Lucky Charms and Protection Spells: The Archaeology of American Folk Magic

Figure 1: A witch bottle

 

Contrary to what you may have learned about early American history colonists were not only deeply religious but also equally superstitious.  While they prayed and regularly went to church there is mounting evidence that demonstrates that they not only dabbled but participated in occult rituals.  Today’s blog post will explore the archaeology of American folk magic, discussing what folk magic is, why it was practiced by American colonists, as well as some of the examples of magical artifacts thus far discovered.

 

Folk magic is simply a means of influencing supernatural forces either for good or ill fortune.  There is no formal instruction in folk magic.  It is typically passed down orally through the generations.  Typically, folk magic is a type of apotropaic magic, meaning it is practiced as a means of warding off harm or encouraging beneficial outcomes.  Most individuals who practice folk magic do so because they are anxious about something and want to feel control over that situation and its resolution.

 

Figure 2: Concealed shoe

 

American folk magic is associated with a variety of groups, specifically European colonists and African American slaves.  Due to a variety of reasons it is difficult to pinpoint which groups contributed which elements to American folk magic.  Part of the reasons stems from the similarities in motivations and methods in folk magic between these two groups.  This is also why the groups were able to come together and blend their folk magic practices, which continue to pervade modern superstitious practices and beliefs (e.g. four leaf clovers, horseshoes on doors, etc.).

 

Archaeologists have identified a variety of artifacts associated with early American folk magic, including witch bottles (Figure 1), concealed shoes and clothing (Figure 2), concealed cats, buried horse skull, dolls and poppets, and written charms (Figure 3).  Witch bottles are bottles containing sharp objects, typically nails, and a victim’s urine, which were buried in a location to either break a bewitchment or lure the witch out.  Concealed shoes and clothing are worn out items, most often shoes, that are concealed in the walls of homes and buildings.  There are several hypotheses for why these items were hidden away, but their proximity to doorways, windows, and chimneys suggest they were meant to ward off evil spirits.  Similar in motivation to these objects was the concealment of mummified cats and horse skulls, which are actually very seldom found throughout the US but are quite common throughout Europe.  Dolls and poppets are closely described as modern day “voodoo” dolls in that they were human figurines crudely constructed from wood, clay, wax, or cloth and often harmed (through burning, twisting, and stabbing with needles) in order to inflict injury onto someone else.  Written charms were as they sound-cleverly worded spells meant to bring good or ill fortune depending on what was written on the paper.  Typically, the written charm was on the person of whomever was to receive the blessing-be it good or bad, meaning they would be worn in necklaces or in pockets.

Figure 3: Written charm

 

Bibliography

Arehart, K. (2016, October 31). Cunning Folk and Conjurors: Folk Magic in Colonial Virginia. Retrieved from Lives & Legacies: Stories from Historic Kenmore and George Washington's Ferry Farm: https://livesandlegaciesblog.org/2016/10/31/cunning-folk-and-conjurors-folk-magic-in-colonial-virginia/

Costello, J. (2014). Tracing the Footsteps of Ritual: Concealed Footwear in America. Historical Archaeology, 48(3), 35-51.

Keck, G. (2020, September 21). Spells, Charms, Curses, and Concealments | American Archaeology. Retrieved from Archaeological Conservancy: https://www.archaeologicalconservancy.org/fall-2020-spells-and-charms/?fbclid=IwAR1rfLbz7J1koXyZTF91F41KPDx_fY-FC3OxCbNTxB9yk02rJp90cIR_mlg

Manning, M. C. (2014). Magic, Religion, and Ritual in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology, 48(3), 1-9.

Manning, M. C. (2014). The Material Culture of Ritual Concealments in the United States. Historical Archaeology, 48(3), 52-83.

