To Achieve the Impossible: Research and study leave with children

Recently, there has been a study published by researchers at my own University on the experience of Research and Study Leave (RSL) or sabbatical for men and women. It found  that families are negatively affected to taking RSL with international travel due to childcare requirements and associated costs.

I am lucky that I am in a permanent position and at a University that supports RSL. I am also ‘lucky’ that I have recently sold my house. The small proceeds from this have allowed me to pay for my 2- and 11-year-olds airfares and childcare, which has thus far cost over NZ$15,000, plus continued payment of daycare fees to keep the enrollment of my 2-year-old at our University childcare.

What I am truly lucky for is the child-centered cultures that I work in and the amazing colleagues and students I have who accommodate them. The best place in accommodating my children has been in Thailand and Laos where friends and my local nanny have been absolutely fabulous. I have tried to plan this stint of fieldwork so as my 11-year-old is away at a time that includes her school break and to work around a visiting fellowship to the UK at the end of the year. However, this timing has also meant that it is HOT and hard for my kids. My 11-year-old misses her friends, but she has been extraordinarily self-motivated at doing her schoolwork each day (even in the weekends) working on her maths, reading and writing. I actually have to tell her to stop doing it at times so she gets out of the house!

Research highlights thus far have been working on the human remains from the Plain of Jars site in Laos excavated under the direction of Dougald O’Reilly and Louise Shewan. This site is under consideration for World Heritage Status and has gained archaeological interest from researchers around the world. I have also been continuing with my data collection from the infants and children from a Thai Iron Age site (see my post from early this year). This season I have found several very pre-term infants. This is of significance in indicating poor maternal health in this past population, and further supports our developing model of health change during this turbulent time of agricultural and social change.

IMG_3259Our visit to the Plain of Jars site 1.

 

IMG_2969A 24-26 week old foetus from the Iron Age site of Non Ban Jak, Northeast Thailand.

 

IMG_2978Our “super-nanny”.

The most difficult place we have been this year for accommodating children was the US for two major conferences. Childcare was US$200 a day plus extra expenses. Neither of the conferences provided childcare services, which I would have been very happy to pay for. Thank goodness for two local moms at the first conference who traveled to the store to buy us some groceries while we were stuck in a food desert! Despite the expense, both conferences have been extremely beneficial for my research. I have established new collaborations, been invited to visit universities, and they were invaluable for me to keep up-to-date with recent research developments in my field. I was also able to support two of my students who attended the conferences.

I’m happy that my RSL so far has been possible with my children. Without the ability for international travel I can’t do my research or attend major conferences. However, next time I will try to be more realistic about my plans with the kids. They are enjoying their time in Southeast Asia but the logistics and financial issues are a lot of pressure.

We are off to the UK in September until December for my fellowship to work with colleagues in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Durham. Another place with supportive colleagues! I’m looking forward to the next adventure!

IMG_3315The two-year-old helping me re-box some archeological human remains.

IMG_2971.jpgThe 11-year-old hiding in our bedroom for some quiet space to do her school work under the mosquito net.

 

There needs to be a cultural shift to accommodate children at conferences, and here are some ways to achieve this

Why are children at conferences such an important issue?

It is well known that women are disadvantaged at conferences. Women are generally underrepresented at academic meetings, and research has shown that they are less likely to be invited speakers and in other positions of leadership such as chairing sessions, due to their inaccessibility into men’s research networks.

Recently I have seen an increasing number of stories and comments about the problems that caregivers face when going to academic meetings, and some suggestions to create opportunities for caregivers to attend local and international conferences. Clearly accessibility of conferences is an equity issue, with the ‘burden’ of childcare often falling on women. You may find that your parental leave is over (if you are in a country or institution that has maternity leave), however, it remains very difficult for caregivers to leave their infants and children until they are older. Being unable to attend conferences is extremely disadvantageous for women in their academic progression. Conferences are a way to promote your research, to get feedback on your work, to explore the latest advances in the field, and most importantly to engage with colleagues and form relationships that can often lead to collaborations and other research and service opportunities.

