Talk:History of paper

Ground paper?

Utopial (talk): what is the meaning of this term? --Langbein Rise (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Papyrus is not paper

Papyrus Mathematical Leopard (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Page referenced above does not exist, so I will add my thoughts and hopefully somebody can clear this up for me. Most sites that I have checked seem to concur that papyrus is in fact paper.

Logically I would say that the method of manufacture should not influence the name. Whether hand made or machined, spun, pressed or woven, if the end product has a particular purpose then it has a particular name, such as "lamp shade".

Definition of paper: "material manufactured in thin sheets from the pulp of wood or other fibrous substances, used for writing, drawing, or printing on, or as wrapping material"

The dictionary definition does include the material (apologies but not sure what dictionary this was but all the ones I checked were in agreement) but it's sure going too far to have differentiation between paper and papyrus merely because in one case the fibres are amorphous and in the other the fibres are aligned parallel.

Any thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallax (talk • contribs) 03:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I feel that the phrasing, "these materials are not defined as true paper" is just no good. However, it gets silly fast. The essential characteristic of "true" paper is cellulose fibers separated, suspended in water, strained, and matted. This directly is the source for the durability and flexibility of true paper. Papyrus and amate are quite fragile in comparison. They cannot be bound into durable books, folded as maps or brochures, relied on to serve as sealed envelopes. All this needs to be said somewhere somehow, NOT in the intro portion. YamaPlos talk 23:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This is engaging in bad faith wording at best. If the significance of "paper" and its invention is the proliferation of knowledge via the writing of ideas on thin flexible surfaces, then you are correct, papyrus is not in the most technical sense, if not also the most misleading sense. Papyrus was durable enough to last in some cases several millennia. They where not typically used for codex's (i.e. the books you mentioned), but rather they were mostly used for scrolls. Likewise, the Han dynasty "invented" wood-based paper for use in scrolls. The whole distinction being made here is engaging in word play to down play the significance of the invention of papyrus several millennia earlier by Egypt. 66.219.235.252 (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a topic of “political importance” to the CCP in China. Paper is one of the “Four Great Inventions” that they claim as their own. Any attempt to associate Papyrus too closely with paper is sure to be opposed with some “motivated reasoning” because it questions that claim. Just a note since this is sure to confuse some people who may be unfamiliar with the political association that might otherwise seem truly bizarre. 61.69.234.196 (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Clearly wrong. 79.106.203.42 (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

In reply to the statement that "They cannot be bound into durable books..", Amate was used to create many books. If you visit the page Maya Codex of Mexico, use your browser's "find" feature to search for the word "paper". You will find that the Maya Codex of Mexico is dated to the 12-13th century AD. The article itself refers to amate as paper using multiple referenced sources.

Here are the three lines where "paper" is used:

• "The first Mexican owner, Josué Saenz, claimed that the manuscript had been recovered from a cave in the Mexican state of Chiapas in the 1960s, along with a mosaic mask, a wooden box, a knife handle, as well as a child's sandal and a piece of rope, along with some blank pages of pre-Columbian fig-bark paper."

• "Coe et al. also demonstrated that the paper is three-ply, which lent itself to the screen-fold format. A new facsimile, based on new photography, was published by the Mexican government in 2018."

• "Additional scientific study has demonstrated that the amate paper surface was prepared on both sides with a thin foundation of gypsum, or calcium sulfate (CaSO4•2H2O) measuring between 0.2 mm-0.3 mm, in order to form a smooth writing surface.[]"
• "The Mexican studies have also proven that the pigment is contemporaneous with the paper; further work has shown that the pigments include lamp black, red produced from hematite (Fe2O3), Maya blue fashioned from indigo dye and palygorskite, and browns prepared with cochineal.[]"

Here is a dissertation written about atame: , and another .

In summary, amate should be referred to as paper for the following reasons:

1. Amate is durable, being able to last at least 9 centuries, as was the case with Maya Codex of Mexico
2. Amate from 11th century in the case of Maya Codex of Mexico was three-ply
3. Amate is also referred to as paper in the following in Maya Codex of Mexico and in published research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlauhyo (talk • contribs) 06:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

References

I Have Remove-ed Zee Vandalism

Deleted a nasty little insert about somebody [...] somebody's mother. While it may have been a constructive notification to poor Nelson, I failed to see its relevance to the article.--Woerkilt (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration

Does anyone feel like collaborating to help improve the article? There are various outstanding technical/grammatical/formatting issues. Mephistophelian (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Muslim, the Christians the Buddhists

Why talking about an historical issue like paper in this article, is used the expression "the Muslim" but not "the Christians" or the "Taoists"? Would not be possible and more meaningful specify if we are talking about the Abbasids or the Khazars? Exactly as it is done for the West and Far East? --Dia^ (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A different perspective

