Making Space for Children in Archaeological Interpretations

8/9/2019 Making Space for Children in Archaeological Interpretations

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/making-space-for-children-in-archaeological-interpretations 1/12



78 Jane Eva Baxter

Archaeological competency for recognizing children’s

behavior in nonmortuary contexts has been limited because

of two primary factors. The first is a general bias of West-

ern scholarship that characterizes children’s activities asunimportant and peripheral to concerns of mainstream re-

search (Baxter 2005; Kamp 2001; Sofaer Derevenski 1994,

1997, 2000). The second is a corpus of literature present-

ing ethnoarchaeological and experimental data that suggest

children’s behavior is unpatterned and therefore unknowable

in the archaeological record (see below).

The research presented here actively questions this lat-

ter assertion and develops an archaeological methodology

for identifying children’s behavior in the distribution of ma-

terials at archaeological sites (Baxter 2000). By focusing on

children’s behavior and resulting artifact distributions rather

than material culture alone, this approach to thearchaeology

of childhood offers a methodological and theoretical basis

for studying children in sedentary societies in a variety of temporal and geographic settings.

Rethinking Previous Work: Children as

“Randomizing” and “Distorting” Factors

Archaeological literature linking the behavior of chil-

dren to the distribution of artifacts in the archaeological

record has been in existence since the 1970s. This literature

is composed of studies that used ethnoarchaeological obser-

vation (Bonnichsen 1973; Deal 1985; Hayden and Cannon

1983; Schiffer 1987; Stevenson 1990; Watson 1979) and ex-

perimental studies (Hammond and Hammond 1981; Wilk

and Schiffer 1979) to study site-formation processes. These

studies did not focus specificallyon children,with the excep-

tion of that of Hammond and Hammond (1981). Generally,

these studies were larger ethnoarchaeological analyses fo-

cusing on other aspects of behavior and site formation that

also briefly reported the activities of children. This research

has led to an assumption that children have a randomizing

and/or distorting effect on artifact distributions that makes

it virtually impossible forarchaeologists to study children in

behavioral contexts.

Itis both necessaryand possibleto question this assump-

tion based on thenature ofthe studies used in itsformulation.

The experimental studies that focused on children’s behavior

and resulting artifact distributions are problematic for two

main reasons: (1) the studies focused on children’s behav-

ior away from the home and (2) the studies used the results

of single observations or experiments as the basis for their

conclusions.

Archaeologists have conducted studies of children’s be-

havior as mapping exercises in vacant lots(Wilk and Schiffer

1979) and as observations of children’s behavior in gardens

(Hammond and Hammond 1981). While these studies un-

doubtedlyhave identified certain aspects of children’s behav-

ior, the problem is the appropriateness of such experiments

as an analogy for archaeological contexts. Archaeologistsgenerally do not excavate the historical or prehistoric equiv-

alent of a vacant lot but rather focus on domestic settings,

where different sets of social expectations and activities and

behaviors would be in place. Observations of children in

nondomestic settings do not offer insights as to how chil-

dren use and distribute material culture in and around their

homes.

The second issue is that these studies used very lim-

ited numbers of observations as the basis for their conclu-

sions. Patterning, random or otherwise, cannot adequately

be assessed after only a single play episode or test, and such

limited observations do not provide an adequate basis to

interpret the archaeological record. This latter problem is

shared by most ethnoarchaeological studies that have ad-dressed children’s behavior.

Ethnoarchaeological studies used to determine the

“randomizing” nature of children’s behavior were not de-

signed expressly with children’s behavior in mind, and thus

observations of children’s behaviors were not systematic

or comprehensive. The portions of these studies that do

refer to children have been used in a manner that David

and Kramer (2001:14, 16) have called “the cautionary tale,”

wherein ethnographic information acts as a spoiler to more

traditional and conventional archaeological interpretations.

The first such tale noted that children would take items

from their “proper places” or places of adult use or discard

and move them to other locations. The fact that children’s

behavior altered the material expressions of adult behav-

iors made children a “distorting factor” rather than active

members of the social unit under observation. The second

“cautionary tale” addressed children’s oftenatypical, uncon-

ventional,or unexpected uses of materialculture.When chil-

dren were observed using material culture differently than

adults, the behavior was described as random and defying

interpretation. Both of these tales were adopted into archae-

ology in a widespread manner, and both reflect the biases

against children as important social actors.

The Socialization of Children and Their Use

of Space

Critiques of previous research call into question

long-held assumptions about children’s behavior and the

archaeological record. Theoretical discussions of child-

hood socialization further suggest that children’s behavior

should produce patterned distributions of artifacts in the



Making Space for Children 79

archaeological record thatreflectculturalnorms, beliefs, and

practices.

