Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Ancient barbers
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 1st August 2008
I read somewhere that Augustus so disliked getting his hair cut that he would have two barbers working at the same time so as to get his haircut finished quickly. This got me thinking about scissors and razors. Did the Romans have them? If not, what did they use to cut hair? What sort of razor did they shave with? And what about the ancient Britons? Depictions of them often show long moustaches but clean shaven chins.
-
Message 2
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 1st August 2008
tony g
good laugh - i find myself asking insignificant questions like this lol
my list -
the romans seemed to be short haired and clean shaven - did they do it themselves or were there roman barbers
before that - were there celtic barbers ?
did they wash their clothes - (roman and celtic) if so who did it and how often ?
how often did they wash
did the peasants wash at all
what did they use - what soap was available
how did u wash your u hair = what did u use
after a battle - when u were covered in blood - did u bother to clean up lol - how about cleaning your teeth
etc etc
st -
Message 3
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 1st August 2008
Hi Tony,
Yup - the Romans had scissors and razors. From what I remember, not many actual razors have survived as they were made of iron, and being delicate rusted away (Etruscan razors were bronze I think). Getting a shave was a dangerous business, and usually meant going to a "specialist", with gashes and cuts being all too common.
Some (Julius Caesar was one I think) went a bit over the top with their grooming and actually had their hairs plucked...
I think adolescents weren't supposed to shave until they became a "man" - I can't remember if this was a specific ceremony or when they donned the toga virilis. Whatever the case, there were probably a lot of teenagers loafing around Rome sporting bum-fluff.
Everything changed with Hadrian and his face-fungus (it's claimed he grew it to hide a scar). Beards were then acceptable, and as far as I know started to become quite popular - or maybe it was just it avoided the risk of death and disfuigurement at the barbers...
I'll check a few books over the weekend and try to give you more information. I think Pliny the Elder mentions a few interesting titbits, and a few ancient biographers will probably turn up the passages on Julius Caesar and Hadrian.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 4
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Sunday, 3rd August 2008
Hi Tony,
Unfortunately, I've been out most of the weekend so I haven't been able to read much without squinting.
Anyway, I've managed to at least check up on the iron razors, and the source came from "Daily Life in Ancient Rome" by Jerome Carpocino (1941); it's a bit dated, but as it's is still referenced in many a book so I feel it's reasonably safe. The quote is from page 180 of the Penguin edition:
The comment may be made that archaeologists have discovered numbers of razors in prehistoric and Etruscan ruins, but that by what at first seems a curious paradox they have found few or none in their Roman excavations. The explanation is simple. The razors of Terra Mare and of the Etruscans were of bronze, while the Roman razor, whether the razor properly so called (novacula) or the knife which served for shaving or for cuttiing the nails (culter or cultellus) was of iron and has been eaten by rust. These iron instruments, or ferramenta, to use the generic term, were both fragile and perishable tools.Β
What puzzles me, is that I know through experience that iron rusts pretty easily, so why was iron chosen above bronze? I'm just guessing here, but could it be that as shaving was such an essential and regular part of the day-to-day life of the Roman male (especially urban males) that the paraphenalia associated with it were so common that a base metal like iron - as opposed to an alloy - made the most sense economically as a material to use? I don't know enough (read that as "not-much-at-all") about Etruscan razors, but could their bronze razors have been personal items that had status, and Roman razors more disposable?
Cheers,
RF -
Message 5
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 4th August 2008
Thanks, RF. And here was me tnking we lived in the disposable age. I suspect you are right. The Romans were the masters of mass production and iron was probably easier t produce in large quantities.
-
Message 6
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 6th August 2008
Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:48 GMT, in reply to TonyG in message 5
I've seen a couple of pictures of ancient razors. One (Etruscan, I think) had a blade that resembled an outsized cut-throat razor. The other, Roman, had a curious blade that looked much like the pentagonal trowels favoured by archaeologists and builders (I'm sure there's a technical term for them!) -
Message 7
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Thursday, 7th August 2008
What I know about the chemistry of this you could write on the back of a stamp - however - a thought.
