Dr. McGuire left a blogging prompt a while ago about the burials of non-elites. I wanted first to look at Aztec's or some New World group as I haven't really looked through those societies, fascinating as they are. But looking around a little I found an article about prehistoric children/children in the archaeological record. While I admit to not reading it as thoroughly as I should have, it fascinated me.
The argument here isn't so much the funerary rites or material culture of children, in fact Kamp notes that children are perhaps harder to see as they may leave fewer signs in the archaeological record or are harder to discern their passage from those of adults (Kamp 2001: 2). This latter part is what interests me here. My childhood was of course very different from historic children, living in an era of cement and cars, but I made little carvings, helped cook or carry firewood. As Kamp mentions (Kamp 2001: 2), there is an economic factor to children in the household/family that may help build towards success. In my case, of course, it was simply a little less stress not a necessary aspect to subsistence. However, if that were the case than perhaps the latter part of this issue is true, that children aren't separable from adults in the tracks that they leave.
To divulge a little, my grandfather owned a pig farm for about ten years before deciding to go to school -- in which he eventually became a professor of archaeology -- but the farm is typical of children providing substantial assistance towards the family economy. This is generally why rural families tend towards a larger number of children (there are of course other reasons, and I do not have a citation for this), because more can be done with more people. The family economy is more likely to survive with more anchors. This is also why it is so difficult to determine the work of children instead of the work of adults.
We consider childhood as a time to play and generally not do much but complain about school in the morning and complain about going to bed early, but when it matters we're there to offer our two good hands. Perhaps that's too simplified a justification, but I remember spending hours keeping myself amused playing useless games yet working very hard on every canoe trip. Every trip to the Whiteshell National Park, or elsewhere, culminated in me getting off my ass and fishing, retrieving firewood, building or stoking the fire, watching the food, raising the tent, fetching water, etc... Yet, had I not helped these would have still been completed, because they're necessary.
Perhaps Kamp is right in pointing out the lack of evidence for child involvement, but I feel as if her latter point really strikes true. In considering what children have today to play with and to leave in the archaeological record, toys of plastic and metal and rubber, it would seem like they'd be more apparent in the material culture. But in considering the past I imagine -- and yes, imagine is very broad -- toys of wood or cloth or string, perhaps stone and metal in some societies, yet mostly objects of decay. Perhaps, than, children -- particularly children in prehistory -- should be considered less invisible and more alike to adults. Yes, they play, but they're also important buttresses to a people, where they learn how to act and how to survive. Play simply is a part of childhood, but the archaeological record they leave should, perhaps, be viewed closer to that of an adult.
Kamp, Kathryn A. 2001. Where Have All the Children Gone?: The Archaeology of Childhood. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol 8 (1). PP 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment