Widows, "Free Sisters," and "Independent Girls": Historic Models and An Archaeology of Post-Medieval English Gender Systems Alison Bell Introduction: Woman for the Hearth In 1992, excavations led by James Deetz and Maria Franklin at Flowerdew Hundred Farm (Prince George County, Virginia) revealed an English pipe bowl stamped with the initials "IW." Research indicated that this maker's mark might be attributed to four separate pipemakers, one of them being Jane Wall (Oswald 1975). This find suggested a possibility we had not considered: that women had made pipes in eighteenth-century Bristol. It also led us to ask how common female involvement had been in the pipemaking industry and to question how much we as archaeologists really knew about the gendered division of labor in England or the English colonial "New World" over the last four hundred years. These issues bear directly on larger concerns that feminist scholars have voiced recently: can archaeologists safely assume that the line between men's and women's activities was firm and absolute throughout history and prehistory (cf. Conkey and Spector 1984; Conkey and Gero 1991)? Do we really know that always, everywhere, men hunted, women gathered; that men produced and women processed; that men were wage-earners, women were homemakers (Seifert 1991: 1)? Even a brief look at what women and men did in post-medieval England shows that this simple understanding of the sexual division of labor does not hold everywhere and always. Reference to the work of historians1 suggests that England knew at least two distinct gender systems. The first seems largely associated with the monied, educated, landed members of society, the other with poorer manual laborers. Because these two discernable gender ideologies seem broadly to follow socio-economic lines, I will refer to the former value system as an ideology of the "middle class," and the latter as one of the "working class." I intend this delineation of England's post-medieval population in class terms to be acceptable only as a point of departure. I will in fact suggest here that 1) though generally, wealthy members of society ascribed to an ideology stressing women's domesticity and separation from men and 2) broadly speaking, poorer women and men did not accept this ideology, 3) archaeology at Flowerdew Hundred suggests that not all English women from monied "middle class" families were strictly separated ideologically from men-or that this was at least the case for some English colonists. I hope, in other words, first to show tha( written histories paint a more varied picture of past English gender systems than is typically assumed. They reveal, on the one hand, a gender ideology of strict separation; this value system, which I consider middle class, seems well expressed in Tennyson's lines (1879:322). Alison Bell, Department ofAnthropology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903 18 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers NVo. 79 0 _ _ ,_ _ Y _ I-,_ _ , _ _ | ~ ~ ~~~ , a. Mt en en8 ,, OZ t--- 00 0 n -F i- i1 6 ^ O ~ ~ ~ o t: 00 00 0 m 0 O h 00 ~ ~ ~ a 0 all0 0 0 X .~~~~- E F~ ck L ~ f -oo0,0__ W Z. Z .o o? oo oo o o o m e m5 z 8 X ~~~13 X z 3 z j~~~~~~~~_ w Post-Medieval English Gender Systems Man for the field and woman for the hearth: Man for the sword and for the needle she: Man with the head and woman with the heart: Man to command and woman to obey; All else confusion. This description, however, does not typify working class ideals as they can be known through historic documents. These women, who often worked in coal mines, brick yards, blacksmith shops, and as fishers, could not realistically embrace middle class ideals of domesticity. "Woman for the hearth" was a luxury the working class could not afford. This two-part model of gender relations, then, is a version of the English past accessible in written histories, but the excavation of an English colonial houselot in the Tidewater challenges this picture. Artifacts attest to this family's wealth, yet their use of space is inconsistent with a "separation ideology" associated with a "middle class" value system and women's strict domesticity (here and in Gibb and King 1991). I substantiate this argument by examining the history of men's and women's labor in England and differing gender systems discemable