Interpretations Jane Eva Baxter DePaul University ABSTRACT Childhood is a prolonged period of dependence during which children mature physically and acquire the cultural knowledge necessary to become accepted members of a society. Members of every culture create and dene chil- dren through the process of socialization, whereby children are taught acceptable roles, practices, beliefs, and values by their families, peers, and communities. Socialization creates a culturally specic framework for childrens behavior, including their use of space. The process of socialization also relies on material culture as a means to symbolically reinforce messages about proper behaviors, roles, and values. These factors make it possible to study the process of socialization through the archaeological record. A recent comparative study of archaeological data from ve 19th-century domestic sites has been used (1) to demonstrate empirically that children produce structured artifact distributions in the archaeological record and (2) to demonstrate that behavioral patterns and artifact types may be used to investigate how children were socialized in past cultures. The results of this research have wide- ranging implications for studying the distribution of material culture and interpreting site-formation processes at both historic and prehistoric sites. This chapter presents an overview of this research with an emphasis on the theo- retical and methodological basis for linking childhood socialization to the material record. Particularly, this chapter introduces a methodology for recovering and interpreting evidence related to children in behavioral, nonmortuary contexts in the archaeological record. While the case study is from 19th-century America, the methodologies are presented to emphasize their applicability in other archaeological contexts, both historic and prehistoric. Keywords: children, space, socialization, 19th century, America A rchaeologists study not only the types of material cul- ture encounteredat archaeological sites but alsothe spa- tial distribution of those materials. Interest in site-formation processes and the study of the distribution of artifacts in the archaeological record have long been considered ways to un- derstand human behavior in the past (Binford and Binford 1966; Kent 1984; Schiffer 1976, 1987). More recent in- terest in cultural landscapes has expanded discussions of space, place, and behavior to include important social vari- ables such as status (Harrington 1989; Rotman and Nassaney 1997; Stine 1990), ethnicity (Cheek and Frielander 1990; Stine 1990), and gender (Gibb and King 1991). All of these studies share one thing in common: they fo- cus exclusively on the behaviors and lives of adults. Schiffer Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Vol. 15, pp. 7788, ISSN 1551-823X. C 2006 by the American Anthro- pological Association. All rights reserved. Permissions to photocopy or reproduce article content via www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm. (1987:85) has noted that the effects of childrens behavior on archaeological sites are still poorly understood; yet at the same time, children forma major part of the social units doc- umented at most archaeological sites. Children compose a significant demographic component of most human groups, and in some cases children are the majority of a groups members (Hiner and Hawes 1985:xiv; Kelly 1995:207208). Reconstructing cultural landscapes and site-formation pro- cesses without children as cultural actors, therefore, rep- resents a serious gap in archaeological interpretations of the past. These sentiments have been echoed recently by Andrew Chamberlain, who wrote, children contribute to the archaeological record whether or not we are competent to recognize them (Chamberlain 1997:249). 78 Jane Eva Baxter Archaeological competency for recognizing childrens behavior in nonmortuary contexts has been limited because of two primary factors. The first is a general bias of West- ern scholarship that characterizes childrens activities as unimportant 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 childrens 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 childrens behavior in the distribution of ma- terials at archaeological sites (Baxter 2000). By focusing on childrens behavior and resulting artifact distributions rather than material culture alone, this approach to the archaeology 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 specifically on 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 for archaeologists to study children in behavioral contexts. It is bothnecessaryandpossible toquestionthis assump- tion based on the nature of the studies used in its formulation. The experimental studies that focused on childrens behavior and resulting artifact distributions are problematic for two main reasons: (1) the studies focused on childrens 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 childrens be- havior as mapping exercises in vacant lots (Wilk and Schiffer 1979) and as observations of childrens behavior in gardens (Hammond and Hammond 1981). While these studies un- doubtedlyhave identifiedcertainaspects of childrens behav- ior, the problem is the appropriateness of such experiments as an analogy for archaeological contexts. Archaeologists generally 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 childrens behavior. Ethnoarchaeological studies used to determine the randomizing nature of childrens behavior were not de- signed expressly with childrens behavior in mind, and thus observations of childrens 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 childrens 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 childrens often atypical, uncon- ventional, or unexpected uses of material culture. 