Scholars of childhood share the belief that childhood

is a social category defined differently in each cultural set-ting (Baxter 2005; Kamp, this volume; Keith, this volume).

Particularly, social historians have noted that attitudes, defi-

nitions, and behaviors of children are culturally and histori-

cally situated and change in relation to the prevailing social,

political, and economic trends in society. As historian Karin

Calvert has noted:

Members of any society carry withinthemselves a work-

ing definition of childhood, its nature, limitations, and

duration. They may not explicitly discuss this definition,

write about it, or even consciously conceive of it as an

issue, but they act upon their assumptions in all of their

dealings with, fears for, and expectations of their chil-

dren. Every culture defines what it means to be a child,

how children should look and act, what is expected of

them, and what is considered beyond their capabilities.[Calvert 1992:3]

Members of every culture create and define children

through the process of socialization. This socialization pro-

cess transforms a newborn child into a social person who

is capable of interacting with others. Socialization is carried

out by individualsand organizations that impart messages to

children through a variety of techniques, including tutoring

and lecturing on certain subjects, rewarding and punishing

to reinforce certain attitudes and behaviors, and generating

opportunities that exposeor restrict children to certain expe-

riences (Damon 1988).However, the process of socialization

often is more passive and experiential in nature as “those

who know the social rules of a group or a culture display

this knowledge repeatedly in their everyday activities . . .

expert knowers perforce generate examples of the pertinent

databases all the time” (Gelman et al. 1991:250). Through

these various methods and messengers children are encul-

turated and socialized in all aspects of their culture and are

taught the norms, values, and behaviors deemed acceptable

or desirable in various social settings.

Many of these behaviors and expectations concern the

use of space.The useof space is culturally specific, so much

so that people often express uneasiness and disorientation

in situations in which spatial behavioral patterns differ from

those to which they are accustomed (Kent 1984:1). As Von

Bruck notes, “The meaning of spatial order is inextricably

linked to theinterpretationsgivento it by historicallysituated

social actors in a specific context of practice” (Von Bruck

1997:142). Children are taught the acceptable locations for

different behaviors, such as eating, sleeping, work, and play.

Locations deemed acceptable for these activities often vary

by age and gender. Adults socialize children in the use of

space by encouraging or restricting them to certain areas

and by discouraging or prohibiting them from others (Kent

1984:1; Spencer et al. 1989:107–108).

Hence, as children begin to explore their environment

theydo not encounter spaces that are culturally “neutral,” butrathereachspaceis givena cultural context andmeaning that

shapes the types of behaviors and activities that take place

there (Kent 1990; Rapoport 1990; Thomas, this volume).

Rapoport (1990:10) notes that it is possible to understand

directly the relationship between behaviors, the expressions

of cultural ideals, and theuse of space in a particular cultural

setting. Alongsimilarlines, otherresearchers have notedthat

divisions of age, sex, and social position are reproduced in

spatial divisions and act as a reflection of culturally segre-

gated behaviors and the cultural ideals that underlie those

social divisions (e.g., Moore 1986).

The types of spatial knowledge that are developed in a

child are dependent upon the types of culturally sanctioned

experiences, activities, and opportunities that are presented to them as they interact with their environment (Gauvin

1992:27). As adults prescribe and proscribe the use of cer-

tain areas for different children’s activities, they are shaping

children’s perceptions of the world around them and influ-

encing where children will spend their time and engage in

particular activities.

As theuse of space is heavily influenced by cultural fac-

tors, and as children’s relationships with their environment

are regulated as an integral part of their social development,

it should be expected that children would not use space in a

random fashion. Rather, children’s behaviors should demon-

strate regularities and patterning that reflect the social norms

and guidelines for children’s behavior and use of space in a

particular cultural setting. While children’s behaviors, like

those of individuals of other socially constructed categories

(e.g., adult gender), are not strictly governed by their so-

cial category, they are guided by these culturally prescribed

roles to a sufficient degree that these behaviors should be

reflected in the distribution of material culture encountered

in the archaeological record (Gibb and King 1991).

Children and Space in Domestic Settings:

A Generalized Model

Children’s development is shaped by both social and

ontological factors (Kamp, this volume; Perry, this volume),

and childhood socialization is only one way that children

learn about their environment. Many developmental factors

relating to children and their environments have been iden-

tified cross-culturally, making it possible to generate some

general ideas about children’s activities in domestic settings.

These general trends in children’s behavior may be used to



80 Jane Eva Baxter

develop testing strategies that will increase the likelihood

of encountering the remains of children’s activities in the

archaeological record.

