Talk:Clay oven

This is all about "the oven in Jewish tradition", why claim more? & further comments.

​ David, hi! Great work, writing this entire article by yourself. Please allow me to make some comments and ask you a few questions, which might help making it even more helpful to the user.

1. It's all Jewish, why pretend it's more? I don't know why you didn't keep it as an article about "oven in Jewish tradition" or alike. 90% of the material is referenced to Jewish religious sources, with Dalman also quoted in a context of "biblical tradition". Mentioning the Indian tandoor looks completely out of place. Connected to this: the photo at the top, of an "European-American oven", fits the article about as much a Roman ballista projectile illustrating the David vs Goliath match of the century. If you do decide to redefine it as "the oven in Jewish tradition", please make an explicit mention about how this category does connect to Middle Eastern ovens in general and Palestinian ones in particular, because for now, this is readable "between the lines" throughout the text, but isn't stated explicitly anywhere, and that's not ideal in an explanatory encyclopedia article. It's especially confusing when you bring in Rashi from medieval France, who uses the same term, furn, as Muqaddasi (10th c.) and Dalman (early 20th) when they are writing about Palestine.

Arminden, shalom. As you can see, Dalman, who features largely in this article, did not say anything about primitive "Jewish" clay ovens. He only wrote about numerous Syrian and Palestinian Arab clay ovens that he saw in Syria and in Palestine. He explicitly makes note of the fact that he saw Arab ovens (not Jewish). Likewise, Mukaddasi speaks only of the clay ovens made by Arabs in Palestine. He says nothing, whatsoever, about Jewish ovens. On the other hand, we do find clay ovens constructed by Jews being used in Yemen. The local Yemeni-Arab population made use of these ovens, as Rathjens says. Of course, a primitive oven - whether made by Jew or Arab, has little bearing on the fact that it is still a primitive oven, as the title implies. What this article does not delve into are the western types of primitive ovens, such as those made by the indigenous natives of North and South America, or those made by the Chinese. Perhaps you can add a section that speaks also about these types of primitive ovens. This will greatly enhance our article.Davidbena (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

​Shalom David, and thanks for taking the time to reply in detail. What my point is: look at the material, as it is. It's almost 100% either about Jewish ovens, or about such that relate to them. You cannot discuss Jewish Land of Israel traditions without including Muqaddasi and Dalman on any topic, especially if you take as a starting point the thesis of never-interrupted "connection to the Land". On the other hand, there are traditional clay ovens in almost every country and on every continent, and all we have here are: ancient Jewish (biblical, talmudic, medieval) sources, Palestinian ovens who connect very nicely to the Jewish ones, and Yemeni ovens, who were built by Jewish craftsmen. On would think the entire world baked bread in Jewish-related stoves. Whereas this is a tiny, tiny part of a huge, world-encompassing topic. As a test: if you changed the title to "the oven in Jewish tradition", the only sentence I would remove would be the unsourced, general mention of the Indian tandoor. Not a single word more. And every civilisatin in this world knows some kind of traditional clay oven. Waaay out of proportion. Arminden (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources are a combination of Jewish and non-Jewish sources, and where they all speak about clay ovens used in various regions: Israel (Palestine), Syria, Yemen, France, and elsewhere. Of course, there is no such thing as a Jewish oven or a Gentile oven. It just so happens that there is a wealth of information had in Jewish sources, since many old Jewish writers have spoken in general terms about clay ovens. It goes without saying that I have omitted any mention or discussion about these ovens where there is a concentrated discussion about purity laws for these same ovens, since this subject goes beyond our scope of inquiry. Here we're only concerned about the different types of ovens used 2,000 years ago, many of which continuing to be used up to our present day, by ethnic groups other than Jews. As I said, there is room to expand here about the other clay ovens that were in use in North and South America and throughout Asia. As you are most certainly aware, in this limited topic area, an editor can only write about those ovens that are known specifically to him and which have been documented in reliable sources. Other editors will pick-up where he left off. Since this article specifically deals with primitive clay ovens, the information here posted is still satisfactory to that end, although not exhaustive. Again, the ovens described in the Mishnah are not ovens strictly found in the Land of Israel, but are also in Yemen, North Africa and all along the Mediterranean littoral. This article does NOT deal strictly with Jewish ovens, but rather with "primitive clay ovens" in an all-encompassing and general sense, for which there are ample sources in medieval Jewish writers. Eventually, I hope to get around to adding other non-Jewish writers who have written about the clay ovens in other countries. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"there is no such thing as a Jewish oven or a Gentile oven": that's not the point, even though that might not be correct (think Jewish-only chalkstone vessels cut into shapes common to others too, synagogues among other basilica-type houses of worship, decoration of oil lamps: the general design is common, but there are very often Jewish characteristics in items of material culture). Also, I guess a halal butchered cow is not different from a kosher butchered one, it's not about the physical appearance, but about the context. I expect Maimonides and Rashi to focus on what they call "our stoves/ovens" (see the very quote you offered: "our large ovens..."), because they were rabbis and Jewish community leaders, not general ethnographers. Purity laws did dictate lots of features in pottery, architecture, clothing, you name it - so I expect them to reflect on cooking stoves as well. If not, then that's a big exception and worth commenting on. And Maimonides does not discuss archaeology; he comments on the Mishnah, a Jewish religious text. Can't you see? Of course Jewish texts have their intrinsic value, but first and foremost in their own concrete genre and context! You wouldn't ask your architect for medical advice and your Chinese teacher for help with physics. Jews in Hasmonean and Roman Judea used their stoves. Almost a thousand years later, Arabs there used stoves they also called by the same name - Semitic languages speaking brethren! Yet another millennium later, same Arabic word. But over all this time, the stove has evolved into a variety of types and shapes, see for instance Dalman's E Pal. and W Pal. examples; you can't mix sentences from Maimonides and Dalman into one description under the heading "tabun", because you'll be mixing apples and oranges 2000 years and at least 2 civilisations apart! The constancy of a name doesn't mean it's the same object. You are so familiar with and immersed in Jewish studies, that that becomes your overwhelming focus; specialists are in high demand and highly appreciated, but not for covering the most general of topics just from their own particular angle; that's a job for generalists. But I give up, I can't put it any more clearly than I've done already. The world is full of various traditional clay stoves, this article, by the overly ambitious name you chose, is the umbrella article for all traditional clay stoves, but you wrote a text where every single sentence is either about Jews or the Land of Israel, which is too small on world maps to have its name written out on its surface, and you're surprised I'm not happy with it and you're trying to tell me that you'll deal with the "remaining" 90% when you find the time! That's setting the wagon in front of the horses. Or buying a horseshoe and calling it a horse. Indians wrote the article about the tandoor; Americans about the horno; Arabs or Arabists about the saj; and here you come, write an excellent article about the stove in the Land of Israel and the derived Jewish traditions, but want to call it a name that covers the tandoor, horno, saj, and every other traditional stove in the world! Am I crazy, or is this like a Woody Allen joke of some kind? Pushing a situation to its very extreme is a type of Ashkenazi humour. (Another topic worth an article, if there isn't one already.) I'll deselect this page, because I've had already had my fill of excitement here. Sorry if I didn't always hit the right tone. Good luck and enjoy, Arminden (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

