Goods Grave and Persistence through Change Archaeology has begun a revolution away from theory and toward the study of practice. Instead of focusing on the large scale of identity formation, archaeologists have become increasingly fascinated with la vie quotidienne--those mundane, everyday routines that help to characterize identity in preconscious ways. Still, as much criticism as has battered those who emphasize it, culture remains on some level an important focus in studying the history of people. Daily habits are in themselves cultural rituals, and words like "doxa," meant to be associated with practice theory, reflect as a clouded glass the generalized idea of culture. Important distinctions exist between cultural theorists and practice theorists, but some areas of study help to link these two lenses, to turn the telescopic into the binocular, in order to form a more cohesive picture of a people. One such area of study is that of mortuary customs. Not only does it reflect the culture, the system of meanings established by a group, through its spiritual importance, it also illuminates important practical and political implications considered important to practice theorists. Death is unique in that it is at once deeply personal and tragic, but also common and ordinary. For this reason, many archaeologists and anthropologists find it an interesting and important subject of examination. Both Dr. Bragdon and Dr. Nassaney rank among this group of scholars. Both study the Native American groups of southern New England--and both examine grave goods. Needless to say, this could easily be where the similarities end. In general, the range of theoretical
approaches researchers take makes direct substantiation by other researchers incredibly improbable (Joyce 367). But the assessments performed by Bragdon and Nassaney seem to complement each other; in fact, Nassaney seems to present an expansion of Bragdon's ideas, some answers to her questions, while maintaining, of course, his particular focus on Native American gender roles. Both establish the individual character of burial before European contact in contrast to the cemetery form of burial after the colonists' arrival (Bragdon 25 Oct.; Nassaney 343). They also both emphasize the overall increase in grave goods, as well as the more specific, concentric increase in costly signaling behavior regarding mortuary customs (Bragdon 25 Oct.; Nassaney 343). Bragdon posed a series of questions regarding this shift, concentrating on the central idea
of agency (Bragdon 25 Oct.). Was this a method of reassurance in the face of a chaotic, changing lifestyle? Could it be related to a reconstruction of power? Nassaney seems to characterize this change in mortuary customs as an act of residence-- an attempt to stake out a claim in one's social world--rather than resistance, by the Native Americans (Silliman 195). The appointment of a ritual specialist centralized tradition and helped it retain a certain degree of its institutional character, even through a trend toward "democratized shamanism" (Nassaney 343, 357). Mortuary rituals adjusted to mimic increasingly the
traditional division of power (the chiefdom) in which a sachem was the central figure of a group, and the one people looked to for wisdom and leadership, as well as economic redistribution (Bragdon 25 Oct.). The transformation of burial practice represents a strong example of the paradoxical persistence of culture via change. The two anthropologists mention some shared reasons why this revolution was necessary. Both discuss the impact of epidemic diseases on native traditions (Bragdon 25 Oct.; Nassaney 345). When all of one's neighbors are dying without differentiation, it is easy to call one's ancestral beliefs into question (Nassaney 345). There are two possible natural responses to such a religious crisis: to abandon one's beliefs, or to participate with greater force in traditional rituals. Bragdon and Nassaney agree that the latter is more likely when considering the case of southeastern New England Native Americans. Nassaney points out the increased burial of effigy pestles--grinding tools with animal carvings on them--in the graves of women, and Bragdon reiterates the importance of this shift from utilitarian grave goods to spiritual ones (Nassaney 351; Bragdon 25 Oct.). Beyond their agreement on increased spirituality, both Bragdon and Nassaney present the economic transformations of the time as possible reasons for the elaboration of the grave sites. The introduction of the idea of currency--and the use of wampum as money--coincides directly with the elaboration of graves and increase in buried artifacts, particularly those related to status (Bragdon 25 Oct.; Nassaney 345). When the European concept of ascribing value to arbitrary objects becomes important, shiny objects and those goods in demand by Europeans begin to appear in graves (Bragdon 25 Oct.; Nassaney 346). both Certainly, scholars agree, this must have had some degree of agency. Those choosing what tools would be important in the afterlife must have felt that their loved ones may need to exchange valuable items as they needed to in life.