Two major studies of children’s interactions with theenvironment have discovered that children use play as a

mechanismto gain experience with their environment andto

learn about the world around them (Hart 1979; Moore 1986;

see Thomas, this volume). The exploration of the physical

world is an important component of this learning experience.

Robin Moorehas noted that “children continue to asserttheir

urge to engage with the environment, to investigate and test

its possibilities, and to try things they haven’t tried before”

(Moore 1986:11). This sentiment is echoed by Roger Hart,

who wrote, “All children have the urge to explore the land-

scape around them, to learn about it, and to invest it with

meaning both shared and private” (Hart 1979:3).

Both of these researchers conducted descriptive studies

of children’s behavior in relation to the everyday environ-ment. These studies were designed to assess the cognitive

and spatial properties of the physical environment and the

development of place experience in children.The two studies

were conducted in a suburban community in Britain (Hart

1979) and in a more rural suburban community in New

England (Moore 1986). Although limited to industrialized

settings, these two large studies provide a consistent picture

of how children use and perceive space around their homes

independent of theirspecificcultural setting. The recent time

frame of these studies, however, does present two particular

issues for consideration.

Thefirst considerationis thatoverthe pastthree hundred

years children’s play has become increasinglycentered on the

home (Chawla 1994; Sutton-Smith 1994). Hence, a mod-

ern study of children’s behavior presents a more domestic-

centric view of children’s play than may have been typical

in earlier time periods. The increase in the domestic focus

of children’s play does not necessarily undermine the effi-

cacy of this general model for studying children’s behavior

in householdor communitysettings. It shouldbe noted, how-

ever, that there areother possible ranges of children’s behav-

ior that are not accounted for in a domestic-centric model

such as found in Hart’s and Moore’s studies.

A second consideration is the effect that industrial,

built environments have on children’s behavior. Community

spaces, such as playgrounds, sports fields, and parks are of-

ten designed to be locations of children’s play and this could

be considered a barrier to using these studies. However, ex-

tensive research has shown that children’s behavior varies

little when these types of communal play spaces are brought

into neighborhoods (e.g., de Connick-Smith 1990; Francis

1985; Frost 1989; van Andel 1985). Instead, children’s be-

havior has a greater tendency to be structured by parental

Figure 6.1. Idealized ranges of children’s play at domestic sites

(after Hart 1979 and Moore 1986).

consent and visibility and the desire to explore the immedi-

ate environment of the neighborhood. These two factors are

central in the studies used as the basis for this general model

of children’s behavior.

Data for these two studies were collected only on the

basis of firsthand exploration. The child and the researcher

walked through the neighborhood togetherand discussed the

types of activities that took place in different areas. Children

were also asked to draw maps of their neighborhood, identi-

fying the places they frequented. Observations made by the

children during trips taken in vehicles or on walks when par-

ents or other adults were present were not collected as data.

While each researcher came up with different explana-

tory categories for their findings, both researchers identified

a general, three-tiered model of “zones” or “ranges” of chil-

dren’s behavior (Figure 6.1). In each model, the child’s home

serves as the center of all activities, with concentric ranges

radiating outward. Behavioral ranges encompass areas of

play, leisure places, and the pathways that connect them.

Children’s activities are not distributed evenly throughout

these ranges but rather take place at relatively discrete lo-

cations within each range. Also, pathways used by children

often are not adult-determined routes but rather are chil-

dren’s short cuts that take them past more “interesting” fea-

tures of the neighborhood. The researchers also noted that

these ranges are as much defined by adult prescriptions and

proscriptions for children’s activities as by the children’s be-

haviors themselves.




Moore (1986) explains the three ranges of children’s

behavior on the basis of time available for play activities. In

Moore’s model, the innermost zone around the home is the

“habitualrange” that is accessible to children on a dailybasisfor short periods of time. The intermediate or “frequented”

range is a less accessible area used only when larger blocks

of time are available. The outermost zone or “occasional

range” is visited rarely on specialized excursions or outings.

The occasional range is unique in that only specific areas

within the zone are selected for children’s activity. These

areas are not interconnected by pathways within the zone

but rather are visited as back-and-forth trips between the

home and the specific play location.

In Hart’s (1979) model, interaction within the three

zones of behavior is determined by the need to gain parental

consent. Ranges are defined by a variety of factors, accord-

ing to Hart, including topography, visibility, and the pres-

ence/absence of dangerous features. The innermost zone inthis model is identified as the “free range” or the area where

children can go without asking or telling a parent prior to

eachexcursion. Theintermediate zoneis the “range withper-

mission” for which parental consent must be gained before

children can venture into play areas there. The outermost

zone is defined as the “range with other children” for which

children need to negotiate the nature, duration, and location

of play activities with their parents.

