Tweet
Based on a recent discussion with some fellow reenactors/living historians there is some discrepancy as to whether or not people would have a set of matching dishes. I would like to discuss the research people have found that supports either argument. I will start with this:
Archaeologically it has been found that contrasting patterns were used. In the article Nineteenth-Century Ceramics and Models of Consumer Behavior by: Terry H. Klein it is discussed that:
" Wall's complex study focuses on the changing role of middle class and elite women in New York City during the late 18th and first half of the 19th centuries, using ceramics from archaeological sites in the city as one means of measuring how and when women became actively involved in the growth of the "cult of domestic ity." Wall identifies an elaboration, through time, in the vessels that were used in meals. This elaboration is reflected in an increase in decorative styles, the amount of decoration, the relative cost of ceramic vessels, and the use of contrasting dinner ware sets in a single household (Wall 1987:25). During the early 19th century, meals take on the form of a ritual and are the time when women affirm the moral values of the family (Wall 1987: 25).
As the role of women changes, so do the patterns of ceramic purchase and use. These changes occur first in households of upper economic and social positions, and then appear in the lower economic and social groups. Further, these changes occur in urban households before they are visible in the majority of rural households.
By the 1830s, printed wares be come the most popular tea and table wares. As the price of printed wares fell, the variety of vessel forms and sizes available increased (Miller et al. 1989:18).
There was an increase in the availability of matched sets of tablewares as the price of printed wares decreased. Large sets, however, were not really common until the end of the 19th century (Miller et al. 1989:24). "
The above are the three quotes from the article that explain the lack of use of matching dishes.
I would love to see what anyone else has found on this topic.
Thanks,
Felicia Konrad
Archaeologically it has been found that contrasting patterns were used. In the article Nineteenth-Century Ceramics and Models of Consumer Behavior by: Terry H. Klein it is discussed that:
" Wall's complex study focuses on the changing role of middle class and elite women in New York City during the late 18th and first half of the 19th centuries, using ceramics from archaeological sites in the city as one means of measuring how and when women became actively involved in the growth of the "cult of domestic ity." Wall identifies an elaboration, through time, in the vessels that were used in meals. This elaboration is reflected in an increase in decorative styles, the amount of decoration, the relative cost of ceramic vessels, and the use of contrasting dinner ware sets in a single household (Wall 1987:25). During the early 19th century, meals take on the form of a ritual and are the time when women affirm the moral values of the family (Wall 1987: 25).
As the role of women changes, so do the patterns of ceramic purchase and use. These changes occur first in households of upper economic and social positions, and then appear in the lower economic and social groups. Further, these changes occur in urban households before they are visible in the majority of rural households.
By the 1830s, printed wares be come the most popular tea and table wares. As the price of printed wares fell, the variety of vessel forms and sizes available increased (Miller et al. 1989:18).
There was an increase in the availability of matched sets of tablewares as the price of printed wares decreased. Large sets, however, were not really common until the end of the 19th century (Miller et al. 1989:24). "
The above are the three quotes from the article that explain the lack of use of matching dishes.
I would love to see what anyone else has found on this topic.
Thanks,
Felicia Konrad
Comment