What tableware was used before the renaissance period?

[Standarduser]

I found in some sites that people during the roman and medieval times didnt use plates but “trenchers” which are plates carved out of stale bread that could have been eaten after the meal has been consumed, or given to the poor.

Now, i know that metals were very expensive(not to mention the metalworking required to make plates) but stale pieces of bread? Couldnt the common people just eat out of wooden plates? And what about the nomads that lived in euroasia that didnt practice agriculture?
And ive read that not only the poor ate from stale bread plates, but an entire family would have probably eaten from one stale bread trencher.

Please help me, dear dopeheads XD.

[gotpasswords]

Wood plates were expensive, whereas last week’s bread is cheap.

As for what you ate with, spoons were starting to catch on, but knives were the primary utensil. Forks were thought to be (ugh!) Italian, which then, at least, was an insult, and they didn’t really catch on in England until the late 17th century.

[TriPolar]

There was probably plenty of crockery and pieces of wood that could serve as plates or bowls. But then they have to be cleaned or they’ll smell and draw flies. Stale bread would have been very convenient.

[Standarduser]

@gotpasswords

Wood plates were expensive, whereas last week’s bread is cheap.

As for what you ate with, spoons were starting to catch on, but knives were the primary utensil. Forks were thought to be (ugh!) Italian, which then, at least, was an insult, and they didn’t really catch on in England until the late 17th century.

How was wood expensive? Couldnt a man just wonder into forest and fetch himself a piece of wood? Were trees the posessions of nobility like game?

@TriPolar

There was probably plenty of crockery and pieces of wood that could serve as plates or bowls. But then they have to be cleaned or they’ll smell and draw flies. Stale bread would have been very convenient.

What about the noble class who ate from silver and pewter tableware?

[silenus]

The rich are different from the rest of us. They can afford servants to do the cleaning. The rest of the population used knives and their fingers to eat with, and not much tableware was needed. Maybe a goblet or two and a serving platter of wood.

[Bisected8]

@Standarduser

How was wood expensive? Couldnt a man just wonder into forest and fetch himself a piece of wood? Were trees the posessions of nobility like game?

Yes, they were, as is the case with landowners today.

[Nava]

@Standarduser

And ive read that not only the poor ate from stale bread plates, but an entire family would have probably eaten from one stale bread trencher.

That assumes solid food. For stews and soups, the common method in some places was what’s described in Spanish as cucharada y paso atrás, “(take a) spoonful and step back”. Stew is a lot cheaper than steak; soup lasts longer than chicken, and there is no need for plates: just the pot and one or more spoons.

[Standarduser]

Wow. Eating back then was really straightforward.

Thanks for help guys

[dracoi]

@Standarduser

How was wood expensive? Couldnt a man just wonder into forest and fetch himself a piece of wood? Were trees the posessions of nobility like game?

How many pieces of wood have you found in the forest that would work as a plate? To get a flat piece of wood, you need a saw as well. And your unvarnished, rough-cut piece of wood is now an ideal breeding ground for bacteria. When you die, your neighbors are going to be glad they stuck with stale bread.

[TriPolar]

@dracoi

How many pieces of wood have you found in the forest that would work as a plate? To get a flat piece of wood, you need a saw as well. And your unvarnished, rough-cut piece of wood is now an ideal breeding ground for bacteria. When you die, your neighbors are going to be glad they stuck with stale bread.

Saws were rare before the Industrial Revolution, and primarily used for cross-cutting. Most boards and planks were made by splitting logs, then chipping or planing them to relative flatness. A suitable piece of wood plank or a carved bowl wouldn’t be that difficult for anyone to acquire. But when you’re eating with your hands an edible trencher makes a lot of sense. Wood could be kept clean, but you don’t have running water or soap, and minimal possessions and living space, so it hardly seems worth it for that type of life. After all, we eat a lot of sandwiches and other finger food now, and most cultures have similar eating styles. Formal dining is a luxury that the vast majority of people didn’t enjoy very often in those ancient times. And of course this doesn’t apply to the wealthy, who may have eaten off gold plates if they were wealthy enough.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

Grain was more plentiful than meat.

If you serve meat with sauce on a bed of some grain, whether it’s rice or a trencher or whatever, the grain soaks up the sauce or juices and becomes more flavorful. The serving of meat looks bigger. The diner feels like s/he got more meat to eat. And ALL of the flavor was eaten. If you serve some meat and sauce on a plate, some flavor gets lost, unless the diner mops the plate with some bread or a roll or something. Why not serve the food in or on an edible plate/bowl in the first place?

[Anaglyph]

@Standarduser

I found in some sites that people during the roman and medieval times didnt use plates but “trenchers” which are plates carved out of stale bread that could have been eaten after the meal has been consumed, or given to the poor.

Now, i know that metals were very expensive(not to mention the metalworking required to make plates) but stale pieces of bread? Couldnt the common people just eat out of wooden plates? And what about the nomads that lived in euroasia that didnt practice agriculture?
And ive read that not only the poor ate from stale bread plates, but an entire family would have probably eaten from one stale bread trencher.

Please help me, dear dopeheads XD.

I do not think that the majority of people did that. Most people would not eat out of individual dishes, but out of the common pot, which most often was the pot in which the gruel, porridge or stew had been cooked.

[Toxylon]

As suggested above, a common pot and plenty of spoons was the norm in much of ancient, Medieval and later Europe. However, individual wooden plates were common, too, often required on festive occasions. And in some regions, individual wooden plates were standard practise.