Both researchers also noted that age was the primary

factor determining the extent of each range, with range

boundaries expanding outward as children matured. Age

also was a factor in the types of experiences and actions that

took place in each range. Many areas that had been among

a child’s favorite at an early age were later abandoned as

their ability to explore new areas increased. However, with

almost every child studied, “As the full potential of newly

discoveredplaces is exploredin depth, a sense of attachment

and meaning arises. In some special places, the process can

go on for years with layers of successive play episodes accu-

mulating on thelandscape” (Moore 1986:19).Many of these

children’s “special places” were areas unused or abandoned

by adults, making them the exclusive domain of children

(Baxter 2000, 2005; Sobel 1990, 1993; Wilkie 2000).

Identifying Children’s Behavior in the

Archaeological Record: A Brief Example

Theories of socialization and generalized models were

combined to develop a testing strategy to identify patterning

in children’s behavior in the archaeological record (Baxter

2000). This testing strategy involved four critical compo-

nents. The first was the development of a social context

to aid in the identification of artifacts and the interpreta-

tion of identified behavior. The second was the selection

of sites conducive to identifying children’s behavior. Third,

a sampling strategy was developed to recover the remainsof children’s behavior, and, finally, analytical methods were

developed to search for patterning in children’s artifacts.

Creating a Social Context

A fruitful first step in the archaeological study of child-

hood is tocreate a socialcontextthatreconstructs thecultural

and social circumstances operating in a particular time and

place. Such a context acts as a framework both for identify-

ing children’s material culture and for interpreting children’s

behavior as reflected in artifact distributions. Specifically, a

social context makes it possible to generate expectations for

the nature and location of children’s activities in the archae-

ological record by identifying potential roles, behaviors, and expectations for children in a particular cultural setting. Ide-

ally, such a social context includes four main categories of

information. These are

1. The identification of which members of a social group

are defined as children,

2. The roles and behaviors that are expected of children in

a particular setting,

3. The children’s physical environment, including the mate-

rial items selected forchildren’s useand forchild rearing,

thearchitecture of thehome,and theplaces delineated for

children’s play outside of the home, and

4. The social environment of the children, including family

size and structure and the racial, ethnic, and class com-

position of their community.

Information for developing a social context can come

from a variety of sources.My research used primary andsec-

ondary historical data to create a social context for studying

childhood in 19th-century America. However, the ability to

study children archaeologically is not necessarily limited to

the historic period. In prehistoric cases, both ethnographic

and mortuary data may serve as fruitful sources of informa-

tion for creating a social context.

Site Selection

The remains of children’s behavior are present at most

archaeological sites, but the selection of appropriate sites is

still an essential component of investigating children’s be-

havior archaeologically. The idea that children’s behavior

produces identifiable patterns in the archaeological record

was evaluated using archaeological data from five sites rep-

resenting a variety of domestic settings that were occupied



82 Jane Eva Baxter

Figure 6.2. Sites used in this study (after Baxter 2000).

between 1820 and 1900 (Figure 6.2). These sites are as

follows:

1. Schyler Mansion in Albany, New York, which operated

as an orphanage during the late 19th and early 20th cen-

turies and wasan institutionassociated withsocial reform

operated by the Daughters of Charity.

2. The Felton Farmhouse in Westland, Michigan, an early

and modest farmstead dating from 1850 through the late1920s.

3. TheWilliam ConnerHousein Fishers,Indiana, an upper-

class rural residence of one of the most prominent pio-

neers in Indiana.

4. Orange Grove Plantation in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana,

a successful sugar plantation that operated from the late

18th century until emancipation.

5. O’Brien and Costello’s Bar and Shooting Gallery in Vir-

ginia City, Nevada, a saloon and boardinghouse in a very

rough part of town that operated during the later years of

the 19th century.

These sites represent a wide range of contemporaneous

domestic settings, including households of different socioe-

conomic means, ethnic backgrounds, and geographic loca-

tions. The use of a variety of domestic site types enabled

inter-siteas well as intra-sitecomparisons of materialculture

types and distributions associated with children. Inter-site

comparisons facilitated culturally specific interpretations of

how ideals of 19th-century childhood were translated in a

variety of domestic settings, while strengthening general in-

ferences about children’s behavior.

