Childhood Studies and the Society for the Study of Childhood in the Past

Abstract

This paper presents the preliminary results of an investigation into the extent to which evidence for Late Medieval sub-seigniorial rural children's play might be observable in the archaeological record. It fi rst considers whether children in the Medieval period are likely to have engaged in play, and where they spent their time. Drawing on evidence from a range of disciplines including history, art history, folklore and archaeology it then investigates the nature of the activities likely to have been carried out during play and considers their likely physical manifestations. Excavations of three rural sett lement sites in southern England are then examined in order to establish whether any features recorded during excavation correspond to those which would be expected to result from the sorts of play engaged in by Medieval rural children. The paper concludes by affi rming why the correct identifi cation of evidence for children's activities is so important.

Perinatal infant death at the Roman villa site at Hambleden, Buckinghamshire, England

“…Despite being a widespread practice in past societies, infanticide has only begun to command significant attention from archaeologists in the last 20 years. This recent interest is in part a reflection of the increasing attention paid to the archaeology of children and childhood (Sofaer-Derevenski, 1994;Moore and Scott, 1997;Lewis, 2007: 1e4;Crawford and Lewis, 2008). It also reflects advances in methods for identifying infanticide in the archaeological record using human skeletal remains.…”

‘Childness’: An Alternative Approach to the Archaeology of Childhood through Cemetery Studies

“…This perspective viewed the identification of children's actions archaeologically as problematic, based on the notion of their dependent social status and consequent limited social agency. Therefore, they were not thought to create distinctive archaeological signatures, other than through anomalies otherwise unattributable or via specific mediums, such as 'toys ' (contra Baker 1997;Baxter and Ellis 2018;Callow 2006;Crawford and Lewis 2008;Sofaer Derevenski 1997Finlay 1997;Politis 2005;Roveland 2000;Sillar 1994). Mizoguchi (2000, p. 141) described such thinking as circular, because the "… inability to distinguish child action within the archaeological record both reinforces, and is reinforced by, the modern idea that children cannot make any significant contribution to social life".…”

“…Over the past two decades, these and related issues have been taken up by archaeologists (Baxter 2005(Baxter , 2008(Baxter , 2013(Baxter , 2015(Baxter , 2019Chamberlain 1997;Crawford and Lewis 2008;Crawford et al 2018;Derricourt 2018;Kamp 2001;Lally and Moore 2011;Lillehammer 1989Lillehammer , 2000Lillehammer , 2008Lillehammer , 2010Lillehammer , 2015Moore and Scott 1997;Thomas 2005;Vlahos 2015;Wileman 2005). An increasing focus on identity as a social process since the 1990s (Chamberlain 1997, p. 250;James and Prout 2008, pp.…”

“…An increasing focus on identity as a social process since the 1990s (Chamberlain 1997, p. 250;James and Prout 2008, pp. 1-4;James et al 1998, p. 217), drawing on perspectives from feminist and gender studies, as well as theories of socialization and personhood, has driven more nuanced and agile interpretations of the archaeology of childhood (see, for example, Baxter and Ellis 2018; Crawford and Lewis 2008;Sofaer Derevenski 2000), although the social and demographic importance of children tends to remain understudied outside of a specific sub-disciplinary domain (Baxter and Ellis 2018;Coskunsu 2015;Derricourt 2018, p. 1).…”

Fetal age at death estimation on dry bone: testing the applicability of equations developed on a radiographic sample

“…cal profile feature accurately obtainable from fetal remains and is relevant in forensic settings to support identification or evaluate fetal viability (Adalian et al, 2001;Carneiro, Curate & Cunha, 2016). During the past 25 years, research interest in the archaeology of children and childhood has increased noticeably (Crawford & Lewis, 2008;Lewis, 2007;Lillehammer, 1989;Lillehammer, 2015;Ortiz, Paz, Zenteno, Zuñiga & Nieva, 2018) but there is still a relative dearth of bioarcheological studies focusing on fetal remains. Notwithstanding, the proper assessment of fetal age is valuable in the context of broader bioarcheological theoretical questions, including growth studies, demographic analyses, infanticide, maternalfetal health and funerary rituals (Curate et al, 2015;García-Mancuso, 2014;Gowland & Chamberlain, 2002;Halcrow & Tayles, 2011;Halcrow, Tayles, Inglis & Higham, 2012;Hillson, 2009;Lewis & Gowland, 2007;Lieverse, Bazaliiskii & Weber, 2015;Mays & Eyers, 2011;Moore, 2009;Owsley & Bradtmiller, 1983).…”