"When Muslim armies conquered Central Asia in the late seventh and early eighth centuries, they encountered paper for the first time. It is often said that Muslim armies captured Chinese papermakers following the battle of Talas in 751, but this anecdote is without factual basis and paper had been known—and made—in Central Asia for centuries. For example, archaeologists discovered a mailbag containing letters written on paper and addressed to a merchant in Samarqand in the fourth century [Fig. 6] [Sims-Williams 1987]. Devastich, lord of Panjikent in Sogdia (now Tajikistan) until his capture by the Arabs in 722, left an archive of 76 writings in Sogdian, Arabic and Chinese on leather, wood and paper, which Soviet scholars discovered at the remote site of Kala-i Mug [Zeymal’ 1996]. A few decades later in 762 the new Abbasid dynasty transferred the capital of the Islamic empire from Damascus in Syria to Baghdad in Iraq; this new eastern focus, combined with the government bureaucracy’s soaring demand for records, led to the introduction and quick diffusion of paper in the Islamic lands.

Papermaking was begun in Baghdad itself by the late 8th century. The city boasted a Suq al-warraqin (Stationers’ Market), a street whose two sides were lined with more than one hundred shops for paper- and booksellers. From Iraq, papermaking was carried to Syria, then Egypt, across North Africa to Morocco and eventually to Spain, where its use there is first recorded by a tenth-century traveler. The first sheets of “Arab” paper appear in Spanish Christian manuscripts of the late tenth century, where the sheets were substituted for the typical, but more expensive, parchment. Eventually other Europeans learned of papermaking from the Muslims of Spain, particularly as Christians began to occupy larger portions of the Iberian peninsula and needed materials on which to record deeds and titles. Similarly in Sicily and Italy, merchants and notaries began to use paper from the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, although papermaking was not introduced, perhaps from Spain or from somewhere in the Arab world, until the thirteenth. Once the Italians learned the art of papermaking, they quickly superseded their masters, producing large quantities of fine paper more cheaply than anyone else, and they began exporting it to North African and West Asian markets.

[...]"

http://www.silk-road.com/newsletter/vol3num2/5_bloom.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

elegant. Valid point, will try to remember. Doubtlessly religious patterns, overwhelming all else in those eras should somehow be understood and appreciated, yet it is absurd to use a "religion" label for some but not for others. OTOH, no doubt that the essencial role of paper in certain Tibetan traditions has affected papermaking in that region, etc. YamaPlos talk 23:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I love how some (undoubtedly) Middle Eastern wiki "contributors" are trying so hard to imply a Middle Eastern origin of papermaking independent of Chinese sources. History doesn't lie, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.128.143 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Diffusion of paper making and the Islamic World

This section makes some very definite statements about the industrialisation and mechanisation of paper making by Muslim civilization. I only had time to follow up one reference (17) but it does not seem to substantiate the claims made of it. It would be great if others expert on the subject could comment and clarify. I am aware that subjects related to the Muslim Golden Age are contentious for some people, but it would be good to get an idea of established scholarship in this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Sp8der (talk • contribs) 11:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

you make a good point. However, there is very little with good scholarship that is known about how paper came to the West, and the lack of knowledge on industries of that era is hard to fill. One major component of the problem, IMHO, is the low status of craftsmen. A similar issue exists with trying to figure out details of early mediæval Western paper. What happened in Xativa mostly stayed in Xativa... YamaPlos talk 23:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for new section on the recent decline of paper and rise of the "paperless" movement

I think this article would greatly benefit from a final section charting the decline of paper coinciding with the rise of the internet, email, and now ebooks. Want to open up the discussion and planning for such a section here. Does anyone have stats on the decline in paper use or production in the last 2 decades or so? does anyone know of studies, theoretical or otherwise, that muse on the decline of paper in relation to the longer history of paper, handwriting, and printing? This section might productively incorporate future projections of paper's continued decline--or perhaps mechanisms by which paper may survive. Can anyone here point to where such discussions are happening? Thanks! Leftsideend (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

uh, actually the rise of the home printer has increased production and consumption of paper, rather than reducing it... YamaPlos talk 23:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Byzantium and paper

I am not expert enough to edit, and I ask someone to examine the following: In the 7th century AD the muslim caliphate embargoed the supply of papyrus from Egypt to the later Roman Empire in retaliation of the the Greek embargo of solidi. Byzantium was in diplomatic relations with Tang China and the Chinese regime responded to the above embargo by sending paper making experts to Constantinople. This is from memory, and I cannot supply sources. Can someone please look into this and if I am correct, modify the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rameshkkhanna (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

the his tory of paper

wfwerthwer90uthwerouijfjisdo-gfwerhjio[0g0dnhjojbhio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.222.223 (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of paper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716105826/http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/charm/CHARM%20proceedings/CHARM%20article%20archive%20pdf%20format/Volume%2012%202005/288%20twede.pdf to http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/charm/CHARM%20proceedings/CHARM%20article%20archive%20pdf%20format/Volume%2012%202005/288%20twede.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Controversies and gaps

In the talk section about René Réaumur, https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:René_Antoine_Ferchault_de_Réaumur, is the tempting comment about the use of wood pulp. In a futile quest that has led me to post this, I decided to check with other Wiki articles before adding a simple sentence about his possible role in suggesting wood pulp could be a suitable paper fiber. OMG, how can all the various Wiki articles about Paper, Papermaking, and this one about the history of paper have so much disagreement accompanied by so many gaps in content? At this point I cannot address this but this is kind of a big deal when it comes to the history of paper -- not whether or not Réaumur can be credited, (I agree that it seem apocryphal -- and am inserting it into his article anyway), but SOMETHING more on the transition to wood pulp as well as some consistency from section to section and article to article.