through historical texts. I then suggest how these general ideologies-of which different gender arrangements were part and parcel-might be represented archaeologically, and conclude by illustrating how one site begins to question whether a strict sexual division of labor always obtained among even well- to-do English colonists. Female Pipemakers: Understanding 5% Because pipemaking provided the impetus for this study, I will first describe women's work in this industry, focusing on the numbers and capacities in which they participated. This information comes primarily from the British Archaeological Reports Series, especially Adrian Oswald's "Clay Pipes for the Archaeologist" (1975). Of the approximately 6,000 pipemakers listed in Oswald's study, 280 or 5% are female. All of these pipemakers (male and female) are known through historic documents such as directories, censuses, and apprentice rolls-sources notorious for under-representing women' s involvement in industry (Gordon 1991:17-19). The main reason for their underestimating women is that these official documents usually list only heads of households, who were by definition husbands (Martin 1987:169). No matter what work a wife undertook within her home or outside it, she was often counted in the "non-productive and unoccupied class" (Gordon 1991:17-18). This means that most women recorded as working in any industry, including pipemaking, were unmarried. We can re-evaluate this 5%, therefore, and suggest that 5% of the pipemaking population was female and unmarried. It seems that a conservative estimate of the number of married (and unrecorded) female pipemakers is 1,000 between the years 1620 and 1900 ,but I will focus here on the women who were recorded. 19 Bell Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers Number Recorded 25 Boom in 20 pipe market 15 10 Boom 5 Bust 0 1640 1660 1680 1700 1720 1740 1760 1780 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 Decades Figure 2: Number of women employed in pipemaking by decade. Documents suggest that these women were part of the fabric of the pipemaking industry. They are listed in 79% of all locations in which we know pipes were made, and temporally, female pipemakers are known from the beginnings through the last decades of the clay tobacco pipe industry (Figures 1 and 2). Their numbers increase in good economic times and decrease when the pipe and tobacco markets fell, just as the numbers of male pipemakers did (Figure 2). Women in this craft, then, were not "cheap labor" relied on only in bad times (cf. Franzoi 1985:22), and they were not just permitted to work when the markets were good and most men were already employed (cf. Anderson and Zinsser 1988:407). It is clear that the women involved in the pipemaking industry held very different social and economic positions in post-medieval England. Widows appeared in significant numbers among their ranks: approximately one-third of female pipemakers in London and half in Bristol were probably widows. From the 1 600s through the early twentieth century, records indicate that women became the owners of pipeshops at their husbands' deaths, and that many women continued these businesses successfully for decades (Figures 3 and 7; cf. Clark 1919:34). Widows, however, were not the only category of female pipemakers. In London, another quarter and in Bristol another third of female pipemakers seem unrelated to any male pipemaker. These ranks include females like Mary Ann Fewings, a sixteen-year-old pipetrimmer living with her eighty-year-old grandmother, and the person listed just as an "independent girl" in another pipeshop (Horgate 1980:3-8). Considering the poverty often associated with this industry (Arnold and Allan 1980:175; Walker 1981:176), females like these were likely among society's poorest members. No. 79 20 Post-Medieval English Gender Systems N%O 00 00 vm V- I I - 0 i W) ? co oo _- _W 00 00 1.- N co W- 100 0 0N a-, 00 -Wt -w o:K 00 Vr t oo 00 00W -4 00 00 -0 00 V-O 00 - 00 t- E a 0 0 o , i -O t -zc c = ~ ~ ~ .2. o~ m 00 00 0 0 0 _0 co co 00 -4W- oo o 00 N - 0n000 _ 4 00 00 -W .W _ _ ,.- r Go 0 -W .W W- "- I Sft 00 N4 t- oo If- 00 00 W-- W- - CA g _ 3 =e s, | |= la u . M . e u ) 1 00a) U ) ..." (L)0 Cl N 001 N- 00 ;,4 0 0~~ on~~~~~~~~~c = =~ X tSo3 $ esO0 -0 0E 05 -0 0 ro 0 F- I a - I. .b at ._ .o . rA L (A 0I" 0 it o kw La A Os 8 ic 0% 0o 0- I o7. 