Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Living in barracks: when the cat is away...
#16
This page from the Vindolanda website identifies these sandals as for a woman, but I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. The strap? Or something on the sole? Or perhaps the maker's mark?

[img width=400]http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/exhibition/images/slipper.jpg[/img]
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#17
That's the size-33 sandal from the Period III commander's house, which has (reasonably, I think) been interpreted as belonging to the commander's wife. The vast majority of footwear (afaik) survives only as soles with no uppers.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#18
Some thoughts on children's shoes.

If you have children and grandchildren you know that children shed and lose shoes everywhere they go. So children visiting relatives may account for some shoes in barracks.

Boys have always been fascinated with things military and up until recent times would take every opportunity to run away or otherwise take their leave of family and attach themselves to military units as sort of apprentice soldiers entering the ranks formally as soon as they were old or big enough to do so. Also without modern social welfare safety nets the Roman Army was an attractive place to be for youngsters as they always had plenty of food on hand.
John Kaler MSG, USA Retired
Member Legio V (Tenn, USA)
Staff Member Ludus Militus https://www.facebook.com/groups/671041919589478/
Owner Vicus and Village: https://www.facebook.com/groups/361968853851510/
Reply
#19
Quote:This page from the Vindolanda website identifies these sandals as for a woman, but I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. The strap? Or something on the sole? Or perhaps the maker's mark?

[img width=400]http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/exhibition/images/slipper.jpg[/img]

According to C.Van Driel Murray in "The Early Wooden Forts"1993 three shoes have tentatively been identified as belonging to a single individual( Sulpicia Lepidina) the solea and two nailed Calcai(not a pair)...

I think its possible that shoes found in the fort in the Adult Woman's size range could have belonged to fewer Women then simply counting shoes might show and can also be true perhaps more so of growing children or adolescents.

On shoe sizes, in my experience there's not much of a cross over between adult female sizes and adult male sizes although it does occur, the shape of feet can vary enormously from one individual to another some men have rather pointed feet (big toe first)some women have "square" feet which would not suit the Solea mentioned, feet are fairly flexible so you can force a foot into an ill fitting shoe or one that's too small but the end result will likely end in tears...

Shrinkage. I tend to use a 10 percent estimate of this, so a shoe thats measured as 22cm could have originally been 24.4cm (based on tests by Thornton), the difference is about 2 to 3 uk or 4 eu sizes... so the Sulpicia Lepidina, Lucius Thales solea could have been a 37/38eu or 4.5uk originally.

Style. Female Shoe styles could be indicated by that style not occurring in adult male sizes, however Adult male styles could occur in smaller female sizes(adolescent males) though I don't think it could be counted as proof that females wore them.

I think the Style of the Solea in question is not found(so far)in adult male sizes. so could be identified as female.

I hope this is of some help 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
Reply
#20
Thanks. But this brings me a follow-up question: how do they know which styles were favoured by which sex? Could they tell this by statues, for example? Or grave goods?
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
Reply
#21
Quote: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?)

It's clearer if you can see the actual shoes I'm discussing (thanks to the aforementioned technology mismatch I can't screenshot them at the moment). The fine shoe I was referring to had hobnails of unusually small size (4mm) arranged into a decorative pattern (which I believe was more prevalent in much later periods). 'Simple' boots had larger hobnails arranged in a functional pattern. That's obviously a highly subjective reading (there's no reason why a woman couldn't have worn a 'simple' patterned boot), and many more decorative elements will have been found on the uppers. Sexing on the basis of these distinctions is highly problematic, which was why I raised gendering as a possible alternative approach to these different styles.

The only realistic way to sex a shoe is to go by size, and the best you can get out of that is that the largest shoes will more likely be male than female. However, it also means you cannot firmly state than smaller shoes were not worn by women or girls.

Quote: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.

I'm afraid I can't access your discussion article at the moment so I can't really respond directly to that. The flip side of the issue you raise is that we also can rarely firmly establish the presence of men within these structures, as the same concerns over material culture that would cast doubt over female presence must also be applied to them. Carol van Driel-Murray raised this point here:

Driel-Murray, C.v. 2008. ‘Those who wait at home: the effect of recruitment on women in the Lower Rhine area.’ In U. Brandl (ed) Frauen und Römisches Militär: Beiträge eines Runden Tisches in Xanten vom 7. bis 9. Juli 2005. BAR Int. Ser. 1759. Oxford: Archaeopress, 82-91.

The rest of that volume (as the title suggests) contains further interesting material in this regard, including a paper by Penelope Allison preceding her Internet Archaeology article that highlights female labour roles within other military sites on the continent.
Reply
#22
Quote:The only realistic way to sex a shoe is to go by size, and the best you can get out of that is that the largest shoes will more likely be male than female. However, it also means you cannot firmly state than smaller shoes were not worn by women or girls.
Thanks for replying, Robert. My initial response would be that, if the evidence is not clear cut, it shouldn't be used to make sensational claims. Until such time as footwear in barracks can safely be diagnosed as female, we shouldn't be claiming that women definitely lived there. This is certainly the assumption that Elizabeth Greene has made, and (imho) this is the fatal weakness in her thesis.


