On Reading the Material Culture of Ancient Sexual Labor

IF 0.5 3区 历史学 0 CLASSICS
HELIOS Pub Date : 2015-03-22 DOI:10.1353/HEL.2015.0001
J. Baird
{"title":"On Reading the Material Culture of Ancient Sexual Labor","authors":"J. Baird","doi":"10.1353/HEL.2015.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Can a single object change how we think about ancient sexual labor? Using the evidence of an artefact excavated near Pompeii, in this article I argue that our material evidence for sexual labor has not been properly appreciated, and that by more fully considering the range of human relationships associated with and enabled by objects, the possibilities for a more nuanced understanding of the entanglements of people, objects, sex, and labor become apparent. Approaches to the archeology of slavery in the Roman world have advanced greatly in recent years. Far from invisibility, comparative approaches have been harnessed to find the presence of slaves beyond the visual evidence and material culture of restraint (such as chains, shackles, or bullae) to interpret more ephemeral archeological traces including graffiti and leather footwear. (1) Despite such advances, a glance at recent works on material culture and slavery in the Roman world reveals that there is still a heavy reliance on textual and visual depictions rather than on material culture. (2) However, considering the material production of labor in the Roman world is one way we can access slavery archeologically: from the storage of surplus indicative of a slave-owning household, to places where slaves worked and were held, to landscapes transformed by the labor of the unfree. (3) But what can material culture contribute to our knowledge of sexual labor and to the debates surrounding slaves and sex? One way is the study of brothels, as Thomas McGinn has expertly demonstrated. (4) Sexual labor within a domestic setting has not commonly been included in the economy of Roman prostitution. (5) Nor have historians of ancient labor or archeologists usually considered sexual work (free or unfree) amongst household labors. (6) Within the household, a slave had no choice but to participate in any sexual act the free members of the household desired of them. Any slave could be a sex slave. (7) Within this asymmetrical power arrangement of masters and slaves engaging in sex, there must have been a range of relationships--from those slaves who lived under constant threat to those who consciously leveraged their own desirability to try and improve their lot; indeed, these situations might coincide within a single person and complicate issues surrounding what we could consider to be consent. In this short contribution, I hope to show that material culture can be a powerful tool with which to reflect on how we think about sexual labor in the Roman world (and how we, as scholars, often do not). One way in which this is possible is by acknowledging the ambiguities in our evidence, and the multiple narratives that may be drawn from them. Acknowledging ambiguities encourages more reflexive and reflective interpretations, enabling the challenging of, rather than replication of, power structures both within our discipline and in the Roman world. (8) Archeological evidence is by its nature material, fragmentary, and complex; this needs to be acknowledged in our treatments of it. Further, we need to consider the possibilities of different agents and their interactions with material culture, rather than privileging a particular viewpoint--usually, the one that most closely mirrors our own. To focus the discussion, I will concentrate on one particular object that has been prominent within scholarly narratives on slavery: an inscribed gold bracelet from Pompeii. (9) This object has been variously interpreted as a love-gift to a slave and as evidence for prostitution. The interpretation of the bracelet as a \"love-gift\" was initially that of Felice Costabile. (10) It appears in the 2013 catalogue for the Pompeii and Herculaneum exhibit in the British Museum, with the following comment: \"We can only guess at the relationship between the [giver and receiver], but the nature of the armlet suggests she was highly esteemed.\" (11) Jonathan Edmondson, in his chapter on slavery and the Roman family in the Cambridge World History of Slavery, uses this item of textually inscribed material culture from Pompeii to illustrate what he sees as one aspect of household slavery: On occasion, ongoing emotional bonds developed between a master and his slave. …","PeriodicalId":43032,"journal":{"name":"HELIOS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2015-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/HEL.2015.0001","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HELIOS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/HEL.2015.0001","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