Specific sites were selected on the basis of four main

criteria in addition to their dates of occupation: (1) census

or other documentary sources for each site were available to

verify the presence of children; (2) each site had been sam-

pled systematically across the entire site area, enabling the

reconstruction of overall patterns of yard use and the identi-fication of features and activity areas; (3) each site provided

adequate evidence to reconstruct 19th-century domestic ar-

chitecture, either through the presenceof a standing structure

or through a combination of historic documents, archaeolog-

ical excavation, and the presence of comparable structures in

the vicinity; and (4) each site had been subjected to little or

no postdepositional disturbance since its 19th-century occu-

pation, making it possible to assess accurately the location

of features and activity areas in the archaeological record.

Sampling Strategy

Each of the sites was sampled using a combination of

extensive systematic shovel probe survey of the remaining

19th-century yard and larger excavationunits placed in areas

of interest (Figure 6.3). This sampling provided coverage of

all three “zones” or “ranges” of children’s behavior concep-

tualized in the urban planning models. Such an approach




Figure 6.3. Archaeological site map of the Felton Farmhouse site as a graphic example of the sampling strategy used at all five sites.

Solid black dots are shovel tests, numbered squares are excavation units. Outlines show the location of former and extant structures on

the property.

also allowed for the identification and investigation of spe-

cific activity areas within the yard area and the opportunity

to assess the location of children’s activities relative to other

yard features.

Analytical Methods

The data gathered from these excavations were ana-

lyzed using both graphic and statistical methods. For each

site, a contour map was generated that represented the rela-

tive artifact densities in the overall 19th-century assemblage

(Figure 6.4). Each contour map was created using data from

excavated 19th-century contexts and excluded artifacts clas-

sified as structural remains (see South 1977). Structural re-

mains, such as brick, mortar, nails, and window glass, are

found most often as dense concentrations that reflect the

presence of a structure and distort distributions associated

with other yard activities. These contour maps were gener-

ated using a standard artifact frequency (number of artifacts

perunit/excavatedvolumeof unit)ratherthan artifactcounts.

This standard artifact frequency provided a correction for

different unit sizes excavated at the same site, and there-

fore the density contours represent the relative concentra-

tion of artifacts, rather than differences in excavated volume

(Baxter 2000).

Children’s artifacts were identified using 19th-century

merchant catalogs and ladies’ publications. These historical

sources depict and discuss appropriate toys and clothing for

children and often make suggestions forhow thetoys should

be used and by whom. Children’s artifacts used in this study

included marbles, tops, toy soldiers, dolls and doll acces-

sories such as tea sets, as well as clothing items specific

to children’s outfits of the period. Counts of children’s arti-

facts were superimposed on the contour maps to illustrate

their spatial distribution across the site and the relationship

between the distribution of children’s artifacts and the dis-

tribution of the total assemblage. Because children’s artifact

assemblages tend to be numerically small, such a visual as-

sessment provides a useful means to identify patterns that

could not be revealed by statistical methods. Children’s ar-

tifacts are relatively abundant at the sites selected for this

study; however, they are still found in small numbers (be-

tween 37 and 153 artifacts). These quantities of artifacts are

adequate to perform certain statistical analyses and make up



84 Jane Eva Baxter

Figure 6.4. Contour map of relative artifact densities at the Felton Farmhouse with locations of children’s artifacts superimposed as

diamonds. A similar map was generated for each site in the study.

a large enough sample to assess reliably their distributions

using visual techniques.

The second component of this analysis was statistical.

A Kruskal-Wallis test, a nonparametric analysis of variance

that tests distributions against a theoretical equal population

distribution, was used. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to

test whether the differences in the samples can be explained

by simple random error and tested the null hypothesis that

children’s artifacts were distributed randomly across the site

area. To perform this test each site was divided into multi-

ple regions that corresponded to subjectively defined areas

around a domestic structure (e.g., front yard, back yard, side

yard). These regions were not defined on the basis of arti-

fact distributions but instead used clues from the particu-

lar landscape and built environment, as well as patterns of

site layouts documented for 19th-century homesteads (Moir

1987;Rotenizer1993; Rotman and Nassaney1997; Stewart-

Abernathy 1986).To account forthe differentnumber of test

units and different unit sizes among regions the standard ar-

tifact frequency (artifacts per cubic meter) was used (Baxter

2000; Figure 6.5).

Results and Conclusions: Children’s Behavior

and the Archaeological Record

This research strategy wassuccessful in identifying pat-

terned behaviors of children at four of the five sites used in

this study. Artifacts identified as children’s and child-related

in historical sources were patternedin ways thatwereboth vi-

sually identifiable and statistically significant (Baxter 2000).

The results of this study pointed to the issue of site size and

ranges of children’s behavior when searching for children in

behavioral contexts.

