women serving in the Roman army??

[Anonymous]

A story about female remains associated with a Roman fort<br>
<br>
<br>
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1411715,00.html <p><img src="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.martin/forum/mark.gif
" width="100" height="100" align="right">
</p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Mark,<br>
<br>
Somehow that link won't open on my pc.<br>
No problem though I posted the whole text yesterday on [url=http://p200.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm1.showMessage?topicID=1201.topic" target="top]'Romans in western China'[/url] .. <p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>

[richsc]

I wonder if this is the same thing as the analysis if the 'woman gladiator' burial. While there were women gladiators, the incorporation of a few items in the burial doesn't mean that woman was a gladiator. Of the 180 remains, were only two women? <p>Legio XX<br>
Caput dolet, pedes fetent, Iesum non amo<br>
<br>
</p><i></i>

[Luca]

I'm ashtonished.<br>
It is hard to accept...<br>
Anyway I think that if an object is buried with a body, it is normal that items somehow is representative of that guy. So the possibility of a warrior-woman is high.<br>
<br>
The article mentions about numerii, but she said nothing about what makes her thinking that is a numerus and not a vexillatio, or a cohors, or just someone that preferred to live with a sword to protect her family.<br>
<br>
Could be Mike Bishop knows more? <p></p><i></i>

[mcbishop]

<em>Could be Mike Bishop knows more?</em><br>
<br>
Than what? ;-)<br>
<br>
Looks like another case of over-enthusiastic interpretation in search of publicity on a slow news day. Wait 20 years and it will all be poo-pooed... that's academic life for you.<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty open minded on this matter. Although it may not have been common or ever allowed that a woman serve in the Roman army directly, there certainly were cultures especially in Africa that had women as prominant warriors.<br>
<br>
There is not reason for me to doubt that the ever adapting Romans would have utilized mercenaries from Africa working alongside their legions. There just might also have been woman serving in these units as well......<br>
<br>
I wouldn't be surprised one bit. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

posts on Britarch suggest that the Times went for the 'better' newstory<br>
<br>
<br>
<p><img src="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.martin/forum/mark.gif
" width="100" height="100" align="right">
</p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Indeed. The journalist appears to have been a tad sensationalist. However, Mike, the find itself is decades old. The 'most likely female' identification seems to have been correct, but the scabbard may have belonged to a male.<br>
_________________________<br>
I found this post by Mark Brennand on the Britarch list:<br>
_________________________<br>
The report has been published, several months ago, and it is a quite excellent volume, pulling together material excavated in the 1960s under far from ideal conditions. There is nothing wrong with the post-excavation work, undertaken by individuals who are acknowledged experts in their fields.<br>
<br>
Cool, H.E.M. 2004. The Roman Cemetery at Brougham, Cumbria: Excavations 1966-67. Britannia Monograph 21. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.<br>
<br>
The two burials in question were identified by Jacqui McKinley as 'most likely female' (as opposed to 'undoubtedly' or 'probable').<br>
<br>
Hilary Cool discusses the sexing of the remains and the items on the pyre (page 461), and goes on to say 'Nothing we know of the Roman army would lead us to conclude that it was recruiting females, so the scabbard fittings presumably reflect a related male'. She goes on to postulate that they may have been the wives of senior officers. She does also discuss questions of sex and gender, and finally mentions the possibility of 'female amazons', bearing in mind what is quoted above. It is a straightforward discussion with the conclusion clearly laid out, but acknowledging other possibilities.<br>
<br>
The Times have presumably picked up on the piece in the latest edition of British Archaeology, where the possibility of females with weapons is also raised at the end of the article. It does say that numerii are 'not normally thought of as having women among their ranks' and while mentioning that the unit came from the area where the Greeks placed the origin of the female warriors called Amazons, concludes 'perhaps this is the final story from brougham whose time has not yet come'.<br>
<br>
Surely it is the journalist who is being sensationalist, not our 'colleague'.<br>
_______________________________ <p>Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert<br>
[url=http://www.fectio.org.uk/" target="top]fectienses seniores[/url]</p><i></i>

[Luca]

OK, I agree with Mike Bishop and Robert about their feelings about this news: too much sensationalistic tone without a true discovery as too often happens. <p></p><i></i>

[Crispvs]

I too agree with Mike and Robert, but I think it might be worth adding a small footnote. I have been led for a long time to believe that in Germanic society a woman could take the role of a man in society if there was no male in her family who could fill the role and if she was of sufficiently high status. This would mean that she would be entitled to bear weapons and even fight as a man, hence the ocasional references we hear of Germenic 'women warriors'. I am not sure of the source for this. It may be Tacitus' Germania, but it is a long time since I read that so then again it may not be. I am given to understand that Viking women could become heir to property and male voting rights if their husbands died and they had no father, sons, brothers or brothers in law of sufficient age or health. Viking society was, of course, quite traditionally Germanic, still worshipping (W)Odin, Thor, Teu and Frei, long after other Germanic peoples had given them up, and with women still wearing tube dresses held with pairs of brooches which were similar if not identical to dresses worn by Germanic women depicted on stelae from places like Mainz.<br>
As I said, I agree with what Mike and Robert said but felt this might be worth mentioning.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>

[mcbishop]

<em>Viking society was, of course, quite traditionally Germanic, still worshipping (W)Odin, Thor, Teu and Frei</em><br>
<br>
We still think about them in the UK every Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, and this in a country that's been nominally Christian for the best part of 1700 years. Personally, I blame Erik Bloodaxe...<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

interesting comment re viking/german women<br>
<br>
Though I'm not a scholar - I just can't envisage Romans allowing women into a legion. For starters, she'd have to be extremely physically fit and strong (I've marched with a pack. I know how darn hard it is, with the benefit of modern nutrition and physical training). Quite aside from the social issues. Would it be any less likely that the scabbard was a treasured posession of her husband's or father's or son's, a keepsake? And it would make sense for a woman to have some basic self-defence in that sort of environment, so it could have been hers. We know women tagged along with their soldiers as wives, nurses, cooks, whores and washerwomen, but I've never once come across anything to suggest they were actually soldiers.<br>
<br>
Journalism has a lot to answer for.<br>
<br>
Pictoria <p></p><i></i>

[Paullus]

I'd have to agree with Pictoria, more than likely it was a self-defence weapon. With male relatives in the army it is not implausible that they managed to get her a weapon and then trained her to use it. And being an expensive piece of property it would make sense to be buried with it. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

There are documented incidents of women joining the army and navy during the 18th-19th century, etc. There are also Anglo-Saxon females buried with shields and spears; probably more than we know, as excavators in the past often assigned sex by grave goods alone. What do these finds mean in the context of their culture? Why did the excavators just assign the earlier finds as being those of males rather than females without considering other factors?<br>
<br>
Cool, in her article about the Brougham Cemetery (British Archaeology, Jan/Feb 2005), speculates that these finds of military equipment and horses in probable female cremations '[are] Perhaps the final story from Brougham whose time has not yet come.'<br>
<br>
Finds like these are merely a challenge to reconsider assumptions, and to temper and refine interpretations of the evidence. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

This is from the Discovery Channel's website, and is a bit more detailed than The Times:<br>
<br>
dsc.discovery.com/news/br...mazon.html<br>
<br>
And a piece from a local Newspaper:<br>
<br>
www.newsandstar.co.uk/new...?id=166015<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>