Ancient and unprecedented artwork showing a woman in childbirth is found by blind archaeologist

reply to post by SibylofErythrae


Well, at least they have the newborn in the correct direction, and also depicted breasts on each.

Kudos for posting those.

Awesome find. If you look at the object upside down it looks like a woman from behind. With a dude falling out.of her. I'm saying.

Originally posted by seeker11
Yep. How they have you lie on your back on those stupid beds is probably the MOST counter intuitive ways to give birth. Would you lie on your back to have a bowel movement? Of course not... Squatting really seems like the best way to give birth....uses the natural force of gravity to give the woman all the help she can get. Wish I could have done it that way!

Silly hospitals.

And the reason why you are forced into such a position? Because it is more convenient for the doctor to see what is going on! As Sibyl mentioned, Louis the 14 wanted to see his mistress giving birth, official 'dynastic' births were conducted in public, up until Marie Antoinette. As he would not be allowed to attend his illegitimate child's birth, he instructed the physician to have his mistress give birth on her back so that he could see the birth clearly from his hiding place. The doctor found that this position was more dignified, for him. Meaning that he didn't have to crouch on the floor, he spread the idea amongst his mates in the profession and soon all rich ladies were being forced to get on their backs. And if the rich ladies were doing it, then those in the lower classes were aspiring to it. With the exclusion of women from the practice of midwifery from the early 1700s onwards, it became standard practice. All for the male doctor's convenience.

I gave birth standing up, and it is now standard practice in the UK for all births to be as active as possible, but it has been a long road back to natural birth. There is seldom any need for cutting, or other forms of intervention when the mother remains active throughout the birthing process. It makes sense not only for mother and child, but also in terms of resources. I was out of hospital and home within hours of having my son. I think that in the US, the greatest hinderance to natural birthing methods, is that the hospitals rely on the revenues that un-natural births generate. The UK NHS of course favours it because it is much cheaper.

reply to post by Druid42


I don't see a breech birth at all...the head is coming out first...that isn't breech. Breech would be feet first. I'm not sure, but to me the lower circle is the head...and as to the lack of breasts, it is either as someone else suggests, a reverse silhouette, or perhaps the relief was painted originally and that detail has been eroded.

I think that the most interesting thing about this relief is the use of the vine as a birthing aid. The Native Americans, I think, used to use a rope in a similar fashion, where as the Egyptians were famous for their birthing bricks.

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by Wide-Eyes

 

Aren't ALL women goddesses??

.......

There was a time when I used to believe that! Then I spent some time with a few and realised that a lot of them are just sirens! No disrespect to any women on here, I love you all really!

reply to post by Biliverdin


It's difficult to determine which part is the head, or not. I was going by what others have said, that the head was the upper part, due to the arm position.

There's simply not enough detail to be certain.

reply to post by Biliverdin


Wow I never new that about the King! Makes sense now...in a nonsensical kind of way. I hope they change it here in North America and make it more about the women, and much less about the comfort of the doctors. Really crazy when you think about it, who gives a crap about the doctors convenience we're the ones who have to give birth!!

Interesting!! that's something you don't see everyday, no pun intended

Originally posted by HomeBrew
What are the odds it would represent a breech baby also...?

Unless I'm seeing it wrong?

edit on 23-6-2012 by HomeBrew because: (no reason given)

Could it be that the picture was relayed to the artist and he did not witness the birth? If he witnessed it then it was a breech by the looks of it. Maybe all breached babies died and this one lived? Maybe that is why they made it king later or something.

It could also be a representation of a child similar to some of the early works showing the small adult figure representing a baby. In that case it would normally be standing up like the rest of us.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by Mantaray
Interesting!! that's something you don't see everyday, no pun intended

I gave you a star for the punny joke.

I make blind canes and other devices with electronic sensors. I spend a lot of time with the blind and find they have a pretty good sense of humor for the most part.

A blind archaeologist is not something I would recommend although they might be able to learn the languages easier with their tactile abilities and enhanced memory skills.

reply to post by Shane

Leave it to the blind to show those with sight something that has always been in front of them. Vision does not always correlate to seeing, you see with your mind not with your eyes.

The old adage of the blind leading the blind may have some holes in it...funny no!

OK maybe not that funny.

reply to post by Druid42


Shouldn't there be legs dangling there somewhere if it's a breach birth? I don't see an legs dangling.

Originally posted by Shane
Ancient Depiction of Childbirth.......

Another article with a better Photo of this find, along with further details.

The "dangling" part that people are seeing is an arm.

Head, torso, arm.