05-10-2003, 02:44 PM
I have just checked in my copy of Women in Roman Britain by lindsay Allason-Jones. She mentions quite a wide variety of professions for women and writes:<br>
"Evidence from pompeii reveals women working as weavers, waitresses, money lenders, tavern owners, bakers and laundresses, whilst at Ostia female poultry sellers, vegetable sellers, shoe makers, doctors, nurses and barmaids are attested."<br>
She says women were known to have been sellers of grains and pulses, fish, purple dyes, ointments, beans, bottles and resins. Unfortunately she gives no indication of numbers, but speculates that although only a priestess and an actress are known by name from Britain "there must have been multitudes of midwives, wet nurses, bath attendants, agricultural workers and craftswomen." She also mentions that from other provinces there are a number of references to freedwomen joining the professions as accountants, doctors or librarians.<br>
What is interesting is she proposes that many of the women who were practising a trade were actually freedwomen who continued practising crafts they had learnt whilst in slavery and opportunities for some of these professions were not easily available to free women. She gives no reasons why but I did wonder if it anything to with what Rich mentioned about losing some citizenship rights?<br>
She also writes that women in Gaul formed and joined guilds. It would be interesting to know just how independant many of these women were.<br>
As regards to lack of recognition, Lindsay Allason-Jones does point out that in Britain at least, there are very few surviving records of tradesmen at all, though thousands must have existed, so the lack of inscriptions for females isn't too surprising. She states this may well be due to the fact that the lower social orders funerary inscriptions were commonly made of wood rather than stone. She also suggests that the names recorded on artifacts may have been those of factory owners rather than individual workers male or female.<br>
I guess there would have been quite a few female dancers and musicians around too. At any rate there seems to be plenty of scope for living history enthusiasts!<br>
<br>
Jackie. <p></p><i></i>
"Evidence from pompeii reveals women working as weavers, waitresses, money lenders, tavern owners, bakers and laundresses, whilst at Ostia female poultry sellers, vegetable sellers, shoe makers, doctors, nurses and barmaids are attested."<br>
She says women were known to have been sellers of grains and pulses, fish, purple dyes, ointments, beans, bottles and resins. Unfortunately she gives no indication of numbers, but speculates that although only a priestess and an actress are known by name from Britain "there must have been multitudes of midwives, wet nurses, bath attendants, agricultural workers and craftswomen." She also mentions that from other provinces there are a number of references to freedwomen joining the professions as accountants, doctors or librarians.<br>
What is interesting is she proposes that many of the women who were practising a trade were actually freedwomen who continued practising crafts they had learnt whilst in slavery and opportunities for some of these professions were not easily available to free women. She gives no reasons why but I did wonder if it anything to with what Rich mentioned about losing some citizenship rights?<br>
She also writes that women in Gaul formed and joined guilds. It would be interesting to know just how independant many of these women were.<br>
As regards to lack of recognition, Lindsay Allason-Jones does point out that in Britain at least, there are very few surviving records of tradesmen at all, though thousands must have existed, so the lack of inscriptions for females isn't too surprising. She states this may well be due to the fact that the lower social orders funerary inscriptions were commonly made of wood rather than stone. She also suggests that the names recorded on artifacts may have been those of factory owners rather than individual workers male or female.<br>
I guess there would have been quite a few female dancers and musicians around too. At any rate there seems to be plenty of scope for living history enthusiasts!<br>
<br>
Jackie. <p></p><i></i>