10 -- oo 00 I qtr 00 0o W) 00 - vo Q. ~o 00 I 1N 00 %10 00 co 00 oo ll- oo 00 ;Y .E >2 e~~~~a C2 Q C n a) c|E U) * k c m W- zt 0% - 0% 1 6 ChN ".. 000W)000 it t d oo oo oo 1 4 1 _- _w _- 00 e 00 00 If1en ~Q00 00 _.- __ .- I 00 00 ) A W >.t , 0 >b 4 a) a) h ' 2). = = ." 2 e m u 24 3: m aM , -I 0 '0 0 o Cu D a i -I Bell 21 0 00 If 00 W- IA I' 0 0 >0 c 0 kW 0 .2 a s 0 ic S. 0 IZ -AZ s -0 .0 0 a.b . Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers In contrast to these people, many females associated with pipemaking controlled a significant amount of capital. Jean Wemyss, for example, supplied more pipes to the Company of Scotland for export to "the Americas" than any other pipemaker (Horton, Higgins and Oswald 1987:248). Some women were also considered "free sisters" of craft guilds; this status likely applied to the three women who signed the Bristol Pipemaker's Guild Charter in 1652 (Figure 6; Oswald 1975). This diversity of women's experiences in the pipemaking industry appears, too, in apprentice records. Twenty four women took apprentices, and seven became apprentices. Cases are recorded in which husbands and wives together took apprentices, in which mothers took sons, and in which women with no apparent association to pipemaking men took apprentices alone (Figure 5). If a woman took an apprentice or "inherited" one at her husbands' death, she was obliged by law and custom to teach that person the craft (Lacey 1985:47). Clearly, then, in home-based pipeshops like these, a strict sexual division of labor could not have prevailed. In some later pipe factories, however, which wealthier members of society owned and operated, men produced pipes in one building and women finished them in another (Gallagher and Price 1987:112). In smaller shops female workers are also mentioned as "finishers," but significantly, all of these references are in the nineteenth century. I have not been able to find reference to this term before the early 1800s. In this industry, therefore, there appears to have been a trend through time to separate men and women, to specifically define the role of each, and to emphasize the difference between them. Developments like this one seem closely tied to the middle class gender ideology described above as "woman for the hearth." This ideology was so potent that many nineteenth-century people seemingly believed that women were "naturally" or exclusively domestic-that this was the way it had "always" been. Some male pipemakers, too, apparently had accepted the idea by the early twentieth century. When a group of them went on strike in 1909, they complained against the introduction of female labor to pipemaking, explaining that they were compelled to fight for;their existence as a trade against the introduction of female labor. The employers are not satisfied with male serfs, they are now employing women, who will.. .before the employers have done with them have lost all the attributes of their sex (in Gordon 1991:278-9). Women had been involved in the craft for three centuries, but increasingly through these years, some members of the middle class asserted that a fundamental difference existed between women and men, and that non-domestic labor was at odds with women's "natural attributes." Working Women: They "Smoke Their Pipes Like Men" In this section, I set pipemaking in a broader history of English men's and women's work, to illustrate how different working and middle class gender arrangements were, and to show that the idea of men being wage-earners and women homemakers was an ideal for the middle class-but was not social reality as the working class knew it. 22 No. 79 Post-Medieval English Gender Systems 'a).- 'ca) a) N 'a) 0 .0 o -? r - - .0 ei 0 0 - 0?oo a) .- .- 0 a) a)?L? ?Cu0 Cu a) a) ? .? 0 0 C) a) o * '?I.L? ? 'a) 0 U' .? 0 ?Z0 "''a) .0 :2 U' 0..0 0 a) a) 0 I.' .0 ? E .? .? 0 .? - 0 ?0 'r? - %0 u 0 00 N %O N N ?0 e?a ..O c? - ? r?) r? 0- -000% "1' -ee?0ra"? N.0?.0 '0 NNNNN%O Cu Cu Cy ,y , C co0 coc i4c 0 0 ' D C. 0- e 00 0O _ __O.N-- - J?- 3 mm m lm m m m m m m u u =.3 m m m m On .0.~~~~~~. U 4.)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a to R00 '*-' B E U R 0 Y E ; .8 1 30 cA ._0 0 &M cm 6 'U 2 co 2 t L., C.) "I. E' t C.) a. a) 0 Bell 23 CA 'u 6 .0 *6 : CU 0. 