2. Title. In the same vein: why call it "Primitive clay oven"? Is it a popular, often used term, likely to be searched by users? Why "primitive"? And why so broad, when this article is far from covering the entire range of "clay ovens"? See for instance the tabun oven article, to which you yourself have contributed substantially, or tandoor, horno, and whatever else is out there in the world.

Tabun is a name used throughout the Middle-East for a particular type of clay oven. It is still used today in Israel by local Palestinian Arabs, mostly peasants. This, too, fits the description of our generic title, "Primitive clay ovens," as it is precisely just that, a primitive clay oven.Davidbena (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

On WP the criterion in choosing the title is: how likely is it that the user looking for a topic will search for it under this name? That's why I asked you: did you research and find out that "Primitive clay oven" is a widely used term? Also, why "primitive"? I disagree, these bread baking & food cooking ovens are quite sophisticated, and even the saj is the result of a very long development. 'Primitive' is something else; 'simplicity' is a huge quality in technological design, ask any student of industrial design, they fail exams if they disregard this axiom. Try to build a clay stove and bake a bread in it, and you'll see why the tabun isn't "primitive". There's a lot of trial-and-error and intelligent thought & multigenerational skills that went into it. Unless academia has decided to use such a term, which you have to prove with sources, I disagree.

Second, reality check: sticking to the general "(primitive) clay oven" title means that this article becomes the umbrella article for all others (tandoor, horno, whatever will come next). This cannot possibly be accepted. It would require that your entire material be reduced o one of a dozen sub-sections, under "Jewish traditions", or "Jewish and Southern Levant traditions and types" at the very most. Are you going to write the remaining 11 parts? Leaving them empty is not an option. Telling me to write them myself isn't an option either: pointing out a major & obvious fault or mistake doesn't imply that I am either capable, or obliged, to fix it. This doesn't make the criticism less correct though. Arminden (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you think of a better title? If so, please suggest to me a better title. The word "primitive" was used so as to distinguish these clay ovens from our modern ovens. Today, it is very rare to find a clay oven used strictly for cooking and baking, even here in Israel. Another reason for its usage is because of its simple design. Perhaps then an alternate title might be "Simple clay oven". I'm not sure that this article can be classified as an "umbrella article" for others, although definitely connected. Sometimes readers are interested in the general topic (without even knowing all the specifics). This gives our readers an opportunity to learn broadly about the subject. We find on Wikipedia articles that treat in a general way on a given topic, such as Assault rifle, with scores of other articles that specifically treat on the various kinds of assault rifles (e.g. AK-47, M-16, among others). There is nothing amiss at having, both, general and specific overviews on a given topic. Once we have added relavent information about the other clay ovens in use in the Western hemisphere and in Asia, you will then see how it was impossible to limit the scope of this article to "Jewish" ovens - which, by the way, there is no such thing. With that said, Jewish sources (if reliable) are as valid as any others.Davidbena (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

