6

Making Space for Children in Archaeological

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 define “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 specific framework for children’s
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 five 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 encountered at archaeological sites but also the 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
(1987:85) has noted that the effects of children’s behavior
on archaeological sites are still poorly understood; yet at the
same time, children form a 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 group’s
members (Hiner and Hawes 1985:xiv; Kelly 1995:207–208).
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).

Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Vol. 15, pp. 77–88, 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.
78
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 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
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 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 both necessary and possible to question this assump-
tion based on the nature of the studies used in its formulation.
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
Jane Eva Baxter
(Hammond and Hammond 1981). While these studies un-
doubtedly have identified certain aspects of children’s 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 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 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 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
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
linked to the interpretations given to it by historically situated
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
79
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
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 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 the use 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 the
environment have discovered that children use play as a
mechanism to 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 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
Figure 6.1. Idealized ranges of children’s play at domestic sites
development of place experience in children. The two studies
(after Hart 1979 and Moore 1986).
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 consent and visibility and the desire to explore the immedi-
settings, these two large studies provide a consistent picture ate environment of the neighborhood. These two factors are
of how children use and perceive space around their homes central in the studies used as the basis for this general model
independent of their specific cultural setting. The recent time of children’s behavior.
frame of these studies, however, does present two particular Data for these two studies were collected only on the
issues for consideration. basis of firsthand exploration. The child and the researcher
The first consideration is that over the past three hundred walked through the neighborhood together and discussed the
years children’s play has become increasingly centered on the types of activities that took place in different areas. Children
home (Chawla 1994; Sutton-Smith 1994). Hence, a mod- were also asked to draw maps of their neighborhood, identi-
ern study of children’s behavior presents a more domestic- fying the places they frequented. Observations made by the
centric view of children’s play than may have been typical children during trips taken in vehicles or on walks when par-
in earlier time periods. The increase in the domestic focus ents or other adults were present were not collected as data.
of children’s play does not necessarily undermine the effi- While each researcher came up with different explana-
cacy of this general model for studying children’s behavior tory categories for their findings, both researchers identified
in household or community settings. It should be noted, how- a general, three-tiered model of “zones” or “ranges” of chil-
ever, that there are other possible ranges of children’s behav- dren’s behavior (Figure 6.1). In each model, the child’s home
ior that are not accounted for in a domestic-centric model serves as the center of all activities, with concentric ranges
such as found in Hart’s and Moore’s studies. radiating outward. Behavioral ranges encompass areas of
A second consideration is the effect that industrial, play, leisure places, and the pathways that connect them.
built environments have on children’s behavior. Community Children’s activities are not distributed evenly throughout
spaces, such as playgrounds, sports fields, and parks are of- these ranges but rather take place at relatively discrete lo-
ten designed to be locations of children’s play and this could cations within each range. Also, pathways used by children
be considered a barrier to using these studies. However, ex- often are not adult-determined routes but rather are chil-
tensive research has shown that children’s behavior varies dren’s short cuts that take them past more “interesting” fea-
little when these types of communal play spaces are brought tures of the neighborhood. The researchers also noted that
into neighborhoods (e.g., de Connick-Smith 1990; Francis these ranges are as much defined by adult prescriptions and
1985; Frost 1989; van Andel 1985). Instead, children’s be- proscriptions for children’s activities as by the children’s be-
havior has a greater tendency to be structured by parental haviors themselves.
Making Space for Children
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
“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 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 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 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
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
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
81
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 remains
of 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 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 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 for children’s use and for child rearing,
the architecture of the home, and the places 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 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 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
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 William Conner 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. 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-site as well as intra-site comparisons of material culture
types and distributions associated with children. Inter-site
comparisons facilitated culturally specific interpretations of
Jane Eva Baxter
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 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 children’s behavior concep-
tualized in the urban planning models. Such an approach
Making Space for Children
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
per unit/excavated volume of unit) rather than artifact counts.
This standard artifact frequency provided a correction for
different unit sizes excavated at the same site, and there-
83
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 for how the toys 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
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; 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: Children’s 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
Jane Eva Baxter
this study. Artifacts identified as children’s and child-related
in historical sources were patterned in ways that were both 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
over the entire site area failed because of the size of 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, and this 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
Making Space for Children
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 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 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
85
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
indirectly by adults. The association between children’s 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 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 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 low artifact 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
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
Jane Eva Baxter
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
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):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
Making Space for Children
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 Factor in Archaeological
Distribution. American Antiquity 46:634–636.
Harrington, Faith
1989 The Archaeological Use of Landscape Treatment in
87
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: Children in 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 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. 1–8. 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.
229–237. Dallas: Archaeology Research Program
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man at Southern
Methodist University.
Moore, Robin
1986 Childhood’s Domain: Play and Place in Child De-
velopment. Dover, NH: Croom Helm.
88
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, Miscellaneous Paper 16. A. Young and
C. Faulkner, eds. Pp. 1–21. 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):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.
Jane Eva Baxter
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 Behavior of Physical Changes
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 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 44:530–536.
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.