 

Linguistic Profiling

Have you ever answered the phone or called someone you are unfamiliar with, such as making an appointment for services or gotten an unsolicited phone call, heard the voice on the other end of the line, and been filled with a strong emotional response?  I want you to seriously think on your answer to that question for a moment.  Was your response to hearing that stranger’s voice a positive or a negative one?  Chances are we have all experienced these types of calls and had different emotional responses-good or bad-based simply on the sound of the voice on the other end of the line.  I have had friends work in call center positions, and they have reported how customers would react based on how they (my friends) sounded when answering the call with a simple, “Hello, this is (Name) from (company).  How can I help you?”  Everyone had the exact same script they had to use, but the way their voice sounded directed how the call would go from there, with either a happy or irate customer.  This anecdote is meant to introduce you to today’s concept that will be discussed further: linguistic profiling.  This blog post will discuss what it is, its implication, and a potential solution to this very real problem.

 

Linguistic profiling is a concept coined by John Baugh.  It is defined as the “auditory equivalent of visual racial profiling” (Baugh, Linguistic Profiling 155) in which the way someone sounds causes them to lose access to goods or services.  Linguistic profiling is a judgement made based simply on the accent someone uses, referring to how one pronounces words when verbally communicating. 

 

There are two types of linguistic profiling: preferential and discriminatory.  Preferential linguistic profiling occurs when someone’s accent is viewed in a favorable manner and they are provided normal or greater access to goods and services.  Using the above example when my friends working at the call center were viewed as having a favorable accent they were treated much more kindly by customers.  Preferential linguistic profiling can also occur among individuals who feel that they share a common accent, which is often called inclusive profiling, thereby leading to people feeling a greater affinity with those who sound like them.  Discriminatory linguistic profiling is when someone’s accent is viewed unfavorably and they are denied access to goods and services.  With the above example when my friends working the call center were identified as speaking an unfavorable accent the customer would often be far more irritated, impatient, and rude.  Discriminatory linguist profiling is typically most often used against Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPoC), but it can also affect Whites who have an unfavorable accent.  It can also be used in a way to exclude individuals from identity groups because they do not sound like the expected norm (e.g. Black individuals with foreign or dominant English accents).

 

John Baugh became interested in linguistic profiling based on his own experiences growing up as a child in Los Angeles and later in his experiences as an African American linguistic scholar.  He found that when he sounded a certain way he was provided access to goods and services, particularly if and when his physical body was not seen.  From this he conducted a series of experiments wherein he spoke specific minority accents and asked about housing availability.  He would speak with an African American/Black accent, a Latinx dialect, and then a Standard American (White) dialect, and he would ask the same question, “Hello, I am calling about the apartment to rent.  Is it still available?”  He continually received negative responses (e.g. “No, it’s no longer available”) when he spoke in both the African American/Black accent and Latinx dialect but would receive positive responses (e.g. “Yes, it is still available”) when he spoke in the Standard American (White) dialect. 

 

The implications of linguistic profiling are very profound.  Discriminatory linguistic profiling is a subtle but very real form of racism.  Because racism is strongly correlated with what someone looks like and very rarely associated with the immaterial/nonmaterial aspects of identity it is difficult to prove.  It is, however, a very real phenomenon, cited in various court cases, complaints in illegal dismissals from jobs, and denial of housing applications.  It is also not just a problem in the United States but a global issue.

 

John Baugh points out that linguistic profiling can be overcome.  By giving everyone a chance regardless of how they sound and being accepting of various accents one can begin to reduce and remove linguistic profiling.  This is easier said than done, but by being aware of the problem and one’s biases (either for or against) specific accents one can begin the individual process of reducing and removing linguistic profiling bias.  If each person who reads this post were to do that then the problem would begin to diminish and eventually disappear.

 

Bibliography

Baugh, John. "Linguistic Profiling." Makoni, Sinfree, et al. Black Linguistics: Language, Society, and Politics in Africa and the Americas. New York: Routledge, 2003. 155-168. Print.

—. TEDx Talks: The Significance of Linguistic Profiling. Atlanta, 28 June 2019. Video.

Mena, Mike. John Baugh - "Linguistic Profiling" (2003). 25 April 2020. Video.

 

 

 

 

 

The Flawed Logic of the Biology of Race: Reexamining Forensic Anthropological Biological Affinity Methods

Forensic anthropologists are vital in identifying victim profiles when typical methods, which are usually completed by a medical examiner, witness, or law enforcement officer, cannot be utilized.  Forensic anthropologists are responsible for various aspects of a victim’s identity based on their skeletal remains in order to identify who they were so justice can be served and family’s reach closure.  These are very hefty responsibilities that fall upon forensic anthropologists, and it is important to know what can and cannot be done by a forensic anthropologist.  One of the victim profile requirements, specifically related to identifying a victim’s race, has recently come under necessary scrutiny, and this blog post will further explore this topic by noting the problematic nature of race analyses within the field of forensic anthropology.

 

With victim identification forensic anthropologists are responsible for identifying the sex, age-at-death, stature, and various other aspects of a victim’s biology, which includes the problematic matter of the victim’s race.  This analysis comes under several names, including biological affinity, ancestry, and population affinity, but ultimately they all meet the same requirement: applying a “race” to the victim.  This is meant to act as an additional factor in narrowing down who the victim may be.  This is particularly pertinent and necessary if and when there are multiple potential victims the deceased could be, such as in cases of mass disasters or areas where there are multiple missing persons who could be deceased. 

 

As necessary as the need for multiple identity factors is for specifically identifying who a deceased individual is the use of race as one of those components is incredibly problematic, for the reasons listed in the points below:

-First, there are no morphological characteristics that are exclusive to any one human group.  Genetically speaking all humans, regardless of “race” or “biological affinity”, are 98% similar, and there is greater variation within “racial groups” than among all humans globally.  As noted in a previous post and in the strict stance taken by the American Anthropological Association there is no biological evidence to support “races” and race is recognized as a strictly sociocultural concept.

-Second, the methods used by forensic anthropologists to identify “race” are falsely believed to be heritable in nature, and they actually are not.  Furthermore, the methods used by forensic anthropologists are different from those used by skeletal biologists, bioarchaeologists, and population geneticists.  Their methods have been and are continually tested to determine their validity and acceptability, and any and all limitations are expressly noted within studies.  This is not the case in forensic anthropological reports, wherein the methods are popularized as flawless and conclusions definitive.

-Third-Part 1, racial classifications used by forensic anthropologists are limited and do not match the diverse array of “racial” groups that most societies recognize.  Therefore, the “race” assessment made by the forensic anthropologist may not match up with what the victim self-identified as or as others who knew the victim would identify. 

-This has actually happened in a case in Montana.  A deceased woman discovered almost 40 years ago was misidentified by her teeth as being of Asian descent, but in reality she was Caucasian.  This misidentification led to her case not only remaining unresolved for several decades but caused her son, who spent years looking for her, to not conclude that she was in fact his mother quite simply because she had been misidentified as Asian.

-Third-Part 2, furthermore, as reports are handed to law enforcement agents who ultimately make the victim identification they may misidentify a victim’s race at any point in the investigation, thereby delaying justice.

-In this vein there is also the issue of whether or not the criminal justice agents will conduct an adequate investigation if a victim is viewed as being of an inferior “race” or group, as well as problems with minority populations reporting missing individuals to criminal justice officials due to the history of mishandling investigations or inappropriate conduct between both parties.

-Fourth, the forensic anthropological methods continue to support flawed logic of biological determinism, which forwards and promotes racist, prejudicial, and discriminatory stereotypes and ideas about “racial” groups.

-Fifth, the forensic anthropological methods for determining “race” are based on flawed science.

 

It is of the utmost importance, particularly given the sensitive and critical role of the forensic anthropologist, that victim identification methods be as accurate and thorough as possible.  It is the argument of thoroughness that has led many forensic anthropologists to be unwilling to abandon these methods, but it is a subject that requires a great deal of scrutiny and reevaluation.  As the forensic anthropological methods related to identifying race are problematic and the “race” concept is not biologically supportable it would seem best that this measure of victim identification be abandoned.

 

References

Bethard, J. D., & DiGangi, E. A. (2020). Letter to the Editor—Moving Beyond a Lost Cause: Forensic Anthropology and Ancestry Estimates in the United States. Journal of Forensic Science, 1-2.

Murphy, H. (2021, May 13). Remains Found 36 Years Ago in Montana Are Identified. New York Times.

Welsch, R. L., Vivanco, L. A., & Fuentes, A. (2017). Anthropology: Asking Questions about Human Origins, Diversity, and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.