Posts: 363
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
0
I'm currently reading through the Vindolanda 2001-2002 site report and came across a line of discussion I don't think has been much considered, here at least. In trying to explain why female shoes might be present inside barracks in a Pre-Hadrianic fort, the author (Andrew Birley) suggests that while parts of the garrison were absent (as we know several hundred were during one stage in Period II at Vindolanda), civilian dependants could move into accommodation left vacant.
So I guess this leaves two questions: firstly, if large parts of a fort or fortress were under occupied, would it follow that the families or dependants of absent or present soldiers could then move in? And, whether that is or isn't the case, may we also expect the soldiers left behind to spread out across the fort, so as to be less cramped?
I can think of logical reasons why disciplinarian centurions would keep their men exactly where they are, and as discussed in the other thread, on cold nights you'd want as many contubernales huddled up with you as possible. However, keeping rooms occupied would also mean keeping them maintained, so might it be in the interests of the garrison to ensure that areas of the fort did not go neglected? Also, is there any reasonable explanation for the presence of female footwear in Pre-Hadrianic barracks other than suggesting that some lived inside the fort as well?
Posts: 63
Threads: 14
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
Could be several reasons:
1- a legionnaire may have bought them for a sister, mother etc
2- may have wanted a new set of footwear and the womans were the only available
3- perhaps a "friend" left them over one night.
4- heck, perhaps even a bit of crossdressing 
all the other reasons you mention in the OP could be reasonable as well.
Posts: 651
Threads: 44
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation:
1
Slaves? We know that captured prisoners were often enslaved and could form party of the booty divided up amongst the soldiers. They were called calones I seem to remember. If so, I don't really want to think of the life a female slave living in a barrack room with 8 auxiliary soldiers.
Posts: 651
Threads: 44
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation:
1
Posts: 363
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
0
Thanks for the responses! The possibility of female calones is interesting, but they are mostly associated with manual labour. On the whole I would lean towards the shoes belonging to family members rather than slaves, but then we don't really know how well slaves would be dressed in a Roman military context. It's an open question still about who slept where within a Roman fort, but definitely an interesting one.
Sadly we do have confirmed proof that girls could be present within Roman barracks ( ), but as Carol van Driel-Murray has said, there are some elements of military life we don't really like to think of.
Posts: 651
Threads: 44
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation:
1
The following references all mention victorious generals handing over slaves directly to the soldiers:
Livy 4.34.4; Caes. BG 6.31.1-2, 7.89; Suet. Iul. 26. Cf. also Sall. Jug. 44
Where do these slaves go, if not into the barracks? In houses rented in the vicus, or do the soldiers sell them off immediately, though this seems backwards, the slaves would have been sold to slave dealers and the cash then shared out as booty...
Posts: 1,068
Threads: 51
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
82
I'd be interested to see the shoes in question other then from size I'm not sure you can definitely say a shoe was male or female as far as style went... though there are exceptions eg Lucius Thales solea.. females shoes tend to be those generally smaller then mens sizes, but this can equally be applied to young males...
I dont dought there were plenty of females around forts theres simply too many smaller shoe finds for it to be otherwise and even in a place like Vindolanda only a very small portion of the footware is likely to have survived...
Buying shoes for a member of the family etc is only possible if you have sizing something I dont think the romans had, so the majority of footware would probarbly be made to measure which meant you had to visit a shoe maker, something that is easily forgotten these days...
Best Regards
Ivor
"And the four bare walls stand on the seashore. a wreck a skeleton a monument of that instability and vicissitude to which all things human are subject. Not a dwelling within sight, and the farm labourer, and curious traveller, are the only persons that ever visit the scene where once so many thousands were congregated." T.Lewin 1867
Posts: 363
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
0
Quote:I'd be interested to see the shoes in question other then from size I'm not sure you can definitely say a shoe was male or female as far as style went... though there are exceptions eg Lucius Thales solea.. females shoes tend to be those generally smaller then mens sizes, but this can equally be applied to young males...
Best Regards
Carol van Driel-Murray has based her study of shoes from Vindolanda and elsewhere on those criteria. Men can have small feet, but are still generally much larger than women so it's a fairly clear indication of sex - with the caveat that smaller shoes could also be worn by adolescent boys. Explaining the presence of either is somewhat problematic.
Quote:The following references all mention victorious generals handing over slaves directly to the soldiers:
Livy 4.34.4; Caes. BG 6.31.1-2, 7.89; Suet. Iul. 26. Cf. also Sall. Jug. 44
Where do these slaves go, if not into the barracks? In houses rented in the vicus, or do the soldiers sell them off immediately, though this seems backwards, the slaves would have been sold to slave dealers and the cash then shared out as booty...
