posted 04-29-2008 07:12 PM            

Romans of status reclined on couches to eat. Their food was served in bite-sized portions, so no need for knives. Fingers were used to convey most food to the mouth (perhaps aided by a piece of bread), so no need for forks although they had been invented (Romans preferred the super-size trident version that could be used as a weapon). However, spoons were needed for some dishes.

Here are a couple of examples that are typical of the 1st century AD.

The larger bowled example above, known as a ligula, was used for soup or porridge. The one with the small round bowl, known as a cochlear, was used for eggs, shellfish and snails.
It would take a book to describe how the design of spoons evolved over the following centuries so I shall simply skip a few hundred years to some later examples to be shown in following posts.

posted 04-29-2008 07:19 PM            

This swan's neck spoon of serving size probably dates from around 400 AD. There was a long tradition of zoomorphic decoration on Roman spoons and ladles, following on from the Greeks and before them the ancient Egyptians, so I thought I should include an example.

This next example is typical of spoons found in British hoards of c.400 AD. Claimed to have been found in a field near St Albans (Roman Verulamium), it is made of copper alloy with a white metal coating. It is nearly identical in its detail to a silver spoon from a hoard found at Biddulph in Staffordshire in the 19th century, right down to the inscribed Christian ChiRho between alpha and omega in the bowl. It is known that silver copies were made of the Biddulph spoon and passed off as originals: the British Museum has the original and one of the copies. I am left wondering whether a Roman spoon maker made identical spoons in both silver and base metal, or whether silver-plated as well as silver copies were made by the 19th century fraudster. In the latter case somebody has gone to immense trouble to age this spoon, bend its stem, and then clean it up again roughly enough to reveal some of the underlying copper alloy. Even though it may be a fake, it does at least show what spoons looked like in the closing years of the Roman occupation of Britain.

posted 04-29-2008 07:23 PM            

This final example, much repaired, will have been made in Byzantium in the 6th century AD, long after the Roman occupation of Britain ended. It is typical of the period and very similar in form to the silver spoons found in the Sutton Hoo ship burial which also came here from Byzantium, probably linked to the Christianisation of Saxon England. Engravers were not always very literate and the inscribed +TOMA is probably meant to stand for St Thomas. The use of Latin rather than Greek script suggests the spoon found its way to the West rather than remaining in the Byzantine Empire. The monogram on one side of the disc offset between stem and bowl will have represented the owner of the spoon.

Apologies for such a lengthy series of posts. It can be difficult to know what to select and when to stop!

posted 04-29-2008 07:56 PM            

Here is an example of a Roman style hoof spoon (base metal not silver). It is discussed in an earlier thread (Hoof Spoon).

As our new resident Roman spoon expert, I would be interested to know what you think of it as regards its authenticity and origin.

posted 04-30-2008 02:12 PM            

That said, there does of course remain the problem that a claimed provenance may be spurious so I suppose I may have been misled on occasion. However, when I look at what is on the affordable market here in the relatively narrow field of Roman spoons, I don't see much that appears to be "looted". I do see a lot of apparent fakes which often seem to emanate from Eastern Europe.

Recent finds will mainly be individual pieces found by a metal detector rather than the result of looting a site. While a purist may be rude about the activities of metal detectorists, those in this country at least now seem to abide by the rules, properly reporting their finds. I think it is generally accepted that on balance their activities have made a positive contribution and have led to some important discoveries. I would therefore be quite prepared to acquire a piece that had been reported but "disclaimed" by the museum service and allowed onto the market.

posted 04-30-2008 07:42 PM            

I don't claim to be an expert - still very much the student and learning - so my comments on the hoof spoon may not add to what you already know. Your example is, as you say, Roman in form. The form of the stem would suggest a later date than Pompeii, perhaps 2nd or 3rd century. Unless I misread your photo, the hoof finial looks a bit different from the ones I have seen (in illustrations only - I've not seen one in the flesh). I think the hoof is normally in the same plane as the bowl whereas yours looks as if it is sideways to it. However I have no doubt that all sorts of variations will have existed.

Because the intrinsic value of silver meant it was more carefully looked after, and recycled when worn or out of fashion, much more base metal than silver survives to turn up as a casual find (other than in the occasional find of a major precious metal hoard). And anyhow the proportion of households that could afford silver tableware must have been relatively small. Most objects were of bronze but pewter was also made by the Romans, though probably to a lesser extent. Certainly less of it survives, but pewter Roman spoons have been found - in England, it seems, more than anywhere else, perhaps because all the necessary raw materials were mined here. The pewter spoons I know of are all of relatively simple form but I would not want to generalize from too few examples and more elaborate patterns may well also have been made.

This is a long winded way of saying I see no reason why the spoon should not be a genuine Roman survivor. I cannot see there would be much profit in casting and then artificially aging a pewter spoon of a challenging shape unless the hope was to pass it off as silver. However, I am by no means expert enough to provide a definitive opinion and reproductions do get made, whether honestly or to deceive.

posted 04-30-2008 08:30 PM            

Don't worry. I didn't take it personally. And I understand your argument. As the father and father-in-law of archaeologists I am familiar with the debate. For many types of antiquity I would be with you all the way and I can understand why you conclude that a blanket refusal to buy is the answer. And yet I still feel I have rescued some pieces and put them in a context where they will be studied, recorded and eventually passed on with some provenance and a bit of added background.

As regards metal detectors in Britain, I have never been tempted to join their ranks, but I do believe that on the whole nowadays they are helpful, though doubtless there are still rogues around. Several factors assist. They are rewarded if a find is bought in for a museum. If it isn't bought in, the fact that it is recorded on a national database helps confirm its provenance should the finder wish to sell. But most importantly, local archaeologists make real efforts to build a relationship and work with the various groups and clubs. And I am mindful that some of the most significant finds of the recent past have been made by metal detectors who reported promptly so that archaeologists were involved straight away: the Hoxne Treasure, now in the British Museum, and the Middleham Jewel and Ring, now in York Museum, for example.

Without support and education, however, I fear the rogues would predominate as I am certain they do in some parts of the world.

posted 04-30-2008 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

Unless I misread your photo, the hoof finial looks a bit different from the ones I have seen (in illustrations only - I've not seen one in the flesh). I think the hoof is normally in the same plane as the bowl whereas yours looks as if it is sideways to it.

---

Agfile: The hoof is a cloven hoof and the flat surface faces upward in the same plane as the bowl. As indicated in the earlier thread, there is still sand lodged in the cleft of the hoof, indicating (as does the corrosion) that it was once dug up. Where and when is unknown. Thanks for the information.

posted 05-01-2008 08:18 AM            

And the sand does suggest burial but I think certainty only comes with analysis of the metal when provenance is lacking.

posted 05-01-2008 08:29 AM            

While this has nothing to do with silver, other than silver hair, we just saw a delightful movie with Judi Dench and Maggie Smith set in Cornwell. The movie was Ladies in Lavender and told a wonderful story of two sisters living in a small village in Cornwell.

posted 05-01-2008 10:56 AM            

Another thing that is happening here is that museums are increasingly adopting blanket policies against accepting anything that cannot be very definitely and cleanly provenienced. The Collections I curate have not taken that policy, precisely because of the kinds of issues we've been discussing. And because we're a teaching collection we can often still get some good use even from unprovenienced materials. And if we were to get something that needed repatriation, I'm perfectly happy to do that, whereas some of my colleagues prefer not to have to deal with that issue.

posted 05-01-2008 01:08 PM            

Many of the Egyptian spoons are quite flamboyant in design and more suited to ceremony and ritual than any more humble use. I think we lack the evidence to know whether the simpler forms were also used for eating. Of course, depending on the diet, they may not have been needed.

There is a range of evidence for the Roman use of the cochlear (apart from the fact that cochlears and ligulae are found together in sets of tableware). A bronze cochlear excavated at Kaiseraugst was found to have a residue of egg on it. A wall painting (from memory, at Pompeii, but I can't put my hands on the reference quickly) includes a table set for a meal with a cochlear resting on a bowl of eggs. And there is a line by Martial that translates as: "I am useful for shellfish and also for eggs. Why else call me cochlear?" (The name cochlear is derived from the Latin for shell.) I may be guilty of making an assumption without knowing the evidence when I add snails to the list!

A lot of the smaller Roman spoons, scoops and ladles which survive were probably also used for cosmetics, medicine or whatever but without a context one cannot put a specific use to a given item.

posted 05-02-2008 02:34 PM            

I should probably say something more about what happened to the design of spoons in the period between the end of the 1st century and around 400 AD. The round-bowled cochlear began to fall out of favour and be replaced by spoons with different bowl shapes and an offset between bowl and stem. Bowls grew progressively larger. I am not sure whether this was because of greater wealth, greater gluttony, or simply to make the spoon more versatile and usable for soup etc as well as smaller delicacies. It retained its distinctive long pointed stem, however. In my second original post the copper alloy/white metal spoon of c. 400 AD (or pretending to be of that age) is an example of what the cochlear developed into.

The ligula too grew in bowl size. This example, which came to me from an earlier collection, has, sadly, lost a great chunk from its bowl. You can't expect everything to survive intact.

I would date it to circa 300 AD. The form of the stem with its stepped molding had appeared by then though the size of the bowl might suggest a still later date.

By 400 AD the ligula had undergone a transformation in shape, acquiring a curved, swan's neck handle. I can only illustrate a pewter reproduction which is perhaps not as well made as the Roman silver original, part of the Canterbury late Roman treasure.

By the end of the 5th century the two spoon forms had merged. Cochlear became simply the word for any spoon. The 6th century spoon in my third original post gives an idea of the sort of style that then prevailed.

Of course, throughout this period there was considerable variety in the detail of shape and decoration. The spoons I have illustrated so far do, however, give an idea of the basic forms.

posted 05-02-2008 04:52 PM            

All I can say is we've come a long way from Andronicus! I am so glad I posed the question.

I have also found out that your example in the part 3 is something I have, (obviously a reproduction), but I never knew what it was a reproduction of. It says in the bowl Domus Neronis, there are no marks of any kind, maker or material, nor no letters on the oval between the bowl & the handle. I am guessing that the Domus Neronis could be translated as the House of Nero?

Thank You!

Jersey

posted 05-02-2008 06:47 PM            

Quite a few repectable reproductions of Roman spoons get made in both silver and base metal. Sometimes for museum shops copying something in the collection, and usually of pieces found in whichever area or country the replica is being made.

posted 05-02-2008 07:59 PM            

My Latin went out with the coming of the wheel! My friend from England's chemistry clued me into your ID. Latin though is a good language tool for the derivation of many words in many languages, when you recall it. Sister Herbert would be proud! I went more with the Domus.......as in domicile i.e. home, & neronis as in what's his name the Emperor who fiddled. (Joshing!). In fact I saw Quo Vadis the other night for the first time in many moons. Ustinov was formidable. I have looked at it more closely & it does appear to be silver. Perhaps sterling or most probably silver plate. I wish I could give it some provenance from a Museum collection or some such though. I received it from a dear friend who moved & has since passed, & knew nothing about it or where it came from. He said most likely a gift from long ago.

Please, have a great weekend & know that I am enjoying your passion. You have as all good teachers, the key to opening another door for all of us, another light in the tunnel. Hope I have expressed myself correctly.

Ciao! Mille Gratia!

Jersey

posted 05-05-2008 07:32 PM            

I did not include the two spoons shown above in my first postings because I do wonder whether they are too good to be true. The top one came from a collection of antiquities whose previous owner clearly liked to leave pieces uncleaned. I have left it in the same state. Unless the black tarnish is hiding something, it is in remarkably good condition. This can happen if the conditions of burial are right, but, as I mentioned in the case of the Biddulph spoon, forgers have been around pretty much as long as there have been collectors. The spoon is, however, well made and certainly not in the same category as the more obvious fakes I have seen, so I give it the benefit of the doubt until I get round to seeking a more expert opinion or an analysis of its alloy. The waisted, purse-shaped bowl is a form that was particularly popular in the second and third centuries while the molded handle is a style found on a number of third century spoons. I am not sure what its use would have been. The bowl on this spoon is too small for a ligula (soup spoon). It may have been a cochlear despite lacking the normal pointed stem (which was presumably used to skewer delicacies if that was easier than using the bowl end), or it may have had some other use such as for cosmetics or medicine.

The second one came from a collection of mainly 18th and early 19th century spoons which included just a few examples from earlier periods including this one Roman spoon. The owner clearly believed in cleaning and polishing the collection and the spoon has acquired a patina more like the later spoons as a result. It too is in surprisingly good condition but, for the same reasons, I also give it the benefit of the doubt. It shows the form into which the cochlear mutated in the 2nd century

posted 05-11-2008 06:48 PM            

If I go on posting pictures of Roman spoons as I extract them it will all get a bit repetitive but I thought this one was worth posting because it is a little bit different: the oval bowl is a relatively unusual shape. This spoon is said to have been found in the Lincoln area and probably dates from the early 4th century. I only know of one other spoon of the same overall pattern, a much larger one, however, that was found at Benwell Fort on Hadrian's Wall.

posted 05-11-2008 08:26 PM            

Thank you for whatever you present.

Jersey

posted 05-12-2008 12:03 PM            

I have been meaning to say something more about your reproduction spoon. If you ever get round to posting pictures I could try to see if there is a match in a book I have by a chap called Hauser (German text). He catalogs all the known late Roman and Byzantine spoons and illustrates most of them.

None is inscribed Domus Neronis, but I wonder whether that might be a trade name for a business selling reproductions, perhaps as souvenirs for those visiting ancient sites?

posted 05-12-2008 12:46 PM            

Jersey

posted 05-12-2008 01:18 PM            

Thanks for an entertaining and informative thread, one of the best ever. There was a fascinating exhibit on Pompey at the Field Museum in Chicago a couple of years ago. The exhibit contained quite a collection of Roman spoons.

The archaeological question is interesting. I did just enough archaeology one summer in Israel during my college years to decide I did not want to spend my life uncovering one hill! I also learned that artifacts have little hisotrical value once removed from their provinence (site). Given the tendency of people to recycle useful items, most ancient spoons were removed by several degrees from their original context. Unless they coame from an actual burial site, I doubt those in circulation among dealers were taken from potential sites any time in recent memory. Nineteenth century "collectors" and even would-be archaelogists did so much damage to many valauble sites, that archaeologists are even re-excavating their disgard piles to see if anything can be salvaged.

Eastern Europe is more pboblematic than Britain. I saw numerous Roman toga pins in open air market in Sofia, Bulgaria, and did wonder where they had come from. I also questioned their authenticity.

Anyway, FWG is right about the need to be cautious. Great discussion. I have missed the forum given my insane schedule.

posted 05-12-2008 07:08 PM            

When metal detecting first became a hobby in Britain a lot of stuff escaped reporting and found its way straight into private collections but rule changes and a deal of effort from all concerned seem to have improved the situation greatly now. Some of those earlier finds are now coming back onto the market as collections made 20 or 30 years ago get dispersed.

Collections are not always well documented, or the items get separated from the documentation. This is a shame because even a rough idea of the find place would contribute to building a pattern that might prove illuminating; and also because it makes it harder to judge whether a piece is a find from donkey's years ago, or from the first flush of metal detecting, or indeed a very recent find that has been slipped in illegitimately. FWG was absolutely right to preach caution.

While putting fingers to keyboard I might as well illustrate something a bit different again.

I said at the beginning that Romans of status did not need knives at their meals. However, they might need them for meals when traveling or serving with the military. A few combined spoons and knives survive, usually of bronze. The top example, bronze, has a folding bowl and has been restored. Corrosion makes it difficult to be sure about the knife blade, but I don't think it did fold. To use the spoon comfortably the blade would have needed to be open but in a sheath.

The lower example, bronze with a white metal coating, does not fold. Both examples are probably from the third century. The panther heads decorating the handles are often found on Roman knives and folding implements of this type.

posted 06-14-2008 07:11 PM            

This small ladle with a duck's head finial that forms a hook end was one of my early acquisitions and I'm afraid I failed to find out anything about its provenance. I also have difficulty in dating it as I have not come across any published comparators that might help. Its form is similar but not identical to that of early Hellenistic wine ladles of c.300 BC. However, it is too small to have been a wine ladle. I think it probably dates from the later Roman Empire, perhaps 4th century AD when the range of domestic silverware had become fairly extensive. There was a bit of a fashion for reviving more ancient styles around that time. I didn't include this piece earlier because of my uncertainty about it, but at least it is a bit different from the other pieces and provides some variety.

posted 06-14-2008 07:34 PM            

That aside, what are the measurements of your ladle please, it is a sweet one.

posted 06-14-2008 07:58 PM            

quote:

---

Activities at Nemea

Three discoveries are of particular importance. One is a lovely bronze ladle with its curved handle ending in a duck's head. This piece is paralleled by one discovered in Macedonia several years ago (See Themelis and Touratsoglou, Oi T�foi tou Derben ou B26.) The two ladles are so similar in design, workmanship, and size that they appear to have been made in the same workshop, perhaps by the same artisan.

---

BTW If a piece speaks to you in a whisper in your ear....listen!