The largest site area analyzed in this study was Orange

Grove Plantation, which still has over 34,000 square me-

ters of remaining lands, which have been extensively sur-

veyed. Attempts to analyze children’s artifact distributions

overthe entiresitearea failed because of the sizeof the sam-

pled area. Children’s artifacts were clustered in proximity

to the domestic structures at the plantation, pointing to the

culturally bounded nature of children’s play spaces and ac-

tivity areas even on a large site. When the sample universe

was redefined to the areas around the domestic structures,

patterning was readily discerned in the children’s artifact

distributions.

The smallest site in the sample was a saloon and lodg-

ing house in Virginia City, Nevada, andthis was the only site

where there was no identifiable patterning in the children’s

artifact distributions. This site also was the only one in the

study where no actual “yard” areas were present, and the

areas available for children’s activity outside the home were

bounded by other cultural features such as adjacent struc-

tures and roadways. The lack of available yard space and the

resulting spatial constraints on children’s activities appear to




Figure 6.5. Site map of the Felton Farmhouse site showing regions. This same analytical process was done for each of the five sites in

the study.

have resulted in children using all available areas around the

home for their play activities.

Clear evidence for the patterning of children’s artifacts

did emerge at the remaining three sites, as well as in the

area around the domestic structure at Orange Grove Plan-

tation. These patterns also appear to be independent of the

overall distribution of artifacts,suggesting these patterns are

not simply the result of postdepositional processes operat-

ing on the entire assemblage. Hence, children’s behavior is

not“randomizing” or “distorting”but ratheris patternedand

identifiable in the archaeological record.

Theidentificationof a structuredpattern is notan expla-

nation for a distribution but rather an aid to interpret the cul-

tural processes that produced the pattern (Hodder and Orton

1976:30). One fruitful way to interpret children’s behaviors

in the archaeological record is to return to the social context

created for a particular study. Artifact distributions should

reflect not only children’s physical capabilities but also the

types of activities considered permissible and appropriate

for children in a particular cultural setting.

A brief example of how such an interpretation can

illuminate children, their lives, and their relationships to

others comes from the Felton Farmhouse data depicted in

Figures 6.3–6.5. Artifacts attributable to children are super-

imposed on a contour map showing the overall distribution

of artifacts. These artifact locations are represented by di-

amonds, and numbers adjacent to the diamonds represent

the quantity of children’s artifacts found at each location. A

visual inspection of these figures shows that children’s arti-

facts are found only in selected regions of the site. Nearly

60 percent of the children’s artifacts come from a 20-by-20-

meter area in the northern portion of the farmyard near the

garden and animal pen. Two concentrations of children’s ar-

tifacts are also noted, one directly adjacent to the north side

of the farmhouse and another in the extreme northwest cor-

ner of the sample universe where three children’s artifacts

were found in a single shovel test and another in an adjacent

unit. Almost all of the children’s artifacts are found within

the “habitual” and “general” ranges of children’s play in the

generalized model and therefore conform to the idea that

most children’s activity would take place closer to the home.

Children’s artifacts have a high degree of overlap with

adult artifacts and areas of household activity. The majority

of children’s artifacts were also identified in areas that could

easily be viewed from the Felton home, and therefore most

children’s activity could have been supervised directly or



86 Jane Eva Baxter

indirectly by adults. The association between children’s arti-

facts andthe gardenand animalpen suggests that these areas

may have been associated with tasks that were allocated to

children as their contribution to the household. Work and play may have been combined as children tended crops and

animals for their family’s consumption. Children in these

locations also would have been able to study adult activi-

ties taking place around them and through this process of

observation learned about the daily operations of a farming

household (see Keith, this volume).

There are places where adult artifacts occur indepen-

dently of children’s materials as well. These areas include

the yard areas around the barn, herb garden, and root cellar.

It may be possible that children did not assist their parents

with activities that occurred in these areas or that certain

aspects of these yard features were considered dangerous or

inappropriate for children.

The two areas where children’s artifacts are found independent of adult artifacts are also significant. The artifacts

found just to the north side of the Felton home are in an area

of otherwiselow artifact density that does not appearto have

beenthe location of any significant household activities. The

second concentration, in the northwest corner of the sample

universe, was located in an area that was under orchard culti-

vation in the 19th century. The first such concentration may

be evidence for children playing in a location where they

were not underfoot but still could be supervised by adults

inside and around the home. The second location, however,

is well outside any “habitual” range and is completely out of

sight from the Felton house and the areas of the active yard.

This small concentration of artifacts in the former orchard

may represent a secret or special place of childhood where

children went to play away from adult supervision.