2 0 -I '-.400 '.0 N' -- -W as~~~~~a I Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers Only 5 of 500 medieval English guilds excluded women altogether, and in fifteenth- century London, "very few occupations were actually denied to women" (Lacey 1985:24, 57). Seventeenth-century records list women as merchants, for example, tanners, butchers, pewterers, and innholders (Wright 1985:115). Eighteenth-century women are found in these trades as well as goldsmithing, mining, bit and stirrup making, and earthenware-selling (Pinchbeck 1930: 293, 273, 294). Nineteenth-century documents reveal women in over 300 occupations in significant numbers, especially considering that this information comes from the 1841 census that apparently counted only heads of households (Gordon 1991). For example, Pinchbeck lists the numbers of women listed in the census in the following occupations: blacksmiths (469), brick and tile makers and layers (536), chimney sweepers (125), coopers (119), engine and machine makers (53), glass and bottle manufacturers (279), gun smiths (79), iron mongers (268), merchants (77), millers (457), pottery manufacturers (7,096), scissor makers (148), shopkeepers (9,582), smelters (322), tool makers (71), weavers (26,311), and wheelwrights (146) (Pinchbeck 1930:317-321). This information suggests four points. First, we cannot assume that males were the exclusive manufacturers of durable English goods. We would be hard-pressed to identify an English industry contributing artifacts to New World sites in which women did not participate. In saying this, I do not intend to suggest that archaeologists should attempt to identify the gender of individual artifacts' makers. Rather, I hope to emphasize that members of the societies producing these sites and artifacts had much more complex gender arrangements than the "woman for the hearth" stereotype suggests. The idea that men were wage-earners and women homemakers does not represent the reality that many English working men and women knew-including many who became colonists. Second, a good deal of female work in the occupations listed above was serious physical labor, central-not supplemental-to production. In 1863, for instance, an observer described a female nail maker at work: The girl with one hand works the big blastbellows... and with the other pokes a long rod of iron... into the cinders. Then she takes the rod out, drives the red hot end into a hole in a small anvil, snips it off above, hammers the top down into a head.... All in a few seconds. (in Hiley 1979:57). Third, this list of occupations suggests the socio-economic diversity of working women: they range from manual laborers to merchants. Gender relations as indicated by apprentice rolls also clearly resist simple delineation between male and female spheres: girls were often apprenticed to couples to learn the "mistery" of the wife's craft, but men also took female apprentices (Lacey 1986:47-48), women took male apprentices (e.g., Sarah Harris, Figure 5), daughters worked with fathers (Charles 1985:14), sons were apprenticed to mothers (e.g., Christian Hunt, Figure 5), and widows continued apprentices' instruction. Fourth and finally, the division of labor along gender lines varied radically from county to county (Crawford 1983b:62), and perhaps even among households in a single community (Roberts 1985:127). In one area, reaping was women's work-they cut the 24 No. 79 Post-Medieval English Gender Systems 0% I--, A l l- - V- t- V- t- o i c7 c' 0 00~0% _ _ _ _ _ =a- 00 I0\0 ~O0 ~0- o o bOxDoo o .? *? ^ _a_ o I Io s: 0x x X *c; *c_ coc 0. 3. D..~ ~o -oo 00 - I '1., Go 0 -0 0 0 (A 1.. 'e 10 C0 I %0 00 "-4 'f I 1OO c2 0.- 0 *.) oo 00 - I r- -.- _ _ _- "0 ' .c .tn .e 0 o U) 3 0. cn 3 0. 0 a) a).-_ a0 0 . 0, Cqo co 3~ ._ .=: 8 3 ' 8 o g Y 4 cnO03 0 0.. . E a) Bell 25 7 i- ic 2-. 