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 childrens behavior and the archaeological record. Theoretical discussions of child- hood socialization further suggest that childrens behavior should produce patterned distributions of artifacts in the Making Space for Children 79 archaeological record that reflect cultural norms, 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 within themselves 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 individuals and 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 expose or 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 use of 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 linkedtothe interpretations giventoit byhistoricallysituated 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. 1989:107108). Hence, as children begin to explore their environment they do not encounter spaces that are culturally neutral, but rather each space is given a cultural context and meaning 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 the use of space in a particular cultural setting. Along similar lines, other researchers have noted that 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 childrens activities, they are shaping childrens perceptions of the world around them and influ- encing where children will spend their time and engage in particular activities. As the use of space is heavily influenced by cultural fac- tors, and as childrens 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 randomfashion. Rather, childrens behaviors should demon- strate regularities and patterning that reflect the social norms and guidelines for childrens behavior and use of space in a particular cultural setting. While childrens 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 Childrens 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 childrens activities in domestic settings. These general trends in childrens behavior may be used to 80 Jane Eva Baxter develop testing strategies that will increase the likelihood of encountering the remains of childrens activities in the archaeological record. Two major studies of childrens interactions with the environment have discovered that children use play as a mechanismto gain experience with their environment and to 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 Moore has noted that children continue to assert their urge to engage with the environment, to investigate and test its possibilities, and to try things they havent 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 childrens 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 their specific cultural setting. The recent time frame of these studies, however, does present two particular issues for consideration. The first consideration is that over the past three hundred years childrens playhas become increasinglycenteredonthe home (Chawla 1994; Sutton-Smith 1994). Hence, a mod- ern study of childrens behavior presents a more domestic- centric view of childrens play than may have been typical in earlier time periods. The increase in the domestic focus of childrens play does not necessarily undermine the effi- cacy of this general model for studying childrens behavior in household or community settings. It should be noted, how- ever, that there are other possible ranges of childrens behav- ior that are not accounted for in a domestic-centric model such as found in Harts and Moores studies. A second consideration is the effect that industrial, built environments have on childrens behavior. Community spaces, such as playgrounds, sports fields, and parks are of- ten designed to be locations of childrens play and this could be considered a barrier to using these studies. However, ex- tensive research has shown that childrens 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, childrens be- havior has a greater tendency to be structured by parental Figure 6.1. Idealized ranges of childrens 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 childrens behavior. Data for these two studies were collected only on the basis of firsthand exploration. The child and the researcher walked through the neighborhood together and 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- drens behavior (Figure 6.1). In each model, the childs 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. Childrens 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- drens 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 childrens activities as by the childrens be- haviors themselves. Making Space for Children 81 Moore (1986) explains the three ranges of childrens behavior on the basis of time available for play activities. In Moores model, the innermost zone around the home is the habitual range that is accessible to children on a daily basis for 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 childrens 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 Harts (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 in this model is identified as the free range or the area where children can go without asking or telling a parent prior to each excursion. The intermediate zone is the range with per- 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 childs 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 discovered places is explored in 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 the landscape (Moore 1986:19). Many of these childrens 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 Childrens 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 childrens 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 childrens behavior. Third, a sampling strategy was developed to recover the remains of childrens behavior, and, finally, analytical methods were developed to search for patterning in childrens artifacts. Creating a Social Context A fruitful first step in the