to 54 inches according to the Thread disambiguation page). (I couldn't find any others.) Tocharianne 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really interesting idea, but I'm not sure how to implement it. The other articles you've named aren't really orphans themselves (5-10 links each). Would we redirect all of those articles to the units of textile measurement article? Maybe the solution is to just create a "Units of Textile Measurement" category. I'm not sure it that really solves the orphan problem, but even though other units of measure have the same problem (see Abcoulomb in Category:Units of electrical charge, for example). QuixoticKate 16:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true they're not orphans, but they are stubs. (I always support merging stubs, too!) They basically are just different ways of referring to the same thing: the "density" of a fabric. The tex (unit) article says that the difference between tex/denier is just UK vs. US English, and the mommes article says that it's the silk equivalent of thread count. Tocharianne 17:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm persuaded that your proposal is the best solution, and I think I'm just going to go ahead and do that once I have time to do so unless anyone else weighs in in the meantime. QuixoticKate 17:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. QuixoticKate 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silk as Mongol Armor

Can anyone try to go find verifications of the mongols under Khan using silk as part of their light armor as protection against arrows? I will go look myself, because this actually seems to make some sense to me. Ulgar 18:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was quick. A google search of "Mongol Armor" led me right back to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_armour and lo, and behold, I found that it was right there in "Mongolian Armor". Therefore, I suggest that the Citation Needed be taken off. Sound good to everyone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ulgar (talk • contribs) 18:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I removed the citation tag and added a wikilink to Mongolian armour. Tocharianne 23:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but another citation tag popped up for the claim that silk would be unbroken by the arrow head and arrows could therefore be easily pulled out of the "wounded" just by tugging at the silk shirt. I did another search, and found two sites (one linking to the second) that make such a statement. http://members.tripod.com/~whitebard/ca6.htm http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/War/WarArmor.html

The thing is, is that I'm not sure exactly how "expert" enough these sites are to verify the statements, and even if the numbers of sites saying this makes a point because these sites could have gotten their information from one another.

I have seen it mentioned enough times to adequately believe that this is doable and has been done with silk undershirts by the Mongols. I propose the removal of even that tag and making the section referencing Mongol use of silk not need more citing. Ulgar 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bothersome Ulgar is back again. The paragraph is in the "other uses" section. The first paragraph in the section is just a collection of sentences all about random different uses of silk. The mongolian use of silk is a focused paragraph, and yet second to the miscellanious uses paragraph, messing a bit with the flow. I was going to just reverse the paragraphs (I still will for now) but looking up, I realized that if there's enough of a mention and resource for it, the subject could go under the Uses in History section or whatever, about Genghis Khan's Mongolian Empire. I'm not so bold yet, as things like citations and references are pending, but I want people to consider these things. Ulgar 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Properties

This article should say something about the physical and chemical properties of silk. E.g. isn't it one of the strongest known substance (tensile strength) for its weight? Or am I confusing it with spider's 'silk'? Ben Finn 17:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though silk is strong, you are confusing it with Spider Silk. It should still say physical properties of silk somewhere down the road. Ulgar 03:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silk making process

the animal rights section says that silk can be made using other means. What are the other means? --Voidvector 23:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silk worms

Silk worms are worms

goats

goats make silk

Silk in Islam

Silk is strictly forbidden in Islam for men except under some conditions. Women can wear as they please. Make research and make changes to the article accordingly...:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.205.219 (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]