A specific concept brought up, interestingly enough, by both Bragdon and Nassaney is the fact that the graves of children in particular become more elaborate and rich (Bragdon 25 Oct.; Nassaney 343). Nassaney, with his particular study of women, hones in on the graves of prepubescent females, but shares with Bragdon a piqued interest in this phenomenon. Where the two differ, once again, is in their depth of analysis; when Bragdon poses questions as to the "why" of this counterintuitive finding, Nassaney proposes that it may be a reflection of the loss to society of the young girls (Bragdon 25 Oct.; Nassaney 343). At this point, it would seem that the two scholars are similar in their interpretation to a degree unheard of in archaeology. They certainly present strikingly similar explanations for the basic material trends in mortuary customs. If this was the only criteria important for assessing similarity of approaches, however, there would be far less debate in academia. As stated earlier, the two focuses are complementary; they are similar in the evidence they utilize, but their harmonizing nature is apparent in the fact that, considering only Nassaney's article and Bragdon's lecture, Nassaney utilizes research by Bragdon, not the other way around (Nassaney 360). Within these two scholarly presentations, Nassaney expounds upon the questions posed by Bragdon--especially: what does this research reveal about the relationship between the Native Americans and the colonists? In his study of gender roles and the impact of the colonial experience on them, Nassaney discusses in depth the jobs women took on in the changing world. In the face of political succession, women became sachems (Nassaney 345). Their labor was redirected toward the production of European-desired goods, especially wampum (Nassaney 350). They also took up pipe smoking, a traditionally male activity (Nassaney 353). These changes, which on the surface appear to relate to gender roles, mirror the simultaneous transformations happening in the realm of burial. Both trends illustrate the
expansion of a specific tradition into new spheres, whether it be a different gender or practice. Given the argument set forth by Nassaney, this represents a method of preservation as well as a search for stability (Nassaney 345). When culture is threatened by contact with another force, especially one as dominating and aggressive as the often-proselytizing European colonists, it makes sense to safeguard traditions by imitating them in as many quotidian routines as possible. Burial, in particular, being a private and secluded affair, makes sense as a cocoon in which cultural traditions can lie dormant until they are no longer threatened, and they can return to their
original spheres. Effigy pestles and masquettes are good examples of such cultural extension, rather than pure innovation. Interpreting the mortuary transitions seen in southeastern New England makes sense with the concept of doxa, as well. Stephen Silliman defines doxa as "the unquestioned and often unacknowledged shared backdrop of givens in discourse and social interactions" and emphasizes that the key to interpreting doxa is in the juxtaposition of heterodoxy (a break from the understood) and orthodoxy (making official the already understood) (Silliman 193-194). As an example, he shows how Native Americans choosing to maintain their traditions while being dominated by colonial society is heterodoxic when considered from the perspective of the multiethnic colonial community but orthodoxic from their perspective (Silliman 205). The state of dormancy--or at least, forced expansion--that Nassaney shows Native American traditions undergoing is the opposite of this. To an outside interpreter, the change toward ancestry in more spheres of everyday life would seem orthodoxic, while a Native American would easily perceive the difference (the female sachems and pipe smokers, in particular) as heterodoxic. This
makes sense; the struggle for maintenance of culture should appear different from the expansion of traditional culture. This realization, however, is impossible if one only considers Bragdon's approach to Native American mortuary customs. Even when considering her guiding questions, doxa is never brought to light, even implicitly (as it is in Nassaney's essay). And Nassaney's assessment would certainly be lacking without Bragdon's prior research. Each of their scholarly opinions is significant and contributes to the other. Independently, their ideas are persuasive; together they allow for a more complex and complete assessment of the same material evidence. In this way, the two approaches inform and complement each other.