But David, that I have already! "Traditional" instead of "primitive". Arminden (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, "traditional" limits its scope, since there were slight variations between clay ovens. "Primitive" shows that the article is concerned with old and ancient clay ovens, the common denominator between them all, many of which are obsolete today.Davidbena (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

3. Reference, source tags: LOTS of sentences and paragraphs are unsourced. When an article goes through many hands, you can blame it on careless editors who've split the text w/o copying the reference tags next to each detached bit, but this is all yours. For the described reason I prefer having a reference next to every sentence, but one per paragraph is the very minimum. Qafih 1987 for instance might or might not be the source of a whole bunch of paragraphs which are, for now, unsourced.

Arminden, I will gladly add-in the sources, if I have neglected to do so. Please point them out to me, and I will fill them in when I find the time.Davidbena (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Just see where the cn tags are. And I've placed them at the end of paragraphs for aesthetic reasons, every sentence in those paragraphs should get its own reference tag after each full stop. Arminden (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I will work on them when I have the time.Davidbena (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

4. Source accessibility. None of the copiously referenced Jewish sources has a Google Books URL, they're practically inaccessible to almost anyone who'd like to check something or expand on a topic. Far from ideal. And then if someone gets lucky, they're in Hebrew - not a large circulation language IMHO. Again, less than a problem with an article on "oven in Jewish tradition", but in one covering the entire world? Not beseder. Btw, is "The Yemenite Cuisine" in English? If so, would you please mark it as such? Thanks.

To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia does not require a Google Books URL. Of course, having this will be helpful, if it at all exists. What we should, however, endeavor to do is to bring down the book's ISBN or OCLC. What makes Wikipedia a marvelous resource for knowledge is that books in all languages, not readily available to people stranded in different continents, can be accessed with the same general information as had in other countries, when this information is translated in their spoken language. We have made available scholarly material found in the Hebrew and German languages, which I would think should be appreciated by our readers. And, yes, foreign-language sources are used on Wikipedia. BTW: I'm not sure what you meant by your question concerning The Yemenite Cuisine. Can you please explain? Davidbena (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You're perfectly correct, there's no such requirement. There's always a difference between requirement and what serves the user and the fellow editors best: in cases such as this, nobody can ever check what you've written there, and nobody is free of mistakes (Wiki is full of "failed verification", "page required" etc. tags); and nobody can expand on the topic by going to the source. One must blindly trust one editor, which none of us can ever expect. Wiki users are not university students, spending half of each day in a physical library. The OCLC and ISBN are only useful if one is willing and in the position to buy the books and/or go to the library, which is defeating the very purpose of Wikipedia. Basing a very large part of a general-interest article on sources which are out of reach for 99% of the users and editors is hugely counterproductive. It also means that the material becomes dead weight, nobody works on it and any skeptic can disregard it - it becomes "David's private baby".

The Yemenite Cuisine: you wrote that it originally appeared in Hebrew, but is the second edition in English? Very simple question. If yes, please make a note (and if it's available on Google Books, the URL...?).

The article entitled "The Yemenite Cuisine" was originally written in Hebrew and was later translated into English and published in a book entitled Ascending the Palm Tree - An Anthology of the Yemenite Jewish Heritage.Davidbena (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

5. The lead: Did poor old R. Moshe ben Maimon really discuss oven types of "all peoples"? What about the Maimonides reference covering both introductory sentences, where there's talk about "before...cast-iron stoves, and gas and electric ovens"? Basically the same problem: it's almost 100% about traditional Jewish ovens, but pretends to cover more.

