I am currently based in Amsterdam until sometime in mid-2012, but in February I have been in Athens for ten days, doing a few interesting things.

During the first weekend of February I’ve been attending the First Workshop on Levantine Ceramic Production and Distribution, organised at the Danish Institute of Archaeology in Athens. It has been incredibly interesting, first and foremost because bringing together ceramic specialists from the Bronze Age to the Ottoman period is priceless: the patterns of raw source materials, regional geology, spatial distribution of workshops, archaeological investigation of wares and fabrics are only artificially divided into rigid chronological grids and, for once at least, it was clear to everybody that it’s necessary to go beyond closed gardens in favour of a true longue durée (that was actually called for by the organisers on the workshop website).

The Athens workshop was the first one in a series. Future workshops will take place once a year in different places.

Instead of presenting notes from each talk, I have gone a bit further, summarising the topics that I found most interesting. I hope this results in a more readable account of the workshop.

Wares

This section comprises summaries about some specific wares, based on all the presentations and the following discussion.

Fine tablewares of the Hellenistic period

Eastern Sigillata A (ESA) is the most prominent fine tableware in the (Northern) Levant in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, and it is widely found at Mediterranean sites in a much broader area. However, it is not alone. There is a variety of less widespread wares that share a lot in common with ESA.

The so-called Black-Slipped Predecessor (BSP) is an earlier production than ESA, but there is a significant continuum between the late types of BSP and some early types of ESA that were fired in a reducing atmosphere, therefore black-slipped rather than red, and there is also evidence for half-red and half-black pieces resulting either from experiments or uneven firing conditions. However, there are differences in the manufacturing of the two, e.g. in how the slip is applied to the ceramic body: while BSP follows the standard Hellenistic approach of painting only the visible parts of the surface, ESA pieces were completely dipped in the slip-paint.

Regional wares in the Levant include the Northern Coastal Fine (NCF), the Dry Red-Slipped (DRS) and Dry Brown-Slipped (DBS) and the Brown-Slipped. The classification of some or all of these wares is problematic, especially based on macroscopic observations of fabric, slip colour, surface treatment and finish.

Petrographic and chemical analysis bring more data to facilitate a classification, but they are not always consistent between each other, and neither with the macroscopic classification, which is however a necessary first step.

In Kinet-Höyük, for example, the 6 fabrics identified at a macroscopic level show little or no differences when analysed by petrographic means: there is no distinction between ESA and local tablewares (DRS, DBS). Results of neutron activation analysis (NAA) are consistent with this lack of distinction in the chemical composition of the various wares, but highlight differences in their homogeneity. BSP is for example less homogeneous, while ESA is at the other end of the spectrum being the group with less internal variability. Whether the degree of chemical homogeneity can be traced to the degree of standardisation in the production of these wares is a matter of debate. With regard to homogeneity, it should also be emphasised that it is generally invisible to the naked eye, and therefore it would have no meaning to the consumers of such products.

Brittle Wares

The definition of Brittle Ware is usually reserved to the cooking, and more generally kitchen ware of Syria. The term is however not more suitable for the Syrian cooking ware than for other Levantine wares, which are sometimes thinner. It’s therefore advisable to speak of Brittle Wares in a more general fashion. There is for example a possible local production of Brittle Ware in Kinet-Höyük.

Syrian Brittle Ware has specific types and fabrics, made in few workshops or production areas, and illustrated by a series of standard shapes mainly distributed in Syria (including Southern Anatolia and Southern Syria).

There are different levels of information about Syrian Brittle Ware, resulting from the different degree of detail is has received at the sites where is was found. The most important sites, for which there is a large corpus of samples, are a small number: Apamea, Andarin, Dibsi Faraj, Hadir, Qalat Semaan. A distinction of the fabrics and of separate workshops is necessarily based on a combination of chemical, petrographic and binocular analysis, in a continuous integration among them. Furthermore, combining fabric analysis and distribution patterns of shapes has given an insight of the location of the production areas.

Based on fabric analysis, four main production areas were identified among a larger number. These workshops ‒ or clusters of workshops ‒ are not all active at the same time; some are short living and some last for a long period. These four groups are:

• Group 1: 1st-10th AD, from Antioch;
• Group 3: 1st-5th, from the Euphrates region;
• Group 5 (or 4?): 1st-14th, from Apamea;
• Group 6: Early Islamic-Byzantine, has a highly chromed fabric.

From the study of distribution patterns, it can be seen that the further from the production centre Brittle Ware goes, the lower the variability is in the distributed forms (i.e. standardised cooking sets travel farthest).

Late Roman Amphora 1

Late Roman Amphora 1 (LRA1) is a transport amphora made in Cilicia, Cyprus and other parts of the Levant. A first survey of 13 kiln sites for this type was published in 1989 by Empereur and Picon, but it’s now outdated and it should include not only more sites but also other regions like the Dodecanese and Egypt.

A number of workshops and kilns have been studied recently, including Elaiussa Sebaste, Sole-Pompeiopolis (Cilicia), Paphos, Zygi and Amathous (Cyprus). These workshops provide a more solid basis for the definition of fabric groups rather than finds from consumption sites. In Paphos and Amathous, the LRA13 type was produced at the same kilns.

However, there are more fabric groups that are still unidentified, like the so-called “X fabric” (not to be confused with “workshop X” producing cooking pots, mentioned below), and as a result the correspondence between kiln sites and fabric groups is not always clear, or easily defined. At the same time, for the same amphora shape (i.e. a subtype of LRA1) we have a lot of variability in terms of petrographic properties. In Cyprus 5 fabric groups have been defined, only 3 of which correspond to kilns.

The analysis of chemical data shows a difference between Cilicia (Yumurtalik/Ayas, Soli, Karatas, Arsuz) and Cyprus (Paphos, Amathous, Kourion). In this specific case, the comparison used was Sr (ppm) vs MgO (%). Overall, there are three main groups visible in any ternary diagram: mafic-basic, acidic-basic, bioclastic (with fossils). The mafic group is quite homogeneous, while instead the Ca-rich group is the most variable.

LRA1 is usually assumed to be a wine amphora, based on knowledge about agricultural production in the regions where is was made. However, residue analysis performed on LRA1 body samples gave controversial results, in that only 2 amphorae had residues of wine, but 14 had traces of vegetable oil, and 23 of pitch.

A correlated and interesting problem to the production of LRA1 is the relationship between amphora kilns and fine ware kilns, for which there is no conclusive hypothesis so far. Some petrographic analyses on samples from Kinet-Höyük gave results very similar to samples of other types from the same site.

Pinched-handle amphora (Agora G199)

The Agora G199 “pinched handle amphora” is widespread in the Eastern Mediterranean. A novel research project, based on chemical, petrographic and archaeological evidence, identified 3 main fabric groups for this type:

• a fabric with red-brown mica, from Cilicia;
• a calcareous fabric, from Cyprus ‒ Paphos in particular;
• a second calcareous fabric, with red decoration on the rim, from sites in Lycia like Xanthos and Myra; this is a new proposal.

John Lund showed a distribution map of micaceous and non-micaceous fabrics, based on chemical, petrographic and archaeological evidence.

Polychrome sgraffito

Polychrome Sgraffito is typical of the Late Medieval period. Despite being usually called “Port St. Symeon ware” (PSSW), it was actually made in many workshops outside the Hatay region. Paphos is an example of such a workshop, even though there is no correspondence between the fabric of this medieval pottery and the LRA1 amphorae from the same region. However, it is possible to draw a very general distinction between Cyprus and Cilicia based on chemical analysis.

Polychrome Sgraffito is also definitely not “Crusader pottery”, as it is being used in Mamluk contexts.

Frankish wares

Written sources from the Crusader period mention pottery production in Beirut, Tyre, Jaffa and Acre. It is possible to draw loose links between the written sources and the archaeological evidence.

Acre Ware consists of simple, unglazed vessels made on the wheel. Vessels were dipped in salt water before firing, that made them more resistant to breakage and less porous. Bowls were mass produced and possibly linked to the Hospitaller knights and their care-taking of pilgrims and sick. No workshop was found for Acre ware. Its production stops abruptly in 1291, but instead the beginning of production is interesting, because there is a significant similarity of forms with the earlier Fatimid pottery, in what seems to be a continuous tradition. This brings the question of who were the potters.

Similar forms and surface treatments were found also in Caesarea, Apollonia and Jaffa. In Tiberias the jars are similar to Acre Ware, but in a different fabric. A similar production tradition, characterised by salt-water dipping, exists also in other areas, with different local fabrics.

The pottery from Jaffa seems largely similar to that of Acre. A few wasters of glazed pottery were found in a recent excavation found.

