En la histeria, la lucha contra la genitalidad y la relación objetal

It has been noted previously that there is no definite evidence for tanning in Roman Britain. Indeed, there are only a few sites across the empire that display convincing evidence for having functioned as tanneries (below). If there were centralised tanning facilities in Roman Britain, we might assume that un-tanned hides were transported over fairly long distances. Freshly flayed hides would swiftly decay (at Castleford, quite large pieces of leather were discarded due to putrefaction prior to tanning (van Driel-Murray 1993, 56)). Drying or salting would prevent decay (Waterer 1976, 179): paired post-holes at Hofheim have been

interpreted as racks on which hides could be hung to dry; pock-marks on leather offcuts suggest dry salting with coarse salt; and wet salting in lined pits may also have been an option (van Driel-Murray 2011, 74-75; 1999c, 184).

Documentary evidence on the transportation of skins suggests that varying rates of tax were levied, some being applicable per skin/hide and others by weight (Leguilloux 2004, 83). According to modern data, dry salted hides weight up to 45% less than when freshly flayed, making them significantly lighter – thus potentially incurring less overheads during

transportation – than wet salted hides, which see a weight reduction of only 10%-15%. Drying without prior salting results in a weight reduction of up to 65%, although this weight loss is related to high shrinkage (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations 1994). Salting would of course require the transportation of large amounts of salt to the skinning site (van Driel-Murray 2011, 75), and the availability of this resource may have influenced which method of preservation was selected. The weight of the hides might have been particularly pertinent depending on how they were to be transported to the tannery.

Once hides were temporarily preserved, a range of modes of transport may have been used for their distribution. Selkirk’s Piercebridge formula suggested that transport by road in Roman Britain was slow and costly, and that forts being established close to waterways so that goods might be transported by river (1983, 58-60; 99). However, the waterways of north- east England in the Roman period were probably less navigable, and transport by road quicker and less costly, than Selkirk has supposed.

Supplies from continental and Mediterranean Europe and southern Britain were brought to northern Britain by sea, perhaps using ports at locations such as South Shields, Berwick- upon-Tweed and on the Solway Firth (Anderson 1992, 58-70), and possibly further north at sites such as Cramond, Camelon and Bertha (Hunter and Carruthers 2012a, 24).

Transportation inlandmay have been carried out to a limited extent by river, but the rivers were not freely passable and to make them so would have required a great deal of

construction and maintenance. While it is theoretically possible that Vindolanda might have been supplied by barges on the Tyne, there is no documentary evidence for river-borne transportation at the site. Transport by road would have been a quicker, more efficient and more economical option, thus the onward carriage of supplies from sea ports to inland military installations would have continued mostly by road, by cart or pack-animal (mostly ox-drawn and mules, respectively) (Anderson 1992, 17; 42-43). Documentary evidence suggests that hides (it is not clear if they were tanned or not) were carried by cart (Tab.

Vindol. II, 343). Anderson also proposes that hides and skins might have been transported by

pack animals (1992, 71). It has been suggested that in the medieval period the

hooves/phalanges might be left intact on unprocessed skins to aid this process, as the weight of the dangling lower limbs would help keep the hides stable on the pack-animal’s back (Serjeantson 1989, 136; Cherry 1991, 295). Excavated examples of concentrations of hooves and phalanges, as at Pompeii, are thought to support the idea that skins were sent to the tannery with the hooves attached. However, hooves were of no use to the tanner, and were themselves a commodity. It seems likely that they would have commonly been removed during the initial trimming process (van Driel-Murray 2011, 72; 78), so reducing the weight of the load for transportation. Rather than being spread across the back of a pack animal, hides were perhaps better packed in bundles – a miniature clay model interpreted as a votive object from Dun Fiadhairt, Skye, is thought to represent a bale of wool (Curle 1932, 289-90;

Hunter 2003, 333) similarly packaged for transportation – each animal carrying a balanced load of two bundles.

As noted above, taxation may have influenced the empire’s behaviour regarding the sourcing and tanning of hides. Taxes were applied to goods moving between provinces, with tanned hides incurring four times as much import tax as untanned hides (Groenman-van Waateringe 2009, 212). It would probably have been preferable to keep the movement of hides, tanned or not, to a minimum. Taxation in the Roman empire is poorly understood. However, Hopkins suggests that taxation in kind “tempted the Roman government to have produce transported… without consideration of the total cost” (1980, 103). While it seems likely that hides

requisitioned in lieu of cash were not taxed in the same way as traded goods, as the empire would essentially be imposing tax on taxes collected, it seems probable that those acquired through trade would incur taxes. Sourcing and tanning hides locally would be a more economical and efficient option.