0 (' .2 *" cv 0 -it Vi I.. 0 Lo go 0 .z '4I 0 2: cn- ..4 c a) .0 1: I I 1, Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers sheaves and men bound them-while in other areas the reverse generally held (Pinchbeck 1930:56). Visitors to brickyards of the "Black Country," similarly, were often surprised to find them dominated by female labor because in other areas this work was primarily men's (Hiley 1979:54-55). It is critical to note here the middle class reaction to this female manual labor: many members of the monied classes vigorously opposed it on the "moral" grounds that such work "unsexed" women (Hiley 1979:56). It bothered them that working men and women looked and acted alike. They complained, for instance, that work in the forges rendered "these girls perfectly independent. They often enter the beer shops, call for their pints, and smoke their pipes like men" (in Pinchbeck 1930:273). Because some members of the middle class sent missionaries to working women like these (Hiley 1979:55), it seems fair to conclude that the middle class did not consider this "perfect independence" an appropriate female attribute. Working women also offended middle class sensibilities and ideals of modesty, purity, and decency. Members of the middle class objected to the "immorality which prevailed from the exposure of the persons of women, and the indecency of it" (brickmakers, for instance, and fisherwomen often worked with "their bare legs exposed far above the knees," Hiley 1979:55). Members of the middle class were also nervous about working women's physical proximity to males; they felt that these working conditions exposed women to the "baser instincts of men" (Hiley 1979:55). Perhaps most importantly, though, people of the middle class objected to working women's physical labor because they felt that women were fundamentally different from men, and that they were different in kind rather than degree (Cahn 1987:85). Because of this fundamental difference, they felt, women and men should play mutually exclusive social roles: men should be wage-earners and women homemakers. Why, though, was the working class not converted to middle class gender ideals? Why did these women (in the face of legal reforms and middle class pressure) continue in their physical labor, or with their pipe smoking-and making? There were doubtless many factors at play here, but primarily, the working class could not afford wives who did not earn wages. For many working women, their choices were on the one hand paid industrial or domestic labor, and on the other prostitution (Hiley 1979:60). Pure domesticity was not an option, and necessity prevented them from embracing the strict sexual division of labor that members of the middle class championed. Assessment: Archaeology These, then, are the two major trends observable in written historical accounts of post-medieval English gender arrangements. I would like in this concluding section first to describe what these different value systems would "look like" archaeologically, and so will describe material correlates of the two ideologies that I have considered throughout this paper to be associated with the "middle" and "working" classes. I will then return to Flowerdew Hundred and relate in broad strokes the spatial patterns and artifacts excavations revealed at one early eighteenth-century site. I will suggest that these materials make the two-part model described above problematic: the site's occupants appear to be members of the middle class economically, but ideologically, their use of space is more consistent with working class 26 No. 79 Post-Medieval English Gender Systems values-including, I will argue, a lack of concern to strictly distinguish women's roles from men's. Very broadly, members of the middle class "labored industriously that they might not be taken for laborers" (Cahn 1987:32). Wives especially were concerned with finding new items (e.g., white bread) "not yet accessible to the poor, which could proclaim the family's high status" (Cahn 1987:43). The middle strata also had to employ servants to demonstrate the husband's financial success through the wife's "lack of productivity" (Cahn 1987:99). Their ideas of propriety and modesty required the creation of privacy in houses (Pinchbeck 1930:266), and their view of the world was generally more segmented than the working class' (Gibb and King 1991). Many members of the middle class apparently believed that each task should be clearly defined temporally and spatially, and that each person should have a clearly demarcated social role. Archaeological correlates of these middle class values would likely include artifacts new for the time and styles quickly abandoned in favor of others. Architecturally, some concern with privacy might be expressed even in servants' quarters: if the middle class objected to gender-mixed factory departments or