 

Although this equity issue is becoming more visible, in reality, we have a long way to go to break down the barriers for caregivers to attend conferences.

 

The best conference attendance with one of my children was a small Wenner-Gren supported workshop on Childhood in the Past held in Galway, Ireland. When I received the invitation to be a participant I told the organisers that I was expecting a baby in three months time and she would be 6 months old when the conference came around. This was no issue and the workshop organisers were very supportive.

 

Logistically and financially conferences are very difficult for caregivers. In my excitement on the invitation to the Wenner-Gren workshop I didn’t quite remember the challenges I had traveling with the first baby on my own. It was a total of 45 hours of travel from New Zealand to Ireland, with about 30 hours being in the air. Unfortunately, Emirates did not seem to give preference to babies being in the seats that bassinets can be attached, and for some reason unbeknown to me the travel agent had not requested that seat, and I was told at check-in that these were not available to me. At least I had a sling that my baby could sleep in on my front. Needless to say I am NEVER flying with Emirates again.

 

The conference was amazingly inclusive of me my baby. I think this worked for two main reasons: it was small and I could look after her while being in the workshop room with her, and the group of women were all very supportive.

 

IbH1VqcmSDLFz9TEKE7fGJ77iexIsguJvmSOvAwarpI

 

3NxHePbOLa9a7NhjGWpYueU6xDj0hQyd3aBsazUXEsY

Our Wenner-Gren Workshop Attendees, Ireland, October 2014, Photo courtesy Jaime Koshyk

 

8ygOcm_QNRqWHT-o1nwW0kO-K109rboJfIN4SlTgDLQ

The ‘grandmother’ of the Archaeology of Childhood, Kathryn Kamp, with my daughter at the Wenner-Gren Workshop, Ireland, October 2014, photo courtesy Jaime Koshyk

 

When my youngest daughter was about 12 weeks old I attended the inaugural Early Career Meeting and workshops organised by the New Zealand Royal Society in Wellington, about a 2 hour flight from my hometown. Personally I gained got a lot out of the conference through the interactive workshops and discussions. I must admit that during the keynotes and lectures when the baby was awake I spent a lot of time standing in the corridor peaking through the backdoor of the conference room swaying a windy and unsettled baby. Other than one well-known woman in the New Zealand science community who approached me and gave her form of ‘support’ by simply saying “well done” and walking off, what struck me was that during all the workshops we had on mentoring, research development, and the research journey, with prominent people talking about women in science and academia in general, it was only at the end of the second day that one of the speakers dared to talk about the “Elephant in the Room” and referred to the baby in the audience. This woman talked about her “broken career” with multiple maternity absences and childcare responsibilities and the obstacles that this posed for her, including the fact that she didn’t have a chance to attend many conferences for years.

 

Traveling and attending conferences is hard with children and it is a gender equity issue that isn’t recognised enough. Although inclusive conferences won’t cause an overall cultural shift in sexism within academia, there are certain ways to lessen this significant obstacle for women and caregivers. Here are some points that conference committees and organisers may consider:

 

  • Have your conference on weekdays. This has also recently been proposed by Victoria Bateman an economics historian using the #endweekendconference hashtag. Having a weekday conference means that for the local participants their normal childcare arrangements are available.
  • If you are organising a bigger conference look into offering free or user-pays childcare at or near the venue. Also make sure that the burden of other babysitting duties doesn’t fall on female graduate students. This is an equity issue in itself, with the burden of care and pastoral roles in academia being held by women. Also as a conference goer don’t be afraid to ask about childcare options.
  • As well as offering student awards and grants for conference attendance, offer family care grants to help researchers offset the cost of childcare. An excellent example of this has been instituted by the American Association of Physical Anthropology’s Committee on Diversity Women’s Initiative offering the Family Care Award Committee for Diversity for their 2016 conference.
  • Include in your advertising and programmes that you are a baby and family-friendly conference. This is a very simple, but effective way that you can encourage the attendance of caregivers.
  • Make sure that the accommodation you recommend is family friendly.

