Extraído de la Psychoanaijtic Review, Vol XVII, 130.

Where detailed information is available, assemblages can be assessed by artefact type. 45.5% of the leather from within the study area is categorised as miscellaneous material. This means either that there is no data available for this material, or that the leather comprises

unidentifiable fragments. Beyond this, the most common find type is leatherworking waste, representing 22.5% of all finds. Footwear accounts for 20.5%; tentage 7.7% and other stitched sheet leather, including that not definitely identifiable as tentage, 2.8%. The remaining 1.0% consists of rarely-found items such as saddle covers, shield covers and bags/purses/pouches.

The term ‘offcuts/scraps’ is used in this chapter only when it applies to fragments of leather that represent leatherworking. It is not uncommon to see the term ‘scraps’ used to describe miscellaneous pieces of leather (e.g. scraps of leather are noted from Bochastle (Anderson et

al 1956, 53) and Mumrills (Macdonald and Curle 1929, 553), and in an interim report from

Vindolanda the term ‘scrap leather’ is used (Blake 2001, 21)), but such examples are

interpreted as miscellaneous material rather than leatherworking waste. The preponderance of offcuts is not representative of all sites, and is influenced by the significant amounts of

leatherworking waste recovered from Carlisle, where leatherworking was taking place on an industrial scale: the fort and vicus between them account for almost 2500 items of

leatherworking waste, over 78% of all such material recovered within the study area.Waste indicative of leatherworking is known from 12 of the 52 sites that have yielded leather (Chapter 4).

Footwear, representing 20.4% of leather from the study area, was essential equipment for the Roman military in Britannia. Each soldier had at least two pairs of shoes (van Driel-Murray 2001b, 185) which seem to have been considered quite disposable (see below). A number of the larger assemblages from within the study area are particularly dominated by footwear, including Bar Hill (89.9%), Rough Castle (79.4%), Camelon (71.5%), Castlecary (71.3%) and Elginhaugh (69.5%). Shoes are of course not an exclusively military item: most styles were worn by civilians and soldiers, adults and children alike. Footwear is perhaps one of the most revealing artefact types available to us, yielding demographic, technological and even ideological information under rigorous analysis, and – less scientifically – the oft-elusive “human touch” (Macdonald and Curle 1929, 553) so sought after by archaeologists as we explore the lives of those who went before us.

Careful measurement and interpretation of footwear can inform of shoe size and thus provide demographic data (Greene 2014; Groenman-van Waateringe 1978). Of particular significance to Roman archaeology, analysis of footwear assemblages has been central to the developing body of evidence for the presence of families in forts (van Driel-Murray 1977; Greene 2011). Women’s and/or children’s shoes are known from 13 siteswithin the study area (see Chapter 6).A chronology of fashions has been established (van Driel-Murray 2001b), and shoes can demonstrate status and class. Some examples from Vindolanda, including the ‘Lepidina’ slipper, footwear with elaborate openwork fishnet uppers (van Driel-Murray 1993), or children’s shoes that mirror adult fashions (van Driel-Murray 2005; Green 2014) are of markedly higher quality than the majority of footwear from the site. Footwear can allow us a

window on Roman superstitions: apotropaic symbols are sometimes incised onto shoes, and hobnails are arranged in shapes ( swastikas, circles and tridents) that may have been

considered lucky (van Driel-Murray 1999a, 132-33).

The decorative or openwork uppers that are characteristic of many styles of Roman footwear would render little leather suitable for reuse, although the uppers were sometimes cut away from worn out soles, as at Birdoswald, perhaps for reuse in cobbling (Mould 1997, 340). While much of what we can learn from shoes focuses on the individual and society, they can also provide clues about the economy: evidence of significant repair activities is interpreted as indicative of problems with supply, previously visible only on Hadrian’s Wall in the first century AD (van Driel-Murray 2002b, 111). However, recent analysis of material from Camelon suggests that the Antonine frontier zone was also affected by shortages (Arkesteijn and van Driel-Murray 2015) (see Chapter 3).

It might be tempting to explain away the seemingly disproportionate survival of so much footwear by alluding to selective retention. Shoes are easily identifiable, and offer an intimate and tangible link with their previous owners, from the impression of the wearer’s foot to their initials marked on the sole. This makes them an attractive artefact type that might be

considered more worthy of conservation than other, less aesthetically pleasing, items. Early excavation reports sometimes hint at a competitive undercurrent to antiquarian work: for example, at Rough Castle, “portions of the sides and soles of shoes and sandals were found, but none showing features of shape or construction that have not been previously exhibited in the much larger and better preserved collection of these from Castlecary” (Buchanan et al 1905, 497). The leather from Rough Castle is not described further and was presumably considered to be of little interest or academic value. Similarly, the excavators of Mumrills lament that “there were only three scraps of leather to set against the three or four hundred specimens of footwear which lent such a human touch to the excavations at Bar Hill”

(Macdonald and Curle 1929, 553). Very few antiquarian assemblages contain any indication that leatherworking waste was recovered. It is noteworthy that of the five substantial

assemblages that are dominated by footwear (above), three were excavated in the early 20th century, before the advent of modern archaeological standards. However, a preponderance of footwear is commonplace, even in modern assemblages.

Tentage makes up 7.7% of the leather found within the study area.6 Tents were essential to the army, both while on the move and while constructing more permanent accommodation. A 3m x 3m tent to house eight soldiers required around 70 goatskins7 (van Driel-Murray 1990, 116) and it is estimated that the army may have had over 2 million goatskins in use as tentage at any one time (Groenman van-Waateringe 2009, 210). Tent panels were frequently repaired (e.g. at Housesteads (Mould 2009, 487) and Birdoswald (Mould 1997, 340)), and when no longer fit for purpose, the large panels of sheet leather were eminently suitable for recycling so were often cut up for reuse. Around 11% of sheet leather from the Southern Lanes, Carlisle, showed signs of such activity, rising to around 20% at Annetwell Street and Castle Street. Analysis of hems and seams aids in the identification of recycled tentage, but even where stitching remains, categorisation is not always possible (Winterbottom 2010a, 302-04) so the current known total of tentage is almost certainly an underrepresentation. That so much identifiable tentage survives is testament to the large volume of tentage in circulation in Roman Britain.

It has been noted above that footwear survives in much greater quantities than

garments/clothing. A partial explanation for this discrepancy might be found in the very nature of the items’ use: as a protective barrier between the soft sole of the foot and the ground, shoes are subject to unparalleled wear and tear, so are rapidly worn out and replaced. Garments are subject to little more than friction during use, and even when no longer

serviceable, the leather used for garments could be usefully recycled into something else. Even where possible garments have previously been identified, further analysis sometimes proves otherwise. For example, “fragments of (?) garments” from the Lanes, Carlisle

(McCarthy et al 1982, 84) are no longer interpreted as such (C. Howard-Davies, pers. comm.); and from Bar Hill, a possible apron found with a length of rope (Macdonald and Park 1906, 106) was reinterpreted as “a large leather sheet” (Robertson et al 1975, 90). However,

fragments “perhaps from the tunic of an auxiliary soldier” are noted from Bar Hill (Robertson

et al 1975, 91). It is on the matter of clothing that the assemblage from Balmuildy warrants

particular attention: Miller notes “leather clothing of the soldier… Some of the larger pieces

6 _{Occasionally, associations of multiple tent panels are recovered e.g. Vindolanda (van Driel-Murray 1993, 24-}

27). Each of these associations is counted as one find, in the same way that a shoe of composite parts is treated as one find.

7 _{The back panels of Tent III from Vindolanda are of hair sheepskin, which is of lower quality than goatskin.}

However, since army tents were laid out back-to-back in rows, these inferior panels were not immediately visible to passers-by. It is not yet clear if this was standard practice (van Driel-Murray forthcoming).

with stitched hems… must have been parts of tunics, aprons or the like. One piece with a scalloped edge… may have been the fringe of a jerkin” (1922, 98). Antiquarian excavators were quick to identify what they believed to be clothing, believing that “leather during the Roman occupation was much more widely used for clothing than it is now” (Curle 1932, 349). While some garments were made of leather, felt or fur (e.g. Pliny indicates that male slaves should be provided with “long-sleeved leather garments” to protect against the weather (Farming 1.8.9)), most Roman-period clothing8 was made of more versatile, supple and comfortable woven materials such as wool and linen (Croom 2010, 20-21). Some of the material from Balmuildy may be tentage, or simply unidentifiable sheet leather – much work has been done on the types of seams and stitching used in the construction of tents since Curle was writing, and reassessment would be worthwhile – although the possibility remains that the assemblage could include fragments of clothing. Though confirmed examples of leather garments are rare, a number of pairs of women’s leather briefs have been identified in London (van Driel-Murray 1999b; 2014), and an embroidered leather panel from Carlisle is interpreted as a possible shoulder panel from a textile or leather garment (Winterbottom 1991a, 312-13).