How many pieces of wood have you found in the forest that would work as a plate? To get a flat piece of wood, you need a saw as well. And your unvarnished, rough-cut piece of wood is now an ideal breeding ground for bacteria. When you die, your neighbors are going to be glad they stuck with stale bread.

Is this GQ or what? For the past couple thousand years, plates have been made by lathe from axe-hewn blocks of wood such as oak and maple by professional woodturners. There was no need to varnish turned hardwood plates, which were anything but rough-cut. A plain wooden vessel is surprisingly hygienic, due to bacteria-killing chemical properties in the wood as well as its porosity, which dries out residual moisture and bacteria. Bowls made from burls, requiring only a hatchet and a crooked knife to make, were common among the poor folk, and were exactly ‘pieces of wood found in the forest that would work as a plate’, after some late-night whittling.

[CalMeacham]

I suspect that there would be wooden plates and/or bowls, but that they’d be communal piecesx, with everyone dipping into the same bowl. The level of technology required isn’t high – American Indians, without the same level of technology the Europeans you’re talking about had, had and used wooden bowls. There are plenty of examples in museums.

As noted above, knives were the common utensil. Spoons are easily made, although you can simply drink your soup out of a bowkl. Again, Big spoons (ladles) were around, and used as a communal resource. You can make them out of many materials, especially horn.

Jea Anouilh, in his play Becket, set during the reign of Henry II, has an interesting interchsange between Henry and Thomas Becket, who has just started using the new forks:
Becket: They’re a devilish new instrument. They’re for pronging food into your mouth.

Henry: But that gets the fork dirty.

Becket: Yes, but it’s washable.

Henry: So are the fingers. I don’t see the point.

Becket: It hasn’t one your Grace, but it’s very un-E nglish.
Later on, Henry comes back in and proudly announces: “Thomas, my barons have discovered what forks are good for! They’re for pronging each other’s eyes out!” In the Richard Burton/Peter O’Toole film they even show a couple of barons going after eaxch other with the forks.

I wouldn’t take Anouilh’s play as gospel on the history of eating utensils in England (or on anything else, for that matter), but it does give an idea of what the i ntroduction of genteel diningware must’ve looked like.

[constanze]

Earlier than wooden plates were of course clay bowels - one big pot to cook the stew/ grain mush/ soup, and little bowels you scooped your share out of with (and wooden spoons can be carved from left-over wood). Those can be found thousands of years back.

If you look at (recently-contemporary) India (the poorer parts) or Africa, where people today still eat a lot with their hand*, you can see how easy it is to sit around a common table and eat with just a spoon and your hand, and a piece of bread to soak up the sauce. (The food is cut up into small bites in the kitchen, then you need only one knife).

• Usually the right one, because the left is used for something else…

[Nava]

@CalMeacham

Spoons are easily made, although you can simply drink your soup out of a bowl.

Not very convenient for lentil soup, noodle soup or chickpea soup, though; in fact, extremely inconvenient for anything I’d call soup and not broth. Spoons have been around since prehistoric times; if you live close to the sea, something as simple as a seashell of appropriate size serves with no additional work. Their names in many Romance languages derive from the Latin word meaning seashell, in fact (cochlea and the verb cochleare).

[CalMeacham]

@Nava

Not very convenient for lentil soup, noodle soup or chickpea soup, though; in fact, extremely inconvenient for anything I’d call soup and not broth. Spoons have been around since prehistoric times; if you live close to the sea, something as simple as a seashell of appropriate size serves with no additional work. Their names in many Romance languages derive from the Latin word meaning seashell, in fact (cochlea and the verb cochleare).

I find this comment puzzling. Unless you’ve got long noodles, like udon, noodle soup is perfectly convenient to drink right out of the bowl. Lentil soup, too (lentils are tiny). lots of things I’d call “soup” can be drunk, provided it’s been cut into small enough pieces. Everything that I call “soup” can. Although I do eat soup with a spoon.

[Scumpup]

Spoons are easily made from a twig of appropriate size. Whittle the twig to the general shape and use coals from your fire to burn the hollow into the bowl. If you want to spend extra time smoothing and shaping in order to have something more pleasing to the eye, you can do so; but you can have something useful for shoveling food into your mouth very quickly. At a week-end long survival skills workshop I attended a few years ago, all of the participants were required to make their own spoon in just this fashion. The instructors were history buffs who were teaching us how to do things (they claimed) the way the Indians and frontier-dwelling colonists did them.

[Acsenray]

@gotpasswords

Forks were thought to be (ugh!) Italian, which then, at least, was an insult, and they didn’t really catch on in England until the late 17th century.

Indeed, I’ve read that that the switching-fork-hands method of eating developed because of the very late adoption of forks in the United States.

@Lynn_Bodoni

Grain was more plentiful than meat.

I’ve read that the mediaeval European diet was very meat heavy, not least because it stayed fresh until you killed the animal, and stored grain attracted rats, fleas, and the plague.

[MrDibble]

Of course they had plates - wood, pottery, pewter at the least. Bread trenchers were a thing (but gradually evolved into wooden ones that duplicated the shape of the originals) but not a necessity or anything - hell, we serve things in bread bowls even today.

One source of confusion is that sops were common (think of them as croutons for stews).

But there’s plenty of visual evidence for what place settings and tableware was like, for rich and poor. yes, there was a bit more eating with the hands than may be usual in modern America, and the table fork came late to Northern Europe (but was commonplace in Byzantium and environs), but otherwise, things were pretty much the same as today, down to the tablecloths and for fine dining, fixed place settings (although this might be a place setting for two, sharing a wine pitcher).