The 'softening' agent used on the stubble may well have been a problem. Concoctions of oil and woodash were used - possibly other stuff. This may have reacted with brass/copper/ bronze and iron in differing ways.
P. -
Message 8
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 7th August 2008
Hi Priscilla.
Doesnt have to be that technical. A Hot wet flannel works well enough for me to shave without any kind of soap so long as the razor blade is sharp.
Almond oil can be used as well, in fact quite a lot of natural oils and have the advantage that you dont need to get soap out of your ears afterwards. Although you do get followed by squirrels if you use a nut oil. -
Message 9
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 7th August 2008
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:36 GMT, in reply to backtothedarkplace (dan)Free Sean! in message 8
The Lindsey Davis novel 'The Iron Hand of Mars' features a Roman barber quite prominently. He refers to a depilatory liniment comprising a paste of white vine leaves. He also mentions a similar treatment involving bats' blood (which he does NOT recommend!), plus individual tweezering and ground pumice. Amongst his razors is one made from Norican (south Austrian) steel. I don't know what source she's used for these, but she's generally pretty good with her research.
Ground pumice or ground horn were used for cleaning teeth. Olive oil was used instead of soap (you would sweat out the dirt in the baths, rub the oil on you and remove the mess with a strigil. Actually seems to have worked quite well). Since low grade oil could be obtained cheaply, and free or cheap entry public baths were widely available, this option was available to the poorer Romans. -
Message 10
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 7th August 2008
Yes the Romans certainly had razors, and scissors too I think.
On the matter of why they used perishable iron rather than more stable bronze, iron gives a harder, sharper edge than bronze. I was told by a guy, who knows about ancient armies, that the swords used in the bronze age (such as ancient Egypt) did not cut very well, basically because bronze is that bit softer than steel, and so even if you form a sharp edge it blunts almost immediately. Iron, and steel, enabled the making of much more effective weapons, and razors.
The plucking of under-arm hairs, by Roman men, was commonplace, and caused them considerable pain. I have no idea why they did it. -
Message 11
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 7th August 2008
Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:42 GMT, in reply to fascinating in message 10
I have no idea why they did it.Β
Fashion frequently has little rhyme or reason behind it, I suspect! -
Message 12
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 8th August 2008
"The plucking of under-arm hairs, by Roman men, was commonplace, and caused them considerable pain. I have no idea why they did it."
I think it was probably more for personal hygene which developed into fashion. The Romans were quite fastidious and in the days of no anti-perspirant it is the best way to keep the armpits relatively "smell-free". Another possibility is when an army is on the march in hot weather, for weeks on end and with no possibility of a daily bath, the accumulation of sweat in hairy armpits etc leads to uncomfortable skin rashes.
Of course they could have shaved their armpits also but the hair grows back in a matter of days where as plucked hairs take much longer to grow.
Also the more you pluck hair the less it hurts, it is quite painful when you first start but after a few times it becomes less and less painful. -
Message 13
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 8th August 2008
Hi islanddawn,
I'm not sure that attempts to rationalize body adornments, in the past or present, are ever very convincing. Some years ago my daughter, who is a psychologist, and I looked into the changes recorded in portrayed body shape by sculptors and artists. The changes from the classical to the medieval and post-medieval world were easy to document but, we considered, almost impossible to explain.
Body modifications are worse still. The enthusiasm for physically damaging corsets in the 19th century, and the subsequent hostility to those who later favoured 'rational dress' were particularly puzzling.
The arguments you give for depilation sound perfectly reasonable and would still apply today. However in the UK and USA armpit depilation is largely, but not exclusively, a female style; perhaps in the Roman world there was a style gender reversal? Since we have accounts of the Spartans combing their hair before battle to the death we can assume that they favoured long head-hair at least.
