Analysis of Pelvic Morphology and Birthing Practices: Comparisons of Modern and Prehistoric Humans
Abstract
Obstetrics has changed drastically with improvements from the scientific community, but there are still many places of the world where modern medicine is underutilized. This study compares cultural practices of childbirth and pelvic morphology in industrialized humans and prehistoric humans. Morphological changes in the female pelvis were investigated using the Paleo-Indian population and Windover samples for the prehistoric data, as well as the Tague and Lovejoy samples and measurements from the Midwife Information and Resource Service for the industrialized data. Investigations of ethnographic accounts illustrate variations in birthing practices and facilitate comparisons for successful birthing. Results suggest a narrowing of the birth canal has occurred when comparing industrialized humans to prehistoric humans; thus, modern females may face more difficulty in labor. Moreover, wide adaptability in practices from culture to culture does not suggest a definite successful method, but highlights common procedures spanning groups that can point towards more effective means of giving birth.
References
Gibson, F. 2011, Traveling Through Time to Normal Birth. Birth, 38:266-268.
Rosenberg, K. And Trevathan, W. 2002, Birth, obstetrics and human evolution. BJOG: An International
Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology,109: 1199–1206.
Rosenberg and Trevathan, 1199–1206.
Parente, Raphael Camara Medeiros; Bergqvist, Lilian Paglarelli; Soares, Marina Bento; Filho,
Olimpio Barbosa Moraes, 2011. The history of vaginal birth. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 284: 1–11.
Bouhallier, July, Berge, Christine, and Penin, Xavier. 2004. Analyse Procuste de la cavite pelvienne
des australopitheques (AL 288, Sts 14), des humains et des chimpanzes : consequences obstetricales.
Comptes Rendus Palevol, 3 (4):295–304.
Parente., 1–11.
O’Donnell, Emer, 2004. Birthing in prehistory. Journal of Anthropology Archaeology, 23: 163-171.
Liston, W.A. 2003, Rising caesarean section rates: can evolution and ecology explain some of the
difficulties of modern childbirth?. Journal of the Royal society of Medicine, 96:559-561.
Walrath, Dana. 2003, Rethinking Pelvic Typologies and the Human Birth Mechanism. Current Anthropology,
(1): 5-31.
Goodman, M.D., Leonard.1951, Obstetrics in a Primitive African Community. American Journal
of Public Health, 41:56-64.
Engelmann, George Julius. 1884, Labor Among Primitive Peoples. J.H. Company & Co, St. Louis.
Kohnen, M.D., Norbert. 1986 “Natural” Childbirth Among the Kankanaly-Igorot. Bull. NY. Acad.
Med, 62(7): 768-777.
Kohnen, 768-777.
Goodman., 56-64.
Konner, Melvin, and Marjorie Shostak. 1987. Timing and Management of Birth among the
!Kung:Biocultural Interaction in Reproductive Adaptation. Cultural Anthropology, 2(1): 11-28.
Konner and Marjorie, 11-28.
Olbrechts, Frans M. 1931. Cherokee Belief and Practice in Regard to Childbirth. Anthropos,
(1/2): 17-33.
Olbrechts, 17-33.
Drife, J. 2002, The start of life : a history of obstetrics. Postgrad Med J, 78: 311-315.
Drife, 311-315.
Rosenberg and Trevathan, 1199-1206.
Niino, Yoshiko. 2011, The increasing ceasarean rate globally and what we can do about it. BioScience
Trends, 5(4):139-150.
Niino, 139-150.
Mosocci, O, 2003. Holistic obstetrics: the origins of “natural childbirth” in Britain. Postgrad Med.
J., 79:168-173.
Malloy, MH, 2010. Infant outcomes of certified nurse midwife attended home births: United States
to 2004. Journal of Perinatology, 30: 622-627.
Gibson, 266-268.
Female Pelvis. Midwives Information and Resource Service. http://www.midris.org/development/
studentmidwife.nsf/18981B4099E345802576F00040935A/$File/The%20Female%20Pelvis.pdf
Tague, R.G. & Lovejoy, C.O. 1986. The obstetric pelvis of A.L. 288-1 [Lucy]. J. hum. Evol. 15,
-256.
Engelmann, 51-227.
Ibid., 51-277.
Ibid., 51-277.
Ibid., 51-277.
Olbrechts, 17-33.
Goodman, 56-64.
Kohnen, 768-777.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
All works published in The Owl are published under a Creative Commons Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share-Alike (CC-BY-NC-SA) license. The author retains copyright.
