Terisa Green, Ph.D. Freelance Writer
If you're looking for
the Tattoo Web Site
CLICK HERE.
Articles
Books
Newsletters
Technical Reports
Illustration Tutorial
Writing Credits
Resumé
Interviews
E-mail Terisa
Home
"...and both parents are fond of their children.": Wealthy Child Burials Reinterpreted
By Terisa Green
Backdirt: Newsletter of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA
Spring/Summer, 1999
Frequently in archaeological mortuary studies, and certainly for the Chumash of Southern California, a wealthy child burial has been nearly synonymous with inherited wealth or ascribed status, despite the fact that this assumption has been acknowledged as untested. In the course of research which utilized two mortuary data sets in the Chumash region, I was repeatedly confronted with burials in which children and infants were treated differently from adults in several respects including, most notably, wealth. Because of the highly complex nature of mortuary data and behavior, a description of burial practices only in relation to social organization, economics, or power structures is incomplete and implicitly denies their full cultural significance. Despite being unable to directly recover individual motivation or emotion in the archaeological record, the construction of behavioral models with the greatest degree of fidelity and the broadest inclusion of social action requires that they be included in theoretical formulations.Medea Creek, an inland site located in the city of Agoura, contained a completely excavated Late Period cemetery (ca. A.D. 1300 to 1785) with an estimated population of 400 individuals accompanied by 27,000 associated artifacts. Malibu, a named historic village (Humaliwo in Chumash), located on the coast approximately 15 kilometers southeast of Medea Creek via the drainage of Malibu Canyon, contains a completely excavated Historic period cemetery (A.D. 1775 - 1805) with an estimated population of 140 individuals with approximately 58,000 artifacts. As a group, in both cemeteries, children and infants accounted for roughly double the amount of artifacts than those associated with adults, despite being outnumbered by adults. In addition, children and infants were usually accompanied by approximately three times as many artifacts per capita and were statistically differentiated from adults on the basis of artifact quantities in several different categories.Chumash ethnography informs us that a system of inheritance was in operation during the Historic period. However, we also know from ethnography that personal property was not only inherited by children but also by other relatives and that inheritance could even be extended to guild or society brethren. In addition, we know that at least some portion (and in some cases all) personal property of an adult was destroyed upon their death. Thus, the flow of goods from older to younger generations tends to meander and is sometimes even completely diverted. But, even if we were to assume that inheritance was practiced in family lines, primarily from parent to child, it would mean that the bulk of wealth, though not necessarily all, would go to the heirs and not into the grave. In a similar vein, it is also worth noting that even when a child may inherit the wealth or status of the parent, neither typically passes to the child until the death of the parent. Other complications arise in families with more than one child. In these cases, the child who terminates the line of inheritance, with no surviving siblings, would be given an unusual burial. Adult burials should concomitantly reflect a certain paucity of artifacts that confer status and wealth since these have been largely inherited by their children. The identification of inherited wealth and status as well as the mechanics of its transmittal are, even at a glance, much more problematic than might be assumed.If, however, inherited wealth was being deposited into the graves of children and infants at Medea Creek and Malibu, we would then expect that not all of them would be treated differentially, since presumably only wealthy or high-status families would be able to provide a wealthy burial and that not even all of the children in a wealthy family would receive special treatment. In fact, in support of inherited wealth or status, we do find that not all children receive a wealthy burial. Indeed, many of them have no more artifacts than adults. Thus, the individual nature of the their treatment argues for some mechanism that singles out individuals in some special way, which may well be inheritance or family status. However, certain adult individuals also receive wealthy burials and special treatment. We can say statistically, though, that wealthy children are simply much wealthier than wealthy adults. Thus, in addition to the mechanism that is operating on the individual, there is also some systemic mechanism creating an overall elevated number of artifacts in the graves of children.It may be that children were not accorded the full repertoire of funerary rites that an adult deserved or required and that, as a result, their ‘personal belongings’ were not destroyed through fire, or a depository of the dead, and almost certainly not through the mourning ceremony (all well documented means of grave good disposal for adults). This type of explanation, however, assumes that these children, some infants and neonates, even a fetus, had any ‘personal belongings’ at all. Inheritance of wealth, ascribed status, or a restriction in funerary rites, while all possible contributors to the predominance of wealthy child burials and frequently cited as such, are riddled with inconsistencies and illogic. Perhaps more compelling are the ethnographic and historic observers of the Chumash, such as the missionary at Mission Santa Inés quoted above, who noted that the Chumash were particularly fond of their children and especially troubled at their death. One possible explanation for the higher incidence of artifacts in child burials may then be that the mourners were particularly moved, emotionally and psychologically, by the death of a child, demonstrating their grief with more burial accompaniments. Such a notion converges with the inability of many cultures to deal adequately with the death of children, seen as an inversion of the usual order. As surely as death and burial precipitate requirements upon the living to renegotiate relations among one another, they also evoke some of the deepest emotions, fears, and beliefs that humans possess. To view a wealthy child burial only in terms of social hierarchy or power negotiations, especially for the Chumash, seems extraordinarily narrow.Why, then, does this view dominate? There are several reasons. Statistical rigor and a close reading of ethnohistoric documents did not provide a clear answer as to why Chumash child burials tend to be wealthy. The inability to close upon a single solution is ultimately both unsatisfying and unsettling. It is, however, perhaps more reflective of the broad continuum of human experience that archaeology attempts to encompass. It is also not surprising that, when dealing with material culture, we turn instinctively to models constructed on the manipulation of material. Archaeologists routinely deal with the consequences of action, in virtually every possible physical manifestation, while the motivations of action tend to languish. Finally, however, an attempt to articulate a past that is imbued with emotion simply lacks credibility. It is considered speculative, lacks any testability, and is academically ‘soft’. And yet, emotion is as socially constructed and learned as any social behavior. It is part of individual and group experience and touches upon and affects many other aspects of culture. Thus while it can not be excavated, we cannot simply ignore it. Among the Chumash, a wealthy child burial is likely the result not only of a different set of funerary rites or higher family status but also, importantly, a distinct expression of emotion.
Anne Lamott,
I Am Not
(my blog)
Books on Writing
I totally recommend my ISP. They're so much better than Earthlink.