Well, I maybe stepping over the line here on the “processual” side, But the 
fairly sizable response to this topic suggests a couple of social vectors 
that might be found in the archaeological record.

1. The geographical range of children from their homesites, in comparison to 
their parents. We went miles and miles on our bikes, hiking, running, 
playing etc. and weren’t usually so late for dinner that we got in trouble. 
And of course we carried our marbles, pocket change, bus tokens, fishing 
bobbers and many “in small things forgotten”, spreading evidence of our 
ethnicity and class on a much broader broadcast than our parents. Obviously, 
that is no longer the case. Middle class kids are constrained by the fears 
of their parents, and down the ladder, they are constrained by the 
territoriality of their peers

2. Gender: I always enjoyed playing with girls (stick it, Ahnuld) because 
they were devoted to cleverness, rather than social or physical force to 
modulate the game. In this context, I was quite competitive, and won a few 
jacks games, though I never owned any, or attempted to introduce the 
practice among my male cohorts. As a side comment, when the Tomboys, like 
Carol Serr barged into the boys club, they usually won by skill and 
cleverness, but were spared the sanction that us clever boys suffered, 
because their defeatees would never dare “hit a girl”. The modern feminist, 
former tomboy, would not likely admit that they were spared by the boys 
respect for gender custom, or would say that they were “dumb” to not accept 
them as equal potential victims of quite painful, if not serious bodily harm 
that the rest of “us guys” were subject to. If you don’t agree, show me your 
scars! The main reaction to Tomboys in the circles I travelled in, was “let 
‘em play through, and get on out of here”. For statistical generalizationin 
artifact analysis, outlier girls contribution to the artifact mix is 
probably negligible.


3. Regional variations in social valuation of toy types:
I recall the classification systems for marbles recounted by other 
correspondents, and agree with Ron that there were, no doubt, regional, 
city, or neighborhood value systems of value that must be understood before 
reasonable conclusions can be drawn. Just as the consumer value of ceramics 
was locally variable, depending on peripatetic supply sources, marbles were, 
no doubt, subject to the same vagaries (no, I did NOT vote for Ronald 
Reagan, but am willing to admit that “supply side” might have been a viable 
interpretive theory two, or so, hundred years ago, which is about the 
benchmark for most Republican “theoretical” initiatives. What cave did these 
guys crawl out of?)

4. Marginalia: steelies were ball bearings easily available in multiple 
sizes in any junk yard. Tiddly winks under FLOOR BOARDS is actually quite 
logical: marbles, jacks, etc. were outdoor games. Tiddly Winks was, of 
course, an upper bourgoise activity, depending on a hardwood floor, and 
confined, as were the children, to the indoors. No wonder those Republicans 
are all so constipated and given to lying. Bottle caps: prominent on the 
photos of costumes of skiffle musicians and others from the 1950s in across 
the pond. A paper on the social uses of the Crown Cap: a comprehensive 
survey is out there just waiting for some grad student to latch on to.

5. Off the wall: given the force of neotony in the theoretical matrix of the 
contemporary synthesis of modern evolutionary theory, it has always struck 
me as odd that we DON’T spend more time on the archaeology of childhood. 
What will the EXPLOSION of Ninja Turtles parts and stuff tell the 22nd, 
23rd, or 24th C. archaeologist about our society, it’s vision of itself, 
it’s expectation of its future. If you think this is banal, resign to the 
Morris Chair with Ruskin and Caryle, think large thoughts, and go to sleep. 
If you aren't already.

Tim T.
tired of academic smugness