Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:17:43.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender and Material Culture: the Archaeology of Religious Women

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Space and gender have been two of the ‘buzz words’ in archaeology over the last few years; and quite rightly so, since they identify two of the most crucial aspects of human experience. As we move around buildings today, we are all well aware of norms and restrictions — public spaces and doors marked ‘private’, lounges and bedrooms, stairways and corridors. We negotiate and respect these according to customs and habits learned mainly in childhood. What is true of our own society is true of every other society, past and present, and one of the challenges — not to say obligations — facing archaeologists is to gain some understanding of these spatial mores, even when presented with little more than a ground plan.

In Gilchrist's case-study of medieval English nunneries, the evidence is rather more substantial. Not only has some of the fabric survived — both of churches and their associated buildings — but there is a rich body of textual information about the nunneries, the nuns who inhabited them, and the Christian symbolism and belief which underlay the whole institution.

What better place to study gender and its material expression than in such a uniquely female institution as the medieval nunnery? Fezv would deny that archaeology can play a powerful role in helping us to understand these religious communities — enabling us to see beyond the confines of written records. The application of particular theoretical approaches, however, is somewhat more contentious. Just how well do they fit such a body of evidence? And on a subject where we already have a great deal of textual evidence, can study of the material remains — in layout of buildings, evidence of their use, and iconography — truly reveal new levels of meaning? In sum, how successful is this new analysis?

These are among the key issues which are discussed in the following pages. As usual, we begin this Review Feature with an introduction by the author herself, Roberta Gilchrist. Then follow four contrasting reactions, from archaeologists and historians, rounded off by Gilchrist's reply. Whatever our assessment, the interplay of gender and space has profound and far-reaching significance, and raises issues that no serious historical archaeologist — or indeed prehistorian — can afford to ignore.

Type
Review Feature
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , April 1996 , pp. 119 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allason-Jones, L., 1989. Women in Roman Britain. London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
Aston, M., 1990. Segregation in church, in Women in the Church, eds. Shiels, W.J. & Wood, D.. (Studies in Church History 27.) Oxford: Blackwell, 237–94.Google Scholar
Baker, D. & Baker, E., 1989. Research designs: timber phases and outbuildings with special reference to Elstow Abbey and Grove Priory, in The Archaeology of Rural Monasteries, eds. Gilchrist, R. & Mytum, H.. (British Archaeological Report 203.) Oxford: BAR, 261–75.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P., 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W., 1886. Descriptions of the buildings of twelve small Yorkshire priories at the Reformation. Yorkshire Archeological Journal 9, 197–215, 321–33.Google Scholar
Burton, J., 1979. Yorkshire Nunneries in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. (Borthwick Paper 56.) York: University of York.Google Scholar
Butler, J., 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, L., 1989. The archaeology of rural monasteries in England and Wales, in The Archaeology of Rural Monasteries, eds. Gilchrist, R. & Mytum, H.. (British Archaeological Report 203.) Oxford: BAR, 1–27.Google Scholar
Bynum, C.W., 1987. Holy Feast and Holy Fast: the Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Christie, P. & Coad, J., 1980. Excavations at Denny Abbey. Archaeological Journal 137, 138–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colledge, E. & Walsh, J. (eds.), 1978. A Book of Showings to the Anchoress Julian of Norwich. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
Coppack, G., 1986. Some descriptions of Rievaulx Abbey in 1538–9. Journal of the British Archaeological Association 139, 100–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppack, G., 1989. Thornholme Priory: the development of a monastic outer court, in Vie Archaeology of Rural Monasteries, eds. Gilchrist, R. & Mytum, H.. (BAR 203.) Oxford: BAR, 185–222.Google Scholar
Coppack, G., 1990. Abbeys and Priories. London: Batsford/English Heritage.Google Scholar
Ehrenberg, M., 1989. Women in Prehistory. London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
Gero, J. & Conkey, M., 1991. Tensions, pluralities and engendering archaeology: an introduction to women and prehistory, in Engendering Archaeology. Women and Prehistory, eds. Gero, J. & Conkey, M.. Oxford: Blackwell, 3–30.Google Scholar
Gerstel, S., forthcoming. Watching women: the placement of images of female saints in Byzantine churches, in Women and Space in Medieval Byzantium and the West, ed. Talbot, A.. Washington (DC): Dumbarton Oaks Papers.Google Scholar
Giddens, A., 1990. Die Consequences of Modernity. Cam-bridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, R., 1991. Women's archaeology? Political feminism, gender theory and historical revision. Antiquity 65, 495–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilchrist, R., 1995. Contemplation and Action: the Other Monasticism. London: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Gilchrist, R. & Oliva, M., 1993. Religious Women in Medieval East Anglia. (Studies in East Anglian History 1.) Norwich: Centre of East Anglian Studies.Google Scholar
Gilyard-Beer, R. & Coppack, G., 1986. Excavations at Fountains Abbey, North Yorkshire, 1979–80: the early development of the Monastery. Archaeologia 108, 147–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimbutas, M., 1989. The Language of the Goddess. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Hillier, B. & Hanson, J., 1984. The Social logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hope, W.H.St J., 1901. The ground plan of Watton in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Yorkshire Archeological Journal 58, 1–34.Google Scholar
Knowles, D. & Hadcock, R., 1971. Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Meeche, S.B. (ed.), 1940. The Book of Margery Kempe. (Early English Text Society 212.) London.Google Scholar
Miles, R., 1988. The Women's History of the World. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Moore, H., 1994. A Passion for Difference. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Paglia, C., 1992. Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Poulson, J., 1840. The History and Antiquities of the Seignory of Holderness. London: Pickering.Google Scholar
Rawcliffe, C., 1995. Medicine and Society in Later Medieval England. Stroud: Alan Sutton.Google Scholar
Robinson, D., 1980. The Geography of Augustinian Settlement in England and Wales, pts I & II, (British Archaeological Report 80,1 & 2.) Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
Stone, M., 1976. When God was a Woman. San Diego (CA): Harcourt Brace Jovanovich & Harvest.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1991. Gender theory and the archaeological record: why is there no archaeology of gender?, in Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, eds. Gero, J.M. & Conkey, M.W.. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 31–54.Google Scholar