In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

9 Little Helping Hands Insights from Punta Teatinos, Chile Marta P. Alfonso-Durruty and Jennifer L. Thompson Bioarchaeological studies of prehistoric foraging societies have not explicitly examined the social and economic role of subadults and how their roles change from infancy to adulthood. In this chapter we explore these changes using prehistoric subadults from the archaeological site of Punta Teatinos, Chile. To achieve this goal we contrast biological age with changing patterns of health to reveal the timing of social transition between the life stages of infancy, childhood, juvenility, adolescence, and adulthood. Through this analysis we aim to identify the “signatures of socialization” on the osteological remains of prehistoric subadults (Baxter 2005, Kramer 2001). We use the term subadult to refer to all individuals who have not fully matured biologically (as is commonly done in bioarchaeology). The term child is often used in anthropology and other disciplines to refer to all subadults or non-adults (Lewis 2007). In this study, we use the terms ‘child,’ ‘children,’ and ‘childhood’ in single quotes when using them to refer to all subadults. We do so because some researchers define childhood as a specific growth and development stage (e.g., Bogin 1999) and so use the terms child and children to refer to individuals within that stage. Modern humans have a set of unique life history traits that delay growth and maturation compared to other primates (Bogin 1999, 2009; Hawkes 2006; Paine and Hawkes 2006; Smith and Tompkins 1995; Thompson and Nelson 2011). This extended pattern of growth evolved within the biological , social, and ecological environment experienced by our ancestors (Bogin 1999; Nelson et al. 2003; Thompson and Nelson 2011). Although energetically costly, this prolonged period of growth may have been selected for because it increased the mother’s reproductive success (Bogin 2009) and/or because it permits the growth of a large brain (Bogin 1999; 184 · M. P. Alfonso-Durruty and J. L. Thompson Leigh and Park 1998; van Schaik et al. 2006), which may lead to higher productivity and fertility during the adult period (Hawkes 2006; Kaplan et al. 2000). Whatever evolutionary conditions or benefits may have led to this extended period of growth, the result is the presence of subadult individuals who, although dependent on adults, are also important contributors to their groups. It is not surprising, then, that during much of human history, subadults have been treated as economic commodities (Lancy 2008; Roveland 2001; Sander et al. 1996). As individuals grow from infancy to adolescence, they become increasingly independent from others and actively contribute to the pooled energy budget of their group (Baxter 2005; Bogin and Smith 1996; Hochberg 2008; Kramer 2001, 2010; Pereira and Altmann 1985; Reiches et al. 2009). The contribution of ‘children’ to production should not be ignored but cannot be assumed (Baxter 2005) because, while the biological nature of the ‘child’ (subadult) is universal, their somatic and psychological development varies considerably in response to cultural conditions. Thus, a true understanding of the subadult period (infant, child, juvenile, etc.) cannot ignore culture. As the youngest members of our species, ‘children’ (those not yet deemed adult) have always existed and will always exist. Most, if not all, societies acknowledge ‘children’ as being different from adults, but the ideas regarding these dissimilarities vary and result in a unique set of expectations for the roles and behaviors deemed appropriate during the ‘childhood’ period (Baxter 2005; Panter-Brick 1998). The bioarchaeological study of subadults has a long history but faces unique challenges when trying to assess these individuals’ social roles within their group. During the life history stage of childhood, for example, individuals are rarely the primary producers or consumers of most types of material culture and, while the artifacts found at a child’s grave may inform us about his or her social standing, they most likely reflect adult remembrances and ideas of the child (Baxter 2005). Thus, it is not surprising that subadult skeletons are most often studied to assess nutritional standards and the presence of diseases and to reconstruct mortality and survivorship patterns (Goodman and Armelagos 1989; Lewis 2007; Steckel and Rose 2002). These types of studies focus on subadults because these individuals are highly susceptible to environmental conditions. Thus, the remains of subadults provide important information regarding the adaptational success of the group (Larsen 1997; Lewis 2007). Most of these studies, however, portray subadults as passive individuals, fully dependent on others and excluded from economic production or other forms of active social life. [13.58.151.231...

Share