There is a rather big difference between Republican campaigning by legionaries and static garrison duties by auxiliaries, but I agree that the ownership of at least some slaves by low-ranking soldiers should be accepted - certainly in the case of the cavalrymen who seem to have received additional rations to feed grooms. If they lived outside the fort, it's possible their relationship to the soldiers was a little like modern cleaners or the like today.
Hodgson's reconstruction of the cavalry barracks at Wallsend, showing grooms sleeping in a loft above the stable.
![[Image: 5QwP6ZP.png]](http://i.imgur.com/5QwP6ZP.png)
Posts: 1,068
Threads: 51
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
82
Robert Matthews wrote: " with the caveat that smaller shoes could also be worn by adolescent boys. Explaining the presence of either is somewhat problematic."
" If they lived outside the fort, it's possible their relationship to the soldiers was a little like modern cleaners or the like today.
Hodgson's reconstruction of the cavalry barracks at Wallsend, showing grooms sleeping in a loft above the stable."
I would suggest boys for the grooms (or as other servants) which at least could explain the presence of smaller sized footware to some extent.
Best Regards
Ivor
"And the four bare walls stand on the seashore. a wreck a skeleton a monument of that instability and vicissitude to which all things human are subject. Not a dwelling within sight, and the farm labourer, and curious traveller, are the only persons that ever visit the scene where once so many thousands were congregated." T.Lewin 1867
Posts: 80
Threads: 4
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
Could soldiers with leather working skills (and perhaps army leather that they 'borrowed') have been making shoes for sale to the local community as a method of earning a little extra money?
All of the explanations listed in this thread so far sound plausible to me.
Adam
No man resisted or offered to stand up in his defence, save one only, a centurion, Sempronius Densus, the single man among so many thousands that the sun beheld that day act worthily of the Roman empire.
Posts: 363
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
0
Quote:Could soldiers with leather working skills (and perhaps army leather that they 'borrowed') have been making shoes for sale to the local community as a method of earning a little extra money?
I think that's quite possible too, although shoemaking (as opposed to replacing hobnails) would require quite a range of tools. There is a cobbler's workshop at Vindolanda discussed in the 2001-2002 site report, but I don't remember if women's/children's shoes were found there as well, will check later.
(As an aside, the Vindolanda 2001-2002 site report comes exclusively on CD-ROM and won't open with anything other than Internet Explorer 8 or earlier, which means I have to borrow other people's computers just to read it. There's a lot to be said for dead tree publishing sometimes!)
Posts: 33
Threads: 13
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation:
0
I think that the most likely explanation is that some soldiers, especially the veterans, moved their wives into the barracks.
Adrian Goldsworthy suggested in his book "The Complete Roman Army" that barrack blocks might have been extremely crowded places, but back in those days it was very common for several families to share a same room.
Although through modern eyes it might seem an outrageous idea, but it was in fact a rather common practice in many European armies right up until the 19th century.
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
52
Quote:In trying to explain why female shoes might be present inside barracks in a Pre-Hadrianic fort, the author (Andrew Birley) suggests that while parts of the garrison were absent (as we know several hundred were during one stage in Period II at Vindolanda), civilian dependants could move into accommodation left vacant.
I have always been uncomfortable with the degree of importance that has been given to these "small-sized" shoes (see the Debate article in Ancient Warfare magazine, Vol. IV No. 6). It's perhaps worth explaining that the "female shoes" we often hear about are, in fact, 28 small-to-medium examples (9 discrete sizes were identified) from the total of 132 found in the Period IV barrack-block at Vindolanda.
It is difficult to pin down a precise analysis of these. As far as I am aware, Carol van Driel-Murray's fullest analysis appeared in the Dutch journal Helinium Vol. 34.2, 1994, pp. 342-362, where her interpretation of the sizes can be compared with her more detailed interpretation of the Period III praetorium shoes. In Period III, the largest of the small-to-medium shoes (size 33) were assigned to the commander's wife; slightly smaller shoes (sizes 30-32) were assigned to "an older boy"; and the smallest shoes (sizes 18-26/28) were assigned to children up to the age of five or six, with a very small example (size 16) being assigned to a baby.
When we compare that analysis with the reported sizes from the barrack block, we get 6 shoes that could have belonged to children, 15 shoes that Carol van Driel-Murray would assign to "an older boy", and 7 shoes that match the size she assigns to an adult woman. We are perhaps better calling this "small adult" rather than "woman", unless there is some particular reason to assign a feminine gender to them.