Abstract

Can a single object change how we think about ancient sexual labor? Using the evidence of an artefact excavated near Pompeii, in this article I argue that our material evidence for sexual labor has not been properly appreciated, and that by more fully considering the range of human relationships associated with and enabled by objects, the possibilities for a more nuanced understanding of the entanglements of people, objects, sex, and labor become apparent. Approaches to the archeology of slavery in the Roman world have advanced greatly in recent years. Far from invisibility, comparative approaches have been harnessed to find the presence of slaves beyond the visual evidence and material culture of restraint (such as chains, shackles, or bullae) to interpret more ephemeral archeological traces including graffiti and leather footwear. (1) Despite such advances, a glance at recent works on material culture and slavery in the Roman world reveals that there is still a heavy reliance on textual and visual depictions rather than on material culture. (2) However, considering the material production of labor in the Roman world is one way we can access slavery archeologically: from the storage of surplus indicative of a slave-owning household, to places where slaves worked and were held, to landscapes transformed by the labor of the unfree. (3) But what can material culture contribute to our knowledge of sexual labor and to the debates surrounding slaves and sex? One way is the study of brothels, as Thomas McGinn has expertly demonstrated. (4) Sexual labor within a domestic setting has not commonly been included in the economy of Roman prostitution. (5) Nor have historians of ancient labor or archeologists usually considered sexual work (free or unfree) amongst household labors. (6) Within the household, a slave had no choice but to participate in any sexual act the free members of the household desired of them. Any slave could be a sex slave. (7) Within this asymmetrical power arrangement of masters and slaves engaging in sex, there must have been a range of relationships--from those slaves who lived under constant threat to those who consciously leveraged their own desirability to try and improve their lot; indeed, these situations might coincide within a single person and complicate issues surrounding what we could consider to be consent. In this short contribution, I hope to show that material culture can be a powerful tool with which to reflect on how we think about sexual labor in the Roman world (and how we, as scholars, often do not). One way in which this is possible is by acknowledging the ambiguities in our evidence, and the multiple narratives that may be drawn from them. Acknowledging ambiguities encourages more reflexive and reflective interpretations, enabling the challenging of, rather than replication of, power structures both within our discipline and in the Roman world. (8) Archeological evidence is by its nature material, fragmentary, and complex; this needs to be acknowledged in our treatments of it. Further, we need to consider the possibilities of different agents and their interactions with material culture, rather than privileging a particular viewpoint--usually, the one that most closely mirrors our own. To focus the discussion, I will concentrate on one particular object that has been prominent within scholarly narratives on slavery: an inscribed gold bracelet from Pompeii. (9) This object has been variously interpreted as a love-gift to a slave and as evidence for prostitution. The interpretation of the bracelet as a "love-gift" was initially that of Felice Costabile. (10) It appears in the 2013 catalogue for the Pompeii and Herculaneum exhibit in the British Museum, with the following comment: "We can only guess at the relationship between the [giver and receiver], but the nature of the armlet suggests she was highly esteemed." (11) Jonathan Edmondson, in his chapter on slavery and the Roman family in the Cambridge World History of Slavery, uses this item of textually inscribed material culture from Pompeii to illustrate what he sees as one aspect of household slavery: On occasion, ongoing emotional bonds developed between a master and his slave. …
解读古代性劳动的物质文化
一件物品能改变我们对古代性劳动的看法吗?在这篇文章中,我以庞贝附近出土的一件人工制品为证据,认为我们对性劳动的物证没有得到适当的重视,通过更充分地考虑与物品相关的人类关系的范围,并使之成为可能,对人、物品、性和劳动的纠错有更细致的理解的可能性变得明显。近年来,对罗马世界奴隶制的考古研究取得了很大进展。人们远非看不见奴隶,而是利用比较的方法,在视觉证据和束缚的物质文化(如锁链、脚镣或大疱)之外发现奴隶的存在,以解释更多短暂的考古痕迹,包括涂鸦和皮鞋。(1)尽管取得了这样的进步,但瞥一眼最近关于罗马世界物质文化和奴隶制的著作就会发现,它们仍然严重依赖文字和视觉描绘,而不是物质文化。(2)然而,考虑到罗马世界劳动的物质生产是我们从考古学上了解奴隶制的一种方式:从表明拥有奴隶的家庭的剩余物品的储存,到奴隶工作和被关押的地方,再到被不自由的人的劳动所改变的景观。(3)但是,物质文化对我们对性劳动的认识以及对围绕奴隶和性的争论有什么贡献呢?一种方法是对妓院的研究,Thomas McGinn已经熟练地证明了这一点。(4)家庭环境中的性劳动通常不包括在罗马卖淫经济中。研究古代劳动的历史学家或考古学家通常也没有把性工作(免费或不免费)视为家务劳动。(6)在家庭中,奴隶别无选择,只能参与家庭自由成员所要求的任何性行为。任何奴隶都可能是性奴隶。(7)在这种主人和奴隶参与性行为的不对称权力安排中,一定存在着一系列的关系——从那些生活在持续威胁下的奴隶到那些有意识地利用自己的欲望来试图改善自己命运的人;事实上,这些情况可能在一个人身上同时发生,并且使我们可以认为是同意的问题变得复杂。在这篇简短的文章中,我希望表明,物质文化可以成为一种强大的工具,用来反思我们如何看待罗马世界的性劳动(以及我们作为学者经常忽视的问题)。一种可能的方法是承认我们证据中的模糊性,以及可能从中得出的多种叙述。承认模棱两可会鼓励更多的反思性和反思性的解释,使我们的学科和罗马世界的权力结构受到挑战,而不是复制。(八)考古证据具有物质性、残缺性和复杂性;这一点需要在我们的治疗中得到承认。此外,我们需要考虑不同主体的可能性,以及它们与物质文化的相互作用,而不是赋予某一特定观点特权——通常是最能反映我们自己的观点。为了集中讨论,我将把重点放在一个在奴隶制的学术叙述中一直很突出的特定物品上:庞贝的一个刻有铭文的金手镯。这件物品有不同的解释,被认为是送给奴隶的爱的礼物,也被认为是卖淫的证据。最初,菲利斯·科斯塔比尔(Felice Costabile)将手镯解释为“爱的礼物”。(10)它出现在大英博物馆2013年庞贝和赫库兰尼姆展览的目录中,上面有这样的评论:“我们只能猜测(赠与者和接受者)之间的关系,但从臂章的性质来看,她受到了很高的尊重。”(11)乔纳森·埃德蒙森在《剑桥世界奴隶制史》中关于奴隶制和罗马家庭的一章中,使用了庞贝的这一文本铭刻的物质文化来说明他所认为的家庭奴隶制的一个方面:有时,主人和奴隶之间会产生持续的情感联系。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
HELIOS
HELIOS CLASSICS-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信