
































Microsoft Word - Brennan final.docx


 1 

 
 

Locating the materiality of anxiety and magical practices in Puritanical New 
England 

 
C. RILEY AUGÉ, 2020, The Archaeology of Magic: Gender and Domestic Protection in 
Seventeenth-Century New England, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 304 pp., ISBN 978-
0-81306-611-0. 
 
Keywords: magic, apotropaic practices, religion, gender, Puritans  
 
Ritual and magic have long been subjects of anthropological fascination, though while extensively 

explored in historical studies (especially regarding the consequences of witchcraft), archaeological 

inquiry with such a specific focus is rare. C. Riley Augé’s present study aims to explore how 

seventeenth century British colonists, new to New England, engaged in magical practice, 

specifically apotropaic (protective) practices, and whether that practice differed across gender. In 

compiling evidence from primary documents and folklore, Augé seeks to develop criteria for 

identifying gender specific apotropaic magical practices in the archaeological record. The book is 

organized into nine chapters, an introduction (Chapter 1), chapters that serve as the foundation 

with definitions, theories, and background information (Chapters 2-5), three chapters of data 

(Chapters 6-8) and a conclusion (Chapter 9).  

 

The first chapter serves as an introduction, in which Augé outlines the need for such a study on 

the intersections of protective magic and gender, given the lack of previous studies in historical 

archaeology, as well as how such a study contributes to the understanding of human responses to 

perceived dangers. Augé situates her book as a contribution to the emerging field of the 

archaeology of anxiety and affective experience. As Fleisher and Norman (2016) summarize in 

the introduction to The Archaeology of Anxiety, the senses, which include feelings, have a bearing 

on the construction and reconstruction of our everyday lives. Archaeologists can do better as far 



 2 

as theorizing and identifying the potential materiality of emotions (Tarlow 2000), a task which 

Augé undertakes in the present study. This book specifically examines how magic was used as a 

response to certain stressors and as a strategy of risk management in Puritan society from 1620 to 

1725.  

 

As explored in Chapter 2, magic and ritual have been variably defined by anthropologists over the 

years, and many definitions are context-dependent and rely on a contrast to definitions of religion. 

Augé herself does not offer a working definition of magic, only that her focus is of magic as an 

“inclusive, systemized, ritualized practice” (13). As explained in this chapter, the book’s focus is 

apotropaic practices utilized in the domestic space and the material culture reflects what Dušan 

Borić (2003, 48) calls a “technology of protection,” namely as they are structured around the most 

vulnerable places of homes: thresholds.  

 

Chapter 3 details the theoretical underpinnings of the book that traces the theory of identifying 

magical material culture archaeologically to the difficulty of abstracting both gender and magic 

from such material culture. Since apotropaic practices were used by New Englanders as a 

supernatural solution to certain stressors and uncertainties, Augé brings attention to the psychology 

theory of fear, how gender influences what we fear, and what approaches were taken to mitigate 

that fear in the past. The subsequent discussion of agency theory contextualizes the ability and 

choice of New Englanders to practice magic during a time when it was religiously and secularly 

sanctioned.  

 

In Chapter 4, Augé effectively explains the Puritanical world view, one governed by strict religious 

doctrine coupled with a belief in the supernatural and magical ritual, especially of rituals related 

to risk management and conflict resolution with specific references to numerology and magical 

symbolism. Then in Chapter 5, Augé describes the multi-faceted struggle which guides the reader 

in appreciating the stressors faced by the Puritans landing in a New World that was not at all what 

they expected. Coupled with an understanding of their world view from the previous chapter, Augé 

highlights the high-stress and risk-filled environment of the early colonists. Here Augé argues that 

archaeologists must extend their parameters of study beyond the witchcraft trials of Salem in order 

to comprehensively understand the role of gender in magical practice, while at the same time (in 



 3 

the next chapter) situating the present study around New England precisely because the witchcraft 

persecutions offer an abundance of historical evidence.  

 

In Chapters 6, 7, and 8, Augé presents data collected from each of three sources respectively, 

primary documents (court records, diaries, letters, etc.), folklore, and archaeological excavations. 

In Chapter 6, tabulations from Salem witchcraft trial papers revealed that both men and women 

accused women of boundary violations far more often than either accused men. Based on this 

evidence, Augé suggests that both men and women feared a woman who does not follow 

appropriate gender norms as outlined by social and religious boundaries as they are most likely to 

use supernatural destructive power. 

 

The following chapter summarizes the data found from folklore regarding how men and women 

differentially utilized magic as protection from supernatural forces. The folklore data, especially, 

delves into beliefs regarding the apotropaic qualities of plants. Here Augé highlights the 

importance of examining a variety of datasets and how collaboration with ethnobotanists can 

further identification of ritual practices in the archaeological record. Chapter 8 is then dedicated to 

the archaeological evidence of apotropaic practices, namely to the artifacts of previous homestead 

excavations. The chapter reads like a cautionary tale for excavation methodology, since some of 

the official reports are from excavations conducted over 50 years ago and contain artifact 

descriptions void of context.  

 

The final chapter serves as a conclusion of how fear of breached gender norms may have 

contributed to differential use of apotropaic practices. Much of the gendered apotropaic practices 

identified are centered around the gender roles and division of labor between men and women in 

Puritan society. In this regard, a more theoretical grounding of gender or feminist theory as it has 

been applied archaeologically (e.g., Gilchrist 1994; Meskell 2002; Sørensen 2013) would 

strengthen Augé’s analysis of the gendered use of apotropaic practices. Additionally, 

considerations of power dynamics and the patriarchal implications of both genders fearing the 

misuse of supernatural forces from women would bolster the analysis of agency.  

 



 4 

As Augé explores in Chapter 2, the practice and belief in magic is ubiquitous across time and 

cultures, so that the methodological and interpretative practices outlined in this book can serve as 

a template even to archaeologists studying disparate locals. Anthropologists seeking to analyze 

archaeological evidence, or conduct their own excavation, to uncover the materiality of magical 

practice, will especially appreciate the framework outlined here. While the framework and 

methodological considerations are well founded for the topic, the analysis of why men and women 

differently utilized apotropaic practices is not fully flushed out in the present study. With three 

major sources of data (primary written documents, folklore, and archaeology), it is hard to organize 

the presentation and subsequent analysis in a way that completely satisfies the questions posed. 

Overall, the book is successful in its endeavor, as Augé lays out a logical and straightforward 

method to not only designing an archaeological approach that is specific to the excavation of 

magical material culture but also ways in which to examine past excavations for such evidence. 

 
 
Works Cited: 
 
Borić, Dušan. 2003. ‘Deep time’metaphor: mnemonic and apotropaic practices at Lepenski 
Vir. Journal of social archaeology, 3(1), 46-74. 
 
Fleisher, Jeffrey and Neil Norman. 2016. The Archaeology of Anxiety: The Materiality of 
Anxiousness, Worry and Fear. New York: Springer.  
 
Gilchrist, Roberta. 1994. Gender and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Religious Women. 
Routledge.  
 
Meskell, L. 2002. The intersections of identity and politics in archaeology. Annual review of 
anthropology, 31(1), 279-301. 
 
Sørensen, M. L. S. 2013. Gender archaeology. John Wiley & Sons. 
 
Tarlow, Sarah. 2000. Emotion in Archaeology. Current Anthropology 41 (5): 713-746.  
 
 
Emily Brennan is a Ph.D. candidate in the Anthropology Department at the University of South 

Carolina. Her research focuses on the health dynamics of late medieval and early modern Berlin 

in the context of urban growth and climate change. She is also interested in how gender, power, 

and agency inform morbidity and mortality trends seen in the past.  

 



 5 

 

 

 

© 2022 Emily Brennan 

 