brickyards, it seems unlikely that they would have neglected to insure the "propriety" of servants on their own grounds. Finally, more segmentation of space, differentiation of activity areas, and specialization of building functions would be expected on middle class than working class sites. These groups' different use of space should not be just economically but ideologically based. Many working and most middle class people, for example, would have had yards (whatever size), and to the middle class, it was important-at least with front yards-to present an ordered appearance. The working class, though, did not share this concern with order, and many used whatever space was available to them for practical tasks. Archaeologically, then, if excavations at a hypothetical site revealed refuse deposited carefully out of view and space rather clearly demarcated according to task, with certain areas being appropriate for work and others clearly not, it could be concluded that this site was created by people who embraced values characteristic of the middle class (cf. Gibb and King 1991). Because women's domesticity was part and parcel, a key to this middle class ideology, I would suggest (after Gibb and King 1991) that on a site like this one there was a strict sexual division of labor, characterized by the phrase "man for the field, woman for the hearth." If, though, excavations revealed broadcast refuse and no apparent "rhyme or reason" to activity areas, it could be suggested that the people creating this site embraced more of a working class system of values or priority (cf. Gibb and King 1991). It would be doubtful on this site that the females were "kept women."3 Flowerdew Hundred provides a more concrete example, as well as a challenge to the model of historic English gender relations that posits middle class women as strictly separated on ideological grounds from men. At 44PG98, an earthfast house dating from 1700 to 1740, many artifacts were expensive and rare for the time (e.g., silver cuff links with horse and rider motifs), but the front yard of the house was full of pits, and broken pieces of plates, brick, and bone were scattered through out the vicinity of the house. The occupants do not appear to have had a specified place for garbage, nor to have been concerned with presenting an ordered facade to visitors, nor especially with ideals of purity. Despite having significant financial Bell 27 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers means, then, the spatial distribution of artifacts and features is more consistent with working than middle class ideals. Even though economically this site's occupants might have been members of the middle class, they had not apparently accepted the middle class ideology that emphasized privacy and discrete segmentation of space, as well as fundamentally different social identities for women and men. If the people producing site 98 embraced an ideology more characteristic of the English working class, we could assume that the sexual division of labor in this household was fluid, with both women and men working to produce the goods necessary for the family's upkeep. Significantly, Henrietta Hardyman is the recorded owner of the land in this period, thoufh her actual residence on this site cannot be demonstrated (Gregory and McClenny n.d.). In concluding, I should note that James Gibb and Julia King (1991) have pursued similar work with gender in the Chesapeake. They focus in one article on how families' varying economic means permitted them different degrees of task differentiation on farms, and suggest how such specialization is reflected in activity areas. Though their approach is a bit different than the one described in the present paper, which attempts to approach gender through ideologies and their material correlates, we arrive at the same conclusions: women's experiences in post-medieval England and in the English colonies were diverse, complex matters. Archaeologists are just beginning to understand what women and men did in the past and to suggest how excavations can expand the picture of past gender systems available through written histories. Hopefully, though, now we can at least let go the assumption that always and everywhere, women were for the hearth. Notes 1. Undertaking research with primary documents would have been the ideal method. Because that project was beyond the scope of this paper, however, I have analyzed historians' texts to examine models they have constructed of gender in post-medieval England. 