Hey, lovely herstorians 😉
Last week, the wonderful Amy Nolan shared a post that made my year …
You should definitely connect with Amy Nolan, btw, and take her advice about booking me for any upcoming talks 😉
*ahem*
Anyway, if you’ve been with me long enough, you’ll remember that I did a newsletter early last year about Sheela-Na-Gig carvings. Because it was like, how TF am I 35 years old and only seeing this now?!
I MEAN, VULVAS IN CHURCHES?!
🤯
Whether or not you were raised in a Catholic family, you probably know that the one thing you’ll never ever see inside a church is a vulva.
They are vulva-free zones.
After Amy’s post, a few people got in touch to ask questions about the Sheelas, so let me expand a bit on last year and (re)introduce them. I’ve found a juicy new source for you, too.
What In-the-Vulva Is A Sheela-Na-Gig?
So, as you’ve already seen, a Sheela is a type of carving that shows a woman and her vulva. The vulva is always exaggerated and, often, she’s holding it open. Some modern historians and scholars describe Sheelas as “exhibitionist figures,” which I think is a tad problematic because, as you’ll understand in a minute, it feeds into 19th-century ideas about the female body.
Although they have an Irish name, don’t be fooled into thinking that Sheelas are uniquely Irish. It’s true that the majority are from Ireland. As of 2021, there are 114 known carvings with an additional 23 reported as lost or stolen.
But Sheelas have been found all over the place. There are 92 in France, 90 in England, 9 in Italy, 2 in Sweden and even Israel/Palestine has one.
The earliest (known) examples date to the 11th century. There was a flurry of Sheela activity in the 12th and 13th centuries before a decline after the 16th century.
They’re also not unique to churches. You’ll find them on town walls, near wells and on castles.
Why Are They Called Sheela-Na-Gigs?
This is an interesting one because I’ve come across a few different ‘translations.’
Firstly, the Oxford English Dictionary says that it translates to “Julia of the breasts.”
I find this one odd because the top half of most Sheela carvings tend not to have any real detail – let alone a pair of breasts. If you look at a carving, then your eyes are drawn downstairs, if you catch my drift. That seems to be the whole point.
Let’s have a look at a few, so you can see what I mean:
I found another definition in a book from the 19th century, which is my find of the month. (You’ll see why in a minute 😂)
Anyway, in 1840, a German travel writer called Johann Georg Kohl published a book called Travels in Ireland. In the book, Kohl translates ‘Sheela-na-gig’ as “Cicely of the branch.” Who Cicely is, I don’t know but Kohl goes on to include a sentence in Latin.
Okay, let’s pause here for a minute.
In the 19th century, if you wanted to say something rude (by which I mean sexy or relating to the female body), you didn’t write it in the vernacular. Because that would be straight-up outrageous, you sauce pot.
So, when Kohl includes a line in Latin AND italics, I’m like this:
So, he writes:
“Persuadent nempe mulierem ut exhibeat iis quod mulieres secretissimum habent.”
*Gets Latin dictionary out.*
🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁
“They will persuade a woman to show them what a woman has more secret.”
Yes, that’s considered NSFW in the 19th century 😂
So, why were women showing their ‘secret things’ to men, I hear ye ask?
Well, Kohl explains that the Irish were a superstitious bunch. They blamed anything negative on bad omens or bad luck. But they also took a proactive approach to bad luck. Some women, he explains, worked as “human equivalents” of Sheela carvings. (His words, not mine). Men sought out these women for sex, based on the widely held belief that having sex with a Sheela would protect them from bad luck.
The problem was that the Church didn’t approve of this practice. Instead, clergymen hired stonemasons to put carvings of Sheelas onto public buildings so that local men could feel protected without having to see anyone’s real-life ‘secret things.’
Whether this is true or not – and really, I don’t see why Kohl would go to the trouble of making this up. He doesn’t use it to ‘sell’ the book. It appears as less than half of a page in what is a massive collection of stories. It may be that his Irish guide was spinning him a yarn but, again, why bother?
Whether true or not, what I really love about it is the association between power and a vulva. Which is absolutely the opposite of how British people in the 19th century felt about vulvas. Kohl doesn’t even use the word “vulva.” When he does use the vernacular, he talks about “female images.”
According to Kohl’s Irish guide, masons deliberately put these carvings over doorways and near windows to make them “more potent.”
No Two Sheelas Are The Same
As Amy’s post mentions, there’s a lot of speculation about the purpose of Sheelas. Were they symbols to ward off bad luck? Were they a joke left by cheeky stonemasons? Were they a judgement against female sexuality?
The answer is that nobody really knows.
BUT
Just as no two Sheela carvings are the same, a one-size-fits-all approach to analysis is the wrong way to go about it.
Instead of trying (and failing) to draw general conclusions, surely a better way forward is to look at each one in isolation or regional groupings. Yeah, I get it. It’s time-consuming and requires a lot of resources. But the idea that all medieval communities across Western Europe (and beyond) were identical is so incredibly problematic. For a start, it belongs to the 19th century.
And applying some laser focus to Sheelas might go some way in helping women’s history move from being a niche subject to occupying its (rightful) position in the front and centre.
Until next time,
Kaye x