Apparently during the Frankish period two contemporary production traditions co-existed in the Southern Levant (Acre Ware, Beirut Ware) without any geographical distinction.

Methodology

This section is a general summary of the methodological issues in the study of Levantine pottery, particularly from the point of view of the different techniques of analysis.

Techniques

The basic aim of any analysis is the classification of pottery in discrete groups. Such groups can then be matched to known patterns of source materials, providing an attribution to a specific region. This can be done with a variety of techniques:

• macroscopic archaeological classification (naked eye or lens);
• petrographic classification (thin sections);
• chemical classification (XRF, NAA, and others not mentioned during the workshop).

The main points of difference among all analyses are:

• cost and amount of samples analysed;
• qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative;
• sensitivity to environmental conditions.

Macroscopic archaeological classification relies mostly on the technique of production, and therefore depends on manufacturing techniques and firing conditions. Chemical analysis depends solely on the raw material and then provenance, even though it is not always possible to directly match the former to the latter. Care should be taken with post-depositional alteration, as occurs regularly underwater due to anaerobic bacteria. Petrographic analysis can target both kinds. Furthermore, microscopy can be used to see the structure of the fabric. All techniques have limitations, and for this reason a combination of them is always to be sought.

The main problem is the comparison of results from different types of analysis, especially when there is an expectation to have similar results. Non-straightforward cases include:

• when the archaeological classification doesn’t match the petrographic or chemical classification, with different wares having the same “signature”;
• differences in trace elements without any correspondence at the macroscopic level.

Microscopic similarity among different productions from the same area, especially on a long-term perspective, is not necessarily the case. This can be explained by a variety of reasons, like changes in either the availability or the choice of source materials.

Data resulting from chemical analysis are usually consisting of classified by means of well-established statistical procedures, such as clustering, and principal components analysis (PCA). Clustering can be displayed as a dendrogram, based on the Euclidean distances or on other methods for calculating distance in a multi-dimensional space. PCA is typically displayed as a 2-dimensional scatterplot, with colours or symbols representing archaeological classification of the samples.

Sometimes there will be only a difference in the variability, i.e. the degree of homogeneity in one ware can be higher than in another, even though they were made using the same techniques and even source materials.

The limited amount of samples that can be submitted for analysis, either petrographic or chemical, is problematic especially when there is no re-examining of the samples from an archaeological point of view. As such, it is important to choose samples that are well characterised based on their shape, decoration, degree of conservation, because they will be more useful. It is then very important to have a drawing of all sampled sherds.

When available, a workshop should be the first step for defining a reference group, based on analysis of wasters and kiln furniture. If starting from scratch, it is advised to work on bigger groups first. Sometimes workshops are defined based on material from consumption sites, even before being identified in a specific region or site. However, consumption sites are more difficult to start with, especially in the case of large urban sites.

A necessary step is an extensive survey of clay materials from the entire region under study, not only looking at geological maps, that aren’t generally detailed enough. This type of survey has been done in the Balearic Islands, in Sicily, in Kythera and partly in Crete.

Concepts and terminology

Based on interaction between archaeologists and archaeometrists, and sometimes on different traditions of study, it is sometimes confusing to compare works showing an inconsistent glossary between them.

The description of fabrics at macroscopic and microscopic scale is the most critical. Not all specialists use the same standard for the description of fabrics and the photographs. This can cause dialogue problems between the archaeologist and the geologist.

The term “ware” seems equally misunderstood. As such, it should be defined as a cultural term, based on either the fabric, the typology of shapes or the workshop. An optimal definition will be based on a combination of more than one aspect, but it is not always possible to obtain the desired level of detail. Petrographic and chemical groups do not necessarily match a ware on a 1:1 basis. When it is not possible to perform the necessary microscopic analyses, or their results are not conclusive, it is still appropriate to define a ware based on the typology of shapes, decoration and the manufacturing techniques, such as pot-making, surface treatment and polish, firing. The distinctness of a ware is a function of the local assemblage and not of the ware itself, so in different places a specific ware may be not distinct at all.

“Source material” is a complex concept, as the manufacturing may be located significantly apart from it (e.g. 15 km), and more than one workshop may be using the same source material. As such, an identity between a certain source material and a workshop is not necessarily the case. It should be also pay more attention to the property regimes of the land where the clay sources were, because it is not always obvious that potters had access to clays only because they existed and were good for making pots.