Maimonides (12th century CE) discussed the primitive clay ovens used in the Levant in the 1st and 2nd centuries of our Common Era, as described in the Mishnah (compiled in 189 CE). After all, Maimonides is only a commentator. Rashi, however, does speak about the ovens that were used in France, which I think we have also referenced. Again, Maimonides' description was never meant to be exhaustive, but described the general type used in the Levant. Of course, when discussing specific types, there is always room to expand. Nothing was pretended here, but only an "introduction of sorts" into the types of primitive ovens commonly used 2,000 years ago.Davidbena (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This is useful to me. I would have read the text myself, but it's not available to me, which once more proves my previous point. Maimonides is writing about issues 900-1000 years in the past from his perspective, and all he has to go on is the Talmud & Mishnah, which have themselves been redacted and put to paper long after the times and topics they're referring to. So once again: perfectly legitimate for a discussion on a narrow but precise "oven in Jewish tradition" topic, but definitely not for an umbrella article on Wiki about traditional clay ovens, which must be based on science and verifiable facts. Rashi is from the same cultural background, and the fact that the Middle Eastern term furn is used both by him and Palestinian Arabs of the time is amazingly significant, but again, exclusively in the Jewish cultural context. Arminden (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

6. Science vs legend: "used since time immemorial", "used in biblical times": sorry, not useful. There is pleanty of archaeological data about human use of fire and its evolution. Immemorial, when dealing with a clear, rather advanced traditional technology? Are there no Mesopotamian or Egyptian images or texts, no archaeological findings and papers? Biblical redirects to "Bible", which starts with Creation and ends with the Epistles & Revelation. Not useful in the least as a historical time span. Again: stick to "oven in Jewish tradition", and all that becomes far less relevant, but as it is...

Here, I concede that we can revise the wording, where it was written: "used since time immemorial", "used in biblical times". Still, your assessment that this article speaks solely about primitive Jewish clay-ovens is inaccurate, in my humble opinion. There is, however, a place in this article to expand other types of primitive clay ovens, without subtracting from the rest.Davidbena (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see above. A proper article on traditional technologies looks like this one for instance: names and etymology, history and evolution, types and regional variants, present state. None of all this here. You took a bite that you cannot possibly swallow by choosing such an all-encompassing title, and nobody will jump in to pick up the slack and write the remaining 90% of the material such a title requires. Arminden (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"Immemorial" and "biblical" are no longer written in this article (unless I forgot to delete one). An "Etymology" section is usually added when a certain name or title requires explanation. The word "clay oven" is already self-explanatory. If one wishes to add additional sections on the evolution of the clay oven, or history of the clay oven, these are both reasonable suggestions and any editor here is free to do so. So far, we've been discussing regional variants.Davidbena (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

7. Classification (types): I read it all through and couldn't tell if my life depended on it what's the difference between them all, except for the saj, which is a very different item altogether. Tabun? Tannur? Furn? What are they, what makes the one clay stove different from the other? This must always be the first and foremost goal when writing for an encyclopedia, and the article gives me close to nothing. Definition first, comments later - I can't say it often enough. Btw: tabun and tannur I've heard and read about quite a lot, but furn I encounter for the first time, so I'm now genuinely curious.

The use of saj in this article is an anomaly of sorts, and was mentioned here only because Dalman mentions it when describing man-made devices used in baking. And, yes, you are right. It is not made of clay, but of metal.Davidbena (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Please let me know where you felt that the description of each, several oven was not satisfactorily portrayed, and I will do my best to clarify the differences between them. Actually, there are black-and-white photographs of each of these clay ovens in Dalman's book, but I do not have the copyright to display them here.Davidbena (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

We're using written definitions even where pictures are indeed available. Every term needs first and foremost a definition. Every definition consists of the general category (clay oven) and the specific attributes of that particular term (which I'm missing). The latter is essential, must be clear and concise, and be the main focus at the very beginning. Hardly anyone will read the entire article, but many might come to get a quick overview of clay oven types and evolution; right now, they'd leave the page disappointed. Thanks for explaining some of it to me under point 9., but it's in the article where it needs to be: the tannur is... the furn is... etc., with a concise and precise explanation of what makes the one different from all the other. If there are larger categories, these should be used in a systematic structure built of sections and subsections. Something like: permanent/single-use/transportable; by region; fed from above or from the side; with compartments or with just one chamber; made of clay/brick/stone/metal; etc., you see what I mean. Once you know a topic in depth, this becomes easy - and essential.

By the way: the saj doesn't fit in this article unless you create a connection between the evolution of the clay oven and the metal-made saj. I know of it being placed on a few stones, but maybe in households it can be placed on a round adobe base, or on larger clay stoves? I wouldn't count on that, but I don't know. Dalman's drawing with the saj (placed over a few stones) and the 2 Palestinian clay tabuns doesn't help here either. Arminden.

