09-06-2013, 10:51 AM
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?