A couple of years ago, I was staying with my eldest daughter who was eight years old in Manchester, UK,  at the recommended conference accommodation, which was a Hall of Residence. After staying there for 2 nights I was told by management that I had to leave as they didn’t allow children in the building due to “safety issues”. I could only find alternative accommodation miles away from the University so I couldn’t interact with any of the other conference goers in the mornings or early evenings and ended up paying over 600 pounds for alternative accommodation and transport to and from the conference. I’ve have, however, had very good experiences at other University Halls. For example, Grey College at Durham University was very accommodating of my daughter and I when I stayed there while on a research visit.

  • When organising a conference venue consider their facilities for babies, e.g. are there baby changing facilities or separate areas that can be used for caregivers and babies?

 

 

 

Infanticide in the archaeological record: sense or sensationalism? (Or: No, I’m not an ‘over-emotional’ mother and archaeologist)

A cursory look through the bioarchaeological literature for explanations of infant death in the past may leave you with a view that infants were being purposefully killed and buried in community cemeteries or simply tossed away in high numbers (e.g. Mays 1993, Mays and Eyers, 2011, Smith and Kahila, 1992).

 

But what is the likelihood that these accounts are accurate? Here I want to take an analytical look at the bioarchaeological evidence and arguments for infanticide. Some of my views on childhood in the past have been criticised for being clouded by my status as a mother within a ‘Western’ culture. Sometimes I feel that my interpretations are dismissed and put down to my ‘personal’, ‘irrational’, ‘hyper-emotional’, ‘ethnocentric’ thoughts on infancy. One example of this type of experience was at a conference when a senior academic after viewing my poster ‘mansplained’, “you must realise that childhood wasn’t a rosy experience like it is now where you come from. They weren’t wrapped up in cotton wool!”. I wonder if he would have said that if my infant wasn’t attending the conference, the result of no childcare options for participants (dockristy touches on this issue of inclusive conferences for caregivers in her recent blog post).

 

Infanticide is the intentional killing of infants. Legally, “infanticide” can refer to the deliberate killing of any infant under the age of 12 months (Kellet, 1992). Here I use the term for intentional infant killing around the time of birth, as this is the time in which it usually occurs. Infanticide has been practised in a wide range of cultures through time, and has been argued in some anthropological texts to be an adaptive strategy to environmental, economic, and social circumstances since the Pleistocene era (Hausfater and Hrdy, 1984:xxix).

 

Common methods for disposing of unwanted children in non-Christian cultures were exposure or drowning without subsequent burial or with covert burial (reviewed in Gilmore and Halcrow, 2014). Some of the motives documented for infanticide include poverty, and if a baby was born with a physical deformity or was “weak”. The sex of infants was also an important factor in infanticide practice for many cultures.

 

What evidence are these bioarchaeological studies using to inform their interpretations of infanticide? For most papers their main evidence cited for infanticide is a peak rate of mortality around the age of full-term gestation (the perinatal period of about 38-41 weeks gestation) (e.g. Mays 1993, Mays and Eyers, 2011, Smith and Kahila, 1992).*

 

However, we know from modern age-at-death information that it is normal to see a high rate of infant death at around full-term gestation (see Halcrow et al. 2008 for a review of this evidence). Birth is the most crucial time in a baby’s and mother’s life. Birth and the first few days of life are a dangerous time for a baby with the risk of mortality being extremely high (Kelnar et al., 1995:1). Birth complications, maternal health factors and the risk of disease are likely to have increased the incidence of perinatal deaths and stillbirths in the past. Postpartum dangers include trauma, pneumonia due to infection of the amniotic cavity (Redfern, 2007:185), and respiratory distress syndrome, particularly for pre-term or low birth-weight perinates, owing to the immaturity of the lungs. Environmental hazards for the newborn include infections, bathing in contaminated water, and tetanus due to the use of dirty instruments (Kelnar et al., 1995:6-8, Redfern, 2007:185).

 

Unsurprisingly, this high rate of infant death around the time of birth has also been found in the archaeological record throughout the world and during different time periods. In the majority of the prehistoric Southeast Asian sites I have worked on we find a high peak of mortality occurring around the time of birth. Other sites with this type of age distribution include Argolid in the Aegean (Angel, 1971), Roman period Britain (Mays, 1993), Southeast Europe (Boric and Stefanovic, 2004), mediaeval and post-mediaeval England (Lewis and Gowland, 2007), post-contact indigenous populations in North America (Owsley and Jantz, 1985), Roman period Egypt (Tocheri et al., 2005), and many more. Were all these cultures at these different time periods killing their infants and then burying them overtly within community cemeteries? I think not. I am not arguing that infanticide never existed in the past. However, these were often discrete events with the dead babies disposed of covertly.

 

IMG_0879Probable mother and newborn death from the ‘Neolithic’ site of Khok Phanom Di, Southeast Thailand. This site had a infant death representation of over 40% of the cemetery sample.

P1010598A ‘foetal’ (preterm) birth from the site of Ban Non Wat, Bronze Age, Northeast Thailand. If a live birth, this baby wouldn’t have lived for long after birth because of its immaturity.

 

One of these bioarchaeological papers that has interpreted the practice of infanticide is based on the Yewden Roman villa site at Hambleden in Buckinghamshire, England, which became somewhat of an archaeological “celebrity”, showcased by the BBC in 2010 (Mays and Eyers, 2011). The Hambleden site has been identified as a sophisticated “two corridor” Roman villa (Percival, 1990:531). It was first excavated in 1912 by Alfred Heneage Cocks, who reported the discovery of 103 burials, 97 of which were small infants, buried under courtyards or walls on the north side of the site (Cocks, 1921). The infant bones were recently rediscovered in a museum archive after almost a century.

 

Mays and Eyers (2011) have compared the perinatal age-at-death distribution pattern to other sites that have been interpreted to have an ‘infanticide’ type mortality profile. Other than that there is nothing in the mortuary or archaeological information to suggest that infanticide was probable. The burials at Hambleden are inconsistent with what is known about Roman infanticide practices. As discussed, exposure or drowning were the most usual methods employed, in which case we might expect to find infant bones as haphazard scatters in middens, remote areas of the landscape, or in wells or waterways as has been the case in Scandinavia (Wicker, 1998:215).

 

An understanding of the historical and ethnographic information on infanticide practices and burial, the historical or other contextual information associated with the site, infant burial practices, and mortality pattern data information is essential for assessing the likelihood for infanticide. It remains that the most parsimonious explanation for cemeteries with a peak of infant death around full-term are the result of a normal age-at-death pattern.

 

Why then is there a preoccupation or fascination with this idea of infanticide in the past? Were people in the past seen to be of lower moral status and therefore more likely to kill their babies? Could this continued focus on arguments of infanticide stem from an anthropological legacy of the 19th century of exploring ‘dark’, ‘primitive’ cultures, who were seen to lack intelligence and emotion?

 

Certainly more critical engagement with the literature on infanticide motives, practices, contextual burial information, and medical literature on the causes and timing of normal infant death offers a good approach to review evidence of infant death in the past. Even a mother with a mind ‘clouded’ by breastfeeding hormones and a ‘rosy’ view of childhood can look at the empirical evidence.

————————————————————-

*Smith and Kahila (1992) also include preterm and post-perinatal infants in their “perinate” age category. The preterm infants probably died a natural death, as is likely without modern medical intervention. In historical and modern accounts, infanticide often occurs soon after birth, so the individuals who died in the post-perinatal period were also less likely to be the victims of infanticide.

 

NOTE: Part of this blog post has been taken from our work in the following papers (all references cited can be found within these publications):

Gilmore, H. and S. E. Halcrow (2014). Interpretations of infanticide in the past. J. Thompson, M.P. Alfonso-Durruty and John Crandell (eds). Tracing Childhood: Bioarchaeological investigations of early lives in antiquity. Florida: University of Florida Press. 123-138.

Halcrow, S. E., N. Tayles and V. Livingstone (2008). “Infant death in prehistoric Southeast Asia” Asian Perspectives. 48 (2): 371-404.

See also Gowland et al. (2014) who offer an excellent re-evaluation of evidence for infanticide in Roman Britain.

Gowland, R. L., A. Chamberlain, & R. C. Redfern (2014). “On the brink of being: re-evaluating infanticide and infant burial in Roman Britain” Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 96: 69-88.

My work with babies – today and from prehistory

I often hear phrases such as: “I don’t know how you do it” and “your children must be very flexible with your job”. These well-meaning remarks often play on my anxiety as a mother and an academic who has the added challenge of having to undertake fieldwork and data collection overseas. I study human remains from archaeological sites and have worked in Thailand since 2002 and also in Laos, Cambodia and Chile. Because all the skeletal material from these projects are curated locally I do most of my fieldwork and data collection overseas.

I have just come back home to New Zealand after a stint in Northeast Thailand doing data collection from infants and children from an Iron Age site with my two children in tow, a 22-month-old and 10-year-old. Most of my research in bioarchaeology involves working with infants and children. Just as this age group are sensitive indicators of population health today, so too are they good indicators of cultural and health change in the past.

As a parent, I need to balance my professional work with childcare, which for me means packing up my two children for weeks or months on end and re-introducing them to the different languages, cultures, foods, smells, and exotic flora and fauna!

This really is a great opportunity for my children to experience other cultures and languages, but presents some rather major challenges for both me and them. This means leaving family and friends and sometimes missing school, and sporting and our own cultural events. For example, this year we spent Christmas in Thailand, which was of a non-event in a way.

Here are some photos from the early days of my fieldwork in Thailand at the archaeological site of Ban Non Wat, Non Sung Province, Northeast Thailand, which has an unusually long time span from early agricultural development through to the late metal ages (3,800-1,500BP).

fig.2asia2000report

Excavation of a ‘Bronze’ Age child from Ban Non Wat, 2003

fig.4asia2000report

Excavation of an ‘Iron’ Age adult burial, 2003

 

Over several excavation seasons at Ban Non Wat a total of about 700 individuals were excavated with about one-third of these aged less than 15 years. This site is very important for documenting the biological and demographic changes that were occurring in the region with the intensification of agricultural practices. The general bioarchaeological model of health change posits that with the introduction of agriculture there is a deterioration of health as a result of the increase of sedentism and population density, leading to more insanitary living conditions. However, my work and others from mainland Southeast Asia is challenging this Neolithic Transition model, which is mainly based on bioarchaeological investigation in North America and Europe. What we are finding is evidence for a very late and swift heath and demographic transition in the Iron Age. This is particularly exciting as it fits nicely with archaeological evidence at this time period for an intensification of wet rice agriculture, and changes in water management and socio-economic systems.

My recent data collection season was focused on the the site of Non Ban Jak, which is geographically very close to Ban Non Wat. This site is particularly important because it presents the best preserved collection of Iron Age burials in the region and has a very large proportion of infants represented (potentially half of the skeletal collection). At present we have over 145 individuals represented at this site, and have just secured significant funding for future excavation and analyses of the human and cultural material at this site.

The baby was petrified of the nanny for much of the time this season working on these remains, so my work plan had to be flexible. I worked solidly during her afternoon naps and the evenings, and when she was distracted by the 10 year-old. Sometimes she ‘helped’ washing stones beside me.

IMG_1763

The baby ‘helping’ me clean and reconstruct a late Iron Age burial of a newborn infant from the site of Non Ban Jak, Northeast Thailand. Photo by Paige Halcrow (10 years old).

With the extension of research at this site, and further research opportunities planned in the region, my fieldwork with infants and children – both past and present – will continue into the future.

Over the years I have developed a general response for when people ask me how I do it. I reply: “It is challenging, but I wouldn’t change my family or my work for the world.”