I will need to do more research on the sāj and its origins. As I said, its introduction here is an anomaly of sorts, since Dalman mentions it along with his list of clay ovens in use in Palestine and Syria. While the sāj is definitely not a clay oven, it was still incorporated in Dalman's list because it was used for baking. BTW: In the Saj section, I have added a short disclaimer making note of the fact that the sāj is not a clay oven, but only a griddle. Incidentally, in the JSTOR article on the baking ovens used in Italy, they too mention the method of baking directly onto hot coals. In this regard, it, too, is not a clay oven, but was only mentioned because of the general theme of writing about baking techniques.Davidbena (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

8. Muqaddasī reference: he wrote in the 10th c., and Le Strange translated him in the ending 19th. The quotation, as as result of this, is not useful. You offered it as referring to the furn, but I understand it as dealing mainly with the tannur, with only a couple of words referring to the furn. Now go ahead and prove me wrong :)))

Muqaddasi explicitly writes in Arabic furn, before describing its features. Tannur is often used generically for all types of clay ovens. Furn is a specific type, which word also differed in meaning in North Africa (Maghreb) and had the connotation of a large baking oven, usually built upon bricks and having a side-opening for inserting the loaves. Yes, these distinctions should all be pointed out.Davidbena (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Muqaddasi mentions the furn, then the tannur, and one cannot make out which part of the description refers to which type of oven. You have a. placed the whole quotation under the heading "furn", and b. have explicitly written in the intro that Muqaddasi is writing about the furn, which is not at all obvious from the quotation. Maybe most of it should go to the tannur section? As it is now, it's confusing and not at all useful. Maybe a newer translation could help, Le Strange's is some 130 years old. It's like the King James Version vs a modern scientific translation of the Bible: less charming and poetic, but much better understandable and trustworthy (Wiki "RS"). Arminden (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is not with Muqaddasi's use of the word furn, but rather of your misunderstanding of the Hebrew/Arabic word tannur. I have since added an introductory statement in the section Tannour / Tannur, explaining the generic meaning of this word. Not all tannurs (ovens) can be a furn (usually a masonry oven, but not limited to this), but every furn is a tannur.Davidbena (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

There can be no misunderstanding on my behalf of a term I don't know. i came here to learn about the definition of tannur, tabun, saj, and once I found it, furn. So it's up to your explanation to help me understand those terms. Precisely that is my problem: initially it didn't. Do you see now what I mean? And if tannur is the general term for all cooking stoves, is it a "type", or just a common noun for stove? This is a typical information which belongs right at the top of the section leads. I'm not here to annoy you or to show off, but to understand - and to help you understand what is missing and leaves the user visiting the page xtill confused after reading all through it (few will), and even more so when they're only looking for concise definitions & descriptions. Arminden (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The Mishnah, Keilim 5:1–ff. (compiled in 189 CE) mentions only three earthenware devices used for baking and cooking: 1) תנור‎ = tannour, translated as "oven", which was principally used for baking, but could also be used for cooking; 2) כופח‎ = kūpaḥ, translated as "stove" or "single stove", which was principally used for cooking, but could also be used for baking. This contraption could only hold one pot; 3) כירה‎ = kīrah, translated as "brazier" or "double stove," it, too, was used primarily for cooking, and was built with a place to contain two pots. According to Mishnaic exegete, Rabbi Obadiah Bartenura, the tannour (oven) described in our Mishnah was ordinarily constructed like a large, brimless pot and connected by clay to the ground (Bartenura, Commentary on Keilim 5:1), while those same ovens that were generally used by the Jewish nation (although not exclusive to the Jewish nation) were made with an opening at its top (Bartenura, Commentary on Parah 10:5), for inserting kindling, and for sticking the dough on the sides of the oven. This opening could be covered over with a lid, and itself used for heating kettles of water. In later generations, other words were devised to describe other types of ovens, such as the masonry oven (furn), a loanword borrowed from the Greek fūrnos, but also used for baking and cooking, especially by the town's baker. These were ovens (pl. tannūrim) with a specific designation, namely purnah (furn), because of its unique design. The tabun was also a special type of oven (sing. tannūr) and which was portable. Its pot-belly made of clay was simply overturned and placed above a pebble or tile-like floor upon which dough could be spread out. Hot coals were heaped on top of the oven's outer shell to induce baking. The tabun was made with a removable lid, while, in others, they had a side-opening with a removable door. As you can see, there can easily be confusion when the word tannour (= "baking oven") is used in its generic sense when referring to a specific construction type. Dalman alludes to this difficulty, where he mentions the matzah made by oriental Jews being soft and pliable and which unleavened bread was baked in the regular tannour (earthenware oven) and made to cling to its inner oven wall, whereas the Ashkenazi Jews would bake their matzah in a furn (masonry oven), by laying it flat upon the oven's floor board, and which produced a harder, more brittle matzah. And, yet, all of us can still say that their matzah was baked in an oven.Davidbena (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Together with the other articles about other types of clay ovens (or are they just different names for the same old type?), this one could add very nicely to a general picture, but it needs to have its scope and definitions sorted out in an honest and realistic manner. Sorry if I sounded too critical, I'm a bit on the edge, I do appreciate your tremendous work for the specific topic this does indeed cover and I'll use it, and I do hope that my comments will prove to be constructive in the end. Keep up the good work and come out well at the far end of the Covid tunnel! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