Strictly related to the definition of source material is also a classification of local, regional and imported products, a very important concept that is generally implicitly assumed as a standardised terminology. As an example, the following criteria were adopted for the Persian and Hellenistic Levantine Coastal Wares from Tel Kedesh.

Local	1 day of travel
Regional	2-3 days
Imported	More than 3 days

It is important to give an explicit definition of these concepts when using them, especially if they are used as a basis for an assessment of the economic and cultural value of pottery trade and exchange.

On 24th February 2012 I attended a lecture by Frans Theuws (Faculteit der Archeologie – Universiteit Leiden) about The Free and Unfree of the Historians and the Rural Population of the Archaeologists. It was part of a day-long conference held at the Universiteit van Amsterdam, but all other lectures were in Dutch, so it’s possible that I missed some of the wider topics under discussion.

The following is a summary of the talk. Some parts are more elaborate, some others are patchy.

Theuws started recalling the common view by historians of peasants in the Early Middle Ages as either free or un-free, this being the major if not the only characterisation possible on the grounds of textual sources. The leader of this position is Chris Wickham, especially in his recent Framing the Early Middle Ages book. However, archaeologists have access to different types of evidence, and see different things. Theuws argues in first place that “rural population” is a better naming from the point of view of archaeology.

An example was made, from a charter of the early 8th century mentioned in the Liber Aureus, regarding a transfer of land properties by a rich woman named Bertilindis to Willibrord, abbot of Echternach and first bishop of Utrecht. The meeting where the charter was signed took place in Chalon-sur-Saone (Burgundy), but such places as Hapert in Brabant are mentioned. Among other things, there is an explicit reference to the rural population of those lands in the charter, being transferred together with the land:

mancipiis V et uxoribus et infantibus eorum

These people were not necessarily un-free, but only tied and dependent to the casata, according to Theuws. Should we call them house-tenants? Mancipia were certainly clearing land as part of their due obligations, but apparently there was nobody enforcing these obligations. Bertilindis herself refers to the lands in Hapert in a very generic fashion (“the lands I think I own”), and she probably never paid a visit to them.

Is freedom vs un-freedom a useful status indicator? We sure know a lot about tenants from such textual sources, but almost nothing about the rest of the population. And probably ‒ goes on Theuws ‒ the others were the majority, both because not all children could keep the same status as their parents, and because we know from archaeology that there was a large number of villages without any trace of what could have been the place where these mancipia dwelt.

Other common status indicators are e.g. weapons in male burials, but there has been a too easy association between weapons and freedom. How can we know that all armed men were actually free, asks Theuws.

Devroey’s Puissants et misérables (a review here) follows the same “dualist” social structure as Wickham’s book, starting from the title. even though in the book this concept is more nuanced.

There can be at least 3 differents points of view:

1. status: objective and subjective right, Roman law, common law
2. social condition
3. economic condition

These 3 “variables” should be regarded as (roughly) independent, but they are not always recognised as being so.

In Dommelen, a female grave dating more or less to the same years of the Bertilindis charter (early 8th century). In Dommelen, graves are mostly female and children (only 1 man). Contemporary graves in nearby sites are almost devoid of grave goods. Here the village looks very poor and is made of very simple huts, but the burials in contrast are rich. A similar situation holds also in Geldrop, with male graves containing weapons. Without looking at the graves, these settlements would look very poor.

It should be stressed that these are normal rural settlements. There may be a social stratification internal to these groups of population, but they are as a whole the lower stratum of the population in the region.

Theuws proposed a three-fold social pyramid, refusing to call “peasants” the rural dwellers for whom archaeology provides evidence:

1. aristocrats (textual sources)
2. dependant peasants (textual sources)
3. dwellers (archaeological evidence)

In later periods, there are large estates (manorial system) that comprise these settlements, but it may be that such settlements were independent before the establishing of such estates. A crucial point is that most textual evidence dates from the 9th century and not earlier.

Dwellers within an estate might be free or not, dependent or nor, but archaeology is not able to see these differences. Instead, it’s the economic condition that can be understood from archaeological evidence.

Wickham argues that the rural population was not sufficient to sustain an economy of scale (like the Roman one). Steuer (1997) describes a model of top-down and peer-to-peer exchange, and they can coexist in the same world system.

Grave goods are not local products: they include objects like rings, fibulae and belt fittings. What or who moved these objects? Were they traded or were people carrying them? Whatever the case, these rural populations had access to distribution networks ranging as far as the Alps, as is shown by the example of a specific type of belt buckle.