The ability to identify patterns in the distribution of

children’s artifacts is important, as it unlocks the potential

to interpret children’s behavior through the archaeological

record, as well as the ability to relate children’s activities to

other household activities. Combining archaeological test-

ing with contextualizing evidence enables the identification

of these patterns, as well as the opportunity to offer expla-

nations for how and why they occurred. These relationships

suggested by patterned distributions of cultural materials

demonstrate that an understanding of children is not periph-

eral to mainstream research interests but is yet another lens

through which archaeologists can come to understand the

dynamics of past social groups.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the many people who have en-

couraged and assisted in my work on the archaeology of

childhood over the past several years. Tom Rocek, Jay

Johnson, and the reviewers from the Archeology Division of

the AAA were all immensely helpful in guiding me though

theprocess of this volumeand providing suggestions forthismanuscript.

References

Baxter, Jane Eva

2000 An Archaeology of Childhood: Children andMate-

rial Culture in 19th Century America. Ph.D. disser-

tation, Department of Anthropology, University of

Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms

International.

2005 The Archaeology of Childhood: Children, Gender,

and Material Culture. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira

Press.

Binford, Lewis R., and Sally Binford

1966 A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability

in the Mousterian of LeVallois Facies. American

Anthropologist 68(2):238–295.

Bonnichsen, Robson

1973 Millie’s Camp: An Experiment in Archaeology.

World Archaeology 4(3):277–291.

Calvert, Karin Lee Fishbeck

1992 Children in the House: The Material Culture of

Early Childhood, 1600–1900. Boston: Northeast-

ern University Press.

Chamberlain, Andrew T.1997 Commentary: Missing Stages of Life—Towards

the Perception of Children in Archaeology. In

Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gen-

der and Childhood into European Archaeology.

Jenny Moore and Eleanor Scott, eds. Pp. 248–250.

Leicester: University of Leicester Press.

Chawla, Louise

1994 Childhood’s Changing Terrain: Incorporating

Childhood Past and Present into Community Eval-

uation. Childhood 4:221–233.

Cheek, Charles D., and Amy Frielander

1990 Pottery and Pig’s Feet: Space, Ethnicity, and Neigh- borhood in Washington, D.C., 1880–1940. Histor-

ical Archaeology 24(1):34–60.

Damon, William

1988 Socialization and Individuation. In Childhood and




Socialization. G. Handel, ed. Pp. 3–10. New York:

Aldine de Gruyter.

David, Nicholas, and Carol Kramer 2001 Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Deal, Michael

1985 Household Pottery Disposal in the Maya High-

lands: An Ethnoarchaeological Interpretation.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4:243–

291.

de Connick-Smith, Ning

1990 Where Should Children Play? City Planning from

Knee-Height Copenhagen 1870–1920. Children’s

Environments Quarterly 7(4):54–61.

Francis, Marc

1985 Children’s Use of Open Space in Village Homes.

Children’s Environments Quarterly 1(4):36–38.

Frost, Joe L.

1989 Play Environments for Young Children in the

USA: 1800–1990. Children’s Environments Quar-

terly 6(4):17–24.

Gauvin, Mary

1992 Sociocultural Influence on the Development of

Spatial Thinking. Children’s Environments Quar-

terly 9(1):27–36.

Gelman, R., C. Massey, and M. McManus

1991 Characterizing Supporting Environments for Cog-

nitive Development: Lessons from Children in a

Museum. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cog-

nition. L. Resnick, J. Levine, and S. Teasley, eds.

Pp. 226–256. Washington, DC: American Psycho-

logical Association.

Gibb, James, and Julia King

1991 Gender, Activity Areas, and Homelots in the 17th

Century Chesapeake Region. Historical Archaeol-

ogy 25(4):109–131.

Hammond, G., and N. Hammond

1981 Child’s Play: A Distorting Factorin Archaeological

Distribution. American Antiquity 46:634–636.

Harrington, Faith

1989 The Archaeological Use of LandscapeTreatment in

Social, Economic, and Ideological Analyses. His-

torical Archaeology 23(1):1–44.

Hart, Roger

1979 Children’s Experience of Place. New York:

Irvington.

Hayden, Brian, and Aubrey Cannon

1983 Where the Garbage Goes: Refuse Disposal in the

Maya Highlands. Journal of Anthropological Ar-

chaeology 2:117–163.

Hiner, N. Ray, and Joseph M. Hawes

1985 Growing Up in America:Childrenin Historical Per-

spective. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Hodder, Ian, and Clive Orton

1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. New York: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Kamp, Kathryn

2001 Where Have All the Children Gone? The Archae-

ology of Childhood. Journal of Archaeological

Method and Theory 8(1):1–34.

Kelly, Robert L.

1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-

Gatherer Lifeways. Washington, DC: Smithsonian

Institution Press.