9. Mixing Maimonides with Dalman is a bad recipe: see the "tabun" section. The two are very different sources, combining them into one continuous description of an allegedly "eternal, never-changing" type of oven, is wrong and leads to total confusion. Maimonides writes about openings used to stoke, or kindle the fire, while Dalman writes that "baking was made on the pebbled floor of the oven", while "the exterior of the clay oven" was "surrounded with hot coals and embers". Either - or: either the fire was inside, or it was outside. Or did people light a fire inside, pulled out all the embers and ashes, and placed the red-hot stuff around the oven? Hard to believe, and not explained. Or some embers were left on the tabun floor and the dough patties were placed on top? Unlikely, too. More likely: Maimonides' Mishnah oven is a different type from the 20th-century Palestinian tabun, whether it was called the same or not. Jewish sages... modern ethnographers... don't mix well. Presenting both one after the other can make sense; a mixed stew ob both doesn't. Arminden (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

​ David, hi. I am happy you looked into my comments, but I consider that none of the issues I have raised is properly addressed as yet. It's not in the interest of the Wiki user, nor of fellow editors who would like to pick it up from where you left off, and also not in yours to leave things as they are, as this risks to have the fate of a good book placed on the wrong shelf with the wrong library tag in a huge library. It's a lost book for all intents and purposes. Also, it becomes an obstacle for any true future umbrella article on the very interesting topic of traditional ovens, because one would go through the time-consuming effort of removing redirects and renaming this page & rewriting parts of it. On the other hand, anyone interested in the traditional oven of Israel-Palestine and Jewish traditions on ovens and baking would have a hard time finding this very rich and significant article, because it comes under the wrong (dis)guise.

Somebody interested in traditional ovens from Romania, Russia, Georgia, Germany,..., Siberia, China, Japan, India, maybe Australian first nations, the Americas, Black Africa, North Africa - they would all eventually land here, and find nothing. Not even Persians, Turks, Iraqis, Egyptians and Afghans would be pleased. It's like naming an article "horses of the world" and only dealing with North American mustangs. The Mongols, Arabs, Irish, Dutch would probably be the first in line to butcher you for that. Here you might escape with just me bothering you, because it's less of a prominent topic, but the mistake is of the same magnitude. Unless you can prove, of course, that all clay ovens originate from the Southern Levant & environs (the horno seemingly does, as do the oldest and second-oldest domesticated wheat species). But you need to think in broad terms, identify by yourself all these implications, and deal with them. You are extremely knowledgeable in Jewish religious and Land of Israel-related topics, which is a tremendous wealth; but that cannot be the base for covering world-encompassing topics, beyond the Hebrew Bible and its impact on the world at large. If I need an excellent knee surgeon, I'll give anything to find one, but no matter how well he'll fix my knee, I won't ever drop my general practitioner and go to the orthopedist with all my medical issues. Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I will be willing to expand the article by briefly discussing other primitive clay ovens, once I have collected this information. I'm not sure about what you meant by saying, "Mixing Maimonides with Dalman." Dalman wrote about 3 or 4 different types of clay ovens, including the tabun, whereas Maimonides, when he does address the subject of clay ovens in his Mishnah commentary, speaks only about two types of clay ovens, one being a tradition oven (tannour), while the other being designed more like a clay stove (which, by the way, I have not discussed in the article - for the simple reason that we're discussing ovens, rather than stoves). By the way, Maimonides never mentions the tabun that is described by Dalman.Davidbena (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Quoing myself: "see the "tabun" section". So there. Under tabun, you have Maimonides describing one layout, and Dalman a very different one. If tabun is a generic name for oven in both languages, then there's no wonder that they are describing different types; mixing them together is the problem.

Okay, now I see what you're talking about. To clarify, Maimonides does not specifically mention the name tabun, but speaks in general terms about the tannur (which also includes by defintion the tabun). Therefore, the wording used there when citing a reference from Maimonides is this: "a similar type of oven had, in addition to the hole at the top, a second side opening called the 'eye of the oven', used for stoking the fire and clearing away the ashes" (End Quote). You see, the tabun also fits this description based on Dalman's illustration of the types of tabun that were in use in Palestine, where one shows both a top opening and a side opening. The problem arising here stems from the generic use of the word tannur, which can still apply to other forms of baking ovens. Note that the wording used was carefully constructed so as not to suggest that Maimonides actually said "tabun," although he may have implied it. This view is given all the more impetus when you consider the clay ovens that were in use in Italy during Roman times and at present. See article's new section which speaks about the Italian equivalent of the tabun, called by them sub testus, where a earthenware cover was laid over the coals, etc.Davidbena (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Divid, hi. When I'm working on articles like this, I'm starting with writing as good a definition as possible in the lead. Then I set up a structure: what are the important details which cove ALL sub-categories? That goes at the top of the, say, "Description", "Types", or "History" section. Only then come the sub-categories, one by one. If Maimonides wrote smth that covers all ovens, then place it directly under the common, uppermost heading, not at a sub-category (tannur in this case). If the terms work like Russian dolls, then please place this at the top, as well: furn > tannur > tabun. Now they're all at the same level of the "hierarchical pyramid", as equally distinct "types", I had no way of knowing what you're now explaining to me here. The user still doesn't. I normally also reflect such hierarchies by using sub-levels (up to five = signs are allowed); sometimes it can be too much and it can look bad, but it's worth experimenting. Or present it in a different graphic manner, or at least in written: "all such stoves are called furn; some furns are of the tannur type; some tannurs are tabuns. The saj is a related, but different type of utensil." This is the kind of essential info that must come first. Arminden (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to work on the lead paragraphs to improve them. After all, this is a collaborative effort. Bear in mind, however, that this article is a general overview of many types of clay ovens, those found in the Middle East (with their different names and designs), and those, hopefully, which we'll add to this list from South America and Asia. We must first define in general terms the most frequently used (or constructed) per region. We have a section on the Middle Eastern types. We now have a section on the types found in Italy. A bigger picture is starting to develop here, and as you can see, we're not talking strictly about Jewish made ovens, but of a wide variety and types. BTW: Furn is not a generic term, although tannur is. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

David, I know that very well, but I'm not very much interested in studying the subject, and without going in-depth, I wouldn't start writing anything. On the other hand, you do already have all the information readily at hand. I came here to understand words I've come across, but kept on mixing up, as they seem to be used a bit carelessly. So I came as a user. And couldn't get the info I wanted: what is a taboon, what a tannur, and how do they differ. Everything else is a bonus for me, which initially I didn't think I'd read through. Like always, the focus should be: how can we best serve the Wiki user; in this case I'm the user (as a test case, hopefully with many more to follow).

Re my general remark about keeping a general article separate from a particular one: what you're attempting now, it doesn't really work like this. You cannot write a complex article on a limited topic (I say Jewish & Land of Israel, you say Middle East; whatever), and then blow it up to cover the entire world. One clear proof: the entire pre-existent section on "Preparatory steps" still only deals with the Middle East. It can't be done properly. Why wouldn't you have it like the Indians (tandoor) and Americans (horno) did? A specific article on J+LoI/Middle East, and an umbrella/generic one for all? This here isn't logical, nor does it work well. It looks like patchwork. You'll be forced to constantly rewrite the common parts to fit in particularities you come across in Patagonia or the Gobi desert. For the life of me, I don't understand what you gain from it. You can much easier expand the existing Tabun oven article into a Middle Eastern-cum-Jewish topic, and write the general stove article with no constraints and headache by summing up what's there plus in tandoor, horno, and whatever else might fit. This here makes me remember, smilingly, of the La Fontaine fable with the frog. I've looked up the "oven" article and it's a terrible systematic mess as well, they've mixed up the categories (either you create categories by materials, or by purpose; they don't overlap). Anyway, clay ovens seem to be a subset of the masonry ovens, you'll find a lot there already. That's precisely why getting your definition right is so important: definition → title → how it fists into the network of already extant Wiki articles. Only so can you avoid repeating work already done & posted elsewhere by others, avoid confusing users, create a net of articles which complement each other rather than ignore and contradict each other. Coordinate this here with masonry oven, and on the whole everybody wins. Btw, not even earth oven uses the word "primitive", it's simply wrong. Google for it. None of the ovens here are primitive, but they all are traditional. Check, don't take my word for it. I swear, I'm not into annoying you for no good reason ;)) Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The furn is a furnace-like oven, the name being a loanword borrowed from the Greek (φούρνος, fūrnos). .'