In a very short period, these belt sets spread all across north-western Europe. Why? Abundant production is not sufficient as an explanation, because people also have to accept, buy and use a certain model. This is especially true for jewellery and belts.

Pottery and other goods need to be part of this exchange model: rural population had a key role in economy as consumers, and this role was not limited to the elites. There was a complex European distribution network: no economy is exclusively international or regional.

Rural population did lots of activities that are artificially thought as separate like trade, fishing, agriculture, etc. We should move towards models of an eclectic economy of the Early Middle Ages, asks Theuws.

There is little archaeological evidence (especially when it comes to grave goods) for the 8th and 9th century.

Rural society was important for demand. Estates were probably created to exploit the existing and flourishing rural production, and not the other way. The creation of estates took away surplus and blocked the flow of goods to the lower levels of society.

∑

I liked this lecture, because in many ways this debate is familiar with other things I’ve studied, so it was not entirely terra incognita. But my knowledge about this part of Europe is scarce if anything.

However, what I would have liked even more was a more detailed examination of the archaeological evidence.

Probabilmente in molte case italiane ci sono piatti simili a questo.

La cosa che però forse solo pochi fanno è voltare il piatto sottosopra, leggere il marchio di fabbrica e cercare di saperne qualcosa di più. OK, le produzioni ceramiche di massa del XX secolo non saranno particolarmente eccitanti, ma credo che proprio questa loro diffusione le renda degne almeno di uno sguardo.

Il reperto in questione è un piattino da frutta, presente nella collezione di famiglia in 7 esemplari. Secondo mia nonna provengono sono stati acquisiti tramite una raccolta di punti fedeltà. Secondo mia madre erano di una delle sue nonne e non hanno niente a che vedere con una raccolta punti.

Quindi? A quando risalgono i piatti da frutta con il bordo arancione? Sono un cimelio o una banalità? A quante generazioni sono sopravvissuti?

Società Ceramica Italiana di Laveno

Il marchio di fabbrica rimanda esplicitamente alla Società Ceramica Italiana di Laveno (VA).

La Società Ceramica Italiana di Laveno, fondata nel 1856, va incontro alla fusione con la Richard-Ginori nel 1965, e per questo motivo si trovano alcune informazioni sulla sua storia sul sito web del Museo di Doccia. Altre informazioni storiche sono pubblicate da Roberto Conti nel suo Archivio della Ceramica Italiana del ‘900 (ripreso, purtroppo senza nessuna aggiunta, dal blog Il Piatto Antico). I punti salienti sono:

• viene fondata nel 1856, da parte di ex-dipendenti della società Richard;
• nel 1883 assume la denominazione di Società Ceramica Italiana (S.C.I.);
• negli anni 1920 e 1930 sotto la direzione artistica di Guido Andlovitz eccelle nella produzione di servizi da tavola;
• nel 1956 entra a far parte del gruppo Richard-Ginori;
• nel 1965 avviene la definitiva fusione.

Questa cronistoria è di per sé sufficiente a collocare entro il 1965 la produzione dei nostri piatti da frutta. Infatti, sulla stessa pagina web del Museo di Doccia indicata sopra, è evidente che dopo la fusione lo stabilimento di Laveno continuò a produrre ceramiche, ma con il marchio Richard Ginori.

Il terminus post quem è il 1883, ma sembra a prima vista un po’ troppo indietro.

Raccolta punti si o no?

Proseguiamo l’indagine con la raccolta punti. Si tratta di un argomento su cui non è facile reperire informazioni storiche in rete, anche a causa della promiscuità dell’argomento con le raccolte attuali. In Italia la diffusione di massa avviene negli anni 1950 con le celebri raccolte Mira Lanza, anche se non va dimenticata la raccolta Buitoni-Perugina degli anni 1930 (centrata sulle figurine). Non esplicitamente, ma questo documento descrive per sommi capi alcuni aspetti del fenomeno. Tra i premi della raccolta Buitoni-Perugina (anni 1930) figura anche “un servizio da tè o caffè per 12 persone”: non sembra essere il nostro caso, ma ci si avvicina. Senza un elenco di possibili raccolte, e senza una indicazione cronologica anche generica, è difficile stabilire questo aspetto.

Marchi di fabbrica

Nonostante i piatti siano solo 7, ci sono due gruppi con rispettivi marchi di fabbrica. La forma del marchio è la stessa, un’aquila sormontante un cartiglio. In un caso in la scritta recita Società Ceramica Italiana – Laveno mentre nell’altro al centro si legge Verbanum Stone e intorno Società Ceramica Italiana – SCI – Laveno.