Jersey

posted 06-15-2008 09:53 AM            

quote:

---

Tivoli Hoard, mid-1st century B.C.; Late Republican
Roman; Italy, said to have been found at Tivoli or Boscoreale
Silver
Rogers Fund, 1920 (20.49.2-.12)

These pieces of silver, tableware from part of a hoard, are said to be from Tivoli, near Rome, or Boscoreale, near Naples. Tivoli was a popular site for luxury villas in the Late Republic, and was to Rome what Boscoreale and Boscotrecase in the Campanian countryside were to Naples. The Tivoli hoard, comprising thirty pieces in all, includes two decorated skyphoi (wine cups), a ladle, a trulla (spouted pitcher), and several spoons, all of which would have been used at dining and drinking parties. Inscriptions on the pair of drinking cups and the ladle give the weight of each piece and the owner's name: "Sattia, daughter [or wife] of Lucius." The hoard was probably buried as a result of the civil wars and political unrest in Rome during the last decades of the Republic. The elegant soup spoons in this group give a clue to the diverse courses favored in Roman cuisine; the ample bowl of the ladle, like that of the cups, shows an appreciation of wine. We learn details of Roman cuisine through the cookbook of Apicius and the writings of Petronius, Juvenal, and Martial. The dietary preferences of the Romans were remarkably close to the tastes of modern-day Italians. The gustatio, or first course, consisted of shellfish, eggs, or salad. The cena, or main course, featured a succession of roasted meats. The meal ended with sweetmeats and fruits.

---

Incidentally, I take my ladle to be Roman because as far as ancient Greece is concerned surviving bronze and silver for the table is all drink related . This doubtless reflects the fact that their main social gathering, the symposium, was an occasion to combine drink and conversation and was kept separate from the main meal. The Romans, however, combined their eating and drinking and therefore had silver (or bronze) tableware for both food and drink.

The reason I mentioned 300 BC in my initial post is that Greek wine ladles at that date, like my little ladle, had shallower bowls than the later examples quoted by you and by me above.

If anybody should wish to read up more about Greek and Roman silver, the standard work is "Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate" by D E Strong, published in 1966 in both the UK and the USA. It is illustrated mainly by small line drawings but includes a range of photographs at the end. Otherwise it is a question of finding exhibition catalogs or the reports on specific excavations and finds. One that might be available reasonably inexpensively is the paperback version of "The Hoxne Treasure, an illustrated introduction" by Roger Bland and Catherine Johns, British Museum Press, 1993. My copy is the 1995 third impression. I am not sure whether it remains in print but there are certainly second-hand copies around. The Hoxne hoard is one of the largest Roman treasures found in Britain and includes jewellery, coins and tableware.

posted 06-15-2008 06:44 PM            

Not to be flip, I'm just in a fun mood.....but if it walks like a duck, & talks like a duck it must be a early ladle!

Will keep trying to get more info for you. I'd be curious to know why a duck figure would be used. I know many animals were depicted in such a way, but there must be some significance attached for each. OR was it just for pure fun?

Jersey

posted 06-15-2008 07:17 PM            

It is past bedtime here but I can add a bit about ducks before retiring. Bird head finials, including ducks, first appear on ancient Egyptian spoons used for ritual and ceremonial purposes. The birds will have been associated with various deities as well as being part of everyday life. By the time the Greeks and then the Romans adopted similar designs they may well simply have become traditional though I imagine there could still have been some lurking symbolism since the ladles would still have been used for ritual libations as well as simply serving wine to guests. I fear I have not gone at all deeply into this so cannot say which God would have had a duck as his or her representative on earth. Sorry about that!

And so, goodnight,

posted 07-15-2011 01:26 PM            

The spoon is roughly 6 inches long. The decoration in the bowl shows a peacock displaying and is gilded. It has an uncertain provenance. It came from an antiquities dealer two or three years ago and was said to have been found in Germany. I probably should not have bought it on the basis of such a vague background but I yielded to temptation.

Round bowled spoons of this form are typical of the 1st and 2nd centuries but I have been unable to trace silver examples with similar decoration in the bowls. Several tin and tin/lead alloy spoons from this period found in London do have decorated bowls, however. Fashions in base metal are likely to have followed those in silver so it seems possible that this spoon is indeed as early as that.

It could be later, possibly even in the “too good to be true” category though it doesn’t feel like a fake to me. Anyhow, I like it and thought it was worth sharing.

While typing, I ought to add a comment that I should have made in an earlier post in this thread (5/11/2008) where I showed a spoon similar in pattern to a larger one found at Benwell. Reproductions of the Benwell Roman spoon have been made in various sizes. It seems to me quite possible that somebody had erased the hallmarks on such a reproduction and distressed the spoon in order to pass it off as a Roman original. Even if this is the case, the spoon illustrates a known Roman form so is still relevant to this topic.