2. If only half of (2850) of the approximately 5700 male pipemakers listed in Oswald's study worked in home-based industries, and if only half of these men (1425) had wives who worked with them, it would mean that between one and two thousand unrecorded (married) women made pipes. 3. A recent reader of this paper, however, has informed me that Anne Yentsch's 1991 article "Chesapeake artefacts and their cultural context" contradicts this line of logic. 4. The other possibility, not pursued here, that this excavation suggests is that the model of gender relations available in the written sources does accurately characterize middle and working class arrangements in England, but that colonial conditions occasioned their alteration. Frontier conditions might have had a substantial impact on the gender arrangements on New World sites. If this proved to be the case, questions could then be asked of how the timing of and conditions accompanying changes in gender ideologies related to other factors such as the nature of local economies, types of agriculture and 28 No. 79 Post-Medieval English Gender Systems market systems (cf. Pinchbeck 1930:127), distance from urban centers, and the ethnic or national identities of people on American sites. References Anderson, Bonnie S. and Judith P. Zinsser 1988 A History of Their Own: Women in Europefrom Prehistory to the Present, volume I. New York: Harper and Row. Arnold, C. J. and J. P. Allan 1980 Exeter: Its Clay Tobacco-pipe Industry and Commercial Relations. British Archaeological Reports 3:305-324. Barker, D. 1985 The Newcastle-under-Lyme Clay Tobacco Pipe Industry. British Archaeological Reports 9(1 ):237-290. Brumfiel, Elizabeth 1992 Distinguished Lecture in Archaeology: Breaking and Entering the Ecosystem-Gender, Class, and Faction Steal the Show. American Anthropologist 94:551- 566. Cahn, Susan 1987 Industry of Devotion: The Transformation of Women's Work in England, 1500-1660. New York: Columbia University Press. Clark, Alice 1919 Working Life of Women in the Seventeenth Century. New York: Reprints of Economic Classics (1968). Conkey, Margaret W. and Joan M. Gero 1991 Tensions, Pluralities, and Engendering Archaeology: An Introduction to Women and Prehistory. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. pp. 3-30. Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, editors. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Conkey, Margaret W. and Janet D. Spector 1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7:1-38. Michael B. Schiffer, editor. Crawford, Patricia 1983a Introduction. In Exploring Women's Past: Essays in Social History. pp. 1-6. Patricia Crawford, editor. Sydney: George Allen and Unwin. 1983b From the Woman's Point of View: Pre-industrial England, 1500-1750. In Exploring Women's Past: Essays in Social History. pp. 49-86. Patricia Crawford, editor. Sydney: George Allen and Unwin. Bell 29 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers Davey, P. J., et al. 1982 The Rainford Clay Pipe Industry: Some Archaeological Evidence. British Archaeological Reports 7:91-306. Deetz, James 1993 Flowerdew Hundred: The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation, 1619-1864. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Edwards, Lloyd 1988 Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Tyneside Tobacco Pipemakers. British Archaeological Reports 11:2-108. Fraikin, J. 1981 Pipemakers in Wallonia. British Archaeological Reports 5(1):3-82. Franzoi, Barbara 1985 At the Very Least She Pays the Rent: Women and German Industrialization 1871-1914. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Gallagher, D. B. 1987 Tobacco Pipemaking in Glasgow 1667-1967. British Archaeological Reports 10:35-109. Gallagher, D. B. and R. Price 1987 Thomas Davidson and Co., Glasgow. BritishArchaeological Reports 10:110-138. Gibb, James G. and Julia A. King 1991 Gender, Activity Areas, and Homelots in the 17th-Century Chesapeake Region. Historical Archaeology 25(4): 109-131. Gordon, Eleanor 1991 Women and the Labour Movement in Scotland 1850-1914. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Grant, A. and D. Jemmett 1985 Pipes and Pipemaking in Barnstaple, Devon. British Archaeological Reports 9(2):439-553. Gregory, Eve and Pat McClenny n.d. Flowerdew Hundred: A Brief History. Unpublished manuscript. Hammond, Peter 1982 Pipemaking in Nottingham after 1800. British Archaeological Reports 7:19-90. 1985 Registered and Patented Clay Tobacco Pipes. British Archaeological Reports 9(1 ):29-256. Hanawalt, Barbara A. 1986 Peasant Women's Contribution to the Home Economy in Late Medieval England. In Women and Work in Preindustrial Europe. pp. 3-19. Barbara A. Hanawalt, editor. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hiley, Michael 1979 Victorian Working Women: Portraitsfrom Life. London: Gordon Fraser. Horgate, M. 1980 Richmond and Others, Pipemakers Dunfermline. British Archaeological Reports 3:3-10. No. 79 30 Post-Medieval English Gender Systems Horton, M. C., D. A. Higgins, and A. Oswald 1987 Clay Tobacco Pipes from the Scottish Darien Colony 1698-1700. British Archaeological Reports 10:239-252. Hutton, Diane 1985 Women in Fourteenth Century Shrewsbury. In Women and Work in Preindustrial England. pp. 83-99. Lindsey Charles and Loma Duffin, editors. London: Croom Helm. Ker, Margaret 1983 Brides of Christ and Poor Mortals: Women in Medieval Society. In Exploring Women's Past: Essays in Social History. Patricia Crawford, editor. Sydney: George Allen and Unwin. Lacey, Kay E. 1985 Women and Work in Fourteenth and Fifteenth Century London. In Women and Work in Preindustrial England. pp. 24-82. Lindsey Charles and Loma Duffin, editors. London: Croom Helm. Larkin, Jack 1988 The Reshaping of Everyday Life 1790-1840. New York: Harper and Row. Le Cheminant, Richard 1981 Clay Tobacco Pipes from London and the South East. British Archaeological Reports 6:127-172. Martin, P. F. de C. 1987 Pipemakers from the Rest of Scotland. British Archaeological Reports 10: 167-182. Milne, John Duguid 1870 Industrial Employment of Women in the Middle and Lower Ranks. London: Longmans, Green and Company. Moore, Henrietta L. 1991 Epilogue. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. pp. 407-41 1. Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, editors. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Oak-Rhind, H. 1980 Distribution of Clay Tobacco Pipes Around Their Place of Manufacture. British Archaeological Reports 3:349-362. Oswald, Adrian 1975 Clay Pipes for the Archaeologist. British Archaeological Reports 14. Pinchbeck, Ivy 1930 Women Workers and the Industrial Revolution 1 750-1850. London: Virago. Roberts, Michael 1985 'Words they are Women, and Deeds they are Men': Images of Work and Gender in Early Modem England. In Women and Work in Preindustrial England. pp. 122-180. Lindsey Charles and Lorna Duffin, editors. London: Croom Helm. Rutter, J. A. and P. J. Davey 1980 Clay Pipes from Chester. British Archeological Reports 3:41-272. Bell 3 1 Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers Seifert, Donna J. 1991 Introduction. Historical Archaeology 25(4):1-5. Tennyson, Alfred 1879 The Princess. In The Poetical Works of Alfred Tennyson, volume 1:255-350. Cambridge: The Riverside Press. Tringham, Ruth E. 1991 Households with Faces: The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural Remains. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. pp. 93-131. Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, editors. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Walker, Stephen 1981 The Clay Pipe Industry of the Parish of St. Olave's Southwark. British Archaeological Reports 6:173-182. Woodcock, D. J. 1985 Pipes Attributed to William Hensell, Clay Tobacco Pipe Maker or Norwich, Norfolk. British Archaeological Reports 9(2):325-336. Wright, Sue 1985 'Churmaids, Huswyfes and Hucksters': The Employment of Women in Tudor and Stewart Salisbury. In Women and Work in Preindustrial England. pp. 100-121. Lindsey Charles and Loma Duffin, editors. London: Croom Helm. Wylie, Alison 1991 Gender Theory and the Archaeological Record: Why Is There No Archaeology of Gender? In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. pp. 31-56. Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, editors. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Yentsch, Anne 1991 Chesapeake artefacts and their cultural context: pottery and the food domain. Post-Medieval Archaeology 25:25-72. No. 79 32