Perché due marchi diversi se i piatti sono uguali tra loro? Una cronologia dei marchi della Società Ceramica Italiana aiuterebbe a capirlo, ma non sono riuscito a trovarne una. Le ipotesi sul piatto sono due:

• i marchi sono relativi a due diversi stabilimenti;
• i marchi sono relativi a periodi diversi.

Per inciso, queste sono le due classiche alternative dello studio delle produzioni ceramiche in archeologia: variazione nello spazio o nel tempo.

Vediamo cosa è possibile stabilire su questi marchi basandosi sulle risorse disponibili in rete (il volume Laveno e le sue ceramiche: oltre un secolo di storia non è facilmente reperibile, anche se si trova in alcune biblioteche pubbliche). Verbanum Stone sembra più semplice da cercare, perché non corrisponde al nome della società, quindi inizieremo da quello.

Il catalogo LombardiaBeniCulturali contiene una collezione di 516 oggetti prodotti dalla Società Ceramica Italiana, quasi tutti conservati nel museo di Laveno. Questo marchio propagandistico contiene la dicitura Verbanum Stone ed è datato tra il 1900 e il 1924. Ne esiste uno precedente, di stile molto diverso. Il tipo con aquila e cartiglio però non è molto significativo dal punto di vista cronologico perché è rimasto in uso anche dopo la fusione con Richard-Ginori, come si vede nella pagina già citata sopra del Museo di Doccia. Il marchio Verbanum è presente anche su alcune tazze e un piatto nella collezione del Berghof di Adolf Hitler, parte di un servizio donatogli da Benito Mussolini. Una versione finemente dettagliata del marchio fa la sua comparsa su questo piatto nella collezione della Wolfsonian–Florida International University.

La cronologia dei marchi di fabbrica rimane difficile da stabilire con certezza.

Poiché le schede di catalogo di LombardiaBeniCulturali contengono, nella versione dettagliata, sia la datazione sia la descrizione del marchio di fabbrica (dove presente), ho pensato che uno spoglio delle schede di catalogo potesse dare qualche indicazione. L’inizio è stato promettente, perché ha indicato che il marchio Verbanum Stone non va oltre gli anni 1930, ma ho voluto avere il conforto dei grandi numeri e controllare tutte le schede di catalogo. E il risultato è stato migliore del previsto.

Ho trovato 128 schede su 516 che attestano la presenza del marchio “VERBANUM STONE”, ma alcune riportano anche questa spiegazione completa:

La  presenza  della marca  in  verde  con  aquila  ad  ali  spiegate  e  la scritta  VERBANUM  STONE  indica  una  datazione  entro  il  primo  quarto  del  Novecento,  considerato  che  intorno  al  1925 Guido Andlovitz fece sostituire tale marca con quella con la scritta Lavenia.

Ecco dunque una indicazione cronologica sicura, anche se non abbiamo ancora capito il rapporto con il secondo marchio, la cui presenza su piatti del tutto uguali potrebbe indicare l’utilizzo di più marchi in contemporanea, magari in stabilimenti diversi, oppure la produzione continuata di un servizio molto semplice anche dopo il cambio del marchio.

Il tipo del piatto è molto semplice, e comprensibilmente non fa parte del catalogo LombardiaBeniCulturali, ma potrebbe essere un sottoprodotto molto elementare di questo servizio decorato da Piero Portaluppi negli anni 1920. C’è una denominazione precisa sulle forme dei piatti e dei servizi, ma non sono riuscito a trovarne una che corrisponda ai nostri piatti.

Conclusione

Sembra che in fondo i piatti fossero veramente di una mia bisnonna, e che abbiano ormai almeno 90 anni. Un bel traguardo per questi superstiti di un servizio da tavola più numeroso.

Non è l’età anagrafica a rendere questi piatti interessanti ‒ e ci sono certamente cose più vecchie, in grado di raccontare una storia più intima di questa ‒ ma credo che dovremmo praticare un po’ più spesso queste “spigolature” sulla cultura materiale dell’altroieri: ho imparato qualcosa di nuovo sulla storia di una industria italiana, sul suo funzionamento e ho scritto una piccola storia su sette piccoli piatti che continueranno a stare nella credenza con gli altri, ma da oggi sono un po’ più interessanti.