Kent, Susan

1984 AnalyzingActivity Areas: An Ethnoarchaeological

Studyin the Use of Space. Albuquerque:Universityof New Mexico Press.

1990 Activity Areas and Architecture: An Interdisci-

plinary View of the Relationship between the Use

of Space and Built Domestic Environment. In Do-

mestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An In-

terdisciplinary, Cross-Cultural Study. S. Kent, ed.

Pp. 1–8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moir, Randall

1987 Farmstead Proxemics and Intrasite Patterning. In

HistoricBuildings,Material Culture, and People on

the Prairie Margin. D. Jurney and R. Moir, eds. Pp.

229–237. Dallas: Archaeology Research Program

Institutefor theStudyof Earthand Man at Southern

Methodist University.

Moore, Robin

1986 Childhood’s Domain: Play and Place in Child De-

velopment. Dover, NH: Croom Helm.



88 Jane Eva Baxter

Rapoport, Amos

1990 Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings. In

Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An

Interdisciplinary, Cross-Cultural Study. S. Kent,ed. Pp. 9–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Rotenizer, David

1993 In the Yard: An Examination of Spatial Organiza-

tion and Subdivision of Activity Areas on Rural

Farmsteads of the Upland South. In Proceedings of

the Tenth Symposium on Ohio Valley Urban and

Historic Archaeology. Tennessee Anthropological

Association, MiscellaneousPaper16. A. Youngand

C. Faulkner, eds. Pp. 1–21. Knoxville: Tennessee

Anthropological Association.

Rotman, Deborah, and Michael Nassaney1997 Class, Gender, and the Built Environment: De-

riving Social Relations from Cultural Landscapes

in Southwest Michigan. Historical Archaeology

31(3):39–51.

Schiffer, Michael

1976 Behavioral Archaeology. New York: Academic

Press.

1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological

Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico

Press.

Sobel, David

1990 A Place in the World: Adults’ Memories of Child-

hood’s Special Places. Children’s Environments

Quarterly 7(4):5–12.

1993 Children’s Special Places: Exploring the Role of

Forts, Dens, and Bush Houses in Middle Child-

hood. Tucson: Zephyr.

Sofaer Derevenski, Joanna

1994 Where Are the Children? Accessing Children in

the Past. Archaeological Review from Cambridge

13(2):7–20.

1997 Engendering Children: Engendering Archaeology.

In Invisible People and Processes: Writing Gen-

der and Childhood into European Archaeology.

Jenny Moore and Eleanor Scott, eds. Pp. 192–202.

London: Leicester University Press.

Sofaer Derevenski, Joanna, ed.

2000 Children and Material Culture. New York:

Routledge.

South, Stanley

1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology.

New York: Academic Press.

Spencer, Christopher, Mark Blades, and Kim Morsley

1989 The Child in the Physical Environment. New York:

John Wiley and Sons.

Stevenson, Marc

1990 Beyond the Formation of Hearth-Associated Arti-

fact Assemblages. In The Interpretation of Archae-

ological Spatial Patterning. E. Kroll and T. Price,

eds. Pp. 101–119. New York: Plenum.

Stewart-Abernathy, L.

1986 Urban Farmsteads: Household Responsibilities in

the City. Historical Archaeology 20(2):5–15.

Stine, Linda F.1990 Social Inequality and Turn-of-the-Century Farm-

steads; Issues of Class, Status, Ethnicity, and Race.

Historical Archaeology 24(4):37–49.

Sutton-Smith, Brian

1994 Does Play Prepare for the Future? In Toys, Play

and Child Development. J. H. Goldstein, ed. Pp.

136–146. Berkeley: University of California Press.

van Andel, Joost

1985 Effects on Children’s Behaviorof PhysicalChanges

in a Leiden Neighborhood. Children’s Environ-

ments Quarterly 1(4):46–54.

Von Bruck, Gabriel

1997 A House Turned Inside Out: Inhabiting Space in a

Yemeni City. Journal of MaterialCulture 2(2):139–

172.

Watson, Patty Jo

1979 Archaeological Ethnography in Western Iran.

Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, No. 57.

Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Wilk, Richard, and Michael Schiffer

1979 The Archaeology of Vacant Lots in Tucson,

Arizona. American Antiquity 44:530–536.

Wilkie, Laurie

2000 Not Merely Child’s Play: Creating a Historical Ar-

chaeology of Children and Childhood. In Children

and Material Culture. J. Sofaer Derevenski, ed. Pp.

100–114. New York: Routledge.

Making Space for Children in Archaeological Interpretations

Documents

Transcript of Making Space for Children in Archaeological Interpretations