Mary Rowlandson Transculturation

Assimilation and Transculturation in the Native American Society

In Colonial American history, Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison were taken as captives by two different Native American tribes almost one hundred years apart from each other. These two women have made a vast impact on post-colonial literature because of the ordeals they went through as Indian captives. As a political figure in Puritan society, Mary Rowlandson was taken from her home, became a captive of the Wampanoag Indians, and later ransomed for twenty shillings. Mary Rowlandson was merely a bartering tool for the Indians to get money and she did nothing beyond survival to coexist with her captors. On the other hand, Mary Jemison was taken captive with her family before being

separated from them and sold to two squaw sisters who adopted Mary to replace their brother who was killed in a battle. Mary Jemison’s transculturation into the Seneca way of life happened rather quickly because of her young age and she would remain with the Seneca Indians for the rest of her life.
These two women had families that came over from the United Kingdom in search of a better life. However, their ties to the colonial society in different time-periods of American history in which these two women have been removed from are noticeably diverse from each other. Through each Indian Captivity Narrative, each woman deals with holding onto their European culture, language, and religion in different ways. Because of this, my essay will show how the choices made by Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison through each circumstance affected the assimilation and transculturation of the two women in Native American society.
During Mary Rowlandson’s captivity, she constantly saw her situation as an affliction. She never saw the Wampanoag Indians as human being with souls but rather as the Devil trying to pull her from her faith. Her interactions with the Indians are mainly short and when interacting with the women, Rowlandson forgets the circumstances she is in and her attitude is short and snarky towards the women in the tribe as if she is still has the authority and rank from the Puritan society. For instance, during her time with Weetamoo, a maid asks for a piece of Rowlandson’s apron and Rowlandson replies:
“I told her I would not: then my Mistress had me give it, but I still said no.

The Maid told me, if I would not give her a piece, she would tear a piece off it: I told her I would tear her Coat then: with that my Mistress rises up: and takes up a stick big enough to have killed me, and struck at me with it, but I stept out, and she struck the stick into the Mat of the Wigwam. But while she was pulling of it out, I ran to the Maid and gave her all my Apron, and so that storm went over” (Kathryn Zabelle Derounian-Stodola 31).

Mary Rowlandson’s rebelling against the women in this remove of her narrative shows her attitude towards the Indian women is rampant until she receives not so subtle reminders of her current situation. For instance, almost being struck by an enormous stick would remind anyone that he or she no longer holds the title “Mister” or “Mistress” while in

captivity.
While many, including myself, believe that Mary Rowlandson shows undisguised hatred for the Native Americans, some would say that her writings of her time in captivity reflect something else and definitely more profound. The book American Puritanism and the Defense of Mourning by Mitchell Breitwieser gives a close reading of Mary Rowlandson’s narrative shows how the captivity narrative reflects Puritan society. A brief review of the book from June Namias packages the text concisely that “Breitwieser sees Rowlandson drawing together traditions of the funeral sermon, a vision of a New World Lot’s wife, and her own experiences, ultimately setting a new direction in Puritan thought” (Namias 1050). Rowlandson’s narrative would show the traditions of a funeral sermon with the thought that “in a minute death can and will come” (Breitwieser 72). This perspective gives a completely new perspective to Rowlandson’s narrative by highlighting the bitterness that Mary felt towards her captors.
The way Breitwieser talks of the grief that is ever constant in Mary Rowlandson’s narrative because of the deaths of many of her loved ones is like “a cold stone that won’t be swept along, but also a river that doesn’t eddy” (Breitwieser 77).

This is very much befitting Rowlandson’s attitude when confronted by the maid to give a piece of her apron. Although, her grief is most evident when considering how many times in the narrative she mentions her weariness. Great supporting evidence that I have found is in the eighth remove of Rowlandson’s narrative, after having crossed the Connecticut River and while sitting on the opposite shore waiting for the rest of her captors to cross the text reads as