archaeological study of child- hood is to create a social context that reconstructs the cultural and social circumstances operating in a particular time and place. Such a context acts as a framework both for identify- ing childrens material culture and for interpreting childrens behavior as reflected in artifact distributions. Specifically, a social context makes it possible to generate expectations for the nature and location of childrens 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 childrens physical environment, including the mate- rial items selected for childrens use and for child rearing, the architecture of the home, and the places delineated for childrens 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 froma variety of sources. My research used primary and sec- 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 childrens behavior are present at most archaeological sites, but the selection of appropriate sites is still an essential component of investigating childrens be- havior archaeologically. The idea that childrens 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 was an institution associated with social reform operated by the Daughters of Charity. 2. The Felton Farmhouse in Westland, Michigan, an early and modest farmstead dating from 1850 through the late 1920s. 3. The WilliamConner House in 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. OBrien and Costellos 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-site as well as intra-site comparisons of material culture 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 childrens 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 presence of 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 excavation units placed in areas of interest (Figure 6.3). This sampling provided coverage of all three zones or ranges of childrens behavior concep- tualized in the urban planning models. Such an approach Making Space for Children 83 Figure 6.3. Archaeological site map of the Felton Farmhouse site as a graphic example of the sampling strategy used at all ve 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 childrens 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 per unit/excavatedvolume of unit) rather thanartifact counts. 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). Childrens 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 for howthe toys should be used and by whom. Childrens 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 childrens outfits of the period. Counts of childrens arti- facts were superimposed on the contour maps to illustrate their spatial distribution across the site and the relationship between the distribution of childrens artifacts and the dis- tribution of the total assemblage. Because childrens 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. Childrens 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 childrens 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 childrens 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; Rotenizer 1993; Rotman and Nassaney 1997; Stewart- Abernathy 1986). To account for the different number 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: Childrens Behavior and the Archaeological Record This research strategy was successful in identifying pat- terned behaviors of children at four of the five sites used in this study. Artifacts identified as childrens and child-related inhistorical sources were patternedinways that were bothvi- sually identifiable and statistically significant (Baxter 2000). The results of this study pointed to the issue of site size and ranges of childrens 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 childrens artifact distributions over the entire site area failed because of the size of the sam- pled area. Childrens artifacts were clustered in proximity to the domestic structures at the plantation, pointing to the culturally bounded nature of childrens 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 childrens artifact distributions. The smallest site in the sample was a saloon and lodg- ing house in Virginia City, Nevada, and this was the only site where there was no identifiable patterning in the childrens artifact distributions. This site also was the only one in the study where no actual yard areas were present, and the areas available for childrens 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 childrens activities appear to Making Space for Children 85 Figure 6.5. Site map of the Felton Farmhouse site showing regions. This same analytical process was done for each of the ve 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 childrens 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, childrens behavior is not randomizing or distorting but rather is patterned and identifiable in the archaeological record. The identification of a structured pattern is not an 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 childrens behaviors in the archaeological record is to return to the social context created for a particular study. Artifact distributions should reflect not only childrens 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 6.36.5. 