In the case of the praetorium, as far as I am aware, the interpretation of the size-33 shoes as women's shoes was based on the find of a very stylish size-33 sandal in almost pristine condition. I am not aware of similar evidence for the barrack-block shoes -- if there is some, I'd love to hear it.
I don't see any reason why the "older boys" (and even the "small adult") couldn't be soldiers' servants and/or grooms. The six children's shoes are perhaps more difficult to explain, but still (imho) do not constitute proof that women were living in the barracks.
Posts: 363
Threads: 5
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
0
Quote:In the case of the praetorium, as far as I am aware, the interpretation of the size-33 shoes as women's shoes was based on the find of a very stylish size-33 sandal in almost pristine condition. I am not aware of similar evidence for the barrack-block shoes -- if there is some, I'd love to hear it.
The 2001-2002 report includes a lady's shoe in a very similar style to Sulpicia Lepidina's, although dated to Period I. Unfortunately it doesn't give a size, only the length of the shoe (250mm).
The report doesn't make clear how it defines female vs. male shoes, as it appears only the soles survived in bulk. It is notable though that shoes appear to be present in two forms - one broad, simple, and large, the other narrow, decorative and small, with some larger versions of the latter and smaller versions of the former.
If we don't delineate these shoes on the basis of sex, then we have to wonder how to categorise them - perhaps even along the lines of (minefield!) gender? Whoever wore the shoes, they were clearly of slighter build than we would expect of male soldiers (especially Batavians), and also elaborately dressed in terms of footwear.
It's possible they may have been worn by grooms or other slaves, but then we would have to wonder what the primary role of these servants was if their dress was not functional or utilitarian (one shoe (234mm) from 2001-2002 has very small studs in an intricate pattern which appear to be intact - definitely not a working shoe). We know that personal relationships between cavalrymen and their grooms could be strong (Victor the Moor is hardly depicted as a hardworking servant). So we may be left wondering - did the Tungrians and Batavians habitually keep young, male freedman/slave lovers/companions in barracks with them, and was a distinctive dress code used to strongly identify the two groups?
While I think it's possible, I think it may also be rather a stretch. The sexing of small finds is often problematic but we know the Roman world had strong ideas about gender roles. I think it's more straightforward to argue that women (and girls) were present in the community along with young and adolescent boys, and that people wore shoes that were appropriate for the activities they carried out.
Having written all this, I just remembered that most of these points were already made by Elizabeth Greene in her thesis on just this topic, available here. She goes into some depth on the subject of sexing footwear at Vindolanda.
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
52
Quote:The report doesn't make clear how it defines female vs. male shoes, as it appears only the soles survived in bulk. It is notable though that shoes appear to be present in two forms - one broad, simple, and large, the other narrow, decorative and small, with some larger versions of the latter and smaller versions of the former.
The argument really does seem to be as unsophisticated as this. Small shoes must be ladies' shoes. (If only soles survive, I'm not sure how you draw your distinction between "simple" and "decorative" -- can you explain please?)
Quote:If we don't delineate these shoes on the basis of sex, then we have to wonder how to categorise them - perhaps even along the lines of (minefield!) gender?
Well, clearly smaller shoes are worn by smaller people. And tiny shoes are worn by children. But I'd hoped for a more nuanced discussion of how an adult female sole differs from an adolescent male sole.
Quote:I think it's more straightforward to argue that women (and girls) were present in the community along with young and adolescent boys, and that people wore shoes that were appropriate for the activities they carried out.
There has never been any doubt that women and girls could be present in the fort commander's family. The problem with the Vindolanda material comes specifically with Period IV, where the small shoe soles were found in a barrack block. In my opinion, stating that women lived there requires a rather more sophisticated argument than the presence of a few small shoes. So far, I haven't seen anyone make this argument.
Quote:... Elizabeth Greene ... goes into some depth on the subject of sexing footwear at Vindolanda.
I came across this thesis (and Andrew Birley's) earlier this year. (I wrote my Debate article back in 2010.) Unfortunately, rather than studying the subject with an open mind, Greene takes it as proven that "there was some cohabitation of men and women in the barracks of the regular foot soldiers". She also takes the presence of children's shoes as a "proxy" for the presence of adult female inhabitants. Unfortunately, although she presents an Appendix listing footwear data, she excludes the material from the barrack block -- which is precisely the crux of the matter!
As far as I can see, the interpretation of the footwear evidence is very subjective. A 21.5cm-long x 4.6cm-wide sole (size 33) can, in the same report, be interpreted both as an adolescent male's shoe and as an adult female's shoe. I thought it might be down to width, but the similarly sized narrower 21.6cm-long x 4.3cm-wide sole (also size 33) is interpreted as a man's shoe. Surely the whole thing doesn't just rest on wishful thinking?
|