• The accent is incorrect. φούρνος should be φοῦρνος (just for the record the classical Greek generic term for this was ἰπνός)
• It may have entered semitic use from Greek, but the Greek word itself is a loanword from Latin furnus. It's rather like saying terebi (TV) is a loan word in Japanese from English, whereas the English word probably came from the French transcription of a Russian neologism based on Greek and Latin.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

And by the way David (excellent work, my compliments as well) the title is a misnomer, and should be along the lines suggested by Arminden, namely 'the oven in Jewish tradition'. The reason is simple. If 90+% of the article deals with that topic, given that the Jewish ovens are one variant of a worldwide tradition, to achieve dueness corresponding to the place of Jewish ovens within a massive worldwide picture would put you into a task worse than Samson's in Milton, 'grinding at the mill' of comparative anthropology day in and day out for the other 95% of material promised by the title but lacking so far. Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Nishidani for this etymological clarification. I'll make note of it in the main article. As I told Arminden, this article does NOT treat strictly on Jewish-made ovens, but on all types of ovens, including those used by Jews and mentioned by various Jewish authors. In fact, most of the ovens here mentioned were those commonly used by Jews and Arabs alike. Dalman, whose work features highly in this article, says nothing whatsoever about any Jewish-made ovens. He, himself, is not even Jewish! The clay ovens of Italy, which are also given a section of their own, have nothing to do with Jewish ovens. When this article is expanded to include other types of clay ovens, the fact that ovens described by Jews would be of miniscule importance. BTW: When a non-Jewish author writes on how they construct a clay oven or light it, this does not limit its construction in that manner to non-Jews alone. It is the same here when, say, Rabbi Qafih describes how the women in Yemen (Jewish and Arab women alike) would light (kindle) their clay ovens. In short, there is no need to limit this article along ethnic lines.Davidbena (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ovens are ovens, no matter what ethnicity employs them. It is usual simply to describe varieties according to the territory where this or that type prevails. If for halakhic reasons, a furn or tabun used interchangeably by all kinds of Middle Easterners required specific modifications for Jewish users, that of course would be cogent as a pointer to ethnically-inflected modulations.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The trend is to write about these clay ovens under the regions in which they were used, using all available sources: Middle-Eastern, Italian, etc. I have omitted talking about the religious or halakhic usage of these ovens, as this does not fall under the scope of our inquiry.Davidbena (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking for sources on clay ovens made by Native American Indians

Those contributing editors who may visit this page are cordially requested to help us find reliable academic sources that treat on the types of clay oven used by Native American Indians (including, but not limited to, the Incas and the Mayas, etc.). Any input will be appreciated. Moreover, information about clay ovens made in China are also welcomed here.Davidbena (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Aboriginal ovens

To reply here to your email David, Peter Beveridge, Aboriginal Ovens, Journal of the Anthropological Society of London Vol. 7 (1869), pp.187-189 describes a clay oven, worked to give a bricking effect. The practice described refers to structures among the aboriginal tribes of the Murray River on both sides of the border between Victoria and New South Wales. He is reliable. Despite losing his brother to an aboriginal spearing, this Scottish settler befriended the tribes on whose land (Tyntynder) he ran a station and pleaded on their behalf. It's just a hunch but I suspect the type he described was in use among members of the Watiwati. My niece, together with her husband and children (aged 5 and 7) have been camping for several months with aboriginal groups all over the north, and learning their hunting and cooking practices. But the widespread use of pit-burial ovens must have changed over the years, so I wouldn't quote them.Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Nishidani! That was informative.Davidbena (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

merge in Russian stove

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge; independently notable subset or distinct (masonty v. clay). Klbrain (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

---

So-called "Russian stoves" as not Russian at all but the general variation on clay ovens that are used across eastern Europe. That article should either be merged here or at the very least renamed. 67kevlar (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Do not merge. The so-called "Russian stove" is a masonry oven, i.e. brick oven, but the article entitled "Clay oven" specifically deals with earthenware (clay / ceramic) ovens. So, the entire emphasis is different and, therefore, should not be merged.Davidbena (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This is basically a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mellk (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Do not merge. This is two different kinds of oven. Krg (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, Davidbena is correct that the Russian Stove is a masonry oven and not a clay oven. Nominator appears confused or perhaps attempting to deliver some form of insult/joke. Note that I would also oppose a redirect to masonry oven, I think the topic can stand on its own legs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Horse Eye's Back.Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Apart from other mentioned reasons, I don't think merging without very good reason is user-friendly.

I hate trying to find the information I want on a particular subject in the middle of an article about a category which is usually irrelevant to the subject I want to know about. For example, if I want to know about everyday things in Russian or Yemen, it's annoying to have to sort through other ovens that happen to be made from the same material. The more separate articles are kept, the more neutral the encylopedia is being towards allowing different lines of thought to be easily followed up.

Adding information to the right place in long articles about wide categories is frustrating too. I think accuracy suffers a lot, because it is hard to see which specifics generalisations apply to, and people with knowledge on one area don't necessarily know how what they know applies or doesn't apply to something related. It would be possible to know everything about Russian ovens without knowing anything about any other type of oven. FloweringOctopus (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.