Urgent question: female surgeons in the Roman period?

[Ti Cl Nero]

[...] geographically very widespread, too. Numerically they were however only a minority compared to their male collegues and many will indeed have confined their work to female diseases.

I totally agree, even because we should probably also remember that thinking in terms of specialized doctors (at least to the same degree as they are nowadays) may be misleading.
There were, of course, a few categories of specialised doctors (mainly chirurgi, ocularii, auricularii), particularly since I century a.D., but they were a minority.
Most of the doctors were "general" doctors, and, if I remember correctly, one did not need any particular permission in order to call himself "doctor" and to work as such.
We should probably consider women mentioned in these sources mainly as experienced midwives (this is recurring) whose knowledge often could cover gynaecology and sometimes, why not, something more - without us needing or having to expect too often official designations in the sources stating so.

A couple more references:

- Nutton, "Roman medicine: tradition, confontation, assimilation" in ANRW II,37,1,1993 pp43 ff.

- Nutton, "Roman oculists" in "Epigraphica" 34, 1972, pp 25 ff.

- Le Gall, "Mètiers de femmens au CIL", in "Melanges M.Durry", Paris 1970 pp.123 ff. (which is mentioned in the article previously linked by severus)

Valete