Remains of infants are often found remarkably often in old cemeteries. And it is often concluded that infant mortality used to be very high. But that’s probably wrong.

“In archeology, to learn more about infant mortality, we often look at the number of children who have died,” explains researcher Clare McFadden. It leads to very shocking conclusions. “There was an assumption that nearly half — about 40 percent — of all babies in prehistoric populations died in their first year of life.”

Demographic data

But is the dramatic story that these prehistoric cemeteries seem to tell us really true? Or do we misunderstand? In order to figure that out, you actually need demographic data. But those are not there for prehistoric times. And so McFadden turned to demographics collected in 97 different countries over the past century. She looked at, among other things, infant mortality and fertility rates. The analysis shows that the fertility rate had a much greater influence on the number of babies who died than the infant death rate. In other words: when many babies die, it does not automatically mean that the percentage of babies that do not live to be older than 1 year is also very high. Instead, the high number of infant deaths can simply be explained by the fact that many babies are born.

prehistory

The same probably applies to prehistory, McFadden says. And if we find a striking number of baby remains in old cemeteries, that does not mean that infant mortality was very high at that time. “It’s not proof that a lot of babies died, but rather tells us that a lot of babies were born.”

right angle

It is at odds with the explanation that has so far often been given for the relatively large number of young children found in old cemeteries. “It has long been assumed that if many babies were found in a cemetery, the infant mortality rate must have been very high. And many went on to assume that the infant mortality rate in the past was so high because of the absence of modern health care. But when we look at these cemeteries, they actually tell us more about the number of children that were born and very little about the number of babies that died, which is at odds with previous perceptions.”

Prehistoric Mothers

In addition, the research also radically change our view of the prehistoric mothers. “If mothers had so many children during that time, then it seems quite reasonable to suggest that they were also quite capable of taking care of their young children.”

McFadden believes it is important to explicitly mention the latter and hopes that her study will lead to our ancestors becoming a bit more human for us. “In artistic impressions and pop culture, our ancestors are often portrayed as archaic and incapable people and we forget about their emotional experiences and reactions, such as the desire to care for others and feelings of grief that played out tens of thousands of years ago.” In addition, more attention should also be paid to the role of (pre)historic women, says McFadden. “We hear a lot of stories about conflicts between men and in stories about colonizations and expansions the focus is often on men as well. I think it’s very important to also tell the stories of women from the past and talk about how they experienced things, such as the role they played in their communities and as mothers.”