Here the section on Europe seems adequate up to a point. Then the Americas has one short paragraph followed by two sentences, the first one more of a the complaint: "These materials made from pounded reeds and bark are technically not true paper, which is made from pulp, rags, and fibers of plants and cellulose", and the other one a fleeting mention about expanding the market to Mexico and Philadelphia, with nothing to report after the year 1690.

I don't need to point out how the articles read, except to observe that it all is this way -- long stretches of good information interspersed with insubstantial sentence-paragraphs and mini sections that want to be bigger and better. Content on removing ink from paper fuses current recycling with recycling rag paper from two centuries earlier. German clergyman Jacob Schaffer and his essay probably deserves some mention. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

GeeBee60 (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, GeeBee60. All those articles, as this one also, are a jumble of data, a lot of it irrelevant. Papermaking used to be a list of supposed paper sizes. etc. YamaPlos talk 23:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Introduction is absurd

How is that an introduction to this article? In a mere three sentences, it summarizes almost nothing found in the article and speaks only about papyrus, which should obviously be mentioned somewhere, but it makes it seem as if this entire article is about papyrus instead of paper. To be quite frank, it looks embarrassing, especially for a Wikipedia article that's as important as this one. I'll try to edit this and other things shortly. Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

terrible, I agree. A wood-like material? is that a joke? YamaPlos talk 23:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

The vandalism on this page is getting out of hand, and very few serious editors seem interested in reverting it when it happens. I just had to restore the lead section today and noticed it hadn't been fixed or properly restored since early September. That is unacceptable. Therefore I have made an official request for temporary semi-protection over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. In the future I may make a request for indefinite protection, since this page seems to get a lot of unwanted attention by vandals, for whatever reason. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There likely wasn't a mill in Mainz in 1320

According to multiple sources such as the Gutenberg Museum in Mainz the first paper mill in Germany was the one in Nürnberg in 1390. I put up the issue on StackExchange to seek for more information and it seems likely that the idea of the mill in Mainz is an urban myth. Even through the claim currenlty has a source on Wikipedia I therefore think we should remove the claim about the mill in Mainz in 1320 from this article. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Right, see this academic study for example: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvbkjt8c.6. Removed, thank you. --Aytrus (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Amate isn't paper?

Why isn't amate paper?

The article defines paper as being made from fibrous plants, with no citation. However paper in China was made with mulberry and modern paper is made from wood. There's no reason to exclude amate, or label it as a precursor, just because it was made by stone age people.

Papyrus is made through a different process of weaving strips of material. It's not paper because of the way it's made not the plant it's made from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.83.80 (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

lol Of course it is paper. What? 79.106.203.42 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's for national pride. Paper making is claimed to be one of the "four great inventions" from China. Notice that there isn't a reference or explanation of why neither papyrus or amate are paper, it just flatly stated that they aren't, here in talk someone claims that it for lack of strength, with no reference or measurements of the strength of ancient amate or Chinese paper. Like there was an obvious numerical value for strength or some other value that would exclude other forms than Chinese one.

Papyrus predates Chinese paper and amate is about as old, and an independent invention of the other 2 making both an embarrassment to the claim of Chinese invention. So that's why they steep to bending the definition.

188.238.163.91 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Lede disagreements

Hello @Qiushufang: I admire you for your persistence and dedication to your version of this introduction. From my point of view there is nothing in the term "milled fibers" that excludes rags. However rags and cellulose are contradictory as many rags are synthetic. You are trying to be comprehensive, and so in addition to wood and grasses, other plant materials are also used in paper making. This being said, remember that a lede is an introduction and does not have every last detail included. Instead one strives for brevity. Whether or not you are being accurate, you are not being concise. GeeBee60 (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Common, enduring mistakes

The supposed "paper mill" active in France in 1190 and the 1276 date regarding Fabriano are the children of some bad palaeographical interpretations. Just check for example these two links:

- http://ihl.enssib.fr/sites/ihl.enssib.fr/files/documents/Harris_Paper%20and%20Watermarks.pdf

- https://archive.org/details/BibliographeModerneVol10/page/n213/mode/2up?q=1189&view=theater

--Aytrus (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

history of paper

woman 125.26.231.76 (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

bonana 79.106.203.42 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

What is this?

"The first paper-like plant-based writing sheet was papyrus in Egypt, but the first true papermaking process was documented in China during the Eastern Han period (25–220 AD)"

How was papyrus not "true"? Or was the process not documented? 79.106.203.42 (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)