04-26-2013, 12:06 PM
I was bumbling around in JSTOR and accidently came across an off-hand reference to a fascinating study on female literacy. They studied Egyptian papyri from the first three centuries after the Roman conquest. They used signatures – whether the woman signed herself, was able to make her initial, or had someone else sign for her – as ways to judge the literacy of the population. (Yes, I suppose the theory could be challenged, but it was still interesting.)
They found 65% of women were illiterate, meaning someone had to sign a contract for her. 30% were literate and could sign for themselves, and 5% were semi-literate, meaning they could make their initial.
So if 35% of women were literate or semi-literate, can this be extrapolated to soldiers? Would they be more likely to be literate, because men presumably had more formal education? Or would they be less likely, because they were out of civilian business life?
They found 65% of women were illiterate, meaning someone had to sign a contract for her. 30% were literate and could sign for themselves, and 5% were semi-literate, meaning they could make their initial.
So if 35% of women were literate or semi-literate, can this be extrapolated to soldiers? Would they be more likely to be literate, because men presumably had more formal education? Or would they be less likely, because they were out of civilian business life?
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
www.davidcord.com
