FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD 171been underscored by Vuolanto (2002), McGinn (2008) and Huebner and Ratzan
(2009). For broader studies of old age, see Parkin (1997, 2003).
The subtle questions of whether Roman family members experienced sentiments
similar to those of modern families and how those sentiments evolved through the
life course have been explored through literature and inscriptions by Shaw (1991),
Dixon (1991 and 1997) and by Sigismund Nielsen (1997). The challenge lies in the
methods of interpreting the symbols and representations associated with gender, the
family and lineage: see above all Dixon (2001) and also Allason-Jones (2005),
Hawley and Levick (1995), Kampen (1996), Kleiner and Matheson (1996, 2000),
Setälä et al. (2002). Symbolic aspects of clothing are discussed by Edmondson and
Keith (2008) and Olson (2008).
The ways in which gender distinctions were expressed and regulated in religion
and rituals have been illuminated by Dolansky (2008, 2011). Balch (1981), Osiek
and Balch (1997), Balch and Osiek (2003), Osiek and MacDonald (2006) address
issues of gender, family and household in early Christianity. The role of women in the
economy and how it was affected by gender ideology are addressed by Scheidel
(1995, 1996b), Rowlandson (1998) and Saller (2007, 2011). For the education of
elite women, see Hemelrijk (1999). McGinn (1998, 2004) offer a detailed treatment
of prostitution in the Roman world.
The complex framework of Roman private law for citizen, non- citizen, slave and
freed families, including the rules and instruments of inheritance, has been explored
in a series of excellent books and articles by Gardner (1986, 1995, 1998, 2011); see
also Corbier (1991), Champlin (1991), Evans Grubbs (1995, 2011), Frier and
McGinn (2004), and Lindsay (2009). The law provided the basis for the intricate
interplay between status and relationships within the household: Joshel (1992),
Joshel and Murnaghan (1998), George (1997b), Hasegawa (2005), Vuolanto (2003),
and Mouritsen (2011a and b). Weaver (1990 and 1997) examined the special
situation of Junian Latin families. Phang (2001) studied family arrangements of
Roman soldiers as affected by law.
Families and patterns of reproduction affected and were affected by the broader
conditions of the economy, the state and war. Scheidel (1997) and Harris (1999)
have debated the extent of the formation of de facto slave families and their
contribution to the replenishing of the slave population over the centuries. The
impact of army service on family life has been explored by Evans (1991) and
Rosenstein (2004). Milnor (2005) and Cooper (2007) have analysed the relationship
between the private domain of the household and the public domain of the state.
Our understanding of Roman families has been greatly enhanced by archaeologists
studying domestic architecture and art historians studying visual representations of
families. Wallace-Hadrill (1994) is the fundamental starting point for domestic
architecture, to be supplemented by Laurence and Wallace-Hadrill (1997) and
Wallace-Hadrill (2003). The challenge of assigning particular family activities to
specifi c domestic spaces has become evident: George (1997a), Allison (1999 and
2004), Nevett (2011), and Dickmann (2011). Visual representations of families have
received attention from Kleiner (1977), Huskinson (1996) and Hope and Huskinson
(2011), and D’Ambra (2007). Balch (2008) explored the meanings of domestic art in
early Christian house churches.