Quote:The flip side of the issue you raise is that we also can rarely firmly establish the presence of men within these structures, as the same concerns over material culture that would cast doubt over female presence must also be applied to them.
This is (imho) a flawed argument, as male residency in barracks does not require to be proven. It does not rest on "material culture". There is enough documentary evidence to prove that men lived in barracks. The very identification of these buildings as barracks implies male residency. (In short, we know that men lived in forts and we need somewhere for them to sleep, so we assume that it's in these standardized buildings, which we see replicated in every military base that's excavated.) However, when all other evidence speaks against female residency, we really need to be sure of our evidence before we start asserting that women definitely lived there, too.


Quote:... including a paper by Penelope Allison preceding her Internet Archaeology article that highlights female labour roles within other military sites on the continent.
It's a pity you don't have access to my Ancient Warfare discussion, as it includes a detailed refutation of Pim Allison's claim that she can prove that women lived in the fort at Oberstimm, including a site plan plotting all the alleged "female" artefacts, so that you can make your own mind up.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#23
Quote:Thanks for replying, Robert. My initial response would be that, if the evidence is not clear cut, it shouldn't be used to make sensational claims. Until such time as footwear in barracks can safely be diagnosed as female, we shouldn't be claiming that women definitely lived there. This is certainly the assumption that Elizabeth Greene has made, and (imho) this is the fatal weakness in her thesis.
I don't really see it as sensational at all, to be honest. We can readily accept the idea that people other than soldiers (and the family of the commander) had access to Roman forts - such as the grooms of cavalrymen and other slaves - and smaller sizes of footwear have been readily associated with adolescents and children. We know that Roman soldiers were not universally celibate and that many (although not most) will have had unofficial marriages by the end of their service. It's possible that women and children resided outside the forts within the vicus, although this again lacks positive evidence AFAIK (and begs the question of what would qualify).

Quote:However, when all other evidence speaks against female residency, we really need to be sure of our evidence before we start asserting that women definitely lived there, too.
This is starting to sound rather Putin-esque now! What level of evidence would be appropriate? Any form of material culture could simply have been brought in and dumped by a man after all (an opinion certainly mooted in the past for smaller items such as jewellery). Tab. Vindol. 154 and 310 strongly imply the close involvement of women within military circles, yet don't state where they were living - but this is pretty much par for the course within the tablets. Is there any positive evidence against women in forts other than the idealised writings of distant authors?

(Edit: Obviously the barracks can be safely assumed to be occupied by males; the point of the small finds remark was to point out the additional burden of proof placed upon women. It's worth noting that discussions of chalet barracks have generally moved on from assuming that they were purpose-built family buildings.)

Quote:It's a pity you don't have access to my Ancient Warfare discussion, as it includes a detailed refutation of Pim Allison's claim that she can prove that women lived in the fort at Oberstimm, including a site plan plotting all the alleged "female" artefacts, so that you can make your own mind up.
Time to get the bank card out I guess! Welp.
Reply
#24
Quote:Thanks. But this brings me a follow-up question: how do they know which styles were favoured by which sex? Could they tell this by statues, for example? Or grave goods?

well that's the 64 dollar question that I have been frequently asked at events, the other one is do you know of any female shoes from XYZ...

To quote from C.Van Driel Murray in "Stepping Through Time".

"In Roman complexes the differentiation between mens and womens sizes lies around continental size 35 with most adult men being between 37-40"

So shoes of less the size 37 could be adult female with most likely the majority grouped around size 35 and a bit below.

" Large numbers of childrens shoes are a feature of Roman complexes. Carbatinae are the most favoured form of footware for children, but otherwise there is no difference between adults and childrens shoes."

Calcai are universal and since most survive with only the soles its probarbly not possible to determine the style in most cases though there are I think exceptions, the construction, shape of the sole and hobnail patterns may present a clue when comparing with relatively complete examples. Hobnails themselves dont necessarily determine the style as all styles can be made with or without nails.

As to Favoured Styles I think only a few are known and is probably because they dont occur or are infrequent in male sizes, in any case larger more complex styles would have to be simplified when converting to smaller sizes and visa versa, again there are exceptions.

On shoes in art, Pliny: "ne supra crepidam sutor iudicaret"

Best Regards Smile
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
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roman Barracks Lothia 0 381 11-22-2020, 09:12 PM
Last Post: Lothia
  Barracks at York Nathan Ross 14 2,973 07-04-2012, 05:18 PM
Last Post: Nathan Ross
  Barracks for 120 cavalry of a legion JeffF 29 5,334 02-16-2011, 12:51 PM
Last Post: Paullus Scipio

Forum Jump: