Blog 5: Give Me the Deetz (1965)

Give Me the Deetz (1965)

Blog 5: The Good and the Bad

Deetz, J. & Dethlefsen, E. (1965). The Doppler effect and archaeology: A consideration of the spatial aspects of seriation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 21(3), 196-206.

Deetz and Dethlefsen (1965) apply the doppler effect to historic cemeteries in order to study the movement of stylistic change on grave monuments across time and space. They follow a well-reasoned belief that, as a certain style moves further away from its locus, the frequency of it lessens and becomes more convoluted or diluted; however, the doppler effect cannot reasonably be applied to practices imbued with such cultural significance.

Although a cornerstone piece in historic cemetery work, the paper relies on the notion that cultural behaviour is regular and predictable. There are aspects of culture that are predictable, even when they are not necessarily universal, but the work of Deetz and Dethlefsen (1965) seems to reduce culture to numbers and formulas. This is problematic. Even more problematic is their attempt to situate what can surely be attributed to consumer choice and changing fashions to a larger cultural process. The Great Awakening, a religious movement that occurred in the mid 18^th century, cannot be used to explain stylistic change in mortuary monuments. They argue that a noticeable increase in the appearance of religious iconography on grave monuments is the result of this movement, as it marked a shift in religious thought. Multiple authors have effectively demonstrated this cannot be the case (e.g., Heinrich, 2014; Mallios, 2014).

This article, in my less than humble opinion, is objectively bad. I can forgive the application of the Doppler Effect to historical cemeteries research, in order to develop an understanding for how styles move and change across time and space. What I find unforgivable is the notion that a cultural movement can be used to explain stylistic change across time and space. It simply does not compute because, if there is one thing I have learned about historical cemeteries, it is that fashion is everything. People do not select symbols or certain monument styles because their mode of thought is changing; their choices are dictated by fashion and fads. As a result, I reject Deetz and Dethlefsen’s (1965) conclusion that The Great Awakening is responsible for the appearance of cherub symbols on grave monuments.

Despite the flawed nature of Deetz and Dethlefsen (1965), and my personal qualms with it and this type of thinking, it is a seminal study and the authors are often credited with initiating historical cemeteries archaeology and research.

Heinrich, A. R. (2014). Cherubs or Putti? Gravemarkers demonstrating conspicuous consumption and the Rococo fashion in the eighteenth century. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 18(1), 37-64.

            Following the work of Deetz and Dethlefsen (1965), Heinrich (2014) studies the cherub icon, also referred to as the putti, on colonial-period grave monuments. Using the existing body of literature, the paper interrogates the relationship between ideology and commemoration. The author rejects Deetz and Dethlefsen’s (1965) conclusion that changing religious attitudes are responsible for the observable changes in iconographic and decorative change on historical grave monuments.  Instead, Heinrich (2014) argues that consumer choice, connected to the latest fashion, is the driving force behind stylistic evolution. This is the good stuff!

            Beginning in the 18^th century, Rococo fashion established itself as the fashion of the elite classes. Rococo, the high fashion of the time, departed from the previously dominant Renaissance and Baroque Classicism styles by establishing highly ornamental and asymmetric, naturalistic curved forms and embellishments. The “spirit of the Rococo” was one of elegance, lightness and movement. This movement incorporated Classical elements and sculpture with allegorical figures – particularly putti (Heinrich, 2014, 42). As a result, the cherub/putti cannot be interpreted as an exclusively religious emblem. Instead, it must be understood as an icon that was popularized for its evocation of a specific aesthetic and its connection to a fashion trend. Though incorrect, its attribution to religiosity is likely due to the common association of death with religion and concepts of an afterlife. As Heinrich (2014) indicates, the decorations, especially the imagery or iconography found on gravestones, have generally been married to religious interpretations. Subsequently, scholars have mistakenly associated evolutions of the imagery found on the markers with religious movements (Heinrich, 2014, 38).

As many scholars have indicated, Deetz and Dethlefsen’s (1965) connection of gravestone iconography to the Great Awakening was based on a fallacy. Religious connections to iconography are flawed because they are largely based on that supposition that religious groups were uniformly monolithic. In sum, there are too many variables unanswered by religious explanations. Heinrich (2014) contributes to this general consensus among scholars by demonstrating that some geographic areas and people rejected the “Great Awakening” movement, and yet putti are found on their gravestones.

Ultimately, grave monuments exist as public displays of status and purchasing power, which are inextricably connected to “markets fed by a flourishing of crafts and fashions” (Heinrich, 2014, 41). It effectively demonstrates that the dynamism of historical cemeteries must be understood as the result of ever-evolving fashion and fads and makes clear that situating mortuary practice within larger cultural processes, such as religious movements, is problematic.

Conclusion

Deetz and Dethlefsen (1965) are trying to make the data do more than what it is capable of. Their findings are beyond the scope of the dataset and their objective is simply too ambitious. To rely on The Great Awakening to explain observable changes in historical cemeteries is entirely unconvincing and, to make their case, much more data is needed – though I would argue that more data would not lead them to the same result. In contrast, Heinrich (2014) works within the scope of his data, building successfully off of previous scholarship. It is logical and sound reasoning. This contrast highlights a key difference in weak versus strong scholarship.

Another strength to Heinrich (2014): he fills a gap in the literature. Do you ever read pieces of work that are so beautifully logical that it seems almost entirely obvious? Those articles which make a point you can hardly believe is something that is just now being correctly explained? Pieces that are so well written that you are left thinking of course this is the answer! It seems to fill a gap in the literature and makes perfectly sound conclusions, drawing great connections from other bodies of literature to do so. For me, this is Heinrich (2014). It feels like a breath of fresh air after being left wholly unconvinced and unsatisfied by the longstanding conclusions of Deetz and Dethlefsen (1965) who report on the same phenomenon.

Although I consider Deetz and Dethlefsen (1965) to be the ‘bad’ and Heinrich (2014) to be the ‘good’ for the purposes of this assignment, I understand that there is a place for both within the literature. A positive aspect of both is that they are direct; they do not mince words. Never once is the audience confused about what the authors are attempting to convey, how they go about proving their point and what evidence they have to do so. This had made both pieces generative and I think this is ultimately the mark of ‘good’ research and scholarship, whether I agree with their conclusions or not. Ultimately, you may give me the Deetz (and Dethlefsen, 1965).