Again contemporary fashion is for 'white' people to artificial darken their skin with sunlight or dyes, whereas 'black' skins may be lightened by dangerous chemical bleaches or (see today's news) by image processing. I'm baffled but I don't suppose the fashionistas of the ancient world were any more logical.
Regards, TP -
Message 14
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 8th August 2008
Hi TP!
Good to see you back. I'm certainly no expert and jumping in the deep end here, but I don't think you can compare current UK/US male attitude to Roman. From what I have gleaned depilation, hair styles etc were all part and parcel of normal grooming for Roman men (well the wealthy anyway) it wasn't seen as a detraction from their masculinity (as in the west) but rather an enhancement to it. (Although the western attitude is rapidly changing with men waxing their bodies and eyebrows, face creams & makeup for men etc. My father is horrified!)
The Romans were ever a practical people, and aside from fashion, depilation does have a practical purpose most especially in hot climates. Wasn't JC so fastidious about his personal hygene that he had slaves regularly pluck every hair from his body? (or is that a fallacy I've picked up somewhere?)
Although I quite agree that the extreme body modifications (all in the name of fashion) that we have seen and continue to see are quite ridiculous and in some cases damaging. I don't see simple hair removal as being in the same league. -
Message 15
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 9th August 2008
Hi islanddawn,
Thanks. I'd really like to agree with you but it's difficult. I believe that Caesar was indeed fastidious about personal hygiene, but then so am I and it would never occur to me to have every hair removed! You're right about the Romans being practical of course, so if epilation really had a practical medical value wouldn't it have been compulsory for all army ranks?
I think that before we can explain 'body modification' in the past we have to explain it in the present, and this presents real difficulties. I once undertook a pilot project on why a group of students shaved or wore jewellery; it was abandoned since the only answers I ever received were 'it looks better', 'it's the right thing to do', 'I like it' or 'it looks gross if I don't'!
A useful definition of 'style', in respect of artefacts, are those aspects of a design which are subject to change but do not affect function. The same criteria can be applied to body modification and adornment. It was said that hair and beard styles were modified on the basis of imperial coin portraits. Since the Romans used 'the baths' they were far more used to seeing other adults naked than most 21st century individuals. Were there body conventions that just 'had' to be observed? I guess we shall never be sure.
Regards, TP -
Message 16
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Saturday, 9th August 2008
Hi TP,
Well I can only give you my ideas on the subject of course, part fact and part gained from personal experience which was originally in answer to fascinating's puzzlement as to why Romans would pluck their armpits.
Very simply I've found that hairless armpits are a great deal less "smelly" than ones with a veritable bush growing!
For myself it is as simple as that and has little to do with current trends. It is possible that the Romans would have epilated for the same reason, as fastidious as we know them to have been.
Another thought that has occurred (I can hear you groaning!) is with the roman bath ritual. Didn't much of it involve the scraping of skin to remove dirt, oils, dead cells etc? How much easier and more thorough this process would have been on a hairless body as opposed to a hairy one. -
Message 17
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 9th August 2008
an interesting fact i learnt through a re-enactmant display was the fact that roman women (not sure if they depilated lol) favoured white make up
this was to show that they spent their lives indoors as opposed to the slave women who would have a tan as they worked on the fields
the whiter you were = the posher you were !!
st -
Message 18
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 9th August 2008
Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:06 GMT, in reply to stalteriisok in message 17
this was to show that they spent their lives indoors as opposed to the slave women who would have a tan as they worked on the fieldsΒ
I wonder if there was similar reasoning behind the white make-up of later centuries (the mid-18th century springs to mind, when it was used by men as well). -
Message 19
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Sunday, 10th August 2008
I think it is just a case of paler skin being that bit more youthful. A child's skin should be a pale pink. As you get older the skin becomes more blotchy and more brown/red.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.