follows:
“Then my heart began to faile; and I fell a weeping; which was the first time to my remembrance, that I wept before them. Although I had met with so much Affliction, and my heart was many times ready to break, yet could I not shed one tear in their sight; but rather had been all this while in a maze, and like one astonished; but now I may say, as Psal. 137.1. By the Rivers of Babylon, there we sate down, yea, we wept when we remembered Zion” (Derounian-Stodola 24).
This passage firmly endorses the stance Breitwieser takes of Mary Rowlandson’s Indian captivity narrative taking the form of a funeral sermon. This is the first time Rowlandson has had a chance to collect her thoughts and to grieve the loss of her loved ones. At this point there is still the possibility she may never be reunited with her loved ones or see her son, Joseph, again. This was a time of survival for Mary Rowlandson; although, there was some transculturation through her means to survive by using her skills as a seamstress to her advantage among the Wampanoag Indians as a bartering tool to help her survive. While Mary Rowlandson refused to assimilate because of her faith in God that she would be delivered to her family despite the afflictions, Mary Jemison would essentially assimilate into the Seneca tribe because of malleable age she was at during the time of her captivity.
Although Mary Jemison’s mother and father were religious, Mary does keep her childhood faith after living with the Seneca for a period-of-time. However, in the beginning of her captivity when her squaw sisters would not permit her to talk in English in order to transculturate Mary into the Seneca culture, Mary would talk and pray in English when she was alone to keep the promise that she made to her mother before they were separated:
“My dear little Mary, I fear that the time has arrived when we must be parted forever Your life, my child, I think will be spared; but we shall probably be tomahawked here in this lonesome place by the Indians… but, if you leave us, remember my child your own name, and the name of your father and mother. Be careful and not forget your English tongue. If you shall have an opportunity to get away from the Indians, don’t try to escape; for if you do they will find and destroy you. Don’t forget, my little daughter, the prayers that I have learned you – say them often; be a good child, and God will bless you. May God bless you my child, and make you comfortable and happy” (Derounian-Stodola 136).
Nevertheless, in her old age when recounting her life to the gentleman writing her story she has let go of her childhood religion and has taken on worshipping the gods and spirits of the people who have become her people. This further shows how much transculturation has taken place even though she has spent seventy years of her life – at the point of her meeting with the white gentleman – with the Seneca Indians.
James Axtell enters the scholarly conversation at this time by bringing up the conversation of white colonists and even Native Americans wanting to assimilate back into American Indian society after being released from captivity. Several times in the article, Axtell quotes Benjamin Franklin’s writings on how colonists would react after liberation from Indian captivity. If a white American colonist had been taken captive possibly for adoption or even ransom “and [lives] a while among them, tho’ ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life” (Franklin quoted, Axtell 57). Most of these former captives will return freely to the Indian tribes they lived with previously because they had assimilated and transculturated to the Native American culture. An instance of when captives were to be delivered to freedom was in 1764 when the Indians were defeated at Bushy Run. There was no leniency for the Indian tribes, all “Englishmen, Frenchmen, Women, and Children, whether adopted in your Tribes, married, or living amongst you, under any Denomination or Pretence whatever” (Axtell 60) were to be returned to white society.
Many of the Indians’ took their captives at very young ages in order to “maximize the chances of acculturating them to Indian life” (Axtell 61) and it worked greatly to their advantage. This statement is backed up by Norman Heard’s White into Red. Throughout the book, Heard shows through multiple examples how critical age is to assimilating children into the culture despite how many years spent in captivity, their ethnicity, or religion – it was the most important thing. A chart on pages 131-132 shows the “degree of assimilation” attained based on the age of the captive – Mary Jemison had sixty-five percent degree of assimilation based being captured at age twelve by the Seneca Indians despite living with them for seventy-five years until her death at the age of ninety. This greatly shows how important age was for the Native Americans when assimilating white children into their culture.
Moreover, Mary Jemison became more assimilated into the Native American culture than Mrs. Rowlandson did because of age; however, Mary Rowlandson did transculturate some in order to meet a means of survival. Mary Jemison on the other hand assimilated into the Seneca culture more than fifty percent showing that she was more than likely to stay with the tribe because of how much her life and children were woven into the Indian tribe’s society. If Rowlandson was not so consumed by her grief and misery there would have been a possibility for some assimilation although probably not as effective.
In conclusion, the reason why Mary Rowlandson’s and Mary Jemison’s assimilation and transculturation into Native American cultures contrasted so much is it was largely based upon the critical age. Mary Rowlandson did transculturate some when using her sewing skills as a bartering tool; however, she was too focused on grieving the recent deaths of her family members and trying to survive to get back to what was remaining of her family. On the other spectrum, because of the promise made to her mother, the extermination of her family, and her critical age Mary Jemison assimilated into the Seneca culture very well. She grew to love the culture and even chose to worship the gods and spirits of her people. Had the situations been reversed, and Mary Rowlandson was at a critical age and Mary Jemison was older and had a family, the outcomes would definitely been completely different.