Today, on the global art and antiquary market, a multitude of objects of different styles, periods of time and craftsmanships are being encompassed under the category of ‘pietra dura’ (“hard stone”). Borrowed from Italian but used in English, it overlooks the technical and material specificities of several techniques known as Florentine mosaic, stone inlay or in Hindi/Urdu pacchikari. Looking at English and Italian sources from the beginning of the 19th century onwards allows to identify the key-role played by British agents in connecting two major sites of ‘pietra dura’ production: Agra, India, and Florence, Italy. Their presence in India for colonialist purpose and in Florence for leisure led some authors to draw both a similarity and a distinction between Florentine mosaic and pacchikari. A unique example combining both craftsmanships, the wall of the throne in the Diwan-i-Am of Delhi’s Red Fort, is held in those sources as a hybrid curiosity. Attesting contacts between the Medici and the Mughal courts, it sparked a debate about the origin of the technique in India. The most widespread hypothesis supports the diffusionist idea of its transmission to Indian artisans by Florentine travellers visiting the Mughal court in the 1610s, despite any solid evidence. Deconstructing the category of ‘pietra dura’ hence enables to trace the genesis of a global hierarchy (Hertzfeld, 2004) that implicitly states Florence’s primacy at a world scale. Applied to objects made today in Agra for export purpose towards the Western market, this category contributes not only to invisibilise the makers but also to reinforce the domination relationships it relies on. Analysing those historical narratives therefore seems fundamental to my ethnographic work, in order to understand today’s authorship issues and power dynamics at stake in this craft, calling for a long-term perspective.