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 childrens artifacts found at each location. A visual inspection of these figures shows that childrens arti- facts are found only in selected regions of the site. Nearly 60 percent of the childrens 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 childrens 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 childrens artifacts were found in a single shovel test and another in an adjacent unit. Almost all of the childrens artifacts are found within the habitual and general ranges of childrens play in the generalized model and therefore conform to the idea that most childrens activity would take place closer to the home. Childrens artifacts have a high degree of overlap with adult artifacts and areas of household activity. The majority of childrens artifacts were also identified in areas that could easily be viewed from the Felton home, and therefore most childrens activity could have been supervised directly or 86 Jane Eva Baxter indirectly by adults. The association between childrens arti- facts and the garden and animal pen 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 familys 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 childrens 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 childrens artifacts are found inde- pendent of adult artifacts are also significant. The artifacts found just to the north side of the Felton home are in an area of otherwise lowartifact density that does not appear to have been the 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 childrens artifacts is important, as it unlocks the potential to interpret childrens behavior through the archaeological record, as well as the ability to relate childrens 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 fromthe Archeology Division of the AAA were all immensely helpful in guiding me though the process of this volume and providing suggestions for this manuscript. References Baxter, Jane Eva 2000 An Archaeology of Childhood: Children and Mate- 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):238295. Bonnichsen, Robson 1973 Millies Camp: An Experiment in Archaeology. World Archaeology 4(3):277291. Calvert, Karin Lee Fishbeck 1992 Children in the House: The Material Culture of Early Childhood, 16001900. Boston: Northeast- ern University Press. Chamberlain, Andrew T. 1997 Commentary: Missing Stages of LifeTowards 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. 248250. Leicester: University of Leicester Press. Chawla, Louise 1994 Childhoods Changing Terrain: Incorporating Childhood Past and Present into Community Eval- uation. Childhood 4:221233. Cheek, Charles D., and Amy Frielander 1990 Pottery and Pigs Feet: Space, Ethnicity, and Neigh- borhood in Washington, D.C., 18801940. Histor- ical Archaeology 24(1):3460. Damon, William 1988 Socialization and Individuation. In Childhood and Making Space for Children 87 Socialization. G. Handel, ed. Pp. 310. 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 18701920. Childrens Environments Quarterly 7(4):5461. Francis, Marc 1985 Childrens Use of Open Space in Village Homes. Childrens Environments Quarterly 1(4):3638. Frost, Joe L. 1989 Play Environments for Young Children in the USA: 18001990. Childrens Environments Quar- terly 6(4):1724. Gauvin, Mary 1992 Sociocultural Influence on the Development of Spatial Thinking. Childrens Environments Quar- terly 9(1):2736. 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. 226256. 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):109131. Hammond, G., and N. Hammond 1981 Childs Play: ADistorting Factor in Archaeological Distribution. American Antiquity 46:634636. Harrington, Faith 1989 The Archaeological Use of Landscape Treatment in Social, Economic, and Ideological Analyses. His- torical Archaeology 23(1):144. Hart, Roger 1979 Childrens 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 2:117163. Hiner, N. Ray, and Joseph M. Hawes 1985 GrowingUpinAmerica: ChildreninHistorical 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):134. Kelly, Robert L. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter- Gatherer Lifeways. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Kent, Susan 1984 Analyzing Activity Areas: An Ethnoarchaeological Study in the Use of Space. Albuquerque: University of 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. 18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moir, Randall 1987 Farmstead Proxemics and Intrasite Patterning. In Historic Buildings, Material Culture, and People on the Prairie Margin. D. Jurney and R. Moir, eds. Pp. 229237. Dallas: Archaeology Research Program Institute for the Study of Earth and Man at Southern Methodist University. Moore, Robin 1986 Childhoods 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. 920. 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, Miscellaneous Paper 16. A. Youngand C. Faulkner, eds. Pp. 121. Knoxville: Tennessee Anthropological Association. Rotman, Deborah, and Michael Nassaney 1997 Class, Gender, and the Built Environment: De- riving Social Relations from Cultural Landscapes in Southwest Michigan. Historical Archaeology 31(3):3951. 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- hoods Special Places. Childrens Environments Quarterly 7(4):512. 1993 Childrens 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):720. 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. 192202. 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. 101119. New York: Plenum. Stewart-Abernathy, L. 1986 Urban Farmsteads: Household Responsibilities in the City. Historical Archaeology 20(2):515. Stine, Linda F. 1990 Social Inequality and Turn-of-the-Century Farm- steads; Issues of Class, Status, Ethnicity, and Race. Historical Archaeology 24(4):3749. Sutton-Smith, Brian 1994 Does Play Prepare for the Future? In Toys, Play and Child Development. J. H. Goldstein, ed. Pp. 136146. Berkeley: University of California Press. van Andel, Joost 1985 Effects on Childrens Behavior of Physical Changes in a Leiden Neighborhood. Childrens Environ- ments Quarterly 1(4):4654. Von Bruck, Gabriel 1997 A House Turned Inside Out: Inhabiting Space in a Yemeni City. Journal of Material Culture 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 44:530536. Wilkie, Laurie 2000 Not Merely Childs Play: Creating a Historical Ar- chaeology of Children and Childhood. In Children and Material Culture. J. Sofaer Derevenski, ed. Pp. 100114. New York: Routledge.